Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Ladies and gentlemen... I give you KONG (TV spots)!!!

First? by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:29:18 PM
We get it!
Wooaaa by jaxnnux	Nov 21st, 2005 05:29:35 PM
OMG. 1st 1st 1st...
That's right bitches! by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:30:00 PM
We get, you live Kong! But enough proclaiming your love already!
Bastard by jaxnnux	Nov 21st, 2005 05:30:05 PM

Woah! Too slow jaxnnux! by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:31:30 PM
Nice try dude.
Your mom's the bastard! by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:32:09 PM
Nice spots though.
Your mom's the bastard! by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:32:11 PM
Nice spots though.
Your mom's the bastard! by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:32:22 PM
Nice spots though.
... by LeckoManiac	Nov 21st, 2005 05:32:43 PM
It just keeps looking better and better...I am so jazzed for this
Didn't mean to triple post! Sorry about that. by Proman1984	Nov 21st, 2005 05:33:14 PM
Must be some kind of glitch.
Would you choads knock off the first shit, it's like the fir by Citizen Arcane	Nov 21st, 2005 05:41:58 PM
It's definitly looking better than the first teaser a while back. For a remake, I think it'll end up being pretty good.
I'm looking for a reason to see this. Can't find one. by kdraines	Nov 21st, 2005 05:51:31 PM
When I heard about the project I was actually intrigued. The concept art also had me interested. The subsequent posters and trailers have left disinterested. And it's not just the CGI. I actually enjoyed the 1976 version and this new one by Jackson seems to be a rehash of that one with a dash of Jurassic Park thrown in. You could almost call it Jurassic Kong. And at three hours? What's the point?
And tomorrow... by BCfreeB	Nov 21st, 2005 05:52:55 PM
We'll get to see an exclusive behind-the-scenes peak at Naomi Watts' stand in's brother's pet Chihuahua (sp?) Well, to be fair, TV spots are more substantive than most Kong related stuff on this site, but it's the principle. And when the movie comes out it will be 20 glowing reviews and 1 negative review with an introduction longer than the review pointing out how the reviewer is wrong, but also beating us over the head with the fact that "AICN IS FAIR, AND SHOWS BOTH SIDES!" psha. Man, I'm in a bad mood. Im usually less cynical. All that being said, I'm still looking forward to Kong. Though with Goblet coming out last weekend, I already had my necessary dose of great fantasy holiday blockbusters. www.unseenfilms.com
Oh, and 3 hours.... by BCfreeB	Nov 21st, 2005 05:54:39 PM
Prove me wrong, mr. Jackson. I'll be the first to admit my own shortcomings. www.unseenfilms.com
amazing by mikey mike	Nov 21st, 2005 06:04:28 PM
you guys will get excited over anything involving kong. i sure hope that universal at least gives you guys a cut of the BO gross since you guys will be responsible for a lot of news about the movie
Well hopefully it will come to a real site... by jimmy_009	Nov 21st, 2005 06:05:48 PM
...instead of Moviebox or whatever that is since I can't view the damn thing.
BREAKING NEWS! KING KONG POGS! by Terminator	Nov 21st, 2005 06:16:30 PM
That will be the next post at AICN.
Is Kong gonna throw supersized... by strongbadmonkey	Nov 21st, 2005 06:41:55 PM
portions of his own feces and chizm at the residents of the Big Apple? Cause I'd pay to see that.
Naomi Watts: "Noooooooooo" by half vader	Nov 21st, 2005 07:03:35 PM
"I've lost my backgroooouuunnnd"! ------Geez, do you think they're in a rush?
can i get some back-up on this? i doubt king kong will be nomina by jig98	Nov 21st, 2005 07:03:38 PM
that was something.
I hope they don't take the Kong Love too far... by Batutta	Nov 21st, 2005 07:16:49 PM
Naomi looks like she wants to polish Kong's knob in that reaction shot when they're on his perch.
ringbearer9, i'm in. jackson will shoot his head off if he d by jig98	Nov 21st, 2005 07:18:07 PM
that will prove that you don't do new material out of something you like. there have been numerous changes in production directing.... for example, day after tommorow was a good movie and hell froze over.
oops by half vader	Nov 21st, 2005 07:20:34 PM
Kong is behind her I guess. Never mind. No-one reads anyone else's post anyway, luckily for me.
More Cool news.... by vinceklortho	Nov 21st, 2005 07:21:29 PM
I'm excited for Kong and all, but I saw Harry Potter(great, btw)and I was confronted with the new M. Night movie called "lady in the water". Did anyone see this and did anyone think it sucked balls? A kids movie? Could have potential but....OH, and my friends roommate is working on the villan costumes for Spiderman 3 out here in LA and there are three villians. Sandman, Venom, and Hobgoblin. Weird, huh? So, do what you will with that...just some "cool" news from yours truly, Vince Klortho, Key Master of Gozer.
Enough already by LLcruize2	Nov 21st, 2005 07:26:27 PM
I am glad the AICN staff is banana's about this flick, but man, enough with the orgasmic posts everytime Kong farts. This is supposed to be an unbiased site right?? Seems like AICN is trying to sell this movie harder than Jackson and the studio is.
Have You Ever Seen Jackson's "Meet The Feebles?" by buster00	Nov 21st, 2005 08:40:24 PM
The WHOLE MOVIE is FULL of shit that "stops the movie." I'm talkin' FRONT TO BACK. Hard to watch...and I have a REALLY sick sense of humor.
Didn't realize Samuel L. was in this until now... by indiephantom	Nov 21st, 2005 08:49:59 PM
2 Jacksons for the price of one. That's nepitism for ya!
"with a dash of Jurassic Park thrown in." by ignatz33	Nov 21st, 2005 08:51:00 PM
First of all, why do people keep claiming Kong is ripping off JP? There were dinosaurs in the original King Kong 60 years before a single frame of Jurassic Park was ever filmed. As a matter a fact, one of the reasons Spielberg directed JP is because he was a fan of the original King Kong and wanted to make a dino flic of his own(Check the DVD extras on JP for Spielbergs interview and scenes from the original King Kong fighting dinosaurs)). Do you think it's a coincidence that Goldblum says "What have they got in there, King Kong? Or is it a coincidence that the ship that brought the T-rex to the U.S. in JP:The Lost World was called the Venture (The same name as the ship that brings Kong to NY)...That's called an homage to a film that inspired JP. And Jackson's Kong is NOT based on the 1976 Kong. It's based on the 1933 King Kong. Please people, if you want your statements to be taken seriously at least do some research in film history. Im still laughing at the fact that people think the 1976 Kong is the "original" Kong. And in regards to another comment...What exactly does this mean? - "How much do you want to bet that Jackson won't care if a sequence "stops the movie?" You do realize that Jackson is not inserting the newly created stop motion spider scenee into the original film? It will merely be a SEPERATE extra included in the new DVD.
Ladies and gentlemen...I give you...GEORGE TAKEI OWNING YOUR ASS by jesuschrist	Nov 21st, 2005 09:57:18 PM
CAPITAL LETTERS!
Isn't it about time they added some new features to this tal by mortsleam	Nov 21st, 2005 10:01:31 PM
Like, a TiVo type feature that allows us to automatically skip over certain Talkbackers posts without even having to see their name? That'd be nice. Every clip I see of this thing gets me more excited, particularly the short scenes of Kong interacting with Ann. The WETA animators did some amazing character work there. I only hope the action scenes match it. The one scene of Kong jumping around in the streets of New York in the first TV spot seemed a little, shall I say, Cave Trollish. Obvious, but still impressive.
"Meet the Feebles" is hilarious. by Lenny Nero	Nov 21st, 2005 10:27:35 PM
"Sodomy! You might think it very odd of me! That I enjoy the act of sodomy!" Yes, that is why I like it. I shall enjoy the incoming homophobia.
Boring by AlwaysThere	Nov 21st, 2005 10:51:44 PM

Meanwhile, at AICN, the plaintive cry of insignificant chronic m by Monkeybrains	Nov 21st, 2005 10:56:32 PM
Site Translation:
Has anyone seen this KONG book yet? by IAmLegolas	Nov 21st, 2005 11:10:01 PM
http://tinyurl.com/dddbj
This is going to be good by quadrupletree	Nov 21st, 2005 11:27:39 PM
I can tell....
I hope the movie is good!! by Se	Nov 21st, 2005 11:30:12 PM
Sure looks nice, judging by the trailer.
JAck Black is a Genius, your Talkbacks are insulting by Rcamacho2278	Nov 21st, 2005 11:32:05 PM
The man is A GENIUS I Tell you!!
Flash Frame by Colonel Kilgore	Nov 21st, 2005 11:55:26 PM
A special prize to the person that can find the flash frame in this spot...nice job finishing this one guys...don't worry, it's just a $215 million movie!
