Cool News
Peter Jackson has some words for you AICN readers...
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here to introduce Peter Jackson... who is here to introduce... a King Kong Clip! I was asked to send in a few questions for Peter to record an exclusive video for... unfortunately, he decided against the dirty joke, but he did address one AICN issue... Which I will let you hear from the man himself. I don't like Windows Media, but that's what I got to work with. Turned out pretty good. Here's the man!
CLICK IT HERE FOR PETER'S 128k INTRO!!
CLICK IT HERE FOR 300k INTRO!!!
CLICK IT HERE FOR KONG-SIZED 700k!!!
CLIP:
CLICK IT HERE FOR THE CLIP OF THE FLICK!!!
I'm not sure why we didn't get a preview of the actual DVD extras, but interesting intro nonetheless. So, what do you folks want to know about? 20 Questions are owed. What's burning in your mind? We don't have to cash in these questions now, of course, but let's start a discussion about what we want to know about, shall we?
Thanks to Universal for setting this up for us and thanks to Peter for sitting down and talking to the AICN fans! In other Kong DVD news, keep an eye out for an interview I just did with the King himself. That will be hitting over the weekend. 'Til then...
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
-
+ Expand All
-
So many enormous muscular dinosaurs running all around you. They don't care about you. They only care about lizard asses not falling off of enormous, lush cliff edges. Is creepy to hear someone famous say words "Ain't It Cool News." In Burnei, celebrities are not allowed to speak of the World Wide Web.
-
I wonder what Jackson thinks of the 3D digital projection future Cameron and Lucas are championing...
-
...who's got a Poly relationship with Fran and Phillipa. Big Kiwi Love!
-
I wonder what's going on with the Halo project at the moment.
-
I was so sceptic about the King Kong delivering anything new but when I saw it...it really made me fall in love with the furry ape. Now what I would like to see from Peter Jackson is a massive scifi movie with a soul like the LOTR saga had. I know there's the Halo but I really hope it doesnt end up being only a side project. Theres enough bad game movies already out there.
-
Sorry, had to say it. Kong was very good but parts of it were truly self-indulgent. Could have easily been an hour shorter, and better for it...
-
could you up it to like 5 minutes. These "FIRST!!!!" poster village idiots are still beating you on this.
-
That's what I want to know. Also, as The Goon said above, what is happening with THE HOBBIT? I think that's a question that every person under the sun is waiting to hear an answer for. This could be a great opportunity for AICN to get the scoop - PLEASE ASK!
-
That's very cool of him to do that. I'd like to know if he has thought about doing episodic television.
-
Does Jackson understand the importance of getting it done while Ian McKellen is still in good health? He is 66 after all. And Gandalf is even more central to and more active in the plot of Hobbit than Rings. (Gandalf- "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"). Jackson may need to cast a different, younger Bilbo, than Ian Holm, but McKellen is irreplaceable.
-
Ahem. Mr. Jackson. Why. WHY do your movies go for so damn long. And why WHY did you think the jimmy sub plot was so worthy of inclusion and why WHY WHY does he shut his eyes as he fires the tommy gun at that dude covered in bugs and he shoots em all off and the shot is so long and cuts back and forth to the same set ups repeatedly. It just ruined an otherwise good flick.
-
...'The Clip'. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie but the Bronto scene was twist in your seat, look at everyonelse's (is that a word?) reaction bad. It was DRAGON'S LAIR on steroids bad. I was looking for the flashing rock you needed to point the joystick towards the whole time. It was the universal single moment that brought nearly everyone out of the movie. Annie Oakley bug shooting scene aside, the lowest point of the movie. Ok...that's my only two negative points on the movie. But being a Kong fan from five years old, it was one of the greatest remakes since, well, LORD OF THE RINGS. As for my real question, have you ever considered doing a Western?
-
The players with their hands in the cookie jar just can't come to terms with who gets what and when. So, the rights will eventually revert back to Chris Tolkien who will then make sure it never gets made.
-
The guy seems visibly upset by the hatred and anger of the aintitcool ilk. Come on dude... you're rich! I would have preferred it if he gave his apology whilst atop a giant pile of money, surrounded by supermodels, on a tropical island. Then we'd REALLY know he's sorry.
-
til Ringbearer gets wind of this thread. Prepare for something glorious here today.
-
"Bitter and twisted" and a big uncomfortable silence tagged on the end? Figured it was a gag. I was laughing anyhow. I didn't even know anything about this 20 questions deal. I love the movie but it is hard work. By that I mean it's actually exhausting to sit through it. Saying that, there's not a single thing I'd want them to cut out.
-
Can you just direct Watchmen and get it over with? You can even cast Ian McKellen as Dr. Manhattan.
-
like LOTR??? I sure hope so .. i bet they shot more than enough stuff .. and they were probably expecting a better box office .. but still .. and extended version of KK (that would be KKEE then?) would rock !
-
i wonder what brings him around... :|
-
That wasn't in the movie was the log raft scene. That's a classic scene in Kong. I hope that makes the extended version.
-
now that you mentioned it though. that would be cool PJ. Thanks! Thanks for making awesome movies!
-
Is it just me?
-
are you happier now? I doubt it.
-
Is there some new direction in epic genre film that you're itching to explore, or do you feel that, after having made your two dream projects, you want to try something completely different? Any plans to move into 3D?
-
...or Is PJ really a WETA CGI?! Freaky!
-
... and it made more money than the second Star Wars prequel abortion. And the Hobbit will never see film time just like Indy 4 will NEVER see the silver screen.
-
Thanks for teh clip, Pete. I can tell you put a lot of hard work into that one.
-
I'm starting to wonder if this one will ever be filmed.
Oh the clip with PJ's groveling apalogy was great..lol
I'm looking forward to see the Lovely Bones. Have they started writing the script? -
Because as George Lucas perdicted in several interviews that in the future Studios will no longer make big budget action for 200 million ago. I suspect that this would be an enormous gamble on New Lines Part. Even though We may all like to see it, there is another reason why this wont be happening. I asked my local cineplex why the werent showing BrokeBack Mountain. They replied, that Newline had ended its distribution deal with them and depite looking for anwsers the IMC cinema chain couldnt get any. I do wonder is there something going on at New line that we dont know about. They do seem to be making less films these days. I could be wrong. But I get that feeling also that Jackson and New line parted on very bad terms. I think he sued them over royalities or something.
-
Why was so much of King Kong devoted to that storyline that went nowhere? I mean we all kinda knew that eitherJimmy or Hayes were going to die, and logically the death of one would drive the other to do somethign that would affect the main characters down the road. But then when one did die by Kong's hand, nothing at all came from it! Was it a set up for Son of Kong with Jimmy going back to the island with Denham and to find Hayes's body (or what could be left of it) and he confronts Kong's son and forms an unlikely bond with him? Or goes nuts and tries to kill him with Denham trying to save the monkey? I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop with that story, and it never happened in the movie. **************** Please hurry up and make the Hobbit soon with Martin Freeman as Bilbo!
-
so, The Hobbitt won't get made because George Lucas predicts that in the future, films will be less expensive? that is an "interesting" point of view. frankly, The Hobbitt WILL get made. the question is: will it be now (w/Peter Jackson, ensuring that it dovetails with the LOTR trilogy), or later. New Line risks nothing by making a film version of an incredibly good (and family friendly) story that stands alone AND joins one of the biggest film franchises ever.
-
.... call out Ringbearer9 and his monolithic KK talkbacks.
-
Um, I think we should ask him a quesiton as to where things currently lie with the Halo movie, and if he can give us any special insights with that whole production. Y'know, how WETA's gonna be approaching the effects, stuff like that. Oh, I feel so bad, we hurt poor Peter Jackson's feelings, : (
-
George Lucas also perdicted we'd all be going to digital theaters by now. George Lucas word isn't the be end all of the industry. The man approved JarJar for Godsakes. I bet he predicted huge laughs for that character.
-
that Jackson is considering the sequel to Snakes on a Plane?
-
That movie needs Crap Cut Out Edition.
-
Remember when your movies were 90 minutes long and fun? That was awesome. Now, not so much.
-
I really liked King Kong but the reason it didn't quite break all box-office records like everyone predicted was because it was so damn long, one viewing was enough. But if he's got more action to put in, fine. But please, Peter, please...CUT OUT JIMMY! I cannot believe PJ, Fran and Queen of the Geeks saw fit to include the oldest cliche in the history of movies. And also please lose the "Heart of Darkness" monologue. I hate to agree with Moriarty but he was right--HOD is a TERRIBLE analogy for KK.
-
Is Guillermo del Toro official? Or is he doing Hellboy 2 first? How much will you be guiding the Halo project? I like the idea of del Toro and Jackson working together. Also, I think there is gong to be a 4 disc Kong DVD released 3 months or so from now for those who asked.
-
Ender's Game by Peter Jackson.............So my question is...What will it take to get you to get this movie done and done well? One of the guys earlier asked for PJ to direct abig budget sci-fi film wit the soul of LOTR. Look no further. DO IT PETE! Please. Love Kong. Thanks.
-
I can't wait for someone to chop an hour out of this movie and let bit torrent do the rest.
-
Dude you are crazy. King Kong didn't come close to Attack of the Clone's box office numbers. Try $100 million less, look it up moron.
-
Thanks Peter, keep up the good work!
-
check out www.thedigitalbits.com for more info longer KINGDOM OF HEAVEN on the way too....
-
dude.. when are you making the damn HOBBIT!!??!
-
Doooooo it.
-
said it before, say it again: there is a good 2 hour movie hidden within the copious folds of fat in Peter "Hubris" Jackson's mind-numbingly boring love letter to Jurrasic Park and Centipede. I have a theory that as PJ lost all that weight, he psychologically transferred it to the film.
-
I'd like to hear how that project's moving along. This could really be the first really good videogame based movie( we'll definitley know for sure after Silent Hill). That opening scene from the script review a while back sounded promising. An army of Spartan warriors all dressed like Master Chief!! Ready to take on the Covenant!
-
1/Hobbit?
2/Frighteners 2?
3/3D cinema?
4/Can I have a job at weta please? -
Kinda like tipping the scales, PJ on one side and the movie on the other.
-
They talked about how they have so much more extra stuff they didn't put on the extended cuts, when do we get those DVD's?
-
he promises us a clip from King Kong, then promises that he will do a 20 questions piece. the clip does not show up as promised, and we are lead to believe that he promises 20 questions? Brilliant! at least he took the time to fuck with us, much like we do to him!
-
please, God. no....
-
Are there any Stephen King works you'd be interested in adapting to the big screen? How long til you do another straight up horror film?
-
Will you ever make another splatter movie?
-
1.so are you and shore ever going to work together
2.have you ever heard of the word edit before
3.why jack black
4.if you love Kong so much then why do you slap your name all over the movie
5.what's up with the idiotic ice dancing scene
6.you do know it's possible to make a movie under 3 hours
7.why was the CGI so godawful, especially that stupid dinosaur chase. you could almost see the green screen behind the actors
8.why didn't you let Harry Knowles be the first critic to watch the movie instead of that guy from Newsweek. god knows he hyped the movie enough so he should have been first to see it
-
I sincerely liked "The Lord of the Rings" but was utterly disappointed by "King Kong". My question would be: how could a project like this fail? Why was the movie so long? What about all those story lines (Jimmy!)leading to nowhere? Why did the locations look so fake? Where did all the magic of LOTR go to? Of course, people will respond: it didn't fail, it made a huge amount of money. But I guess PJ knows that "King Kong" did fail in an artistic way...he knows that it was not what is could have been.
-
...Saul Zaentz is probably using the delay as a negotiation tactic meant to guarantee 40% of the gross to his greedy ass. But Pete Jackson is a class act. Thanks for the 20 Questions acknowledgement.
-
I've got nothing but love for Jackson. Cool down to earth guy. And a great director. I enjoy his early works. The LOTR was classic. Kong was good but a little too long. In the future I'd love to see him do The Hobbit or how about a Dragonlance movie?! I'd think he'd be awesome bringing those books to life. But I could see him passing because they're very similar to Rings and he'd probably want to try something different. And we the public probably would probably want to see him try something different. Still, he'd make a killer Dragonlance movie.
-
at all. I do believe it was a good movie that could have been great. But I think it may have been rushed towards the end. It could've been edited down a little more. But I think PJ ultimately wanted to make a movie where he could throw in all the stuff he wanted to see, even if it may have been a detriment to the overall "quality" of the film. I don't know. I was disappointed with Kong but I was probably expecting Return of the King all over again. I thought Kong was a very good movie but not great. Still, I'm definitely picking up the DVD.
-
The normal version, an extended version, and a 2 hour version. Imagine what a ride the 2 hour version would be. Sure, it would mean cutting much of the character material, but I'd love to see the different versions out there. Would it be the first time a director did a director's cut that was significantly shorter than the original? The Kong that was in theaters definitely felt a lot like an extended cut. With LOTR (not ROTK) his cuts worked - most of the material that didn't further the main plot(s) was excised. Unfortunately, quite a bit of this made it into Kong, such as the Jimmy/Mr. Hayes character stuff, the bug scene that lasted too long, the journey on the ship should have been cut down, and so should some of the last act.
-
You should simply present Mr Jackson with a joint statement declaring that all the AICN talkbackers are better than him, and we all just wanted him to know that. Seeing as how that seems to be the general theme...
-
As far as I can tell, it never gets any response from us very important tbers. Just drop it and ask something hard hitting, like wtf were you thinking casting Jack Black?
-
I would definetely like to hear about the Hobbit. Pete's thoughts on it and when he think he can start on it.
Sir Ian McKellen can and will definetely enjoy going back to do the hobbit as im sure Sir Ian Holm would. Plus, they have all the experience from lotr to make all the sets etc, it would be a walk in the park for PJ.
And the story itself would make an excellent film.
If this gets made I can die happily, and Mr. Peter Jackson would have show his quality once again..... the very highest. -
Attack of the Clones pulled in over 310 million domestically with a worldwide gross just shy of 650 million. King Kong made a paltry 217 million domestically and recovered that flaccid domestic gross with a healthy 545 million dollar take worldwide. Kong was a box office disappointment here in the States, especially when factoring in advertising, budget and merchandising.
-
remember how much fun they used to be? sure, I jack off every time I see LOTR and Kong was just fantastic (but too long). however, remember the FUN movies? where the hell are the films where a guy uses a lawnmower to spray blood and guts all over the room, wading through zombie soup as he screams maniacally into the maw of hopelessness?!? THAT WAS FUN SHIT! the coolest thing Jackson could ever do is make SNAKES ON A PLANE II.
-
...when will we see the return of Derek? Those alien bastards have had it too good for too long!
-
Phwew, tough day to be a talkbacker
-
I don't think Kong failed really. Any money not made back via box office will be made by DVD. Shit everyone that reads this website will buy the special edition...and then the extended cut...and then the HDDVD and then the Bluray...and then the movie on a chip or whatever damn new format they'll create.
-
But keep it to under three hours, please. It is a short story afterall.
-
Demand it!
-
Ultimately Kong failed not because it was too long, but because it was not very good. Almost no one complains about the length of Braveheart and few about FOTR because the time was filled with outstanding and interesting cinema...Kong was largely not. And Kong's worst crime was being filled with simply terrible action and mediocre drama. We could have forgiven a long set up had it led to something- but many storylines had either poor or no payoffs - and aside from the Biplane scene which was OK, the action was almost universally stupid and cheesy. The Bronto scene was painfully dumb; the Bug scene was more gross than exiting, and had a totally lame resolution- from Jimmy the Navy Seal to the ridiculously happenstance rescue with the captain and crew miraculously getting to the heroes and staging a pain inducing rescue consisting of perfect long range sharpshooting while swinging on vines using tommy guns- I mean does anyone find that thrilling or exciting? I guess maybe if you're 5. The T-Rex battle-also horrid. Body slamming T-Rex's, a superfast pace that seemed more like a cartoon than a clash of titans, dinosars swinging from vines a thousand feet in the air yet still trying to bite the heroine. The action in this 200 million dollar film seemed to be copied straight out of a 1970 Tom and Jerry Cartoon with no more intelligence or choreography. On a far more minor scale, all this was not helped by the fact that Kong was the only animal who remotely acted like an one in the film with the Rex's burning billions of calories for a half bite of a scrawny chick while utterly ignoring the huge ape that they don't mind fighting, yet don't seem to want to eat. The car chase in NY also completly silly, and I wont't even start with the bats. I have one phrase PJ seemes to have forgotten a couple films ago..."suspension of disbelief". And yes some moron will undoubtedly whine about "suspension of disbelief being silly in a movie about a giant monkey... and for them I say, maybe you really do get it...but wouldn't the biplane battle have been so much cooler had Kong been able to fly?
