|
Post by Thunder Child on Dec 4, 2005 15:25:49 GMT
guys, i'm beginning to become hopefull again :-)
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Dec 4, 2005 18:37:44 GMT
Scorcesee recently said he would like to do a science fiction movie. If he did The War of the Worlds, that would be, well... interesting. Anthony That would be interesting. He might have Joe Pesci saying things like "I'm gonna whack those alien motherf***ers" or "Dance you Martian pr**ks!" "Hey Curate what the F**K is so funny about me?" before he shoots him in the back of the head, chops him up into little pieces and feeds him to the lions at the local zoo.
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 4, 2005 18:53:01 GMT
All directors are better than Spielberg!!!
|
|
|
Post by Anim8tr on Dec 4, 2005 20:07:36 GMT
Scorcesee recently said he would like to do a science fiction movie. If he did The War of the Worlds, that would be, well... interesting. Anthony That would be interesting. He might have Joe Pesci saying things like "I'm gonna whack those alien motherf***ers" or "Dance you Martian pr**ks!" "Hey Curate what the F**K is so funny about me?" before he shoots him in the back of the head, chops him up into little pieces and feeds him to the lions at the local zoo. LMAO! ;D That's hilarious! Perhaps a bit twisted, but hilarious! Posted by marciano on Yesterday at 6:53pm All directors are better than Spielberg!!! Yeah, sure they are.
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Dec 6, 2005 19:28:27 GMT
I think people put too much stock in PJ, not sayting he is a bad director, but I think the LOTR trilogy is over rated...
I rather have Ridly Scott, M Night or perhaps some fresh talent do it...
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 6, 2005 19:35:45 GMT
The LOTR trilogy is not over rated: Good Will Hunting is over rated!!!
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Dec 6, 2005 19:51:21 GMT
both of them are over rated in my opinion actually... look I am sorry but LOTR did not impress me, mainly because I am not into fantasy films (though I do have exceptions) and I hate the way people treat PJ like a god when LOTR is the only good thing he as done so far (In my opinion)
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Dec 6, 2005 20:32:56 GMT
Actually, I thought PJ's early films like Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles and Braindead were great. They were classic comedy/gore movies, really well done even though on a small budget. I'd like to see him do something like that again, but he's in the big league now so it's unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Dec 6, 2005 22:07:49 GMT
well I will give some preps to PJ's early films... Bad Taste wasnt that bad, I did find it hilarious in some place but it had sclock all over it. I know that was the intention of the film but I have seen better more humorous shlock (plan 9 ) Meet the feebles also wasnt bad... but not as good as Bad taste in schlock factor. and braindead... err more of the same... then there is heavenly creatures, a film that seems to show the real talents of PJ. In some ways I like it better then LOTR, but in others... ehhh
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Dec 28, 2005 22:28:53 GMT
I liked frightners!!! Great fun!
Ridley Scott do a movie. Hes good at doing films where little happens most of the time. Hed make PP walkabouts look like a breif stroll. Alien was a good film but I know many who thought it was drawn out...
The Brits would do a good version for the Brits. But would the rest of the world appreciate the atmosphere of the setting. One source of hope is the wallace and gromit film where it seems foreigners are taking interest in the little town settings of English Britain. Something the film industry doesn't often portray unless it's in London with a gangsta story line.
Thanks to the EEC we will have to wait along time for the next version to be made here.
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Dec 29, 2005 21:04:30 GMT
I really like The Frighteners too! I would love to see a Tim Burton adaptation of WOTW. He would nail the aesthetic and spirit of the text, but I don't know how closely he would adhere to it.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Dec 29, 2005 22:58:00 GMT
I really like The Frighteners too! I would love to see a Tim Burton adaptation of WOTW. He would nail the aesthetic and spirit of the text, but I don't know how closely he would adhere to it. Here bloody here! (I agree)
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Dec 30, 2005 0:27:49 GMT
Yeah.. an adaption with Tim Burton's trademark gothic touch would be interesting.. but I'm not sure it would be the definative version. I love his movies though.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jan 1, 2006 19:17:04 GMT
As mentioned elsewhere (I can't remember who by) but we are more likely to see a faithful version being done as a BBC dramatisation.
With the recent output of the beeb- especially when you look at the nature documentaries over the last few years as well as their considerable experience with period dramas, not to mention years of Doctor Who (making a big comeback), outside Jeff Wayne's work, I think this is the best chance for the book. Even the Tripods series, for their flaws (the 80's and the budget!) were fairly faithful to the books and did a reasonable job.
Perhaps we and all of the WOTW web community should start lobbying....
ps Heavenly Creatures was also a great Peter Jackson film.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jan 2, 2006 0:38:52 GMT
I was one of a few who think the BBC could do a great job with it. They can do wonders nowadays and they wouldn't need a super-spielberg sized budget. I really wish they'd have a crack at it. They should get the guy who adapted 'Bleak House', Andrew Davies, to write the script, he did a great job.. although I'd prefer a WotW in bigger chunks rather than spreading in half hour segments it over two months or whatever it was.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Jan 2, 2006 1:37:26 GMT
Fraid Jeff Waynes would have something to say about that!!!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jan 13, 2006 21:43:52 GMT
You can make a *good* film by literalizing a novel as a film; that is, making as close an adaptation as possible, making as few changes as possible in the transition from book to film. The Harry Potter films and the recent "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" are some examples of very close adaptations which are good films. But to make a *great* film, one must take liberties with the source. Cinema is visual storytelling, the printed word is not. What works best in a book and what works best on screen can often be very different. "The Wizard of Oz" is an example of a Great fantasy film, and it takes great liberties with its source. Likewise, Peter Jackson had the daring, the imagination, and (most rarely) the ability to pull off making better movies out of LOTR than would have been the case had they been mere literalizations. LOTR is my very favorite fantasy novel/series, but I do agree that parts of the novel were best left out. Particularly the overlong anti-climax of the "scouring of the shire" which composes so much of The Return of the King. Good riddance to it. Tolkien was performing an intellectual excercise in the creation of a new myth cycle based on traditional English, Welsh, German and Scandinavian myths. If he had consciously set out to write a bestseller, I think he might have structured and paced LOTR differently. There are other changes Jackson made which I don't agree with. But here's the thing: Jackson unquestionably made a much better movie than it would have been had *I* been the one with creative control, or if he had hewed more closely to the source material. Some Tolkien purists voiced their outrage over "The Fellowship of the Ring". How dare Jackson make changes to "their" favorite books? I'm sure that if someone likewise made an adaptation faithful to the spirit and tone of WOTW that many Wells purists would be similarly outraged. In fact, that has happened. The George Pal version was a very good or possibly even Great movie which took liberties with the source, while remaining true to the spirit and tone of the book. Yet one doesn't have to look far on this forum to see many, many complaints about the liberties Pal took. No Tripods? No blood-sucking? No Black Smoke? And those force fields! How DARE he!!! So even if someone made a Great period adaptation of WOTW but, as Jackson does, took liberties with the novel in order to make a better film, I'm sure many purists here would be outraged. But like those Tolkien purists-- and isn't it odd how their complaints seem to have died out as the movie trilogy continued to produce the finest fantasy films of all time? <snicker> -- they would be in the vast minority. So, Nerfherder, you may prefer a literalization of novels such as LOTR and WOTW. I personally would prefer something better. -LotR is not a period film so saying he would get the detail right is a little uncertain. Actually, Jackson went to a great deal of trouble in researching and visualizing the different types of clothing, architecture, and weaponry appropriate for the various races and cultures. He even went to the extent of having a dialogue coach to help the actors pronounce Tolkien's words and names correctly. (For instance, the final "f" in "Gandalf" is pronounced as a "v".) And now that Jackson's "King Kong" has come out we can see the attention he's lavished to the period New York background, autos, and clothing. I give him full marks in this category. However, Nerfherder, I agree that Jackson isn't necessarily the best one to direct WOTW. As you noted, he injected humor into LOTR in places it wasn't present, and I'll admit to personally being a bit irked at his making Gimli into a clown. In The Hobbit the dwarves were often buffonish, but Gimli in the LOTR novel is never such. Could Ridley Scott pull off a Great period production of WOTW? Certainly he has the talent for it, and-- unlike Peter Jackson-- has established himself as being willing and able to take on large projects which are ultimately pessimistic in tone, such as "Gladiator" and "Blade Runner". He doesn't seem to be nearly as interested as Jackson is over period detail, tho; a friend of mine just about frothed at the mouth over all the historical errors in "Gladiator". I confess the pixilated style of the action sequences on "Gladiator" and "Black Hawk Down" are not at all to my taste. Jackson seems to be interested in labor of loves. Both LOTR and "King Kong" were projects he was in love with, even obsessed with. I think if Jackson really *wanted* to do WOTW he would do something I would love. But as has been pointed out, there's no evidence Jackson has any interest in WOTW. Ridley Scott seems more interested in his own vision than in the source material. "Blade Runner" is one of my very favorite SF films, but I think it owes more to Ridley Scott's vision and Sid Mead's designs than it does to Philip K. Dick's original novel. I'm not a fan of Dick's works; if I was, I would surely like "Blade Runner" a lot less. Who would be the best auteur to make a Great period production of WOTW? I dunno, but it certainly is interesting to discuss the matter!
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jan 13, 2006 22:25:09 GMT
Ken Russell?! ;D
|
|