Peter Jackson Can't Kick the Hobbit: He's Signed On!

Peter Jackson: Middle Earth, A Hard Hobbit to Break

Some bits from various wire reports cut and pasted together:

Relations between Jackson and New Line soured after "Rings" despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion, decimating records around the globe. After publicly warring for well over a year, "Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached and agreement to make Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned two-film prequel to the blockbuster trilogy. A director has yet to be named. Production is tentatively set to begin in 2009 with a 2010 release, and the second part following in 2011.

Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, which is how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. New Line said it was Jackson's idea to divide the story, adapted from Tolkien's first book about Middle Earth (which was about half the length of any from the trilogy that followed).

Jackson, who directed "LOTR," will serve as executive producer for two "Hobbit" pictures. Jackson brought Tolkien's Middle-Earth saga a total of 17 Academy Awards.

Late last year, acrimony between the Jackson and New Line became very public, but Jackson's suit, the two sides announced today, has been settled. The terms of the settlement were not announced, though New Line cheerfully added, "One of the key terms was we all shake hands with each other."

In his statement, Jackson thanked Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) Chairman and CEO Harry Sloan for helping him and New Line "find the common ground necessary to continue that journey." He also said, "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

The film's production schedule is subject to how long the writers strike lasts, which some forecast could continue for many months. There is not a script for either "Hobbit" film, and producers will be unable to even approach writers until the strike is over.

"If the writers strike drags on, then everything can change in terms of the time table," New Line said today.

In addition, Eric Seiden could be heard screaming nearly 100 miles away as he had a paroxysm of unbridled joy. Two films from a true-believer. What more could any fan want besides an accelerated production schedule.

Peter Jackson may or may not direct the Hobbit

Peter Jackson has been removed as director of the Lord of the Rings follow-up, The Hobbit. I think there is 100% agreement outside of New Line Cinema that this is perhaps the worse idea since New Coke. Let me go on the record as saying a Jacksonless Hobbit shall not be seen by me nor many fans. On-line boycott plans are already swirling. I accept that there is a legal dispute, but since this film will likely make close to a half-billion dollars, you imagine they could throw money at this problem and it will vanish. I shall not discuss the legal vagaries of this situation because I don't know the facts of either side, only that lawyers are involved.

However, Saul Zentz, who actually owns the rights says when the rights return to Tolkien Enterprises, he will contract with Jackson and no other director will be allowed to shoot the film.

I just had to weigh in, albeit a bit late due to the fact Blogger Beta isn't even good enough to be Blogger Alpha. I wish I could switch back.

LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (REVIEW)

This is a retro-post. I put this online 24 December 2005 using the date it was originally sent out.

LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (REVIEW)

You *WILL* be warned before spoilers. It’s *OK* to read the first bit.

First, a word about spoilers: If you’ve read the book there are, by definition, no possible real spoilers. If you haven’t read the book there will be spoilers but shame on you for not reading the book.

Second, when you see the film it is NOT OVER until it says THE END on the screen. About one third of the people missed parts of the film because they thought it was over when it wasn’t. There are a number of fade to blacks as each story line is ended. Also, take a whizz first! This puppy is 3h 20m without previews and credits.

Third, to sum up the film: OSCAR SWEEP, BABY! If the Academy screws this up, they ought to be drawn, quartered, diced, sliced, and served up to an orc army. (Hey Eric, tell us how you really feel.)

OK: If you’re a spoiler freak, STOP READING RIGHT HERE.

Where should I start? Let’s start with the acting. Hugo Weaving as Elrond actually looked the part: worn, haggard, and tired after years of fighting. This same look was my complaint in the earlier films because he didn’t look like a proper elf. Elijah Wood has never disappointed me in his acting until this film. I can’t quite say why, but until the very end it just wasn’t quite right. The ending, though, is a different story. Sean Astin, in my opinion, stole this show with his Samwise character. Sweet, loyal, brave, Sam deserves this Oscar.

