From Pajiba.com via AICN.com...
QuoteStill ... grain of salt, people. And I'll tell you why: Earlier this year, Latino Review reported that Sony sold the rights to The Shadow to 20th Century Fox, and that Sam Raimi — who had been attached to the project for years, but had never done anything with it — had passed the directing reigns on to David Slade (30 Days of Night, Twilight: Eclipse). The fact that the movie switched studios and that Sam Raimi would not be directing the film has been confirmed by third parties, and while the David Slade aspect has not, I have no doubt that it was true at the time. But this is Hollywood, and projects change hands monthly. The Shadow is likely one that may be passed around to a few directors before it ever gets made — as of the moment, it's not even a huge priority over at Fox. In fact, it's currently out for a rewrite.
However, the person that is now attached to the project is none other than Quentin Tarantino, who is also attached as co-writer. This comes as big a surprise to me as anyone, because I don't know where Sam Raimi and Quentin Tarantino's movie pathways have crossed, and so far as I know, The Shadow has never been mentioned among the 27 dozen projects that Tarantino has always been obsessed with. Maybe he loved original radio show and the pulps (which do seem up Tarantino's alley), and maybe he saw Siavash Farahani's script and decided that, if anyone could erase the memory of Alec Baldwin's atrocity, it'd be him. Maybe Tarantino just loves the challenge. Or maybe he's just added this to the huge pile of future possibilities and has no intention of ever directing. All I know is that, for the moment, he is being discussed (and this is a two-way discussion) and or already attached as the future director of The Shadow.
But then again, it's Hollywood. And that may change again next month. Tarantino could change his mind and decide to direct Jason Benoit's Untitled dren in a Bag movie instead (which exists over at Madhouse Entertainment. They must feel very proud to have purchased that script). We'll see how it pans out.
Wow! The Shadow is one of my favorite characters but Quentin Tarantino helming it would stop me from seeing it competely. Sam Raimi, on the other hand, I was really looking forward too.
I'm the opposite there, Steam. Big up for Quentin, big down for Raimi.
I'm not sure I'd want to see Raimi or Tarrentino attached to the film. I am not sure either guy would do it in a way that "erased the atrocity that was the Alec Baldwin film". Then again with the right script who knows about what either guy would do.
Personally, I think Raimi's version would run the risk of being to close in tone to the Baldwin film. Tarrentino's would probably be too focused on the violence.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 07, 2010, 12:21:48 AM
I'm not sure I'd want to see Raimi or Tarrentino attached to the film. I am not sure either guy would do it in a way that "erased the atrocity that was the Alec Baldwin film". Then again with the right script who knows about what either guy would do.
Personally, I think Raimi's version would run the risk of being to close in tone to the Baldwin film. Tarrentino's would probably be too focused on the violence.
well I liked the Shadow and I dislike Baldwin. My loathing for Tarintino is pretty strong though. I could rant on disdainful things about his missing the point of his source material and his inadequacies as a writer/director and how people pretend his films are deep and wonderful when they're barely passable B movies but I won't. ;)
Put Tim Burton on it, as long as Johnny Depp isn't allowed to be in it and Helena Bonham Carter isn't Margot Lane (a role she'd be a terrible choice for). Not even so much as a cameo by Depp, unless he's playing a corpse!
Now one rumor I kind of like is Jon Hamm playing Lamont Cranston. I think he'd be a decent choice. On the other hand, over at John Byrne's forum there'a a thread about this and he suggested David Pasquesi or Adrian Brody. I like Adrian Brody as an actor, but.....no. (Although he does kind of have the nose for it) Don't know enough about David Pasquesi to judge.
A Tarantino version would probably not only focus on the violence like Mr. Hamrick mentioned but also have a ton of foul language. That's NOT the Shadow.
Quote from: GhostMachine on August 07, 2010, 12:35:28 AM
Put Tim Burton on it, as long as Johnny Depp isn't allowed to be in it and Helena Bonham Carter isn't Margot Lane (a role she'd be a terrible choice for). Not even so much as a cameo by Depp, unless he's playing a corpse!
Now one rumor I kind of like is Jon Hamm playing Lamont Cranston. I think he'd be a decent choice. On the other hand, over at John Byrne's forum there'a a thread about this and he suggested David Pasquesi or Adrian Brody. I like Adrian Brody as an actor, but.....no. (Although he does kind of have the nose for it) Don't know enough about David Pasquesi to judge.
A Tarantino version would probably not only focus on the violence like Mr. Hamrick mentioned but also have a ton of foul language. That's NOT the Shadow.
