Jackson Bones

email this story
read comments (27)
post a comment

New York's "News Reel" column has taken a look at the script for The Lovely Bones, am 112-page adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, and declared that it "looks to be not nearly as good as Heavenly Creatures." I too have a copy of The Lovely Bones (sent to me a few days ago). It's difficult for me to invest any enthusiasm in a project that the dreaded Jackson has an interest in, but I'll try to read it and write an assessment within the next few days.

H'wood Reporter editorship up for grabs<< previous | next >>Frost/Weeks

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM

comment #1

jeffmcm says ...

Wells, did you ever see any of Jackson's pre-Lord of the Rings movies?
I have no idea why you think Jackson is a 'dreadful' filmmaker.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 4, 2007 3:19 PM

comment #2

Noah says ...

I wonder Jeff if you've seen any Peter Jackson film prior to the Lord of the Rings movies...

Posted by Noah at May 4, 2007 3:20 PM

comment #3

jeffmcm says ...

Jinx, you owe me a coke.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 4, 2007 3:20 PM

comment #4

christian says ...

this after jeff raves on KING KONG...

Posted by christian at May 4, 2007 3:22 PM

comment #5

JD says ...

Jeff would have to hate Jackson's early films sight unseen because they're horror films. It doesn't matter that he claims to like Black Sheep (or the part he saw), which borrows its style, tone, and humor from the early Jackson trio of Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, and Dead Alive. The man's rich and successful and there's nothing Jeff hates more than the rich and successful. But for a brief while there, didn't Jeff claim to like King Kong?

Posted by JD at May 4, 2007 3:25 PM

comment #6

Ian Sinclair says ...

Yes, I think we are all sick to death of Jeff's ripping into Peter Jackson. Jackson can console himself that he is three things Jeff is not: rich, successful and respected.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at May 4, 2007 3:45 PM

comment #7

Craig Kennedy says ...

Don't hurt yourself Wells.

Maybe you should have a separate blog with a single post all about Peter Jackson, Munich, Marie Antoinette and Eddie Murphy. Then, whenever we want to be reminded of how you loathe them, we can just click a link for ourselves, thus sparing you the trauma of reliving the horror each time the subject comes up. What say you? If you wanted to go crazy you could have a whole other post about the flyover states, their low thread-count t-shirts and their god fearing ways.

You'd be freed from the bondage of your own superiority. Imagine all the time you'd have to ponder and write about the good things in life.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 4, 2007 3:54 PM

comment #8

malibugigolo says ...

Jackson's nearly verbatim approach to the Lovely Bones is in step with his typical writing style; he always has loved taking things from books, such as, "The world is a great place and worth fighting for", problem is: Hemingway never wrote about hobbits.

Posted by malibugigolo at May 4, 2007 4:01 PM

comment #9

Hopscotch says ...

The Lovely Bones is just about the saddest book I've ever read. I mean have a hard time getting out of bed sad. I think this will be a very hard project for ANY filmmaker/director/screenwriter to turn into a feature film. It needs to be done delicately, and would very easily be "over emotional". And they'll probably have to be some major story changes as well, the books doesn't really fit into a three-act structure, and frankly both parents (who are the main leads behind the young girl) do some pretty bad things to themselves and are not very likable.

I'm curious how they "tackle" it. The religious right will go nuts on it (the book implies there is no heaven, or God for that matter).

Posted by Hopscotch at May 4, 2007 4:07 PM

comment #10

Mr. Gittes says ...

If I was a head of a studio, I would pony up for the newly announced Michael Mann noir project with Leo DiCaprio. Forget Peter Jackson. Michael Mann is the man!!

Posted by Mr. Gittes at May 4, 2007 4:07 PM

comment #11

Hopscotch says ...

No offense Mr. Gittes, I agree with you about Mann being the man and all, but if you watched his last project nearly double in costs while shooting and earn less than half it's budget back at the box office, you'll probably say, "is there a cheap horror movie we can churn out real quick?"

Posted by Hopscotch at May 4, 2007 4:24 PM

comment #12

Hopscotch says ...

if you were head of a studio, I mean.

Posted by Hopscotch at May 4, 2007 4:26 PM

comment #13

OddDuck says ...

pretty off topic here, but I am curious just how in the world Mann managed to spend so much money on Miami Vice, and what kind of impact that will have on his next few movies.

