comment #1

Howlingman says ...

Funny enough, when it was mentioned that Jackson would not direct, the first name that came to my mind was Guillermo del Toro as the likliest candidate.

comment #2

transmogrifier says ...

Yeah, jeff, you don't know what you are talking about re: Jackson.

I know you've seen Heavenly Creatures, but probably not Forgotten Silver. But at this stage, it's not so much about the facts about the case, as it is about beating that drum hard enough so that your name gets permanently associated with some director you depise, so that you can shoehorn your way into the collective consciousness of a bunch of people who should really know better than to care what you think about things.

BAM BAM BAM

BAM BAM BAM

BAM BAM BAM

comment #3

gruver1 says ...

Wells to transmogrifier: Del Toro talking about the possibility of doing "The Hobbit" was obviously a necessary thing to post, but I couldn't let it go without saying what I believe to be obvious.

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

Del Toro would be a great choice, if for no other reason than we would get to witness a fight to the death between Doug Jones and Andy Serkis to see who would get to play the MoCap characters.

comment #5

erniesouchak says ...

At least one of the trades reported that Sam Raimi was the frontrunner for directing "The Hobbit."

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

OT but not inappropos: I watched Ratner's X-Men the other night. Surprisingly non-terrible; a little clunkier than Singer's stuff (the "humor" with Kelsey Grammer was pretty leaden) but pretty well put together, really.

comment #7

AJW says ...

"Jackson hasn't advanced a single aesthetic notch since Braindead. He's about two things and two things only -- 'look at what I can do!' and 'wheeee!' He'd only cramp Del Toro's vision and style."

"'You aren't that bad, bro,' I said. 'You got a few things right this time. The movie is going to lift audiences out of their seats. And I need to say "I'm sorry" for bashing you so much because you've almost whacked the ball out of the park this time.'"--December 2005

comment #8

DavidF says ...

There are legit shots one could take at Jackson but Jeff always goes overboard. It's not that I don't think Del Toro is good (or appropriate for The Hobbit) but saying he is "way way above Jackson's class" is a bit much.

Or perhaps Jeff is a huge fan of Mimic, Blade 3 and counting the seconds until Hellboy 2? (I like Hellboy but I'm guessing Wells couldn't give a shit about it.) I feel like Jeff is maybe stacking King Kong against Pan's Labyrinth and deciding that the latter was a more impressive acheivment and therefore Del Toro is "better." Del Toro is a funny li'l bearded geek, same as Jackson.

People who criticize LOTR for being overblown forget that before these movies came out the biggest thing Jackson had done was The Frighteners. Whether you like the movies or not you HAVE to recognize what he, WETA et al pulled off (and give New Line credit for rolling the dice when the Weinsteins chickened out). These three films will be screened long after all of us on this board are long gone.

Personally, I think seeing Raimi do one film and Del Toro the other would be ideal, fascinating way to see alternate takes on the material.

And I agree with Mgmax about X3 - it's not TERRIBLE, it's just kinda okay. Red Dragon isn't TERRIBLE either. Ratner isn't the anti-christ he's just a guy who make an okay, entertaining Hollywood flick at best and nothing more.

comment #9

JD says ...

I've been a fan of both Jackson and Del Toro since long before either appeared on Jeff's radar and I think they're in exactly the same class. In fact, if you ask me, their strengths and weaknesses are almost exactly the same. Seriously, what are you talking about, Jeff?

comment #10

UnChien says ...

Exactly what kind of maturing did you see in Blade 2 and Hellboy, Wells? Or did you just skip those? As people already have mentioned, Del Toro and Jackson are practically filmmaking twins.

comment #11

storymark says ...

More post-baiting posturing by wells. Just another day at HE....

comment #12

corey3rd says ...

The local crew on the Philly set of "The Lovely Bones" were unimpressed with their time under Peter Jackson. The word "unprepared" came up a couple times.

comment #13

jghoward says ...

I agree with JD and Unchien, I see jackson and DelToro as being very similar: both seem obsessed with spectacle and set pieces, and both have a very poor grasp of dramatic storytelling fundamentals, such as proper character motivation. But hey, how many successful directors working in Hollywood understand the basics of dramatic storytelling?

comment #14

DavidF says ...