Fans of Legolas and Gimli will be disappointed to note their roles are greatly diminished in the theatrical cut. Saruman has been excised from the theatrical film entirely. I was very upset when I heard this, but having seen the film I understand. I am looking forward to the DVD release so I can see all the missing parts.

Normally, when discussing a film, I break the review into three parts: the good, the bad, and the ugly. There is no bad or ugly. Just excellent and not-quite-as-excellent- as-it-could-have-been.

First, an admission. I am not one to cry. I am definitely not one to cry at films especially when I’ve read the book and know how it turns out. I can’t remember the last time it happened. I cried. A few times. So bring your hankies ladies and gents!

My most serious complaint is the ending. I don’t mean the fact it has multiple endings. The natural end of the film is the sailing to the Grey Havens. Why Jackson didn’t use this as the ending is beyond me. Not only was it well done, it was perfect. Flawless. Everyone in the theatre was crying. It is the end of the movie story. Oddly, he tacked on a bit about Sam, which should have been deleted or placed before this scene. (Please note in my review I say "The natural end of the film is the sailing to the Grey Havens" -- I am aware that is not how the book ends. It is how the FILM should end because the other stuff is not nearly as relevant due to Jackson's re-working of the end of ROTK)

So while we’re on the subject of the Grey Havens, let’s finish the discussion. A more heartbreaking scene in film I’ve never seen. It’s unspeakably sad in the book and on the screen it’s simply emotionally devastating. Yeah, this is where I was really crying -- the whole damned scene. And for all you who didn’t read the book and thought Sam and Frodo were just a bit too close for comfort, you get your long anticipated kiss. So there; and nobody in the theatre made rude noises. Elijah redeemed his otherwise relatively weak performance with this Grey Havens scene. The whole lot of the hobbits deserve Oscars(tm) for this scene.

The other scene that really pulled me apart was when Aragorn was speaking to the hobbits just after he was crowned as King. The hobbits bowed to him, but Aragorn stopped them and said, “You, my hobbit friends, bow to no-one.” He, the king, then bowed to them followed by the assembled peoples of Gondor and Rohan.

Another potential tear-jerker is after the ring is destroyed. You see the jubilation in the faces of the fellowship followed by the realization that Frodo had probably just given his life to help them win the war. The actors portray the dawning realization as ecstasy turns to agony brilliantly. Having read the book and knowing he hadn’t reduced the emotional impact of this scene drastically. (Then again, I know how it ended and I still was ripped apart by the Grey Havens scene).

Speaking of destroying the ring, the penultimate Mount Doom scene with Gollum and Frodo is not realistic. As the two fight, one visible and one not, it becomes more funny than dramatic and is, by far, the least realistic scene in the entire trilogy and I disliked it.

The Scouring of the Shire wasn’t in the film. It wasn’t even filmed. Much to the dismay of both me and the actors who wanted to do it. It’s not the fact I want to see our beloved hobbits kick some ass, it’s that it shows that the war spread to all of Middle-Earth and that they had to participate in the war. Had they refused their obligation they and everything they loved would have been destroyed. The only bit of the Shire’s destruction you see came in the first film as Frodo looks intothe Mirror of Galadriel.

From the ladies standpoint, both Arwen and Eowen were relegated to tiny roles, though it was still more than they were given in the book. Merry and Pippin grow up in this film.

I thought the madness of Denethor (sp?) was done very well though my friend Jace disagreed with me. I suppose we all have our own mental concept of how it was written. The difficulty with this whole bit and how he interacts with Faramir comes down to the previous film, The Two Towers. If you’ve not read the book and/or seen the DVD with the scene showing the relationship between the two, this scene plays as unrealistic. Lovers of the book know it is realistic, but the victim of a bad edit in the Two Towers.

Shelob was great because they went for Spider and not Monster. She was very realistic and very intense. This scene is not for small kids. Shelob definitely looked like a big, real spider and not a CGI creation.

Gollum’s acting was very good and his split-personality is even more evident as the film wears on and the ring exerts influence over both him, Sam, and Frodo. I still think Gollum looks too CGI for my tastes despite all my friends thinking he’s so cool.

The pacing of the film was excellent. The cinematography was fantastic. The sound was good but I think the Foley Artists were not up to snuff in some of the busier scenes.

And, yes, Aragorn is definitely King.

Today, it was announced that the film made $73 million in its opening weekend in the US and nearly a quarter BILLION dollars worldwide. A record of course. I wonder if the might of the Ring can sink the Titanic?

Five stars. See it. Now.

LOTR: Two Towers Review

This is a retro-post. I put this online 24 December 2005 using the date it was originally sent out.

LOTR: Two Towers Review

First, it’s hard to say whether a review of this film contains Spoilers because if you’ve read the book, you already know what happens. If you’ve not read the book, stop now.

Let me start by saying I had heard a number of reviews of this film saying it was better than the first. Alone, that was disturbing because I consider the first one of the best films ever made -- it is, as I’ve often mentioned, as CNN called it “One of the most perfect films ever made since Gone With The Wind.”

The great: the acting of all the characters was still amazing. Elijah Wood is amazing, Sean Astin has gotten MUCH better -- he clearly has grown into his role. Faramir is fantastic, but more on him later. Gandalf, in his greatly reduced role is perfect. I mean that literally and in every sense.

The good: The Ents were not what I expected. They were thinner, shorter, and less bulkier. That being said I still liked Jackson’s vision. Gollum was met with the fear of Jar Jar Binks in my mind. My only real complaint was his eyes. I have to say he makes a believable CGI character because you don’t realize he’s CGI unless you are thinking about it. Gollum is quite clearly insane (clinically speaking) and that comes through flawlessly. The ring’s effect on him is evident and you can see Frodo slowly going that way as well. Knowing what happens to Frodo in the first denouement of the last book, it’s foreshadowing at its best. Watching the friendship of Legolas and Gimili grow is pleasing.

The average: The movie is spread too thin. No one character gets much screen time. The main characters are reduced to bare notice (Frodo and Sam -- it is after all their story and everyone else is secondary) and others (Merry and Pippin -- the fact that they grow up in the second book) are a token afterthought. Eowen spends too much time making doe eyes, but I’m picking at a nit here.

The ugly: In the first film, some liberties were taken with the book. In this second film, enormous liberties are taken with the book. Further, you will find that the sequencing has been altered. That being said, I don’t mind the resequencing so much except that it’s very distracting because if you’re expecting something specific to happen next, it doesn’t. Also on the ugly side is the fact that, once again, there is a dwarf-tossing comment. Although it might be funny in another context, in this setting it’s brutally jarring.

I wasn’t impressed with the Nazgul. Too much reminder of an earthworm for me. In my mind it was supposed to be closer to a pterodactyl. Speaking of worms, Grima (Wormtongue) was too tall. He’s supposed to be a small, weasley, subtle character. In LOTR:TT he’s far too over-the-top.

Faramir needed quite a bit more screen time. He seemed a directionless, pointless character. And he isn’t. You really can’t see any motivational reasons because he’s given such short time. Although you know he loved his brother and feels his loss, you don’t know HOW much -- in the book this gets better attention and it’s very important.

The first film seemed too short by at least an hour, this one seemed every minute of its over three hours. I don’t know if that’s a complaint or not. It certainly makes you understand the “feel” of Tolkien’s world much better.

Visually this film is a masterpiece beyond all imagination. It’s at least as good as the first one from that aspect. Helm’s Deep, Rohan, look exactly like I pictured more or less. Gondor is close, though it was all grey, and I thought a bit more colour was in order. The Foley Artists were clearly challenged by this film, and they’ve done a good job. The war scenes were amazing and gritty.

