Peter Jackson puts the idea of directing an episode of Doctor Who into everyone's head, everyone dies

Discuss

31 Responses to “Peter Jackson puts the idea of directing an episode of Doctor Who into everyone's head, everyone dies”

  1. jerwin says:

    Before all that Shire money, Jackson was responsible for some seriously, wonderfully demented flicks: Bad Taste, Dead Alive (aka Braindead), and Meet the Feebles. I’ll include an honorable mention for Heavenly Creatures, 

    Only a n Honorable Mention? I think it was “Heavenly Creatures” that got him the gig.

    • B E Pratt says:

       Actually, it was probably The Frighteners (which I dearly love). At least Jackson stated somewhere that he considered that film great prep work for Lord of the Rings. Jeffrey Combs utterly steals the movie by taking his normally demented characterization and turning it past 11. Way, way past.

  2. RadioSilence says:

    I hate to be ‘that guy’, but Matt Smith doesn’t play the eponymous character in Doctor Who. He’s not called ‘Doctor Who’, just The Doctor.
    [said with a winking smiley and a cheeky grin]

    • BillStewart2012 says:

      And here I was thinking “Matt Smith plays the eponymous character” meant he was playing a character named “Matt Smith”….

    • ptrourke says:

       Could still be an eponymous character. After all, who is the eponymous character of *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?”

    • Don Hosek says:

      Of course, in the credits, the actor playing the Doctor is listed as playing Doctor Who*, so I’m inclined to say that it’s ok to call the Doctor the eponymous character.

      * I have a vague recollection that in some cases, he’s listed as “the Doctor” rather than “Doctor Who”, but I’m too lazy to check right now, nor am I bothering to check on what current practice is.

  3. Chris Teague says:

    An angel gets its wings?!?!  Thanks for the nightmares!

    Don’t blink.  Don’t even blink.

  4. Teirhan says:

    Well, that trailer makes up for the atrocious job they did editing the announcement trailer.  I’m sort of excited for this movie again!  I’m also still super concerned that they’re going to stretch the source material waaay too thin, though.  I just re-read the Hobbit, and there’s a movie there – maybe even two!  But 3?  Not so much. 

    • ocker3 says:

       That’s the thing, there’s apparently a Lot of plot they’ve added to the story, so they could get the elves involved again

  5. Paul Smith says:

    omg…that would be the worst thing for dr who. jackson’s desire to make as much money from the hobbit movie by splitting it in 3 parts is just insane. maybe jackson would split his dr who episode over three regenerations of the dr. so we could have three new dr’s in 3 episodes. please dont have him do this…

    • capnmarrrrk says:

      Nearly what I was going to say but yours it much better.

    • Paul, A lot of extra material – which features in the appendixes of the LOTR and Silmarillion is being incorporated into The Hobbit movie. It’s not simply money making, there is Tolkien written material which is relevant: the whole issue of the White Council meeting, the politics of Saruman’s leadership of it, and the discovery of Sauron in Mirkwood, and ultimately being driven out by the White Council. This is what I expect to take up about one whole movie. And this makes good sense as far as I’m concerned – I want to see this stuff on the screen. What I hope is that Jackson sticks to the plot and doesn’t adlib too much as in LOTR.

    • Frank Ozaki says:

      actually, if you read the hobbit (and JUST the hobbit) and consider all that happening on film in more-or-less real time, the question is what are they cutting OUT to fill three movies. because it’s a lot more content than people realize.

      EDIT: also, SQUEEEEEEE!!! for jackson directing an episode of Doctor Who.

    • Thomas Rice says:

      Erm you do realise he isn’t just using the content from the Hobbit to tell the story right? In fact the Hobbit Films aren’t just going to be adaptations of the Hobbit, Tolkien wrote loads of extra Appendices and additional notes from different points of view set around the same time as the Hobbit that included where Gandalf vanishes to for large portions of the immediate book, sections of the white council drawing necromancer Sauron out of Dol Guldur or the Dwarves of Erabor? The TRUTH of the matter is that with all of this material there’s PLENTY of content to justify 3 films being made in order to allow time to develop all this material, he wants to flesh out the world of Middle Earth in order to transition it to his LOTR trilogy, one of the issues he had when making LOTR was the running time, did you ever consider he’s trying to make up for it? Whether you like it or not the LOTR Trilogy was a fantastically successful adaptation not just on the money side, but critically acclaimed, the trilogy is the only Fantasy Blockbuster film to date to win 17 Oscar’s. To say that Jackson is nothing more than money grubbing is an insult to the man, he’s genuinely passionate about Middle Earth and respects it’s source material, and the ONLY people who have a problem with that fail at understanding the artistic expectation of a film ADAPTATION. If you really want a TRUE money grubbing ‘film maker’ look at any Michael Bay or a Happy Madison produced film.

  6. Ramone says:

    Doctor Who aside, that Hobbit trailer looks fantastic!

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      …that Hobbit trailer looks fantastic!

      Except for it having almost nothing to do with the book. And the fact that Middle earth is now TEAL AND ORANGE.

  7. Christopher says:

    Is it too much to hope that directing an episode of Doctor Who would distract Jackson from his plans to split The Hobbit into three parts? 

  8. Talia says:

    What if Jackson directed it, but Gaiman wrote it? That’s might end all TV for me; I’m not sure anything could ever hope to surpass that level of awesomeness. 

  9. B E Pratt says:

    Well, if anyone makes it all the way down here, I must mention just why Dead Alive had it’s name changed from Braindead. Turned out that it wasn’t known there was a 1990 film called Brain Dead, which is now cult. It was just too weird to play at the time. It is the only film with the Two Bills (Paxton/Pullman). It has Bud Cort!?!?! It was written by Charles Beaumont. It is monstrously/wondrously  confusing and in the end, it just doesn’t make sense. Which is why you sit down and watch it allll over again because you just know you will just keep going, “Oh, OH! NOW I get it!” Until it ends and you go……wait a minute……let me see that again. The only film I have watch more often was Rocky Horror, but this is better by far. It reminds me of the original DOA. You watch it and you think you know whats going on, but when it is over, the pieces just never really fit. Doesn’t lessen the enjoyment at all because it is a bit like watching a new movie every damn time :) Oh, Kafka does the same thing to your head.

Leave a Reply