On the eve of what is expected to be the biggest Spider-Man yet, Entertainment Weekly learns that director Sam Raimi is seriously considering directing The Hobbit—a choice that could potentially leave Spidey 4 without a director and, says Kirsten Dunst, a leading lady.http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32312
Raimi’s name has been floated in connection with The Hobbit ever since a very public dustup between Peter Jackson and New Line chairman Bob Shaye left the Lord of the Rings prequel without a director. Raimi went on the record for the first time about his potential involvement in the project during an exclusive interview with EW’s Steve Daly for the magazine’s Summer Preview issue, on stands Friday: “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. 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 ok with me picking up the reigns—that would be great. I love the book. It’s maybe a more kid-friendly story than the others.”
Dunst says she hadn’t heard any rumors about Raimi and The Hobbit until EW raised the subject in an interview. She says she can’t imagine returning for Part 4 without both her director and her costar: “It’s disrespectful to the whole team, I think, to do that. And audiences aren’t stupid. It’d be a big flop without me, Tobey, or Sam. That would really not be the smartest move. But they know that already. [Sony chief] Amy Pascal would never do that.” Maguire has already expressed his ambivalence about returning for another sequel.
Sony’s President of Production Matt Tolmach tells EW that the studio is cautiously optimistic about retaining the team that launched the Spidey franchise so spectacularly: “Listen, we’re making Spider-Man 4. Our hope, dream and intention is to do it with Sam. But I don’t have a crystal ball.”
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now.
My gut tells me he is doing it. But will Peter be ok with Raimi doing it? They both had the same origin's in indie horror.
Mckellen is willing, he has said he is very sad he won't be able to do it with Jackson again and it won't be the same but he has said he will reprise Gandalf in the hobbit eitherway due to his love of playing him
The LOTR trilogy is going through the same thing star wars did on the internet.
The LOTR trilogy is going through the same thing star wars did on the internet.
Well if there was an internet in 1983 I'm sure there'd be a group of fanboys complaining about the movie 24/7.
The LOTR trilogy is going through the same thing star wars did on the internet.
Well if there was an internet in 1983 I'm sure there'd be a group of fanboys complaining about the movie 24/7.
Read those archived things on google groups. Star Wars fans bitching about Empire Strikes back nonstop in comparison to ANH back in 80-82ish.
When the movies were in the theater I don't remember barely anyone complaining. It wasn't until a couple years after that I started hearing "you know, ROTK was pretty sucky..." WTF?
QuoteWhen the movies were in the theater I don't remember barely anyone complaining. It wasn't until a couple years after that I started hearing "you know, ROTK was pretty sucky..." WTF?
I don´t leave in US, but as far as I know, even though the movies were a huge commercial success, ESB and ROTJ had, at best, mixed reviews by the critics (when they were launched).
Yes they both did. ESB was not a critical darling at all, its RT score and the like have been boosted due to SE reviews. Someone did a RT score only counting original scores and ESB got something like a 50%.QuoteWhen the movies were in the theater I don't remember barely anyone complaining. It wasn't until a couple years after that I started hearing "you know, ROTK was pretty sucky..." WTF?
I don´t leave in US, but as far as I know, even though the movies were a huge commercial success, ESB and ROTJ had, at best, mixed reviews by the critics (when they were launched).
Difference between Star Wars and Lord of the Rings Trilogies:
Lord of the Rings is actually great.
I just threw up in my mouth.
spoiler (click to show/hide)The Phantom Menace: 5/10
Attack of the Clones: 4/10
Revenge of the Sith: 7.5/10[close]
New Hope: 7.5I could easily roll with this.
Empire: 9.0
Jedi: 7.0
Fellowship: 8.0
Two Towers: 8.5
RotK: 8.5
Phantom Menace: 6.0
AotC: 5.0
RotS: 3.5
Pee Dee's IQ: 7.5
spoiler (click to show/hide)The Phantom Menace: 5/10
Attack of the Clones: 4/10
Revenge of the Sith: 7.5/10[close]
I have a higher threshold I guess. I see 7=C, 6=D and so on. TPM is C worthy. Competent but with bad acting and story telling but some damn nice action.
