The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Dean DeMass]

Hook.

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Saving Private Ryan

Jaws

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Minority Report

Jurassic Park

Empire of the Sun

Schindler's List

A.I.

E.T.

'nuff said.

-Dean-

 

[David Echo]

Ugh, like a shopping list of PAST efforts is automatically a guarantee that a FUTURE film will be any good? When his only previous effort in the Fantasy genre was sooo bad? And by the way I'd lump 50% of Private Ryan, 50% of Jurassic Park and all of A.I. along with 1941 and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade onto the Hook side of the scales.

But that is neither here nor there because what it comes down to is the script. If it's good Spielberg can make a good movie from it but he seems to have a hard time making good movies from bad scripts.

So, if PJ, Fran and Phillipa adapted the Hobbit and Spielberg directed - I'd give it a 90% chance of not only being good but great. Let (unwarranted dig) George Lucas or David Koepp script it for Spielberg and I'll give it a 90% chance of it sucking hard.

Dave

 

[Andy Sheets]

If Peter Jackson would like to watch someone else do it, why not Alejandro Amenábar (Abre los Ojos, The Others)?

That might be cool. Nothing against the older guys but I'd very much prefer a fresh face to direct the story if Jackson won't do it. Get a director whose style and tricks aren't so familiar to me yet

 

[John Spencer]

I think Del Toro could do a good job with it too. He seems to have a good eye for visuals and mood.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Me too; all good movies!

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’ve been following this thread with interest, especially as to the merits of Spielberg directing a ‘Hobbit’. I’d expect that the real possibility is close to zero, but he certainly could. While no one could predict the outcome of a Spielberg ‘Hobbit’ anymore than any other director’s vision, even Spielberg’s harshest critics acknowledge that he is a master storyteller.
And this is a masterful story.

But that is neither here nor there because what it comes down to is the script. If it's good Spielberg can make a good movie from it but he seems to have a hard time making good movies from bad scripts.

:rolleyes
This is as opposed to all of the directors who have an ‘easy’ time making good movies from bad scripts.

 

[Jeff Ashforth]

I think that SS would mess with the story too much. He's got too much power in Hollywood to do 'someone else's script'.

I think the key would be to have Fran and PJ write the script. Let's face it, a beautifully visualized middle earth is worth nothing if the story is changed too much.

I'd say 60% of PJ's LOTR strength is it's respect for the story. I'd feel much more comfortable with someone other than PJ behind the camera as long as he and Fran wrote the story and maybe produced.

 

[Terrell]

I'd say 60% of PJ's LOTR strength is it's respect for the story.

That may be true Jeff. But I thought his weakness, at least with FOTR was with the characters. That's a strength of Spielberg. In my opinion, Spielberg would have given the characters much more depth than Jackson did in FOTR. All just my opinion of course.

 

[Terrell]

Double Post!

 

[Terrell]

I guess that would depend if you thought the scripts were terrible David?

 

[David Echo]

This is as opposed to all of the directors who have an ‘easy’ time making good movies from bad scripts.

True but look at David Koepp, (I admit, the man is my arch-enemy) his Jurrasic Park script is merely servicable but the film suceeds due to Speilberg's incredible skill. Ditto with Koepp's Spiderman script and Sam Rami's direction. Even the masterful David Fincher struggles with The Panic Room but even so the film remains watchable (Yes, another Koepp screenplay!)

However does anyone even remember Alec Baldwin as The Shadow (wrttten by Koepp, directed none too brilliantly by Russell Mulcahy) or Bad Influence (other than the Rob Lowe scandal of course, also written by Koepp, directed by none other than Curtis Hanson his Pre L.A. Confidential Days)

Koepp's best work to date (IMHO) has been Carlito's Way turned into an excellent film by Brian De Palma.

So SOME directors can overcome a bad or mediocre script and still come out with a decent movie but MOST cannot.

Dave

 

[Seth Paxton]

As I said before, the more this is delayed the more certain you will have to recast.

You know, not only can makeup make one actor appear younger (somewhat), but it can also make another similar actor look like a previous one.

McKellan could also be replaced as long as it was a solid choice. Keeping the same cast is far less important than keeping WETA and NZ involved as far as I'm concerned. That's where your consistancy will come from.

Also as I said before, is there any doubt that the Hobbit will happen with something near $1b in ticket sales US apparently on the horizon for the LOTR trilogy.