Flash Frame pt. deux by Colonel Kilgore	Nov 21st, 2005 11:59:49 PM
I am talking about the "Unknown" spot.
what's a flash frame by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 12:05:25 AM
It must be important
Will Peter Hackson finally do something original after this??? by The_Lion	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:09:17 AM
Then again, I'd like to see THE HOBBIT movie. Bitch ass Hackson, you will do as I say!!!
Ringbearer9 by dewijnboer	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:20:16 AM
Has it ever dawned on you that people hate you as much as you hate PJ, you silly little wanker? You just haven't got a clue what you're talking about, have you? Pathetic snot!
Those spots were a bit dark.... by sith-vol	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:59:40 AM
...and very hard to see, but most of the scenes were just rehashed from the trailer anyway. The movie looks good, Jackson made a believer of me ages ago, so even if this was a blah concept when I first heard about it, it looks better all the time. With all that said, AICN is way too Kong crazy, how about saving the exclamations for newsworthy material. I don't think these spots qualify.
What the fuck is with the "techno remix" of the Kong trailer mus by Tubbs Tattsyrup	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:22:05 AM
I mean, it sounds like shit. And MEET THE FEEBLES fucking RULES.
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:00:50 AM
How, exactly, is it NOT cool that Jackson and Weta re-created a bit of lost footage as an extra on the King Kong DVD? That's the kind of devotion most geeks DREAM of having their favorite DVDs produced with. You also need to read up on your King Kong history. The scene was removed because it did indeed "stop" the film, but not in the pacing sense. The preview audiences who saw the scene were horrified by its content which at the time seemed far too extreme and not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. That's why it was removed. A scene like that would in no way "stop" the film for a modern audience with its jaded sensibilities. Thanks for your post, though. It just goes to prove that you know as little about film history as you do -- and have proven time and again -- about editing, lighting, CGI, cinematography, screenwriting, as well as every other stage and aspect of the creation of movies. Hater scum.
GoatZinger by DocPazuzu	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:14:19 AM
Guess who's back? Go check out the Superman trailer TB.
Wackson Jackson by Indiana Clones	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:34:41 AM
I don't think Ringbearer hates Jackson. None of us do. We just think he's a nice man, professional and technically proficient, but artistically speaking a really awful filmmaker.
"but artistically speaking a really awful filmmaker." by Blue_Demon	Nov 22nd, 2005 07:52:22 AM
Then why waste time commenting on a Jackson talkback? ( and of course, you won't see the film since it's going to be really awful. )
Kong is King... by wessmith1966	Nov 22nd, 2005 08:57:49 AM
I can't wait to see this, regardless of how much my butt is going to hurt from sitting for so long. Seriously, this movie is going to blow us all away, and when the film is over, we'll all be wanting more and wishing it was an hour longer. I haven't felt this much anticipation over a movie since the first Star Trek and Superman movies came out when I was a kid.
All the ladies be wantin' some Kong. by Diskatopia	Nov 22nd, 2005 09:21:45 AM
Oh yeah, you know it. And by "ladies" I mean horny chicks, and by "Kong" I mean large penis. Hoo-rah.
Blue Demon by dewijnboer	Nov 22nd, 2005 09:27:01 AM
Well put indeed!
Hater scum. by Yojimbo Jones	Nov 22nd, 2005 10:03:10 AM
O-kay, so the movie is going to bomb. No-one wants to see this. Except for Jackson-fans, Kongophiles and audiences that save their money for big epic adventure action blockbusters. But people that are into high art, they have no interest, and that's what matters. Yeah, it'll be a bomb alright.
Looks like Kong has got him some mad hops by Garbageman33	Nov 22nd, 2005 11:22:49 AM
I'm telling you, in that scene where he jumps up to hit the attacking airplane, it looks like he's got a sweet vertical. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd swear that was Shawn Kemp. Aw, what do you bastards know from sports?!
"but artistically speaking a really awful filmmaker" by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 11:36:04 AM
By which you mean, "I don't care for his style." That's fine, as long as you don't pretend there's some objective standard for what makes something artistically "good" or "bad." I believe Jackson is, artistically speaking, an absolutely brilliant filmmaker. But that's just my opinion.
Jumpin' Wackson Jackson by Indiana Clones	Nov 22nd, 2005 11:56:43 AM
There is a difference between artistic good and bad. Pretty art (which i agree is subjective) is easier to achieve and less significant than meaningful art. As he can barely attractive images (forget meaningful), his style is more or less devoid of artistic content. He has, to date, failed to compose an image with any knowledge of subtext or symbolism. Hell, i'd argue that he can't even tell stories visually at all. He's the thinking man's Michael Bay, which i'm afraid is only slightly less bad as it sounds. I think it's obvious to anyone reading my comments that i shall not be seeing this film. As for my validity in this thread, don't assume that Jackson's detractors should be precluded from saying their piece. That philosophy is a thousand times more narrow-minded than saying some director sucks.
Indiana Clones by DocPazuzu	Nov 22nd, 2005 12:05:48 PM
Why don't you post your usual thoughts on George Lucas as a comparison?
Lucas by Indiana Clones	Nov 22nd, 2005 12:17:27 PM
He's awesome. How's that?
Indiana Clones by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 12:41:41 PM
I would never suggest that you shouldn't criticize Jackson or describe your lack of affection for his work. I would suggest however that you think more critically about your own opinions. You're basically saying that since Jackson's images aren't attractive TO YOU, then his work is devoid of artistic content (without defining what "artistic content" is, besides "what Indiana Clones likes). This is, I'm afraid, nonsense. You may not like his art, but it has a lot of meaning to a lot of people. The word "art" is a noun. It's not an adjective. "Art" is whatever is created by an "artist." So you can either say, "I don't care for his art" or you can say "The people who find meaning in his art are WRONG, because I don't find it attractive." The former is inarguable, while the latter is indefensible and intellectually devoid of reason.
continued! by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 12:44:18 PM
Indiana, there are a lot of people who say the exact things about Lucas that you say about Jackson, and they're just as wrong. Lucas is as much of an artist as Jackson. Some people prefer Lucas's work and others Jackson's. There's no test that can determine which is artistically "good" or "bad." I much prefer Jackson's work, but I don't think that people who love Star Wars are mistaken for it.
Ringbearer9 by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:18:42 PM
You act as if you've got a mathematical formula all worked out and the rest of us just don't get it. The fact is, the simple, mundane fact is that you don't care for Jackson's work. That's been understood for a while. But your opinions about Jackson are not shared by most here and your explanations of WHY he is SO BAD have never, despite your lengthy, repetitive explanations, risen above "He does things I wouldn't do." Other people here, myself included, believe that he does things we wish we could do. So, I'm wondering, are you hoping to change minds, or are you working on a dissertation or something? I mean there has to be some reason for all the work you've put into this "I don't like Peter Jackson's work" theme.
also, Ringbearer by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:20:47 PM
I asked before, but missed the answer, so forgive the repitition. But could you point me to an interview where people who have recently worked with Jackson share your opinion of him? Who's worked with him that thinks he's a "moron" or that he's "tyranically self-involved and self-satisfied?"
Yes, we do, Ringbearer by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:50:34 PM
I know a few guys who worked at Skywalker who said that while Lucas is nice enough, they hated the way he focused on digital minutia instead of more important things. I know a fella who worked on LOTR for 18 months, but left because of the hours and the hectic, confused production. But he didn't have anything bad to say about Jackson. That aside, listen to what you're saying. "Nobody who's worked with Jackson has said anything that backs up my theories, but that's just because they're kissing his ass." This is silly. And really, not very nice. I mean, you're saying bad things about the guy's character, without a shred of evidence to demonstrate that he really is as bad as you say.
"you know, the usual asskissery that feeds an overreaching direc by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 01:52:50 PM
Where, precisely, has Jackson or Lucas implied that they are the source of all brilliance and creativity in their outfits? I've only ever heard them praise the people they work with and give them lots of credit for how good their movies look. You see what I mean? You're just saying mean things that aren't based in reality, just because you don't like their movies.