4 and 5 is more worth of like Lost in Space and Chronciles of Riddick to me.
spoiler (click to show/hide)The Phantom Menace: 5/10
Attack of the Clones: 4/10
Revenge of the Sith: 7.5/10[close]
I have a higher threshold I guess. I see 7=C, 6=D and so on. TPM is C worthy. Competent but with bad acting and story telling but some damn nice action.
4 and 5 is more worth of like Lost in Space and Chronciles of Riddick to me.
I suppose I could give Phantom Menace a 6 and that would be more fair.
For me
8=solid
7=ok
6=passable
5=bad
4=shit
You guys are worse than the old IGN Xbox review crew.I rate IGN style but I don't call myself a journalist.
Nobody calls them journalists either. :PYou guys are worse than the old IGN Xbox review crew.I rate IGN style but I don't call myself a journalist.
spoiler (click to show/hide)The Phantom Menace: 5/10
Attack of the Clones: 4/10
Revenge of the Sith: 7.5/10[close]
I have a higher threshold I guess. I see 7=C, 6=D and so on. TPM is C worthy. Competent but with bad acting and story telling but some damn nice action.
4 and 5 is more worth of like Lost in Space and Chronciles of Riddick to me.
I suppose I could give Phantom Menace a 6 and that would be more fair.
For me
8=solid
7=ok
6=passable
5=bad
4=shit
10=Amazing
9=Great
8=Good
7=Average
6=Bad
5=Horrible
4=Worst Thing Ever
I don't think I ever gone below a 4.
Pretty much perfect. :bow
Raiders: 10/10
Temple: 8/10
Crusade: 9/10
<3 Christopher Nolan
yup. the only weak point in insomnia was the casting of robin williams. some critics liked his performance, but i found that he just can't pull off "psychopath" that well -- he's just a tubby, hairy ball of unsubtle emoting.
what "few"? And its Memento. Not Momento.<3 Christopher Nolan
Except for a few films i totaly agree. Momento was so awesome
God king kong was horrible. how was the directors cut?It isn't a new cut really. Just thrown in deleted scenes. It's the same movie, but like 20 min longer.
20 MINUTES MORE OF KING KONG?
Off the top of my head, Id put Michael Mann, Chanwook Park, Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass, Martin Scorsese, Jean Pierre Jeunet, Michael Gondry, Fernando Mereilles, Alfonso Cuaron, Chris Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Sam Mendes, Oliver Hirshbeigel, Ridley Scott, Wong Kar Wai, Richard Linklater, and even Bryan Singer over Jackson, in terms of currently active directors.Bryan Singer, suprising! Usual Suspects was one of the best of the 90's and I am really looking forward to his Hitler film that he is doing next (before his next superman).
Kong still holds the spot for worst mainstream blockbuster of the decade for me thusfar.That means its worse then anything Roland Emmerich, McG, Micheal Bay, Nancy Meyers, Brett Ratner, or Rob Cohen has done in the last ten years.
Has Emmerich done anything of importance since the 90's though? Outside that global warming movie.Kong still holds the spot for worst mainstream blockbuster of the decade for me thusfar.That means its worse then anything Roland Emmerich, McG, Micheal Bay, Nancy Meyers, Brett Ratner, or Rob Cohen has done in the last ten years.
are you sure you don't want to reconsider that last statement? At least Kong had the bugpit scene, that was hella cool.
Kong still holds the spot for worst mainstream blockbuster of the decade for me thusfar.That means its worse then anything Roland Emmerich, McG, Micheal Bay, Nancy Meyers, Brett Ratner, or Rob Cohen has done in the last ten years.
are you sure you don't want to reconsider that last statement? At least Kong had the bugpit scene, that was hella cool.
Has Emmerich done anything of importance since the 90's though? Outside that global warming movie.he did Godzilla 98' (still within last decade) which makes him and me enemies for life. Also he did Bravehart in America, um, I meant The Patriot(also shit).
well he said he said in this decade, not in the last 10 years.Has Emmerich done anything of importance since the 90's though? Outside that global warming movie.he did Godzilla 98' (still within last decade) which makes him and me enemies for life. Also he did Bravehart in America, um, I meant The Patriot(also shit).
Nolan's style is just incredibly engaging even without big budget. Whereas with Jackson, I need him and his special effects group to engage me with expensive visuals. Granted The Frighteners is a great movie, but its really not as engaging as say Prestige or Memento. Jackson got lucky with LotR because while the screenplay adaptation was excellent, he really just needed to bring OMG special effects to the table.
