Spider-Man 4 canned. Current franchise dead. Reboot in 2012 with no Raimi

[Cormacaroni]

all those hundreds of millions of demons, tearing at his soul. awww

[The Fake Shemp]

I think, in all honesty, he obviously felt bad about the experience after Spider-Man 3 wrapped - both professionally and for the fans. It's why he was so reluctant to start rolling on Spider-Man 4, but I think it's become apparent that rebooting the series has been Sony's plan for quite some time.

[Phoenix Dark]

Eh, so far it sounds like it's a pretty collaborative effort between Jackson's camp and Del Toro; that wasn't a concern. Makes more sense that he was concerned about the scrutiny/hype. No matter how good The Hobbit turns out I doubt it will live up to the expectations of many fans.

I'm excited about Del Toro being involved, and was also hella excited when Raimi's name was attached. Would have definitely been an interesting marriage

[The Fake Shemp]

It has potential, but I'm pretty lukewarm on the whole effort. It seems like a production born out of a sole desire to make money, rather than a heartfelt commitment to the source material. Even with Del Toro, it could still turn out to be mediocre.

I'm not excited about World of WarCraft either. That's one step up from directing a Super Mario Bros. sequel. But Sam's got to eat. Besides, who else will cast his brother if he doesn't take a directing gig?

[Phoenix Dark]

Agreed on both counts. On one hand I have faith in Jackson/Walsh/Boyens, on the other hand I'm concerned about this being the bastard child of studio drama and greed (the book is 300 pages, come on). And then there's the question of whether they LOTR-ize the movie. The Hobbit is very different from LOTR, both in tone and scale. If they make something that feels like the beginning of FOTR for instance, that would work. But turning this into a blockbuster, huge adventure to destroy some sinister evil would be a mistake.

Warcraft meh. I dunno which story they're going to use; seems like Arthas is the best place to start.

[Cormacaroni]

Yeah, the Hobbit should be light and frothy and relatively brief - all indications are that this will be overwrought and 'epic'. Skeptical in the extreme.

[border]

I'm mostly wondering whether they will actually call the movie "World of Warcraft" or just "Warcraft".  Or maybe something with a subtitle like "Warcraft: The Fall of Arthas".

Is WoW definitely the next course on Raimi's plate, or will he maybe do an Evil Dead sequel/reboot/remake?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

While a WoW movie could very likely turn out ridiculous and bad, I'm more excited about it than The Hobbit, which is just two (TWO!) more Lord of the Rings movies we sure as hell don't need

[Green Shinobi]

Speak for yourself. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing Smaug on the big screen.

[chronovore]

While a WoW movie could very likely turn out ridiculous and bad, I'm more excited about it than The Hobbit, which is just two (TWO!) more Lord of the Rings movies we sure as hell don't need

If you're not excited about Guillerlellermo Del Bull's THE HOBBIT, you have coal for a heart.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

COAL!  :'(

[close]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

While a WoW movie could very likely turn out ridiculous and bad, I'm more excited about it than The Hobbit, which is just two (TWO!) more Lord of the Rings movies we sure as hell don't need

If you're not excited about Guillerlellermo Del Bull's THE HOBBIT, you have coal for a heart.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

COAL!  :'(

[close]

I prefer The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings but I don't need to see a movie, especially an overwrought movie in the style of LotR. Also I want to see The Strain, In the Mountains of Madness, some Spanish horror movie, Jesus, ANYTHING from Del Toro. What a fucking waste of a talented man.

[The Fake Shemp]

Is WoW definitely the next course on Raimi's plate, or will he maybe do an Evil Dead sequel/reboot/remake?

There is no Evil Dead project in the works, no matter how hard fans wish to make it so. I think a remake is still on the table, but Raimi would just serve as producer and have limited input. The real last hope for Bruce Campbell to reprise his role was Freddy vs Jason vs Ash, but you can pretty much blame Raimi for nixing that idea.

[Phoenix Dark]

While a WoW movie could very likely turn out ridiculous and bad, I'm more excited about it than The Hobbit, which is just two (TWO!) more Lord of the Rings movies we sure as hell don't need

That's pretty ridiculous. WoW is going to suck. At the least, The Hobbit will look amazing and bring some great scenes to life. Can't wait to see Smaug

[cool breeze]

I want a Warcraft movie if only to get a video game tie-in, hopefully one that isn't a stupid mmo

[Howard Alan Treesong]

It will be so exciting to see Smaug brought to life! I mean, he's a dragon, and, uh, er, he's a dragon...

