Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Who should Direct the Hobbit?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Who should Direct the Hobbit?   [1] [2] [3] >>
Who should Direct the Hobbit? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
Me obviously. Surprised you had to ask Odo.
:lol: :lol:

Won't we need a list ?? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Theonering.net conveniently started a list for us :mrgreen: .

[url:3sa70ncm]http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/06/01/36951-who-will-helm-the-hobbit/[/url:3sa70ncm]

Of the people on that list my choice would be Sam Raimi. He knows New Zealand and has a good track record for Fantasy with shows like Xena and Legend of the Seeker. Not to mention he's a deft hand at balancing humour and drama.

[b:3sa70ncm]GB[/b:3sa70ncm]
I think Mr Tyrant should Direct the movie! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> ...But if for some reason he is not available - I wonder who our back-up should be? :ugeek: Don't know this Raimi chap though... Xena, hey....? Bilbo as Sword Maiden? :?
Not sure on Raimi GB- for me Army of Darkness is not a patch on Evil Dead 2 for inventive directing (or comedy/horror) and Darkman was awful. Spiderman was 'safe' (although this perhaps displays an ability to work to the brief- not always a bad thing).
I'm racking my brains on this one and will have to give it some thought (in case for some mysterious reason I don't get the call!).
Sam Raimi is also known for Evil Dead 3: Army of Darkness, a Satirical Fantasy that has elements of Harryhausen films, Darkman, and the Spiderman films. Very versatile director, able to blend humour, fantasy, and serious drama. He has a Graphic Novelists approach to visual style. And he single-handedly changed (for the better) Hollywood's approach to filming Superheroes, and comic-book style films in general. But it's his experience on Xena and Army of Darkness that makes me think he'd be a good choice. But Gilliam is still top of my list with Sam Raimi right behind him.

[b:352irjst]GB[/b:352irjst]
You've GOT to be kidding Petty. Army of Darkness was the best of the Evil Dead bunch (though it ditched the Horror Genre for Fantasy), and Darkman was BRILLIANT! When I saw it I realized that it was the film that Burton's Batman WISHED it was. And Safe is hardly the word I'd use to describe Spiderman. :roll:

There's plenty of other directors out there, some of them listed on the link I posted. Thoughts on any of those? Alfonso Cuaron maybe?

[b:12cx7ndi]GB[/b:12cx7ndi]
Maybe its because Army of darkness wasn't a horror/comedy that I particularly didn't like it- but certainly at the time as an evil dead fan it seemed like a betrayal and a poor attempt to make the franchise a more mainstream palatable 'Hollywood' film. And Darkman seemed to be a continuation of this 'selling out' completed with spiderman (and Darkman has some of the worst green screen since black and white films).
For me PJ and Raimi have something in common- they were both more inventive and original without a budget than with.
I don't like Super Hero movies (other than The Incredibles - and Super Hero Movie) so Raimi is OUT for me already. Gilliam is sounding good - great at mocking Englishness, though might tend to excessiveness with the comedic class-humour - so I have my reservations - but Time Bandits was not excessive - so I have reservations about my reservations. What about some period movie maker? I think here more the Pride and Prejudice type - not the Braveheart type (err...feel a bit sick just thinking of the Braveheart type actually.... eeeerk...) I'm Serious about the Pride and Prejudice bit btw. I did not care, overall, for PJ's gungho approach to battles btw. A lot of killing, but who really cared who got killed? (Except for Theoden's death - I didn't mind how that was done). Thorin's death scene was more important to me than his heroism. I hope they don't turn him into a fallen Super Hero. Oh my God! Not Raimi then! :shock:
If you can access Xena online, check it out Odo. I think Raimi is a good match. But Gilliam would be better.

By the way, Happy 1500 Odo :mrgreen: . You must have passed the mark sometime in the last 24 hrs.

[b:682zkskq]GB[/b:682zkskq]
Thank you, GB!

