The Lovely Bones (Peter Jackson, 2009)

Message

#1 Post by **Jeff** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:46 am

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Ryan Gosling has signed on to join Rachel Weisz. Shooting starts in October.

#2 Post by **Matt** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:51 pm

I still would rather have seen Lynne Ramsay's take on it, Gosling or no.

barrym71 · #3 Post by **barrym71** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:20 pm

Matt wrote:I still would rather have seen Lynne Ramsay's take on it, Gosling or no.

Amen to that. I remember when she was originally attached to direct - it seemed like such a great choice.

patrick · #4 Post by **patrick** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:29 pm

I agree that it would be nice to see Lynne Ramsay's take on the film (I haven't read the novel) - it would actually be nice to see her take on any film at this point. Still, I'm excited to see Peter Jackson going back to Heavenly Creatures territory with this one.

#5 Post by **Jeff** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:40 am

Variety says that Susan Sarandon has signed on as the grandmother and Stanley Tucci is expected to play the killer. I was much more interested in seeing Ramsay's take too, but the cast is shaping up nicely.

Magic Hate Ball · #6 Post by **Magic Hate Ball** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:14 am

That's good, I suppose. Peter Jackson's not my favorite director, and hopefully he doesn't make it too "Lifetime Original Movie", because Lovely Bones has a real spark that shouldn't be buried under a lot of smarmy sugary syrupy crap. I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures, so I really shouldn't be talking anyways. I have, however, seen Meet the Feebles, which almost made me physically sick (it would go well with Meet the Hollowheads as a double feature).

Side note: aw, I wanted to make this movie.

Side note 2: Electric Boogaloo: I have a feeling that Jean-Pierre Jeunet or Michel Gondry could've had a field day with this one.

exte · #7 Post by **exte** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:59 pm

Magic Hate Ball wrote:That's good, I suppose. Peter Jackson's not my favorite director, and hopefully he doesn't make it too "Lifetime Original Movie", because Lovely Bones has a real spark that shouldn't be buried under a lot of smarmy sugary syrupy crap. I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures, so I really shouldn't be talking anyways.

You got that right, my friend. He would've never had the trilogy if he hadn't done that movie. It earned him immense respect, and still does...

Barmy · #8 Post by **Barmy** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:01 pm

"No one cry when King Kong die, ... but when the Lovely Bones die, people gonna cry."

lord_clyde · #9 Post by **lord_clyde** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:13 pm

exte wrote:
Magic Hate Ball wrote:That's good, I suppose. Peter Jackson's not my favorite director, and hopefully he doesn't make it too "Lifetime Original Movie", because Lovely Bones has a real spark that shouldn't be buried under a lot of smarmy sugary syrupy crap. I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures, so I really shouldn't be talking anyways.
You got that right, my friend. He would've never had the trilogy if he hadn't done that movie. It earned him immense respect, and still does...

Oh, sir. There is only ONE trilogy.

Floyd · #10 Post by **Floyd** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:59 pm

It will be interesting to see if he continues his use of the RED camera for this. Does anyone know?

Oedipax · #11 Post by **Oedipax** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:00 am

Floyd wrote:It will be interesting to see if he continues his use of the RED camera for this. Does anyone know?

From recent interviews, he says he's "seriously considering" it.

exte · #12 Post by **exte** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:48 am

I doubt he would, but you never know. I'm sure the camera still has a long way to go for mainstream Hollywood fare...

Oedipax · #13 Post by **Oedipax** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:00 am

exte wrote:I doubt he would, but you never know. I'm sure the camera still has a long way to go for mainstream Hollywood fare...

Well, I wouldn't say that, if we want to count things like Zodiac, Miami Vice, Superman Returns, Apocalypto, etc. in that category... all shot digitally, and on cameras that the RED more or less runs circles around. None of them shoot above 1080p, while the RED does 4k and then some.

And I hasten to add, of course, it's not strictly a resolution game (as we know from the megapixel wars in the digital camera world), but it's every bit as pro-ready the Genesis or the Vipercam, if not more. There have been some recent developments with respect to ultra-high ISO levels yielding useable footage that are pretty mindblowing (8000 ISO!) and will certainly lend themselves to exciting new possibilities.

exte · #14 Post by **exte** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:28 am

True, on the other hand, I'm forgetting Jackson is tech hungry, so...

Imperioli connected to "Lovely Bones"

By Borys KitThu Aug 2, 12:32 AM ET

Emmy-winning "Sopranos" star Michael Imperioli has joined the cast of Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lovely Bones."

