Sam Raimi interested in the Hobbit

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



exanda kane
This would bad news, especially for me, being unimpressed with his ability, and I don't think I'd let a director like him go near such the holy canon of fiction, like the works of Tolkien.

"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," Raimi told Entertainment Weekly.

He continued, "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 reins -- that would be great. I love the book. It's maybe a more kid-friendly story than the others."

Any thoughts, doubts or assurances?

H. S. 6
Makes me wary when he says it's a "more kid-friendly story than the others."

MildPossession
I'd rather have Jackson do it.

BackFire
Could be worse.

Could be a lot worse.

Impediment
The Hobbit is a little more kid friendly than the Rings trilogy, but it is still a violent story, nonetheless. I can't wait to see it, if only for Smaug the dragon.

Wolfie
It'd be the first Raimi film I would refuse to see.

Also, I hope to God that Jackson didn't read that article. Jackson is so full of himself already.

Robtard
Originally posted by exanda kane
This would bad news, especially for me, being unimpressed with his ability, and I don't think I'd let a director like him go near such the holy canon of fiction, like the works of Tolkien.

"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," Raimi told Entertainment Weekly.

He continued, "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 reins -- that would be great. I love the book. It's maybe a more kid-friendly story than the others."

Any thoughts, doubts or assurances?

I think it would be fine, Raimi is a great director.

ADarksideJedi
I was talking to a customer at work about this topic.I would go see it because I love the book.But it would not be as good as the others because Jacksin is not doing this one because of some money issue.
So we all know it is not going to be that good.JM

Strangelove
Originally posted by Wolfie
It'd be the first Raimi film I would refuse to see.

Also, I hope to God that Jackson didn't read that article. Jackson is so full of himself already. How is Jackson full of himself?

ragesRemorse
I'm all for it, i think it would be cool to see spiderman in middle Earth fighting orcs

exanda kane
Peter Jackson is rightly full of himself, one of the first directors in years to perfect the event movie. I'd say he was a better director than Lucas, by far, and yes I know that isn't many event movie directors but I simply don't have the cheek to say he's in league with Spielberg (yet).

Sam Raimi on the other hand in my view simply doesn't have the gravitas to follow Peter Jackson's footsteps, and I found Spiderman 1 and 2 utterly disappointing.

Bubble_O_Bill
Tarantino should do it.. or Lynch

exanda kane
Tarantino? What the f**k?

Maybe if Tarantino had a ounce of originality in his blood; but can you imagine how appalling it would be to let him loose on a franchise like Lord of the Rings?

Bubble_O_Bill
It was a joke

exanda kane
It was a bad one.

=Tired Hiker=
I could see Raimi pulling it off if he had Jackson backing him up. WETA would be of good use to Raimi since I think Raimi's special effects are usually a bit too cheesy, granted that's how he rolls. I'd also like to see Bruce Campbell as Gandalf.

Wolfie
Originally posted by Strangelove
How is Jackson full of himself?
Watching King Kong, it became plainly obvious to me. He did shit in that movie that would end any other director's career.

But he's Peter Jackson! He made Lord of the Rings! He can do no wrong! roll eyes (sarcastic)

I would've loved to see an experiment done before the movie came out: slap some other director's name on King Kong and see how well people respect it.

Solo
Raimi has two brilliant trilogies in his hands and Jackson only has one. Thus, I'd rather Raimi did it.

EPIIIBITES
Raimi I think would be great!

He's got that little edge that Jackson had which made LOTR kinda cool in parts (though it was great regardless), in the sense that you'd get these funky scenes and close-ups of orcs and whatever other freaks there were which harkened back to Jackson's "Dead Alive" days.

In that same sense, I think that edge can be there with Raimi 'cause of his back catalogue...plus, he's proven he's got the sensitivity to pull off a decent story-based action film like "Spiderman"...(even though it's not the greatest of films...it's decently done).

I think Guillermo del Toro or Jean-Pierre Jeunet would be decent picks too.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Wolfie
Watching King Kong, it became plainly obvious to me. He did shit in that movie that would end any other director's career.

But he's Peter Jackson! He made Lord of the Rings! He can do no wrong! roll eyes (sarcastic)

I would've loved to see an experiment done before the movie came out: slap some other director's name on King Kong and see how well people respect it. I think that's more indicative of the studio's infatuation with him after LotR than Jackson himself having a ego.

And King Kong wasn't a terrible film, just long. Come to think of it, I still haven't finished it

SpaceMonkey
That's like someone else playing Han Solo in Return of the Jedi after the first 2 Star Wars movies. PJ did the best possible job on LotR, better than anyone else even thought possible. Why would you get another director/writer, ANYONE, to do a prequel to LotR? It would be like what happened with the Star Wars prequels.... huh, what? The SAME guy that did the originals wrote those too? Wow, what happened?