Burton and Depp are already doing a new version of Dark Shadows. So not sure on that... Helena would make it in somewhere though as she and Burton have been together for years. (What? Why did you THINK she was getting cast in so much of his stuff?)
I really don't have a choice on who I'd like to see direct it, just a list of people I hope don't.
Helena Bonham Carter's relationship with Tim Burton is the reason I didn't nix the idea of her being in the movie. Just the idea of her playing Margo Lane.
The problem with doing a new movie is, who would be the villain? Shiwan Khan was the only recurring villain that the Shadow ever had, and using him again would be a bad idea, reboot or not.
If Sam Raimi did a Shadow movie, I'm guessing Bruce Campbell would be Commissioner Weston and Ted Raimi would be one of the Shadow's agents? (He'd probably be either Harry Vincent or Burbank)
I'm interested in seeing what comes out of this. I like QT's movies...except Kill Bill 2.
I also think the Burton/Depp Bromance would make a pretty good Shadow movie too.
Ehh...I would be much more interested in the Raimi version. Tarintino's is likely to be more flash than substance and more violence and profanity than flash. :P I like the guy pretty well, but I feel like the Shadow needs a more subtle touch....although I do love the old Alec Baldwin one....it didn't do too bad a job.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 07, 2010, 02:20:21 AM
Burton and Depp are already doing a new version of Dark Shadows.
...MY GOD...
NO!The Alec Baldwin movie suffered from the screenwriter thinking he could come up with a better origin for The Shadow than the guy who wrote the original. That and a whole "filled with doubt fighting against his dark side bad boy" kind of thing (a variation of what I call The Heathcliff Syndrome). In between the dross was a decent, if unoriginal, adventure story. I find it watchable and entertaining (although I probalby laugh at scenes the screenwriter and director thought were dramatically important to the development of the character)
I have been singularly unimpressed by everything I've seen Tarrantino do. It might be entertainment, but I've read better comic books.
Sam Rami has wanted to do The Shadow for a long time; Darkman was his version of the character.
The Shadow had several recurring villains, like The Voo Doo Master, The Prince of Evil, and The Wasp. But why does it have to be a recurring villain? I mean, if they ever do a Spider movie... or an Avenger movie for that matter...
Besides which, in the pulps, the Baldwin movie never happened.
Quote from: daglob on August 15, 2010, 03:38:04 AM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 07, 2010, 02:20:21 AM
Burton and Depp are already doing a new version of Dark Shadows.
...MY GOD... NO!
Oh yes!
Quote from: daglob on August 15, 2010, 03:38:04 AM
I have been singularly unimpressed by everything I've seen Tarrantino do. It might be entertainment, but I've read better comic books.
Sam Rami has wanted to do The Shadow for a long time; Darkman was his version of the character.
I will reserve the right to disagree with you over Tarrantino. I do believe he is perhaps given a bit too much credit sometimes but the man knows what he is doing. The problem with Tarrantino is that just about all his work I can think of is knowingly and intentionally an homage to some earlier genre of film. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. It does suggest something about Tarrentino as a director and about his style.
As for Raimi, thanks for helping me realize what was that made me cringe at the thought of him doing The Shadow. I really disliked almost hated Darkman. The story was fine (other than being an obvious knockoff of The Shadow). However, the visual style of the movie really pushed me away. I just rewatched the trailer and was cringing. There was a cheesy visual style to the movie where some stuff looked photoshopped in to the frame. It wasn't but it looked it. The reason it looks that way is the lighting (yay, I did learn something in school). Of course, if Raimi did The Shadow, I hope he'd opt to learn from the things that came out so wrong with that movie. (Note, the VO on the trailer didn't help it any either.)
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 15, 2010, 05:56:18 AM
I will reserve the right to disagree with you over Tarrantino. I do believe he is perhaps given a bit too much credit sometimes but the man knows what he is doing. The problem with Tarrantino is that just about all his work I can think of is knowingly and intentionally an homage to some earlier genre of film. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. It does suggest something about Tarrentino as a director and about his style.
I still have to disagree with you on Tarrantino except for thefact he's overrated. he really dosn't seem to get the he's homaging . at least the stuff I'm familiar with . His stuff is just B movie gitty uberviolence whch pretends to be deep but really is not and/or he misses the orignal feel or point of thematerial he's homaging. Thanks for reminding how much a loath his work and am annoyed everyone in hollywood seems to think it War and Peace.