But can we agree, Ringbearer, that what you see... by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:06:22 PM
...is NOT what most other people see? Most other people (and a lot them who know as much or more about film-making as you do) who watched LOTR were very happy with the plot, pacing, audience engagement with the human characters. If you feel like it's important to have a "clear, overall artistic vision" for the film before it's in production, that's reasonable. But it's not reasonable to say that it's the only way to make a good movie or a movie that will satisfy the majority of movie-goers.
indiana clones.... by slappy jones	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:07:44 PM
tell me something. after all these years and all the mystery and anticipation you really think lucas is still awesome for making darth vader/anakin skywalker a pussy? a whining lame charisma free whimp? all i know is that when i first saw star wars and vader walked into that corridor i was blown away. and as the series went on and we got drips and drabs about him my mind went apeshit ...i thought of hundreds of different possibilities of how he became vader...but you know what ...not once did i think "man i hope we find out that anakin was was a bad acting whining brat...a complete pussy...comepletely unlikeable and talentless in every way and when they finally make the films about him i hope that the films seem completely different to the rest of the series so there is a complete lack of continuity except for some last minute tacked on shit at the very end of the third one"..and I never once hoped that when he was reborn as vader one of the first words out of his motuh would be "noooooooo"
"making the WETA people redo Kong's face, firing Howard Shor by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:09:32 PM
SFX folks expect to redo things. It's part of the job. And, unless you can point me to a source that says otherwise, Howard Shore's leaving was a mutually agreed upon, and amicable, decision. Howard Shore doesn't need to kiss anybody's ass.
fuck remakes by CuervoJones	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:14:50 PM

This movie is going to clean up at the box office. by Thirteen 13	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:23:57 PM
And I wouldn't worry about the Kong haters. There is like only 5 or 6 of them and they only troll the AICN boards. When I saw the trailer in the theaters last week the whole audience loved it. I heard many people behind me murmering and whispering how they were going to see that. My parents even want to see it. This movie has about as much chance of flopping as Serenity has of making its money back.
dude, you are so hardcore by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:24:23 PM

that was meant for the no-nonsense CuervoJones by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:25:15 PM

Ringbearer's seen the movie? by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:32:07 PM
or how else can he make the statement about Jackson foregoing plot, pacing, etc. so he can get to dinosaurs?
"after all these years and all the mystery and anticipation you by Indiana Clones	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:33:02 PM
Yeah, i do.
Don't forget Jacksons inability to keep his shit together du by BendersShinyAss	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:39:57 PM
http://www.bluetights.net/vide o_small_wm.php?id=7
Slappy, if I may... by BendersShinyAss	Nov 22nd, 2005 02:54:05 PM
...darth Vador was ALWAYS the mangled, chopped up burned and crispy remains of Anakin Skywalker. Thats why he was in the life support suit. Thats why he was under the control of the Emperor. You totally missed the point dude. Vador was never a bad mutha fucka ruling the galaxy. He ALWAY WAS a pussy.
Vader was ALWAYS a pussy by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:04:06 PM
That is the height of fanboy apologist crap
BendersShinyAss by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:07:27 PM
I noticed you posting this link somewhere else. You know it's a joke, right? If you do, sorry. If you didn't know, well, it was a fun little joke made by two directors who respect each other.
Can't believe.... by IAmLegolas	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:11:33 PM
People are still falling for those April Fool's Day joke video diary entries from KongIsKing.net and www.bluetights.net. Oops, sorry for the interruption everyone. Keep on trollin' trollin' trollin', keep these Talkbacks trollin'!!!!
Actually... by BendersShinyAss	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:26:35 PM
Yes he was always a whiny wingeing pussy. Go revisit the OT. or just think back. When he was fighting with Obi-wan he tries to throw him off with "you're powers are weak old man... bla bla bla I am the master" It's the same shit he was sprouting when he was fighting him before he got hacked up and burned. then when he's fighting his own son "it's useless, you are beaten bla bla bla Join me, give yourself to the darkside" But once again he gets told where to go. He even starts wimpering at the end of Empire because he's just a lonely old man with no friends, trapped in a life support suit. And then watch as he bows down to the emperor giving his full servitude. Even the emperor consols him, 'Patience my friend, you'll see your family again soon (Then I'll have him kill you and make him my new apprentice to help me run the galaxy - just like I did with you and Dooku. just like I did with Dooku and Maul) See thats when it finally clicked on Vador and he started turning back and away from the emperor. YES the man was always a pathetic weakling. His only power was Force avalances. Indeed look at that officer give him shit "Don't try and scare us with your abilities cripple, you'd be nothing without your throat squeezing ability." As for Jackson calling up Singer.... Now who's the appologist??
As for Jackson calling up Singer by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:33:06 PM
that's a joke, no apologies (except yours) necessary.
"As for Jackson calling up Singer.... Now who's the appologi by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:38:01 PM
No, really. It was a joke. Trust me. I'm not knocking your "Vader was a pussy" theory. You've obviously thought it out. But those diary entries are a fun little joke. Really.
I mean, think about it... by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:39:55 PM
...why would both teams make a diary entry out of what would, if serious, be embarrassing to a director? Why would Singer leave his production to seriously work, unpaid, uncredited, on another blockbuster? Really, it was a joke.
God knows it can't be any worse than the Godzilla remake by LeFlambeur	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:41:31 PM
In fact, they should have it as a double feature, show the Godzilla remake first so King Kong won't look so shitty.
Lucas by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 03:46:44 PM
wrote 3 movies about a "whiny wingeing pussy". Hmm, that explains alot.
Ok, I'll admit defeat.... by BendersShinyAss	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:12:38 PM
....I've been trying to find the king kong diary version where Singer came over but can't find it. But i did see some nice work on the music. And I'll admit I was a little confused over the logistics of what was going on with Jackson calling Singer in to help. An April fools does explain it. Pretty stupid joke really. But I'm not wrong about Vader. The PT enlightened us on the OT. It's like when you have this crush on a chick and then you finally get her and it turns out she doesn't have a perfect body rubbing up to you or breath in the morning. Not to mention how scary with out make up she actually is. Point is, Vador only looked 'cool' and scary to the uninitiated. But to the likes of those who confronted and knew him - he was just a rotting corpse kept alive no different to likes of General Grevious. Anakin HAD to be a little bitch. How else would he turn to the dark side?
No defeat, BendersShinyAss... by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:20:21 PM
...just agreement. More talkbackers should be as humble and gracious enough to admit a mistake.
"Lucas wrote 3 movies about a "whiny wingeing pussy". Hmm, that by Indiana Clones	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:25:07 PM
He wrote 3 movies about a reasonably well-meaning guy who butted heads with temptation and didn't have the courage to pull through. That's Vader.
So, Indiana by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:31:37 PM
Can we agree that Jackson merely makes films and images you don't care for? Can we agree that "artistically meaningful" is a purely subjective concept? Can we agree that people who find deep meaning and emotional satisfaction in Jackson's images are no more mistaken than people who find such feelings in Lucas's work?
I would have loved to have seen those movies, Indiana by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:42:35 PM
but instead I got the Vader that BendersShinyAss descibes. I can't imagine Lucas intended that Anakin was all along a whiny pussy. Do you really need 3 movies to cover that? Benders, I think you are so right in your take on Anakin in the prequels, and I admire the way you make it jibe with the OT. I just don't see it that way.
Then how do you see it? by BendersShinyAss	Nov 22nd, 2005 04:57:42 PM
I'm not blind to the faults of the PT. In fact, I'll agree to a point that they somewhat lacked an aspect we were all hopeing for. But lets look at the reality. Lucas made a film in 1977 that captured the imagination of a whole Generation of film makers and film lovers alike. He came up with the continuing stories but handed off the hard task of actually putting them up on screen to 'specialists'. That's why 'Empire' and 'Jedi' are technically better films than 'New Hope'. Perhaps he should have remained in his producer and post role and handed off the direction and script to others for the prequels. In fact this is something I have always thought myself. But give the man credit where credit is due. He totally revolutionised film making. and I wouldn't have been able to make my little project without his cinematic pioneering. Wanna see the trailer. Go ahead, it'd be nice if some one saw it. http://media.putfile.com/equid trailerwmv
Nice trailer by DinoBass	Nov 22nd, 2005 05:30:27 PM
Kudos for giving a project like that a go
Wow, that spider scene DVD thing sounds pretty awesome. by minderbinder	Nov 22nd, 2005 05:54:35 PM
I had heard about it but assumed they'd do the scene with CGI and modern techniques. Can't wait to see it. And who cares about firing the composer, it happens all the time. Shouldn't a director replace the music if it's not working for the film?
Thanks. Here have another by BendersShinyAss	Nov 22nd, 2005 06:06:59 PM
http://media.putfile.com/Novat railerwmv
Good for you, Benders by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 07:25:24 PM
Don't stop making things like that and you'll just get better and who knows who'll take notice? Oh, to be young and have energy...
"All the ladies be wantin' some Kong" by half vader	Nov 22nd, 2005 07:34:05 PM
I don't think so. I remember reading something about male Gorillas having tiny penises and only being able to last a couple of seconds before it's all over. Like guys who buy SUVs and fast cars, all that chest beating covers an embarrassing secret. So I guess Kong being 25 feet tall would just bring him up to scratch. As for staying power though... no wonder he's so grouchy!
aikimoe, do you have a life? by ATARI	Nov 22nd, 2005 07:57:53 PM
Just wondering. Are you currently employed? Just curious.