This post really shows Wells' inability to be objective about certain things. It would be a relief at this point to know he's just putting on a show each time he posts about Jackson and Spielberg since it would explain the riddiculous hyperbole.

I wish I could pull out Guillermo Del Toro the way Woody Allen pulls out Marshall McLuhan so he could tell Wells how he utterly fails to understand his work.

As for this:
"The local crew on the Philly set of "The Lovely Bones" were unimpressed with their time under Peter Jackson. The word "unprepared" came up a couple times."

Call me crazy but this news does not have me worried about how the film will turn out.

Amusingly, I've been watching the doc on the new Blade Runner DVD and you know what? The crew on that film wasn't so happy about how things were going. Ditto for Aliens, which I also recently watched the making-of docs for. Probably applies to 100 other succesful films.

That doesn't even include that obvious chaos you can see in finishing The Return of the King (including Jackson coming up with new FX shots at the delivery date). And yet I think that film did okay at the BO and the Oscars...

Sorry but some key grip in Philly allegedly saying Jackson was unprepared doesn't impress me.

comment #15

gruver1 says ...

Wells to UnChien: "Mimic," "Blade 2" and "Hellboy" were, I believe, necessary fanboy paycheck movies for Del Toro. They're other things also but they pay the bills. Jackson, on the other hand, couldn't make films like "Cronos," "The Devil's Backbone" or "Pan's Labyrinth" with a gun to his head and a knife at his back. Jackson hasn't the soul or the confidence to hold back and bore in and uncover the quiet mystery and spookiness of things. He has to push it, push it...look at me! Wheeeee!

comment #16

DavidF says ...

Wells, by calling HELLBOY a "paycheck" movie for Del Toro you have dug yourself a hole you can't climb out of. He did that movie because he WANTED to do that movie and it is the same reason he is doing the sequel. (Blade 2, I dunno. I don't watch that Blade stuff.)

Can't anyone here get Del Toro on the phone? Doesn't anyone have a meta-device of some sort that will allow us to pull him out, Annie-Hall-style?

comment #17

Rich S. says ...

Wow, someone besides me thought that X-Men 3 wasn't the worst thing in the world. Though it wasn't as complete a vision, I actually thought that it was more entertaining than the first two. I know that's a hanging offense over at AICN, but nice to know that I can come out over here.

As to Jackson's skills, watch Bakshi's LOTR to see how badly it could have been botched. The only major criticism I have of Jackson is that he needs to be more aggressive in the editing room. There is a near genre masterpiece lurking around in King Kong. It would come out if the film were an hour and 20 minutes shorter.

If del Toro or Raimi directs The Hobbit, we might get a tighter piece of work. I for one would love to see what Raimi would do with the spider sequence in Mirkwood forest.

comment #18

Howlingman says ...

GDT conceived and wrote Mimic, wanted to direct the first Blade, and Hellboy was a true labor of love, as he told me while doing press for The Devil's Backbone; "It's a scary thing when a very personal project [like Hellboy] costs seventy million dollars."

Believe it or not, it's actually okay to move from more subdued artful fare to big, loud comic book movies without "slumming."

comment #19

Joe M. says ...

"Jackson hasn't the soul or the confidence to hold back and bore in and uncover the quiet mystery and spookiness of things. He has to push it, push it...look at me! Wheeeee!"

I don't know, to me the above describes someone like Stephen Sommers, who just seems to throw huge set pieces and action, action, action at you without regard for what's actually needed in a scene at a given moment (in "Van Helsing", especially). Jackson is pretty good at quiet spookiness, slowly building up to the big action moments (taking stock/calm before the storm moments before a big battle, that sort of thing), and generally having at least a competent sense of craft regarding what's needed at a given moment in a movie. But that's just my two cents. What do I know?

comment #20

Redmond says ...

Guillermo Del Toro directing "The Hobbit?"
My fanboy head nearly exploded.

I think if Jackson gives Del Toro just a few friendly nudges to go for the "Whee!" factor here and there then backed off, Del Toro could craft an excellent Hobbit movie that's not a never-ending torture session. I loved Fellowship, but seriously, the last two films, who wants to watch Elijah Wood walk around like a moody pregnant chick for 3 hours? Not me.

comment #21

Movie Watcher says ...