EPIIIBITES
Don't know if that Solo example is really applicable...

What would be applicable is arguing about directors (like you sorta said), and arguing something like a different director coming in after the first Star Wars movie was succesfully directed by George Lucas.

...wait a sec...George Lucas didn't direct Empire Strikes Back (which is the best of the bunch).

Wolfie
Originally posted by Strangelove
I think that's more indicative of the studio's infatuation with him after LotR than Jackson himself having a ego.

And King Kong wasn't a terrible film, just long. Come to think of it, I still haven't finished it
That's where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, King Kong is a terrible film.

One scene I'll point out in particular is when Naomi Watts was dancing in front of Kong like an idiot and Kong pushes her over and laughs ridiculously. If any other director did that, he would never find work again. But because it's Peter Jackson, people praise him for it.

SpaceMonkey
I wasn't too fond of King Kong either, but I didn't mind that scene. What about it was so bad?

exanda kane
Peter Jackson's King Kong is a very good film, long, but none the less a sold film, and I simply do not understand people getting irritated by it.

Someone mentioned that Empire Strikes Back (the best of the SW bunch) wasn't directed by George Lucas, but by Eric Kershner, and yes, that is true; but there is a difference between hadning over a franchise to a well respected yet mostly unsung director like Kershner, and a mogul like Raimi.

I may be biased, I find the Spiderman films (as so far) to be particuarly drab and gormless, but I just don't believe Raimi should touch something like the Hobbit. We could have any Phantom Menace travesty on our hands.

EPIIIBITES
Originally posted by exanda kane
I just don't believe Raimi should touch something like the Hobbit. We could have any Phantom Menace travesty on our hands.

All you keep pointing to is "Spiderman"..."Spiderman"

...are you aware of his back-catalogue?

And even 2 years before Spiderman, Raimi was still making movies like "The Gift" (which is an R-rated thriller, and a decent film)

He is a versatile director.

Lucas on the other hand says Star Wars movies (which are almost all of his movies) are for kids.

exanda kane
Yes, I am aware of his back catalogue, but I don't see any franchises inbred to pop culture in there. I am merely setting a scenario with Spiderman; this is what he done with Spiderman, yes it's succesful, and most people seem to enjoy it, but it's not who I want directing one of my favourite childhood books.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Wolfie
That's where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, King Kong is a terrible film.

One scene I'll point out in particular is when Naomi Watts was dancing in front of Kong like an idiot and Kong pushes her over and laughs ridiculously. If any other director did that, he would never find work again. But because it's Peter Jackson, people praise him for it. Okay, but that still doesn't indicate an ego on Peter Jackson's part. It indicates the studio's willingness to forgive him. Lots of famous, great directors have made bad films. Steven Spielberg, for instance. That guy has an ego.

SpaceMonkey
Originally posted by Strangelove
Okay, but that still doesn't indicate an ego on Peter Jackson's part. It indicates the studio's willingness to forgive him. Lots of famous, great directors have made bad films. Steven Spielberg, for instance. That guy has an ego.

AND he can make crap films with the worst of them! i.e. War of the Worlds

EPIIIBITES
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes, I am aware of his back catalogue, but I don't see any franchises inbred to pop culture in there. I am merely setting a scenario with Spiderman; this is what he done with Spiderman, yes it's succesful, and most people seem to enjoy it...
fair enough

I guess it's like Speilberg taking Kubrik's film A.I., going with what's worked best, and then making a mess of it like he did 'cause he's kind of a nerd.

Like that?

exanda kane
Woah woah woah. Now let's not get too in love with ourselves shall we?

A.I, War of the Worlds, King Kong; they are all good films, no, they aren't Jaws, there not Close Ecnounters, Schindlers List or what have you, but you simply can't call them terrible, bad or crap. I don't know why you fancy being so general about them; they are good films, not seminal classics, but I'd rather watch one of those mentioned as crap than a Micheal Bay film 9sorry to pick on ya mickey), another Saw film, or yet another Marvel comics adaptation.

I'm not someone who will overlook a films flaws just because it has Spielberg on the directors credit, or Jackson, but even these directors worst is simply above what many others try to achieve. And yes, I realise your not completely serious when you mock a film like War of the Worlds, but show a little more thought.

That's my rant over. I apoligise.

EPIIIBITES
None of those are terrible, in the same way Michael Bay's crap is...I'm just making a comparison between someone who is prone to mess up a movie because of what's worked best with him in their recent past and on a public scale (like you said Raimi might do) and like I said Speilberg did.

