Peter Jackson's KING KONG

[Gold Trumpet]

i HOPE i'm wrong.  but it has 'fiasco' written all over it.  i guess we'll see come december...

In 20 years, a book will be written about Peter Jackson's ego and this fiasco being the cause of it. But, by then, with the Peter Jackson religion in full tilt, all copies of that book will be burned.

I don't give a shit who was fired. With the reign Jackson is being given, he's due for some obviously bad films. I just hope his films don't take 10 years to get old to the general public. I was bored with the first Lord of the Ring twenty minutes into it. Expect bloatedness upon bloatedness. His waist may even get bigger too. He can afford it.

[Pubrick]

His waist may even get bigger too. He can afford it.

he's lost a lot of weight. why do u hate PJ so? LotR was overrated, that much is true, but from all reports the dude himself is nice enuff.

[Gold Trumpet]

His waist may even get bigger too. He can afford it.

he's lost a lot of weight. why do u hate PJ so? LotR was overrated, that much is true, but from all reports the dude himself is nice enuff.

I'll admit ignorance of Peter Jackson's personality. I really will. So take some of my comments for what they are. The thing is, for the license he has been given to let his imagination flow free, I'm not sure I'll ever see the director of Heavenly Creatures again. He promises to do smaller pictures, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he's going to become this generation's Stanley Kubrick in all the wrong ways. He'll be given the huge budgets, allowed to invest in doing films far away and on subjects of personal interest, but really all for the idea of making a blockbuster movie. Nothing more.

Where Stanley Kubrick realized Lord of the Rings was "unfilmable" back in the 60s, Peter Jackson has seemingly proven him wrong. He hasn't. Lord of the Rings is still just as unfilmable and Jackson has created an action yarn the way one could be adapted from the Bible. He's not using his gifts for much.

[modage]

have you seen Dead Alive?

[Gamblour.]

I think it's funny that they replaced Howard Shore with James Newton Howard, because I always confuse their names. But Howard is way better than Shore anyhow. Shore would've been pretty good because he uses brass and that would've been nice with the scale of monkey and all. Howard tends to be more shrieky and intense as shit, I think the new choice is revealing of the tone of the film. Maybe PJ is trying something different.

Anyhow, Shore fucked up History of Violence. He had some awkward cues at the beginning, like this overwhelming brass solo (I think it was a baritone) when a car was driving, I dunno, whatever.

This movie will be fine. PJ's sense of good is right on the money, but he needs amp it up to great.

[Pozer]

I'll admit ignorance of Peter Jackson's personality. I really will. So take some of my comments for what they are. The thing is, for the license he has been given to let his imagination flow free, I'm not sure I'll ever see the director of Heavenly Creatures again. He promises to do smaller pictures, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he's going to become this generation's Stanley Kubrick in all the wrong ways. He'll be given the huge budgets, allowed to invest in doing films far away and on subjects of personal interest, but really all for the idea of making a blockbuster movie. Nothing more.

Where Stanley Kubrick realized Lord of the Rings was "unfilmable" back in the 60s, Peter Jackson has seemingly proven him wrong. He hasn't. Lord of the Rings is still just as unfilmable and Jackson has created an action yarn the way one could be adapted from the Bible. He's not using his gifts for much.

I'll take your comments for what they are, but this one just seems so unnecessary to me.  Comparing him with Kubrick, saying he hasn't proven him wrong, speculating that he'll be given a lot of money for big commercial movies only and your not sure if he'll go back to smaller films when you have no idea... I mean, who cares really.  I'd put money on him doing a smaller film next, but I'd still be gambling.  Maybe you should just take his films for what they are and be quiet about the things you don't know about or that don't matter.

[Ghostboy]

I like Shore precisely because of his excellent brass arangements. Damn good stuff, in my opinion. I love most of his Cronenberg scores, his score for The Cell was pretty amazing, and Ed Wood was better than it would have been if Elfman had done it (maybe). And while I didn't like the first LOTR score, the second two were good enough to make me get the soundtracks. The Gangs Of New York score sucked, though.

Newton Howard is good, too - sometimes. His scores for Shyamalan are brilliant, the last two particularl.

