Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[IronParrot]

"And do you have actual proof for this, or am I just to take it for granted?"

I do have actual proof of this. Why not begin with their job descriptions?

Harvey Weinstein took the studio-centric, profit-motivated approach while the contract was still with Miramax: he argued for two films, around 2.5 hours in length each, and threatened to take the rights to another director if Jackson couldn't find another studio to fund the project within a week and a half - even though Jackson was the one who proposed the project to Miramax in the first place. Weinstein is still listed as an executive producer and receives a percentage, despite the fact that after the thing was shipped to New Line, he had absolutely no involvement with the film. Weinstein did not have a single say on the content of LOTR.

Mark Ordesky was the one at New Line who got Jackson off the ground and argued for expanding the thing into three films. To make such a move out of a profit motive is ridiculous, because the production and marketing costs have just spiked by 50%, and if the first film isn't successful, you have two flops coming down the tubes instead of one. Such a move would not make a penny of economic sense if it were done out of profit.

Peter Jackson does not get a huge cut out of all this, other than a standard director's salary and royalties. The biggest benefit of LOTR's success, for him, is that in the future studios will be more likely to fund his other dream projects similarly. Take, for instance, the $200M that he's rumoured to be given to work with King Kong. Most of the more significant changes from book to film can't even be attributed to him directly.

Philippa Boyens, as a reputed Tolkien scholar, was hired by Peter Jackson to help adapt the film. She is responsible for a good number of changes that were made. The amount of profit the film makes has virtually no impact on her monetary income from this.

But let's address your unfounded assumptions about the movie business. So just because a director wants to see a story come to life, like many fans do - and he has the means to do it himself - he's suddenly subject to accusations of doing it for profit? That doesn't make sense, especially considering that directors and production companies (in this case, Wingnut) get a very meagre share of the profit compared to Hollywood distributors.

The "it was done for money" argument is silly and ignorant. Don't use it.

Yes, I thought I said that the studios would be more profit-motivated...

The studio in question is New Line Cinema. They lay down the funding, market and license the movie, and collect most of the profit. The production company that actually makes the movie, Wingnut Films, is a separate entity.

I could cite plenty of examples which have been stated by the Jacksonites to be needed to make the film more popular (which, as a natural result, brings more profit).

Then those other "Jacksonites" should shut up and let me talk instead, because they are obviously ignorant of the aforementioned facts regarding the way the film industry works.