A lot of A.I was total Speilberg...the guy freakin loves harping on "message" in his movies...(even if indeed there was a message to be told in A.I.). Kubrick would've pulled it off a lot better as a Kubrick film...

...ahhh...I could only imagine.


And yes, King Kong and War of the Worlds aren't bad films...they just fell short.

exanda kane
Good point; thank you for proving that the posters of KMC are mentally insane wink

Strangelove
"Mentally" and "insane" are rather redundant wink

DeVi| D0do
King Kong was awesome.

Honestly, I think the only way this movie will go ahead is if Jackson backs it in some way... Even if he just gives his blessing. Otherwise I don't see any of the actors returning... or any of the crew.

WrathfulDwarf
Raimi is the worst choice for Director.

Guillermo Del Toro is more suitable for this project.

MildPossession
I would like to see Toro direct it over Raimi.

As for KK, I found King Kong dire, nothing special.

exanda kane
Dire? You need to watch it again, then watch a Micheal Bay movie, and then think on that again. Please, it's just silly calling a film like King Kong dire.

MildPossession
It's not silly at all, it's my opinion on the movie, I've watched it twice now, don't need to see it again. You keep bringing Bay up, I'm not a fan of his movies, so pointless.

I like Peter Jackson films, but King Kong was a disappointment from him for me.

SpaceMonkey
Hey, enough of the Mentally Insane... leave me alone. I think PJ did such a good job on LotR that it would be wrong for anyone else to do it. I agree that more than likely, not very many people would sign on if PJ wasn't the director.

All this Bay bashing is worrying me for Transformers.

exanda kane
Originally posted by MildPossession
It's not silly at all, it's my opinion on the movie, I've watched it twice now, don't need to see it again. You keep bringing Bay up, I'm not a fan of his movies, so pointless.

I like Peter Jackson films, but King Kong was a disappointment from him for me.

I bring Micheal Bay up as an example of a director given lavish budgets and big stars, and still hits a flop more often than not. It's nothing personal. But saying King Kong is a dire movie? That's a little out of place.

The film is long, yet compared to the majority of Hollywood blockbusters, it takes a simple concept a lot further, and stamps all over the original. Appreciate the talent involved with this film, the effort made on its behalf and its execution on the big screen. This is simply no dire movie, hate it or love it.

And, with SpaceMonkeys comment, I'd like to add that I never held up much hope for a Transformers movie, even before Bay became involed. It wouldnt, or rather it couldn't come to comtemporary Hollywood without many changes; its dated in the perculiar way many 80s kids cartoons did. The concept of Transformers can be replicated, but the style? I think not.

MildPossession
I prefer the original over the remake. stick out tongue

exanda kane
It's a matter of preference of course, but there is simply much more in the remake, than the original.

EPIIIBITES
Originally posted by exanda kane
And, with SpaceMonkeys comment, I'd like to add that I never held up much hope for a Transformers movie, even before Bay became involed. It wouldnt, or rather it couldn't come to comtemporary Hollywood without many changes; its dated in the perculiar way many 80s kids cartoons did. The concept of Transformers can be replicated, but the style? I think not.
It's gonna be freakin' lifesize live action Optimus Prime vs freakin' lifesize live action Megatron...what more do you want?

Don't know about you, but I'm pretty good with trailers...and I can tell that it won't a "nauseating" Michael Bay style film a la Armageddon...but it will have his touches to be sure. Though Speilberg behind this and being involved as much as he is, is actually a good thing.

You're gonna get your money's worth...unless you're expecting something like The Matrix. It'll probably be more along the lines of T3...which is a beautiful film, despite its flaws.

Kazenji
On the King kong talk i like the newer one more there's more to it.

And lets not forget the 70's ones what do people think of that one compared to these other ones ??

exanda kane
On the subject of the 1970's King Kong, lets forgot the 1970s King Kong

SpaceMonkey
I think that whenever there is a remake movie made it will fall short of expectations UNLESS it is completely redone (a la Batman Begins) because when people see similarities they will reminisce on the reasons they came to see the remake anyway.(that was a long sentence, geez!) Transformers will no doubt have that nostalgia, but with so many differences it will be a disappointment in many people's eyes. Same thing would happen for the Hobbit, since it would have an entirely different feel of the PJ versions.

MildPossession
Kane, we can both agree on the 70s one smile

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by MildPossession
I prefer the original over the remake. stick out tongue

The oringinal so far are the best.The remake are horrible.There are the movies that were remakes such as:"The Planet of the Apes" and "The Time Machine" a waste of money to see and a complae waste of one's day or night.jm thumb down

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.