-
You all do know that Jackson & co exhibited a 3D conversion of an excerpt from Return of the King at ShoWest last year, right? Lucas, Cameron, Rodriguez and Zemeckis are all on the bandwagon.
-
I loved the long version of "Rings" much better than the theatrical but Kong was too long by an hour--and with too many bum scenes--can we ask the svelte genius that is Mr. Jackson for a fine-tuned 1 hour 50 min version of Kong with no Jimmy character.
-
I thought some of the sequences I saw in Kong were among some of the best filmmaking I had ever seen, which is maybe why its shortcomings hit me so hard. I so badly wanted them to go away so I could enjoy the film the way I knew I should be. So I guess my biggest complaint, and I think it's valid and not the least bit nitpicky, what is with Jimmy? He's just such a Jar Jar of a character. The type that you can't imagine how the filmmaker saw it and thought it worked. It's not my only complaint about the movie (the dinosaur stampede looked unforgivably fake) but I thought Mori had a great insight when he said that Jackson was rushed and if he had had a few more months we would have seen a much better and tighter film. But seriously what happed with Jimmy, Peter?
-
Does anybody cares about any movie other than "SNAKES ON A (MUTHAF&*$IN) PLANE?
-
How would he rate the pomposity of his critics on this TB? I believe it's off the scale - maybe we can have some serious TB minus the self-indulgent, "I wish Mommy and Daddums would send me to film school so I can realize my cinematic genius" mentality... And I've never seen so many people bitch-slap someone while simultaneously complaining that they haven't delivered on another project (The Hobbit) - I doubt Jackson wants to return to Middle Earth so soon -- maybe one of you whining prats can have a go.
-
I mean, we have a chance to talk to one of Hollywood's Most Powerful, and all of you decide to rather bitch and moan, repeating each other's points, and screaming "NO JIMMY". Well listen, you HAVE no influence, the movie is ALREADY MADE...You can't change it now, DON'T WATCH IT IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH, and move the F**K on! If you really want people to take you seriously, ask a question of the man that proves you have a thought process of your own, and creates interesting conversation between fans who just want more Jackson films or opinions to drool over and get giddy about. Or at least test the man, and have him think and give you an honest answer. How cool would that be? For P.J. himself to answer YOUR question. That's what i want. I guess you can continue on with your Kong stuff. I liked it. I giant monkey fighting three t-rex's. Cool. So here's my question.
In recent years, the stretch to digital film has really begun to take off and it seems that people only work with film because Digital isn't quite developed enough yet. This has also lead to the belief that direct to DVD and Theatre release is a good idea. Now, ignoring the wicked fast turn around of Kong, Do you believe these two points are a good direction for film?
1) No more film. Only Digital.
2) DVD and Theatre release on same day.
I for one say No, and No. Digital has it's place with independant works, but working with film is what it's about. That's why they call them FILMS! we'll have to start calling them like...Pixels. And we'd all sound real f***kin dumb.
And nothing beats a dark theatre on opening night for movies like Return Of The King. Imagine how many theatres would shut down instantly.
What's your take Mr. Jackson?
P.S. Lycanthrope, you're funny. -
King Kong was the man's dream. And he fought with his teeth and fingernails to stand on top of Hollywood and make his dream come true. If any of you people were acutally film fans, you'd see that, and admire instead of destroy.
-
"I have a theory that as PJ lost all that weight, he psychologically transferred it to the film." haha noyce.
-
Good point on the waste, I understand your frustration (seriously). Problem for some of us is that many don't have any real questions for PJ. We already know The Hobbit is in a limbo he can't control, and really our main question would be rather insulting such as- are you ever going to really start making movies with action that allows for suspension of disbelief or perhaps hire a second unit director who specializes in action? In fairness, FOTR was OK in this regard, and a great movie, TTT to a lesser extent- with ROTK/Kong so absurdly over the top that he may be losing some fans... quite a few that I know are on thier way out ... heck, I went from "won't miss a PJ flick" to "Have little faith his next film will be good" only time will tell if that holds in large numbers, but more might actually have questions PJ might answer if they intended to watch his next movie.... this probably begs the question (from you) "then what are you doing on a PJ talkback" and my answer is: the Lucas Effect- people have something to say when they had high hopes or really liked a director who then starts making train wrecks.
-
was because the studio clearly rushed PJ, and perhaps PJ took too much time making it. The score was terrible! Ths music was such an integral part of the LOTR experience - it should have been here too. They should have gotten the Brokeback Mountain composer to do the music.
-
a.k.a. - an abbreviated version of the movie? I'm thinking of cutting most of the "peripheral characters" out of the movie (mostly on the ship, on the way to the island), along with the whole Brontosaurus in the Alley scenes where all realism is compromised. A Kong cut only lasting 110 minutes would be tighter, cleaner, and more fun, in my opinion.
-
Yes, this was PJ's dream- and only an a-hole would slam someone who is living thier dream for the hell of it- but that just makes this whole disaster worse- a supposedly massively talented director got a shot to make his dream-with the budget and support that leaves other directors heads spinning- proceeded to hamfistedly hackjob the dream with decisions so absurdly bad that ametuers who actually like the guy are left saying "what the hell was he THINKING?". Many revel in this about as much as they did watching Lucas turn into a total hack-it sucks, but that's not the fault of movie fans.
-
So he messed up KK. The man who gave us the LOTR Trilogy deserves eternal respect. Period. That was more than a fucking trilogy. It was a gift to the world.
-
Was that pun intended Brokeback cowboy...I'm just sayin'...
-
I want to know if Peter Jackson is (or was) a comic book fan. I want to know WHO his favorite comic book superhero is, if he had to pick only one. I want to know if he prefers Marvel or DC Comics (if that's not too much of an American question). I want to know if he is familiar with the work of artist Alex Ross and his epic vision of "KINGDOME COME"... and... "if" Warner Bros. asked him to interpret it for the big screen, would he be interested. --(My gut instinct tells me that he would be the perfect choice to direct the aging superheroes of "KINGDOME COME". Having nothing to do with the movies that have come before, here are my top four picks as to the casting: Howie Long as Superman. George Clooney as Batman, despite the terrible "BATMAN AND ROBIN". Catherine Zeta-Jones/Douglas as Wonder Woman. Sean Connery as Green Lantern.) If nothing else, just get his thoughts on the possibility of jumping into the superhero genre!
-
If not, how do you plan on handling that disturbing rape scene and some of the themes?
-
One of the questions, at least, has to be about plans for "The Hobbit."
-
PJ. Great movie. I could have done without the Jimmy sidebar. But other than that and a few spotty effects scenes, the film was beautiful. Bravo. P.s. - Don't listen to all these nimrods talking about cutting your films down to an hour and a half. The film needs to be as long as it needs to be. It all depends on the story. No serious film fan wants to see chopped up, edited down, mindless drivel. We want to see stories given their proper due. If that means it has to be 3, 4, 5 or even 6 hours long, so be it. Do the story justice first and foremost. We wouldn't have it any other way. Those who feel different should stick to Uwe Boll, Ashton Kucher films... Mindless products of the system with no thought for good story telling.
-
...and there are almost as many of us as there were writers on the Flintstones movie. Haven't seen Kong, ROTK, or Dead Alive, but Heavenly Creatures, erm, "power owned." Time for Mr. Jackson to do his "Punch Drunk Love." How about an 80-minute CGI-free romance? Really.
-
I had no idea that there was disappointment about King Kong...I thought it was terrific!
-
ok my question is whats going on with the live action Neon Genesis Evangelion that Weta is handling. And you should do another horror/comedy like Dead Alive but with a 100 million dollar budget cuz then we could seriously have the goriest movie ever made and that would own.
-
Definetly good points, and I agree, and second any bashing you have to do on Lucas. I however do enjoy the entire LOTR trilogy. ha ha. I am willing to agree that KK was a bit much at points, but was overall very satisfied with the movie as it created moods and emotions within myself you would not normally find present in a big action movie. Especially had it been in the hands of another director. He tried to create a story, a LOVE story at that, and a single story cannot cater to all audiences. I guess what i'm asking is, lets save the bashing for down the road when P.J. makes an undoubtably trashy awful film (don't think anywhere in the near future), and THAT'S what the T.B. is about. For instance, I would jump right in to a Paul W.S. Anderson T.B. and call him a useless tool, but P.J. i find undeserving of that disrespect. He's a talented man with more vision than most. So while he's taking this time to talk to us, lets take full advantage of it people! ha ha ha. And i say we follow 900LBGorilla's example, and when we disagree with someone, use some tact, diction, and proper sentence structure. Thanks for the talk.
-
Did Jackson really promise AICN readers 20 questions? Does anyone actually remember him doing so? Listening to that clip was a great big WTF, as he seemed to be the only one who knew what he was talking about. I love how he inserted information about the "2 disk version with the production diaries" into the little ad. That's all it was, and ad for the DVD. And the clip provided was, incredibly, the brontosaur-stampede, one of the worst technical moments of the film. I like how the "20 questions" are supposed to be provided for an upcoming project ... so this clip served to advertise the Kong DVD coming out now, and promises to advertise whatever his next project will be. What a treat!
-
How come King Kong had no penis? Can you make a sequel called King Dong? Does Naomi Watts smell good? On working with Adrian Brody - you should have fixed his nose with CGI. In the close-ups all I can see was NOSE. Very distracting.
-
mms://windowsmedia.universalpictures.com/kingkong/aic_128k.wmv
-
He says that the "I thought the production diaries were a stand in for the 20 questions" about King Kong, which is an ad for the production diaries, and the 2 disk set, and then he promises to give 20 questions about an upcoming project. He is NOT asking for 20 question in this talkback, folks. Save your breath.
-
Pete, one of the greatest real adventures of the last century has yet to be told on the silver screen and its all about New Zealanders! The 'Long Range Desert Group' (LRDG) was a bunch of kiwi's who fought behind the enemy lines in the African desert in WWII. With material like midnight raids on Italian air bases and raids on convoys you can't go wrong. Mix that with the emotion of facing boredom, crazy heat, being cut off from the rest of the allies and of course losing good friends this will be an amazing project. The LRDG were the base for the foundation of the SAS who still honour them today.
Come on Peter - use your influence and leverage to get this made while there's still a few of these guys left. And get it made right. Can ya? Please?
So thats my question :) -
Yes, quite a few of us, actually. Attempting to make your own ignorance of it the measuring stick in this small matter is just making you look like an ass, Ringbearer9. Go back to the passive and obsessive lurking you've been engaging in on AICN since you were banned.
-
Is he considering directing it?
-
Why did Anne, who loved Jack Driscoll's plays, and knew what Jack looked like from his picture, mistake Mike for Jack, who looks nothing like him? Why was she afraid he'd look like a "tweedy nerd" if she'd seen his picture before, and would have known whether he looked like a "tweedy nerd" or not? Was the cliche joke of someone saying something bad about someone else while that person stands behind them so funny that it had to violate character plausibility within that very scene? Who thought it was funny, and who thought it worth incorporating into the film?
-
I believe Anne mentioned that she didn't think he resembled his photo very much. Add to that her prior conviction that Driscoll was one of the assembled men around that table, as well as her nervousness, and mistaken identity is not too much of a stretch. Now why don't you tell us again how Jackson is a "stupid" filmmaker because "Denham says the village has been abandoned for centuries but you can clearly see a fresh fish head." I'd also like a refresher course in how a "real" six-foot bat creature would react as opposed to Jackson's "unrealistic" ones.
-
I wasn't saying he didn't, just that I wasn't aware of it, and can't imagine anyone else caring, or champing at the bit for the 20 questions. I never saw anyone caring or waiting for 20 questions on the talkbacks. That clip was just an ad, the "bitterness" of AICNers about the 20 questions was just an excuse to advertise the 2-disk DVD with the production diaries.
-
Do you, in fact, really think Jackson's "ad" was an attempt to make KK haters like yourself actually change their minds and go buy the 2-disc set? Or that he would even need to construct an "ad" like that to make those of us who loved KK go out and buy it? Are you that stupid?
-
Why do you care, Ringy? The film is finished, you know. No amount of wah-wah is going to throw you back in time, put you on the film crew, give you the ear of the director so your wisdom may save the film from petty flaws. But don't worry; everyone here thinks you're hella cool for being so perceptive.
-
... will automatically assume that someone who does NOT look like that picture IS you. You know, instead of looking around FOR someone who looks like the picture, you know, someone with a big honker like Jack's.
-
"George Lucas perdicted in several interviews that in the future Studios will no longer make big budget action for 200 million." Maybe so, but I predict that George Lucas couldn't accurately predict when he has to take a shit with an accuracy of + or - seven days. George Lucas is an idiot to even suggest that. As recently as fifteen years ago, we, the movie-going public, were told that no way in hell would a studio ever make a movie that cost over $100 million. Guess what? Now we're at or over the $200 million mark. Even a brain-dead, inbred socialist/communist can tell you that the laws of inflation REQUIRE that, one day, a movie will be made for well over $200 million. Hell, even $300 million. Luck-ass seems to be doing EXACTLY what he used to criticize the big studios for (you know, back in the day when he made good movies). That is, issuing blanket statements from on high with absolutely no knowledge or thought to back them up. Box office is changing. That's because, just like back in the late 1970's and the late 1950s, technology is changing. Entertainment outlets for the consumer are expanding. Choices multiple. Economies of scale continue to exist and studios, backed by big money, consistently put out a technologically superior product to television and the internet. HOWEVER, television is one outlet where story and mass appeal seems to trump BIG SPECIAL EFFECTS (which cost money). Television is responsive to the viewer/audience and provides story and characters to entice viewers. Television, due to budgetary constraints, cannot rely on MASSIVE FX to draw in viewers, a strategy that we are now seeing falter. In movies, story and character must always be on par, if not superior, to that in other media. That way, the draw to theaters is the "icing on the cake" of a big budget and big FX or big sets or big hair or whatever. But the biggest FX or the biggest sets or the biggest hair won't fill seats when story and character are lacking. We see that today with dwindling box office returns. It's often said that film is a collaborative medium and what's implied is often the collaboration of different artists, such as directors, producers, writers, and actors, but what all too often is forgotten is the collaboration between filmmakers and their audiences. George Lucas and many others have forgotten that in their zeal to perfect the CGI dew dropping from the CGI penis of a CGI jawa in a scene "as originally envisioned by the director." Meh! Tell me a GOOD STORY (not a remake, not a reinvisioning, not 'straight from television') and THEN show me the effects.
-
Why aren't you complaining about Jackson's obviously ignorant use of three-dimensional photography on the dust jackets of books printed in the 1930s? Or was the author's photo on the cover a profile shot? Did you in fact see the photo?
-
Long time no talk! How ya been? How's the kiwis hanging?
-
In the bluetights network production diary there was one installment that portrayed you as over-exhausted and out of it. You had to bring in Bryan Singer to direct a clip of Kong. My question is, was that a stunt, or not?
