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

Peter Jackson has some words for you AICN readers...

That would definitely be the suck by Son of Batman	Mar 25th, 2006 04:05:54 AM
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.
techhead by saintaugust	Mar 25th, 2006 04:07:52 AM
I wonder what Jackson thinks of the 3D digital projection future Cameron and Lucas are championing...
That's a classy guy by DOGSOUP	Mar 25th, 2006 04:08:11 AM
...who's got a Poly relationship with Fran and Phillipa. Big Kiwi Love!
I wonder... by Scioptic	Mar 25th, 2006 04:11:50 AM

damn by Scioptic	Mar 25th, 2006 04:13:28 AM
I wonder what's going on with the Halo project at the moment.
Bitter sweet... by Der-Rabe	Mar 25th, 2006 04:23:41 AM
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.
Question 1: What's Naomi Watt's' phone #? by Zardoz	Mar 25th, 2006 04:28:14 AM
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...
Q: The Hobbit? anything happening? by The Goon	Mar 25th, 2006 04:36:40 AM

Harry , instead of a 30 second posting delay... by Undead Neverhood	Mar 25th, 2006 05:07:02 AM
could you up it to like 5 minutes. These "FIRST!!!!" poster village idiots are still beating you on this.
Is there going to be a KING KONG extended cut on DVD? by brokentusk	Mar 25th, 2006 05:07:12 AM
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!
Very cool... by drewcaster	Mar 25th, 2006 05:13:35 AM
That's very cool of him to do that. I'd like to know if he has thought about doing episodic television.
I second that, Goon. When will the Hobbit happen? by Walterego	Mar 25th, 2006 05:21:59 AM
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.
Wow. wonder if I'll get answered by BendersShinyAss	Mar 25th, 2006 05:30:55 AM
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.
Ok, why provide the worst part of the movie as... by Negative Man	Mar 25th, 2006 05:33:54 AM
...'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 HOBBIT will never happen by Razorback	Mar 25th, 2006 05:34:51 AM
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.
Poor Peter Jackson.... by theoneofblood	Mar 25th, 2006 05:35:19 AM
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.
I can't wait by BendersShinyAss	Mar 25th, 2006 05:37:47 AM
til Ringbearer gets wind of this thread. Prepare for something glorious here today.
Poor Peter Jackson? He's clearly kidding by martinsmith93	Mar 25th, 2006 06:02:58 AM
"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.
the burning question by vitaminwater222	Mar 25th, 2006 06:05:26 AM
Can you just direct Watchmen and get it over with? You can even cast Ian McKellen as Dr. Manhattan.
will there be an extended DVD ?? by caipirina	Mar 25th, 2006 06:11:12 AM
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 !
wow by dr.bulber	Mar 25th, 2006 06:28:52 AM
i wonder what brings him around... :\|
One scene in the 33 version and Kong video game... by Orionsangels	Mar 25th, 2006 06:40:49 AM
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.
I didn't even know about these 20 questions? by Orionsangels	Mar 25th, 2006 06:45:54 AM
now that you mentioned it though. that would be cool PJ. Thanks! Thanks for making awesome movies!
Wasn't the arrival to Skull Island wayyyyyyyy too long? by Mahaloth	Mar 25th, 2006 06:56:18 AM
Is it just me?
the first poster was deleted... by sounding	Mar 25th, 2006 06:58:39 AM
are you happier now? I doubt it.
Here's my questions by 3 Bag Enema	Mar 25th, 2006 07:14:45 AM
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?
Where's the blinking? by w1ckerman	Mar 25th, 2006 07:30:56 AM
...or Is PJ really a WETA CGI?! Freaky!
Sorry Kong haters but this movie didn't fail by Undead Neverhood	Mar 25th, 2006 08:11:20 AM
... 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.
Hey by jaxnnux	Mar 25th, 2006 08:22:45 AM
Thanks for teh clip, Pete. I can tell you put a lot of hard work into that one.
In a hole in the ground there lived a HOBBIT by Windfola	Mar 25th, 2006 08:37:07 AM
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?
the Hobbit will never happen because by emeraldboy	Mar 25th, 2006 08:43:49 AM
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.
Was that Jimmy character a set up for Son of Kong? by Drath	Mar 25th, 2006 09:03:27 AM
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!
by HypeEndsHere	Mar 25th, 2006 09:08:12 AM
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.
I thought PJ was going to.... by IAmLegolas	Mar 25th, 2006 09:09:35 AM
.... call out Ringbearer9 and his monolithic KK talkbacks.
Just another possible question by wirefufighter	Mar 25th, 2006 09:20:14 AM
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 perdicted? by Orionsangels	Mar 25th, 2006 09:26:18 AM
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.
Is there truth to the rumor by don music	Mar 25th, 2006 09:36:49 AM
that Jackson is considering the sequel to Snakes on a Plane?
Extended Edition of Kong??? by Thumper2k1	Mar 25th, 2006 09:49:20 AM
That movie needs Crap Cut Out Edition.
I've got some words for Pete myself. by Nate Champion	Mar 25th, 2006 09:54:38 AM
Remember when your movies were 90 minutes long and fun? That was awesome. Now, not so much.
A longer Kong? by JohnGalt2006	Mar 25th, 2006 09:55:22 AM
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.
Any specifics on HALO? by The Heathen	Mar 25th, 2006 10:01:19 AM
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.
Ann Darrow couldn't accommodate a longer Kong. by HypeEndsHere	Mar 25th, 2006 10:11:33 AM

