With all the excitement this week over the news of Guillermo del Toro's confirmed role in the director's chair for the two Hobbit movies, it's a little refreshing to find a dissenting opinion, if only to keep the excitement from getting to exaggerated. Salon's Andrew O'Heir doesn't take kindly to the news in his Beyond the Multiplex blog, structuring his argument against the latest report in a calculated manner. First, O'Heir quotes from an interview he did with del Toro at Cannes in 2006, where the director stated his disdain for "heroic fantasy." It's quite possible that he has changed his stance on this, and not just because of The Hobbit: As recently as a few days ago, he was spotted at a protest staged by HETFET (Humans for the Ethical Treatment of Faeries, Elves and Trolls), which may or may not have been a publicity stunt on his part.

The rest of O'Heir's piece holds water. He thinks the franchise has been ensnared by greed and too many people are in charge. Reflecting on Peter Jackson's expansive power, O'Heir questions the director's comfort with handing the story over to another filmmaker ("It smells of George Lucas") and predicts an incoming conflict. He likes del Toro's work, but worries that the director might be working in somebody else's back yard. "We've got one of the true cinematic visionaries of our age, spending four years of his life in a universe created by another one," he writes. "It's just too many cooks in the kitchen."

What do you think? Is del Toro getting in over his head?

By now it has become so customary to see the words "New Line" and "Lord of the Rings" and "lawsuit" together that I almost didn't even bother looking into this story. But then I noticed that it could affect the making of those two Hobbit movies we're all so excited about. Yes, that's right, there's a chance those movies are in jeopardy again, thanks to the folks running the estate of author J.R.R. Tolkien. According to the Associated Press, this latest suit was filed Monday by The Tolkien Trust, a British charity that manages Tolkien's estate, and HarperCollins, the publishing company that originally put out the Lord of the Rings books.

The main claim is that New Line has failed to pay The Tolkien Trust and other plaintiffs a promised 7.5% of the Lord of the Rings trilogy's gross receipts. The amount asked for in the case, however, is only $150 million, which (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to me to be a mere 2.5% of the reported $6 billion the films have earned worldwide. The plaintiffs also seek unspecified punitive charges and the right to terminate New Line's rights to make those Hobbit movies being executive produced by LOTR director Peter Jackson. An attorney for the Tolkien estate mentioned that The Tolkien Trust does not "file lawsuits lightly" and has tried its hardest to settle the matter out of court. So, it looks like this will be a serious, long-going battle. And just when we thought everyone involved in these films was happy and ready to move on. We'll have to wait and see if we get those "prequels", at the helm of Guillermo Del Toro or anyone else, in 2010 and 2011 after all.

Once again this past week gave us another movie that broke another record (biggest opening during a non-holiday week). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix took in $140 million since Wednesday ($77.4 million over the weekend alone), adding a whopping $190 million in 44 other countries around the world. Obviously, this kid is popular. I don't know many people who haven't at least read one of the six Potter books or watched one of the five films; my best friend (who happens to be one of those people) recently told me that he was staying away from the series until it's completed. "If I read one, I'm going to want to know that the entire series is available in both formats," he said. So, until Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows hits theaters, my friend wants nothing to do with the kid.

But he's not alone. Now it's time for my confession: I also happen to be one of those people -- except, I have no urge to read and/or see anything that has to do with Harry Potter. I haven't picked up a book, nor have I watched any of the films. Somehow I've managed to write a number of Potter-related posts over the years, but usually I spend about a half hour on Wikipedia, while also running questions past those Potter freaks on the Cinematical staff. Like with comic-related stuff, you get one fact wrong -- one misspelled name -- and the fanatics will attack. And they will attack hard. Here's the thing though -- no one has ever convinced me to read or watch. The people that love Harry simply tell me "I have to read!" or "It's so awesome!" -- but that's about as far as they go. I mean, what's so great about this kid? I don't see it. When it came time to decide whether I would watch Lord of the Rings, my friend sat down and explained the world, the backstory and the characters; essentially, he sold me on the series. I subsequently watched all three films and loved them. No one has done that for me with Potter. At least, not yet.