Mike -
just because we were disappointed with Kong doesnt mean we hate the talented filmmaker so please stop treating us who didn't like the movie like we're demons or something. just think he has the potential to do a lot better than he is now. plus we're all a bunch of geeks and most of you are overweight with bad acne so i don't think that PJ will lose sleep over anyone trashing his movie
-
Since so many people are mostly repeating what others have said (or are saying)... how about we explore an area I know that the... "talented"... Mr. Peter Jackson would most defintely have an interest? So, ...what does film run at, 28 fps (frames per second) or something like that? And we know that digital tends to run much higher, thus the... "you are there" experience. (No wonder Cameron's alternating left to right eye 60 fps, total 120 fps, heightens the "you are there" experience, seeming to be true 3D.) Am I far from the truth, here? As I see it, "film" requires an artistry on location, on the "set", itself. You can fudge the details with film,... such as using a less detailed car (Batmobile/stunt-version) or costume (Bat-suit/stunt-double) in a mid-to-long range shot. It's interesting in how film and digital require different... methods... to realize what's on the scripted page, depending on more than just the director's gifted eye, ...all in the hopes of what is seen on screen will be convincing enough. Does Peter Jackson prefer to solve artistic problems on set in a hands-on kind of way? Or does he, as "KING KONG" seem to suggest, ...prefer to solve artistic problems in the digital arena? As technology advances and such fantastic stories become cheaper to produce, are actors going to have fewer and fewer "props" to interact with, finding themselves on stage with only green or blue screens behind them or around them? I love Jackson's "KING KONG". Even in taking note of some legit complaints here in the talkbacks, I'd grade it an "A-". One thing in particular that I took note of (so-to-speak) the very first time I saw "KING KONG", ...was that Adrien Brody didn't slide (to a stop) or lean back (just a bit, even in the slightest) when he ran out to the ledge of that HIGH drop-off, on top of the HUGE barricade. It was as if his character had zero fear of heights. So, I was forced to imagine that Brody was on a blue-screen set and did not receive enough direction to do so. It is exactly this element of blue-screen/green-screen movie making that is at such a disadvantage, ...that such little touches can go unnoticed. I guess it's all about the trade-offs and being able to master the way you like to make movies. But then, the way the digital realm is getting more affordable, maybe movie makers won't have much of a choice but to continue in going down this technological road. But then again, if James Cameron's 3D technology makes it to your your local cinemaplex at 120 frames per second, that's a whole lot more computer animation your movie-ticket will be paying for. Perhaps we will be seeing advances there, too.
-
TOO.....BITTER!
-
Ask him what is the attraction for him to Lovely Bones, and how he is going to film it, and also ask his feelings on HALO
-
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film5366 .... they caught this one. Apparently when Carl Denham and crew cross the bridge, running from Kong, they just pound across it, despite it being shown as having lots of gaps, but when Jack and Anne show up, they have to gingerly pick their way across, as it's suddenly full of gaps again. Just another sign of the sloppiness and lack of attention to detail that fills Jackson's Kong and destroys willing suspension of disbelief.
-
Duh.
-
First off to whovever posted that the scene on the ice was idiotic is dead wrong. That scene was a great example of the bond and affection Kong and ANN had for each other.
Secondly in response to Mikey Mike...yes the CG in the stampede was very shaky but the rest of the film had stupendous CGI and Kong himself is the greatest CG creation put on the screen TO DATE.
Oh and Stollentroll--Kong was not an ARTISTIC failure. Sure not everybody loved it but the film has an 84% fresh rating at Rottentomatoes, was on dozens upon dozens of critics Top Ten list and won three Oscars. So while it did underperform at the box office it was very much an artistic success. Again...was the stampede not up to par with the rest of the films? Yes. Was Jimmy really needed? NO. But in my mind the rest of the film is an exemplary example of Blockbuster Cinema. I agre with IndustryKiller that some of the scenes in Kong such as the V. REX battle and Kong rampaging through New York are easily among the most breathtaking and invigorating scenes I have ever seen. I have the feeling that history will be very kind to PJ's King Kong. -
Kong is because, while you may find the action scenes "invigorating" now, later viewings, in coming years, will leave you wondering why you loved it so much. You'll wonder why the dinosaurs don't care that they are trapped in vines over a deadly fall, only interested in eating Anne. You'll wonder why the tyrannosaurs, at first, seem to be trying to bite Anne out of Kong's hand instead of attacking Kong himself. You'll wonder why Kong can't climb over the Wall instead of bashing down the door. You'll realize that it's a stupid fucking movie, and you'll be embarassed. And so will everyone else, and thus ... time will not be kind.
-
Time is not kind to any movie. Pick any movie and you will find flaws in it, following the traps of logic you applied to Kong. Kong is a fantasy film, so you must see it through a certain perspective.
-
Usually a "fantasy" movie involve magic, where the world shown operates by rules that assume Magic is in the world, and this explains the fantastic things seen. 900 pound Gorilla, above, made an excellent point. If Kong sprouted wings and flew around, would you forgive that because it's a "fantasy" movie? The fact is, the original Kong tried to generate the illusion of ACTUALITY in it's presentation of the "fantastic" prehistoric creatures. The people who made the film were experienced on-location documentary makers. What made Kong so much fun was that element of believability applied to the fantastic, that allowed the audience to believe in the fantastic as if it were true, as if it could be true. If a film fails to do that, fails to even TRY to be believable, it fails as a fantasy.
-
You completely molested The Two Towers into the standard Cambellian fare when it is SUPPOSED to be dark and unsatisfying. Look at Empire Strikes Back, THAT was a good middle movie. Or better yet, look at the fucking book, Tolkien knew structure. You have to throw the heroes into bad situations and leave the audience wanting more in the middle chapter, not having the same glorious victory twice in a row. The same "encamped fortress assaulted by tons of orcs suddenly saved by tons of horses that come at sunrise" blah blah You really fucked it up, so close to a perfect triliogy but it's paced like a broken record.
-
I guess I'm in the minority when I say that Kong was a snore. Skull Island was wwwaaayyyyy over the top and just too ridiculous for words. Kong was attacked and bitten so many times and so often, he never looked like he got a single scratch. Only New York was very nice to look at.
-
also ridiculous.
-
I wonder why? Oh wait I just read the responses in this talkback, or any other talkback, and I can see that many (but not all) of you are obnoxious, whinging, cavedwelling morons for who nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is EVER good enough. Go hang yourselves you cunts. Not you Doc you're cool.
-
I'd love to see a toungue-in-cheek featurette with James Cameron heading down in a sub to the sunken remains of Skull Island which blended scratchy B&W lost footage of PJ as one of the adventurer naturalists who went back to chart the island before it disappeared into the sea.
-
but since most of you think "teh" is a good enough approximation of the I should let myself off the hook.
-
damn you my lack of proofreading before posting.
-
1. I loved the film but only wish to purchase a DVD (I have never even bought a DVD in my life) of KONG that has the deleted scenes, such as the swamp monster; the disolving head from the the slugs eating the cook; and any other that are more intense/graphic. Also, I have been waiting forever for WETA to put out the 'Kongs LAst Stand' statue. Is it ever going to be released? 3. Thanks for your passion and vision. Its been great to see these kinds of films get the attention they deserve. Good Luck!
-
That would be dope.
-
Martin Freeman as Bilbo, inspired! I'm there!
-
"Kong is because, while you may find the action scenes "invigorating" now, later viewings, in coming years, will leave you wondering why you loved it so much. You'll wonder why the dinosaurs don't care that they are trapped in vines over a deadly fall, only interested in eating Anne. You'll wonder why the tyrannosaurs, at first, seem to be trying to bite Anne out of Kong's hand instead of attacking Kong himself. You'll wonder why Kong can't climb over the Wall instead of bashing down the door. You'll realize that it's a stupid fucking movie, and you'll be embarassed. And so will everyone else, and thus ... time will not be kind"---I'll give ya the one about Rexes trying to chew on Ann instead of being more involved with Kong...the rest of your points are immaterial. Not only do I not care if the Dinosaurs care about being trapped in vines I think they probably would have placed more priority on food and their nemesis in that scenario. Really these points are like hating on Jurassic Park because in one shot the lamb that is sacrificied to the REX is on flat ground with the fence and then minutes later the ground is far below the fence (Do you know what I am speaking of...when Grant and CO. are first attacked by the REx?) These are very immaterial issues with what is a tour de force sequence. Oh...and I have seen the film three times and loved it each time. Seriously though...if you were thinking why didn't Kong scale the fence instead of crashing through it you were probably never wrapped up in the adventure anyway.
-
When do we get a ww1 zombie film from you?
-
"I think they probably would have placed more priority on food and their nemesis in that scenario" Uh, you mean, they consider eating one tiny human more important than their imminent DEATH by falling? Or the danger of a large vicious monkey-beast? You know that you are wrong about that. Self-preservation is one of the primary instincts. Avoiding deadly falls would take priority over everything. The reason the Dinos acted the way they did is because Jackson is a Zombie movie maker. That's it. The dinos act like Zombies, idiotic, one-minded monsters, with one purpose ... eat humans. Jackson just remade "Brain Dead" with dinosaurs as the zombies.
-
Zzzzzzzz. That's my question, dammit.
-
Because I really didn't like Jimmy. I really, REALLY didn't like Jimmy. Goddamnit.
-
"Do you, in fact, really think Jackson's "ad" was an attempt to make KK haters like yourself actually change their minds and go buy the 2-disc set? Or that he would even need to construct an "ad" like that to make those of us who loved KK go out and buy it? Are you that stupid?" .... Doc, the "message to AICNers" was an ad. You know it, I know it. But you stupidly make a statement like that? You actually claim that it wasn't an ad? You just made yourself look incredibly retarded, just because you can't bring yourself to agree with an obvious point made by me. When one is so obsessed with "winning" a point with someone that you are willing to make yourself look like an idiot to do it, it's over, over, OVER. You are lying in the mud licking the boots of your opponent, begging them to kick you again, please.
-
... any and all a-holes responsible for holding up 'The Hobbit'.
-
'reimagine' might be better...
-
I can't believe people are begging for Jackson's Zombie sensibility applied to one of the most beloved children's books ever written. As I've said before, why would anyone want to see Smaug with filthy, dirt encrusted teeth, his treasure hoard filled with rotting corpses, pus oozing out from around the jewels encrusted in his belly? Because that's the sort of shit Jackson loves.
-
and it sucks fuckin nuts... which is horrible cuz I love everything Pete's ever made but I don't dig this film, even on fast forward, it's just stoopid Maybe the EE's the version to see??
-
It's just going to be more of the same stuff that sucked in this one. You don't need to eat all of an egg to know it's rotten. If the bites you've taken so far stink, the rest will too. You really think they cut out all the BEST stuff for the extended DVD ?
-
Question #2: Why does Ringbearer9 know more about the production of 'Lord of the Rings' and 'King Kong' than anyone else on AICN even though he hates them both? ****** I don't know. Information on future projects would be nice. Kind of curious what his take on "The Lovely Bones" is, as well as what's going on with 'Halo' and 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' (if anything). What they were thinking when they used "Heart of Darkness" as an analogy for 'King Kong' could use some esplaining as well.
-
The Hobbit?
What's next in general in the short and long term?
Is he interested in going smaller, or staying big with future projects? Are there plans to keep Weta up and running? If so, will they do work with other Producers/Directes like ILM has done. That's it I think. -
Jackson doesn't get 'The Hobbit' gig. While I respect the 'look' of LotR's, personally I really felt like Jackson didn't care about 'me' as a viewer. Ame with Kong. That might seem silly and 'hater-esk' but understand that i really wanted to like LotR's. In fact, there's a tremendous amount of stuff I do like about these films. But I'm really irked by the business behind both Lotr & KK. It's like this, KK vindicated what my beliefs were behind LotR. You see, it was all about screwing us/me out of money to watch the same shit repeated over and over. The theatrical release of the films. The Extended cuts. The soon to be repackaged Extended cuts with even more crap. The pre-release King Kong DVD's. The over blown, over hyped TOO DAMN long for my butt, bladder and young children release in cinemas. The obvious fattening up of the film as if adding another hour is going to make the film so much the more epic. the Heart of darkness teat sucking, as if trying to convince us that this film is of the same calibre as that story. It was just to in your face - especially as a fan of the 'heart of darkness' story. King Kong was NOT 'heart of darkness'. And then the conversation - 'It's not an adventure story, is it?" "No jimmy, It's NOT". This was a que for the Audiance to snap out of any thoughts they had that this was a popcorn film, and that we must now view this film for what it is... a SERIOUS film that diserves your viewing respect. Indeed imidiately after this dialogue we are treated to some savage scenes of our hero's being brutalised by the natives of the island. But the problem is that directly after we then fall into Mummy-esk scenes of pole vaulting native, bug attacks and dinosaur stampeding and monster fights. "Yes Jimmy, It IS an adventure story, after all" So what was all that bullshit you were trying to lay on us? I'm allowed to critique this film because never has a film nor film maker opened himself up for so much critiqing. Everyone can have a go back at me here now saying that I'm a hater and that Kong is actually better than I give it credit, but the biggest problem behind Kong is the excentric nature of the film maker behind the production. Watching the film 3 times my comments are valid. The first viewing i really enjoyed the film. the second it was bulky and long. the third viewing - taking kids along, My God.... there was just way to much fat on the meat. And here we are getting both a dvd theatrical release as well as the two disk extended cut. Surely the viewers like myself have been heard. We don't want an extended cut. We don't need an extended cut. We all want shorter, tighter, more fluid. I don't hate Peter Jackson. i don't hate his films. i hate this self indulgent style. I haven't even touched on the whole issue of logistical errors. Something Kong is fraught with and something that tears you out of the whole enjoyment of the film. Something as simple as Ringbearer mentioned - Kong can race up a negatively sloped cliff but can't scale a wall which he could easily peer over on tippy toes. Do you see what I'm saying? The film is made. it's cut together. it's done. release it. move on. This 3 year campaign of pre-production, release and then post release fiasco has hurt future (and better) films attempting the same thing. Sorry, but Kong has been injured by the oversell alone. one last thing. AND THIS IS A TRUELY SERIOUS QUESTION FOR MR. JACKSON. **** Why is Anne Darrow's name up in lights as the star of the Kong stage show, when clearly she is working in another part of town on another stage as a minor player - Not to mention the discussion that she was never going to play the part of the hapless victim, not even for ALL the money she was offered. An oversight, or a cheap trick on the audiance to believe that it was actually her on stage. This was a $200+mil production! I speak purely as a perplexed viewer.
-
Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit,Hobbit, ,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, (wheww, I'm out of breath now.)
By the way, make the Hobbit. -
disagreeing with my statement ringbearer. However...not only did you ignore my point about Jurassic Park you have seeem to have rather conveniently ignored my point regarding JP. Nearly every movie, regardless of genre but often in Sci=Fi-Horror-Action etc. have what are often or could be considerd plot holes. However your gripes aren't even ploltholes...they are merely things you would have change should you have done the flick which is again...immaterial. Raiders, Star Wars, Terminator, Lord of the Rings, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon or Aliens, Jurassic Park ad infinitum all have moments either in the plotting itself or within the logic of their set pieces that seems fairly illogical yet I would bet ten bucks and my left nut that you love at least the majority of those films. There is no difference in regards to PJ's King Kong.
-
And I quote..."I've never seen so many people bitch-slap someone while simultaneously complaining that they haven't delivered on another project (The Hobbit)"...You just nailed 90% of PJ's critics-LOL!
-
... but you can craft a film to make the holes disappear. You know, by not being boring. Why did Indy travel for days overland, with many helpers and pack mules to get to the temple, when he had a plane waiting for him? How did he know where to send the plane to wait, and if he knew where to send the plane, why not just land there and walk to the temple? But the thing is, that's the only real flaw, other than the worry about Indy on the top of the submarine. Mostly, the action is believable, the action does not look like cartoons jumping about, I cared about the characters, I BELIEVED in the characters, and it took me YEARS to ever notice one flaw. Would it be better if the flaws weren't there? Sure. But it looks like the filmmakers of Raiders tried their best to make the story seem to make sense. They concentrated on the fun and the action in order to distract from whatever flaws there were (and wasn't the run through the jungle to the plane fun, exciting?). Jackson's KONG wasn't even trying, most of the time. He has Denham's fat old assistant Herb be exhausted from a long walk one minute, then running like an Olympic athlete among stampeding Brontosaurs. He has Anne jump on the back of a guy who is proposing that she trust him to climb down an impossibly high cliff on a random vine, trusting his strength to last! He has a "cowardly" character head back ALONE through dino infested jungle and then show up swinging on a vine with a machinegun to rescue people. He has a captain who loudly and angrily states his refusal to come rescue people, show up TWICE at the last minute. He has an inexperienced kid tommygun bugs off of someone like he was brushing them off with a stick. He has a 20 ton monkey lightly flipping about on crumbling cliffs like he was spider-man. He has an inexperienced bunch of actors lowering a lifeboat, all by themselves, into a stormy sea, while a busy crew is running around trying to fix the grounded ship, and they apparently do it as easily as people jump into taxicabs in action movies. The captain's priority is fixing his grounded ship and making it seaworthy, but he shows up to rescue people he said he wouldn't, with no reason given. The fog around Skull island stays with the boat right up until they see the cliffs, and then magically there are huge waves, the action of which would disturb and condense any fog. I can count the mistakes in RAIDERS or STAR WARS on one hand, but KONG was just one mistake after another, obviously because the director just didn't give a shit, as opposed to something that was missed.