[The Fake Shemp]

Yes, but in the novel, it is an amazing moment with a dragon! Imagine a mediocre, overwrought epic that is three hours too long with one, incredible moment! Are you not excited?

[Great Rumbler]

The Hobbit pre-hate? Lolololol

[The Fake Shemp]

If by "hate" you mean "not being terribly excited about a venture born solely out of money that is turning a light children's story into a two-part LOTR epic", then yes, it's totally hate.

Fanboys.

[Eric P]

you are an antifan!

you are a yobnaf!

[Great Rumbler]

From what Del Toro has said, The Hobbit movies aren't going to be carbon copies of the LOTR trilogy with a different story/characters.

Q: Is it going to be more intimate?

I wish I could spoil it! All I can say is that we have an incredibly good team of people who know we are not making another Rings. We are not trying to make a quadrilogy, or a pentilogy. We’re tying to make two films that flow with those but that stand on their own completely.

We want to avoid stuff that is not part of the DNA, that is not part of the lexicon, but we also don’t want people to feel “We’ve seen this”.

Except where that familiarity is comforting, like Hobbiton or Rivendell – then you want to feel like you’re coming back home to a movie that you love and cherish.

Q: Presumably it will also be a bit more magical? Have a stronger fairytale vibe?

It is in many ways just what you enjoy in the book. You enjoy an almost chamber piece, like when the stone trolls talk about cooking the dwarves.

It’s such a small piece but at the same time it’s magical and it’s almost a comedy, that you have these enormous creatures talking about cooking these dwarves!

Q: It wouldn’t be a Guillermo del Toro movie unless it possessed a poetic quality, surely?

There is a lot of magic in the film. Peter has the eye of a strong historian, in the sense that the trilogy is incredibly accurate to a world that was created. He’s like an archaeologist who’s digging something that existed. I think that The Hobbit has a little bit more poetic licence.

It has… How can I say it? It has a little bit more flamboyance.

[The Fake Shemp]

Yes, as if Del Toro would say, "Yeah, my goal is to make a derivative prequel that plays on fanboy sensibilities."

There's no reason for a Hobbit movie in the first place, but there's no good reason why it should be two films.

I'm expecting Pan's Labyrinth of the Rings.

[Mupepe]

Sounds good to me.

Sounds like Hobbit fanboys are the ones getting their panties in a bunch.  i just want some of Jackson's and Del Toro's fuckbaby covering my face in IMAX.  Call it Lord of the Hobbits or Pan's Hobbit or The Hobbit.  I don't give a shit.  I want to see what they come up with.  just being honest.  I don't give a shit how faithful it is to the hobbit's story or tone.  I have the book for that.

[The Fake Shemp]

Uh, nobody is decrying it for taking liberties with the source material, we're just saying there is absolutely no excuse for two films, other than to make it overwrought and pry dollars from fanboy wallets.

Buy, yeah, have fun with that.

[Dickie Dee]

Has the length of the two films been discussed? Maybe they prefer 2 ~90-120min movies instead of creating movies with a more light-hearted tone that is 3+ hours long.

[Mupepe]

Uh, nobody is decrying it for taking liberties with the source material, we're just saying there is absolutely no excuse for two films, other than to make it overwrought and pry dollars from fanboy wallets.

Buy, yeah, have fun with that.

I wasn't pointing at you.  I was pointing at other nerds.  Like ones at GAF who complain that they're interjecting Gandalf's stories into it from the works and coming up with bits by themselves.  The only part directed at anybody in this thread was regarding the "tone" of the movies.  Like I said.  Do not care.  I'm seeing this more so I can have PJ and Del Toro wank material than I am for my LOTR or Hobbit wanking.

[Great Rumbler]

Yes, as if Del Toro would say, "Yeah, my goal is to make a derivative prequel that plays on fanboy sensibilities."

There's no reason for a Hobbit movie in the first place, but there's no good reason why it should be two films.

I'm expecting Pan's Labyrinth of the Rings.

Uh, more likely he would have said "We're working to tie in the two Hobbits movies with the three LOTR movies by using the established tone and style."

But he didn't.

[The Fake Shemp]

He actually pretty much says when there is a need for it, such familiarity will exist in his two films. Good to know you read your own quote there!

