I think Jackson needs to get out of the automatic, process factory-mentality of blockbusters, and do that nice-sounding LOVELY BONES, which would be a return to the small movies he made for years before The Shire came onto the map.

I remember FOTR and TTT having a refreshing, organic drive to them from somebody that wasn't a veteran with major big-budget movies. Then with RETURN OF THE KING....I don't know what happened. Maybe PJ left too much he had to tackle in the last movie. Yet it still works.

KING KONG though, what a disaster. I expected such artificial, emotional manipulation from Michael Bay or some other hack. Its bad when by the halfway point, one wants to kill the big ape.

Thing is, if PJ recharged his batteries, get his head out of the blockbuster mentality, and went back to the basics, his THE HOBBIT would be a good movie. That's what New Line Cinema really doesn't seem to get. He'll do the movie. Give him time, and when he gets around to it, it'll make the big bucks that everyone wants a cut of. Trust me, the fans will be patient for it.

P.S. - Anyone seen CLERKS 2? "There is only one Return, and its not the King, its the Jedi!"

What are you talking about? King Kong was great. Definteily in my top 3 for last year, my favorite Peter Jackson movie, and it even made me appreciate the 1933 version of King Kong even more.

king kong definatly was one of the most entertaining movies of last year. And even with the extra hour on it, it still held up to my expectations.

I hafta agree with Irishman. The 1933 version is one of my favorite movies of all-time and when I first saw Jackson's remake I went into it thinking I wouldn't like it (because a remake could never live up to a loved original). I was a little turned off by the three hours initially but upon subsequent viewings I enjoyed it more and more.

The FX were a little disappointing in spots ... when the sailors are running with the brontosaurs, for instance. But, in other sequences they were absolutely amazing (the large insects in the bottom of the ravine comes to mind now).

The remake was campy (often copying and referring to the original) which made it very enjoyable for me. I wasn't particularly thrilled by Jack Black in it, but Naomi Watts' portrayal was spectacular and the image of Kong looking at her just before he fell off the Empire State Bldg. was one of the most melodramatic and saddest scenes I've ever viewed in ANY movie.

It was a beautifully filmed movie... very visually appealing, and the "look" of the 1930's came through extremely well.

The "emotional manipulation" (as rrA puts it) added a depth that the original lacked and Jackson worked up that angle perfectly. My favorite scene (and now one of my all-time favorites) is when the tyrannosaurs have Watts cornered and are about to attack and Kong jumps in front of her, leans forward on his haunches and stares down the dinosaurs (as if to say, "You want her, you hafta come through me first"). It was from that point that I started cheering for the giant ape.

.

It still held up to my expectations as well and I didn't think it was too long at all really (it had its share of slow parts sure, but what 3 hour movie doesn't?). I'm looking forward to seeing the extended cut. That's one thing I never understood about this movie. People say it's too long yet these are the same ringers who'll sit through 4 hours of Return of the King

I like the extra hour Peter Jackson adds more depth to the story, especially Anne Darrow's background. Though to be honest ihaven't seen the original since i was about 12, but the remake just seemed to give Kong and Anne's relationship more of a realistic relationship. I'm definatly glad they didn't include kong trying to undress her! lol.

DITTO!



Don Cardi

Raimi Considering The Hobbit?

January 29, 2007 - After New Line and Peter Jackson's recent and very public spat over the proposed film version of The Hobbit (the next movie in the The Lord of the Rings series), the question of who might direct said picture in place of Jackson has come up often. Spider-Man uber-director Sam Raimi's name was rumored last fall as a possible replacement for Jackson, but there was no real indication that he was considering the job. As such, that particular whisper went away like so much Internet chatter... but now that's all changed.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that Raimi has been talking to "associates, as well as his corporate masters at Sony" and telling them that he is considering taking over the directorial reigns of The Hobbit. The paper, which to say the least has slightly more journalistic integrity than your average J.R.R. Tolkien messageboard, also cites two "top-level insiders" who claim to have heard this directly from Raimi.

