Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › The Hobbit (merged thread)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit (merged thread) - Page 3

post #61 of 1186
10/3/02 at 6:58am
Quote:
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-
Reply
post #62 of 1186
10/3/02 at 7:44am
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
Reply
post #63 of 1186
10/3/02 at 8:16am
Quote:
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
Reply
post #64 of 1186
10/3/02 at 8:39am
I think Del Toro could do a good job with it too. He seems to have a good eye for visuals and mood.
Reply
post #65 of 1186
10/3/02 at 11:28am
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.


Me too; all good movies!
Reply
post #66 of 1186
10/3/02 at 11:49am
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.

Quote:
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.


This is as opposed to all of the directors who have an ‘easy’ time making good movies from bad scripts.
Reply
post #67 of 1186
10/3/02 at 3:05pm
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.
Reply
post #68 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:28pm
Quote:
he seems to have a hard time making good movies from bad scripts.

And who please tell doesn't? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Or maybe I should list Jackson's films and then to Spielberg's, but I want embarass PJ like that. Heck, I could even compare his films to Lucas films and he probably would match up. Up until LOTR, it's not like Peter Jackson had struck gold with any of his films. My intention is to not really bag on Jackson. I'm just tired of this garbage that Spielberg couldn't do it simply because Jackson did it first. That's preposterous considering what an incredible filmmaker he is.

Quote:
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.
Reply
post #69 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:35pm
Double Post!
Reply
post #70 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:36pm
I guess that would depend if you thought the scripts were terrible David?
Reply
post #71 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:36pm
Quote:
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
Reply
post #72 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:47pm
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.
Reply
post #73 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:52pm
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
Reply
post #74 of 1186
10/3/02 at 4:54pm
Quote:
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.
Reply
post #75 of 1186
10/3/02 at 5:05pm
Quote:
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
Reply
post #76 of 1186
10/3/02 at 5:15pm
Quote:
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?
Reply
post #77 of 1186
10/3/02 at 5:36pm
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.
Reply
post #78 of 1186
10/3/02 at 6:34pm
>>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!<<

Brettis,

You read this in the current issue of the LOTR fan club magazine. Either that or you read someones post on this information. I have the issue and this is PJ's current thinking concerning the Hobbit and his future.
Reply
post #79 of 1186
10/4/02 at 4:31am
Quote:
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
Reply
post #80 of 1186
10/4/02 at 4:46am
Quote:
I mean, he was Oscar-nominated before he ever started working on LOTR


But that was for screenplay, not directing.
Reply
post #81 of 1186
10/4/02 at 5:36am
Quote:
Brian W: 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.


Not to take anything away from Daniel Radcliffe, who made a wonderful Harry, but I think Haley Joel would have been pretty good too. He's a very talented actor, and his ONLY problem is that he's not British. Accents can be mastered, but he doesn't have that British look about him (don't ask me to explain that). Still, makeup and costumes can work wonders. Spielberg would have been a more interesting choice than Chris Columbus. I would love to have seen a Spielberg/Osment Harry Potter movie. I would love to have seen a Spielberg/Radcliffe Harry Potter movie.


Earlier, you said this in an excellent post:

Quote:
Brian W: People are saying this, but lighthearted is not my recollection of the book at all.

I just finished reading The Hobbit for the 2nd time (the first time was after seeing the movie) and you're right, it's not lighthearted! Oh, there are some amusing bits (I laughed when I found out "how the game of golf was invented", but even that involved a beheaded man!) but on the whole, it's dark and scary. It's just not *as* dark and scary as the next 3 books, which is why it seems lighthearted in comparison. You hit all the dark bits with your post (you have a good memory). I'd guess it was intended for adolescents, at the youngest, and not meant to be a "children's book."

I hope it gets made, but only with Jackson and WETA's involvement.
Reply
post #82 of 1186
10/4/02 at 8:56am
Quote:
But that was for screenplay, not directing

Eh, doesn't matter. I never met anyone that saw Heavenly Creatures and said, "Well, it's got a good script but if only it was better directed!" The screenplay nomination was well deserved but Jackson's direction of the film is usually the cited as the most distinguised aspect of the film. Not the first time an unfamiliar director has had to settle for a nomination like that as a consolation prize.

