The Shrine

Peter Jackson is officially out, so the new rumour is that Raimi has been approached:

http://www.mania.com/52876.html

I'd personally like to see him if Jackson's out for good. He's proven with Spiderman that he can stay true to the source material while making it entertaining. And that way we'll see Bruce Campbell in them for sure :-)

Peter Jackson's reason is that he does not want to get mixed up in the legal mess that occured with Lord of the Rings, all over again; something like that. It will be interesting to see what Sam Raimi can do, though I am hugely dissapointed that it is less likely to flow as smoothly into Lord of the Rings now; though you never do know. It is possible that they might retain most of the crew.

Sam Raimi is currently working on Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule; the series that I took my name "The Seeker" from.

Jackson has no objection to working with New Line again. He just doesn't want to do it until the current legal issue is settled (which is basically asking for a third party to audit the movie and its profits because Jackson's camp thinks they've lost out). But New Line wants the movie to start now because their rights to The Hobbit expire soon. (And, I suspect, they want to capitalize on the good vibe LotR still has.)

Christopher Nolan would make an interesting choice. It would be much more serious than a Raimi film. Chris Columbus (first two Harry Potter movies) would be a conservative choice. One thing I can be sure with of a Raimi film is that even if I don't think it's great, I'll have fun.

Kupek wrote:Jackson has no objection to working with New Line again. He just doesn't want to do it until the current legal issue is settled (which is basically asking for a third party to audit the movie and its profits because Jackson's camp thinks they've lost out). But New Line wants the movie to start now because their rights to The Hobbit expire soon. (And, I suspect, they want to capitalize on the good vibe LotR still has.)

Christopher Nolan would make an interesting choice. It would be much more serious than a Raimi film. Chris Columbus (first two Harry Potter movies) would be a conservative choice. One thing I can be sure with of a Raimi film is that even if I don't think it's great, I'll have fun.

Nolan and Columbus would both do the series just IMO and I would have no objection to either of them.

Oh god, not Chris Columbus! He is the single most incredibly mediocre director in Hollywood.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Oh god, not Chris Columbus! He is the single most incredibly mediocre director in Hollywood.

Bicentennial Man and the first two Harry Potter films were great. They'll be no objection from me

OH GOOOOD. My eyes bleed just thinking about them. I'm not sure how much more grey or soulless those films could be.

They weren't bad, just so, so <i>average</i>.

Didn't he do Mrs. Doubtfire and Home Alone as well? Along with Harry Potter those area lot of the top childrens' movies around. The Hobbit was written as a childrens' book.

Yes and yes, and fuck you guys have bad taste if you're arguing that those films are in his favour!

The Hobbit was written as a children's book, but unlike those films, it does not dismiss children as idiots. The Hobbit is for children in the same way that decent fairy tales and most of Pixar's films are for children: they speak to children, but they do not talk down to them. It's for this reason that they appeal to adults, also.

I'm just commenting on the popularity. I haven's seen any of his films in over a decade.

My main reference for Columbus are his two Harry Potter movies. I think his strength is being able to get out of the way and letting the story and the material be the focus. While I never thought those were excellent filsm as art, I did think they did an excellent job of making you feel like you were in Hogwarts. His directorial style was simple, but I thought that was fine because the material was rich. I see the same thing with The Hobbit. So that's why I said he would be a conservative choice. The film probably wouldn't be a masterpiece, but you know you would get most of what you would want.

I think his strength is being able to get out of the way and letting the story and the material be the focus.

He is good at that, to which the first two Harry Potter films are testament. They're just such conservative films: they're true to the books, but so <i>dull</i>. Alfonso Cuaron's third entry in the franchise brought this into sharp relief, IMO.

Well, by the third movie talking pictures, flying brooms, and crazy magic was already established as normal so character and story development became essential. It would have been interesting to see how Columbus would have handled it.

As for using past movies as reference. Watch some of Peter Jackson's older flicks, like Heavenly Creatures; you probably will not like it at all.

Dolph wrote:As for using past movies as reference. Watch some of Peter Jackson's older flicks, like Heavenly Creatures; you probably will not like it at all.

I've seen all of Peter Jackson's films, and Heavenly Creatures was genius. The Frighteners is his only really weak film, and it's also his most mainstream, which I don't think is a coincidence.

Well, by the third movie talking pictures, flying brooms, and crazy magic was already established as normal so character and story development became essential. It would have been interesting to see how Columbus would have handled it.

He probably would have handled it in exactly the same way that he did the first two: observing the text almost by rote and producing a solid but uninspired film.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

Dolph wrote:As for using past movies as reference. Watch some of Peter Jackson's older flicks, like Heavenly Creatures; you probably will not like it at all.

I've seen all of Peter Jackson's films, and Heavenly Creatures was genius. The Frighteners is his only really weak film, and it's also his most mainstream, which I don't think is a coincidence.

Whoah, someone else who likes the film =)

I made the comment I did not because I didn't like it, but because it seems like 95% of the people who I know that have seen it did not like it.

The only other Jackson films I've seen are Bad Taste and Braindead (aka Dead Alive). Both are so wonderfuly over the top that they're fun (you can't beat zombine sex and lawnmower massacres), but it's difficult to see Jackson's real potential in them.

(Perhaps even more telling of how over the top Dead Alive is comes the trivia from IMDB: "During the lawnmower scene, movie blood was pumped at five gallons per second.")

The Hobbit is written in a different syle than the LotR trilogy, so changing directors might be a good thing, and I think Sam Raimi would be an excellent choice. He's very good at doing lighthearted scenes, but can be serious when he needs to be. And, of course, it'll be fun to see how he fits Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi into the film.

Yah. I dunno if I'd want to see The Hobbit done in an overly grandiose style. I mean, maybe Jackson can do it justice, but the thought of a whole batch of scenes like the one at the end of Return of the King, with all the hobbits hugging, gays even me out a little bit.

No disrespect to anyone who might be gay on this board, of course, but at the very least, that was...saccharine. And bad. And The Hobbit would provide a bunch of opportunities for stuff like that. I could do about two of those scenes, and then I'd get up and play DDR at the theatre arcade instead.

Speaking of hobbit buttsex, I idly wonder, do we or did we ever have any "out" gay board members? I haven't noticed anything over the years, but I was also gone for awhile...