I agree with Del Toro, LOTR is dense; took me longer than usual to read 'em. Hobbit is a good book. I am wondering can Jackson stand back and let Del Toro direct it his way? I know he'll produce, but will he let Del Toro actually shoot secnes the way he wants to, or will he have to reshoot, because Jackson doesn't like it. I'm a casual fan of the franchise, but what do the die-hard LOTR fans think of Jackson not directing? I think the debate has already begun.

comment #22

JD says ...

Jeff, you are high and misinformed. Try watching the extras on the Hellboy DVD some time. It was Del Toro's dream project. After Pan's Labyrinth was a big hit/major award winner, what did he do with all that clout? He made another Hellboy movie! It may be fanboy friendly, but a) so was Pan's Labyrinth (long before you cared about it) and b) Del Toro is himself a fanboy, the ultimate fanboy even. There's a reason he returns Harry Knowles' phone calls long before he returns yours.

comment #23

DavidF says ...

LOTR are insanely dense books. People who bash the movies don't appreciate how hard it was to structure a narrative. They are not naturally cinematic despite the scope of the world they take place in.

For the first 150 pages of Fellowship of the Ring you have almost no idea what's going on (and I think it takes place over 10 years or something). Then they get to Rivendell and it's like 100 pages of exposition and backstory. The split narratives in TT and ROTK are also real adaption challenges which Jackson et al totally solved.

I remember Ebert giving Fellowship 3-stars on principle but saying Jackson had taken this great talky book and turned into an adventure story as if that was a BAD thing. A literal version of Fellowship would be like My Dinner with Andre on downers, with a lot more walking.

The Hobbit is not nearly as 'good' or complex a book. It's a great li'l dragon tale written for young adults. It can be a great movie, I think but the adaptation challenge is probably the opposite of what it was with LOTR - creating a really compelling story and building a dense world around something which is relatively straightforward.

If Jackson is smart enough to let auteurs like Del Toro and/or Raimi take the reigns I think that shows he knows what he is doing and one can expect it do a different situation than, say, Lucas "excecutive producing" while Richard Marquand "directs."

comment #24

Sean says ...

"Jackson, on the other hand, couldn't make films like "Cronos," "The Devil's Backbone" or "Pan's Labyrinth" with a gun to his head and a knife at his back."

It's time somebody said it: 'Pan's Labyrinth' was the fantasy equivalent of 'Life is Beautiful'. Simplisitic parable, it shorthands "You should hate this guy" by having him be a Nazi, ham-fisted and manipulative in exactly the same way. Just try and watch the faun calling her "princess" without thinking of Benigni calling his wife "principesa"....

One big problem which I had was that the whole movie has this "Is it magic or not?" thing going on which is cool, and then, halfway through, several things happen for which the only explanation is magic. Completely removing any subtlety in favor of... what was the phrase? "WHEEEEE LOOK AT ME!!!!"

And I simply can't believe that the conversation is discussing "set pieces which don't have anything to do with the story of the movie" and not including 'Pan's Labyrinth', where every single scene is the same:
"You have to go this crazy fantasy sequence and do something impossible."
"That sounds hard."
Then she goes, and does it immediately with no difficulty and precious little tension.

And Del Toro could never do 'Heavenly Creatures'.

Oh, and 'Blade 2' is actually a pretty good dumb fun movie. I was surprised. It's much better than 'Hellboy'.

comment #25

alan says ...

Pan's Labyrinth doesn't hold a candle to The Fellowship of the Ring, one of the great adventure movies of all time. And I really like Pan's Labyrinth.

comment #26

storymark says ...

Let's not forgwet, Wells knows more about a filmmaker's reasons for doing a film than they do. Just ask Wayne Cramer.

comment #27

christian says ...

You're straying into DZ territory Jeff. Seriously, you're objectively WRONG about Jackson. The man has heart and soul. That's why the best things about LOTR were the quiet moments, such as Gandalf's chat with Frodo about not judging Gollum too harshly, etc. That's the glue that held the spectacle together. Without it, you get GOLDEN COMPASS and BEOWULF.