But the point I read was that Jackson had basically not done anything before LOTR, which ignores the acclaim he's had pretty much ever since his career started. Looking at Jackson's career, I would say that LOTR is a culmination of what his career had been building to, and not some case of a guy basically coming out of nowhere from a string of crap or mediocre movies and then and suddenly shocking everyone by actually making something great (btw, I know there are people that like to dismiss his early splatter movies, but the thing is that even those are actually well made films within the limitations of their budgets and circumstances, which is a big part of how Jackson got recognition to begin with).
Reply
post #83 of 1186
10/4/02 at 5:25pm
Quote:
you have a good memory


Not really -- I just read it three times and owned the soundtrack album of the Rankin/Bass special when I was a kid!
Reply
post #84 of 1186
10/5/02 at 9:39am
For all the world though, PJ can make The Hobbit darker and more mature than it is without turning it into a joke. With the enormity of LOTR it would be most important for The Hobbit to be consistent with the visual style of the trilogy. Without that any production of The Hobbit becomes an also-ran and not a prequel. The best commercial success for the film will come if there is that continuity and it can only come from PJ. I'm not saying he's the only director who can pull it off, I'm saying that because he's doing LOTR that he has to do The Hobbit.

Yes I do think PJ would do the best job. The story of The Hobbit could be very dark and chilling. Tolkien himself regretted that he made it so much of a children's story but felt that fantasy wouldn't be published unless it was, ostensibly, a work for children.

.... There is more to The Hobbit than meets the eye and I doubt PJ misses it too. I think he's just burned-out for now.

Jason_Els
Reply
post #85 of 1186
10/6/02 at 7:33pm
Quote:
but I think Haley Joel would have been pretty good too.
I don't. And this is coming from a fan of Osment. Harry Potter is quintisentially British, and any doubt I had about keeping it that way was pushed aside by a trio of young actors that fit their roles like a glove. I can't imagine anyone but Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint as Harry, Hermione, and Ron respectively. That was just rock solid casting.
Quote:
Spielberg would have been a more interesting choice than Chris Columbus.
Perhaps, but I doubt he would have been better. Columbus literally brought the book to life, for me atleast. All of the clunkiness in the film can be attributed to Kloves' script, which shines for the key moments from the book, but does a less than able job of condensing (why did he put Norbert in at all?)
Reply
post #86 of 1186
10/29/02 at 6:59am
http://www.mckellen.com/epost/lotr/l021029.htm

This is the latest on the Hobbitt and a very long reply. Who knows ?
Q: When Peter Jackson announced he was doing Lord of the Rings, he said that if the trilogy was successful, he would go back and do The Hobbit. It has been a couple of years since this was brought up--i.e. FAQ--so I pose the question again Sir Ian. Have you heard anything recently about bringing The Hobbit to the screen, and would you be interested in reprising your role? Also do you think that Ian Holm would be interested in coming back to be the younger Bilbo, as he plays the younger Bilbo in the Lord of the Rings prologue? P.s. My wife wants to know if they gave you an extra bit of length for your nose in the Gandalf make-up---she says yes and I say no.

A: I recently asked about the film rights to The Hobbit, which seem to be somewhat controlled by Peter Jackson, as far as I can tell. I hope that's the case because obviously he should have first refusal at translating the novel into a movie

just follow the link for much more
Reply
post #87 of 1186
1/25/03 at 5:27am

Will we see a new Hobbit movie?

Just wondering that with all the success of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the excellent job that Peter Jackson has done, has there been any talk about going back and doing The Hobbit prelude to the Lord of the Rings.
I would love Peter Jackson to do this movie after Return of the King.
Reply
post #88 of 1186
1/25/03 at 7:24am
I dunno...but I know that if he does, it won't be his next project. Actually, if he could find a suitable replacement director, I'd think Jackson could just produce and co-write the movie...

Also, they'd have to either get Ian Holm to do 9-10 months of shooting with his face stretched back, or find someone who looks/sounds like a younger Ian Holm; and they'd need to see if Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, and Andy Serkis would want to do it...
Reply
post #89 of 1186
1/25/03 at 8:04am
I'd definitely go for a PJ movie of THE HOBBIT!
Reply
post #90 of 1186
1/25/03 at 9:15am
Also, they'd have to either get Ian Holm to do 9-10 months of shooting with his face stretched back, or find someone who looks/sounds like a younger Ian Holm; and they'd need to see if Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, and Andy Serkis would want to do it...

I'm sure they would enjoy doing it for a piece of the pie. I must agree though, that a younger Gandalf and a younger Bilbo would be a problem. As much as Hugo Weaving had aged from the Great War to The Two Towers, I think he aged gracefully. As for Gollum....well
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › The Hobbit (merged thread)