Is Xena that Conan-like like gal who scoots around New Zealand with that blond galfriend of hers? :?
I like Neil Blomkamp, personally, but I could stand Alfonso Cuaron. The only film of his that I've seen was [i:1s5mkx3p]Prisoner of Azkaban[/i:1s5mkx3p], but it was pretty good, though I imagine it would have been confusing for non-book-readers since they cut out the Marauders backstory. :? I've never seen the Spider-man films so I can't comment on Raimi, though I'd like to see them some time.

Also, happy 1500th to Odo! :mrgreen:
Thank you, Eldo. Though let's not make too much fuss over it... makes me feel [i:2ygudoiw]old[/i:2ygudoiw] for some reason! :cry:
I'll not bother my a**e mentioning it then. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
:oops:
Too late Odo, sorry. I 'fussed!' on your own thread.
kenneth branagh
Now THERE'S an idea :mrgreen: .

[b:27py8xh7]GB[/b:27py8xh7]
Brannagh. That [i:bm2i03q3]is[/i:bm2i03q3] an interesting thought, despite many critics hating it I rather liked his Frankenstein and his Henry V is excellent. Has he ever directed any out and out fantasy before? I can't think of any off-hand. But I wouldn't be upset if I heard he had got the job.
Peter Jackson said somewhere he did not want to repeat himself. But would doing The Hobbit be [i:2bj0m1ft]repeating[/i:2bj0m1ft] himself? They are very different stories. Peter does have the ability. My only concern would be in him getting the 'feel' of The Hobbit right. Tom Bombadill was a notable omission from his movies, and I always feel Tom would have fit nicely in The Hobbit. He did fit perfectly in the Lord of the Rings novel, but sadly not in the films. Does this suggest that Peter was not comfortable with the more quirky or childlike aspects of Tolkien's works? :-Jane
I have mixed feelings about Peter Jackson. He may be a bit jaded. I agree with you Jane that he is capable, but if you want a 'fresh' approach we need someone else. What if a female director were to do it? A woman (and I hope this does not sound sexist) would be less troubled about the action aspects and perhaps allow Bilbo's personality to shine forth. That woman who won Best Director for that Iraq movie; she could handle action and personality very well - though perhaps not the all important humour? My biggest fear is taking out too much of Tolkien's humour and his songs. Someone will have to be able to handle the darker and lighter aspects well. I actually think The Hobbit will be harder to get right than the Lord of the Rings movies.
It's really difficult to think of a good director because none of the names mentioned have a particularly strong connection with Tolkien. GDT didn't at first but he clearly became immersed in the source material and would have made a great movie. These other directors, mainly Gilliam, Raimi, and I have actually heard someone suggest Tim Burton *shudder* all have a set style that could work but I feel like they are too established and would bring Tolkien to themselves rather than themselves to Tolkien. I think there needs to be a less well known director who doesn't have such an ingrained style. I think PJ is a safe option but not really the best one. I have no real suggestions but these are just my thoughts.
Tim Burton? Hmmmm! :? At his best he wouldn't be a bad choice, but his colour palette is too "Goth" for The Hobbit. Still, if there were more than one version I would like to see his take on it.

[b:1b7zmy3u]GB[/b:1b7zmy3u]
I find Burton boring. Colourfully boring. Charlie was lifeless and... well, colourfully colourless. Sorry. Not for me. Mr Tyrant, if you can't end up Directing for some inexplicable reason, we may have to shelve the project. No suitable back-up at the moment I'm afraid.
What about Robert Zemeckis?- loads of experience and can do family as well as mature subject matter.
I don't need back-up Odo, I am [i:3b1y5ml2]The[/i:3b1y5ml2] Tyrant, immortal and omnicrabbity, so no worries there.
Zemekis, eh! I'm not quite sure he has the sense of Whimsy required, though he certainly has great visual style. Whimsy is something that Gilliam, Del Toro, Raimi, and even Burton have in common.