-
Not the same people. If Lycanthrope said that, he's retarded. And you are doubly so for agreeing with him.
-
Why does that veloceraptor push its way out from a pile of rocks in the cliff face? Did it wall itself in? Or did it just find an ancient tunnel, just that minute, and run through it for fun, and deliberately ram through the rocks blocking it so it could scare Jack Driscoll? Why did the Raptors run among the legs of the Brontosaurs, if the point was to stamped them over the cliff? Why did the raptors chase the actors among the brontosaurs, instead of watching out for their own skins? Why did the Brontosaurs stampede towards a tiny narrow passageway, instead of towards more open space, where they'd likely feel safer? Why did the Raptors leave piles of fresh Brontosaur meat to chase after small morsels of humans (because they are acting like Zombies, the only genuine influence Jackson has as a film-maker). How does Jack Denham know that Driscoll will rescue Anne, and make it back alive with her with Kong on his heels (because he's seen the movie?). The movie is insane, the movie makes no sense on any level, the movie doesn't even try to make sense. STAR WARS tried. RAIDERS tried. ALIEN tried. Many of those films fall down at one point or another, but we forgive them because they TRIED. Jackson didn't think he needed to, the arrogant jackass. He mistook the enthusiasm for Tolkien's story, as poorly as he did it, with enthusiasm for his bloated, head-up-the-ass self.
-
She's tied by thick ropes, or vines, strong enough to hold her weight, and Kong just yanks her free. Did Jackson look at that effect and say "Excellent!".
-
Minus Naomi. she was a great choice. (less scenes of kong and ann staring at each other, hated that), anyway The rest of the cast just strikes me as odd. Adrien Brody is one of those quiet actors like Liam Neeson. put him in an action role and they wimper a bit and bore you. Adrien also has this worried look on his face through out Kong. Be a man adrien. a macho man. be Jack Driscoll! you look all wimpy and scared. so when he does act heroic it just falls flat. then you have the worst casting of all time. Jack Black as Carl Denham. where do you start? Black's style of acting doesn't fit the time period. he sticks out too much. its hard to picture this man in 1933 and he's not commanding like the original Carl Denham. Black's too comical as well. it's like Tenacious D goes hunting for Kong. PJ went radical on these casting choices. I don't know why. why his vision of kong saw these actors as the leads. I know if i've been working on a film most of my life. i would have chosen my cast more wisely. Now here's my choices if i had cast the new King Kong. Dan Aykroyd as Carl Denham. sure he's older, but he's more believable as big time movie director. Aykroyd could have played him like he played, Boolie Werthan in Driving Miss Daisy. just picture it. Aykroyd would have fit the era and his showmanship would have sold the character. Now for Jack Driscoll I would have choosen Jude Law. not only can he fit the era. he's a good actor and him and naomi make a believable couple. also I wouldn't have made Jack Driscoll a writer. I think my cast would have elevated the movie to bigger heights. as it is, its a good popcorn film, just flawed in several places. but what's done is done, no sense in complaining about it. nothing is gonna change it. i still love PJ's kong, there's so many great moments. bottom line is PJ respects the 33 kong and he doesn't act like his version replaces the original kong. he's just sayin, hey here's my take on it, take it or leave it.
-
how come in the 33 kong. kong's hair keeps getting dented, like giant human fingers touched him. how come when kong rolls around with the t-rex. you see a thin rod on kong's back. which obviously helped the animator animate him in that position. how come kong looks so fake? hehe, who cares. special effects aren't perfect. even in our time. part of the fun of movies is finding the mistakes. its not real life. its a movie. ya'll need to check yoself before you wreck yoselves.
-
I see exactly what he was trying to achieve and it was composed brilliantly. If you didn't like it then that means you simply just didn't get it. Perhaps you're just fucked in the head. Either you're absent minded, or you're mind is fucking absent. You're gray matter has gone soggy!
-
How is it possible that Carl Denham is able to outrun dinosaurs while he is holding a camera and a tripod?! He's also a short chubby guy, this would be a near impossible feat to outrun dinosaurs empty handed, yet chubby little Jack Black outruns raptors? I've been to film school and I know first hand how heavy it is to carry a film camera on sticks Mr. Jackson. I don't buy it...Not for one second.
-
...Like Doc Savage or anything by Edgar Rice Burroughs. If you think of it in those terms, then you may get a better feel for what (I think) Jackson was going for. Somewhat campy, mostly over-the-top. That will address a few of the negative points brought up earlier. People outrunning dinosaurs, swing in to the rescue on vines, shooting deadeye shots in the nick of time. Visually, it was stunning. there were some great shots of New York. The first glimpses of the island wall were breathtaking. Some other shots looked rough. Kong was fantastic. You really got a feel for the weight of the creature as he jumped around. Still, it really needed trimming. After watching it on the big screen TV yesterday, I kept saying to myself, "They're not even at the island!" at the one hour mark. So much of the first half of the film could've been yanked. The bug scene. The Ice skating scene?!? You had the action rolling along in the third act and then we slam on the brakes for a romance scene on ICE? Wow. I would have loved to be the fly on the wall in the editing room.
-
Adrien Brody! B/C that pencilneck stick man HIPCHECKS THE FRIGGIN RAPTORS AND THE RAPTORS ARE THE ONES THAT GO FLYING! Yeah, all 87 pounds of Adrien Brody (60 of which are nose). I'll suspend disbelief but come on. I like the LOTR extended editions but Kong seemed longer than them. Never squirmed that much in my life during a movie wondering when it would end.
-
which, of course, would end after Kong takes the Nestea plunge off the Empire State Building and Jack Black Denham utters those famous lines, "Fuck! Shitballs! It was Peter Jackson killed the beast." Cock pushups?
-
Being a male fan of KK '05 is sort of like being a male fan of Whoopi Goldberg or Julia Roberts.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I think you have to admire PJ for making his dream a reality though. For however misguided some of us might think it to be, he was able to do it. Fair play. -
Peter Jackson, I've loved your movies since first seeing Heavenly Creatures. I saw the Frighteners a bunch of times and made friends go as well. The Grim Reaper inspired me to get into 3D and now I am a game programmer. Only thing I didn't really like about HC and F was the murders. I am kinda sensative about that. I loved the rest. I just had to cover my eyes and ears during the scarey killing parts. Anyway, I loved King Kong, makes me choke up each time I watch it. And... well, my wife and I spent our first Date reading the Hobbit and then the first year married reading the Lord of the Rings books and then each year on our Anniversay in Decemeber we enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies. We can still sit down and watch them at any time and enjoy ourselves, no matter how many times we've seen them. Imagination is really important to us. Yeah, I know, I sound like a girl. Anyway, my question for you is this: with all of the money you have made with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong... can't you just pay to assasinate the dickheads who are holding back production of The Hobbit? Thanks for the chance to ask. :)
-
Why? Because there were real emotions there. Because there was one foot in reality, one foot in fantasy. And because of it it was more powerful and fullfiling. I liked part of the LOTR films but most of it was geek rubish and could not give to farts about hobits and whatever other crap. In Kong, not only the threat were more scary but it was human beings there. It`s sort of like the difference between DC Comics and Marvel Comics. LOTR were the Kirby`s New Gods, great ideas but you can`t connect. Kong was Kirby`s Fantastic Four. Get it?
-
Im not a fan of meet the feebles, but everthing else peters done so far has been awsome,when i heard he was directing lord of the rings, it was perfect and had full confidence in him and the end result well, i dont think there will ever be a more perfect cinema experience, than watching not just one but three perfect movies. the last time i felt that giddy was when i watched empire strikes back as a child, and having grown up and much of my inocence and wonder about the world gone, its difficult to ever think anythings gonna top how u felt when u were a kid. Peter Jackson is the only director at the momment you can put ur full confidence in, you are totally transported away in the world he creates and held there for the duration.He makes cinema feel like it felt when u were a kid going for the first time, and thats special.theres hundreds of uwe bolls and andersons, who i think could be talented but are making movies for studios and a quick buck ultimatly the money these people are wasting making rubish, give it to someone whos not gonna waste it and can actually make somthing of quality.not just for two hours but repeated viewings.I thought kong was Brilliant, and some of the guys on here should really grow up, its like listening to some five year olds who cant have any sweets, give it a rest.Anyway well done Peter. would love to see the Hobbit though Ahem
-
Because I thought KK was nowhere near as good as any of the LOTR movies.
-
RW9, you really prove my point - how many sites do you visit, ripping up PJ and KK with such sophmoric glee? Where does a troglodyte like you get off on calling me retarded? Nice choice of words, by the way - maybe next time you can throw in some racial epithets and jokes about physical handicaps... Do you really think ANYONE cares about your self-indulgent, masturbatory rants? Why don't you go find some other film to nitpick and leave this talkback to the grownups. Thanks.
-
...when I logged on today to see that I had been "owned" by Ringbearer9. Wow. Again I must ask you, Ringy, are you in fact so incredibly dense that you think Jackson would actually need an "ad" to sell DVDs to his fans? Or that he hopes to convert people like you by making an "ad" consisting of the one scene most villified by people like you? You sad dope. Also, if anyone else remembers, Ringy's biggest problem with LOTR was the very fact that Jackson was trying to make the fantasy believable. Ringwraiths, trolls, balrogs, immortal elves, underground cities, ghost armies and an undead crackhead simply weren't "fantastic" enough for Ringy here. He then miraculously (and hilariously) becomes a super physicist/biologist just in time to expose KK's "weaknesses". The fact is that there are enough weaknesses in KK for most sane film fans to notice them, but Ringy wants to go that extra mile and prove beyond a doubt that legitimate criticism isn't enough. He wants everyone to know just how fucking insane he is. The "fish head" argument used to be my favorite of Ringy's most cinematically ignorant arguments, but the "walled-in dinosaur" is rapidly gaining momentum in that regard. Ringy is such a poor viewer of films that he latches on to staggeringly unimportant details and fails to see the surrounding circumstances which set up said details. Head up his own ass or not, if he had just polished his glass stomach enough to be able to see the screen well enough during the two(!) times he saw KK, he would have noticed that the entire man-made "valley" the dinosaurs were stampeding through was lined with ruined stone walls from an ancient civilization. Many of these had "windows" or openings at least. Most normal moviegoers (such as myself) very quickly surmised that the leaping raptors probably used the walls as ways to launch themselves forward and past the biggest and most blocking of the sauropods in order to access the smaller prey. Obviously, to anyone with an I.Q. over 48, one of the raptors attempted a shorcut through one of the wall's "windows" and temporarily got stuck. Ringy's arrogance is that he's taken his own stupidity and is forcing an interpretation based on it on all of you. He's basically saying that if you can't see his genius in film reading, then it is you who are the morons. The cretin actually believes he's a trailblazer in terms of film critique and that his neurotic, insufferable and mostly incorrect nitpicking has some sort of general merit. He is very much mistaken.
-
it would be lovely to have mr shore's music for king kong as an alternative music track on the king kong extended edition dvd, are they just going to flush the music down the toilet? i hope they are not.
-
Really Ruined this film for me. I saw the original, a month/two months before the movie came out. The biggest blunders that jackson made was turning Carl Denham into a nasty, cynical piece of Work. In the Original Film Carl Denham is a jack buck bring him back alive character daring, dashing, suave. The there was Adrian Brody. I cannot understand why jackson turned this character into a broadway playwright, when in the original movie, he is the ace fighter pilot who calls in the aircorp. The scene that stands out like a sore thumb into terms of the dodgy CGI is the scene where the group are being g chased by some brontosauri and The actor Jamie Bell runs to the edge of the ridge, then despite the part of the ridge collapsing underfoot, bell runs side sort of sideways back on to the path. In short that scene looked terrible and cant understand why nobody spotted. Kong looked great and full marks have to go jackson and team re-creating NY. Noami Watts. she was hot. She is hot.
-
Because I thought LotR & KK were on par with each other. Long drawn out and ultimately pointless.
-
About Jamie Bell. That character Jimmie the cabin boy was written for Bell by Boyens and Walsh and Jackson and no i too have no idea what the character was for either.
-
Star wars and Lord of the rings. you're a rare breed if you like both these franchises. because as we know most people are either star wars people or lord of the rings people. and it boils down to this. Star wars had a fanstastic premise but the weakest characters put to film. While LotR had the most memerable characters but the absolute weakest premise ever concieved. So there in lies our collection of fans. Some want story. others want character. Two bad both franchises fucked it up then, ah? (star wars is better) hehe
-
Lotr of the Rings isnt exactly a pointless film. Tolkien Fought in the trenches in world war 1 and Wrote LOTR as a warning to us all of the need stand up an fight against evil. It is also a warning against the dangers of industrialism. So the films are saying the same thing. I would disagree that they pointless. KK is a action film and that is all so yes that is a pointless film. One other thing it is interesting to me that first film was released in december 2001. So again Fellowship can be seen as a war film.
-
Don't be bitter, it's not my fault X3 will most likely suck balls the size of Kongs. (Uh, wait, did he even have balls???) It twasn't my fault. No, the blame goes to the man a certain courageous talkbacker has been speaking out against at the end of each and every one of his posts. So say it loud, say it proud......DAMN YOU ROTHMAN!!!
-
...I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Out in the non-talkback world I find that most SF and/or fantasy fans are capable of liking a great number of different "worlds". It's only in the fetid catacombs of sad, puerile fanboy competitiveness that you'll find the most polarized of no-life franchise warriors.
-
LOTR is the greatest trilogy of all time. Anyone who disagrees is just an Orc-lover. Bwahahahhaha
-
That's my new sig
-
Pete will make a few movies , then, of course - EVERYONE wants The Hobbit to be made. He'd be crazy NOT to.
-
Because he can't admit that Jackson's little message is an ad. What kind of retard are you, DocPazuzu? Why do you think McDonald's advertises it's burgers? Everyone knows about McDonald's, right? The people who love it don't need ads, and the people who hate it won't go even if they see ads, right? By your logic? Well, the fact is, advertising convinces people that, even if they didn't enjoy it that much last time, maybe they will this time, because that burger looked so yummy. People who liked it, but decided to save money and eat healthy, get reminded about it, and decide to treat themselves. The Kong DVD just got released, so Jackson is doing his bit to remind people that the DVD is out, otherwise they might not remember it, and years down the line, when the Kong DVDs are in dump bins, it will be too late for the full-price profits. OF COURSE IT WAS AN AD. Why do you keep humiliating yourself? Jackson practically rubbed the "2 disk DVD set with the Production Diaries that stand in for the 20 questions" in our faces. It was an ad. That's what ads do, you fucking imbecile. As for your fantasy about the Ancient Tunnels ... the film that we saw showed no Raptors jumping out of doors or windows in the chasm. There were NONE shown prior to that Dinosaur knocking down those rocks. Had Jackson included that visual information of windows in the chasm, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so you are nothing but a fanboy wanker.
-
Yes, there were remnants of walls in the valley, but they weren't the valley walls themselves. The crumbling remains of them stuck out at a ninety degree angle from the valley's sides at a few spots. I never claimed the dinosaurs were holed up inside buildings from which they later swarmed. So I guess you're still an idiot. I'd also like to draw your attention to this quote of yours, Ringy: "Jackson is doing his bit to remind people that the DVD is out, otherwise they might not remember it". Okay... So Jackson needs to remind AICN talkbackers -- some of the most rabid, informed and meticulous film fans in the world -- that the KK DVD is out. Right. And he's crafted an "ad" to win the KK haters over by "treating" you to the single most hated and criticized scene in the movie. Right. What your post also implies is that the scene and the "personal" message is meant to win over all the fanboys who were so hurt by the missing 20 questions that they weren't going to buy the DVD. Sure. While you're at it, why don't you give us a rerun of your "fresh fish head" school of film reading? I'm so glad that the long absence hasn't diminished your lunacy, Ringbearer9.