[Gold Trumpet]

I'll admit ignorance of Peter Jackson's personality. I really will. So take some of my comments for what they are. The thing is, for the license he has been given to let his imagination flow free, I'm not sure I'll ever see the director of Heavenly Creatures again. He promises to do smaller pictures, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he's going to become this generation's Stanley Kubrick in all the wrong ways. He'll be given the huge budgets, allowed to invest in doing films far away and on subjects of personal interest, but really all for the idea of making a blockbuster movie. Nothing more.

Where Stanley Kubrick realized Lord of the Rings was "unfilmable" back in the 60s, Peter Jackson has seemingly proven him wrong. He hasn't. Lord of the Rings is still just as unfilmable and Jackson has created an action yarn the way one could be adapted from the Bible. He's not using his gifts for much.

I'll take your comments for what they are, but this one just seems so unnecessary to me.  Comparing him with Kubrick, saying he hasn't proven him wrong, speculating that he'll be given a lot of money for big commercial movies only and your not sure if he'll go back to smaller films when you have no idea... I mean, who cares really.  I'd put money on him doing a smaller film next, but I'd still be gambling.  Maybe you should just take his films for what they are and be quiet about the things you don't know about or that don't matter.

The context of everything I said is in the manner of speculation. I have evidence to lead me to my speculation. Four blockbuster films in a row says something. Does this not matter? As I cleared up, I'm hopeful the director of Heavenly Creatures comes back. I'm just also very doubtful. He's found a niche of making epics that many take to be true great films. I find that identity to be bullshit.

And no, I have not seen Dead Alive. I'll try to see it. Think I would actually like it, Mod?

[Pozer]

Think I would actually like it, Mod?

Wait, let me check my magic 8 ball... hmm, all signs point to no.

[RegularKarate]

no, you'll find a reason to hate it, I'm sure.

LOTR should really only count as one film, since it was his intension to make a trilogy in the first place.

Seriously, your beef with Jackson is ridiculous.  You haven't even given him proper time to get into this "niche" you claim him to be in.

[Gold Trumpet]

LOTR should really only count as one film, since it was his intension to make a trilogy in the first place.

No, it shouldn't. Yes, it is a trilogy but still three separate films. The only reason people argue this is because they liked all of them. But, for the Matrix trilogy, hardly anyone claim to hold all three as one film. It's because most people didn't like the second and third parts. They can't truthfully say they liked the trilogy, so they just say they liked the first one. Both are trilogies, but made up of separate films.

Seriously, your beef with Jackson is ridiculous.  You haven't even given him proper time to get into this "niche" you claim him to be in.

Maybe it won't be the nice he holds for his entire career, but with The Hobbit going to go into production, one has to admit that all 3 LOTR films, King Kong, and The Hobbit are more than lucky coincidences. More even than a trend. Its an identity considering how little you see in LOTR compared to Heavenly Creatures. My criticism is of that identity.

And yes, I doubt I'll like Dead Alive. I'm not a fanboy of that genre.

[modage]

they should be counted as 3 films, but it shouldn't be compared to the matrix because these were all filmed at the same time as part of one story.  i dont think you'll like Dead Alive but i think you might have a different opinion of Jackson afterwards.  (what a fanboy of that genre look like?)  plus, i thought he was offically doing The Lovely Bones next?  and then HOPEFULLY a small horror film?

[RegularKarate]

What I meant by saying it should count as one film is that you can't say "Jesus Christ, Peter Jackson keeps making the same kind of big budget shit... the last three movies he made are exactly the same!"  That's stupid because it's one project... this project was just split into three films.

[Ghostboy]

but with The Hobbit going to go into production

Did I miss something?

I think he's confirmed that he's directing Lovely Bones next. Which if done correctly will be great, as it's in the same vein as Heavenly Creatures (the ending of the book is really sappy though). I don't think Kong will be anything more than a really fun ride, and Jackson himself has admitted as much when he said it wasn't going to win any Oscars.

[Gold Trumpet]

I understand LOTR as one project. But dedicating yourself to that project can be a decision that speaks for a good deal of your career. Especially dedicating yourself to The Hobbit afterword. I hope for diversity in the future.

As for The Matrix, I know it wasn't filmed continually, but if you ask the creators, they'll say they had plans for the trilogy ever since the beginning.