ATARI by aikimoe	Nov 22nd, 2005 09:08:16 PM
Well, there's a difference between having a life and being employed. I'm home sick today and got pulled into a discussion. What about you? Do you usually ask rude questions of strangers because they're having a conversation? It's a funny question coming from someone who's obviously spent time reading posts on this board.
BendersShinyAss by one9deuce	Nov 22nd, 2005 09:49:39 PM
One thing: Your trailers are cut incoherently. Which leads me to believe your films are shot and edited that way. But as a would-be filmmaker myself (as are 90% of us on these talkbacks it seems), I applaud the effort. And I wouldn't mind seeing the first film, so the trailer must have worked in some way. It also could have been the woman at the end with the magnificent rack. Nice composition on those shots with her in them by the way. ****************** As far as King Kong goes, it is going to be huge. The people slagging this film are in for a rude awakening. The media blitz for King Kong has been relatively muted, and there is a good reason: They KNOW they have a great film. I only hope it does more business than Revenge of the Sith. Certainly possible. I know it will take the Academy Award for visual effects. No doubt there.
"When PJ's Kong die, everybody gonna cry. The tears will be by Det. John Kimble	Nov 23rd, 2005 12:45:32 AM
Settle down bitches, I'm pumped to see it too. Oh and the Narnia effects are starting to look amazing. Way to go WETA.
One9, aikimoe, dino by BendersShinyAss	Nov 23rd, 2005 01:09:48 AM
Thanks for watching. Yeah the trailer is a bit choppy, but it was made because to say you have a couple silms is one thing, to actually have something to spark an interest is another. I can assure you the difference between the cuts in the trailer and the cuts in the film are 'a little' different. As for being incoherent, They were only done made in the space of a few hours - whereas the films took considerably much longer time to make. Besides, I think the first 1 gives a fairly good idea that it's a time travel chase film, but comments noted, thanks ................. When you look at these Trailers to Kong, Superman, star wars etc there is a trand amoungst them to have super fast cuts and it's all usually out of place from how the shots will appear in the films. I'm pretty sure the technique is to both entice AND confuse. Thats why it's so interesting for me to see people on AICN bash all these trailers because they can't figure out whats going on. I must be in a certain viewing class of my own because Generally I find these 'confusing' trailers to be the most encouraging. I have no idea waht is going to happen in Kong event hough I know the story and the trailer pretty much shows that it follows closely to the '33 kong. But from the trailer I've been lead to believe that, for instance, the t-rex is going to be a very prominant character (character?) But I also have worries that, at 3 hours in duration, it's going to drag in the sections we haven't seen anything on..... mainly the transportation of kong to the mainland, and the tender-er moments between Kong and Naomi watts. With superman I'm really excited about this film based on only a couple of non-coherant shots. Superman hovering high over the Earth and, what looks to be meditation, before snapping back to attention and zipping off at awesome speed back to the ground. I mean, Wow! whats he doing, is this one of those moments that will take us back to the urgency moments of the first superman. I'm glad these trailers give us quick glimpses of what look to be interesting scenes. It'd be terrible if they gave away the whole films, so much so that when we finally see them we know exactly whats coming up. We're all anticipating Kong. Even that haters. I'm not a hater but I really think it's going to be 'not that good' and I can't wait to find out.
Re:can i get some back-up on this? i doubt king kong will be nom by Alen Smithee	Nov 23rd, 2005 01:23:33 AM
So you've actually seen the new version of Kong and can make this comparison between it and LOTR? Wow!
Re:I hope they don't take the Kong Love too far... by Alen Smithee	Nov 23rd, 2005 01:26:43 AM
"Naomi looks like she wants to polish Kong's knob in that reaction shot when they're on his perch..." I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN THE SE:DVD WHEN THEY RELESE IT NEXT YEAR. :)
"Can we agree that "artistically meaningful" is a purely subject by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 01:55:56 AM
We can, but only if we also agree that there has to be some actual meat to constitute artistic meaning in the first place. Jackson's frames and edits have no depth. What you see is what you get. There are no hidden agenda. No insightful statement or sly visual joke. And given his massive audience, that is a shame.
"I would have loved to have seen those movies, Indiana, but inst by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:16:02 AM
We all did, Bender pretty much nailed it. I'm glad Lucas made them the way he did. I can't see how the PT could have been done more appropriately or 'better'. True Star Wars fans didn't want another mythic good vs evil fable. We already had a definitive one. What we wanted was the tragedy of Vader, a tragedy brought on by himself, not by others, because he is a fundamentally flawed character. I can see how 3 big budget fantasy films about a total loser might not go down well with some of the more irate corners of the socially challenged 'fanbase', but damn them. Lucas did it the way it should have been done. In 50 years time the PT will possibly be held in higher regard than the OT, and, effects aside, there may not be any differentiation in perception of tone and formula at all.
The girl in Bender's trailer by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:24:35 AM
I'm no breast man, but those are some seriously magnificent tits.
No it won't. by Riff Randall	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:53:49 AM
Sorry, but no. The PT will never ever be more highly regarded than the OT. No way. Don't make me go there, I don't have the energy tonight.
You're no breast man? by BendersShinyAss	Nov 23rd, 2005 06:57:46 AM
I'll never understand that sentiment. And yes they are magnificent aren't they. She was such a sport :)
BendersShinyAss by mortsleam	Nov 23rd, 2005 08:44:48 AM
The second one definitely looked mroe interesting, perhaps because of the general absence of bad wigs/hair. I'm sure the concept of the first one was good, but an action-heavy script filmed on little or no budget can't help but be flawed. When you don't actually have money for large action set pieces, it's usually better to go with smaller, more intimate stories. Keep it up. And I hereby bequeath all rights to my patented Bender emoticon unto you for your exclusive use. -(8#
"We can, but only if we also agree that there has to be some act by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 09:02:30 AM
But "depth" and "meat" are purely subjective concepts, too. To YOU there is no "meat" or "depth," but to me and millions more there is plenty of both, plenty of subtext. There are a good number of beautiful, rich, deep shots in LOTR. I'm surprised a Lucas fan would say these things about Jackson's work, because I'm sure you get abuse from people who say Lucas' work is bland and superficial as if those are measureable, objective things, when they're really, like "depth" and "meat," purely subjective.
"3 big budget fantasy films about a total loser" by DinoBass	Nov 23rd, 2005 10:58:34 AM
is boring cinema. It makes for 3 bad movies. I had always assumed Lucas just screwed up big time on the prequels, but Indiana, you and BendersShinyAss might be right about Lucas intending for Anakin/Vader to come across like a whiny punk. He might have starting mulling that over around the time he decided Greedo should shoot first.
"3 big budget fantasy films about a total loser is boring cinema by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 11:10:02 AM
A lot of people loved them.
"To YOU there is no "meat" or "depth," but to me and millions mo by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 11:13:48 AM
Name one instance where Jackson uses his camera's proximity to his actors or props to indirectly suggest ANYTHING. Anything at all. He has never done this. He cannot employ visual subtext because he does not understand it.
Clones, you do realise subtext isn't everything. by Cameron1	Nov 23rd, 2005 11:56:55 AM
ESPECIALLY in the LOTR movies. What subtext would you want in there? Check out heavenly creatures and braindead (yes really) for visual subtext. And what does proximity have to do with subtext? You are a fucking idiot.
"We can, but only if we also agree that there has to be some act by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 11:58:25 AM
There are several shots in LOTR where the camera moves in on actors or when he employs slow motion. Many shots of the ring itself and the characters' relation to it. When Frodo decides to carry the right at the council, for instance. Hell, look at the Kong trailer. The shot of Ann's hand on the railing. That shot's full of subtext. Besides those examples, though, you're still acting as if "subtext" is a mathematical formula and you've got the right equation. Just because YOU don't see subtext in a shot, doesn't mean that it's not there and that it's not seen and appreciated by millions of other people.
"When Frodo decides to carry the RING at the council," I meant. by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 11:59:58 AM

That's a good point Cameron1 by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 12:09:05 PM
Indiana Clones, have you seen "Heavenly Creatures"? It's filled to overflowing with subtext.
mortsleam by BendersShinyAss	Nov 23rd, 2005 12:23:58 PM
Yeah, that first film was shot on a budget of $200 and a LOT of favours. It was meant to be MASSIVE. But I'm pretty happy with the results anyhoo. You're right about avoiding action in favour of story. In fact, you may have just saved my feature film. I'm going down the line of films - here's yet another trailer....... http://media.putfile.com/Mcswe eneystrailerwmv
"ESPECIALLY in the LOTR movies. What subtext would you want in t by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 01:36:45 PM
Oh, i don't know. How about some? At all? Subtext is the driving force of cinema. Heavenly Creatures is wafer thin. Subtext? Don't make me laugh.
