Noah......

[LizzieMaine]

I'd be more worried about a 21st Century take on David and Bathsheba, with Viggo Mortensen as David, Scarlett Johansson as Bathsheba and Michael Cera as Uriah.

The Bible movie I wouldn't mind seeing is the story of Jael and Sisera.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I thought the stone giants - like far too much of the Hobbit films - were yet another entirely unbelievable hairsbredth escape from certain death. Peter Jackson's need to push every difficulty to eleven makes these films repetitive and exhausting. His constant need to top what's been done before is self-defeating, and he continually indulges his worst impulses at the expense of balanced filmmaking! (And I say this as someone who totally adores the LOTR films - but they had sufficient story, interesting characters, and enough real gravitas to balance their big action.)

But anyway, yeah, the cryptic statement on the Nephilim is fascinating, and I know it's been a springboard for a lot of fantasy and SF treatments...

 

[HudsonHawk]

The Bible movie I wouldn't mind seeing is the story of Jael and Sisera.

No chance for gratuitous blood and guts in that one.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Except for that one little thing, Jael would make an ideal Disney heroine.

 

[scotrace]

...as I kid I found the 1956 version hilarious when Edward G. Robinson showed up as Pharoah's henchman.

It just didn't work. Terrible casting. He almost got cast as Dr. Zaius in the first Planet of the Apes. The pitch reel that he did shows that it would have been as bad, almost.

 

[Edward]

I thought the stone giants - like far too much of the Hobbit films - were yet another entirely unbelievable hairsbredth escape from certain death. Peter Jackson's need to push every difficulty to eleven makes these films repetitive and exhausting. His constant need to top what's been done before is self-defeating, and he continually indulges his worst impulses at the expense of balanced filmmaking! (And I say this as someone who totally adores the LOTR films - but they had sufficient story, interesting characters, and enough real gravitas to balance their big action.).

I've loved pretty much everything he's done - including Bad Taste and King Kong, but when he gets it wrong.... The Lovely Bones. Yeesh, what a stinker. With Rings he had to cut down, but with the Hobbit series he's bumpnig up. Bound to be more dangerous. For the most part I've enjoyed it, but certainly I did feel that in the second part, the barrels in the rapids sequence and the stone giants could have been trimmed markedly for time and lost nothing of the narrative.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Except for that one little thing, Jael would make an ideal Disney heroine.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

 

[LizzieMaine]

It just didn't work. Terrible casting. He almost got cast as Dr. Zaius in the first Planet of the Apes. The pitch reel that he did shows that it would have been as bad, almost.

"To suggest that we can learn anything of simian nature from the human brain is nonsense, nyahhhh."

 

[Doctor Strange]

Edward - Like many fans, I'm hopeful that after the third Hobbit film is out on video, more than one editing genius will create an illegal recut on the web: a single two- or three-hour movie that sticks closely to the book story. There's a perfectly wonderful adaptation of The Hobbit lurking somewhere inside this sloppy ten-hour behemoth!

 

[HudsonHawk]

Edward - Like many fans, I'm hopeful that after the third Hobbit film is out on video, more than one editing genius will create an illegal recut on the web: a single two- or three-hour movie that sticks closely to the book story. There's a perfectly wonderful adaptation of The Hobbit lurking somewhere inside this sloppy ten-hour behemoth!

You're hoping that someone will illegally chop up an artist's work to make it more to your liking?

 

[Doctor Strange]

Why not? I'm sure it will happen whether I want it to or not. These films are so profitable that it's not like this kind of "piracy" is going to hurt the distributors or Jackson (apart from his pride). And as an "artist", Jackson has proven himself to have lost his former taste and control. He needs reminding that this little book will be better minus all the 3D action bloat and Lucas-like, misguided, it-goes-with-the-other-trilogy prequelizing.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Why not? I'm sure it will happen whether I want it to or not. These films are so profitable that it's not like this kind of "piracy" is going to hurt the distributors or Jackson (apart from his pride). And as an "artist", Jackson has proven himself to have lost his former taste and control. He needs reminding that this little book will be better minus all the 3D action bloat and Lucas-like, misguided, it-goes-with-the-other-trilogy prequelizing.