I mean if you take away the LEGACY of LOTR you end up with King Kong. Which sucked.
:lol
Phoenix Dark sounds like he wrote the forward for the Making of Lord of the Rings book. :lol
Jackson's involvement with the screenplay was limited at best, it was mostly Boyens and Walsh. Jackson has never been a good screenwriter, so you can't really credit him with its success. Also, it was an adaptation - meaning it wasn't original. Even Jackson said the more faithful they were to the source material, the better it was. MAF is right, Lord of the Rings just needed high production values and Jackson brought those. Most fantasy films die or prosper on their visuals.
Jackson says on the EE commentaries he barely wrote and the girls did most of everything writing wise and he laughed that he was lucky enough to get credit for the script. I say this as a fan of LOTR, PD his involvement in the scripts is barely there.
He is the public media face, his wife does not like the spot light at all.
I'll do my own rating that's a page late, but whatev.
ANH: 7.5/10
ESB: 9.5/10
ROTJ: 6/10
FotR: 10/10
TT: 7/10
RotK: 9.5
RotLA: 10/10 easily
ToD: 5/10
TLC: 8/10
I really enjoyed Return of the King. *shrugs* I realize it's basically a CG jerkfest, but I thought it was very well executed. The multiple ending shit was pretty annoying, but hey, that's pretty much the novel too. And fuck yeah, Howard Shore's score is fucking totally UNF UNF UNF. Love love LOVE that score. Really made the films 20 times more emotional.
I dunno if I'd agree, at least with regards to Fellowship -- he chose the locales and directed some of those really grand shots. He also managed to make Orlando Bloom -- a terrible actor if there was one -- palatable. If "effect shots" truly were his sole contributions, there wouldn't be this huge disparity (as I see it) between FotR and RotK, since the latter movie is ALL effect shots and hamfisted editing.fellowship is the best in the trilogy.
Where in the Tokien book did the following occur:
"Frodo blinked in the bright sunlight, but his eyes were glazed over with some sort of strange translucent substance. It felt as though he was in a dreamland, albeit a dreamland typified by heavy sepia saturation and high radiosity post-processing effects. And where was Sam? Oh, here he is, running into the room. "Oh Mister Frodo!" his life companion breathed, his dulcet tenor ripe with homosexual tension. And Merry, and Pippin too! Oh joy! Frodo grasped each one in turn, and they leapt upon the bed, where they bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and bounced and "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS GAY SHIT" boomed Gandalf despite his own notorious penchant for sodomy. "Ah fuckit," the old wizard muttered, and smiled a simpering grin of pseudo-fatherly affection. The music swelled.
I am no rotk hater but to throw something out there:
The original novel of Planet of the Apes ended with the fucked up abe lincoln monkey statue with apes in modern america but that didn't excuse the burton film critizism of using the original dumb ending.
Did we ever get a coherent explanation for that ending? I remember when it was released, FOX was like, "Oh, well, you'll find out... in the sequel!" But I guess nobody wanted to do one.well it was used in the book exactly as is in the burton film and the guy never wrote a sequel(same guy who wrote the novel bridge over the river kwai oddly enough)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ff8nxEdEk -- hobbit bed bounce scene redubbed. Some of you may remember this.
Did you not see the Tim Burton re-imagining of Planet of the Apes that came out a few years ago? Thankfully, it was something that has been quickly forgotten from pop-culture, like declining franchise sequels (see Superman IV or Jaws: The Revenge) or awful remakes (Vince Vaughn in Psycho). It had good Rick Baker makeup, but that's about it.
At any rate, it ends with Marky Mark sent to some future or past or something where he lands at the Mall in Washington D.C. Where the Abraham Lincoln monument should be stands an Abraham Lincoln MONKEY monument, and monkeys are in charge of this modern human-like society.
Am I the only person who wanted to kill some monkeys after watching that movie? There should be a trust fund or something so you can contribute money towards this goal - sort of like those "save a child" charities, except here you'd be getting monthly reports on how many apes were killed in your namewatch the sequels. Heston is the reason of the take over! In the second Heston has his monkey pals from the first go back to earth(HUMAN earth) to save themselves the monkey couple get there and their offspring lead the monkey rebellion lol.