Peter Jackson

[Mesh]

Why not just have one battle sequence to exist for all those? They are the same anyways and focus on something more important and interesting for the rest of the movie.

Now, what now, about "one battle sequence"?  How would that make any sense at all?

LOTR, both movies, do an excellent job of giving the battle scenes a purpose, dwelling on subtler narrative detail when possible and appropriate, and balancing the two elements (both of which are essential to any big adventure film's success).

And don't anyone start dissin' on Gollum.  You will be promptly smacked down.

[abbey road]

i like watching movies, not a video od dongeons and dragons.

[Ghostboy]

I don't understand, GT...from what I understand, the movies are actually very different from the books, especially the Two Towers. I've only read bits and pieces of the trilogy, but I know plenty of people who are Tolkien authorities, and they told me that Jackson has really reshaped them for the cinema, while remaining true in some respect to the essence.

But since I haven't actually read the whole trilogy, feel free to take this with a grain of salt.

[Gold Trumpet]

If the film only used 10% of the novel, it would be even more likely to be faithful to the novel than the version out now. When I say take out 90% of the novel, I mean the physical narrative novel. Its impossible to bring over or even attempt to bring over all the narrative from the book to the movie. And considering the large size of Lord of The Rings in novel form, you are forced to cut away a lot of characters and situations but if you do this, you can have a deeper focus on the themes that drive the story. Its just realizing how much you can put into a movie and into a book and how fucking staggerily different they are.

I'm not sure if one battle sequence is the answer, but yes because all the first one really made up to be was an endless cycle of them visiting different places and fighting different creatures. Its not very interesting nor important. This can be cut down dramatically. I don't believe at all the movie is dedicated to the purpose of showing the themes of these books at all, but really just taking parts of its narrative and making the best action film. Actually, this is most understandable considering how much money was put into making this film and all the risks involved. Jobs were likely on the line so Hollywood just did what Hollywood does and tried to make it as much for entertainment as they could. Their decision but I didn't care for it. I gurantee when the third is released and the scope of the action in the series is pushed so high up this will be more identifiable.

~rougerum

[mina aphrodosia]

heavently cretures has two sides for me. the psycho drama is wonderful, great story, beautiful kate winslet but what about the plastillin moster whatever things in dreamland? i really didn´t understand it. i watched it when i was 10  years old or whatever, maybe i was too young and should watch it again. ...i better shut my mouth

[SoNowThen]

I have really grown to love LOTR, even though the FOTR was a letdown when I first saw it, I loved TT instantly. Funnily enough, it's on my top 3 list for books as well, and yet I didn't get upset at any of the blatant changes or the fact that it slipped into an action movie from time to time. And here's why:  I honestly believe that in this case it was made with the fans of the novel in mind, but that you have to read the film a certain way. If you go in expecting the book, purely transposed, well, that's impossible. Could never be done, so why demand that? But if you go in expecting some new viewpoint, I mean, that's bullshit as well, because it's a universally loved and respected work, you can't go around and make it your own work. So what Jackson did, he made a visual and kinetic representation of the book. You take what you know, all the history, and details and subplots that were left out, and you fill in the cracks of the movie, and you get a wonderful experience. Not as a substitute to the book, but as an accessory. Purely producing it as an escapist entertainment version of the story is the smartest thing to do, because of the medium they're using, it what it's strongest point is. External conflict, which the book has in droves. That history, and the internal, and all the stuff that can only be described in print, well, as active viewers we must bring that to the table ourselves (from what we've read), and if we do, I believe we will definitely enjoy this trilogy.

[MacGuffin]

Rings Trio Get Big Payday for King Kong!
Source: Variety

Universal Pictures will pay "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy director Peter Jackson $20 million against 20% of the gross from the new King Kong movie, marking one of the largest deals ever made with a director.

Jackson will share that fee with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, the duo with whom he wrote "The Lord of the Rings" films. The trio shares writing duties on King Kong. And part of the compensation goes to Walsh for producing the film with him.

The $20 million advance puts Jackson in the same territory as stars like Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson. There will be no other gross players on the film, which has been greenlit and is slotted for Christmas 2005.

Jackson's payday is tied to bringing in the film at an agreed-upon budget. The compensation doesn't include funds Universal will invest to shoot the film in New Zealand.

[MacGuffin]

Peter Jackson Eyeing Naomi Watts for King Kong!
Source: Variety

Director Peter Jackson is eyeing Naomi Watts to follow in the footsteps of Fay Wray and become the obsession of the giant ape in King Kong. Jackson has offered the lead role to Watts for Universal's Christmas 2005 film which will shoot in New Zealand.

The star of The Ring would play Ann Darrow, an American actress who makes a living performing in Broadway song and dance shows in Depression-era New York.

Jackson has written the script with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, his co-scripters on "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. The director will expand on the chapters of the tale that take place in the mysterious and dangerous jungles of Skull Island, and his Kong promises to be a unique and breathtaking creation.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

i think peter jackson and lord of the rings  films r both entirely overrated, i dont see anything even particularly special about his "artistry," his films just annoy me and make u want to get out of the theater so i can go watch a PTA film and resurect some brain cells.

Love the name...

I also believe Peter Jackson is overrated.  Few people knew his name, and now that he's doing one of the most famous fiction series he's a household name.  That's cool, and more power to him, but why not someone...better?

[MacGuffin]

Am I the only one who thinks the guy on the new Survivor is a dead ringer for Peter Jackson without the glasses?

[Banky]

Am I the only one who thinks the guy on the new Survivor is a dead ringer for Peter Jackson without the glasses?

yeah i noticed that too

[Teen Wolf]

Twenty million? That's a lot.

[***beady***]

No, no, Peter Jackson looks way more cleaner.

[Ravi]

http://www.davisdvd.com/news/daily_news.html

Just announced from Anchor Bay Entertainment is director Peter Jackson's Forgotten Silver. The 1995 mockumentary unravels the astonishing legacy of Colin McKenzie - the greatest unknown cinema genius of all time - including his inventions of the steampowered projector, movie sound, color film and pornography, as well as the monumental discovery and restoration of the massive biblical epic that would ultimately destroy him. The disc arrives on October 26th with a 1.66 anamorphic widescreen transfer and Dolby Digital Stereo. Extras include an audio commentary with co-director Costa Botes, deleted scenes and the new documentary "Behind The Bull: Forgotten Silver."  Retail is $19.98.

[MacGuffin]

Jackson sues New Line over 'Rings' profits

Director Peter Jackson's production company Monday sued New Line Cinema on claims it has been shortchanged profits from part one of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Wingnut Films claims in a federal lawsuit filed in Los Angeles that New Line and subsidiary Katja Motion Pictures failed to properly calculate revenue, including revenue from DVD sales, from the 2001 "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." The suit does not specific an amount sought in damages but claims the film grossed more than $314 million in box office receipts in the United States and more than $556 million overseas, plus revenue from video and merchandise sales. A phone call to a New Line spokesman, Richard Socarides, was not immediately returned late Monday. The suit accuses the studio of giving affiliates favorable licensing deals. It seeks a court injunction against New Line from reaching deals related to the film with affiliates "without first seeking the most competitive and beneficial deals from unaffiliated third parties in a free and open market."