So, I ask you: Here's a chance for you fans to sell us non-fans -- What's so great about Harry Potter?

Despite all the rumors and confirmed reports last year that Warner Bros. was making a new Conan movie, the studio failed to get the project going by its spring 2007 deadline. So, the rights to Robert E. Howard's character were put up for auction. Fortunately for Time Warner, the parent company of Warner Bros., the goods were picked up by its other subsidiary, New Line Cinema. Now, New Line has an 18 month option and one extension, so unless it wants to throw away the money it just spent, the studio will hopefully have something to deliver to theaters in the next few years. Considering Warners couldn't get something off the ground with big-deal talent like the Wachowski Brothers, Robert Rodriguez or Conan the Barbarian director John Milius, it is hard to imagine who, if anybody, could make this happen. Of course, now, thanks to the success of 300, it may be possible that any script featuring swords and loincloths will get a greenlight. Plus, New Line only needs to put the words 'the studio that brought you Lord of the Rings' to get people in seats. The studio could hire the worst filmmakers out there and probably still do alright.

But then the fans might put up a fuss. Still, the fans will likely be disappointed enough if Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't return to the role. And since he's just begun his second term as Governor of California, I don't think he'll be available before New Line's deadline. If you grew up in the '80s, though, your first idea of Conan was probably Schwarzenegger's portrayal, and it may be difficult to imagine another actor taking on the part. Despite the fact that Conan was in novels and comics and elsewhere for decades before Milius' film, accepting a substitute in the next movie would be like accepting another actor as The Terminator, or as Danny DeVito's twin brother. Personally, I think that without Mako, who died last year, there's already no point in trying to associate the new Conan film with the old ones, so I welcome all new faces.

Unlike Ryan, who has written most of the info on The Dark is Rising up until now, I am not familiar with Susan Cooper's fantasy novels. So, as is often the case, I'm looking at a poster with a fresh mindset. I have read some bits and pieces about the adaptation, though, and have seen some of the disappointed comments regarding the choice of director and the changes made from book to movie. I can't imagine that this new poster, which MTV shares with us, gives any new hope to fans.

First of all, the title and credits in the middle is just not pleasing to the eye. It could just be my being used to seeing them on the bottom, but something about their placement there makes all the stuff beneath seem unimportant yet distracting. Obviously the placement is to divide the two groups of characters, but they seem so contrasted that each makes the other appear kinda silly. The top section looks like a cheap Lord of the Rings knockoff -- Christopher Eccleston's Rider even seems to intentionally evoke Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn -- while the bottom section looks more Clockstoppers than Harry Potter, which is what I imagine the studio would prefer (though this didn't work for Eragon).

This is the kind of one-sheet that makes me wish Drew Struzan could paint every poster. The style, though more photoshop/photorealistic, is totally his, with all the little plot details represented in the background, but the composition and design is nowhere near as good. It isn't even as good as most of those influenced by his style these days. Whoever made it should have paid more attention to the original Fellowship of the Ring poster, and learned how to copy correctly. If this artwork does have you intrigued, take a look at the production stills we released last month. And make sure to see if the movie does the books justice when it comes out this October.

Virgins of the world rejoice! Some more movies about elves, druids, and gnomes are coming to a theater near you! Warner Brothers has picked up the rights to Terry Brooks' Shannara series. If you're like me, you're probably asking yourself, "What in God's name is the Shannara series?" Well, I can tell you that it "blends technology and magic." I can tell you that it is "set in a world decimated by apocalyptic battles, with mankind splitting into races of trolls, gnomes, dwarves, and men, with elves coming out of hiding." And I can tell you that parents' basements worldwide will be briefly vacated when these babies come rolling out! I kid, I kid! Put your wands down, everybody, I'm joking around!Has anyone read these books? Could this be another Lord of the Rings or is it just another pale imitation?