Have you even fucking seen MEET THE FEEBLES? Only a mad genius could make vile puppetry into a briliant satire with soul. Ke-rist Jeff, you've already been busted with your Jackson flip-flopping, why keep digging tunnels?

comment #28

storymark says ...

Er... I meant Michael Davis.

comment #29

The Winchester says ...

"Del Toro would be a great choice, if for no other reason than we would get to witness a fight to the death between Doug Jones and Andy Serkis to see who would get to play the MoCap characters."

This was so damn funny, I shot coffee out my nose.

And I'm not drinking coffee.

comment #30

carla kolchak says ...

I'm a big GDT fan and there are a whole slew of films I'd rather see him do--first and foremost, At The Mountains Of Madness. I hope somebody else directs The Hobbit (and I don't care who because I have no interest in seeing it).

Incidentally, did Jackson piss in your Cornflakes at some point in the past, Wells? Sheesh. He's not the hack you (apparently) wish he were.

comment #31

Sean says ...

carla -

Jeff likes to hyperbolically criticize Spielberg and Jackson, because he thinks it gives him "cred", and because it drives up the hits for the site when on-line folk come over to defend the two great geek-directors.

comment #32

Sean says ...

Christian - don't forget, Jeff loved Beowulf. Apparently, he saw something beyond "HEY LOOK AT THIS" going on (nobody else I know did. Well, other than Ian Sinclair, of course...).

comment #33

Spicer says ...

Perhaps Ryan Gosling's departure from The Lovely Bones at the last minute had something to do with Jackson's level of preparedness.

comment #34

Sean says ...

It's time somebody said it: 'Pan's Labyrinth' was the fantasy equivalent of 'Life is Beautiful'.

Other Sean, I like the cut of your jape. I disagree, but it's a point worth making.

I think The Devil's Backbone is superior to Pan's Labyrinth and Blade II is superior to Hellboy (which is hard for me to say because I love Mike Mignola's whole corpus). A Del Toro Hobbit would be great, and a Raimi Hobbit would also be great. A Del Toro Lovecraft adaptation, though, that's gold.

Also, I think Jackson will direct The Hobbit.

comment #35

RoyBatty says ...

DavidF - at some point after elementary school, the idea of a "gold star for effort" has to be left behind. A film is supposed to speak for itself, regardless of the challenges of making it. Even if I were to evaluate LOTR on that basis there's not much to admire in what Jackson supposedly brought to it.

After "Fellowship," it turns into a very simple, boringly linear plotline that Jackson did not improve. Faithful? Unfortunately yes. The films' moment in the zeitgiest is passing quickly away and in a few years only the dyed-in-the-wool faithful will still be uttering "when were long gone" lines.

That said, Jackson is much more talented than Wells seems willing to admit. Unfortunately, without a strong producer to rein him in he is a rich kid in a toy store with ADD: "I want that scene and that scene and WHOA! that scene....!!!"

comment #36

Craig Kennedy says ...

The funniest part about this post is not Jeff's continued blind ranting about Jackson, but his profound misunderstanding of where Guillermo Del Toro (supposedly one of his favorites) is coming from.

Hellboy. Paycheck movie. Got it.

Jeff, I think you'd be best steering clear of expressing any opinion about sci-fi, fantasy or comic book movies. For better or for worse, you're absolutely tone deaf in this area.

Leave it to AICN.

comment #37

RoyBatty says ...

CORRECTION: it's "we're long gone.."

comment #38

gruver1 says ...

LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN: A paycheck movie doesn't have to be an act of total prostitution, but it's fair to use the term if you've been paid a shitload of money to direct one. (Generally speaking smaller arty films don't pay the same way that big-ass, mega-budget geek fantasy movies do...c'mon.) And we all know what fanboy movies are. So calling "Hellboy," "Blade 2" and "Mimic" "paycheck fanboy" flicks is fair usage. I mean, these not personal statement movies about profound inner feelings or insights or revelations. They're comic-book gruel scooped out of the trough.

comment #39

MovieBob says ...

Jeff,

Opinions are one thing, but you're officially talking out of your rear if you really think Del Toro, whom you claim to be such a fan of, approached "Hellboy" as a paycheck movie. It defies the basic logic presented by how excellent the film itself is, first and foremost, and also flies in the face of everything Del Toro and each of his colaborators have said about the film. "Blade 2?" Probably a bit of a paycheck, yes... he made it so he could make "HELLBOY," which was his dream project.