Just look at all the sequels that get done if a film just makes $100m (or sometimes less if it had a low budget).

The only thing holding it back is RIGHTS. Who has them and how much to get them.

 

[David Echo]

But the actual point I wanted to make was not to put down Speilberg but rather to suggest that it is IMPOSSIBLE to say that a future film will be good or bad based solely on the Director's past successes. There are so many elements that go into making each and every film that need to come together and raise a film above the norm. Writing, acting, direction, design, music, sfx, editing. Each one of which can either add or take away from the cumuliative effect.

But, hey, if you start with Speilberg or Fincher or Rami heading your team it sure as hell gives you a better than even chance on making something pretty good.

Dave

 

[Seth Paxton]

Me too; all good movies!

Amen Scott.

I love auteurs and I won't deny that SS work sometimes has that slightly sugary layer to it, but SS is still one of the great masters of cinema. We've had these debates before and my biggest point is that just as Capra brought "good schmaltz" to cinema, so too did SS establish that light sugar touch to his adventures that gave us ET, or even in CE3K (not "kiddie" but the faintest hint of corny at times). Just because others try pale imitations doesn't make him crap.

I think this is retro-critiquing rather than appreciating the man's work from the front side with which it was originally presented (meaning seeing it before we'd ever seen something like it).

Besides, The Hobbit fits him perfectly because while the ending can be somber in seeing home as different, there is also a sweetness to it. I think the narrative arc in The Hobbit is quite similar to AI in fact.

 

[David Echo]

I'm just tired of this garbage that Spielberg couldn't do it simply because Jackson did it first.

I 100% percent agree with this. There are many talented directors that would no doubt make fine film versions of The Hobbit.

However, there is no other director currently alive on Earth other than Peter Jackson who could have made The Lord of the Rings the critical and financial success it has become, while pleasing both the general audience AND the rabid legion of fans that the novel has attracted over the years.

Just as no other director other than George Lucas could have made Star Wars or Stanley Kubrick 2001 or A Clockwork Orange. EDIT: Or Steven Speilberg Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Dave

 

[Terrell]

However, there is no other director currently alive on Earth other than Peter Jackson who could have made The Lord of the Rings the critical and financial success it has become, while pleasing both the general audience AND the rabid legion of fans that the novel has attracted over the years.
Just as no other director other than George Lucas could have made Star Wars or Stanley Kubrick 2001 or A Clockwork Orange. EDIT: Or Steven Speilberg Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I guess from that standpoint I agree. It's just to hard to say. It's almost like a song. You love the song when sung by it's original artist and singer. But you tend to not like the song as much when someone else sings the song.
By the way, how did my reply to you end up on top of your post I was responding to?

 

[Brian W.]

I think Spielberg could direct The Hobbit. He is one of the great directors. But, even in his greatest films, he seldom can resist the temptation to dumb down the film by framing the "moral" of the story. Private Ryan: "Earn it." Followed by, even worse: "Tell me I've lived a good life." Oscar Schindler's breakdown at the end of Schindler's List, which could have been okay, but the prisoners coming to hug him just gagged me. The kids with Alan in the copter at the end of Jurassic Park. I could go on and on. Paint-by-numbers film structure. I'll admit I haven't seen his last two efforts.

But somehow Peter Jackson managed to insert the flashback of Gandalf saying, "All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you," without it seeming the slightest bit corny.

And let's not forget that the reason Spielberg didn't direct Harry Potter is because he insisted on casting Haley Joel Osment in the lead, according to Richard Harris.

 

[Jim_C]

>>I read an interview with PJ not long ago(cant remember where yet) and they asked what would be your plans for the future and any chance of doing the hobbit? He said he wanted a fair break and to do something on low budget and on weekends!...he said that after it is all finished he wouldnt mind having a look at doing The Hobbit, but he said that he would much rather sit down and watch someone else do it. He mentioned how because he is so close to LOTR he doesnt really get a chance to sit and enjoy it like we do.

Fair enough!

 

[Andy Sheets]

Up until LOTR, it's not like Peter Jackson had struck gold with any of his films.

If you mean making money, you'd be right. But just in terms of quality, Jackson had absolutely proven he was a very good filmmaker. I mean, he was Oscar-nominated before he ever started working on LOTR

 

[Terrell]

I mean, he was Oscar-nominated before he ever started working on LOTR

But that was for screenplay, not directing.