Its Official - its Del Toro

[Bêthberry]

It's astute to point out how Jackson seems to be emulating not only Lucas' Star Wars ethos but Lucas' climb up the professional ladder. (Or is that down the many levels? ) It's a great pity that being a superb director no longer seems to be an acceptable or culminating accomplishment any more. One must become an entertainment corporate entity. People will always take themselves wherever their ambition will lead them, but movies could well still benefit from the likes of directors such as Bergman, Lean, Kurosawa, or, not to sound so elvish, Sonderbergh, Mayao Miyasaki, Michael Moore, even Deepa Mehta--all directors who have established their style and tone as directors. (Not that I'm saying any of these should do TH). But there are those who don't use director as a stepping stone to directors of companies.

That bit of prosyletizing aside, I do think that DT could well work on his Tolkien credentials. Sure enough that those comments about heroic fantasy and swords and little people could be his attempt to ensure that his movie was not incorrectly catalogued as that sort of fantasy--Merlin adventures and all that. Yet at the same time he does need to demonstrate some appreciation for Tolkien's ethos if he hopes to avoid the kind of criticisms which Jackson has received. The Pan's Labyrinth website contains lots of media spin on DT's idea of fantasy and proclaims his credentials about the formal academic study of fairytale (which are even then selective). There's nary a mention of Tolkien's OFS. As I think I posted elsewhere on this forum, it would make a facinating interview (or media spin) for him to comment on Tolkien's idea of fairie.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That bit of prosyletizing aside, I do think that DT could well work on his Tolkien credentials. Sure enough that those comments about heroic fantasy and swords and little people could be his attempt to ensure that his movie was not incorrectly catalogued as that sort of fantasy--Merlin adventures and all that. Yet at the same time he does need to demonstrate some appreciation for Tolkien's ethos if he hopes to avoid the kind of criticisms which Jackson has received. The Pan's Labyrinth website contains lots of media spin on DT's idea of fantasy and proclaims his credentials about the formal academic study of fairytale (which are even then selective). There's nary a mention of Tolkien's OFS. As I think I posted elsewhere on this forum, it would make a facinating interview (or media spin) for him to comment on Tolkien's idea of fairie.

Does anyone find it disturbing that Jackson -- with all his pompous rewrites and the egocentric need to steer Tolkien's plot as his own private vehicle, not to mention his original time investment -- should surrender such power to another director? What, he's too busy for such an important project? He was a relative second tier director prior to LotR (not wishing to disturb Jackson apologists, but he was never spoken of in the same breath as his contemporaries Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Coppola et al), and his production since LotR remains spotty (King Kong was dreadful -- the original black and white version remains the standard).

And so, succumbing to the power of the Ring (in this case representing corruptive power), Jackson has become 'thin — sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread'. LotR was indeed Jackson's 'bread and butter', and I am still rather surprised he would relinquish the golden calf to a bull in the china shop (del Toro -- Ole!).

[Mister Underhill]

Graduating from director to mogul isn't always merely a matter of thirst for power and unbridled ambition -- "I wish to become the all-powerful Oz of my own entertainment empire!" There are a number of reasons I can think of off the top of my head why a director would take the step.

Life is short, and movie ideas are many. Even the simplest movie usually takes at least a year out of a director's life, especially a writer-director. There's writing the script, pre-production, production, post, and finally release. Many movies take much more time. I reckon Jackson must have spent a good six or seven years solid on three LotR movies, and another one or two in various stages of development. Even the industry's most successful contemporary director, Spielberg, who succeeded very young and has enjoyed carte blanche for most of his career, has only directed about twenty-six features in nearly forty years in the business. He has produced three times that or more. Taking on the Executive Producer mantle allows a director to help bring projects to the screen that he doesn't have the time to direct personally.

As an EP, you get to collaborate with talented people -- and help raise up new talents that you admire.

Also, there's something to be said for building a "brand" for yourself and increasing your worth to the studios. With very, very few exceptions, directors never have enough power. Most spend their careers trying to get their next project going, then fending off studio/financier meddlers when they do get the chance to work.

I can't see a real reason to fault Jackson. To the extent that he has become a mini-mogul, it seems to me that it's out of a desire to help bring movies that he wants to see into existence and to gain greater creative independence for himself rather than just some blind appetite for power.

Regarding his willingness to turn over the reins of TH to another director -- I'm really not that surprised. If he really wanted to direct TH, he would have found a way to settle the New Line lawsuit years ago, or in any case he would have cleared his schedule as soon as the suit was settled. Maybe spending six or seven years around the clock in Middle-earth was enough for one lifetime. I know! Heresy!

