Sam Raimi to do The Hobbit?

[Priest4hire]

I can't imagine he's too old, especially if He's young enough to do Magneto yet again. He's not that old after all. And it would be wonderful to have him back again.

So, you signed up just to make that one post?

Why, yes. I don't want to sound the braggart, but you have to admit it was pretty impressive. My vision pierced the veil of time to rest upon this thread some 5 months hence. 

You know, if everyone who has repeated these bizarre exaggerations of the film had actually seen it, and paid for it, it would have been the number 1 DVD in the country.

OK.

I'm sick of this kind of stuff -- if I went frame by frame on something like Miller's Crossing and posted a bunch of different "odd" frames from the film with idiotic commentary running under, you trolls would say "yeah, yeah, what a bad movie" - No, it's not! And neither is Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings! Stop picking apart these tiny minuscule details that you're trying to make out to be much more then they actually are -- the big, overall picture, the overall film -- is excellent. Is it perfect? No. Does it have to be perfect? No. Does that matter? Just because the live-action films are new, doesn't mean they're good. Remember Michael Mann's Manhunter (from Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon)? The remake, while closer to the book, was a far inferior film. In the case of Bakshi vs. Jackson, while Bakshi got a few small details wrong, Jackson got a lot of major details wrong. The film has problems, no doubt, but it has far, far less problems than the live-action trilogy.

Odd. I didn't realize that bad character animation was a matter of 'odd' frames or minuscule details. Maybe we saw a different film.

A film being low-budget is no reason to criticize it. If it's low-budget and bad, then you can criticize it. Many filmmakers can make far superior films on lower budgets. Compare Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead to many of the recent high-budget horror films. Evil Dead is better.

Indeed. I agree whole heartedly. Not sure why you brought it up.

I liked the live-action, rotoscoping, and various other techniques Ralph used on the film. It was experimental. It was interesting to look at. Calling Bakshi's experimental filmmaking "bad" is kind of like calling Godard a hack - sure, it was startling to see jump cuts in Breathless - but that's not bad filmmaking. That's EXPERIMENTAL. It's brilliant! Filmmaking is supposed to progress, and challenge our way of looking at things. I'd rather see 100 Eraserheads than 100 Norbits.

So, having no money to animate a shot and so just putting it in unfinished is EXPERIMENTAL? Startling is not a problem. Breaking the visual continuity of your fictional world without a single good reason is.

You liked the movie and I respect that. If you'd like to debate the qualities of the movie perhaps a new thread is in order. Perhaps some of the others who have been induced to see the film will have their own opinions to offer.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Why, yes. I don't want to sound the braggart, but you have to admit it was pretty impressive. My vision pierced the veil of time to rest upon this thread some 5 months hence.

lol that sentance is total proof you belong here friend lol

You liked the movie and I respect that. If you'd like to debate the qualities of the movie perhaps a new thread is in order. Perhaps some of the others who have been induced to see the film will have their own opinions to offer.

you have no idea the can of worms your unleashing man. 

REally what scenes in the hobbit would rule?  i think the smaug is going to have to be beyond amazing just to be interesting just because we have seen dragons in film before. 

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Ralph Bakshi was definitely using live-action in animation as a way of being experimental, not cheap. He's used live-action throughout his work, even making an entirely live-action movie.

The whole idea of "breaking the visual continuity" is subjective - look at Waking Life: every scene in that movie is animated in a different way from the last. I don't think that's a bad thing, nor do I think having Lord of the Rings suddenly jump from rotoscoped animation to live-action is a bad thing. It's very effective, and catches you off guard. The brief moments where cel animation is used also catch you off guard.

Jan Svankmajer also used a variety of different mediums in his films - including live-action, clay stopmotion, and puppets.

[ScottotD]

yawn.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

What better way to say "I am contributing nothing" by making multiple posts consisting only of the word "Yawn"?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

double yawn.

I repeat my question

REally what scenes in the hobbit would rule?  i think the smaug is going to have to be beyond amazing just to be interesting just because we have seen dragons in film before. 

[ScottotD]

I sort of don't see the point in making it, it'd be cool to see but I think 3 movies is enough.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

i dunno the hobbit is just such a different read than LOTR i kinda would like to see it done, but i would also like to see someone else direct just so that different tone is communicated

[dignan]

I'd like to see a Riddles In The Dark scene that's not entirely composed of shots of cave walls. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

oooh good one.  would you cast the same guy as golumn?

[mrbasehart]

oooh good one.  would you cast the same guy as golumn?

I would.  Andy Serkis did a great job as Gollum, and he also physically acted the part out, too.

[BBQ Platypus]

Hmm...I'm a bit torn about this one.  I think Sam Raimi is a great director, and I'd like to see how a Raimi-directed Hobbit would look.

But, as others have pointed out, is a live-action version of The Hobbit REALLY necessary?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

why wouldnt it be nessicary?  further what makes a film nessicary anyways?

[the long undertow]

Sarcasm is right.  No more films.

[mrbasehart]

Sarcasm is right.  No more films.

It'd make my goal a lot more obtainable.  Though I suspect my job would be in serious jeopardy.