Muzman on 18/10/2010 at 16:51
You described the very essence of Gonzo there, fettums.
Gilliam; Yeah I like the guy and wish him well most of the time, but I think his problem isn't so much to do with money as he thinks. After watching Lost in La Mancha I think it's a lot to do with him being a cantankerous ass to a seemingly needless degree.
(Wes Anderson directing The Hobbit? ...the fuck? what is it with these geek director canons where everyone gets suggested for everything? Wes Anderson directs Wes Anderson movies. That's it. I would have thought that was obvious)
And when did Peter Jackson direct any Xena episodes? Was he ghost directing them or something?
nbohr1more on 18/10/2010 at 17:02
That teaches me to rely on memory. I could've sworn I'd seen a clip where Jackson talked about his Xena directing experiences but Google does not agree with this...
The cheesy slow-mo Orc battle shots at the end of Fellowship must have backed-up my false rumor-filled memory...
Gingerbread Man on 18/10/2010 at 17:39
Quote Posted by Aja
Fear and Loathing, well, I'm not sure anyone could have done anything else with the source material.
- at least in my opinion - is a far superior adaptation. But I think it's because I prefer the tale told from a perspective that isn't inside Thompson's head for the most part. Plus Bill Murray is probably the only person who should be allowed to pretend to be HST. (Also Peter Boyle is a goddamned perfect Lazlo)
nbohr1more on 18/10/2010 at 17:58
Quote:
Wes Anderson directing The Hobbit? ...the fuck? what is it with these geek director canons where everyone gets suggested for everything? Wes Anderson directs Wes Anderson movies. That's it.
Fantastic Mr Fox disagrees with you (a little... :sweat: )
(yeah, it would be too talkative though...)
Just fishing for directors with decent wry humor that's all. Something a tad better then the bonk you on the head stuff in LOTR.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_One_Red_Shoe) Stan Dragoti ?
Muzman on 19/10/2010 at 02:42
Fair enough on Xena. I think Raimi and Jackson were cut from the same cloth (on opposite sides of the planet. Not that Sam Raimi directed any...er directly, either)
Anyway, I find Del Toro has similar problems to Gilliam, even though del Toro's stuff feels more solid, less ramshackle and has way better fight scenes. Both their films meander and don't hold together quite as well as they ought to. But that has it's charm and could have made them both good Hobbit directors in the right circumstances I guess.
Alphonso Cuaron has a good grip on nearly all these aspects, I find. He would have been interesting. Or they could have tried Peter Weir. He hasn't done much in a while (apparently he does get approached for all sorts of things but turns them down).
Fafhrd on 19/10/2010 at 05:39
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Fantastic Mr Fox disagrees with you (a little... :sweat: )
Wha..? Fantastic Mr. Fox is probably the most Wes Anderson of Wes Anderson movies. It just happens that a lot of his stylistic tendencies work a lot better in animation than in live action.
re: Brothers Grimm: I don't have a link handy, but Gilliam is on record saying that the theatrical cut is his cut of the film, and the Weinsteins didn't fuck with him at all on it. I think it's a movie that would be thought much more highly of if it weren't from Gilliam. As a Terry Gilliam film it just doesn't feel like it has the imagination or visual inventiveness that his best films do, so it gets knocked down quite a few pegs.
I actually think Matthew Vaughn might have been an interesting choice. He's not the most visually striking director, but he knows how to juggle a cast, and Stardust shows that he can hit the fairy tale vibe that The Hobbit should be going for.
As it is, Jackson still has a lot of goodwill from me for LotR, but I'm not tremendously excited for The Hobbit anymore.
nicked on 19/10/2010 at 06:49
Wait... the Lord of the Rings had humour in it?
nbohr1more on 19/10/2010 at 11:45
Quote Posted by nicked
Wait... the Lord of the Rings had humour in it?
I am still puzzling over this question...
(I do recall a "joke"(?) about Dwarf women having beards... )
Aja on 19/10/2010 at 21:02
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Where the Buffalo Roam - at least in my opinion - is a far superior adaptation.
I liked the main cast, but the general tone of the film (because of cinematography and script and whatever else, I don't know about how they make movies) was too silly, I think, to do justice to the novel's insane claustrophobic style. But I suppose, given the choice, I'd much rather experience the story from inside Thompson's head than outside it, so for me, Gilliam's adaptation had a lot more impact. Even if it was totally disjointed, and even if was romanticized compared to
Buffalo's mostly sober approach.
I like movies that make me feel as intoxicated as their characters.
Queue on 19/10/2010 at 22:23
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Where the Buffalo Roam - at least in my opinion - is a far superior adaptation.
Thompson
hated that film, and Bill Murray's portrayal.
Personally, I got a kick out of it back in the 80s, when I wasn't very familiar with Thompson's writings -- and I still pop it in for a good laugh.
---
Fafhrd - 100% agreement on Fantastic Mr. Fox. As far as the Brother's Grimm thing, I'm recalling an interview I'd heard from Gilliam, at the time of Tideland's completion, stating that it wasn't the film he had wanted to make due to interference from the muckity-mucks -- which led to the over "creativity" (we'll say) of Tideland.