If the filmmaker were to move over to The Hobbit, this would clearly affect Sony's Spider-Man series. With the third film in the webslinger's franchise coming in mere months, talk of a fourth entry has already begun to leak, but with Raimi focusing on the no-doubt huge Hobbit production, would he have the time or inclination to make another Spidey film? And will Sony be willing to wait for him?

The paper hastens to add that New Line says it doesn't have a deal with Raimi and that he has yet to meet with the execs who would have to sign off on him. And then there's also the matter of MGM, which owns the distribution rights to the film and is continuing to champion Jackson as their pick for helmer. So stay tuned…

Source: Filmforce

How about some thoughts Irish?

None yourself ronnie

Ugh, I haven't been following this thread or any of the Hobbit news even though I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan. I didn't know that Peter Jackson wasn't going to direct The Hobbit. I'm sad. With as much as I like Sam Raimi, I still feel like we don't need a movie about Hobbits with a few awkwardly sped up sequences like in all his other movies. Really I just think Peter Jackson SHOULD be directing it.

I agree. If Peter Jackson doesn't do it it just won't be the same. Knowing New Line they'll hire someone (Raimi's not a bad choice) to quickly make the film before New Line losses the rights entirely to MGM (who DOES want Jackson to do it). That'd be really sad it New Line took that route but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. If I were Jackson, and as a big FU to New Line, I'd remake it after MGM had the sole rights to it.

Peter Jackson would be my hero if he did that

Sorry to break your bubble fanboys, but if PJ had even cared about making THE HOBBIT, which movie would we get? Would we get FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, or the never-ending RETURN OF THE KING and its 12-endings?

Really, the problems of RETURN OF THE KING got inflamed and evasticated in KING KONG. God forbid what would happen if PJ had made HOBBIT at this rate.

Anyway Irish, you post everything you read? I mean, no thoughts on whatever you think the news is legit or not? Hell, no opinions on that fucking silly Sam Raimi story?

Yes, for now I just post news for those who might not research it on their own and want to be "kept in the loop." Furthermore, this is a way to engage discussion (I'm beginning the discussion by posting the news and others can post their comments, much like blibblebabble did)

Probably so, although I WOULD be interested to see Hobbit w/ the Jackson touch. I love what he did with LOTR, and maybe he will learn his lesson from ROTK and re capture the magic from the earlier films.

I admit I must be an idiot because I don't get what you are saying here. I ask respectfully, what do you mean? From what I understand he DID care about making The Hobbit but there are legal issues. I don't know the details but I'm sure I could find them if I read every post in this thread. But I guess I'm confused by what you were saying about what movie would we get, Fellowship or Return of the king.

Another question, is the term 'fanboy' sort of a negative word? That's how I've always heard it used and I find it funny that you are calling me, someone who had hardly any idea what was going on with the Hobbit, and Irishman, someone who didn't even post his opinion, fanboys. I guess I am technically a fan of that movie, but wouldn't that make every single person alive a fanboy? Whether it's LOTR or the Godfather or any other movie? I'll settle for FanMan though, being as that I haven't been a boy for quite some time

Hobbit Talks Happening?

October 5, 2007 - Just months after New Line Cinema chief Robert Shaye said that he "would love for (director Peter Jackson) to be creatively involved in some way in The Hobbit" comes word that the studio and the Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings filmmaker are trying to mend fences in an effort to finally bring the J.R.R. Tolkien tale to the big-screen.

Entertainment Weekly reports that "there's reason to be cautiously optimistic" that the legal feud between Jackson and New Line may soon be resolved: "At this writing, no agreements have been announced and details of the negotiations are sketchy (neither New Line nor Jackson's camp would comment to EW on any aspect of this story), but sources close to the talks tell us that they're detecting a lot less frost in the air, and that a deal may be reached that could help usher J.R.R. Tolkien's maiden Middle-earth masterpiece to screens before the end of the decade."