What it seems you fail to understand (or just won't accept in a very Rumsfeldian fashion) is that to a HUGE number of the current crop of rising, big name raw TALENT in filmmaking, there isn't any great gulf of difference between "Hellboy" and something like "Pan's." The Cinephile is done with: Long live the age of the Movie Geek. Comic books, pulp scifi/horror/fantasy, video games, etc. is the stuff that fired their imaginations and drives their artistic passion to a huge extent.

Raimi, Singer, Jackson, Del Toro, Nolan and the rest didn't make "Spider-Man," "Superman," "LOTR," "Hellboy," and "Batman" because they felt they HAD to to achieve some greater personal vision - those WERE their great, personal visions. They want to do these projects the way older directors wanted to film the great plays, novels and historical events, because they regard them as a Gold Standard of material they can pursue.

comment #40

Howlingman says ...

So if you're paid peanuts to make "comic-book gruel scooped out of the trough" does that no longer qualify it as a paycheck movie? Because to me, a paycheck movie is one done exclusively for the money and the money alone. Of those there are plenty, but I wouldn't accuse GDT or PJ of that. It seems Jeff is just rankled that a filmmaker he likes may (as this is still wishful thinking territory) actually be interested in working with another filmmaker that Jeff loathes.

comment #41

Rothchild says ...

Your biggest problem, besides being a total asshole, is you have a weird habit of deciding you know the intentions of filmmakers. You looked like a moron when you said Michael Davis hated action movies and the people that loved them and you look like a bigger moron now. GdT tried making Hellboy for ten years. It was his dream project. He said that Hellboy and its sequel are every bit as personal to him as Cronos, PL, and DB. He had ten projects lined up all over town (this is an absolute fact) but he was willing to drop them all in half of a second if any studio was willing to make Hellboy 2. And he did.

Look, all I'm saying is that Hellboy is as personal of a project to GdT as the previously mentioned movies. Still, I'm not trying to say Hellboy is as good as Pan's Labyrinth or Devil's Backbone. I was a huge fan of it when I first saw it but then I realized the plot and structure aren't that great and it really needed more monsters. You get Sammael fatigue by the end of the first act. Hellboy is one of my favorite comics of all time so it's not like I wasn't game for it. He did do a fantastic job with the characters and it's designed with a keen eye and loving care. Hellboy 2 on the other hand is going to be a classic and possible masterpiece. The script left my jaw on the floor.

comment #42

storymark says ...

So, we're all in agreement then? Wells doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Glad we're all on the same page.

comment #43

jeffmcm says ...

Well, that wraps up a nice and tidy blog thread. Well done, people.

comment #44

DavidF says ...

I haven't seen anything as amusing as Jeff's attempt to define "paycheck movie" since Randall tried to reclaim "Porch Monkey."

If someone is doing a movie because they care about it—like Del Toro and Hellboy or Raimi and Spider-Man—it's not paycheck, no matter how much money it makes. They were labours of love no matter how "cult" or "mainstream" the source material is.

By your argument the Stars Wars prequels were "paycheck movies" for Lucas, as if it wouldn't have been easier for him to sit at home scratching his ass making $500 mil instead of $700 mil. He made them because he WANTED to make them.

Singer doing X-Men? Not a paycheck movie. If he'd been forced to do X-3, that would be a different matter.

Nicolas Cage doing National Treasure 2? THAT is a paycheck movie.

Your implication was someone whoring themselves out to finance their own projects and-as EVERYONE here has said, you were dead wrong because Hellboy WAS Del Toro's own project.

And RoyBatty-we'll just agree to disagree. I think the effort that went into turning LOTR into movies is astouding and generally under-appreciated. I also think that they are great movies and your imagining that their status is waning reminds me of Wells ranting last week about how no one likes Spielberg movies anymore. Time will tell, I say.

comment #45

Craig Kennedy says ...

Wells, you're wearing a shitty diaper on your head at a big party, walking around telling everyone you're not wearing a shitty diaper on your head.

comment #46

jeffmcm says ...

CJ, that's one of the best things you've ever written. I like this increasingly feisty version of yourself.

comment #47

D.Z. says ...

