Thirith on 18/10/2010 at 14:34
There's a rumour quoted on IMDB that Martin Freeman (The Office, Sherlock, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) might play Bilbo. I liked Freeman a lot as Watson in the recent BBC Sherlock; definitely an interesting casting choice if they do go with him.
nbohr1more on 18/10/2010 at 14:47
I was thinking that the Studio would balk at Gilliam's budget. OTOH, Guillermo del Toro was also planning on using tons of animatronics in much the same spirit as Gilliam has suggested he would've done had he been chosen for the first Harry Potter film. So maybe there wouldn't really have been a big budget difference there... But the filming would go on for decades :laff: so perhaps this is for the best.
Also, just to go bat-shit off-topic, I wish that David Lynch had directed the LOTR trilogy as the books make allusions to parts of the journey that are not clearly distinguishable from dreams or halucinations . David Lynch is the master of bringing that concept to the big-screen.
Queue on 18/10/2010 at 15:03
For some reason, Gilliam gets a bad rap when it comes to budget/time issues. Until Baron Munchausen, every film had been made on time and at/under budget -- and have done so since.
Thirith on 18/10/2010 at 15:06
My problem with Gilliam is that he's really only made two films that I love, namely Brazil and 12 Monkeys - and even with those there are bits where I think just a smidgen of discipline would've made the films better. (For the record, Brazil is nevertheless in my Top 5.) The surrealism that he does well doesn't gel in any way with what I think Tolkien was doing.
Del Toro, on the other hand... Him I could easily imagine doing a great Hobbit.
While I enjoyed Fellowship a lot and, in spite of its flaws, love The Two Towers, Return of the King has too many scenes where Jackson's flair for grand guignol went too far IMO. I still like the film, but as far as I'm concerned it's the worst of the three - and to some extent I wonder whether that is because all the praise for the other two films made him cocky. Perhaps being less successful with King Kong and The Lovely Bones might help him do a better job of The Hobbit. Personally, I want less of the Jackson who gets a kick out of lighting farts and blowing up bullfrogs with firecrackers and more of the Jackson who did the Moria scenes in Fellowship and Gollum in Towers.
fett on 18/10/2010 at 15:22
Agreed, Thirth. The Moria scenes were Jackson at his finest. It was that point in the film where I realized he "got it" and I trusted him to treat the remaining material with respect and good taste. I trust him to handle the Hobbit in similar fashion, considering it's possibly a more loved novel than the LOTR books. I'm nut for Del Toro and was salivating at the idea of he and Jackson having a go at this, but alas, it is not meant to be. :(
Gingerbread Man on 18/10/2010 at 15:23
If I were a studio exec contemplating giving The Hobbit to Terry Gilliam, I'm not sure I would be able to get past the tragic nothingness of The Brothers Grimm and the surprisingly not-very-good Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I love Gilliam. 12 Monkeys, Time Bandits, and Brazil are three of my most prized films. I thought The Fisher King was stunning (and apparently so did a load of other people)... But when I think "Gilliam + Tolkein" I fixate on The Brothers Grimm.
Queue on 18/10/2010 at 15:27
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
... But when I think "Gilliam + Tolkein" I fixate on The Brothers Grimm.
The blame for that one lies squarely at the Weinstein's doorstep. It was another instance of, "We can make this film better!" much like Gilliam encountered with Brazil. And we all know how
well their 90-minute cut of that film turned out.
Aja on 18/10/2010 at 15:34
Brothers Grimm wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be; not brilliant but defiantly watchable and enjoyable. Fear and Loathing, well, I'm not sure anyone could have done anything else with the source material. It was as faithful a reproduction as you could hope for... I can't read the book now without picturing Gilliam's visuals.
fett on 18/10/2010 at 15:56
Am I the only one who thinks Fear and Loathing is just simply awful (not the movie, the book...well, both)? I'm not sure there's even a story there. It's one of those cultural things that I feel is popular simply because it's popular, edgy for it's time, but no real substance. Maybe I just don't get it. I wasn't surprised that the film was a mess.
But I also liked the Brothers Grimm, so what do I know?
nbohr1more on 18/10/2010 at 16:51
I like Brothers Grimm well enough, I just felt the "Inspector Clouseau" era ethnic humor was a bit tired (and wasn't quite Peter Sellers caliber...). It's a great bookend for Munchausen as it also ponders what we've lost due to the "Age of Reason". Given his obsession with this topic, I wonder if he has ever considered Gulliver's Travels?
If there is a Brother's Grimm directors cut somewhere I will have to revisit...
