13 replies to this topic

[Overstreet]

Look what Peter Jackson has started.

[SDG]

Quote

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I think the writer is reaching to see this as part of a post-LOTR "trend."

Quote

Meanwhile, Miramax's genre division, Dimension, is developing its own fantasy franchise based on T.A. Barron's The Lost Years of Merlin, about the Arthurian wizard as a young boy.

They missed the boat. The tale of Merlin's childhood was correctly told by Mary Stewart in Book 1 of her Merlin Trilogy, The Crystal Cave.

Quote

"Peter Pan is a great fantasy, but audiences didn't embrace it," Emmerich observes. "They'd rather see Cheaper by the Dozen."

Does anyone have any thoughts about the box office failure of Peter Pan, btw? Was it a failure of marketing? A lack of public interest? A failure to sell the concept? An inability to get out from behind the Disney version? What? I don't think it was a great film, but I'm surprised it didn't generate more interest than it did.

[Darrel Manson]

The reason I haven't seen Peter Pan is that there have been too many others to see. I think the Christmas release worked against it. The trailers I saw made it look like a darker Peter Pan than most people expect, which may have discouraged parents from taking kids.

[opus]

Whaaaa?!? I knew that Elric movies were in the works, but by the guys who directed "American Pie"? I hope they don't turn the saga into films for 12-year old anarchists - that just cheapens the angst of those books.

[Anders]

Quote

Whaaaa?!? I knew that Elric movies were in the works, but by the guys who directed "American Pie"? I hope they don't turn the saga into films for 12-year old anarchists - that just cheapens the angst of those books.

Well, Chris and Paul Weitz did also direct About A Boy, which in my book redeems them, as it was one of my favorite films of 2002.

Quote

The reason I haven't seen Peter Pan is that there have been too many others to see.

This is basically what I feel, I want to see Peter Pan, but I just don't have the time to do so, though I will see it eventually.

Quote

Quote

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I think the writer is reaching to see this as part of a post-LOTR "trend."

As do I, if anything this is a part of the post-Harry Potter "trend" than anything. Though, I've not yet read the books, though was considering it. Anyone know if they're any good?

[BethR]

Quote

Adamson, who first read the storybooks as a boy, says, "I always thought Narnia was real. I don't want to make the book as much as my memory of the book. Aslan has to be a talking, emoting character."

Oh boy, that doesn't sound so good. I hope Adamson will refresh his memory before he starts actually making these movies, or else goodness knows how they'll end up. He might do better to follow Peter Jackson's example.

[Andrew]

A sequel to the Lord of the Rings?! Where's the gag emoticon when you need it?

[Peter T Chattaway]

Andrew wrote:
: A sequel to the Lord of the Rings?! Where's the gag emoticon when you need it?

What have you got against The Hobbit (which is not a sequel, BTW, but a prequel)?

My only qualm, there, is that The Hobbit is a very different sort of story from The Lord of the Rings (as Frodo himself acknowledges in TFotR), so if Jackson were to direct it, I would hope he could somehow alter his directorial style to suit the differences there.

[teresakayep]

Anders asked about A Series of Unfortunate Events

FWIW, I think the books are fabulous. But I'm not sure they'll make good movies. What's truly clever about the books is the word play, and I can't see that working as well on screen. And Jim Carrey as Count Olaf? I'm skeptical. Olaf is sinister--a silly kind of sinister--but sinister just the same. I can't see Carrey in the role.

--Teresa

[Diane]

Quote

Andrew wrote:
: A sequel to the Lord of the Rings?! Where's the gag emoticon when you need it?

What have you got against The Hobbit (which is not a sequel, BTW, but a prequel)?

I'm jumping in here, but I think this is what Andrew was referring to:

Quote

New Line may just toss a few new Rings titles out there. It has production rights to Tolkien's original Middle-earth tale, The Hobbit, although the situation is complicated by MGM/UA's distribution ownership. "There's a reasonable possibility that we can negotiate an arrangement," New Line co-chairman Bob Shaye says.

The studio also has the rights to create its own original prequel or sequel to The Lord of the Rings, but would pursue the projects only if Jackson would be involved again.

I thought only of the Hobbit, too, but had to reread the article after Andrew's post.

Diane

[Overstreet]

John Rhys-Davies was here at Seattle Pacific this weekend and spoke to students about a great many things in his own long-winded and meandering way. It was great. He even sang the Sallah song from "Raiders." Then I had a whole hour to sit and interview him. Man, that guy can talk.

Anyway, on the subject of The Hobbit he had some very interesting things to share. He said that Jackson struggles with the idea, because The Hobbit has some things that would be difficult for an audience to accept... for example, that the dragon, toward which we travel for the whole story, is NOT SLAIN BY THE HERO, but by a minor character who pops up in the end. Something, he said, would probably have to be done about that.

This just feeds the fire of my misgivings about a Hobbit flick. I think Jackson would feel the need to make it "fit" with the LOTR flicks, which means it would be much darker, scarier, and lacking in that light and whimsical character that dominates the book. I hope the movie isn't made.

[Andrew]

I dunno, I could see PJ doing 'The Hobbit' well -- eg, fleshing out the character of Smaug's slayer (I forget the chap's name) as he did the character of Arwen throughout the film trilogy.

What really concerns me, however, is the idea of an original sequel to LOTR (i.e., a film that occurs chronologically after ROTK). Sorry if my earlier post here wasn't clear on this point.

[BethR]

Quote

I dunno, I could see PJ doing 'The Hobbit' well -- eg, fleshing out the character of Smaug's slayer (I forget the chap's name) as he did the character of Arwen throughout the film trilogy.

What really concerns me, however, is the idea of an original sequel to LOTR (i.e., a film that occurs chronologically after ROTK). Sorry if my earlier post here wasn't clear on this point.

The guy who kills Smaug is "Bard," IIRC; his character could be built up somewhat without damaging the story too much, maybe, but really--it's Bilbo's story, and the dwarves', and to try to change that would be asking for trouble in a lot of ways. I think one thing the LotR movies demonstrated, although they certainly brought a whole new audience to the books, is that the books already had an enormous fanbase that the movie moguls were almost completely unaware of. I'd venture to say that the same thing is true of The Hobbit, and playing fast-and-loose with essential plot and character points won't go over well.

As for sequels to LotR...I'm skeptical. Something might be done with stories from the Silmarillion--but of course, those would be, strictly speaking, "prequels." The problem Jackson (or anyone else) would face in attempting an "original sequel" is matching Tolkien's vision and style. As it was, the movies were weakest (IMO) when the dialogue was "original" rather than Tolkien's. But I'm cranky about that sort of thing, so maybe most people wouldn't notice. But I think they would notice the lack of sweeping heroic plot, characters, etc.

Better to move on to "something completely different" and let LotR stand as the monumental achievement it is.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Andrew wrote:
: What really concerns me, however, is the idea of an original sequel to
: LOTR (i.e., a film that occurs chronologically after ROTK).

I dunno, maybe they could finally do the Scouring of the Shire.