Peter Jackson's two greatest movies were "Forgotten Silver" and "Heavenly Creatures." Everything he's done since then makes my eyes hurt.

 

[Edward]

Edward - Like many fans, I'm hopeful that after the third Hobbit film is out on video, more than one editing genius will create an illegal recut on the web: a single two- or three-hour movie that sticks closely to the book story. There's a perfectly wonderful adaptation of The Hobbit lurking somewhere inside this sloppy ten-hour behemoth!

Artistically, it would be interesting to see that done. I'm not sure I'd go that far, myself - I've gotg no problem with the trilogy per se, but certainly there are (as was the case with King Kong) some action sequences that feel more like pandering to the kids than anything. Nonetheless, it'll always be better than what that whore Lucas would have done to it (Hollywood legend has it that what changed Jackson's mind and got him into the idea of at least producing The Hobbit was that George Lucas expressed an interest in doing it, and of course it would have been inhuman for Jackson to have the opportunity to save the world from that and do nothing....).

ETA: I imagine you're thinknig of The Phantom Edit? I'd love to get a chance to see that, evne if for no better reason that to prove my theory that nothing could have saved that trainwreck.

Peter Jackson's two greatest movies were "Forgotten Silver" and "Heavenly Creatures." Everything he's done since then makes my eyes hurt.

Heavenly Creatures was an outstanding piece of cinema which really deserves far more attention. This made The Lovely Bones all the more disappointing for me.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Why not?

Because I'm not a criminal.

He needs reminding that this little book will be better minus all the 3D action bloat and Lucas-like, misguided, it-goes-with-the-other-trilogy prequelizing.

Ahh...so copyright infringement and film piracy are for the filmmaker's *benefit*. Do they know this?

 

[Doctor Strange]

Totally agree on Heavenly Creatures, it's an excellent film. I wasn't that disappointed with The Lovely Bones, but I hadn't read the book, so I had no basis for comparison. There were aspects of King Kong that I really liked, but it's much, much, MUCH too long... like The Hobbit films.

 

[Edward]

Totally agree on Heavenly Creatures, it's an excellent film. I wasn't that disappointed with The Lovely Bones, but I hadn't read the book, so I had no basis for comparison. There were aspects of King Kong that I really liked, but it's much, much, MUCH too long... like The Hobbit films.

I've not read the book either... I just didn't like the film. The ending was especially poor. Kong would have benefitted from being about twenty minutes shorter, but it was beautiful. One thing he brought to it that neither prior take did was really building the relationship between Ann Darrow and the big ape. I found their connection at the end much more believable. It was also fascinating to see it made as a period piece for the first time - both the original and the Jessica Lang 70s remake were, of course, set contemporaneously to those films being made. I think that takes it in a different direction. The odd modern sensibility inevitably makes it in there (see, for instance, Ann's refusal to be involved in exploiting Kong on Broadway - though that is very nicely played for effect when he realises it's the "wrong" woman).

 

[resortes805]

They should of just changed the protagonist to Utnapishtim. Honestly, the Noah-version of the great flood legend is the least enthralling.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Don't worry - with endless movie and TV sword-and-sandal projects being plundered from mythogical sources, I'm sure a big Gilgamesh CGI-fest is bound to happen!

 

[Edward]

Don't worry - with endless movie and TV sword-and-sandal projects being plundered from mythogical sources, I'm sure a big Gilgamesh CGI-fest is bound to happen!

That I'd like to see.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Me too! I've been a fan of myth-based films my whole life. Seeing Harryhausen's masterpiece Jason and the Argonauts theatrically when I was 9 was one of the defining events of my childhood!

You know, in some ways the sword and sandal/sword and sorcery/mythological hero genre was more fun back when it mostly low-budget European films, not massive CGI extravaganzas. I remember being enthralled with something called "The Sons of Hercules" on weekend afternoon TV back in the sixties. Only much later did I find out that it was a bunch of entirely unrelated Italian and Spanish "peplum" films that were packaged with new titles and narration insisting that this episode's hero was "...another son of Hercules!"

This blog is a lot of fun if you have any affection for the genre: http://www.peplumtv.com/