"subtext is the driving force of cinema" by Cameron1	Nov 23rd, 2005 01:49:15 PM
Hahahaha. Er not when you are makinga film from a book that was written specifically without subtext. And you ask for any at all, that simply wouldn't be truthful, shoehorning in some subtext is a pointless exercise. Cinema doesn't NEED subtext. The books are myths, simple stories told to entertain and give the english a sense of wonder. Now as for Heavenly Creatures, are you going to give ANY evidence for saying it's wafer thin? You are a fucking idiot.
Indiana... by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:17:26 PM
We'll agree to disagree on the more sophisticated film-maker, but your feelings regarding subtext are really without merit. Would Lucas agree with you? Would any accomplished and successful director agree with you that Jackson does not understand visual subtext and never employs it? Really, I think you're sticking to this strange theory (that you, alone, understand what subtext is) out of loyalty.
Cameron1 by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:30:22 PM
Tolkien's LOTR has a pretty obvious communist subtext. You're a fucking idiot for failing to notice this and also for calling people fucking idiots.
"Tolkien's LOTR has a pretty obvious communist subtext." by Cameron1	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:36:39 PM
Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh sweet jesus, you REALLY ARE A FUCVKING IDIOT. Tolkien books had no such thing. DO you know how I know this? Because TOLKIEN FUCKING SAID SO. Now go do some reading and comeback when you have ANY idea what you are talking about.
Camera work in LOTR by cyanide christ	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:40:40 PM
What about how when Frodo and Sam are traveling they are always moving towards the right on screen, implying that they are heading east. That is suggested in the way the scenes were shot. Suck it, Indiana.
And with your "communist subtext", Indiana Clones, you are offic by DocPazuzu	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:48:52 PM
I knew that if you were lured into bringing your unmitigated love for Lucas into this discussion, your criticism of Jackson would ring hollow. Kudos to aikimoe for having the patience to preside over the unravelling.
Tolkien denying accusations of communism? by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:49:41 PM
Surely not! Cameron1, you are a walking abortion.
Lucas rules by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:51:26 PM
5 billion and counting, guys.
I smell an Ishtar here. by HypeEndsHere	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:54:31 PM
It's not as pungent as, say, a Heaven's Gate, but definitely a floppadoodle-doo.
"5 billion and counting, guys." by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:56:35 PM
By that logic, you could argue that "McDonald's Rules." And it's kind of silly to suggest a communist subtext in a story about Kings taking their rightful place on the throne.
Ok you are just fuking around now. by Cameron1	Nov 23rd, 2005 02:56:53 PM
Do you know anything about Tolkien and what his intetions were when writing LOTR? Ever studied him? You'll know he wasn't a communist. Now you are bringing you OWN ideas to Tolkien's books, that's cool and all. But don't be suprised when no one else sees it. Or incorporastes it in to films. Like I say you are a fucking idiot. You just keep proving it.
Ok ok I hate using this word in talkbacks but sometimes it's by Cameron1	Nov 23rd, 2005 03:01:30 PM
Indiana Clones you are fucking OWNED Sir. Absolutely and unequivocally. And you are still a fucking idiot too. Good Night folks.
2 posts in a row displaying a staggering lack of understanding o by Indiana Clones	Nov 23rd, 2005 03:04:31 PM
LOTR is perfect for you guys. Enjoy the monkey throwing cars.
the fact that indiana etc are still sticking up for the prequels by slappy jones	Nov 23rd, 2005 03:29:08 PM
yet are calling jackson a hack and attacking his filmmaking skills is very very funny. oh and I love the spin they are putting on to the "vader was always a pussy" thing. how very republican of them. the first two prequels were complete and utter failures. anyway for me the biggest crime isn't jar jar..or midichlorians....or this ridiculous vader was always a pussy crap...even though they are all good examples of why they sucked...you know what the biggest crime was?? that stupid two headed podrace announcer in TPM..."thats gotta hurt"??? are you fucking kidding me? if that is star wars to you guys then i guess you saw a different OT to me then. I have heard your silly defence of vader being a pussy but now explain to me where a race announcer spouting horribly outdated 20th century catch phrases comes from?link that into the OT??....hang on...thats right i am sorry i remember now...I forgot that famous scene when the ewoks are going to cook han and luke etc etc C3PO looks at them and says "wheres the beef?"... oh and indiana are you seriously telling me that anakins story, the way it has been told in the PT, is how you always wanted it??? you always wanted anakin to be one of the most unlikeable characters in film history???..i never wanted him to be evil from the get go or there would be no story to tell but at least make us care about him but he is just out and out annoying and awful. oh and bendersshinyass the singer/jackson production diary thing was practical joke. and a pretty obvious one at that. the fact that you couldn't see that explains to me how you can stand up for the prequels.
oh and hypeendshere by slappy jones	Nov 23rd, 2005 03:52:36 PM
what is making you think this will flop? is the fact that kong is one of cinemas most well known, well loved and biggest icons? or is it because it is directed by the guy who just directed three of the biggest films of all time?maybe you are basing your prediction on the reports of people cheering for the trailer when it screens of which i was skeptical until i witnessed it myself the other night? or are you making that prediction based purely on the fact that you are trolling knobend?
slappy jones by IAmLegolas	Nov 23rd, 2005 04:01:29 PM
You forgot Chewbacca imitating Tarzan in ROTJ.
slappy, relax. by HypeEndsHere	Nov 23rd, 2005 04:40:48 PM
do you see me running through these boards calling names? no. so chillax. all i'm saying is that Kong is not well-loved by the general public, nor is he an icon. and if he is some icon, the new version is not what anyone thinks of when they think 'Kong'. also, they didn't change the story or even the time period of the original, so what exactly is in it for John Q. Dumbass other than color? personally, i feel a cartoon monkey fight will draw some, but not the masses. maybe if they used African influences instead of New Zealand again. maybe if Kong wasn't from Mordor. maybe if they went the extra mile and threw in Mario and Luigi... but hey, don't let me spoil it for you, you're probably a nice guy flexing his online nuts a little. bye.
"2 posts in a row displaying a staggering lack of understanding by aikimoe	Nov 23rd, 2005 05:02:01 PM
That's easy enough to say, but you forgot to explain how a king regaining his throne is compatable with Marxist communism.
king kong is not an icon of cinema?or well loved? or well known? by slappy jones	Nov 23rd, 2005 06:59:18 PM
uumm o.k. and hype well i do call people names all over the boards. you are better than me i guess. what i don't do though is spend my time on a message baord dedicated to something i claim to dislike and have no interest in it because i have better things to do. surely you have better things to do in your life hype then spend it trolling message boards and spouting mindless drivel about the box office chances of a film you haven't see yet? say the film makes a mint and does really well will you come here and admit you were totally wrong and that you will never spout your mouth off again about a film you haven't seen? if you dislike kong so much as you clesrly do why did you click on the link about a kong story. see i am not interested in munich right so when i see a story about it i don't read it..why? because i am not interested in it. your only interest in kong seems to be in its failing and that make syou really quite sad, lonely and at the end of the day...really pathetic doesn't it? all you ever write is shit like "this is going to bomb" etc etc look once or twice is fine you don't like it you think it will bomb...and i am not saying that you can;t dislike this film..no film is going to please everyone but you repeat the same thing over and over. i have never said once that this film will be awesome....that this film will make millions. i HOPE it is awesome..it might not be i have been disappointed before...i couldn't give a fuck how much money it makes it isn't like i get any but we get the point...you seem to know that this film will bomb.now why don't you go the boards of a film you like and think will do well and stop posting your inane predictions based on nothing but your weird intense dislike of this film. do you go to all boards of films you don't like and post this stuff or this just a jackson/kong thing? you dick.
Slappy Jones.... by BendersShinyAss	Nov 24th, 2005 12:35:16 AM
Dude, you've kind of dipped into the twilight zone for a day or so. I've already admitted my mistake with the production diary. It was an april fools, and I was had. 7 months later. I've seen better pranks though. good ones. that one was just plain stupid. but lets say jackson and Singer a reading I'd think they would laugh, as oppose to be jerks about it. And besides, who cares if you don't like Anikin. The way I see it, he wasn't meant to be liked. He's darth vador for christ sake. But he's also family and thats whats so tragic about it all. Does this 'appologist' attitude extend to the Pod Racer announcer? Hardly. I hate that as much as you. But if I recall Chewy did a Tarzan call in RotJ. I hated that too. Even when I was a younglin.
funny you should say Ringbearer9 by BendersShinyAss	Nov 24th, 2005 01:18:47 AM
There is a certain sadistic quality to Jacksons work. As soon as I saw those dinosaurs falling of the cliff in the trailer I knew we were in for some ugly deaths. I'll bet money on at least a dozen Kong related mutilations of scared running people. Not neccessarily a bad thing. I just hope it's not ugly. the 76 kong had some ugly shit in it. I always cringed when Kong pulled the T-rex apart at the mouth. I have a suspicion it's going to be done again in this film. Much more graphic too. Is it true the T-Rex is called a V-rex. Can someone explain this?