The shadow is probably one of my top 10 favorite characters of all yie but a Tarrantino shadow I would not watch . All is stuff dors id really annoy me.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 15, 2010, 05:56:18 AM
I will reserve the right to disagree with you over Tarrantino. I do believe he is perhaps given a bit too much credit sometimes but the man knows what he is doing. The problem with Tarrantino is that just about all his work I can think of is knowingly and intentionally an homage to some earlier genre of film. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. It does suggest something about Tarrentino as a director and about his style.
As for Raimi, thanks for helping me realize what was that made me cringe at the thought of him doing The Shadow. I really disliked almost hated Darkman. The story was fine (other than being an obvious knockoff of The Shadow). However, the visual style of the movie really pushed me away. I just rewatched the trailer and was cringing. There was a cheesy visual style to the movie where some stuff looked photoshopped in to the frame. It wasn't but it looked it. The reason it looks that way is the lighting (yay, I did learn something in school). Of course, if Raimi did The Shadow, I hope he'd opt to learn from the things that came out so wrong with that movie. (Note, the VO on the trailer didn't help it any either.)
Funny, but Darkman made me worry about Rami doing Spiderman. The "Photoshop" work seemed to work against the whole movie, and there was a bit too much "style" over the substance (yes, there was substance there... a little... look close). It's been years since I've seen it, but I did enjoy it for what it was (says the man who watched "Attack of the Crab Monsters" just last week). Then he did Spiderman 1, and it was pretty decent.
Actually, it was 'way better than I ever imagined it would be.
Before anyone flames me over that statement, I refer you to two (count 'em, two) Captain America TV movies, David Hasslehoff as Nick Fury, The Spirit starring Sam Jones, the 1990 Captain America movie, and the unreleased (except on Youtube) Fantastic Four movie by Roger Corman.
I find it strange that people link Tarrantino with violence. Are you looking at Kill Bill, a film intended to be violent? but ignoring the classics that are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp fiction and Inglorious Basterds, all of which focus on character interaction (and dare I say plot) a long time before violence. We seem to have the notion that Tarrantino is a violent director, and that is ridiculous. I stand by that Tarrantino is the king of dialog. No director seems to pull it off quite like he does. Take the opening scene from Inglorious Basterds - it is so perfectly written and filmed that I told someone just today that it is without doubt one of the best pieces of filming I have ever seen. Christoph Waltz' phenomenal acting is mostly responsible, of course.
However, the thing that is simultaneously his best and worst quality is that he is unpredictable. You can't say that he is a "violent" director or a "plot" director or even a "homage" director because he is just too many things. His films can go from one genre to another within a moment. It can go from one homage to another in a moment - they are a post-modern pastiche of various genres. For that reason, it is very much down to taste than whether or not he is a good or bad director. He does things differently, he is good at what he does and so it comes down to a matter of taste.
I love it. You may not.
Quote from: steamteck on August 15, 2010, 02:30:22 PM
I still have to disagree with you on Tarrantino except for thefact he's overrated. he really dosn't seem to get the he's homaging . at least the stuff I'm familiar with . His stuff is just B movie gitty uberviolence whch pretends to be deep but really is not and/or he misses the orignal feel or point of thematerial he's homaging. Thanks for reminding how much a loath his work and am annoyed everyone in hollywood seems to think it War and Peace.
Actually, I am not sure you're completely disagreeing with me. His stuff is mostly "B movie" grade material. However, the material that passed for "B-movie" back then would be pretty tame by today's standards. You can thank the action movies of the 80s for that. I think the only part we are in real disagreement on is rather or not his material has any sort of deepness to it. I don't know anyone, in Hollywood or elsewhere, who would mistake his work for War and Peace. However, to say that his material misses the original feel or point of the material he is homaging and lacks any deepness is doing one of the two things. The first is suggesting that the original had more of a point than it really did. The second is trying to overanalyze his work as something it's not. Tarrentino is not a "high art" filmmaker. However, he is not a bad filmmaker. He knows his intended audience the way that Kevin Smith knows his intended audience.
Quote from: Reepicheep on August 15, 2010, 03:48:45 PM
I find it strange that people link Tarrantino with violence. Are you looking at Kill Bill, a film intended to be violent? but ignoring the classics that are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp fiction and Inglorious Basterds, all of which focus on character interaction (and dare I say plot) a long time before violence. We seem to have the notion that Tarrantino is a violent director, and that is ridiculous. I stand by that Tarrantino is the king of dialog. No director seems to pull it off quite like he does. Take the opening scene from Inglorious Basterds - it is so perfectly written and filmed that I told someone just today that it is without doubt one of the best pieces of filming I have ever seen. Christoph Waltz' phenomenal acting is mostly responsible, of course.
