|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theodred
Menegroth
Jun 18 2009, 7:59pm
Post #1 of 47
(1381 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Guillermo has ruled out directing the "bridge" film,...
|
Can't Post
|
|
as he told MTV in an interview:
So what of the “bridge” film? Guillermo del Toro has told MTV News that he has ruled out directing the project after his commitment to the two “Hobbit” films.
“I’m doing only two movies because I felt that that was the best way to service the book,” the director said. “I’m not saying the other notion was not discussed. We discussed it a large degree. But I felt that for me, the two films were the way to go.”
that you can find here:
I guess the keyword here is "me". Does that mean that PJ is not ruling out making a bridge film? I'm not certain, but I thought GdT and PJ will swap for The Hobbit 2, so PJ is directing and GdT will be the producer, but please correct me if I'm wrong about this. PJ could then continue directing the bridge film, what would be the most logical thing to do. If they are ever going to make a bridge film, I think the best moment to do it will be after the two Hobbit movies, because everything is there already, and maybe after a short break, they could film this bridge movie as well. All sets are rebuilt, all the actors are at hand and equipment is already in New-Zealand, so the production costs will be much lower if they start shooting it right after the Hobbit movies. If they i.e. decide to shoot it five years later, it has many disadvantages, like all the actors has aged another five years, and could be tied to other film projects, the sets needs again to be rebuilt, so it will be far more difficult to do it then I guess. So, I wonder: do you like or dislike the idea of a bridge film, and why?
(This post was edited by Theodred on Jun 18 2009, 8:00pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jun 18 2009, 8:08pm
Post #2 of 47
(928 views)
Shortcut
|
The bridge film will probably be produced and directed by hacks.
(No, I'm not talking about Jackson and Del Toro.)
I really wish they'd stayed with the one Hobbit film concept so Jackson and Del Toro would have done the bridge.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Jun 18 2009, 8:11pm)
|
|
|
Arwen's daughter
Gondolin
Jun 18 2009, 8:34pm
Post #3 of 47
(878 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't see the need for a bridge film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We're going to have 5 great movies from Tolkien's Middle Earth, let's not get greedy, here. I don't think we need to keep going.
I guess the keyword here is "me". Does that mean that PJ is not ruling out making a bridge film? Well, they still own the rights to a bridge movie, I believe, so it's certainly possible.
I guess the keyword here is "me". Does that mean that PJ is not ruling out making a bridge film? I'm not certain, but I thought GdT and PJ will swap for The Hobbit 2, so PJ is directing and GdT will be the producer, but please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
You're wrong about this. You might have the Hobbit movies confused with Steven Spielberg's TinTin movies. GDT is directing both, PJ is producing both.
My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive
The Screencap of the Day Schedule for June
|
|
|
Theodred
Menegroth
Jun 18 2009, 8:57pm
Post #5 of 47
(865 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sure they can make three movies,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But if they intend to, they certainly will not admit that now I guess, and ofcourse maybe they are not certain themselves at this time if they want to shoot the bridge movie.
Btw, thank you, Arwen's Daughter for correcting me!
(This post was edited by Theodred on Jun 18 2009, 8:59pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jun 18 2009, 9:31pm
Post #6 of 47
(865 views)
Shortcut
|
And as I speculated, if they can make three movies out of the film rights for LOTR, and two movies out of the film rights for The Hobbit, how many movies can they legally make with the film rights to "an original prequel"?
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
almas_sparks
Nargothrond
Jun 18 2009, 9:55pm
Post #7 of 47
(805 views)
Shortcut
|
|
yay, a brigde movie with old actors playing teens!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
so cannot wait!
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
Jun 18 2009, 10:52pm
Post #8 of 47
(834 views)
Shortcut
|
This came out about a week ago. The interviewer misconstrued the fact that Guillermo said he wasn't going to direct a Bridge movie because there wasn't a bridge movie to begin with.
He went on to explain The Hobbit would be split in two movies and that they would add White Council and Dol Guldur scenes.
Nothing's changed, there won't be a third film. That was just a reporter rying to make an impact through the title, because he got nothing new from Guillermo.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 18 2009, 10:59pm
Post #9 of 47
(801 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So they really can't make three movies.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So is this comment attributed to del Toro in error?
“I’m doing only two movies because I felt that that was the best way to service the book,” the director said. “I’m not saying the other notion was not discussed. We discussed it a large degree. But I felt that for me, the two films were the way to go.” [emphasis added]
That statement implies that the producers have the right to make more than two films.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Jun 18 2009, 11:15pm
Post #10 of 47
(838 views)
Shortcut
|
...to make as many as they want, from the material in LotR (including Appendices) and The Hobbit.
At this point in time, PJ and GdT are *funded* to make 2 films, and it appears there will be a 2-part Hobbit and no "bridge". I'm sure it's in the back of the minds of various studio "suits" that if these two are successful they can dig further into Appendix-based fan fic. Everybody loves a franchise.
The Rohirrim, by Peter Xavier Price
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 19 2009, 12:08am
Post #12 of 47
(827 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I never said that they could not make three movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I said was the same thing that Elizabeth says below, that they have the right to make as many films as they chose, so long as they are not based on material that they don't have the rights to (e.g., UT, the Sil, CoH, etc.). They can make prequels, sequels, fan fiction up the yahoo. There is not, never was, and never will be, a specific agreement that gives them the specific right to make an "original prequel" (no matter how many times Darkstone says that there is). There is, however, an agreement that is sufficiently broad that would allow them to make an "original prequel".
I don't think it will happen, though. Certainly not with del Toro, or with Jackson. It's possible that the studios will try to forcefeed something like that with another director, but if they do, it will be an artistic and commercial disaster. Mark my words.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Jun 19 2009, 12:12am)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 12:36am
Post #13 of 47
(795 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Didn't say you did. Note that "Told you so" was directed at me. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jun 19 2009, 1:19am
Post #14 of 47
(807 views)
Shortcut
|
If you're talking about Tolkien Enterprises, then yes, they can make as many movies as they want.
If you're talking about New Line, they acquired the rights to make LOTR, The Hobbit, and an original prequel, but no more.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 19 2009, 1:50am
Post #15 of 47
(792 views)
Shortcut
|
As I said above, no matter how often you say that this is true, it doesn't make it true. The "evidence" that you have pointed to simply doesn't support claiming that this is a fact. And yet you persist in claiming that it is.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 19 2009, 2:09am
Post #16 of 47
(783 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought by stating that they really could make three films, and then referencing my previous debate with Darkstone, you were implying that I had argued to the contrary. My apologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion!
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jun 19 2009, 2:17am
Post #17 of 47
(779 views)
Shortcut
|
..you're asking me to believe that the participants in the matter don't know what they're talking about, and further that you, who are not a participant, know better.
That just does not make sense.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 2:30am
Post #18 of 47
(772 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We still don't really know, do we?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Maybe I can summarize both sides of this argument? Which ended amicably but indeterminately.
The question is: what did Zaentz license Miramax (and by implication its successors) to produce in 1997?
Your position is that Zaentz gave Miramax the option to produce everything he himself could: an indefinite number of films based on The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and any original sequels or prequels derived from those works.* Your opinion, based on years of legal experience, is that in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the option granted by Zaentz to Miramax differs from the rights originally granted by Tolkien, we cannot assume otherwise.
Darkstone's position is that Zaentz limited the license to 1) a film or films based on The Hobbit; 2) a film or films based on The Lord of the Rings; and 3) an "original prequel". Darkstone's argument is based on a statement made by Peter Jackson (based on what he was told by Mark Ordesky) and a statement in a USA Today article that follows closely on a comment by Bob Shaye. You feel that Jackson and the USA Today reporter, who hadn't seen the actual agreement, misunderstood the situation.
The new comment by del Toro in the MTV interview appears to confirm that a subsequent bridge film could be made even after the two-part Hobbit appears, but that doesn't prove either position. Only confirmation that two or more bridge films were being produced would resolve this debate --barring a definitive statement from the producers, or the publication of the 1997 agreement, of course-- and it would settle the argument in your favor.
Corrections welcome!
*With, however, some sort of time limit -- or can the filmmakers can't just remake LOTR every twenty years without the license ever reverting to Zaentz?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 2:42am
Post #19 of 47
(778 views)
Shortcut
|
To be sure, I was unclear, and meant to link back to the original discussion in December (in which I myself participated in a limited way, at first siding with Darkstone, but then with you; you both revived the discussion briefly in January) and not to your later reference thereto.
That said, while Darkstone's debate with you (as I have newly summarized it below in this thread) resolved into a question of whether the license granted to Miramax was or was not more limited than the film rights originally granted by Tolkien, I see on review that early in the debate, you did indeed appear to express skepticism that
even if GdT/PJ make a two-film Hobbit that incorporates some elements of the LOTR appendices so that they link up with the Jackson LOTR films (which is my understanding of what GdT has been talking about), that someone else would still make a "bridge film"
Del Toro now seems to have suggested that could indeed happen (though maybe it "would" not). However, you long ago moved past this question to the issue of just what the 1997 agreement allows, so naturally you are not taken aback by this news (twelve days old but only discussed here today).
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 19 2009, 2:54am
Post #20 of 47
(779 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, that is not what I am saying
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I am saying is that the "evidence" that you pointed to simply doesn't prove what you say it proves. In fact, it contradicts you as much as supports you. You claim that Zaentz licenced the option to make LOTR, TH, and "an original prequel." Yet one of the main pieces of evidence that you point to is a 2004 USA Today story that refers to not "an original prequel" but instead says "The studio also has the rights to create its own original prequel or sequel." That suggests that the agreement never was as limited as you keep suggesting, since an original sequel would be completely different than an original prequel. In fact, the language "its own original prequel or sequel" simply is a shorthand way of referring to the language in the 1969 agreements, which grant broad rights to make films based on the LOTR and Hobbit characters and worlds. The fact that PJ's later email in late 2006 referring to Mark Ordeski saying several years earlier that the studio had the right to make an original prequel as well LOTR and TH most likely simply left out the "or original sequel" language that had previously been referred to. And you yourself acknowledged in our previous discussion about this that it is clear that the right are limited by number of films, since they now have decided to make two films based on The Hobbit, not just one.
But most important is the language used by the attorneys in the lawsuit, because attorneys need to be much more careful in the way they phrase things in legal documents. In the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiff's attorneys don't refer to New Line electing to make an "original prequel" in addition to The Hobbit pursuant to the licencing agreement with Zaentz. Instead, they refer to New Line electing to make a second film based on the Hobbit with elements from LOTR pursuant to the 1969 agreements. In none of the legal documents that I have read from either the plaintiffs or New Line has there been any reference to any agreement that include a specific right to make an "original prequel". Instead, references are always to the rights as defined by the original 1969 agreements.
It is certainly possible that the original licencing agreement between Zaentz and the Weinsteins (which then passed to New Line) had some language in that specified that in addition to films directly based on LOTR and TH, the licensee could also make a film or films that were more loosely based on the characters and the worlds therein. It might even have used some language similar to "original prequel or original sequel." But there simply is no evidence that supports your repeated insistence that it is a solid fact that New Line purchased a specific, narrow right to make an "original prequel".
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 19 2009, 3:00am
Post #21 of 47
(766 views)
Shortcut
|
As I stated in my latest response to Darkstone, the USA Today article does not in fact refer to an "original prequel." It refers to "its own original prequel or sequel." There is a vast difference between an original prequel and an original sequel, and between the two of them, it pretty much encompasses the rights defined in the original agreement.
And, of course, the other point that I didn't make before but made in my latest post is the failure of any of the lawyers in the recent lawsuit to refer to any agreement granting rights to make an original prequel or anything other than the rights defined in the original 1969 agreements.
But I agree with your basic statement, that we really don't know the truth, and am happy to leave it at that.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 3:05am
Post #22 of 47
(756 views)
Shortcut
|
When you write in the last sentence of your first paragraph:
And you yourself acknowledged in our previous discussion about this that it is clear that the right are limited by number of films, since they now have decided to make two films based on The Hobbit, not just one.
Do you mean:
And you yourself acknowledged in our previous discussion about this that it is clear that the rights aren't limited by number of films, since they now have decided to make two films based on The Hobbit, not just one.
Emphasis added in both cases.
(Also I don't think Darkstone ever wrote that the filmmakers did not have the rights to make multiple as opposed to single films based on LOTR or The Hobbit, only that the supposed prequel was so limited. Correction welcome.)
Further query:
In the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiff's attorneys don't refer to New Line electing to make an "original prequel" in addition to The Hobbit pursuant to the licencing agreement with Zaentz.
Since by your argument the filmmakers already have the right to make such a prequel if they wish, could it be that they don't reference an "original prequel" because at this time, there is no such film in the works, the bridge film having been dropped by Jackson and del Toro in favor of a two-part Hobbit many months ago?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 19 2009, 3:09am
Post #23 of 47
(771 views)
Shortcut
|
In the statement that you quoted from the beginning of that original discussion that I had with Darkstone (and that you participated in briefly), I was not meaning to express doubt at the prospect that the rights existed to make an additional film beyond the Hobbit, only that anyone would actually do so if PJ and and GdT elected to make a two-part Hobbit instead of the original plan of one film of The Hobbit and one "bridge" film. You will notice that I repeated that very position in this very thread, when I stated in my first post in this thread, about that possibility "I don't think it will happen, though."
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 3:10am
Post #24 of 47
(755 views)
Shortcut
|
I appreciate the correction. Do you think "its own original prequel or sequel" implies just one film, besides LOTR and The Hobbit? (Even if it does, I understand that USA Today may not have reported correctly.) Because as I understand this debate, it resolves mainly around the question of whether Zaentz limited the bridge-sequel-prequel material to one film or not.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 3:11am
Post #25 of 47
(756 views)
Shortcut
|
I think we all agree that such films probably would fail artistically* and commercially -- that is just the fear that inspired Darkstone's original post, back in December! Remember his wish was that Jackson and del Toro would make The Hobbit plus bridge film, because the latter would otherwise fall into the hands of hacks.
*Though I'd wager money that at least one professional review of the sixth film would declare that it is the true gem in the series, with the other five overrated.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
(This post was edited by N.E. Brigand on Jun 19 2009, 3:16am)
|
|
|
|
|
1