Again, no sane filmmaker is going to say, "YEAH YOU'RE TOTALLY GOING TO FEEL LIKE IT'S THE SAME MOVIE"

[Great Rumbler]

He actually pretty much says when there is a need for it, such familiarity will exist in his two films. Good to know you read your own quote there!

Except where that familiarity is comforting, like Hobbiton or Rivendell – then you want to feel like you’re coming back home to a movie that you love and cherish.

So, a few scenes then. Why, that's pretty much the entire movie!

[The Fake Shemp]

My point was to address your claim that he says that the films won't even overlap in style or tone, but within the context of your own quote he says that's not necessarily true. And if you think the similarities and fanboy pandering will stop at Hobbiton and Rivendell, I have a bridge to Gravina Island to sell you.

[Dickie Dee]

Regarding the "tone", you can't change the fact the Hobbit was written as a children's book completely before, and independant of LotR, but the LotR movies already exist and I don't see how they can be ignored.

[Great Rumbler]

My point was to address your claim that he says that the films won't even overlap in style or tone, but within the context of your own quote he says that's not necessarily true. And if you think the similarities and fanboy pandering will stop at Hobbiton and Rivendell, I have a bridge to Gravina Island to sell you.

I think it's pretty clear what he said, and what I said about what he said, they're not going to tear down the Rivendell and Hobbiton sets and build new ones that are completely different because they do want some connection between The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy, but that The Hobbit is still its own story with its own particularly style.

Q: Presumably it will also be a bit more magical? Have a stronger fairytale vibe?

It is in many ways just what you enjoy in the book. You enjoy an almost chamber piece, like when the stone trolls talk about cooking the dwarves.

It’s such a small piece but at the same time it’s magical and it’s almost a comedy, that you have these enormous creatures talking about cooking these dwarves!

I think that The Hobbit has a little bit more poetic licence.

It has… How can I say it? It has a little bit more flamboyance.

We are not trying to make a quadrilogy, or a pentilogy.

All I can say is that we have an incredibly good team of people who know we are not making another Rings.

[The Fake Shemp]

And I'm saying, what do you expect him to say? "Uh, yeah, I'm making the same movie."

Geez, Great Rumbler, you're such a Talkbacker sometimes.

[Great Rumbler]

And I'm saying, what do you expect him to say? "Uh, yeah, I'm making the same movie."

What do you expect him to say? "Uh, yeah, the LOTR movies are pretty much overwrought, overlong and mediocre epics. We're completely going to ignore that they ever existed and just do our own thing."

[The Fake Shemp]

I expect him to say what he just said. It's all Hollywood babble. I'm not quoting or referencing anything Del Toro is saying, because it's irrelevant. The relevant facts are that the production was started solely for money (unless it's always been Peter Jackson's dream to executive produce a two-part adaptation of The Hobbit for a lump sum of cash following a very successful trilogy) and that it's two fucking films.

And if you think for one second that any studio is financing a project that they can't market as LORD OF THE RINGS 2: RING HARDER, you're just delusional.

[TEEEPO]

If by "hate" you mean "not being terribly excited about a venture born solely out of money that is turning a light children's story into a two-part LOTR epic", then yes, it's totally hate.

Fanboys.

tell me if i'm reading this right. you're selling the idea that integrity takes precedence over money and profits in the realm of first cinema hollywood productions, because the problem i'm having is i can't think of a single studio movie that is not born solely out of remunerative incentives.

[The Fake Shemp]

Huh, do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[Joe Molotov]

I don't know why you guys are arguing with Wilco, he didn't even like GOLDEN GLOBE® NOMINEE and Highest Grossing Film of All-Time, James Cameron's Avatar. Sounds like he just doesn't like movies.

[The Fake Shemp]

I hate movies!

Oh, I think I get TEEPO's argument. He's trying to say that all productions are born solely as money-making ventures, which is not true. Most blockbusters are, but even Hollywood suits know that a good film makes good money most times. Then there are times you leverage brand strength for box office dollars, such as The Hobbit or any of the shitty X-Men films.

[Great Rumbler]

I expect him to say what he just said. It's all Hollywood babble. I'm not quoting or referencing anything Del Toro is saying, because it's irrelevant. The relevant facts are that the production was started solely for money (unless it's always been Peter Jackson's dream to executive produce a two-part adaptation of The Hobbit for a lump sum of cash following a very successful trilogy) and that it's two fucking films.

