Well, They're Not Back

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh report on The Hobbit movie:
Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.
The person who posted this on TheOneRing.net is treating the news as if it were the end of the world, but I'm less fussed. For one thing, I'm wary of the attitude, which has become all-too-common in Harry Potter fandom and which I was hoping that Tolkien fandom would be wise enough to avoid, of inextricably binding the films to the novels. I liked Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings precisely because it wasn't exactly Tolkien's novel. The core narrative was the same, but there were enough individual touches--changes both good and bad--for the work to stand on its own, as an alternate version of the book. If the director New Line hires botches The Hobbit and this vaguely described prequel, I won't feel that the books have been tarnished in any way, any more than I think Christopher Columbus' Harry Potter movies reflect poorly on J.K. Rowling's novels (and anyway, let's not pretend that Jackson and Walsh's involvement would have guaranteed a successful adaptation--remember King Kong, AKA the most expensive nap I've ever taken?). That said, I suppose it's possible that I would be less sanguine if the work in question were one that I were more attached to--I'm fond of The Hobbit, but I don't feel that Jackson's trilogy is incomplete without it.

What does worry me, however, is the unspecified prequel. I assume the plan is to adapt one of the Middle Earth origin stories from The Silmarillion, and the potential for disaster in that case strikes me as being far greater than in a botched adaptation of The Hobbit. There's a hell of a lot more wiggle room in The Silmarillion--the plot, after all, is more or less missing. A hack writer could easily introduce elements that don't belong in Tolkien's Middle Earth, and create an unholy mess.

Comments

Andrew Stevens said…
One of the strangest things about the lore of Middle Earth is the curious attachment of The Hobbit. Andrew Rilstone had a great quote where he commented that if Tolkien was an artist and Middle Earth was his work of art, he is perhaps one of the greatest artists in the history of the world, even though all the books (LOTR, The Silmarillion, etc.) only imperfectly capture the whole spirit of Middle Earth. And then you have The Hobbit, which is barely part of that work of art at all. It's a fine children's story; I certainly loved it when I was a child, but that's all it is. By no means does The Hobbit have to be made into a movie. Peter Jackson finished his job when he completed LOTR. It's probably just as well that Jackson isn't making any other films. There was never any chance of their tainting the books (everybody just ignored Bakshi), but it could have had a negative effect on his other films if it was really bad. Now that can't happen either.
November 21, 2006 2:16 AM
Dotan Dimet said…
From the description it sounds as though "unspecified prequel" is some third age fanfic (perhaps someone will adapt his MERP campaign or something).
November 21, 2006 2:38 AM

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Somehow, It Got Worse

The last month has been a busy one in Hugo and Worldcon fandom. After the shock of the much-belated 2023 nominating stats, and their revelation of serious irregularities in the compilation of the award's ballot, there was a great ferment of conversation and action. Mainstream publications have caught wind of the scandal and publicized it far and wide . Turnover in the few permanent committees that oversee the Hugo trademark and intellectual property has been high . The poor folks at the upcoming Glasgow Worldcon have been scrambling to respond to the evolving situation and to distance themselves from the previous committee—including, most recently, making a laconic announcement that they would refuse any of Chengdu's passalong funds, the budgetary surplus that is traditionally bequeathed from one Worldcon to the next. And stats nerds—of which this community is, unsurprisingly, blessed with a surfeit—have been furiously crunching the nominations numbers and EPH calculations
Read more

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Now With an Asterisk

It's been a while since we've had one of these dramas. On Saturday, the nominating stats for the 2023 Hugo awards, which were announced in Chengdu, China in October 2023, were released to the public . There was a great deal of anticipation for these numbers, in no small part because of their much-delayed release. Though the WSFS constitution permits Hugo administrators to wait as long as 90 days before releasing the voting and nominating stats, most Hugo teams have them ready to go within minutes of the ceremony's conclusion. Chengdu, in contrast, waited the full allotted period, and even went a little bit over (the voting stats were released separately in December). Once the stats were released, it quickly became clear why the Chengdu Hugo team were hesitant to make them public. There are any number of irregularities and questionable choices in this document that suggest everything from erratic voter behavior, to incompetent collation and calculation of the nomination rank
Read more

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

The first thing that must be said about this movie is that it should not work. It's a prequel to one of the most mind-blowing, groundbreaking, and just plain revolutionary action movies of the 21st century—and prequels are a bad idea in most cases, but all the more so when the character they revolve around has already given you their entire backstory in their original introduction, which is also the final, culminating act of their character arc. (To put it another way, if you had asked me, nine years ago, which character I thought offered more fertile ground for prequel storytelling, Imperator Furiosa or Han Solo, I would have picked Han without a moment's hesitation, and I don't even like Han that much.) And it's a follow-up to a movie whose chief virtue lies in its conciseness—in being a single, drawn-out, pulse-pounding, increasingly deranged car chase. Which means you can either try to repeat that accomplishment, which will inevitably feel a bit old hat; or you can
Read more