Regarding Del Toro -- I have to say that I'm intrigued. Although he does seem to have more of a taste for the grotesque, as that article mentioned, I have no doubt that -- whatever comments have been attributed to him -- he has a genuine affection for The Hobbit at least. He's not gonna move to New Zealand and spend four years of his life making these movies just to collect a paycheck. When you're someone like Del Toro, who is certainly A-list right now, you don't make that kind of commitment unless you're seriously jazzed about the project. You don't have to.

I'm also surprised that this whole "bridge movie" thing is turning out to be a reality. I thought for sure that that would turn out to be some MGM suit spreading ill-informed rumors (IIRC, it was an MGM exec that broke that news). I made the wrong call on that one.

I'm skeptical about what they'll come up with, but the more I think about it, the more interested I am. This will be, essentially, the first professionally-mounted Tolkien fanfic. Such a film will have a lot less baggage hanging around its neck.

[Sauron the White]

Very well said Mister Underhill.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

This will be, essentially, the first professionally-mounted Tolkien fanfic. Such a film will have a lot less baggage hanging around its neck.

hmmmm. Tolkien fanfic movies. Would any enterprising Downers be the least little bit intrigued enough to consider not a book but a screen play for REB? Would Will Farrell be ripe for Etceteron? Nicole Kidman for Merisu? Danny Devito for that dwarf with the pet dragon? And of course the pre-eminent question, who would direct it? Why wait for Monty Python to make a LotR parody when we have our very material?

Mr. Underhill, you make a very good case for a director wanting to move into the Executive Producer chair in order to gain more financial control over his artistic ideas and to have more time to exploring other avenues of artistic development. Yet at the same time it is entirely possibly that Jackson, like Lucas before him, really is not true directorial material. I've always harboured the notion that RotK won its Oscar for best pic not because it was the best movie but because of the entire three part production process.

Which leaves us with the question of what will happen to Tolkien's work in the hands of a director who just might have a better track record as a director than PJ.

Lalaith or Eomer, might you explainwhat meaning of havering you are employing, for the deglutition of us non-nativeland speakers?

[Lalaith]

Well Eomer's the expert here, not me....but I am acquainted with the term through the Proclaimers song....if I haver yeah I know I'm gonna be I'm gonna be the man who's havering to you ....I believe it means to talk nonsense.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

Which leaves us with the question of what will happen to Tolkien's work in the hands of a director who just might have a better track record as a director than PJ.

The three areas of criteria that the film industry uses to establish track record are
1- box office revenues
2- critical acclaim
3- industry awards

based on their criteria, what list of possible directors do you have that show a better record than Jackson on his last four films?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bb

Would any enterprising Downers be the least little bit intrigued enough to consider not a book but a screen play for REB? Would Will Farrell be ripe for Etceteron? Nicole Kidman for Merisu? Danny Devito for that dwarf with the pet dragon? And of course the pre-eminent question, who would direct it? Why wait for Monty Python to make a LotR parody when we have our very material?

Well then we're back to an adaptation, aren't we -- with hardcore REBophiles rightfully decrying every changed or compressed scene, every altered or cut line of dialogue, every instance where the filmmakers just didn't get the REB tone or sense of humor. I'm sure I'd stand with the REB Purists in that fight.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That bit of prosyletizing aside, I do think that DT could well work on his Tolkien credentials. .

I think he is: http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=7098

GDT: There's the scope, and the learning curve, because the amount of things I've gotta learn. I fell in love with "The Hobbit" but I'm marrying an entire mythology. It's like meeting the family of a girl you're going to marry… you get them all, and I fell in love with "The Hobbit" and now I'm familiarizing myself with not only the trilogy--the trilogy I only finally read--but every single thing I can read that Tolkien generated about Middle Earth or about him I'm reading, and in terms of the visuals. In order for the two movies to seamlessly involve into the trilogy, I have to literally put myself through the biggest "making of" ever assembled. I'm going to watch all the dailies of "Fellowship" and I'm going to watch most of the dailies of "The Return of the King." I'll watch as much material as I possibly can take, the camera reports... everything. By the end of the second ("Hobbit") movie, you have to be able to have evolved towards "The Lord of the Rings" and feel that it's a complete continuation.

[Lalaith]

I think you're havering, Lalaith.

Nae, laddie, no havering here, I really do find his films frightening.
He has this thing of juxtapositioning macabre fantasy with real-life physical violence and murderous threat, particularly to young children.