However, the thing that is simultaneously his best and worst quality is that he is unpredictable. You can't say that he is a "violent" director or a "plot" director or even a "homage" director because he is just too many things. His films can go from one genre to another within a moment. It can go from one homage to another in a moment - they are a post-modern pastiche of various genres. For that reason, it is very much down to taste than whether or not he is a good or bad director. He does things differently, he is good at what he does and so it comes down to a matter of taste.
I love it. You may not.
I think you are more or less spot on, Reep.
I don't know that I would call Inglorious Basterds a classic but to each their own. I have my issues with the movie but it's personal issues.
Reservoir Dogs IS a classic as is Pulp Fiction, nonetheless.
Quote from: daglob on August 15, 2010, 03:10:20 PM
Funny, but Darkman made me worry about Rami doing Spiderman. The "Photoshop" work seemed to work against the whole movie, and there was a bit too much "style" over the substance (yes, there was substance there... a little... look close). It's been years since I've seen it, but I did enjoy it for what it was (says the man who watched "Attack of the Crab Monsters" just last week). Then he did Spiderman 1, and it was pretty decent.
I'm glad we agree about the visual style on Darkman not working. And there was some substance there but not too much. I've a bigger issue with the casting. Liam Neeson was great but the rest of the cast was ugh! However, it could be argued that Darkman was Raimi's transitional phase as a director along with Army of Darkness.
Darkman was a "B Movie" though and I get that. And that is why I am really hesitant about Tarrentino or Raimi going near The Shadow. The Shadow needs to be a "A movie" with "B movie" sensibilities. Movies that have done that in the past and done it well: Die Hard, Home Alone, and arguably Dick Tracy. (However, the visual style of Dick Tracy would NOT work for The Shadow.)
Raimi would be a better choice than Tarrentino but I am not sure that I want to see either man at the helm.
Eh, Tarantino doing the Shadow would make me have some interest in a character I otherwise have little about.
Quote from: Reepicheep on August 15, 2010, 03:48:45 PM
I find it strange that people link Tarrantino with violence. Are you looking at Kill Bill, a film intended to be violent? but ignoring the classics that are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp fiction and Inglorious Basterds, all of which focus on character interaction (and dare I say plot) a long time before violence. We seem to have the notion that Tarrantino is a violent director, and that is ridiculous.
I've seen all these "classics" except for "Inglorious Bastards" but obviously different versions than you. If you don't think he's violent and think he's king of dialog and plot we are on so different planets I don't think we can even comprehend each other. Suffice it to say our tastes and perceptions are different on am anthropological scale here.
QuoteEh, Tarantino doing the Shadow would make me have some interest in a character I otherwise have little about.
Yeah, I don't know much about The Shadow but I like the character. Tarantino presents The Shadow sounds really awesome.
Pulp Fiction is a favorite of mine for well-established reasons. Inglorious Basterds was probably equally amazing. Even when I don't like the movie, everything that Tarantino does is going to be a big deal and worth watching to some extent. Since this is a Tarantino superhero movie, I bet it's going to be great. At the very least, it'll be epic. He definitely won't turn out something like The Spirit. Like him or not, you have to admit there's ZERO half-assing done with his movies.
Quote from: steamteck on August 18, 2010, 01:40:43 AM
Quote from: Reepicheep on August 15, 2010, 03:48:45 PM
I find it strange that people link Tarrantino with violence. Are you looking at Kill Bill, a film intended to be violent? but ignoring the classics that are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp fiction and Inglorious Basterds, all of which focus on character interaction (and dare I say plot) a long time before violence. We seem to have the notion that Tarrantino is a violent director, and that is ridiculous.
I've seen all these "classics" except for "Inglorious Bastards" but obviously different versions than you. If you don't think he's violent and think he's king of dialog and plot we are on so different planets I don't think we can even comprehend each other. Suffice it to say our tastes and perceptions are different on am anthropological scale here.
Challenge accepted, evildoer! Your mocking speech marks will not sway me!
Let's venture back to my short-lived acting days. My drama teacher directed me to a book called
Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre written by a man named Keith Johnstone, and I in turn directed it to my friend. This Johnstone guy was phenominal. Even outside of the world of drama, his advice and outlook has been invoked on a number of occasions. The one thing that struck me was how he talks about
levels. The first time a drama student hears this term in a drama environment is in its most basic form: you can demonstrate levels on the stage by doctoring the heights of each performer, but what do they imply?