[b:lv6ww9y5]GB[/b:lv6ww9y5]
I am not entirely sure GB what you mean by whimsy, but I think I know what your getting at from the directors you list, but I'm not sure TH needs that sort of whimsy, that overt fairytaleness.
It will hopefully be a family film and Zemeckis did Back to the Future, for me one of the best family films ever made. And a re-watch of Beowulf last night convinced me he could do the visual side no problem and the darker moments. It is easy when watching Beowulf and seeing the dragon burning the village to imagine how well he would do Dale and Smaug.
I had forgotten that Zemekis was responsible for The Back to the Future series (and Roger Rabbit) :roll: . I take it back, those films demonstrated Whimsy in Spades 8-) (whimsy--an Absurdist approach to Art and Literature, which can include dark humour. In literature Roald Dahl is probably one of the best exemplars, but it's a common thread in most Brit Kid's Lit). Zemekis's version of Beowulf is probably my favourite, but it seemed very sincere, as did Polar Express and Contact, which were the most recent films of his that I remembered.

[b:33b0pwc4]GB[/b:33b0pwc4]
I would not apply the word [i:hx1en2mq]whimsy [/i:hx1en2mq]to either Tolkien or Dahl, GB. The basis of their humour is rarely what I'd call [i:hx1en2mq]absurdity[/i:hx1en2mq] or [i:hx1en2mq]nonesens[/i:hx1en2mq]e. Wrong word, sorry. If you still think it, let's debate the subject. I'd even be prepared to start a new thread to debate the issue! That's how serious I am. Underlying most of people's rejecting of Tolkien's The Hobbit is that people think it would be too whimsical filmed as is, and childdish thereby, to please the broadest audience. Rubbish! The Hobbit is not whimsical at all!

((((( [i:hx1en2mq]Whimsy[/i:hx1en2mq], 'hey?! I'll give that beard [i:hx1en2mq]whimsy[/i:hx1en2mq]! :x :x )))))
Oh the IRONY! The Master of Absurdism and Whimsy speaks :lol: .

I think you are operating under the entirely mistaken notion that Absurdism or Whimsy = Nonsense. Oh no indeed. Absurdism is a form of Surrealism. I agree no-one would consider Dr Seuss, Alice in Wonderland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The 5 Children and It, or The Hobbit is Nonsense, but none can deny the Humorous/Satirical Surrealist, (i.e. Whimsical) aspects of any of those stories.

Very few directors are capable of dealing in Whimsy, but the few I've mentioned are among the best at it.

[b:s6osw7re]GB[/b:s6osw7re]
I've just realized something... are you saying what I write on this forum is [i:3fndscmd]absurd[/i:3fndscmd] and [i:3fndscmd]whimsical[/i:3fndscmd]?! If so, how hurtful, GB. :cry: You know, on another Thread, you've been outed for the Big Intellectual Bully that you are!

[i:3fndscmd]'Absurdism'[/i:3fndscmd]! I mean! [size=150:3fndscmd]really[/size:3fndscmd] The word is absurd itself! :x

NB GB I've noticed that there is only one [i:3fndscmd]angry [/i:3fndscmd]smilee here - but it does not cover all the varieties of anger I often feel on this Forum. Can something be done about it, please!
Oh come on! :roll: Enough with the Victim Card. Just admit you were wrong.

[b:3hatcgf5]GB[/b:3hatcgf5]
Big bully! Now I'm twice a victim!
[img:2zpeyjdn]http://www.narniaweb.com/forum/images/smilies/107.gif[/img:2zpeyjdn]

[b:2zpeyjdn]GB[/b:2zpeyjdn]
[quote="pettytyrant101":3ekj8goo]Brannagh. That [i:3ekj8goo]is[/i:3ekj8goo] an interesting thought, despite many critics hating it I rather liked his Frankenstein and his Henry V is excellent. Has he ever directed any out and out fantasy before? I can't think of any off-hand. But I wouldn't be upset if I heard he had got the job.[/quote:3ekj8goo]

He's currently in Asgard directing Thor but should be available in a few months
I do my monthly crawl out of my hole, and Odo can always be counted on to cheer me up by his sheer unmatchable Odoness. Then Ady makes a rare appearence and tosses out a sly zinger that I'm still smiling about. Thanks guys, I needed this.

It would be great to see Branaugh direct something again. I somehow missed seeing his Frankenstein, but between Henry V and Dead Again he showed what he can do. I'll pass over Hamlet in silence.