Tell you what, Ringbearer... by aikimoe	Nov 24th, 2005 02:28:53 AM
...if you can find someone who has worked directly with Jackson who is as convinced of his immaturity and lack of vision as you are, I'll consider it a valid opinion. Considering all the really disrespectful, mean-spirited stuff you've said about the guy, you really need some evidence to support your assertions. There are plenty of people who have worked with Lucas who are critical of his skills (while not being mean), so you really can't fall back on the "everyone's kissing his ass" excuse.
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Nov 24th, 2005 02:40:28 AM
Your insufferability is matched only by your relentlessness. The meticulous and ludicrous dissection of the most minute and unimportant details of the films you've chosen to hate does nothing to build your case against them nor does it win anyone to your sad cause. Seriously, has anyone besides a pre-programmed hater like Indiana Clones or moviemack ever said anything in support of what you assert in these various talkbacks? The funniest part is how your utter Sean Pennish lack of humor and playfulness becomes evident when you rake Jackson over the coals for his candid commentary tracks. Do you, even in your wildest imagination, truly believe he's the only director who has succumbed to a whim or a childlike impulse in the creation of a particular scene in a film? I'd wager this sort of thing happens on virtually every film except the most pretentious of film student projects. Jackson is just being candid about the process, and you're using his throwaway comments concering cinematic minutiae in order to slam his work as a whole. It's exceedingly petty and irrelevant. You're attempting to elevate your phony squeamishness to a virtue and proof of how refined you are in your tastes. News flash, chief -- nobody is buying it. I hope you live long enough to finally realize that if a film version of LOTR were made according to your specs, it would be a boorish, shallow, unoriginal, unimaginative, stilted, preachy, ponderous and humorless affair which would be widely and rightly derided by most film and Tolkien fans around the world.
TOLKIEN DID NOT WRITE LOTR AS AN ALLEGORY FOR ANYTHING by Cameron1	Nov 24th, 2005 04:56:31 AM
Sorry for the caps but some fucking idiots think it's anti this or pro that. And the books aren't. Tolkien specifically stated on a number of occasions the Books were an attempt (a very successful attemp imo) to create an english myth as the english had nothing like Norse or Greek Mythology. The reader can find marxist themes in the book just like you can find gay themes in the book i.e, if you read the book with the intention of doing so. But the books weren't written about any of that modern day stuff. Sheesh I feel like I'm back in critical theory seminars.
"they obviously consider his impulses lowbrow and crude and sill by DocPazuzu	Nov 24th, 2005 05:34:37 AM
Unlike your superior mastery of all things cinematic, naturally. A part of me wishes you'd actually make a film so that we'd all have something to laugh about, like the orthodox tolkienite talkbacker (whose name I'm forgotten) who used to hate on Jackson and actually posted a link to an execrable and hideous filmed version of a scene from Fellowship which he and his humorless lackeys had created. Without the slightest hint of irony he claimed that his was the only true way to film Tolkien. Come to think of it, I think it's probably best for all that you're forever limited to impotent talkback hate rather than inflicting your filmic visions upon an unsuspecting world. We should count our blessings and be thankful that we only have Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun, Gregg Araki and Michael Bay to worry about and never have to experience the horror of the opening title: "un film du Ringbearer9".
I'm = I've by DocPazuzu	Nov 24th, 2005 05:35:35 AM
Obviously.
"imagined horde of likeminded fans" by DocPazuzu	Nov 24th, 2005 05:39:23 AM
Would those be the same imagined millions of moviegoers around the world who saw Jackson's LOTR and imagined that they loved it?
Pazuzu by Cameron1	Nov 24th, 2005 05:49:25 AM
Araki gets a free pass for life after Mysterious Skin. That is all.
DocPazuzu by dewijnboer	Nov 24th, 2005 07:47:00 AM
I feel exactly the same as you about Ringbearer9. The guy annoys me no end, and is probably pleased that I am. And that you are, for that matter. I would love to see his own version of LOTR, provided he would have the vision and the stamina to pull it off. That would maybe validate what he has to say about Peter Jackson. But I at the same time, I shudder at the thought... Ringbearer, you tryly don't know what you are talking about. And you are obsessed. So there.
tryly=truly by dewijnboer	Nov 24th, 2005 07:49:11 AM
Fuck spelling!
Cover your eyes by DinoBass	Nov 24th, 2005 10:23:36 AM
Watch the original King Kong for some serious lowbrow, crude and silly stuff, like Kong biting heads off people, stamping people into jelly, plucking sleeping women from their Manhattan beds and dropping them to their death, and ripping T-Rex jaws apart.
slappy, would you please read my initial post. by HypeEndsHere	Nov 24th, 2005 10:28:15 AM
here's the gist: I FEEL that Kong is not going to do well financially. never do i say anywhere that i personally do not like Kong as a character or as a film. never do i say that i will not see this new film. nor do i say that it would PLEASE me if the film fails to do well. your argument would be sound if this were so. i'm just saying curb your enthusiasm a bit. hey, i liked Heaven's Gate, but i can divorce myself of any real emotion concerning a stupid movie, bro. accept that the rest of the world probably doesn't give a shit about the things we like. happy thanksgiving. (and yes, i frequently read articles about things i don't like. i'm funny that way)
Jackson owns Lucas's ass by Peven	Nov 24th, 2005 12:28:48 PM
hey IndianaClones, why don't you tell us about all the subtext in Howard the Duck? and what was the genius subtext of an entire species having a speech pattern resembling wierd harold from fat albert? ohba nohba, weesa gonna die! unlike most of the little turd Lucas-worshiping-Jackson-hater s,i was actually around to see the first Star Wars movie in the theatres, and as a matter of fact, i may be one of the only people who actually read the novelization before seeing the movie( and fyi, it was just Star Wars, NO sign of any "new hope" tag). from the age of ten until the disappointment that was ROTJ i was a HUGE Star Wars fan, like many kids of that time. anyway,Han shot first and was integral to the intro of the character, after seeing that you knew Han was no one to fuck with, a hard-ass, which was to offset the wholesome goody-goodyness of Luke. by softening Han's character Lucas weakened the impact of Han's actions afterwards when he does "good" things, like coming back to save Luke in the end of when Darth has in in his sights.the fact that Lucas has changed it shows a real lack of conviction in his original artistic vision. Meanwhile, i don't see Jackson going back and trying to alter his earlier works.(the EE versions of LOTR are not altered, just extended, just to address what i know the nitpicking haters will try to say) as much $ as Lucas has milked from the Star Wars franchise, you'd think he would have all he needed to realize whatever ideas of for films he might have, so what are they? what is next on his plate? another remix dvd release of Star Wars? the guy, the artist, who made American Graffitti is gone, long gone, and now all that is left is a power hungry technocrat who is more out of touch with real people, real emotions and human stories than Bush was about katrina. for all the special effects, it was the story, the characters, the emotional connection tothe characters that made the LOTR films a success, and one only has to read reviews over at rottentomatoes as evidence. Phantom Menace and Clones sucked not because of weak special effects, but because of shitty writing and direction. a big difference i see between Lucas and Jackson is that Lucas is much too arrogant to think he could learn or use anything from anyone else about moviemaking, while Jackson is much more willing to collaborate and delegate. i will bet the farm that in 25 yrs Jackon's filmography will not only be considered better than Lucas quality-wise, but much more diverse in regard to subject and style.
Ringbearer, that's hardly evidence for Jackson being a "moro by aikimoe	Nov 24th, 2005 01:11:06 PM
If you actually think that Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens agree with your assessment of Jackson, I think we'll have to agree to disagree as I back slowly away, eyes wide and unblinking.
Has anyone else noticed? by one9deuce	Nov 24th, 2005 02:02:47 PM
That King Kong 2005 seems to be remaking King Kong 1976 as much as King Kong 1933? I just watched King Kong 1933 for the first time since I was a kid, and I didn't see Fay Wray(who was fine!) have any sort of relationship with Kong at all. She was terrified of him the entire time he had her on Skull Island and in New York. Peter Jackson seems to be borrowing from Jessica Lange's character in King Kong 1976 because she doesn't want Kong to die: "Don't put me down, they'll kill you". Not to mention the fact that Adrien Brody's Jack Driscoll is not anything like the original Kong's Jack Driscoll, but more like Jeff Bridges character in the 70's remake. Those are just the start of the similarities. I think that 15 year old Peter Jackson was as influenced by King Kong 1976 as 10 year old Peter Jackson was by King Kong 1933. We shall see when his version opens next month.
hypeendshere by slappy jones	Nov 24th, 2005 03:11:15 PM
i guess we'll see in a few weeks. i know i fly off the handle a bit but some of things people are spouting is just absolute crap. at least you are reasonable.unlike myslef....need to calm down.i just don't understand this deep hatred some people here have for jackson...it really puzzles me. they don't jsut dislike him thses guys seem to fucking hate thim and i don't get it. i think a lot of it really stems from the fact that his trilogy of films just wiped the floor with lucas latest trilogy in every respect.and they can spin it any way they want but facts are facts and the prequels are some of the most mocked films of all time...LOTR was embraced....and that pisses me off as a star wars fan but don't blame jackson....blame lucas for letting everyone down.
A fun perspective on Kong and Peter .ackson. by JackPumpkinhead	Nov 24th, 2005 06:37:51 PM
http://www.spinstartshere.com/ ?q=node/1015 (No, not mine, and I don't agree with the Narnia points)
Bored... must.. not... take part in.. Jackson.. Lucas .. debate. by Lone Fox	Nov 24th, 2005 06:46:30 PM
But what the hell. First, I'm getting more and more excited to see this movie. Second, I just watched Return of the King and can only ask what the hell is wrong with the world that they revere these bloated, bad FX-laden yawnfests... the scene on the bed was a joke right? Right? Oh... Third, as far as Star Wars goes, if you're moaning that people are anti Jackson then boo hoo, but please get over this ridiculous belief that LOTR wiped the floor with the prequels. If you exist solely on the internet, maybe. Fact is, since Phantom Menace there's been one group or another declaring the failure of Lucas (Matrix fanatics anyone?) and its popularity has suffered nil. Only difference is these days people can voice their opinion more publicly. Some of you clearly have Lucas issues, perhaps shutting the hell up for turning another TB into an excuse to compare him to Jackson would be an idea. Yes, I realise I just contributed to it, I'm a big fat hypocrite. And I feel right at home.
lucas fanboys by Peven	Nov 24th, 2005 07:28:13 PM
are so sad. making fun of the "bed scene"? no surprise we get the adolescent reaction to that scene from the same pukes who don't have a problem with the romper room, teletubbies-like ewok happy happy joy joy ending of ROTJ. tell us all what a masterpiece Jar Jar is too. or turning the all-powerful, all-mysterious Force into something as mundane as microscopic parasites? as for criticizing ROTK for bad FX, thats as retarded as criticizing "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" for bad acting. bloated? dumbass, do you have any idea how much source material was being covered? if you did you'd realize that "economic" is a better term for how well the material was condensed and yet still retain the heart and soul of the story. and yes, anyone not blinded with utter idolization of all things Lucas can look back over the last 5 years and see how the LOTR films kicked the ass of the star wars prequels, even more so considering the first two prequels were such a letdown, and are now commonly mocked by many, while the LOTR films actually outperformed expectations. my "issue" with Lucas is that after such a promising start to his career, he has devolved as a filmaker, and now hides behind FX and digital cameras. he's so far detached i wonder if he even still has the chops to make a decent student film where he wouldn't be able to use a few hundred million $ and FX in every frame.
Re "All the ladies be wantin' some Kong" by skoobyx	Nov 24th, 2005 08:36:25 PM
Hey where are the female Kongs? Are we to believe Kong is the only specimen of giant gorilla on Skull Island? In order to produce such a high order primate a large breeding population would be necessary, not to mention that fact that Kong (as a mammal) would require maternal care to reach maturity as well as the typical heirarichly structured alpha male community of gorillas. Could his interest in Naomi Watts be explained by the lack of suitable mating prospects? And how does he handle his grooming without the members of the gorilla tribe? The ticks there must be the size of Volkswagons.
V-rex's killed off Kong's relatives by Peven	Nov 24th, 2005 09:14:47 PM
at least that is what i picked up from reading about a book being released about the Kong movie, something about "the creatures of Kong", which sets up the "world" of Kong. apparantly the giant gorilla population was whittled away by the V-rex bunch, which actually gives more depth to the Kong-V-Rex battle in the movie, imo, and the story of Kong being the last of his kind. he is doomed anyway, whether he meets his end on skull island or on top of the empire state building, his time is passed, and he is the last bastion, the last champion of his kind. a giant gorilla without hope is a giant gorilla without fear.
lone fox by slappy jones	Nov 24th, 2005 11:09:24 PM
uuummmm you think phantom menaces's popularity hasn't suffered? where the fuck do you live? skywalker ranch???
Ringbearer by dewijnboer	Nov 25th, 2005 01:17:13 AM
I just said you annoyed the hell out of me. Nothing more.
It always amuses me... by BendersShinyAss	Nov 25th, 2005 06:32:09 AM
... To see people get so defensive for those who bash Jackson and then in the next sentence say something equally outragous about Lucas. To say that Jackson owns Lucas, gimma a break. Jackson DOES NOT own Lucas. How does he? Seriously? Ok, so there are Jackson worshipers who love his style. But never for a second take the position that the Lucas and star wars fans are sitting there going "Ow shit, it's all pretend these feelings I have of enjoyment from Lucas and his films." Lucas is no more Perfect than anyone claims Jackson to be. Lucas's films are awkward, but VERY well structured over the course of the entire anthology, Whereas Jacksons films are Messy. Very Messy. and I don't say that as a hater. i say that as a person who went and saw all the films, and 'tried' to watch the extended versions. Someone said that Tolkien didn't have ANY subtext in his stories. Thats part of the reason why I have issues with the LotR films. Because we're always moving moving moving and we never seem to be going anywhere. And then at the end of the whole series, indeed by the end of each film it just feels like, 'Geez did those things have to be so bloody long winded and overblown." And at 3 hours duration, I'm particularly worried that King Kong will suffer the same fate. Sometimes films work better when they are shorter. Sometimes action seems better when they're 'over' and not 'continuing'. Say what you will on the Lucas and Jackson debate, both are flawed film makers, But I trust Lucas and his ability to 'play' with his audiance. Jackson failed so badly by not 'enhancing' the LotR with better cuts and stronger film making. But hey, yeah sure, you're absolutely right. They're all good movies. But get over yourselves if you really believe he 'owns' Lucas.
uh, ALL filmakers all flawed by Peven	Nov 25th, 2005 11:13:51 AM
being flawed is a condition of being human, there has never been a filmaker that wasn't flawed in some way, so pointing that out is hardly insightful. and i can't help it if people have such short attention spans these days that anything that runs over 90 min gets accused of being bloated. i guess Gone With the Wind is a bloated film too, eh? perhaps those who complain about the length of the LOTR films have no clue as to how much material was being condensed? if they did they'd appreciate what a bitch it must have been to do justice to the material with only 3 hours per film. don't see any subtext in LOTR? talk about the height of obtusness. its chock full of subtext and any non-moron who doesn't have an agenda that is anti-LOTR or anti- Jackson would see it as plain as the nose on their face, starting with the OneRing itself. and for someone defending Lucas to complain about lack of subtext is even worse. fact is, if it weren't for the Lucas nuts going out of their way to try to tear down Jackson at every turn, without provocation, people like me wouldn't feel the need to point out Lucas's severe shortcomings. Jackson worshipper? not hardly, maybe a Wes Anderson worshipper, but thats for another talkback. back to subject, what the hell does Lucas do that "plays" with his audience? give an example, please. if you mean having Obi Wan giving us a definition of the force in the original Star Wars, describing it as an all-encompassing force of the universe, surrounding everything, THEN 20 yrs later has Qui Gon Jin inform us that the force is nothing but some microscopic parasites, then i'd say "playing with the audience" is simply lazy, inconsistent storytelling.
Subtext vs. themes/morals/ideas by Cameron1	Nov 25th, 2005 11:23:41 AM
Perhaps I need to make it clearer, there is no subtext to the books in the sense of them being about communism or industrialism or what have you. However the themes and ideas of heroism, loyalty, bravery, light and dark, greed and lust for power are everywhere in the book. Jackson got all that in the films, Star Wars has the same sort of things going on and I'd argue does it just as successfully (OT, obviously).
example by Peven	Nov 25th, 2005 11:50:31 AM
off the top of my head, the tavern scene at the end of ROTK; is there anything in any of the Star Wars movies that comes close to that kind of depth? there was so much going on in that scene, without a word of dialogue. and the audience was given the credit for being able to "get it". meanwhile, Lucas spells everything out like some sort of cinematic see-n-say, as if he thinks audiences are too dense to "get" the point of the story.
Lucas playing with his audiance by BendersShinyAss	Nov 25th, 2005 11:55:43 AM
Oh man, I'm just not even going to bother to answer that one. I could make a list which would make this the biggest post on this talk back.... but I'm not. But you said 'an' example so i'll give you 'an' example. how bout Vador telling Luke he was his father. Didn't see that one coming. Ok, I don't want that to be the only example because it'll get me in trouble. Ultimately the point I was trying to make was Lucas knows how to give just enough to his audiances. He knows when to pull back. He knows when to unleash. Jackson can't seem to crasp this concept. And look at the Kong trailers as an recent example of Jacksons inability to do this. Kong has been revealed to us. We all know what he looks like. We have seen full 2-4 second shots of the thing standing on the streets of new york. If Lucas had made Kong, bet your sweet ass he'd never reveal Kong before the films release in such a way. Bet your sweet Ass Kong would look a lot more monstrous too. Any way, don't flame me to much, i'm actually looking forward to kong. I'm just not letting myself get to excited, yknow.