And if you think for one second that any studio is financing a project that they can't market as LORD OF THE RINGS 2: RING HARDER, you're just delusional.

Yes, they want money. Yes, they'll market this as LOTR Part 2. Yes, they probably split it into two movies because they want to maximize their profits on the endeavor.

Now what does that have to with whether or not The Hobbit is going to be a carbon copy of the LOTR movies?

[TEEEPO]

I hate movies!

Oh, I think I get TEEPO's argument. He's trying to say that all productions are born solely as money-making ventures, which is not true.

i'm not trying to make an arguement, i'm just trying to figure out yours since its rather difficult at times with your incessant whining.

Most blockbusters are, but even Hollywood suits know that a good film makes good money most times. Then there are times you leverage brand strength for box office dollars, such as The Hobbit or any of the shitty X-Men films.

isn't the point of any studio film to create a franchise be it through the title, genre, director, actor or even the writers for the sake of exploiting and maximizing future profit potential? and are you trying to tell me that quality some how negates the incentive of making profit?

[The Fake Shemp]

isn't the point of any studio film to create a franchise be it through the title, genre, director, actor or even the writers for the sake of exploiting and maximizing future profit potential?

No.

and are you trying to tell me that quality some how negates the incentive of making profit?

I never said that either.

[The Fake Shemp]

Yes, they want money. Yes, they'll market this as LOTR Part 2. Yes, they probably split it into two movies because they want to maximize their profits on the endeavor.

So they're only splitting The Hobbit into two films because they want to maximize profits, and each will only be 80 minutes long, instead of, y'know, two overly long films?

[Great Rumbler]

Yes, they want money. Yes, they'll market this as LOTR Part 2. Yes, they probably split it into two movies because they want to maximize their profits on the endeavor.

So they're only splitting The Hobbit into two films because they want to maximize profits, and each will only be 80 minutes long, instead of, y'know, two overly long films?

Anything more than "80 minutes" is overly long? 

[The Fake Shemp]

If The Hobbit is over three hours, then yes, it is overly long.

[Mupepe]

But it's not just the hobbit as we know it.  They said they're taking side stories from his other works and interjecting them as well. 

[The Fake Shemp]

Wow, that changes everything. So now it's overlong and needlessly convoluted.

[border]

It's always disappointing to see educated artists who fail to understand that there is no such thing as a "quadrilogy". 

[The Fake Shemp]

Fox begs to differ, border.

[border]

Uggggh, that stupid box set ruined everything.

At least Raimi bailing on Spider Man means that I will have to hear the word "quadrilogy" 90% less than I would have otherwise.

[Great Rumbler]

Fox begs to differ, border.

(Image removed from quote.)

They made four Alien movies?  

[The Fake Shemp]

Would you prefer people use the term "tetralogy" instead?

[Mupepe]

Wow, that changes everything. So now it's overlong and needlessly convoluted.

Well that's just like... your opinion... man.

[The Fake Shemp]

They made four Alien movies?  

They made three Alien movies

[Eric P]

they made two alien movies? 

[Eric P]

[Great Rumbler]

They made four Alien movies?  

They made three Alien movies

Uh...maybe? I remember something about the Fight Club guy wanting to do one, but I don't think anything came out of it. Wasn't it canceled right before release or something?

[The Fake Shemp]

Well that's just like... your opinion... man.

Opinions are like cowboy hats, everybody has one. That's true.

... but you'd be hard pressed to find a filmmaker that will tell you the proper way to adapt a self-contained story is to spread it out and fill it with stuff from ancillary works. That's just ridiculous. And that is why I have pretty much no faith in The Hobbit. The novel could make for a pretty good, self contained film, but this desire to turn it into a sprawling epic just reeks of trying to placate fanboys.

[Mupepe]

I see where you're coming from, Willco.  Like I said, I'm just blinded by my love for PJ and Del Toro.  Because of the source material and talent involved, I have faith that it will turn out pretty awesome anyways.  Plus, to be honest, I don't really care for the hobbit.    I'd rather it be re-imagined. 

Now some hobbit dude is going to come in here and hate me.

[Joe Molotov]

They made 6 Alien movies?

[AdmiralViscen]

Thats weird, i thought willco really cared about studio profits and loves financially motivated decision making.