Amentep Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 Peter Jackson seems to have optioned Naomi Novik's Temeraire novel(s) (aka His Majesty's Dragon) Yahoo's news report Haven't read the novel myself but it sounds interesting. This would theoretically be Jackson's movie after The Lovely Bones. Which puts more wonder to MGM's announcement Jackson was making The Hobbit with them... I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Deraldin Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 Certainly an interesting choice. I haven't read the books myself, however we have all three of them on the bookshelf upstairs. Might have to actually read them now...
Lyric Suite Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 Not that the Lord of the Rings were that great to begin with, but after King Kong i think i'm going to give everything Jackson does a miss...
Pop Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 As for the Hobbit deal, I had read that MGM has optioned the rights, and they are planning on using them. Whether or not it has anything to do with the LOTR trilogy is unclear, at least as of now. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
Oerwinde Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 Peter Jackson seems to have optioned Naomi Novik's Temeraire novel(s) (aka His Majesty's Dragon) Yahoo's news report Haven't read the novel myself but it sounds interesting. This would theoretically be Jackson's movie after The Lovely Bones. Which puts more wonder to MGM's announcement Jackson was making The Hobbit with them... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They didn't announce that he was making the Hobbit, only that they were pursuing him to do it. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
blue Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 (edited) Peter Jackson seems to have optioned Naomi Novik's Temeraire novel(s) (aka His Majesty's Dragon) That Edited September 14, 2006 by blue
astr0creep Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 I remember reading an interview with Ian McEllen(he was being interviewed by a magazine, I wasn't actually reading with him) in which he was saying that he would really like to produce and co-star as Gandalf in a Hobbit miniseries and he was trying to get Peter Jackson involved. That seemed very interesting but it apparently went nowhere. http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/
Amentep Posted September 14, 2006 Author Posted September 14, 2006 They didn't announce that he was making the Hobbit, only that they were pursuing him to do it. No they did originally say he was making the Hobbit with them. And then Jackson said it was the first he'd heard of it. Which then I think turned to a "clarification" from MGM. MGM owns the distribution rights to the Hobbit while New Line owns the rights to make the film, which means no film will be made before MGM and New Line agree to it, which will have to happen before Jackson hopes to get involved, if he wants to do it. Blue - the Dambusters story was proven false, AFAIK; Jackson's not remaking it. The Lovely Bones he's doing on spec (he wants to have a script done before presenting it to a studio to be made) which word is he'll do with Temeraire as well. Halo afaik he's only producing. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Blarghagh Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 Goddammit Pete, make some original stuff again. Bad Taste FTW.
blue Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 (edited) Blue - the Dambusters story was proven false, AFAIK; Jackson's not remaking it. The Lovely Bones he's doing on spec (he wants to have a script done before presenting it to a studio to be made) which word is he'll do with Temeraire as well. Halo afaik he's only producing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In early May Jackson's personal assistant reportedly told the Wellington Post that Jackson was not directing the project, but they didn't deny other involvement. According to recent reports, Jackson is co-producing but not directing. Or perhaps it's all a pack of celluloid lies. Jackson on mission for 'Dambusters' 5 September 2006 Hollywood Reporter Peter Jackson is producing "Dambusters," a World War II aerial adventure that will mark the directorial debut of Christian Rivers, Jackson's animation director on "King Kong" (HR 9/1). Universal Pictures and StudioCanal are co-financing the movie, with Universal handling worldwide rights excluding France and the U.K., where StudioCanal will distribute. "Dambusters," inspired by actual events, will chronicle the story of a top-secret Royal Air Force bombing mission that aims to destroy three dams essential to the Nazi steel industry. No screenwriter is on board yet. A goal of a mid-2007 start date is on the table, as is a budget range of $30 million-$40 million. The film will fall under Jackson's WingNut Films banner and is being produced by Jan Blenkin, Carolynne Cunningham and Jackson. Frost and Ken Kamins, Jackson's manager, are exec producers. 'Dam' set for Jackson 31 August 2006 Daily Variety Universal and StudioCanal have launched development of "Dambusters," a WWII actioner produced by Peter Jackson, Jan Blenkin and Carolynne Cunningham through Jackson's WingNut Films shingle. Project is based on the 1943 Allied air raid on three German dams essential to the Nazi steel industry. The story, based on the book by Paul Brickhill, previously received the bigscreen treatment in 1955 film "The Dam Busters." Longtime Jackson associate Christian Rivers will make his directing debut. Edited September 14, 2006 by blue
Hurlshort Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 I doubt he'd do The Hobbit after covering the whole trilogy. I'm a bit surprised to see the Peter Jackson criticisms. I can understand not liking the movie, but not if you're a fan of Tolkien. What movie did you expect? It was long, but so were the books, and it captured some pretty amazing scenes from the series. I thought it was an amazingly good book to movie translation. I definitely don't see how he could have improved on it, except maybe including Tom Bombadil.
Laozi Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 "'Temeraire' is a terrific meld of two genres that I particularly love -- fantasy and historical epic," Jackson said. "I can't wait to see Napoleonic battles fought with a squadron of dragons. That's what I go to the movies for." Blah People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
Blarghagh Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 Hey, maybe he'll do it right. Remember when they had dragon battles in DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS?
Amentep Posted September 15, 2006 Author Posted September 15, 2006 In early May Jackson's personal assistant reportedly told the Wellington Post that Jackson was not directing the project, but they didn't deny other involvement. According to recent reports, Jackson is co-producing but not directing. Or perhaps it's all a pack of celluloid lies. Poking around a bit, it looks like Jackson is producing the film, but not directing it. Which I hadn't heard. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
metadigital Posted September 15, 2006 Posted September 15, 2006 Goddammit Pete, make some original stuff again. Bad Taste FTW. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, why is he impersonating a middle-manager of a content provider (read: head of a film studio in the age of TimeWarner, et alia, where the studios are just a small item in the entire content provision of a mega-corporation)? If anything, you'd think he would have made enough money / fame / whatever to make some original material. Dambusters? Why remake a classic? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Blarghagh Posted September 15, 2006 Posted September 15, 2006 He remade King Kong, didn't he? Of course, that was pretty much his dream project.
Kaftan Barlast Posted September 15, 2006 Posted September 15, 2006 I think the Napoleonic wars are fine without dragons. In fact, I think its among the dumbest ideas Ive ever heard. What's next, Octavian and Marc Anthony running into unexpected trouble during the battle of Actium as Martians suddenly invade the earth? DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
astr0creep Posted September 15, 2006 Posted September 15, 2006 I think the Napoleonic wars are fine without dragons. In fact, I think its among the dumbest ideas Ive ever heard. What's next, Octavian and Marc Anthony running into unexpected trouble during the battle of Actium as Martians suddenly invade the earth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why not? Alternate universe FTW! http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/
Kaftan Barlast Posted September 15, 2006 Posted September 15, 2006 History > Stupidity " DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
Amentep Posted September 15, 2006 Author Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) ^Who looks to movies for historical accuracy anyhow? :-" Edited September 15, 2006 by Amentep I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now