-
Doc, the Raptor butst out of a pile of rocks in the valley wall, NOT from some ancient ruins. So what is your point? I take it you admit mine. And are you still saying Jackson wasn't advertising? Just because he (probably) doesn't read these talkbacks, and doesn't know about "haters" and "rabid fans", just that he wants to sell them stuff, so he tells EVERYONE LISTENING about the stuff he's selling? Does McDonald's care that devout Hindu's may be listening to their Burger ads? They don't care as long as the word gets out that their burgers are yummy. Jackson doesn't care about Talkbackers, only about visitors to the site who get to hear him go on about the Production Diaries on the 2 disk set.
-
He had his clip posted on the front page of the site. He and Harry say it's "for the Talkbackers" but lots of people read the site other than the die hard Talkbackers. Were only Talbackers allowed to read that article and look at that clip? Are people who don't talkback, but just read the site, going to think. "I love that Kong DVD, but since Jackson didn't address me personally, I'm not going to go buy it, and in fact, act like I am still not aware that it's for sale". God, Pazuzu, the depths of moronicity to which you sink.
-
...Knowing how anal you are about these things, I'm actually doing Jackson's job for him. I have no doubt that my posts gall you so much that you'll spend more money on KK in order to rewatch that scene. By the way, your analogy was one of the worst I've ever seen. A more appropriate one would be if Hindus who frequent the "All Beef All The Time" webpage would be taken into consideration by advertisers on the site. Jackson wasn't telling "everyone listening", but a very select crowd who have already decided ages ago whether they're going to purchase the KK DVD or not. Your arguments are as hollow as your (fresh fish) head.
-
It's "Aintitcool News" a general movie site that gives news about a LOT of movies, not just Kong. A lot of people save their money for DVD, skipping the theatre release, and these people haven't totally decided whether to buy the DVD or not, because they haven't seen it yet and have not really sure if it's good or bad. Are you really going to keep this argument up? Do you claim that all the banner ads on this site for movies are useless, not really ads, because they are aimed at a "select crowd who has already decided whether they will see the movie or not"? Gee, you should let them know how pointless it is, so they can save their money. You might as well call McDonald's and tell them to stop advertising as well, right? I mean, the only people who watch TV are people who have already made up their minds about McDonald's already, right? And the only people who read this site are people who have made up their minds about buying the Kong DVD. Stop being an idiot, Pazuzu. People come to this site for NEWS, and the ads are what they get pasted in the face with while they come here. Jackson's AD was placed in the "News" category, but it's still an ad, in fact, it's even MORE of an ad because it was "product placement" stuck into the "news", just like ads for jujubees and peppermint patties are stuck into Seinfeld. Do I need to explain Product Placement for you now?
-
How many ads for DVDs on this site do you see as compared to films being run (or soon to be) theatrically? By the time most films come out on DVD, film fans have decided what they're going to do -- especially when it comes to a film as big as KK. I guaranfuckingtee you that Peter Jackson isn't stupid enough to think he can get more AICNers to purchase the KK DVD by giving them a personal message attached to the most laughed at scene of the whole movie. Maybe it's because you're feeling the sudden urge to buy the DVD yourself that you have to lash out? If you are, I promise you that you once again are in the minority and that nobody else on AICN has been swayed one way or the other by this diabolically clever campaign to brainwash KK haters into buying DVDs against their will. Please try to get your (fresh fish) head around that.
-
Is that what you are saying? So it's stupid of Jackson to remind the haters (the only readers of this site) that the 2 disk DVD with the Production Diaries that answer the 20 questions he promised is available for sale NOW ? And why do you think Jackson is unhappy with the bronto scene? He put it in the movie trailer, for god's sakes. Just because many here criticize it doesn't mean Jackson gives a fuck. HE thought the scene was just aces, which is why he's providing it as a clip, obviously.
-
No, no, no, no, no. This can't be happening. Like a leopard waiting this trees, Ringdicles returns to us by pouncing upon the first PJ news since "Kong" was in the theaters. How's it going Ringoloo? Are you ready to be banned again? Lock n' load, son.
-
...for the record, Ringbearer9's biggest complaint about "Kong" was not the direction, the pacing, the animal designs, or even the condition of Ann Darrow's hair as she ran for her life in the jungle. No, his biggest complaint was that Peter Jackson decided to use the actual color of FIRE for --drumroll-- THE COLOR OF FIRE.
-
Obviously not, but why would he need to pimp the DVD to those who loved KK and will buy it anyway? As with the dinos in the film, you have once again fastened your severely limited attention span on minute and irrelevant details and failed to construct a bigger picture in your (fresh fish) head. You see, Jackson said he figured the production diaries answered at least some of the 20 questions in a way. These production diaries, by the way, are NOT on the 2-disc edition. What IS on the DVD is the post-production diaries. Jackson also NEVER said in that clip that the 20 questions would be answered in the DVD. I invite you to watch it again.
-
Welcome.
-
"Windows Media Player cannot play the file because the specified protocol is not supported. If you typed a URL in the Open URL dialog box, try using a different transport protocol (for example, "http:" or "rtsp:")." -Can anyone help with this?
-
I was...delayed. But like the Rohirrim, I will swarm down upon the Pelennor and aid those in need of deliverance from the insanity of Ringb(w)earer9. How odd it is that he has returned to us in this manner.
-
"would he need to pimp the DVD to those who loved KK and will buy it anyway?" I already answered this. Not everyone is so rabid in their love for DVDs that they mark the calendar for the release date, and don't need reminding that it's for sale. Is that REALLY hard for you to understand? Are you just pretending to be a moron so you can say "Heh, I was only pretending to be a moron, had you going there, Ringbearer".
-
Ringb...er... Ringwearer9 = Eric The Midget. He should have his own AICN column.
-
mms://windowsmedia.universalpictures.com/kingkong/aic_128k.wmv
mms://windowsmedia.universalpictures.com/kingkong/aic_300k.wmv
mms://windowsmedia.universalpictures.com/kingkong/aic_700k.wmv -
While Jackson was in fact advertising the King Kong dvd during the clip... he wasn't making the clip to advertise King Kong. No one would EVER in a million years go out of their way to personally advertise a movie to AICN let alone a fantasy movie?!? what would be the point? As is it needed it here?!? If you know the history of Peter Jackson and AICN you will understand that he personally actually has a bit of a relationship with this site and more than a bit of a relationship with Harry. This was more of an older brother doing something cool for his kid brother kind of thing for Peter Jackson to do. It's a NICE thing that he did. Especially the dry humorous teasing at the end about being bitter. Point is... Peter Jackson isn't some rich kid turned film maker. He's the little guy who's been fighting his way to unimaginable success his whole life. Look how much weight he lost. Don't you think that he's finally getting to feel like he's a bit on top of the world since LOTR's success. He's just simply being cool to us. Don't spoil it. Consider the 'who the fuck are you' cold shoulder the AICN community gets from other big film people who I won't name. It was very very cool of Jackson to give two shits about us enough to even make that video. Give a guy who still remember's where he's from some credit. Don't act like a dick and spoil it for the rest of us. If I have to explain that to you or if you have to explain why it's wrong... I feel sorry for you man.
-
But that doesn't make it any less of an ad, for the Production Diaries, for the 2 Disk DVD. The "personal relationship" with this site has been to use it to hype his movies, and this little message to the AICN readers is timed to sell the newly released DVD. Sorry I'm spoiling it for you, but get a sniff of cold hard reality.
-
So the first question is, have you started it yet? Second, when is it coming out? If the answer to number one is no and "I don't know." for number two, then I have nothing further to ask. Well, except for this...will we ever see all of the filmage from the Battle of the Last Alliance? Oh yeah...Praise PJ! Praise him with great praise!
-
"Not everyone is so rabid in their love for DVDs that they mark the calendar for the release date, and don't need reminding that it's for sale." ...... Again, Ringworm, the clip was made for AICNers -- not Joe and Jill Sixpack. Kong fans -- especially AICN Kong fans -- don't need reminding that the disc is out or prompting to buy it, and Kong haters -- especially AICN Kong haters -- are the least receptive crowd for any such "ad" anyway. You aren't exactly on your way to becoming (fresh fish) head of the class with your feeble displays of logic, Ringy, but by all means please continue.
-
Your request for my review of the Kong blooper reel made me feel loved.
-
Whether or not AICN Kong fans "need reminding" that's what Jackson's little clip did. The reason AICN gets all thes nice ads on this site is because lots of folks read it, and advertisers think it's worth their time to advertise to them. But it's not worth Jackson's time. Okay, fine, believe that, if you want. He obviously thought it was worth his time because he did it.
-
I wonder what other name(s) Ring may have been lurking under before he decided to reveal himself as Ringwearer. A nostalgic reference to his own pitiful former self if ever I saw one.
-
Ringbearer has some good points in this debate. (Though I like Nice Gaius and Doc
-
this TalkBack could self-destruct...
-
"Whether or not AICN Kong fans "need reminding" that's what Jackson's little clip did." ...... Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe a KK fan saw the clip and went: "By gum, I had totally FORGOTTEN about the Kong DVD! Thank you, Petey!" .... or: "Y'know, I didn't know if I was going to buy the KK DVD or not, but boy, after seeing Jackson's clip I can't WAIT to get my hands on it!"
-
It's only been since Fall 2005. At times it does seem longer, I know. I don't argue with people who have legitimate gripes with KK, but Ringy's a fruitcake. In fact, if I didn't think the server would collapse, I'd post Ringy's classic "reviews" of KK to demonstrate this point. It's been quiet for a while because Ringy got banned for anti-semitism in the Munich talkback some time ago. His hatred for Jackson is so powerful, however, that he couldn't resist de-lurking when he saw a new KK talkback. Moviemack is just an asshole, but Ringy -- being in dire need of medication -- is much more fun to "debate" with.
-
So 1.5 years
-
More like six months or so. Fett! Now there's a blast from the past! Holy shit I loved fettastic. He just couldn't help himself. No matter what he said he'd be attacked viciously by dozens of talkbackers. Good times, good times... I didn't see the actual comments that got Ringy banned, but they were getting progressively more virulent as the talkback progressed. The last time I saw him he was at the stage where he said that murdering the Israeli athletes was justified. As for moviemack, he's mostly active in superhero talkbacks or any movie which caters to broad tastes.
-
That's why they advertise. Go into a Burger King or McDonalds, and, even though you are already there, already going to buy something, they are encouraging you with big pictures of juicy burgers and fries. They ask you "would you like anything else", they ask if you want to supersize. Advertising encourages sales, and that's what Jackson's clip on this site did. Encouraged sales. Spread the word about the DVD being for sale now. So that more will buy it now, at the higher prices, or rent it now, while the memory of the movie hype is still echoing in their skulls. Why are you bein such a dope about this? Give in, one inch. Say "It may have been an ad." You think it won't work on this site? What difference does that make? An ad is an ad, even if you don't think it works.
-
He's being made look like a fool over his "Jackson couldn't possibly be advertising DVDs" stance, and his defense of the walled-up Raptor, so he's decided to start shouting anti-semitism, and lying about what I said in my Munich review. Particularly nasty is his claim that I justified the murder of the Israeli athletes, when I pointed out that even Spielberg seemed to leave room for doubt as to it's being totally cold-blooded. For your information, Moriarty banned me (so he says) because I read between the lines of someone's review (Vern's). I was being pretty nasty to Vern, and since Moriarty introduced Vern's review, this pissed him off because I had done the same to Moriarty, prompting his ban warning. So it had nothing to do with the Munich talkback, and you, DocPazuzu, ought to be ashamed of yourself for sinking to such desperate, character assassinating levels to "win" on a stupid talkback.
-
I've noticed him. Hi, there Goaty!
-
Do you really, really think that more units of the KK DVD were shifted because of the Jackson clip? Do you? As for the Munich talkback, you refused to even acknowledge them as "murders" and refused to answer the question as to whether you believe Israel had a right to exist. I don't have to indulge in character assassination as long as you indulge in character suicide.
-
Ringy's earlier posts were deleted, but reading the other talkbackers' responses to his posts give a pretty good idea of what he was saying: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22088
-
...it doesn't surprise me that it was for telling Mori and Vern what they REALLY were saying in their reviews. I thought for sure it was for Munich as it was the last place I saw you, but it doesn't change the odious content of your posts in that particular talkback.
-
Jackson's little clip isn't the only advertising going, it's just part of it. You understand now? As for further discussions on Munich, I got banned before I could add anything, and I'm not going to talk about Munich in a Kong talkback. I think YOU should be fucking banne for the disruption you cause in every topic you join. Always it's "I'm too cool to engage in franchise wars, look at all these idiots who are less cool than me" or you like to repeat distortions of comments from unrelated talkbacks over and over, whenever you start losing an argument in the topic at hand. You've lostn this one, admit it. Go on lying about what I've supposedly said in Munich, but I won't indulge you further. All my coments from that Talkback went with the banning, so you can say I said Hitler was a great guy if that's the game you want to play, I mean, I could have said ANYTHING before the banning, right? Nice.
-
LMAO - Shit I read 05 and thought 04
-
...there are plenty of people who remember your comments from earlier talkbacks. I don't need to lie about them. It's obvious by the reactions posted by other talkbackers which are still visible. As for the KK DVD, of COURSE there's an ad campaign going on. That was never in question. Your assertion that the clip for AICN was meant to up the sales among us is.
-
...I'm going on a trip tomorrow and won't see a computer screen for about a week, so feel free to spend the next seven days running rampant without having to deal with me. I'll sort you out when I get back.
-
By then we'll all have forgotten what we were talking about, and you can lie about it.
-
Hahaha! I never agreed with that guy but debating him was always rewarding because he did his homework. Did he get banned or just fade away? There is no link to Ringy's reviews. I saved them myself for a giggle or two. As they are monumental in length (as in Barry Egan Star Wars rap length), I'd rather not repost them for fear of reprisals. Are you a Zone member, Gorilla?
-
Not necessarily. Just try to stay unbanned and there shouldn't be any problem.
-
is a class a loser. in fact he is pretty much the standard by which computer talkbakc nerds will be judged for now on.
he can quote directly from the fucking directors commentary on all 3 of the extended editions of the lotr trilogy. he was back here posting about kong about 5 minutes after he saw the FIRST SCREENING ON THE OPENING DAY. if my memory serves he took the fucking morning off work to see it...
dude, life is short. we only have so much time on this planet surely you have better things to do than dedicate your life to watching this mans work. it isn;t like he makes short films either...you are a sad pathetic loser and if I was jackson I would actually be more creeped put then anything reading your posts.....i pray jackson makes the hobbit exactly as you described...... -
I don
-
I can't believe you admitted that! But nevertheless, i'd like to see them. If I contact you in the zone, will you send them to me? They were fun for me as well.
-
Oh- I'm not a zone member. Do you mean reprisals from Harry & Co? It seems relevant to our conversation, but maybe you are right if it
-
No, not from Harry & Co, but the abuse piled on for triggering the trauma which exposure to such massive amounts of utter drivel would surely entail. I can e-mail it if you want, though.
-
Because banning here means all posts in the archive are deleted, totally. DocPazuzu is now the only person in existence with copies of my posts about Kong.
-
Nobody cares. Seriously, you are like a broken record saying "I think Howie Long should be Superman", "I think Catherine Zeta-Jones should be Wonder Woman". I especially like how if it's a James Cameron talkback you bring up how he would be perfect for directing Kingdome Come with the cast and ideas you have, or if it is a Peter Jackson talkback you bring up how he would be perfect for directing Kingdome Come with the cast and ideas you have. Just be honest and say that you think YOU would be the perfect director for Kingdome Come. I know you're thinking that. Of course, the fact that you don't even know that film is run at 24 frames a second reveals you know absolutely nothing about filmmaking.
-
You wrote: "Star wars had a fanstastic premise but the weakest characters put to film. While LotR had the most memerable characters but the absolute weakest premise ever concieved. So there in lies our collection of fans. Some want story. others want character. Two bad both franchises fucked it up then, ah?" ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's troubling to me that you're a filmmaker wannabe, because you have absolutely no concept of character OR story.
-
His reviews take up almost nine standard Word pages. As for classic trollism, you might want to check out www.waybackmachine.org. They have a bunch of saved AICN pages with the work of some of the greatest trolls still accessible. Fett's infamous "my girlfriend is Catwoman" post may still be there if you can remember the dates.
-
For instance, if you go back and look at the old talkbacks for Godzilla, you find that they don't exist. I looked for an old review I wrote on Fellowship of the Ring, four years ago, and that was gone as well! It was kinda vicious.
-
like Universal and Peter Jackson had hoped, but it won some Oscars, made some money, and was fairly well recieved. I think Peter Jackson is a very good filmmaker, but he isn't the visionary that a lot of you seem to think he is. The Lord of the Rings are great books, and while he adapted them competently, they still would have been great movies in many filmmakers hands. King Kong is also a great story. The premise alone will generate interest. Before The Lord of the Rings and King Kong I think Peter Jackson's resume is pretty underwhelming. Heavenly Creatures is a fantastic movie, Dead Alive is really fun, Forgotten Silver is brilliant (and I think his best film), The Frighteners is an interesting concept but the film is very mediocre, Bad Taste is not good, and Meet the Feebles is just shitty. Where will he go from here is what I want to know. Can he create his own thing?
-
It's his vitriol-spewing alter ego, the archetypal "bitter and twisted" TBer to whom he is seemingly apologizing in the clip. PJ is using this cleverly-crafted doppleganger to separate those TBers who support his work and those he is targeting for termination. Careful with whom you side! You want proof? I'm willing to bet DocPazuzu will be offered an unpaid internship at WETA and will also receive an 8x10 signed glossy from PJ any day now...
-
He wrote some rather funny replies to me, that now exist in a total vacuum, without context. Harry's own Kong talkback kinda makes no sense anymore. I've never seen a site, that bothers archiving it's discussions, allow wholesale destruction of those same archives on the whim of one administrator.
-
I was a participant in those legendary Ringbearer/PJ/LOTR/Kong TalkBacks as well. For me, I believe it started when the first bit of "Kong" footage hit the web and began to steamroll once the official trailer hit. Prior to that, I had seen a lot funny stuff on this site. But once the "Kong" madness started, Ring showed me the way to true TalkBack insanity. It's been said that not since the days of Orson has someone been that loony on AICN (some would say Ring & Orson are the same...). It's hard to say...I'm sure Doc Paz would probably have the best (and most informed) opinion about this. Yet, I was there the day Moriarty warned Ringo about misinterpreting his KK review. Truly, it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on AICN. He pulled the same thing with Vern and Vern also took him to task. He tried baiting Harry as well but I think Harry avoided all discussion in his KK review. In any case, he then tried to declare that his days at AICN were drawing to a close and that he probably wouldn't be heard from for awhile. It was only a few weeks later (after "Munich" had long been in the theaters) that I learned that he had been banned for anti-semetic statements. Apparently, it was a double-whammy as Goatzinger (who sometimes rallied to Ringfoolio's defense) was banned for like-minded posting. It does seem like a long gone by era...but Doc Paz, myself, and a few others always knew that one day...like an evil shadow...he would return to us. It's only fitting that he has done so after this PJ story.
-
... for anti-semitism?? I queried Moriarty about it, and it seemed it was due to his warning, which means it was my meanness to Vern that did it. The Munich Talkback had nothing to do with it (I hope) because that would be incredibly evil, to ban someone for disagreeing with a political stance in a movie. So, where did you "learn" I'd been banned for Anti-Semitism, and who told you?
-
And he was rather annoyingly reposting a review of mine, over and over, and getting into a fight with Vern. People who were only reading the Munich talkback might think I had said something there, because they saw my post disappear, and assumed it was th Munich talk that did it, but they disappeared EVERYWHERE. Seriously, please stop saying it was for "anti-semitism". I don't believe Moriarty has said it was for that, so you shouldn't be repeating it.
-
Ring - I don't recall which TalkBack it was in. When I asked if it was true that you had been banned, I think it was Doc Paz and maybe Benders(?) that confirmed that you were gone. However, I don't think they were entirely sure it was because of the "Munich" TB - that just seemed the most likely scenario since it involved alleged anti-semitism. Believe it or not, I actually took you at your word when you said that you probably wouldn't be visiting or posting on AICN much anymore. I thought the pressure got to you and you had quietly removed yourself after the "Kong Storm". Now, after reading your previous posts here, the banning sounds like it was indeed caused by the Mori/Vern review issue.
-
I shall not repeat the anti-semitism accusation. They don't call me Mr. Nice Gaius for nothing! However, in the future, I reserve the right to call it like I see it. No matter the issue. -- And yes, when you are officially "Banned", ALL of your posts (regardless of topic) removed. Or so I've been told.
-
I noticed Vern doing a humorous "intervention" on Goatzinger, and I kind felt he was being a bully, so I started picking on Vern. Then Goaty, in gratitude, I guess, reposted the review I had placed in Moriarty's Kong talkback, and he did it several times. And thus ....
-
Haven't fans felt this before? Had extaordinary faith in some mediocre guy who lucked out with a good team and produced something decent? Like Nicholas Meyer. He was the final script doctor on Wrath of Khan, and the final product was stuffed with goodness. But as Meyer says, he was basically working from the brainstormings of multiple previous scripts, and asked the producers what was it they liked best out of all of them. When Nick Meyer directed his own Star Trek movie (Undiscovered Country, with the Shakespeare spouting Klingon?) it really wasn't very good. It was okay, but it wasn't good. I know Jackson is revered because he looks like "one of us" a fanboy who has gained the power to make movies, made good, someone some of us can vicariously participate in the success of. This is why people worship Lucas, for the most part. But Lucas fell on his face, by himself, didn't he? He didn't really have personal talent that transcended the unique team of helpers he had with Star Wars. Does Jackson have any talent, vision unique to himself? I think what someone said upthread is right. He'll be remembered as the maker of those LOTR movies, and that's it. If Kong REALLY was his lifelong passion (and I have doubts, I think it was just hype) why was it such an apathetic, half-assed mess? Moriarty enthused that he thinks this is just the cleansing of Jackson's palate before he makes his masterpiece (cough) but I don't really see any reason to believe this. "Brain Dead" directors don't have it in them to make masterpieces. They don't care. They like gore and gross-outs. They might be fun to watch a bad horror movie with, over a few beers, but they can't make good movies, or even passable ones like the LOTR flicks without sever restrictions on their goofiness (like demands they stay reasonably faithful to the source material.) Jackson do Star Trek? I'll stick with random luck. It worked with WRATH OF KHAN, and it's just as likely to work on some other random confluence of elements, as happened with the original STAR WARS.
-
it actually scares me how much you give a shit about this.
you are fucking demented and incredibly fucking sad. are your friend as tired of hearing this shit as we all are? i mean do you go on about this out in the real world or is the closest thing you have to contact with other human beings?i sound like a fucking broken record as i said all this shit to you back in december.....and i also said "see you when the dvd comes out" and here you are.....you poor poor fucker..... -
...get Jackson's sick sense of humor working on BORED OF THE RINGS. Dildo and Frito Bugger, Goodgulf Grayteeth, Moxie and Pepsi Dingleberry...you know you want to see it.
-
Cheerio
-
1, What was the point of that clip?
2, Ask him if he is going to make a Bad Taste 2 or if he's just full of it to keep us quite? -
Please? Pretty please?
-
Doc, that was pretty special. Kudos. Ringo, Vern's intervention with GZ was both hilarious and justified. You totally have a right to your opinions, but it would be nice to actually see you TBing about something you do like. Your apparently total preoccupation with something, or someone(PJ), that you despise come off as a bt sad. You're obviously passionate but critique does not always have to be negative.
-
go back up top and read the 13th post down. I rule.
-
Read the 17th post from the top. I still rule. ok so I fucked up stop scratching your balls and looking at me like that! Fuckers!
-
This I'm sure. I was there when it happened. Goatzinger was having a bitch slap session with Vern. Next thing Goatzinger went *puff* into oblivian. And so did Ringbearer. Unless there was a mass purge of the trolls then these two were one and the same. Shame too - they were the two talkbackers that kept me coming back here for more. You too Pazuzu. I love ya you big dumb spastic. [Note. Everyone here is a big dumb spastic so no jeolousy]
-
Did I actually scroll through and not see one mention of Halo as the possibility for 20 questions? You're a collective disgrace to the name of geek.
-
my God. That was the funniest post I've read in years. And I mean years. actually no it wasn't. I'm just hammered. and it's like, just by chance. Man I got go get me a bag of this. Alas, i have a shitload more reading to do. Why do you guys have to post so much fucking shit. Oh I see, it's because I'm a talkback whore. just like each and every fucking last one of you.
-
YES DUDE, I AM serious. You see, The Lord of this Rings is about a ring. A ring forged by some monster who lives in an erupting Volcano. He uses it to rule a whole bunch of other rings. He looses it. So now who ever has the ring gets to control all others. TO FUCKING BAD THATS AS FAR AS THE STORY GOES AND WE 14 FUCKING HOURS OF 'WHOA IS FUCKING ME BECAUSE I HAVE TO CART THIS FUCKING RING AROUND. AND DESTORY IT. WHILE STOPPING PEOPLE 10 BILLION FUCKING TIMES MORE POWERFUL FROM GETTING IT. BOO FUCKING HOO IM A LITTLE BITCH SHORT AND STOUT. HERE IS MY HANDLE, WHERE IS MY SPOUT? Ahem. After 1000 years that volcano would be a little bit bigger. Compare to STAR WARS. Kid gets picked up by a couple of mythical peace worriors of the galaxy. They tell him he has the same power as they do - so long as he believes in their ways. But he is lured by those that have the same power and wish to use it to control others. he is tempted, but still the Jedi persist that he must treat carefully. He falls in love. But the Jedi not only feel it dangerous and ill planned, and might i say somewhat incestuous (As is a lot of star wars) So the sith uses this opportune moment to manipulate his potential slave and protector - The sith grows old in his quest for dominion, you see. Every new order given to Anikin gives the Sith new insight into their plan to rule him and keep him from the ones that he loves. Indeed, He had lost his mother by being held at bay by Jedi orders. In the end, Anikin no longer has anything to believein but his own right to life. Even if this means killing others around him. But in the end he is left with nothing. And this lays foundation for the glorious sequel and finale to this wonderous tale of love, loyalty and betrayal. On a personal note. Don't call me a fil mmaker wanna be. Get fucked. I've done more than you ever will. Quite possibly. And you have NO IDEA how hard I work.
-
A big-budget porno starring major league stars would rule the BO.
-
If Jackson goes to Paramount and asks to make a star trek movie then it'll take more than an editor to make it good. It'll take a screenwriter the likes of James Cameron, and the producer teamthe likes of Harve Bennet, Nicholas Meyer, Leanard Nimoy or even William Shatner to keep the fucker in line with how star Trek should continue. Oh, and one more thing, Weta will not be allowed any where near the special effects. That job goes to the highest ranks of ILM. As for Jackson now being under the foot of all these genius's... well, they'll sack his cute skinny arse and replace it with someone that would just blow our minds. ow yeah. Hello Mr. Jackson and team. Make a horror movie for fucks sake! Do it for $100M and make it no more than 2 hours 20.
-
Shut up. You're not a filmmaker. You clean floors and fryers at Arby's. And the only camera you have is a Bell & Howell you got at Walgreens. WTF is up with Empire Strikes Back? Luke trains to be a Jedi in the time it takes for Han and Leia to get cleaned up and have dinner with Lando??
-
I just read the rest of your post. I was so gob smacked at what you said I didn't even read it past 'peter jackson should get star trek'. Now I read on and you say Judith and garfield are Shatners editors and he should get them. Dude, Those EDITORS are his book editors. you see when Shatner isn't Kirk he's writting novels. And he wrote the greatest star trek movie NEVER made. Star Trek 7: The Ashes of Eden. And it WAS the final star trek film. And it can STILL be made.
-
Jackson's life time love of King Kong was all hype. In fact, Jacksons life time love of King Kong was really only .... a decade and a bit. When he was first asked if he'd like to do it. So I assume being asked means someone else had the Idea. like, Universal, whose Kong is a star attraction. Godzilla halted production. Personally, I wish Kong had of come first, and then Lord of the Rings. The alternate univer would see very different films.
-
What kind of loser gets stoned on a Sunday night? Guess you don't have a job. Oh yeah, you're a filmmaker. Right ...
-
Hmmm. Here's a few: One. So, Mr. Jackson...or may I call you Fluffy McPeteykins? Great! So, Fluffy, at what point, in your opinion, did your testicles actually move back up into your body cavity for good? When the discerning movie fanatic watches your films in chronological order, one can almost sense your sense of fun and over-the-top goodness just shriveling up like so many bunches of cheap flowers. Something happened to you between "Dead Alive (aka Braindead)" and King Kong. I'm not sure what it was...oh...wait, it's something called "Tolkien". Shit! Who knew that adapting one of the most beloved literary works of all time would make one's balls recede? Don't get me wrong, Fluffy, I loved every minute of LoTR, and I thought Kong (using 1930's venacular) was the "bees knees". I do like your films...and have nothing but admiration for your ability to wrangle literally hundreds of millions of dollars and pop out mucho-epics that are both commercially viable AND geek friendly. That's no small feat, I tell ya'. Still, I can't help but feel a teensy bit sad, Fluffy, when I sit down and watch "Dead Alive"...or hell, even "The Frighteners" to a certain degree. I mean, as profound as your love is for King Kong, Tolkien, and what have you, and as clear as that love is on screen, I just sense that your TRUE love isn't some mincing little woodland creatures, or some big ol' monkey with wood for a tiny little blonde chick. No, I look at your old flicks and know, in my heart of hearts, that your TRUE love is for demented, horrific, over the top splatter, with a wicked sense of humor and a flair for truly outlandish mayhem. Sure, it's not as "commercially viable" as Kong or LoTR, but really...what is? I've been studying and admiring your flicks for quite a number of years now, and honestly, I do love every one of 'em...each for different reasons. But I just don't get that tangible "zap" from LoTR or Kong that I got from Dead Alive or even (gasp) Meet the Feebles. Feebles isn't, as I'm sure you're aware, one of your more universally beloved films, but the one thing it's got going for it that is, in comparison, lacking from Kong and LoTR is verve...wit...vitality. I'm no curmudgeon. I think you'll continue to make very good and very commercially successful films for a long time to come, but between me and you, Fluffy McPeteykins, I hope you take some time to revisit what made you such a memorable and interesting filmmaker to begin with. Thoughts?
-
PJ when will you direct this Sci Fi great? When will you direct the hobbit? That is all
-
it's actually Monday night dumbarse. FUCK I missed southpark and mythbusters. cunts. and I miised it because I was at my 3rd job, actually. A rather thankless job that i tuely don't care for. But my government produced documentarie(s) are a lot of fun and massive challenge. Who gets stoned when they have to get back to work after a mere 4 hours sleep. Well, someone who loves Reading the ever important Aint it cool talkback shite. And has a passer by yell out, Yo, Benders, wanna drag on my scoob while I give you a quick sholder massage. Man, I'll take your critism any day. Incidently, I'm not short of film production either. but hopefully you'll find that out. So far so good.
-
I hope you receive the treatment you so desperately need, Orson. Somewhere in that mass of hatred, bitterness, and the twisted desire to fuel anger in an attempt to gain attention, there may be real person capable of actually conversing with others. Good luck on your journey.
-
I find it quite amusing when people seem to suggest that George Clooney makes a terrible Batman. He MADE a horrible Batman movie, yes. But you put him in a REAL Batman flick with the right talent behind it, ...where the story sets the right tone and Clooney gets proper direction, ...then discover what happens with George Clooney in the role. Let's face it, ...no matter WHO you put in the Bat-suit in the flick "BATMAN AND ROBIN", it's going to stink. (What? You think Keaton or Kilmer or Bale would have somehow rescued the picture from being so bad?) So maybe Clooney isn't the biggest fan of the comic book material. Maybe he didn't realize what makes the charater so great, ...or what the real fans appreciate about the material. If he did know more about the character (from the various comic book interpretations) ...maybe he would have put up a fight just as Michael Keaton did, when he disagreed with the vision for "BATMAN FOREVER" and left the project. Personally, I like Bale's "BATMAN BEGINS" performance the best. Why? Because came the closest to hitting the mark. And also because he was in the best movie for the character.
-
An extenede cut of KING KONG? I mean really, folks. This movie swung dangerously close to "God-awful" territory at 3 hours. When I'm nodding off during the fight with the T-Rexes, (T-Rex's?-Whatever) because it just goes on, and on, and on...That's a serious case of "lack of perspective."
-
Got another handle for that stuff.
-
Just say you are working on the rights and getting it all together. Come on!!! Just do it!!!! Hobbit can be done in two movies. Ian will do it I am sure. Serkis owes you the world. And get someone younger for Bilbo. Come on!!! Do it!!! Come on!!!! Do it!!! Say Part I will come out in December 2008. Come on!!! Do it!!!! Come on!!! Just do it!! Screw Halo. Screw anything else. Movies have been nothing to me since ROTK. Nothing! Come on!! Do it!!
-
... I mean, it did seem like his love for Tolkien was pretty insincere ... his DVD commentary constantly indicated impatience with the material ... he claims his most anticipated sequence in the movies was the Elephant attack in the third movie, with the elephants stomping on people and getting arrows shot into them (including one elephant getting it in the eye in a deleted scene). He says he hates Wizards and Magic, which is why he loved the "wizard smackdown". He's a small time zombie film maker who lucked out because of the favorable New Zealand Exchange Rate that made moviemaking in New Zealand so cheap, and he got to latch onto something other people cared about, even if he didn't. What "chaos" says to "Fluffy McPeteykins" is pretty on the money ... he doesn't love this arty, "serious" moviemaking, he loves slug monsters eating people's heads, and he should go back to that sort of film-making without any more excuses or fig leaves like "Heart of Darkness" bullshit.
-
Okay. First off, forgive me for past and future typing errors. I've had 6 hours of sleep in two days. Now, that said, allow me to drop this in the can and sink it. I get it that NOBODY here sees any sense in what I see, ...as to casting for a "KINGDOM COME" movie. In fact, maybe there aren't that many fans of the "KINDOM COME" graphic novel on this particular site. But I love the story. I love the story of the "old school" superhero vs. the modern, dark superhero. It's the "greatest generation" of a time that was black and white... facing off against heroes who are more complex and were born into a world that is very grey. (Just imagine how Captain America might have came and went if not for his character history!) I don't understand how anyone could come away from reading "KINGDOM COME" and not think how epic AND INCREDIBLE such a movie could be on the big screen. I mean, ...you just look at those Alex Ross painted images of such huge battles between so many amazing characters AND IT SCREAMS TO BE ON THE BIG SCREEN. The movie would require repeat viewings so that you could see everything that happens to each character! When you've got a character like Batman in the foreground doing something incredible while Wonder Woman is in full armor doing battle in the background, how can you help but want to see such moving images again to take in all the action, with such an interesting theme behind the story. It just seems to me that Peter Jackson would be the man for the job, especially if he has any passion for the source material. (He should read it if he hasn't.) There would have to be some focus on the exchange between Superman and Captain Marvel as the bomb drops, ...a whole timing issue kind of thing. (Are they talking in bullet-time or what?) But the material seems destined for greatness on the big screen. Maybe not in my lifetime. But I think it WILL happen at some point in the future. (Perhaps far into the future. Perhaps not.) ...And now, here is where I really lose any respect in these talkbacks. And if you cross your fingers, maybe it's the last time I'll say it. I like the idea of Howie Long being this older Superman, George Clooney as this older Batman, and Catherine Zeta-Jones/Douglas as this older Wonder Woman. Maybe Dennis Quaid would be a good fit as the older Green Lantern, in relation to the ages of the other actors. Of coarse, these actors (yes, I'm including Howie Long) are still quite a bit younger than how the characters are portrayed in the graphic novel/album. But that's the beauty of it. If such a project wouldn't happen soon, where the actors would require a bit of aging with make-up, ...then time will do the work for them. Yes, I think a director could pull a Superman performance from Howie Long, whom already has the old school Superman looks, other than the classic black (and grey!) short hair-cut, over the ear with the swirl in front. (Don't forget to color those eyebrows!) However, I admit that I would have to "see" and "hear" Howie Long screen-tested in the role before I could have complete confidence. And I do believe that George Clooney could surprise some people in a different take of the Batman character. (And what a great challenge for him, to prove himself after the failure of "BATMAN AND ROBIN"!) And maybe Catherine Zeta missed her shot at Wonder Woman in her prime. But with this project, the role could be a dream! And I remember how I used to hope for a serious Green Lantern movie and thought Dennis Quaid would be perfect as Hal Jordan (and back then, I thought he'd make a good Batman, too). And if you have a problem with my choices for the older Superman and Batman, then how about an older "unknown" for Superman... and Dennis Quaid for Batman? Insert your own picks, I don't care. "KINGDOM COME" is worth a serious look from Warner Bros. as a big event picture, having nothing to do with any of the previous superhero pictures. Finding the right director can be tough. I think Peter Jackson is currently the best man for the job. That's easy. Casting the various characters? Now THAT is tough. (Cue end of "KINGDOM COME" soapbox.) Oh, ...and I would really like to know more about "HALO".
-
Ringy...here we go again. I highly doubt that Jackson's love for Tolkien was "insincere". After all, isn't that an oxymoron-of-sorts (insincere love)? His respect for the source material is ALL OVER the trilogy. Are you watching the same movies that everyone else is, Ringodoodle? Cause you sure do LOVE watching those LOTR:EE commentaries, don't cha?! For a guy who laments over everything Peter Jackson, you sure can't get enough of watching and listening to him. Now, if you really watched those same commentaries, you would also know that one of Jackson's most anticipated scenes was seeing the 3 Hunters running on screen (Aragorn, Legolas, & Gimli). Seems like a little thing but he found the image to be very evocative and characteristic of Tolkien. Jackson may not have cared for "Wizards and Magic"...but you should also know that Tolkien himself did not care for wizards shooting magic all over the place either. Tolkien's take on "magic" was much more subtle. Finally, Jackson may care for the occassional "slug monsters eating people's heads" because he sort of has a horror/camp background, Ringu. He knows what gives an audience the creeps. How all of this escapes you is a mystery. But then again, you are the one who pitched a fit over the color of the CGI fire in "King Kong". I believe your opinion was that it was "too orange"...
-
I loved King Kong. I thought it was one of the best movies I've ever seen. BUT... what was with the Jack Black "T'was beauty killed the beast?" After he does that awesome introduction of Kong.."And lo' the beast looked upon the face of beauty...etc.," he finished the movie....THIS MOVIE... with that half-hearted, eh, "t'was beauty?" Why? For what reason would you let him read that last line like that? It's the last line of the movie! It's supposed to sum up everything. No remorse? No regret? What is the deal with the way Jack Black read that final line? There, I asked it.
-
Mar 27, 2006 10:54:04 AM CST
"Why did I ever apologize to these pedantic retards?"
by tony mike hall
(Thought bubble that will materialize over Peter Jackson's head should he ever have the misfortune of reading thie embarassing TB.)
-
Why apologize to those "pendantic retards"? You are obviously not seeing the irony contained within your own statement on that one, buddy.
-
"Pedantic" (only one "n" there, Einstein) as you just were in your response and as everyone else in this TB has been about film and source material details no well-balanced persons gives a shit about. And "retards" as used colloquially to mean jackasses, dipshits, etc. Thank you for making my point for me.
-
Is there any possibility of a Silmarillion movie opus?
-
Kingdom Come is an incredible graphic novel, and would not work as a live action movie. First off, the cost would be ridiculous to pull off correctly. The casting cost alone would be unrealistic. It could only be done animated... bring Ross back on board and animate his paintings. Only way it could be done.
-
Kingdom Come is an incredible graphic novel, and would not work as a live action movie. First off, the cost would be ridiculous to pull off correctly. The casting cost alone would be unrealistic. It could only be done animated... bring Ross back on board and animate his paintings. Only way it could be done.
-
Also, isn't that just a clip from the movie? I didn't notice anything special about it (extended/alternate) it's cool but it doesn't make me want to buy the DVD any more or less.
-
This answers a few of the questions already asked(a few times actually) on this talkback:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060327i.php -
for making my point for all of us to see.
-
1.) Jackson is a class act and I found the message amusing. 2.) This talkback has reminded me how much I've loved Ringbearer9's relative absence around these parts after KONG had its run...and Doc has always "owned" that minutia obsessed nitwit...
-
Seems an ideal candidate for the Beowulf treatment. Have to wait to see how that works out, of course.
-
Now THAT would pwn.
-
YOU WROTE: "On a personal note. Don't call me a filmmaker wanna be. Get fucked. I've done more than you ever will. Quite possibly. And you have NO IDEA how hard I work." Sorry sport, but if you are working that hard to get what your films end up being, then maybe it's time to move on. What is your website again? Let me see some work, if there is anything good I'll be the first to give you some props, but so far I haven't been impressed. That you think The Lord of the Rings has no story just makes you look ignorant, because that book has a LOT of layers of story, themes, and plot. I'm guessing that you haven't read the book though, and if you did, maybe you should read it again. By the way, everything you say about film theory is automatically negated by the fact that you like the Prequel Trilogy. And not just that you like it, but that you are under the delusion that it is good filmmaking. The Prequel Trilogy is horrible, and time will not be kind.
-
I'm poking my tongue out at you. I'll accept your challenge.... when i have more time. But you gotta give me something in return. whatch you got?
-
Yeah, you can admire anyone who's fought to get to where they are. But 100 years from now, people are not really going to care as much about that as they will about the film that was left behind, if they care about the filmmaker at all. How many people probably know the Wizard of Oz by heart but don't know the story of the makers behind it? I think people on this site lose perspective as to how many actual people out there love a great classic film yet aren't anywhere near as inclined as we are to want to know about the process behind it. However, I do think it's INSANE of studios to back a filmmaker like Jackson and a film like King Kong and then demand that it be finished within an unreasonable time frame. That superman diary with Singer taking over the reigns from a delirious Jackson had to come from the fact that they were all REALLY feeling that way. It's like a grim kind of humor. A film that costs that much and has that much riding on it should not be a game of beat-the-clock. I don't know... I don't understand it and I never will. They want to make a certain release date and it makes you question, like, what's the difference between King Kong and The Fountain? Why does Aronofsky get to sit and tweak his cut and his sound mix for years, the studio allowing delay after delay after delay, all in the name of getting a better film out of it, and someone as powerful as Jackson basically is given a deadline with a movie that needs one even less than something like the Fountain. People bitch about the sopranos taking 3 years to come back, but man... that dream sequence last night with Tony outside the party and Buscemi trying to take the briefcase... his daughter's voice coming through the trees? When was the last time you saw anything that brilliantly conceived and executed in a movie? And I do think Lucas is right... because of these deadlines, the constant ratcheting up of the FX, and the horrible theater experience these days, these movies simply have to be on their way out. There's so much more real and interesting drama taking place on television than in the theater that I don't think it'll be long before every film student's dream is to have a series full of interesting characters they can play with with virtually no artistic constraints on HBO. With them, they commit to something and the only thing that matters is that it's interesting to the viewer and keeps them coming back. With the studios, the only thing that matters is fucking test screenings, whether the executives think it's interesting, and how many happy meal toys they can get out of it. Something's gotta give sooner or later...
-
Mr. Jackson is a class act. The production diaries were great and so was Kong.
-
Sure, casting could be an issue within the budget (huge as that budget would have to be). So, yes, casting would be a challenge in several ways. As to special/visual effects, there are less expensive routes which involve a lot of blue/green screen stage work. When you have Batman fighting in the foreground, you can have (some or all) characters in the background computer animated. Yes, we can fake the background characters with "motion capture" via stunt doubles (if the actor isn't payed to do the motion capture)... and having said that, keep in mind that it is possible to do full body scans of the actors, no matter "who" does the motion capture. Is it possible... or even realistic... to make a movie like "KINGDOM COME"??? Well, ...with a man like Peter Jackson behind the camera, using such techniques as mentioned above(much as he did with "KING KONG"), yes. It is possible.
-
you are a true champion and you should be incredibly proud of yourself.
-
"Hi everyone, my name is one9deuce.... and I'm a wannabe filmmaker". "Hi one9deuce". Don't most of us geeks here want to be in filmmaking in some aspect? I would be shocked if the number is less than 75%. But I don't work fast BendersShinyAss, so I don't have anything that I would show you right now. I will eventually. But I am also not talking mad amounts of shit about Peter Jackson. You said on another talkback that you could write a better screenplay for The Lord of the Rings AND King Kong. That is some serious chutzpah, and if you are going to say stuff like that, then you really need to back it up. So show me something.
-
Have you ever considered remaking Star Wars and doing it right?
Isn't it about time? The movie is almost thirty years old.
(bjarki) -
I had forgotten this (as I only watched Kong 1x), but more absurdities were the Raptors running right past the free dead Bronto meat to chase the heroes (funny Zombie line by ring on that one). While watching in the theatre, I was like
-
people treat kong like it is the only film to have events take place that could not possibly happen...why has the realism barometer set so high for this film..if there was ever a film that should have the realism bar dropped i think it is one in which the title character is 254 FOOT FUCKING GORILLA...don't you?personally part of the reason i go to the movies is to see things that couldn't possibly happen....i just don't go to see action/adventure films like this thinking "they better ground all of this firmly in reality and keep within the laws of physics or I am going to hate it"
-
the 2 biggies:
extended edition: when and what will be added.
and.... is it true there was digital touchups for the dvd from the theatrical?? -
it's like watching My Dinner With Andre and then 1/3 of the way through it you find out one is a robot and 2/3 through that it's all a wizard's dream. okay fine. it's nothing like that. but it is disorienting. not to mention that all sense of awe of a 50 foot ape is lost when he is shown jumping and playing with gigantic vicious dinosaurs at 175mph. after all the CGI wackiness, there's really nothing to Kong. he's kinda JUST a 50ft ape.
-
That's the point of making a movie about the Fantastic, to try and make the audience believe in it. By not shoving their faces in the fact that it's not real. And by "real" I don't mean "covered in dirt and filth". I mean like, "Dinosaurs no longer exist, but we want to convince the audience they are real for the duration of the film, so we WON'T make them act like zombies, but real animals who care about falling to their deaths." Hey, you all know that there would be no problem with a movie about zombies swinging on vines trying to eat a blonde, because, if zombie's were real, that's what we'd expect them to do, but we expect something different from "real" dinosaurs.
-
New footage that shows that Kong is much older than we know ... in fact, Kong is way more intelligent than he looks ... he is, in fact, the last member of a race of ancient intelligent monkey beasts, the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Skull Island is the last remnant of that ancient continent, which was sucked into an interdimensional doorway when the high priest of Atlantis (Kong) opened the doorway to a hell-dimension, allowing hell-spawn to infect Atlantis. So Kong is forced to live on Skull Island, the flora and fauna all distorted Alien-infected remnants of Atlantean beasts, the last remnant of a once proud race. When he sees Anne Darrow, he realizes that she is one pure, non alien-infected creature, and he wants to protect her at all costs. We need scenes of Kong in full priestly regalia, summoning the great God Yog Sothoth from the Hell Dimension, scenes of alien spores infecting dead sailors, (and protruding from the backs of the heads of the zombie dinosaurs) and maybe we could have a happy ending where Kong produces an ancient dimension opening artifact hidden in his fur, and with a nod from Anne, (they have learned to speak to eachother by use of an ancient Atlantean translation device) Kong decides to follow Atlantis into the same Doorway that it vanished into Eons ago. Anne's last line "It can't be any worse than Manhattan". Now that's a movie!
-
...I get the feeling you're one of these people WHO WOULD BITCH IF THEIR ICE-CREAM WAS COLD!!!
-
OK Ringy9...THAT was a good post. And please pass what your smoking.
-
Nobody wants to go on a date with a hot chick..and then put on some retarded looking glasses...its not gonna get anyone laid!
-
Actually, that would be me. I like mine melted.
-
I just threw out a Moriarty AICN and a Green Day, "American Idiot" reference in one. Good album, don't be hatin'...
-
So Peter Jackson made his dream project that no one else believed in. So what; John Travolta also made his dream project that no one else believed in. Unfortunately everyone else was right.
King Kong (2005) isn't the huge pile of steaming monkey crap that Battlefield Earth is. It is however a deeply flawed and overly long movie. Some of PJ -
I did say I could write better scripts for Lord of the rings. AND king kong. Did I say i was a better man than Peter Jackson? No. Did I give a little shit over Jimmy the cabin boy and some dodgy shit. YES. but I never once said anything bad about the dino stampede, or the t-rex fight. I fucking loved that shit. Do I have dilusions that I'm some film maker wanna be somehow over 75% of the other film maker wanna bes here? Dude, give me a fucking break. I've not slagged off on any one here. not even the fucking LION when he came here boasting what a champion film maker he is. Not only is this site big enough for 75% film makers, So is this whole damn world. Have I made any proclaimations that I'm a better man than anyone here? Show me. I love films and I love film makers out there giving it there all. But don't think for a second i can't spot a flawed one thats some risen through the ranks. I didn't start a challenge with you my friend, it was you who started slagging off to me. There's very little fear I have in this world. I'm not afraid to show my work. i'm not afraid for all of you to know my name and what I look like. In fact, the only thing I truely fear is that when I'm cashed up enough and I'm able to get on a plane and try and impress the right people with my current work load resume and the ideas I have for feature films - films I hope people like you can go and magically be whisked away to those worlds you were taken by the likes of Speilberg or lucas or carpenter or Cameron or even emmerick (When you were young and a little less jaded) then yes, I'm here to tell you, i'm a film maker and I'm working hard to get some films made. of the 75% of fil mmaker wanna bes here, who has actually gotten off their arse and produced something. Or several things. Do I have faith in my ability to make the biggest film you've ever layed eyes on. I'll tell you what - i have faith I can give it a damn good go. And so did Jackson. And he did make some impressive looking films. But as with any film - you MUST have a good script first. and you must not have arse kissers working for you. soiya.
-
I'll never understand the change that Lucas made, here. As it once was, Han would get himself out of a sticky situation where he faced death from a bounty hunter ...or even the possibility of being taken to Jabba. But now, we get the "Special Kids Edition" where Han Solo moves too late and only survives because the bounty hunter is now a distant cousin of Jar Jar Binks and... wow... the "bounty hunter" misses at point-blank range, from right across the table! Amazing! But since Lucas now panders to a younger crowd, I can watch nearly all the Star Wars movies with my 2-year-old. I'm just waiting for a "Special Kids Edition" to "REVENGE OF THE SITH" where, instead of Anakin losing his legs, Obi Wan kicks him below the belt. "Game over, man. This fight is like, ...yesterday. It is so over. Where... (cough)... did you learn to kick like that?!" Obi Wan responds, "There was a time when I played kick ball... and I was always picked first." (Thank God I purchased the original trilogy on VHS back in '92 for $100.)
-
sweet jesus. i hardly ever post because i like to see what other people write about things, but your childish antinks piss me off. i cant even go through half of the post now. it was amusing at first listen to you and the other two go back and forth but come on. you have to have like 50 posts buy know. make a point maybe back it up once and then end it. you must not work and at all. you had a point for a minute. but you just lost all credibility. do you really think PJ needs to advertise any thing to AICN. of course he is going to plug his work at some point, but to think thats the only reason he would do something like that. HOW OLD ARE YOU BY THE WAY? im quite qurious
-
Well, the 4 people here who have read it do.
-
1. The mockery of many things
The charm of the 1933 original is that it is 100% sincere and genuine, so much so that it innocently becomes corny. The original is not self conscious - it is wonderfully innocent and sincere. Meanwhile, the remake is full of snearing, self loathing, and mockery.
Example: the original had dialogue that was so innocently sincere that it appears corny: "Say, I guess I love you!" Meanwhile the remake consciously makes fun of the original, such as when the actors repeat the dialogue of the original as they film it on deck, "I guess a woman can't help but be a nuisance." This is an obvious jab at the original, as if to say, "Wasn't it a ridiculous film they made." Similarly when they recreate the scene of the natives dancing from the original, it is in the context of mockery, with one of the natives doing the jitterbug with the actor dude in white.
The remake not only makes fun of the original, but it makes fun of the film making industry, and Denham's character is portrayed as a dispicable fellow. This points out the difference in tone between the two films: 1933 Denham is a square guy, 2005 Denham is a vicious man. 1933 film was a square sincere film, 2005 film is a snearing mocking film. The 1933 film is the kind of film that would be made by the 1933 Denham, and the 2005 film is the kind of film that would be made by the 2005 Denham.
2. The unclear love story
There are moments of sincerity in 2005, and it is Kong, Watts, and Brody who are the sincere characters. However, the love triangle is never explained. Does Watts love Brody? It is never signified. When he kisses her, which comes out of the blue and is pasted into a compressed montage of scenes, one wonders if Watts is just seeking to advance her career. She shows no signs of liking Brody up to that point, indeed she describes him with distaste as a tweedy bookworm even before he reveals himself as the tweedy bookworm. Similarly when she leaves Kong's paw and takes Brody's hand to escape, one can't help but think she has more affection for the ape than for Brody at that point, and her only reason for placing her fate with Brody is that he lives in a house with less carnivores around. At the end when Kong falls and Watts embraces Brody, he is again like a friend who comforts Watts on the death of her beloved. We know that Brody loves Watts, but all bets are off as to whether Watts would stay with Brody once they descend the Empire State Building. I do not believe the film should leave us in such doubt regarding the relationship between Darrow and Driscol. The original certainly did not leave the love relationship in such a fog.
3. The absent musical themes
Kong does not speak English; the way to communicate his emotions would be through the film's music, or by characters putting words in his mouth. As for music, I cannot recall any musical themes from the movie, except what was playing during the Native Re-enactment in front of the chained Kong (which was music from the original). None of the 2005 music sticks in the mind; it is all just subtle filler type music with no character. Kong needs a good musical theme, indeed several good musical themes: an Angry Kong the Beast theme, a Tired Kong the Lonely theme, a Touching Kong in Love theme. Sure there was music, but it was not the kind of theme music that stick in the mind and the heart. Better (more distinct) theme melodies would have given the wordless Kong a speaking heart. As it was, I saw him make facial expressions, but I could not hear the melody in his heart.
4. Kong stands for?
As for putting words in his mouth (which is a good thing), Watts does it maybe once, at the end when she says, "yes, beautiful." But she (and other characters as well), needed to put alot of other words in Kong's mouth so that we understood him better. Denham could have said things like, "Kong, the last lonely survivor of his species..." which would let us know that Kong is lonely. We are left wondering why Kong feels so strongly for Watts. Is it just because she is white while the other girls are black? Is it because she has spunk and stabs him and earns his respect? Is it because she is a cool dancing toy? There needed to be dialogue about the relationship, even if it occurs over tea with Denham where he discovers Ann, or in a chat between Ann and Driscol before they reach the island; someone needed to foreshadow with words, "Improbable love, it can happen between any two people. Love does not make sense - it makes its own sense. And when one falls in love, nothing is improbable, no difference too great, no barrier too high, no wall too strong. Love can reach across all things to touch another, and never let them go." That way we would know what Kong is all about - he's about an improbable love reaching across the greatest divide, and we would root for him because we are rooting for love. But someone needs to state the thesis in the dialogue. In the 1993 film at least Kong was clear: a lusty ape who tore off Ann's dress and tickled her. We know who he is. The 2005 Kong is more complex, he has loftier sentiments and he undergoes a transformation, but things needed to be stated by someone in the film, preferably indirectly. When Kong becomes more less of beast and more noble, is he returning to a behavior he had long ago when he lived in society with apes? Someone could have said, "Apes are social animals, the closest thing to man himself, with families and relationships like humans. Being alone could drive one insane, and make them forget their better self. If an ape lost his mate, saw his children die in the terrors of the jungle - he could become a beast." Anyway, something like that to give Kong a back story, and help us understand what/why he transforms when he enters into a relationship with Ann.
---
So those are the primary deficiencies: a lot of mockery while the original was sincere, an unclear love story where the other was clear, unmemorable unnoteworthy music while the original was iconic, an unexplained complex emotional Kong where the original had a clear lusty Kong.
In short, the original told a clear story in a short running time. The new one tells a vague story leaving many questions in a long running time.
---
***How to save the Special Edition DVD***
Let's face it, Kong was not nominated for any significant Oscar, and rightly so. It did not improve on the original in any significant dimension except for special effects. But with a few tweaks to the Special Edition DVD, this unnecessary remake can turn into a great film.
First of all, what made the original Kong great? It is the sincerity and positive outlook of the film, typified by the square Denham and his love of adventure. By contrast, PJ's film is very cynical, snearing, mocking, and spiteful. It shows every character, including Kong, Ann, Driscoll, and Denham in a despicable way. Kong is the lusty savage beast (we never really know why he transforms into a more humane creature); Ann is shown as a self inflating costume wearer (why was it necessary to show Ann in a bad light? It even seemed out of character for her); Driscoll is described as a tweedy dweeb with (large) nose in book, who does not look as good as his photo (why take these pot shots at him?), and Denham is of course portayed as loathesome through and through (we like characters we can love; note to PJ: do not make us loathe your main character).
We also see that PJ & crew despise studio execs (well, ok, they actually are loathesome), as well as actors (they look at themselves in the mirror - why was it necessary to insert this snide comment into the script?) and the military (they save NY from a rampaging ape, but they are still depicted as meanies). Time after time, PJ parades someone on screen just so we can despise them. He even mocks the original Kong film, making fun of the dialog on the ship filming sequence.
And that's not all. The film also snears at Titanic, with frequent references ("You would have jumped," and the shot of Ann looking glamourous at the back of the ship with the sun setting, with mocking melodrama), but I tell you Titanic is twice the film that Kong 2005 is, and a good reason for it is that Titanic is a very positive and respectful film. Like the original Kong, Titanic is sincere, not mocking other films, not despising its own characters. Even when there are villains in Titanic, we pity them more than despise them, like the clueless Cal who does not know how to love, or the spineless Mr. Ismay, who does not have the character to go down with his own ship. These are pitiable characters, but Titanic does not ask us to despise them.
Now, in order to cleanup Kong 2005 and make a truly great film of it, the following needs to be done:
1. Eliminate all snide remarks, such as the ones listed above. Dear film editor, whenever the film says to you "despise this person," cut that section out. Whenever the film makes fun of itself, its characters, or another film, cut that out, because the truth is it is not "fun" at all, but mean spirited, and great films are not mean spirited, nor juvenile in their ridicule.
2. Run to Howard Shore and admit you made a Big Mistake, and thank James Howard for his forgettable background music, and ask Shore to complete the recording of his masterful score (do not use the NZ orchestra, as the miniscule clips we heard did not sound like they were doing a good job).
There you go - a positive film with great music, and you have a smash hit for the DVD Special Edition. Much better that the theatrical version: a mean-spirited snide mocking film with lackluster music.
-
I'm really interested in seeing Jackson's version of The Lovely Bones. I read an interview with him in EW and he said that he is working on the script for that right now. Then, he's moving on to the effects laden Halo. I'm glad that he's taking the time to do a quieter movie this time around, much like Heavenly Creatures, which I personally think is one of his best movies, just behind Fellowship. I liked King Kong, but I had the usual complaints like the length and the ol' Cabin boy. Impressive epic nonetheless.
-
I know it would be a huge risk given his current status, but his early New Zealand films were pure genius. I know its just wishful thinking, but it would be awesome.
-
I get why Jackson wanted to set it in the 30s, but a post 9/11 Kong would have been very interesting.
-
1. Well over 30 years old.
2. Star Wars fans angry about the backlash the prequels recieved.
3. Jealous that PJ has recieved so much praise.
4. Mad about people saying PJ is now what Lucas used to be.
5. Want revenge for the savaging the prequels took and focus their anger at PJ as he is now the 'fantasy' director of the moment.
6. Spend countless hours each day looking for new flaws in Jacksons films.
7. Could better spend their time doing something to better themselves, ie make your point and move on. -
That would be a cool modern day Kong, or if they did make a straight modernized remake, it would have the president declaring a war on big apes, and then he'd bomb Skull Island.
-
do you rub weenies?
I do.
rubbin weenies
tweet,tweet, tweet
rockin weenies tweet, tweet, tweet -
at 2hrs 1min 33 sec, the initials KKDD flash on the screen for 1 frame. What's that about?
-
I again give you one line that sums it up for anyone who knows even the basics of storytelling
-
I am not even going to slam the Travesty Star Wars has become- its too easy, and in the end such an f
-
I am not even going to slam the Travesty Star Wars has become- its too easy, and in the end such an f
-
Double posting is annoying...
-
Yer stupid. Nuff said. Now as to Kong, it was pretty good, just didn't blow me away. I like the dude above who was talking about the differences between film and digital, and 3D as well. Ask that of PJ.
-
"Hey, anyone that hates PJ must an old, angry Star Wars fuck! Anyone with half a mind hates SW and loves PJ!" Fuckin retards. Guess what? I love SW. I love LOTR. Holy shit, I think I just ripped a hole in the space-time continuum. Bye bye, universe!
-
... he seemingly gave the 20 questions he promised to AICN to darkhorizons.com (go over there and check it out!) Also, on this very website, we just got Quint's interview with Andy Serkis, who is doing interviews right now, as Quint says, TO PROMOTE THE KONG DVD. Jackson's on Darkhorizons, talking about the Kong DVD. Andy Serkis is talking about the Kong DVD. But Jackson's little clip to Aintitcool readers is NOT promoting the Kong DVD? It's retarded.
-
What a fucking retard. The man is obviously a fucking jerk......... Geez, settle down, guy!
-
Not Jackson.
-
Go buy the soundtrack to Kong. Take in track 1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15 & 16 and have another rant about the Music from Kong. The Music soundtrack gets a lot of play around this part and trust me, those themes you wanted are there. The thing is, it's not the composer that is the problem, it's the film he's working up against. Besides, a new edit of the film and push back release of 4 weeks could have made all the difference. This film was a rush job. And it's still having bits added. It's like watching a crazed painter who just wont stop adding to his canvas. Actually that sometimes makes it all better. Jesus, so Jackson has somehow made deals to have his films released halfway through completion. Next time I'll just wait for the finished final dvd. But it'll be a semi dvd. Such a strange film making practice.
-
Longer than that stupid "What Gollum thinks of AICN" soundbyte.
-
SNAKES ON A PLANE!!!!!!!
...GFY -
Because this is an ad too.
-
Is the most retarded saying ever anyways... you don't even know if X3 is going to suck. In fact, the previews look amazing. Stop judging people before you even see their work. Also, Brett Ratner is directing anyways, so even if it did suck, it's Ratner's fault, not Tom Rothman's. Unrelated, I hope Lost is as awesome this week as the last 30 seconds were last week.
-
What a snooze and a disappointment. Three full months after its release and the only sign of it are some posters announcing "KONG-sized" Whoppers at Burger King. Face it, folks. This was not only a box-office bummer, but a real cinematic let-down. I remain a PJ fan, but he drank a KONG-sized Big Gulp of his own Kool-Aid making this movie. ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
-
you are right, i just checked it out and KKDD do appear on the arm of one character as he is climbing up.
anyone know??? -
I'd like to see Ian Holmes reprise his role as Bilbo as seen in Fellowship of the Ring rather than casting a younger actor. If The HOBBIT is a go, is this the plan? Bring back our two Ians so we can have familiar faces?
-
The problem is that Ian Holm was already fifteen years too old to play Bilbo in 1998. He was "well preserved" as an 111 year old, but I think the Hobbit may demand too much activity. running around in caves, floating on barrels, fighting spiders, etc. If they have to replace him, I always thought Kenneth Branagh would make a good Bilbo, but the suggestion of the Office's Martin Freeman is interesting as well. One thing's for certain: Gandalf has to be played by Ian McKellan.
-
something new each time, likewise what not to attempt again. Is there anything that sticks out that you've learned from filming Kong that you can pass on to future productions, positive or negative?
-
yet he did seem remorseful nonetheless. Has there ever been a filmmaker so connected to his fans? Peter Jackson is very generous with his time and resources. I salute him.
-
Since I was completely sucked in by all of the LOTR prerelease hype, (and the extended edition hype)...and since I loved the whole trilogy...I have to ask: Peter, didn't you think that those Tolkien fanatics that watch every second of the production footage would notice that much of it was faked? For example, in an interview with Liv Tyler during a prerelease making of/ad program, she states that being chased on horseback by the 9 was REALLY SCARY! (in so many words) Then in a later how-we-did it blurb, she reveals that she never actually sat on a horse... So I guess that I just want to ventilate about the dishonsty of the whole thing. But why would you care? The lies made a bung-load of cash, didn't they? Advice for the future: you didn't need the bullshit! The movies were great! Next time don't treat us like we're stupid!
-
And that`s a fact, Jack.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts