NOT GOOD: New Line's Bob Shaye on PJ

[The Josh]

Cat Fight!!

 

[abstractharmony]

Bob Shaye is a tit!!! :

Post of the thread!

I just KNEW you were English before I looked across.

 

[ZombieReign]

Part of NL's fear of an audit has got to be the fact that Jackson isn't the only one that stands to gain if something is found in his favor. Others would be entitled to money as well (if it was part of their contract).

Shaye and NL have got to be shaking in their boots over this, because I think they know it isn't going to end well for them.

Could you imagine the firestorm caused if an audit reveals that Jackson (and others) are due money? Other productions would likely requests audits as well.

Shaye has to know that a Jackson-less Hobbit won't sit well with the fans, and could severly hurt the revenue of any future film(s). NL has got to get this patched up in order to save face and protect future profits.

Think about all of the die-hard LOTR fans around the world. Don't you think that they would boycott The Hobbit if Jackson wasn't involved? I don't think I'd see it (at least not in a theater) because I know it just wouldn't have the same feeling to it. As well as the fact that a number of the cast have openly said they would not do it without him at the helm.

 

[Customikey]

Shaye has to know that a Jackson-less Hobbit won't sit well with the fans, and could severly hurt the revenue of any future film(s). NL has got to get this patched up in order to save face and protect future profits.

Think about all of the die-hard LOTR fans around the world. Don't you think that they would boycott The Hobbit if Jackson wasn't involved? I don't think I'd see it (at least not in a theater) because I know it just wouldn't have the same feeling to it. As well as the fact that a number of the cast have openly said they would not do it without him at the helm.

In a perfect world, this would be true. But the fact is, most of the movie-going public, the popcorn munchers who readily lump LOTR in with D&D or Eragon, wouldn't know the difference or even care about who's name is heading the production. If they remember liking LOTR, then they'll line up for The Hobbit, even if they see Uwe Boll above the title. Most people just don't know. And short of that dreaded name being signed on, if the previews look good and the production looks respectful and respectable, I'd probably plunk down the money to see it. The fact is, as much as I adore Ian McKellan, he's not the only man in the world who could play Gandalf. Who's to say Peter O'Toole wouldn't have done an amazing job as well? The same can be said for the whole cast. Am I saying they're readilly interchangeable? No. But if they line up good people, I'll go. I'll miss the old friends before and behind the camera, though.

Oh...and Bob Shaye is indeed a tit.

 

[Wetanut]

In a perfect world, this would be true. But the fact is, most of the movie-going public, the popcorn munchers who readily lump LOTR in with D&D or Eragon, wouldn't know the difference or even care about who's name is heading the production. If they remember liking LOTR, then they'll line up for The Hobbit, even if they see Uwe Boll above the title. Most people just don't know. And short of that dreaded name being signed on, if the previews look good and the production looks respectful and respectable, I'd probably plunk down the money to see it. The fact is, as much as I adore Ian McKellan, he's not the only man in the world who could play Gandalf. Who's to say Peter O'Toole wouldn't have done an amazing job as well? The same can be said for the whole cast. Am I saying they're readilly interchangeable? No. But if they line up good people, I'll go. I'll miss the old friends before and behind the camera, though.

Oh...and Bob Shaye is indeed a tit.

I also think that many will go regardless of who's in the directing chair or the stars. But....and this is the critical "BUT"....if it doesn't fall in with feel and look that Jackson and company gave us for LOTR, those very same moviegoers will not return for subsequent showings. And if they were really put out by the changes, then word of mouth will ensure that it will not be a blockbuster. I suspect that much of the success of SW and LOTR movies came from word of mouth and repeaters. Repeaters were probably also a large part of the phenomenal success of Titanic.

As for the cast, I've always wondered what O'Toole would have done with Gandalf (since he was my first choice in the fantasy casting) or any other solid actor. But, let's face it....McKellan IS Gandalf now and forever in almost everyone's eyes. Whatever actor takes on the role would be committing professional suicide. I can only presume that either ego/hubris would drive a respected and established actor to take it on; if an "unknown", then it's a play for recognition, no matter how ill-advised. Same goes for the directors IMO.

"Tit" Shaye has definitely painted himself in a corner with his reply.

 

[The Josh]

I agree that people will go to see it. I doubt I would go see it in the theater. I sure as heck wouldn't be a repeater and that is where a lot of movies that make BIG bucks make them.

I agree now that PJ & Crew (actors included) have done these parts nobody else is fit IMO to do them. They have established what I felt from the books the characters should have been. I think outside of a very special few it would hurt them in their careers (possibly) if they did not pull off the perfect job.

Shaye hasn't helped himself out with this, because now I'm sure anyone reading is going to ask themselves do I really want to step into this. Not to mention at what point this year do the rights revert back to SZ? MGM, SZ, PJ, I think now more than ever would be rubbing their hands waiting for this because Shaye and NL can't really go out and make a $150-$200 million dollar film that they can't distribute.

 

[Fritz]

...Oh...and Bob Shaye is indeed a tit.

I don't agree. I don't really like Bob Shaye.

 

[tomandshell]

I would certainly go see a major film production of The Hobbit, without a doubt.

Would I enjoy it as much if PJ didn't make it, or if it didn't have McKellen or music by Shore? Would it take its place alongside the original trilogy as one of my all-time favorites? No, it probably wouldn't. But I would at least go see it out of curiosity. I am a Tolkien fan first (a little under twenty years and counting) and a PJ fan second (a little over five years and counting). In a perfect world we would see the film done by PJ & Co., but that looks like it just won't be happening. Now if Sam Raimi or Guillermo Del Toro or James Cameron or Steven Spielberg or Bryan Singer or Ridley Scott were hired to make it, it would be a different movie every time. But in each case, it would at least be worth seeing, in my opinion. It wouldn't be a PJ Hobbit, but I am too much a fan of Middle Earth to say that I would boycott it altogether.

And if New Line makes it with Brett Ratner, they could still start the first trailer with, "From the studio that brought you the Lord of the Rings trilogy" and include introductory footage and music from the trilogy, then the vast majority of the audience would accept that as equal to "From the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy." In fact, I think that seeing those words in front of The Lovely Bones will positively impact the box office for that film to a lesser degree than a different director will negatively impact a non-PJ Hobbit. If they can say that it's from the original studio and even tack on "from the producer of LOTR" then a heck of a lot of average joes just aren't going to know any better.

But most of all, it just stinks for the real fans who do know better, and who are going to miss out on a Peter Jackson directed Hobbit...

All because of "a little bit of money."

 

[Radagaster]

Realistically, I don't know of to many people who don't associate PJ with LOTR. And I think people know that LOTR is a big hit. I don't think they'll associate it with the likes of D&D or Eragon either. Given that, NL will only hurt themselves by holding out. I see them losing out more than PJ.

 

[jaffakitkat]

Just asking here in case anyone knows the ins and outs of entertainment law, which I really don't. How does it work with the rights if New Line does start making a version of The Hobbit? Do the rights still fall back to Zaentz at the same time, but New Line would be allowed to finish production of their version? Or does it delay the rights changing hands if production is still underway (this would seem unlikely, but who knows)? Or would New Line have to squeeze production in before their rights expire?

This stuff confuses me. But I completely agree that Bob Shaye is a tit.

 

[The Josh]

That's a good question. I don't see why NL would even make it unless MGM wants to distribute. As far as SZ well I wanna know when in 07 does it go back?

 

[Corwin]

That's a good question. I don't see why NL would even make it unless MGM wants to distribute. As far as SZ well I wanna know when in 07 does it go back?

I don't think it is 07. There is no way NL could produce the film if they now have less than a year.

Some articles talked about the rights reverting in a year or so but the only date I remember seeing (in one article) was 2009.

 

[The Josh]

Well, everything I've read has said a year and all those came out in 2006 so a year from that would be 2007.

 

[King Darkness]

They can all blow it out their collective asses!!!! Its just rich people trying to get richer!

I said it once and I'll say it again, to hell with all these rich ****** bags who ALL need to shut the hell up. They sound like school girls arguing about who kissed who's boyfriend.

I totally agree with this guy


I wish I had their addresses, I would send them all some diapers!

 

[Bannister]

I totally agree with this guy


I wish I had their addresses, I would send them all some diapers!

That guy is a genius King.

 

[Memnoch]

About the rights, I think as long as SOMETHING is filmed they can keep the rights for so long. I think that is why they rushed the Corman version of Fantastic Four but never released it. Same with Queen of the Damned, the rights for The Vampire Lestat and Queen were about to go back to Anne Rice and WB put it on the fast track to beat the expiration.

 

[King Darkness]

That guy is a genius King.

Yes he is!

 

[Bannister]

Yes he is!

I know. :chew :chew :chew

 

[abstractharmony]

Same with Queen of the Damned, the rights for The Vampire Lestat and Queen were about to go back to Anne Rice and WB put it on the fast track to beat the expiration.

Man, do I wish THAT had never happened...

 

[Memnoch]

Yea, you and me both. They claimed that Vampire Lestat was unfilmable (buncha BS cuz I could think of a very good outline) and just.. ugh. Whole can of worms for my hatred for WB for pushing that movie. But at the same time I KINDA fault Anne herself because she made a big deal about getting the rights back and then doing both films as a miniseries on Showtime like they did with Feast of All Saints. When WB heard this the movie got the fast track and we got that wonderful piece of CRAP with no plot thanks to all the various holes, no characterization and a bastardization of characters and major plot points. Sooo in a round about way we may just see a similar thing wit the Hobbit