Insufferable. That's the perfect word, thanks for it. by minderbinder	Nov 25th, 2005 12:43:40 PM
So I still can't figure out why anyone would want to devote so much thought, time, and energy to films they're convinced they won't like. WHY? Don't you have better things to do with your life? Let's hear it for "haters" who watch the trailer frame by frame (to find "flaws" of course, and "evidence" to support their complaints), see the movie opening day, buy the DVD and watch it enough to be able to quote from the commentary tracks...
bender by Peven	Nov 25th, 2005 01:12:27 PM
listen, when i was 10 and the first Star Wars came out i breathed, slept and ate star wars. like i stated earlier, i read the novelization before seeing the movie, i can still remember the passage where it describes Vader crushing the rebel trooper's throat on Leia's ship, "sounding like the popping of a plastic bubble sheet". i did have an idea what was coming with vader being Luke's father though, after the yoda-training scene with Luke's face in the vader helmet, and i doubt i was the only one. still ESB was very good, BUT not directed by Lucas. then, with all sorts of anticipation i stood in line for 2 hours to see ROTJ on opening day. when i heard Lucas was to make the prequels i was entirely psyched, even after the letdown of ROTJ. by that time i had kids and couldn't wait to share Star Wars with them. they enjoyed Phantom Menace enough, but it didn't have nearly the impact on them that Star Wars had on me back in '77, and they never watch any of the prequels on dvd, though i bought all 3 for them. meanwhile, i was letdown severely. and i keep bringing it up, but when i heard the "new' definition of the force while watching the movie that it began to sour for me. with the prequels, Lucas tore down images and ideas original fans like me had carried around with them for 20 yrs that Lucas had originally created. aside from the Force being reduced from an awe-inspiring "magic" force to some parasites, Yoda gets reduced to a doddering old man who doesn't have the ability to recognize the emperor when he's standing right in front of him, or what was REALLY in the minds of the clone troopers, stuff like that. now, i may not accuse Lucas of "raping my childhood", but he sure as hell let it down(though i did think ROTS was pretty good). and thats where people my age are coming from when we criticize Lucas; it certainly isn't the only POV, but its certainly genuine and comes first and foremost from a love of the original material.
1933+1976=2005 by JackPumpkinhead	Nov 25th, 2005 01:43:19 PM
Yup, this is getting noticed, not just here. http://imdb.com/title/tt036071 7/board/nest/30269591 Oh, and female Kongs were in "King Kong Lives!". If you erased this from memory, it was Guillermin's sequel to the remake, and featured Kong with a heart bypass and a huge Femkong with humongous, brown, sagging apetits. And I'm not making it up, though I would prefer to.
oh the shame! by Peven	Nov 25th, 2005 03:01:44 PM
i confess, i saw Kong Lives in the theatre. though, that film is a masterpiece compared to the worst film released in theatres in my lifetime, Yor:warrior of the future, or was it Yar? something like that. anyway, my little brother and i went to see it because we thought the poster looked cool, what can i say? we were like 12 and 14. still, about 15 minutes into it we looked at each other and were like, "i can't believe movies this bad are actually made", lol. we still joke about it to this day, more than 20 yrs later.
Oh my god, King Kong Lives. Worst! Movie! Ever! by BendersShinyAss	Nov 25th, 2005 08:30:22 PM
I remember getting so excited over it. And the opening heart transplant made it look like we were in for some cool shit. but then it was just man in suit stepping on toys. And that baby Kong being born, then crying at the death of it's father Kong... Geeeeeeeesus. I don't know why but for some reason my memory of the closing scene always has Fem Kong reading a paper with glasses as the little Kong plays around. I think it's my brains way of easing the pain somehow. Something ells me Jackson's Kong will be a little better.
You got it backwards Pevin... by Lavaman	Nov 26th, 2005 05:48:08 PM
You say that Lucas fans constantly bash Jackson, and that compels you to mention Lucas's shortcomings? What? Nice try. It is in fact,the jealous Peter Jackson fans who bashed Lucas first. During the whole LOTR Trilogy theatrical run, the Jackson obsessed fans constantly took every opurtunity to bash Lucas, and rub the critical acclainm of LOTR in Lucas's face. Lucas is the one who has been unfairly bashed, not Jackson. Also, you say that Peter Jackson's Film Legacy will be looked at more fondly, and his movies will be more diverse? Whatever! At least Lucas created his own Movie Universe, and didn't just adapt Novels and remake an established Movie Classic. Oh,and for the record, I like both Lucas and Jackson.
Lucas Vs. Jackson by Lavaman	Nov 26th, 2005 05:59:48 PM
Here is a simple way of looking at the Lucas/Jackson argument. If only one of these two men could have been born, who would you choose? George Lucas or Peter Jackson? Think about it.
Peven, your posts show that you obviously refused to even pay at by Citizen Arcane	Nov 26th, 2005 06:25:51 PM
The Force is not a collection of parasites, Yoda was not stupid for not seeing the emporer, everything was not spelled out, in fact, apparently for you some things weren't spelled out enough. Meh, I've been through all this enough, I don't have the energy. Just let it go and move on then.
Newsweek: Early rave for Kong! by Riff Randall	Nov 27th, 2005 03:54:14 AM
check it out: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/102165 25/site/newsweek/ they call it a "surprisingly tender, even heartbreaking, film."
"Jackson hasn't yet produced anything that forgives "Brain D by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2005 07:01:56 AM
You truly are fucking mad.
what is Lucas's next project? by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 02:11:43 PM
anyone? is he doing anything that doesn't relate to milking Star Wars even more? any NEW ideas? anything to disprove the idea that he's a one-trick pony? the reason i said i thought Jackson would be ranked higher than Lucas 25 yrs from now is because Lucas shows no sign of doing anything but milking the Star Wars franchise for every penny he can, and Jackson, who already has a film like Heavenly Creatures to his credit, is much more likely to produce a more diverse body of work than Lucas. now, if anyone has any information about Lucas working on something non-Star Wars related please share. and btw, i just watched ATOC the other day, and i'd like to hear a defintion of mytowhatevertheyare that explains how they aren't a form of parasite that lives in a symbiotic existence with its host organism. it sure as hell is NOT the definition of the Force that Lucas gave us in the original trilogy, THAT is without question.
Heavenly Creatures?... by Lavaman	Nov 27th, 2005 04:46:25 PM
BIG DEAL! so what? Peter Jackson did Heavenly Creatures. George Lucas did American Graffiti before Star Wars; now that is a Classic Drama. You can talk all you want about Lucas milking the Star Wars Franchise, but until Jackson creates his own Mythological Cinematic Universe, he will not own Lucas's ass. Jackson is a great Filmmaker, no doubt, but he has nothing on Lucas, as far as moving Cinema foreward.
DocPazuzu - I'm with you all the way. Until Lucas puts a ra by workshed	Nov 27th, 2005 08:34:16 PM
..Not to mention having a fly eating, and thoroughly enjoying, a fresh turd. Or strapping one's brains in with one's belt. Or having Kate Winslet run around naked. Or for giving Jeffrey Coombs his only decent break outside of Re-Animator. Peter Jackson - never made a dud yet and I doubt he ever will. Having followed the diaries since day one I was feeling like he wasn't going to pull it off. I think the turning point has been getting rid of Shore and it's (regrettably) a decision that has re-invigorated my belief in Jackson's vision. I get the feeling that we may be about to witness the greatest movie phenomenon of all-time. Did anyone else notice a change in Jackson's demeanour in this week's diary. He kept having a wry smile on his face like he knows something that we dont. I hope Andy Serkis gets the recognition he truly deserves. He seems to take acting to levels that Brando and De Niro could only dream of. And Paddy Considine is even better than Andy Serkis. Sheeeet.!!!
"until Jackson creates his own Mythological Cinematic Universe.. by minderbinder	Nov 28th, 2005 06:20:48 AM
I thought the point of a director is to make great movies? If you think it's more important that a director come up with cool Lego playsets, that says a lot about your priorities.
I suspect the two people who most think that Lucas/Jackson bashe by aikimoe	Nov 28th, 2005 11:58:16 AM
Lucas and Jackson themselves. They've only ever said nice things about each other and Jackson has talked at length about what an influence Star Wars had on him.

Talkbacks

Ladies and gentlemen... I give you KONG (TV spots)!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks