anyone?

"The Lovely Bones" would probably have been a much better title than "The Wrath of Khan".

Sounds great!! What about the Hobbit? Will it ever see the light of day? Kudos to Jackson for being such a versatile director and not doing blockbusters for the rest of his career

BONES, starring Snoop Dogg. heheh.

I'm not disappointed. I thought Ramsay would have been great. Ratcatcher is a beautifully photographed film, but Peter Jackson will surely do a great job. Heavenly Creatures has been one of my favorites of all time. Great news! Glad they didn't get a hack for it...

I had heard that they were making it into a movie, but I didn't know it was Peter Jackson and Co. that were behind it. This is great news. I really enjoyed the book. It was the kind of book where you're not quite aware of how much of an attachment you've developed with it until it's over. I couldn't help but think as I was reading it how in a book Heaven and Earth were easily shifted back and forth, but it's going to be difficult to pull off onscreen and get the audience to buy it. If anyone can pull it off it's Peter Jackson.

If you've had the misfortune of reading this steaming piece of vastly over-blown melodramatic crap you'll understand the subject line. Terrible book.

What time did you wake up, what time did you read the mail and where was your nephew?

If PJ chooses the ghost movie it only means that he's tired of mega hits and wants to ad another flop to his career. COME ON MAN, WESSA WANTS SOME CRAZY AIR BATTLE SCENES!!!!!!!!!!!

...still waiting... actually, it'd be nice to have a WWI flick, not too many of those.

Writing original screenplays is not the mark of a great filmmaker. Stanley Kubrick directed how many? 2? He adapted at least 8 novels/stories by fairly well-known writers. The point is that he made all of them his own with his vision. Orson Welles only had a few original screenplays to his credit, while adapting Shakespeare several times, Kafka, Booth Tarkington, and Isak Denison. When Jackson has a new story idea he'll let us know. Until then I've been pretty impressed with the other stuff he's done.

What a delightful moment it'll be, when Gandalf, the dwarves, and Arwen show up on Bilbo's doorstep and go into their musical number! Then we can go into twenty minutes of Arwen laying listlessly on a couch under a soft-focus lens before getting into the REAL meat of the story: Arwen getting the trolls to stay up arguing until sunrise... Arwen finding the Ring, tricking Gollum, and escaping... Arwen saving the group from the spiders... and don't forget the new scene (you know, the one Tolkien meant to write in, but forgot) where Arwen's barrel goes over a waterfall and they take a half-hour detour from the story so everyone can stand around with long faces until she shows up again (***SPOILER WARNING: The horse saves her. Don't ask me how a horse manages to get a soaking-wet, unconscious person onto its back in a seated position; it's the Magic of Arwen! Anything's possible!! END OF SPOILER***). And, man oh man... when Arwen kills Smaug with the Black Arrow it's gonna be TOO FUCKIN' SWEET. I can't wait! 2006, or 2007... uh, 2010? 2015? Whatever, it can't come soon enough!

shows you how much that's worth quint, you douche.

So I guess I'm not the only person who fast forwards the dvd everytime arwen is on screen. Still it's easy to see why PJ cut christopher lee out of ROTK so he could have a few more shots of arwen crying. God that was exciting and really helped the pace of the film.

What's this "Lovely Bones" crap all about? Where's our ultimate "Hobbit" movie? Quick...make it before McKlellan and Holm get too much older! C'mon New Line, it's another guaranteed $300 million...at least!

I think this writing team will do a great job on THE LOVELY BONES, which may make a better adaptation than it did a novel. I enjoyed the book, but its magical realism got a little too magical about 3/4 of the way through; that segment in particular may make a better piece of visual, rather than written, prose. considering PJ's work on HEAVENLY CREATURES, i can't think of another director better-suited to adapt this story. sofia coppola would be my second choice, though she might not move the story along quickly enough if she were at the helm. i'm very interested to see how this develops.

Let it go, people. He ain't gonna do it. At all.

Time to crank out a few time and money wasting vanity projects, to prove the uniqueness of his creative vision...maybe after "Bones" he can do a tribute to chop-suey kung-fu flicks, and then split it into two movies so you pay twice for one overrated shite film...we'll all be old and grey before he gets to "Hobbit". Ian Holm will just be dead.

Let me chime in with HOBBIT DAMMIT! All the other stuff will be forgotten but if you do the Hobbit now, history will embrace you even more and fans will throw roses on the ground you walk on. DO THE HOBBIT!

but I believe The Lovely Bones was originally going to be under the helm of the director of Morvern Callar, another movie I love, I wonder what happened.

Can't wait! Peter Jackson et al are the perfect combination for this story. They could certainly get the combination of horror and pathos and joy right. Utterly marvellous news.

Is someone seriously contending that LOTR fans are turned off by cheese and melodrama? Ha!

Too bad the studios can't reseolve their rights issues. It's all about the money, stupid.

Because I'd have for different actors and a different director to take on that project. I understand needing a non-event level project before returning to Middle Earth, and King Kong that ain't, but I hope those of us wanting to see that Hobbit encore won't be disappointed.

I did not like this book. Way overrated. And that sequence referred to above, 3/4 of the way through the book, is too "Ghost"-like to work. I just don't see it.

Hobbits "come of age" at 33. A 50 year old Hobbit should loo approximately as old as a 35 year old human. Granted, Bilbo ages very slowly after his return to the Shire due to the power of 'The One', but LOTR opens 60 years later, regardless. Holm is 72 or 73. They need a younger actor. McKellen could reprise as Gandalf with no issues however, as it doesn't really matter how old/young Gandalf's human form looks.

Ah well, it will be nice to see PJ and crew do another movie that doesn't require massive amounts of SFX. Guess I'll have to read the book now.

Get Terry Gilliam or Tom Twyker or Alfonso Cuaron or Brad Bird or Zhang Yimou or... or, Peter Weir, yes! Peter Weir!! Or anyone else who has proven to have a strong visual style, an ability to bring ATMOSPHERE, and an imagination strong enough not to be overwhelmed by decades of derivative D&D-looking fantasy worlds! (come on, couldn't they interpret Tolkien's poetic elves as something more interesting and original than tall, blond, and pointy eared?) Oh, and an ability to tell a coherent story (so forget Tim Burton or any other media-proclaimed "visual genius").

Well, as of a couple of years ago, she has LOTR on her resum

It will be a movie for grown-ups.

Another probably boring 3 hours? Thanks, not.

You wrote: "Criticism of these people's work seems like heresy. But the brutal fact remains: their LOTR scripts blew." First of all, I'm glad you're enjoying life so much these days, albeit in a very Ren and Stimpy kind of way. Secondly, the LOTR scripts blowing is not a fact, it's your opinion. There's a big difference. I'm sure you see it as a fact, and that's fine, but you should qualify such statements with, "But my opinion remains: the LOTR scripts blew." There you go.

How could they do that, the LOTR books have zero character development. If anything I'd say the movies have much more than the one dimensional characters of the books.

In a dark, dark house, there was a dark, dark room, and in that dark, dark room was a dark, dark cupboard...

and all the other cheeball "romantic" scenes...

Liv Tyler's total screentime for the entire trilogy was less than 15 minutes. Shut the fuck up.

Uh, have you even read Lord of the Rings. Jackson did as good a job as is reasonably possible. Quit being such a fucking snob. And I don't know what fantasy books you have been reading, but Jackson took most of his descriptions straight from the books. Oh and he also hired renowned Tolkien artists for the design process. The elves were perfect, don't blame Jackson for the decades of derrivative literature, especially since Lord of the Rings is what they were derived from. Too bad Jackson didn't do things your way, he could have foregone the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of and numerous awards he has earned by making a film that the majority of Tolkien fans are happy with. He missed an opporotunity to be just like you. Oh and I'm sorry, what exactly do you do that makes you a fantasy film expert?

In 2003, in the AICN IRC Channel on Oscar Night, Anonymous cowards like InvaderZim, wixlet, and Huneybee were kicking anti-war comments like crazy. They hide behind their anonymous IRC identities without email addresses so they can gleefully keep from getting the ever-loving shit beat out of them. They know they'd be vomiting up blood in a ditch if it wasn't for their cowering behind their keyboards. Just for the record. Will post in every Harry live Oscar thread in every subsequent year until they grow a sack and back up their words with actions.