Posted by OddDuck at May 4, 2007 4:32 PM

comment #14

Balthazar says ...

I've still not come to terms with Skinny Peter Jackson. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept. I need him to look like a hobbit.

Posted by Balthazar at May 4, 2007 4:34 PM

comment #15

Edward says ...

For all of its excess "King Kong" has some beautiful moments. From the sounds of it, "The Lovely Bones" will be more like the wonderful "Heavenly Creatures." I wonder if he'll shoot it with the new Red Camera?

Peter Jackson shot a short film to test the Red Camera. Here's a link to a clip of the film. It takes awhile to download:
http://www.proapptips.com/redmirror/crossing1.mov

Posted by Edward at May 4, 2007 4:45 PM

comment #16

Mr. Gittes says ...

I agree Hopscotch. However, if John Logan's script is strong enough, well, I'd give it the green. Cast another big time star opposite the bankable Leo Dicaprio, then you've got yourself a possible B.O. winner and an award contender. That is not to say, however, that Jackson's Bones isn't worth it. I'd just rather go with the Mann.

Posted by Mr. Gittes at May 4, 2007 4:45 PM

comment #17

Edward says ...

I should have added a link to the Red site:

http://www.red.com/

Posted by Edward at May 4, 2007 4:49 PM

comment #18

Tedward says ...

Jeff, I luv ya...but,

If you're not a fan of Jackson, then why waste precious time reading a script for his next film?

Is this just so you can find any excuse to bash him?

Also, isn't script reviewing more the territory of fan-boy sites like AICN et al?

I though you were better than that...

Posted by Tedward at May 4, 2007 5:11 PM

comment #19

Movie Watcher says ...

Jeff, have you read the book? It was a good story. Try to put your anti-jackson jive to the side and don't write the movie off. Be fair and give it a chance! What is it about Peter Jackson: The Oscars, or the pile of cash he made? Maybe he can make a good movie from the book, maybe not.

Posted by Movie Watcher at May 4, 2007 5:20 PM

comment #20

dre says ...

Jeff, not a Heavenly Creatures fan?

Posted by dre at May 4, 2007 6:06 PM

comment #21

renorambler says ...

Heavenly Creatures showed that Jackson can do small, personal, emotional films. And in my book, he (and company) handled the LOTR trilogy about as well as it is possible to expect of such challenging source material. Never had an interest in King Kong but I'd love to see him pull off an adaptation of Lovely Bones. It's a very good book.

Posted by renorambler at May 4, 2007 6:14 PM

comment #22

Geoff says ...

The book is overrated in my opinion. The most interesting thing to see will be how Jackson accomplishes the look of "heaven".

But in the end it takes a turn right out of the movie GHOST.

Posted by Geoff at May 4, 2007 7:50 PM

comment #23

Ian Sinclair says ...

DreamWorks has won the bidding and paid $65m, according to Variety, who also have nice quotes from Spielberg and Snider, both huge Jackson admirers.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at May 4, 2007 9:22 PM

comment #24

erniesouchak says ...

I read long ago that Spielberg was attached to "The Lovely Bones," so if news of DW's acquisition is true, it's not surprising. This was for the most part a great book, but it's material that could easily lapse into too much sentimentality if handled by a sham sentimentalist like Spielberg. I hope Jackson is tougher.

Posted by erniesouchak at May 4, 2007 9:28 PM

comment #25

MrThompson says ...

"but it's material that could easily lapse into too much sentimentality if handled by a sham sentimentalist like Spielberg. I hope Jackson is tougher."

I dont think the guy whose last film featured Naomi Watts eye-fucking a giant CGI ape is the most qualified to hold back on sentimentality.

Posted by MrThompson at May 6, 2007 12:58 AM

comment #26

PaulJBis says ...

Actually, I'm surprised by this post, because I distinctly remember Jeff writing that he *did* like "Heavenly creatures"; in fact, it was in the context of a post saying how he much preferred low-key personal-drama Jackson ("Heavenly creatures") to bombastic epic Jackson (LOTR). So now I'm surprised that he seems to "dread" reading "THe lovely bones". Isn't this exactly the kind of Peter Jackson project that Jeff might like more?

Posted by PaulJBis at May 6, 2007 3:55 AM

comment #27