Tim Burton? The inevitable casting of Johnny Depp as Bilbo chills my marrow.
Out of the hole? A manhole? Have you been working on underground power conduits for a month, Halfwise?

[i:22oi0278]Halfwise[/i:22oi0278]...mmm? Does this suggest a different answer? Half-wise, yes but... - half-[i:22oi0278]hobbit[/i:22oi0278]? :shock: Burrowing a new hole? Are you a hobbit-hole maker? :shock: And are there hobbit electricians? :? Indeed, are there [i:22oi0278]half[/i:22oi0278]-hobbit electricians? 8-)

Questions, questions and questions...

Should this post be on the Big Serious Thread?

My goodness, the physics of my mind is all rumbly-tumbly... :? Your presence tends to do that to me, Halfwise. (Missed you!)

But don't distract me... thinking about a Director....
More like burrowing a hole in my desk, unfortunately. Very unhobbit like.
Cheers to Halfwise for getting a mention in Ady's latest blog post :mrgreen: . Johnny Depp as Bilbo! :P :lol: . Still, if Burton could restrain his urge put Depp into every film, I think his version of The Hobbit could be intriguing.

So according to Ady, folks at Slashfilm are making a case for David Yates for director. he has been responsible for Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix, and HP: Half Blood Prince, and HP: Deathly Hallows (due out this Holiday Season). Personally I think Yates has done a bang-up job condensing LotR length Fantasy books into coherent 2 1/2 hour films. Though my own "inner purist" cringed at how much was excised from HP: OotP, I thought it stood up well as a film version all things considered . Deathly Hallows was even better and for me firmly cemented a positive appraisal of his ability to handle the shifting tones of Drama and Humour (though I am still a bit concerned about his ability to handle whimsy <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ). All in all not a bad call, but I'm not entirely sold yet.

I briefly pondered Chris Columbus who directed the first two Potter films very well, but his best moments in those films were "borrowed" almost entirely from Terry Gilliam's style. And his Percy Jackson film left a lot to be desired.

Of all the directors from the Potter franchise, I think Alfonso Cuaron (HP: Prisoner of Azkaban) is the best bet (despite the less than stellar CGI Werewolf and Dog--which wouldn't be an issue with Weta and Jackson behind the project). He really nailed the tone shifts between light and dark and has a similar sensibility to his friend Del Toro.

Ady makes a solid case for Branagh in his latest blog post:

[quote:fj8f3afk]Branagh has a proven track record in bringing great works of literature to the big screen. Heís also been out of film making for a while which means he doesnít currently have the stature or the ego to start demanding to be allowed to ístampí his style on the movie. Presumably he would be happy to go along with the foundation work already done by GDT and PJ, seeing the value of being associated with The Hobbit and working with PJ and Weta.

Thor the movie is based on the Marvel comic book hero so presumably heís had the chance to play around with the latest special effects tools and ok this is pushing it a bit but Thor is from Norse mythology which has strong links to Tolkienís world. Its only a short walk from Asgard to Middle Earth.[/quote:fj8f3afk]

I'm more familiar with Branagh's roles on the screen than behind them, but by all indications he is very talented. The point of Ady's that sells me the most is this one: "Heís also been out of film making for a while which means he doesnít currently have the stature or the ego to start demanding to be allowed to ístampí his style on the movie. Presumably he would be happy to go along with the foundation work already done by GDT and PJ, seeing the value of being associated with The Hobbit and working with PJ and Weta."

I'd really like a director that has a similar sensibility to Del Toro (I think I'm leaning more and more to Cuaron or Raimi as snagging Gilliam seems an unattainable goal). But barring that, Ady's point that a talented director who's willing to put forth someone else's vision should do the job is a good one.