The all-star lineup includes Rachel Weisz, Ryan Gosling, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and newcomer Saoirse Ronan.

The big-screen adaptation of Alice Sebold's best-seller centers on a young girl who is murdered but continues to observe her family on Earth after her death. She witnesses the impact of her demise on her loved ones, while her killer skillfully covers his tracks and prepares to murder again.

Imperioli will play Len Fenerman, the detective in charge of investigating the girl's death.

Jackson will start shooting the DreamWorks/Paramount project in October, in Pennsylvania and New Zealand.

Imperioli recently received his fifth Emmy nomination for his supporting role as an ill-fated mobster on HBO's "The Sopranos," having won the statuette in 2004. His credits include "GoodFellas," "Bad Boys," "Summer of Sam" and the upcoming "The Inner Life of Martin Frost."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Nothing · #15 Post by **Nothing** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:30 am

exte wrote:I doubt he would, but you never know. I'm sure the camera still has a long way to go for mainstream Hollywood fare...

So many movies are fighting for the RED that it is virtually impossible to get hold of right now. 4k native resolution places it far above any other digital camera on the market.

#16 Post by **Jeff** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:27 pm

Mark Wahlberg will be replacing Ryan Gosling, who dropped out one day before filming began due to "creative differences." I love Marky Mark's supporting work, but can't picture him in this role.

exte · #17 Post by **exte** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:33 am

Ryan Gosling had the balls to drop out of a Peter Jackson movie? Or is this code for Peter not wanting to go through with him...? Anyway, kudos to Wahlberg for creating a stunning career... who would've really thought so back in the early 90s??

#18 Post by **Matt** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:54 pm

The word is that Gosling dropped out after showing up on set having gained 20 pounds and grown a beard in order to more realistically play the father of a teenage girl (he's 26). It also seems like an appropriate choice for a character who's essentially in a deep depression.

Peter Jackson was shocked by his appearance, apparently having thought he hired "movie star" Ryan Gosling, not "actor" Ryan Gosling, so Gosling walked. If that's true, it says a lot about the direction in which this movie's going. I, for one, am glad to no longer have a compelling reason to see it. The book didn't do much for me, I'm still pissed about the way Lynne Ramsay had this movie taken away from her, and I hated King Kong and was bored by those interminable LOTR movies so, in short, fuck this movie.

tavernier · #19 Post by **tavernier** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:07 pm

Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.

#20 Post by **Matt** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:25 pm

tavernier wrote:Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.

From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.

Antoine Doinel · #21 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:41 pm

exte wrote:Anyway, kudos to Wahlberg for creating a stunning career... who would've really thought so back in the early 90s??

Seriously, I agree. As my girlfriend says to me, every time we see Wahlberg knock another performance out of the park: "That was the guy in those underwear ads!" For me, it was the scene in Boogie Nights where he's screaming and crying with his mother who is throwing him out of the house that had me convinced he was the real deal. My girlfriend can't even watch that scene it's so intense.

It's really amazing what he's accomplished. Even his brief forays into producing have produced gold (Entourage and We Own The Night).

Anyway, back on track, I think Wahlberg is an interesting choice for this role but I think he might actually be a better choice than Gosling (who I also quite like). In terms of a grieving parent, I think Wahlberg has the age and natural physical bearing to make that transformation more palpable than Gosling might.

tavernier · #22 Post by **tavernier** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:46 pm

Matt wrote:
tavernier wrote:Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.
From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.

The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.

#23 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:03 pm

tavernier wrote:
Matt wrote:
tavernier wrote:Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.
From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.
The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.

Well that's the first time I've ever heard anyone apply the word "tedious" to any part of Lolita.

#24 Post by **cdnchris** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:32 pm

Matt wrote:
tavernier wrote:From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.
The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.

I have to read more book reviews, they're way funnier when bashing a book than a film critic bashing a horrid turd of a film.

I thought The Lovely Bones was an okay novel but I have no urge to read another one of her books. I also, funny enough, have no urge to see the film, whether it be Ramsay or Jackson directing, or Gosling or Wahlberg in the lead.

#25 Post by **Matt** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:05 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:
tavernier wrote:The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.
Well that's the first time I've ever heard anyone apply the word "tedious" to any part of Lolita.

It's very fashionable these days to dismiss Nabokov (and Roth and Updike and Mailer most other major mid-century male writers).

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

The Lovely Bones (Peter Jackson, 2009)

The Lovely Bones (Peter Jackson, 2009)