I agree with him about The Hobbit being better than the trilogy, but it'd be hard for him to be able to top Jackon's Gollum, no matter what Jeff thinks about everything else the guy's done. I guess Del Toro would be a better choice than Raimi for that, but I think Raimi could capture the breezy action-adventure atmosphere of the novel better than him.

comment #48

Craig Kennedy says ...

Thanks J.Mc, if only Wells understood what we were all telling him, I could remain my moderate easily ignored self.

comment #49

WJ says ...

I'd rather see del Toro make 3993 or At the Mountains of Madness, which show up on IMDB as in production, than another Peter Jackson Middle Earth CGI-fest.

LOTR were impressive (at times overbearing) films, but Cronos/Backbone/Labyrinth are better suited to my taste.

comment #50

bluefugue says ...

"I remember Ebert giving Fellowship 3-stars on principle but saying Jackson had taken this great talky book and turned into an adventure story as if that was a BAD thing."

Well, Jackson's choices worked and were maybe necessary given the change in medium. But Ebert is right that some key quality of the material is lost in the films. The "travelogue" aspect of Lord of the Rings is one of its most enchanting characteristics. My favorite part of the book is the sequence between Frodo leaving the Shire and arriving at Rivendell. There's such a lovely quality to the writing as this world unfolds before us, day by day, mile by mile, the richness of the underlying history being quietly layered in. That is something that the movie doesn't capture, and maybe couldn't given the time constraints.

I also find the characterization of LOTR as "dense" to be strange. It's long, and detailed, but that's not exactly the same thing. Tolkien mostly writes in a crisp, modern, easily-comprehended style. There is nothing difficult about his writing. Sometimes he indulges in faux-medieval lyric or quasi-Biblical cadences for effect, but those are brushstrokes and highlights rather than the main thing. If you want dense, you should try Dunsany's "The Worm Ouroboros," or Peake's "Gormenghast." That's dense.

comment #51

Lisha says ...

The man looks so familiar,really? I saw a photo on one site called "RichLoving.com" the man on the photo looks like him very much

comment #52

PerfectTommy says ...

Best I can figure with Wells calling "Hell Boy" a paycheck film, even though it was dear to Del Toro, is because it was a "fan boy" or genre film. By this thinking, were "Stage Coach" and "The Searchers" just pay check films while his "true" films were "Grapes of Wrath" and "How Green Was My Valley". Was all of Hitchcock's American work "pay check" except maybe "Marnie" and "Topaz"? These definitions are too deep for me.

comment #53

Jeffrey Overstreet says ...

I've only come across one name that would make me stand up and cheer about this project.

Imagine, with Peter Jackson producing, what "The Hobbit" could be if BRAD BIRD sat in the director's chair.

"The Hobbit" is, primarily, a children's book, after all.

Bird knows how to write all-ages storytelling that makes the adults as happy as the kids. He's great at finding fantastic opportunities for emotion and insight within fantasy environments (The Incredibles, Ratatouille). His flair for strong characterization is extraordinary. And he's interested in crossover work from animation to live-action, if I'm to believe recent report.

I'd rejoice just to see what Brad Bird would do if he were given the resources that New Line will provide for this project. Jackson would provide the necessary muscle to ensure a phenomenal spectacle, but Bird would bring strength to the storytelling.

It's a pivotal election year. And my vote goes to Bird.

comment #54

Sean says ...

"I think The Devil's Backbone is superior to Pan's Labyrinth and Blade II is superior to Hellboy (which is hard for me to say because I love Mike Mignola's whole corpus). A Del Toro Hobbit would be great, and a Raimi Hobbit would also be great. A Del Toro Lovecraft adaptation, though, that's gold.

"Also, I think Jackson will direct The Hobbit."

It seems reasonable that we share the same name, since this post could've been ripped straight out of my brain.

comment #55

Sean says ...

"After "Fellowship," it turns into a very simple, boringly linear plotline that Jackson did not improve. Faithful? Unfortunately yes."

Roy - your post is fairly contradictory, since the two books he was adapting were not linearly plotted at all, and Jackson had to do a lot to mine a story which could be plotted in any way linearly from those books (especially 'Two Towers').