It may seem I didn’t LIKE the film, but that isn’t true. It’s just not as good as the first in my opinion.

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

This is a retro-post. I put this online 24 December 2005 using the date it was originally sent out.

Lord of the Rings -- Part One
(The Movie Review)


Well, this movie is one I had been waiting for a very long time. My expectations were unobtainable and possibly unreasonable. My fear of being let down increased as the release grew near. Upon its release my hopes grew a little as reviews that were nothing short of perfect rolled in. “Flawless” raved CNN, “Perfect” exclaimed the Daily Mail, and all the reviews were nothing short of spectacular. I was at least confident it would be tolerable. Still, I was nervous.

I finally saw it today, my premiere viewing delayed by a brief bout with the flu. Let me begin by saying this was the shortest three hour movie I’ve ever seen. It should have been another one hour or perhaps even two hours longer. Much was left out, though my chief complaint of omission was the barrow-wight scene. Others, such as Tom Bombadil, were mercifully excised. None of this should be taken as a complaint, there are merely observations.

Let’s start with my complaints, first, and get them out of the way. They aren’t many, but they are serious.

First, the omission of the complete Ring Poem from the film is an unforgivable sin. Sure, every fan knows it by heart. (I don’t mean the one ring part, but the entire thing of the 3, 7, and 9). It deserved to be there. Period. Also at the council of Elrond, Gandalf (in the book) utters the inscription in Sauron’s own tongue to dramatic effect. I am at a loss as to how this could be missing from the film, though if you listen carefully, you can hear it being chanted quietly whenever they zoom in on the ring. I still can recite the entire ring inscription in the original tongue from memory after over 20 years.

The casting was remarkable, perhaps one of the best casting jobs of all time. My complaints reside with Liv Tyler’s character (Arwen) and Cate Winslett (Galadriel). I excuse Miss Tyler because she acted the role as written, though I dispute changing Arwen’s character in such a drastic fashion: this was not a sin of bad acting or casting, but of writing. The character of Galadriel was ruined. She was, a beautiful, gentle, dignified, lady. In the movie she was an arrogant, snotty, bitch from hell. The writing for her character was bad and the acting was worse. Elrond didn’t look the part, being too dark and gaunt to play an elf, but I have no complaints about the writing or acting.

There are some significant errors. Arwen doesn’t rescue the party before they cross the forge to Rivendell. It is Glorfindel. The eye of Sauron cannot see into the Mirror of Galadriel. It specifically says this in the book, yet the movie shows quite the opposite. The ending has the events all out of order, I assume due to artistic license, but this isn’t as bad since it ends up alright. Upon departing from Galadriel, all the members are given a gift. Only Frodo’s is shown. This will create grave problems in the next book for it is Sam’s gift of the rope that enables them to hold Gollum in the next book. I wonder how they’ll reconcile that.

I thought the fight between Gandalf and Saurman, while technically accurate looked really stupid. It just didn’t work, at least not for me.

Lastly, I must talk of continuity. While one may say the details of their hike to the ford didn’t require the book’s ongoing a slowly deliberate description of the bugs and sounds of the night, it served to slow the pace down. The dread slowly increased instead of suddenly appeared. The movie moved too quickly in many scenes like this.

That sums up my complaints. Now, let us move on to the positives. The film, simply put, is a work of art. CNN called it the most perfect movie made since Gone With The Wind and that may be so. If you don’t compare it to the book, you’ll find only the scene with Galadriel rings false. This movie is well directed, well acted, well shot. This film will win the Oscar for cinematography. I have seen nothing this good since, well, Gone With The Wind. The costuming was superb. The score was decent, though perhaps not an Oscar contender. Tolkien’s mythology was pulled from the Norse and not Celtic, though the music had a rustic Celtic bent to it, and although I enjoyed it, it was very out of place.