A source for the magazine revealed there is a state of "detente" between the two sides even as they hash things out in court. But, as EW points out, even if Jackson and New Line agree to make the movie together the busy filmmaker may not have the time to direct it. One possible solution that's reportedly been suggested is to have Jackson exec produce The Hobbit, thus "letting him pick a proxy director and oversee the production."

Source: IGN

If NLC and Jackson can get their squabbles over money put behind and make THE HOBBIT, it would be good, yes?

Lets just hope Jackson isn't so damn self-indulgent as he was with ROTK and KING KONG. Some ask what the hell I mean, and I shrug.

Even though I liked ROTK and King Kong, I agree with you about King Kong... ROTK though, I don't. Maybe it's because I read the trilogy a couple of times before I knew there would be movies and loved the books, so I know that there was so much in the last book that it was impossible to get it all into one movie.

Peter Jackson did his best and it was very impressive. People talk about how long the ending of ROTK was, but in the book there was an entire OTHER ending involving the hobbits fighting back against Saruman in their own little village (Because the wizard was pissed that he was brought down by a couple of hobbits). Can you imagine if PJ decided to include THAT ending as well?? How self-indulgent would you have thought of him then??

I can't imagine anyone other than Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit, because he has already done such a great job with the LOTR trilogy, and he obviously has a deep respect for the original writings by J.R.R. Tolkien.

I could care less about the books. Unlike FOTR and TTT, ROTK as a film itself is clunky, inconsistent with its narrative pacing, and its REALLY obvious how PJ was cutting by the deadline.

Think of this. The other films were 3 hours, but they felt like a simple stroll. ROTK's 3+ hours felt like 5 hours.

Now saying all that, ROTK isn't a bad film. Its got some wonderful moments* that can make me tolerate and enjoy the film.

But its good compared to KING KONG, jesus christ.

I mean, an adventure tale about New Yorkers going to an exotic isolated island full of dinosaurs and giant apes, and then such ape lay a rampage on New York City, 3 hours worth of such adventure, thrills, CGI sights...

...and Peter Jackson somehow makes it mundane & boring. A pity because the cast is there, it SHOULD have worked, but it doesn't. Why?

I worked for me! The special effects alone was worth the ticket money for me. The dinosaur stampede scene was magnificent. The plot didn't make any sense though.

No shit.

I watched the original KONG awhile back, and now I realize honestly the biggest problem with PJ's KONG.

The mother fucker was still on LOTR "seriousness" mode with KONG, and well....its an adventure tale, not an epic drama. Pfft.

I thought King Kong was great.... once they got to the island. It just took so long to get there. I think the beginning could have been cut down quite a bit, but after that I wouldn't have changed a thing.

Problem is, the beginning is so botched, the movie is just fucked. Its like building a great house on quicksand.

del Toro on Hobbit

You've heard the rumors and now there's some substance behind the word on the street. The Hollywood Reporter says that Guillermo del Toro has entered official talks to direct the two back-to-back installments of THE HOBBIT. Should things get resolved quickly with the WGA strike, HOBBIT would be del Toro's next film after wrapping up HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY. Because of that pesky strike, New Line and MGM haven't set a writer to adapt Tolkien's "The Hobbit" into two films but del Toro and Peter Jackson would "oversee" production of the script. The studios have already set a 2009 start date for the movies, which have been budgeted at $150 million a piece (wowsers). Sam Raimi was an early rumored name for the directing gig after it became clear that Jackson would be too busy to return as director. But it became clear to fans (and obviously studio heads) that del Toro was the man for the job. He brings passion for the material, visual flair and experience in the fantastic. So while I never was a huge fan of the LOTR series, I'm still eager to see what del Toro can do with the material (cause oddly enough I dug that Rankin-Bass animated version when I was a kid).

Source: JoBlo

Guillermo del Toro is a lot better than the Sam Raimi rumors I've been hearing up until now! Raimi's directing style is too quirky most of the time.

I still wish Jackson would do it but I know he won't. Between the two other choices, yeah, I'd go with del Toro too