[b:fj8f3afk]GB[/b:fj8f3afk]
The more I think about it the more I am warming to the idea of Brannagh. One of the concerns we all have about handling the hobbit is the shifts in tone- Brannagh did Shakespeares Much Ado About Nothing- a comedy (and the only Shakespeare comedy I''ve ever watched that actually made me laugh a lot- "I wish my horse had the speed of your tongue"Wink Smilie which takes a sudden turn into the dark out of nowhere. A modern film would rarely go from frothy to despair on the turn of a coin like this does but Brannagh manges the shift very well.
On a related note, and as a flimsy excuse for a pic, Kate Beckinsale who played Hero in Much Ado about Nothing would have been my choice for Arwen- if they could have got a time-machine and got her circa 1993 when Much Ado was made-perfect, even more perfect than the very nearly perfect Liv! Here she is as Hero (and the Arwen of my mind);
[img:1ejc0w48]http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af236/pettytyrant101/Kate-beckinsale-HQ17.jpg[/img:1ejc0w48]
Any excuse to post a picture of Beckinsale is a good one :mrgreen: :oops: .

I modeled my version of Itaril on Beckinsale in Underworld gear 8-) . I nominate her for the role if it exists.

[img:3hrph7db]http://stylefrizz.com/img/kate-beckinsale-underworld-evolution.jpg[/img:3hrph7db]

Errrm...anyway Branagh, yes he's definitely on my list of possible directors.

[b:3hrph7db]GB[/b:3hrph7db]
Maybe Tom Hanks could direct. Thorin & Company's adventure across Middle Earth would be like the Band Of Brothers adventure across France. How would he handle the talking eagles, spiders and wargs, though? Maybe not.

Or David Cronenberg, for a close in view of Beorn's transformation into bear-form? He's done talking animals since Naked Lunch.

Kenneth Branagh is looking better and better...
[quote="Paul Erickson":38a4q7hg]Maybe Tom Hanks could direct.[/quote:38a4q7hg]

I do hope you are joking. :oops: <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
Yes! Yes! Just kidding!
[quote="Paul Erickson":3h3es1x6]Yes! Yes! Just kidding![/quote:3h3es1x6]

Hehe!

I just took a look at your site, from what I saw that book looks rather funny and well thought out. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

Your pictures (specifically of Bilbo) are flat out hilarious. :lol:

I look forward to seeing the finished product. 8-)
Thanks, Durin! I was having a crappy morning until I read your comment.

The drawings are by artist Benjamin Chandler. I agree, his depiction of Bulbo Bunkins is hilarious. It's so weird. The sunglasses and mullet and buck teeth. Not what I expected at all, but somehow it works for me.

Keep an eye on my website for more art. Also, I will continue posting excerpts to this forum, because of the wonderful support and comments I continue to get from people like you. When The Wobbit is published, I'll make sure everybody knows about it!
Glad you were kidding about Tom Hanks Paul. :mrgreen:

David Cronenberg is actually not a wholly insupportable idea :? . Would never be my first choice as director, but I'd be curious to see what his version would be like.

I've been playing with the idea of Ridley Scott, the 80's version of Ridley that is <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . I'm not sure that the modern Ridley still has the right frame of mind for a Fantasy film.

[b:4pittpyt]GB[/b:4pittpyt]
Trying to rack my brains GB to think of a good modern Ripley Scott film- robin hood- awful, kingdom of heaven-bad, gladiator-I thought it was hugely overrated popcorn fodder. Yet 80's Ridley gave us Alien and Bladerunner- you would hand 80's Ridley TH in a heart beat then stand back to see what wonders he would work- I wouldn't be so keen nowadays.
I know Petty. As far as I'm concerned Bladerunner, Alien, and Legend are Ridley Scott's best films, brilliant works of art, genius even. I think he spent himself and has been trying with less and less success to replicate his earlier genius. Sad really <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' /> .

[b:fr91w7k1]GB[/b:fr91w7k1]
After serious and careful consideration, I am forced to conclude: GEORGE LUCAS FOR THE HOBBIT! :mrgreen:

No, seriously.*

*(Not really, though he might have been able to do it 20 years ago. OTOH, Alfonso Cuaron sounds better the more I think about it since he was able to do a pretty good job with Harry Potter. I really hope they don't go with David Yates though: the recent Harry Potter films are just poorly made cash-cow-milking machines since the franchise will be successful no matter what.)
  [1] [2] [3] >>