Levels are the hierarchy of characters in one measurement of class or another. For example, a king would stand higher than a pauper. A boss higher than his employees. Parents higher than their children.
Johnstone observes that this isn't something seen only on stage. Watch a group of people. Without making any manipulation or interference of your own, try to determine who is at the top of the social ladder. Watch their body language, their choice of words and, most importantly, how others react to him. It can be difficult, but it is always there however subtle. Someone will be slightly louder than others, or someone will invoke silence when he opens his mouth to talk. Nobody is necessarily standing higher than anyone else, but the levels are present nonetheless.
Take that concept into theatre. Johnstone would workshop with his students to get them to manipulate levels on stage. Role play any two characters and endlessly alter who is the top dog and the underdog. Watch both of them fight to beat one another to the top of the ladder. The results, where nervous stage confusion and fright aren't involved, are always either engaging or humorous. Armed with this knowledge, myself and my buddy find ourselves doing it a lot for the sake of entertainment and our results tended to be very close to a Tarantino style scene. But they are always improvised. It is extremely difficult to capture that, write it into a script and put it on stage. Even harder to get it onto the screen.
In 'normal' (for lack of a better word) television, the characters have very set and predictable places on the social ladder. Dialog is reserved for moving plot, revelation or perhaps to make jokes. It is not often used to play with levels. There is nothing wrong with that of course. A seasoned author will tell you to avoid or minimalize needless dialog for fear of boring the reader, and I agree entirely. You'll find many of a film's deleted scenes were omitted because of how little they contributed to the film's plot, needless dialog being the main culprit.
Take, however, the opening scene to reservoir dogs. Watch Mr Brown (Tarantino himself) try and tell his observation, constantly being interrupted by the others. Watch Mr White and Joe fighting over the notepad. Watch Mr Pink (one of my all-time favourite characters) trying to make his argument, convincing Mr Orange but getting shot down by Joe. Who is the top dog there? Its hard to tell, because it's always changing. Its almost a subtle surprise to find out that Joe is the brains behind the plot and not Mr White. All this is achieved through a very artistic and rare form of dialog. Is any of it necessary? No. Is it fun to watch? Yes.
Then watch the rest of the film. Levels are changing all the time. Most of the film is driven by dialog (The plot itself is them
talking about how the robbery went so badly, after the action itself really happened). How many violent scenes are there? I can think of the scene with Mr Blonde and the cop (also done mostly through dialog), and then the failure of the robbery later on and the final shootout. The latter two aren't even that bad. Pulp fiction has nothing so gruesome. And you and I have seen just as much violence in other enjoyable films. Are you telling me 300 is a bad film? Watchmen? Lucky Number Slevin? Gladiator? Usual Suspects? Some of those top titles have similar levels of violence, perhaps even in larger quantity.
And then there is my favourite, the opening scene from Inglourious Basterds (nb, I hope the powers that be don't mind the name of the film being posted. Hard to avoid). Watch as the Colonel's level slowly rises and rises until he is literally frightening in a way that would make Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter feel shivers down their spines. And yet he retains that charming smile, that smooth talking and that comically large pipe. It is simply the surgically precise choice of words that gives him such an authority on the screen. And
that is why I proclaim Tarantino King of Dialog.
(Edit: Thought I'd point out that I never said he is the king of plot. Far from it. I just said that plot is present before violence in his films.)
Wow, it's like I kinda recognize that stuff without actually thinking about it at all. You're so smart for realizing that kind of stuff! Your last name should be smart.
Quote from: BWPS on August 18, 2010, 04:09:56 AM
Wow, it's like I kinda recognize that stuff without actually thinking about it at all. You're so smart for realizing that kind of stuff! Your last name should be smart.
It's also my middle name.
I can actually see what you mean by that. I'm just distracted by the inanity( although some would just say charming absurdity) of the dialog and the overuse of profanity. Reservoir dogs was actually the film of his I disliked least. It was still pretty darn violent. I don't mind violence though but prefer it more stylized. Akira Kurasawa he ain't!
If if makes you feel better I feel that Stanley Kubrick ( 2001 etc) is in the same place in my disdain. Actually at least with Tarantino, I can understand how someone COULD like his work.
I think part of my gut hatred for him is "Pulp fiction". I really hated that film and that it had the name of one of my favorite genres ( I always think of 30s style pulp fiction) bugs me pass the capacity for rational thought.
My hope is that QT can make this movie without using the N-word.
I had something to say...but it was all said up top so...there. Yeah.