Elijah Wood is pretty, and I don’t mean just as Frodo. There I’ve said it. One ought not describe a man as pretty, but he is pretty. That is a fortunate comparison because of the constant camera dwelling on his face throughout the film. There is no man more suited to play a hobbit on this planet than Elijah Wood. He is Frodo. You believe it from the instant you see him. There is no doubt, no disbelief. I am not a fan of “pretty” male actors, but it works here beyond all measures of expectations. If making the audience believe a character is a reason for an Oscar, he wins. Hands down. On many levels you can easily fall in love with this Frodo.

Aragorn/Strider (Viggo Mortensen) is a man’s man. A Sean Connery type, if you will. I probably would never have picked the actor they chose to play this part, but it works. Revealing he was Aaragorn Son of Arathorn so early really took away thunder from what should have been a dramatic moment.

Legolas (Orlando Bloom), is supposed to be an elf, and if you envision an elf, this is what he’d look like. Almost effete in his characteristics, yet not feminine in any way. Gentle but strong. Quiet but noticeable.

Gimili (John Rhys-Davies), Boromir (Sean Bean), Samwise (Sean Astin), Meriadoc (Dominic Monaghan), and Pippin (Billy Boyd) were all also well done. These characters are more one dimensional so harder to comment on. Bilbo is very complex, but in this movie he’s but a bit player, but well done.

Saruman (Christopher Lee), was the only character I stopped and noticed the actor and not the character. But I’ve never been a fan of Saruman’s character, so I will not say anything about this. He looked the part, that’s for sure. Bony, spiny, and oozing evil.

Gandalf (Ian McKellen). Wow. Simply amazing. Beyond words. Frodo and Gandalf stole this movie. Besides the fact it is their movie, they own this film. If seeing is believing, I am a convert. In an interesting side note, McKellan made some humorous remarks about his sexual orientation and his being cast as Gandalf. I’ve lost the article (it was in a UK Paper) and I’ll update this review as soon as I find it.

It is no secret I am a huge fan of Sauron. I wrote my senior thesis in High School on Sauron (and got a perfect paper). I am always going to the most critical of his portrayal. Tolkien was very vague about his description in Lord of the Rings. He was always described behind shadow, dark. His form was never made clear (though in the Silmarillion this is expanded upon). I did not like the fact the movie gave shape to his form. I will say that it is still relatively accurate nonetheless.

The RingWraiths, were good but not great. If you want a proper one, see the much maligned animated version of LOTR. Tolkien specifically describes them as riding regular black horses (not war steeds) and as being men in dark cloaks. They were overdone in the film. Yet, they still gave me the chills for they indeed radiated evil despite their inaccuracies. I am picking at nits here.

The Balrog is not well described in anything Tolkien ever wrote, however fans picture him much as a Minotaur with wings. Every picture of him I’ve even seen shows him this, and that is how the film portrays him, only magnified in terror a hundred times. Well done. The Balrog is reborn.

The Orcs and Uruk-Hai were also well done. There’s not much to say. Tolkien himself drew pictures of them so little is left to the imagination. Still they were lifelike and that was key.

Languages. Hearing proper Elfish spoken sent chills up my spine every time. The attention to detail on this warrants huge kudos.

Let us speak of the initial reacting I had upon seeing the shire. I suppose most people said “Cool” or “Awesome” or were rendered entirely speechless. My reaction was most odd. It was like going back to somewhere I’ve been before. It was a homecoming for me. This is significant because I was ready to lambast this world, and yet I find no fault with it. The world itself is completely and utterly flawless. Only the inhabitants of the world have flaws. The level of achievement this represents is indescribable.

This may, indeed, be one of the most perfect films ever made. Yes, I have many quibbles with it. But, despite them all, it is a damned fine film. An amazing film, a work of art, destined to be a classic. On a scale of 1 to 10. A solid 9, maybe a 9.5 after I’ve digested it.

The filmmakers have a rough battle retaining their viewers in the second part (and the weakest of the three books) to get to the smashing finale.