The first book in the series was called The Sword of Shannara. It was published in 1977, and was the first fantasy book to top the New York Times best-seller list. Brooks has written over a dozen novels in the series since, so there's plenty of material available should the franchise take off. The most recent book in the series was Straken, released in 2005. In the books, "politics and war are waged using magic, with a backdrop of the skeletal remains of skyscrapers and subways." Warner Bros. is looking for writers now, and intends to kick off the film series with the second book (makes sense) -- The Elfstones of Shannara. My opinion on this is kind of irrelevant -- I have never been able to get into anything in this genre outside of Harry Potter and Willow. I didn't even like playing The Legend of Zelda (by the way, surely a Zelda movie can't be far off, right?). More power to these people if they can make this into a hit franchise, but I'd imagine the lower-than-expected grosses for Eragon have them a little nervous.

Looks like some of Peter Jackson's countrymen will also be suing New Line for money they feel they've got coming. According to Variety, fifteen New Zealanders who appeared in the Lord of the Rings series contend that they're due a small chunk of the merchandising money (given that their likenesses were made into action figures, etc.), but according to the New Line ledgers there's been "zero net merchandising revenue." (Someone please explain this to me; I failed accounting in high school.)

Even after Variety breaks it down for simple-minded people, I still don't get it: "Based on the paragraph, the actors believed they would receive 5% of "net merchandising revenue" split among all actors whose characters are portrayed on the merchandise. What the actors didn't realize is that gross merchandising revenue apparently became "net merchandising revenue" after certain unexpected expenses were deducted. The biggest of these was a 50% distribution fee that the actors had never seen mentioned anywhere in their contract, according to the lawsuit." (Oh my head.)

Anyway, the fifteen performers (mostly bit players) have acquired a lawyer and they're going to court. But they'll still have to get in line behind their fearless leader. At this point the only people New Line doesn't owe money to are the moviegoers. I've personally invested about $150 bucks on the trilogy and I consider it money well spent. Expect the studio to announce yet another "Special Edition" DVD package to offset the lawsuits and court fees.

Peter Jackson's next film won't involve elves, talking trees, or giant gorillas. He's working on a much smaller scale (he'd almost have to go smaller at this point) with his upcoming film The Lovely Bones. He adapted Alice Sebold's much-loved novel with his writing partners Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh - Mrs. Peter Jackson. They started shopping the script to studios this week. With Oscar-winning director Jackson at the helm, and a much smaller financial risk than his past few outings, I don't think he should have any trouble finding a partner. Unsurprisingly, the only major studio Jackson and his crew didn't pay a visit to was New Line. Jackson has been publicly feuding with New Line chief Bob Shaye over royalties on the Lord of the Rings films, which led to Jackson pulling out of The Hobbit.

The Lovely Bones tells the story of Susie Salmon, a 14 year-old dead girl whose spirit keeps watch from Heaven. She watches how her death affects her family, friends, and even the man who raped and murdered her. It's pretty heavy stuff, but Jackson insists he'll be carrying over a lot of the humor in the book as well. If you question Jackson's ability to handle material like this, let me direct you to what I think is far and away his best film -- Heavenly Creatures with Kate Winslet. The Lovely Bones sounds similar to that 1994 gem in that both contain "normal" and "fantastical" worlds. It will allow Jackson to direct a more traditional narrative while giving him opportunities to show off his numerous visual gifts. Jackson has said that the hardest aspect of bringing The Lovely Bones to life will be recreating the Heaven Susie lives in, as it was left intentionally vague in the novel. Hey, if anybody can do it...

I tried to read The Hobbit when I was a kid, but I gave up when I realized I was 100 pages in and still reading about a tea party. I know I'll ruffle some capes out there, but I never understood the appeal. I'm in the minority though, and the little story is stirring up all kinds of excitement in Hollywood. Peter Jackson was expected to direct the film version, but a public battle with Bob Shaye and New Line killed that. After much speculation, an exclusive interview with Entertainment Weekly confirms that none other than Sam Raimi is now "seriously interested" in directing the adaptation. On the short list of directors that make geeks (and I mean that term affectionately) universally happy, Jackson and Raimi are probably at the top, so this should surely please hardcore Hobbit-heads.

Raimi, who apparently didn't see King Kong, tells EW: "Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now. But, um, I don't know what's going to happen next for me right now. First and foremost, those are Peter Jackson and Bob Shaye's films. If Peter didn't want to do it, and Bob wanted me to do it -- and they were both okay with me picking up the reigns -- that would be great. I love the book. It's maybe a more kid-friendly story than the others." So, there it is. Raimi is being very respectful here, and he's using a lot of "ifs," but I can only imagine New Line would be delighted to have Raimi behind the wheel. The only drawback is what this could mean for Spider-Man 4.

There's no better way to describe the Jackson/New Line brouhaha than to use the words of Bob Shaye himself. When talking about the relationship between himself and his co-chairman, Michael Lynne, he's said: "I'm emotion. He's reason." Emotion is good and all, but lately it's been stirring up controversy since Peter Jackson sued New Line for not fulfilling their contractual obligations to him from the Lord of the Rings. You might remember Shaye's response to the lawsuit, which fell just short of a flailing, kicking tantrum.

Shaye has told Sci-Fi Wire: "I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore. He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars." The New York Times followed up by asking him about these remarks. Unsurprisingly, Shaye admits that it was "in a moment of emotion" -- but not one that he regrets. All Shaye regrets is "losing a friend" in Jackson. He could be in the right, or it could be Jackson, but only the latter has been sounding sensible in the media.

Now it seems that he won't specifically say that he's against working with Jackson again. Perhaps Greg Wright was correct with his musings that Shaye could not defeat the power of this particular director. Instead, Shaye is now saying that he refuses to work with difficult directors (the names of which he won't divulge). It sounds like this is the first step to New Line re-opening their arms to Jackson, or at least to giving Shaye some meds to keep his emotions in check.

Greg Wright, the author of Peter Jackson in Perspective: The Power Behind Cinema's The Lord of the Rings, has just penned an intriguing essay for TheOneRing.net. Let me quote the most salient paragraph in full: "The smart money is on Jackson making both The Hobbit and the other planned film, and making them with New Line. Will that take place on Shaye's watch? Maybe not. But since New Line has corporate masters who may be even more demanding than Shaye, that may just mean bad news for Shaye -- and good news for Tolkien film fans."

The rest of Wright's essay presents a number of points for why Peter Jackson will ultimately prevail over Bob Shaye in this battle of the titans, not the least of which is that The Hobbit is not easy material for just anyone to pick up. It's an "allegorical bildungsroman" that needs the steady hand of someone who clearly understands how to translate Tolkien for modern day, action-crazy audiences. Wright also speculates that Jackson is secretly biding his time until rights to The Hobbit fall back to Saul Zaentz, who claims that he is more than ready to pay Jackson a fair price for his work.

There are only two paths forward, Wright says: one that leaves Jackson's work on the Lord of the Rings trilogy behind and re-imagines a "Curious George version of Middle-earth" aimed squarely at the kids. The other path is one that moves forward with Jackson and all the groundwork he has laid -- one that integrates The Hobbit into the Peter Jackson universe and presumably has a place for the beloved actors from the original Rings trilogy. "Box office potential almost dictates the wisdom of the latter choice," Wright says. No kidding.

I'll admit that the sum total of my knowledge of motor sports is from the movies -- actually three movies -- Heart Like A Wheel, Days of Thunder, and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. When The Hollywood Reporter announced that a biopic of Formula One racer Bruce McLaren was going into production, I needed to do a little investigating into the racing legend. McLaren was a native Kiwi who drove, designed, engineered, and invented some of the best F1's in the world. He overcame crippling childhood joint problems to become the youngest winner of a Formula One race, and the McLaren Mercedes Racing team continues to rack up wins 37 years after his death.

McLaren, who was killed in an auto testing accident in 1970, was posthumously inducted into both the International Motorsports Hall of Fame and the Motorsports Hall of Fame of America. Lord of The Rings producer Barrie Osborne announced this $100 million project during the A1 Grand Prix race in New Zealand over the weekend. The film will shoot on location in New Zealand, Monaco, and the U.K. later this year, and will showcase some of McLaren's original cars. Hopefully, this film will be my chance to expand my knowledge of racing beyond Will Ferrell screaming, "help me Tom Cruise!" in his underwear.

As much as I complain about CGI in movies, I do recognize and respect the few films that have used computer effects well. The truth is, some bad movies have great digital effects that go under-appreciated, which is far more tragic than the so-so movies that are ruined by weak CGI. Sure, Tron is a guilty pleasure for me and many others, but its only real worth is in its place in film history. Other movies that are important for their advancement of digital effects include Forrest Gump, Cliffhanger and The Perfect Storm -- none of which needs to be thought of for any other reason.

Popular Mechanics has listed these four films with six other (better) milestones. Many of them are not surprises; everybody thinks of Terminator 2: Judgment Day when thinking of significant digital effects, even though it wasn't even the first movie to feature morphing (Willow is not included in the ten, but it is referenced). Jurassic Park is also obvious, but then, this isn't really an opinion-based list. It is a chronological top ten based on real, monumental breakthroughs. There are a few on the list, such as Cliffhanger, that I didn't even know were of importance. Did you know it was the first film to use digital effects as an eraser?

So, I may have to take a look at this list whenever I'm about to curse the existence of computer effects. A lot of the worst effects are appropriately featured in movies that are already terrible, anyway (personally, I think The Lord of the Rings and its CGI fall into this worst/terrible category, but I probably shouldn't be admitting this, especially since it is on the list).

What do you think was the most important advancement in special effects history (pre-digital era included)?

Related stories:

Visual Effects Oscar Down to 7 Contenders

Ray Harryhausen's Greatest Hits

Wow, its getting sorta ugly over at Rotten Tomatoes these days -- at least when people are talking about the upcoming fantasy film Eragon. Some of the comments are, shall we say, less than kind about the new film. And a few are downright nasty. Personally, I'm not that impressed with what I've seen of the film so far -- any comparisons and proclamations that it's this years The Lord of the Rings notwithstanding.

Still, I really hope it turns out to be good because as a fan of the genre, we need all the good fantasy and sci-fi movies we can get. If they're good and successful, people will want to make more of them -- and that to me is a good thing. Unfortunately, for every Lord of the Rings, we get a lot more films that just aren't very good. And to my dismay, judging from the quotes at Rotten Tomatoes, it doesn't look like Eragon is going to be the one movie to rule them all this year.

There are so many choice quotes at the site its hard to pick one or two that really nails the consensus about the film. But let's try anyway, shall we? "For those who love the fantasy genre known as sword and sorcery -- and I count myself in their number -- sitting through the movie version of Eragon will suck the will to live right out of you," says Chauncey Mabe of the South Florida Sentinal. Nice. Or, my personal favorite from Arthur Salm of the San Diego Union Tribune: "Been to that galaxy, done that ring." Hmm, that doesn't sound too promising, does it? Well, there's always The Hobbit -- that is, if it ever actually happens.

Producer Saul Zaentz no sooner finishes one court case before he's back at it again. This time Zaentz has launched a $20 million lawsuit against Walt Disney Company, including the Miramax Films unit, over profits from the 1996 drama The English Patient.

Reuters reports that the famed producer of Lord of The Rings (1978), Amadeus, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest filed suit last Thursday at the Los Angeles Superior Court. Zaentz's suit accuses Disney and Miramax of failing to share the profits for the Oscar-winning drama. According to Zaentz's suit, "Like Enron, Tyco and WorldCom, Miramax has used fraudulent and unfair accounting and business practices to deprive (Saul Zaentz Co.) of its profit participation,". Miramax has claimed that they have yet to make back what it cost them to acquire, distribute and market the film, so according to them there are no profits.

Well, Zaentz must think 20 is his lucky number, as he sued and won for that exact same amount ($20 million, that is) in a 2005 lawsuit against New Line Cinema over profits from the Lord of the Rings films. Hopefully Zaentz has better luck with his lawsuit than he had keeping Peter Jackson on The Hobbit. Plus, something tells me Disney isn't going to like that Enron crack.