Five words... by PwnedByStallone	Mar 25th, 2006 10:12:01 AM
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.
Bring on the fan edits. by Horseflesh	Mar 25th, 2006 10:12:46 AM
I can't wait for someone to chop an hour out of this movie and let bit torrent do the rest.
undead neverhood by sr_spielbergo	Mar 25th, 2006 10:28:34 AM
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.
nice by stvnhthr	Mar 25th, 2006 10:40:37 AM
Thanks Peter, keep up the good work!
Extended KONG comes out in November by Monkey_King	Mar 25th, 2006 10:53:33 AM
check out www.thedigitalbits.com for more info longer KINGDOM OF HEAVEN on the way too....
QUESTIONS 1-20 ARE: by white owl	Mar 25th, 2006 11:04:19 AM
dude.. when are you making the damn HOBBIT!!??!
The Hobbit by Bob of the Shire	Mar 25th, 2006 11:30:12 AM
Doooooo it.
How About A TRUNCATED EDITION? by ZombieSolutions	Mar 25th, 2006 11:30:28 AM
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 would love to find out what's up with HALO... by iron pills	Mar 25th, 2006 11:34:10 AM
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!
agree with burning questions: by misnomer	Mar 25th, 2006 11:35:51 AM
1/Hobbit? 2/Frighteners 2? 3/3D cinema? 4/Can I have a job at weta please?
ZombieSolutions: That's funny. by L.H.Puttgrass	Mar 25th, 2006 11:38:20 AM
Kinda like tipping the scales, PJ on one side and the movie on the other.
When will we see those super-packed LOTR DVD's? by digital8	Mar 25th, 2006 11:46:51 AM
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?
hilarious! by casinoskunk	Mar 25th, 2006 11:55:10 AM
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!
Frighteners 2? by HypeEndsHere	Mar 25th, 2006 11:57:57 AM
please, God. no....
Mr. Jackson by Nice Marmot	Mar 25th, 2006 12:02:04 PM
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?
My question idea... by Sly Fox	Mar 25th, 2006 12:04:19 PM
Will you ever make another splatter movie?
as someone who hated it here's some questions by mikey mike	Mar 25th, 2006 12:07:30 PM
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
Why did KONG fail? by Stollentroll	Mar 25th, 2006 12:08:12 PM
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.
The Hobbit will not be made for a while because... by ScreamingPenis	Mar 25th, 2006 12:08:37 PM
...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.
Pete's the man by Darth Thoth	Mar 25th, 2006 12:17:42 PM
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.
I don't think Kong failed... by Darth Thoth	Mar 25th, 2006 12:20:38 PM
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.
I would like to see three different cuts of Kong by performingmonkey	Mar 25th, 2006 12:45:04 PM
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.
Quint, rather than questions by smackfu	Mar 25th, 2006 12:45:22 PM
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...
Why does Quint continue the dirty joke routine? by chickychow	Mar 25th, 2006 12:52:01 PM
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?
My question: The Hobbit by estel_mm	Mar 25th, 2006 12:57:35 PM
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.
Undead Neverhood, do some homewrok next time. by vash666	Mar 25th, 2006 01:05:42 PM
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.
I Love Pete Jackson's Films, But..... by Darth Pestilence	Mar 25th, 2006 01:07:43 PM
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.
Hey, Peter! Now that you're in fighting shape... by JustinSane	Mar 25th, 2006 01:12:38 PM
...when will we see the return of Derek? Those alien bastards have had it too good for too long!
Bitter and twisted - LOL! by BrandLoyalist	Mar 25th, 2006 01:12:48 PM
Phwew, tough day to be a talkbacker
Could be a crackhead. by thefutureoffilm	Mar 25th, 2006 01:19:02 PM
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.
Peter, please make SKs 'The Mist' by ATARI	Mar 25th, 2006 01:26:07 PM
But keep it to under three hours, please. It is a short story afterall.
Don't ask about the Hobbit by Shaw	Mar 25th, 2006 01:52:07 PM
Demand it!
Why Kong Failed by 900LBGorilla	Mar 25th, 2006 02:06:34 PM
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?
3D questions by NNNOOO!!!	Mar 25th, 2006 02:07:38 PM
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.
Shorter Kong by TheMarovingian	Mar 25th, 2006 02:11:45 PM
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.
A valid question from someone who is objective. by IndustryKiller	Mar 25th, 2006 02:14:29 PM
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?
Here's a question by Dead Megatron	Mar 25th, 2006 02:26:33 PM
Does anybody cares about any movie other than "SNAKES ON A (MUTHAF&*$IN) PLANE?
I have a question for PJ by lycanthrope	Mar 25th, 2006 02:45:19 PM
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.
Wow...what a waste by MrLauze	Mar 25th, 2006 02:51:37 PM
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 FK 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.
One more thing... by MrLauze	Mar 25th, 2006 02:58:43 PM
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.
zombie, your quote should be on the dvd packaging by white owl	Mar 25th, 2006 03:12:33 PM
"I have a theory that as PJ lost all that weight, he psychologically transferred it to the film." haha noyce.
MrLauze by 900LBGorilla	Mar 25th, 2006 03:20:59 PM
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.
The reason why Kong was not as good as can be by brokebackcowboy	Mar 25th, 2006 03:29:41 PM
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.
Will there be an Abridged Cut? by Ted Striker	Mar 25th, 2006 03:31:28 PM
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.
PJ: Direct a LAND OF THE LOST Movie by brokebackcowboy	Mar 25th, 2006 03:35:23 PM
Ok?
MrLauze#2 by 900LBGorilla	Mar 25th, 2006 03:35:43 PM
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.
Don't be so hard on PJ by brokebackcowboy	Mar 25th, 2006 03:44:56 PM
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.
"Don't be so hard on PJ" by 900LBGorilla	Mar 25th, 2006 03:50:44 PM
Was that pun intended Brokeback cowboy...I'm just sayin'...
Would you consider directing "KINGDOME COME" from DC? by JDanielP	Mar 25th, 2006 03:59:41 PM
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!
Will THE LOVELY BONES be rated R? by Nachokoolaid	Mar 25th, 2006 04:17:50 PM
If not, how do you plan on handling that disturbing rape scene and some of the themes?
The Hobbit by beelkay	Mar 25th, 2006 04:18:34 PM
One of the questions, at least, has to be about plans for "The Hobbit."
Filmmaking at its best... by Halloween68	Mar 25th, 2006 04:19:18 PM
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.
We can't think of 20 questions. by BannedOnTheRun	Mar 25th, 2006 04:19:19 PM
...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.
Woah by beelkay	Mar 25th, 2006 04:19:29 PM
I had no idea that there was disappointment about King Kong...I thought it was terrific!
Nerv Bitches by Jesus_and_Tori	Mar 25th, 2006 04:30:13 PM
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.
900LBGorilla by MrLauze	Mar 25th, 2006 04:33:27 PM
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.
What the hell? by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 04:50:05 PM
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!
Questions for Peter Jackson by brokebackcowboy	Mar 25th, 2006 04:51:03 PM
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.
Direct links to the Jackson intro. by Snuffles	Mar 25th, 2006 04:53:45 PM
mms://windowsmedia.universalpi ctures.com/kingkong/aic_128k.w mv
Hey, it WAS an ad! by Snuffles	Mar 25th, 2006 04:56:34 PM
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.
Question: How about a WWII film about kiwi's?? by Mysterious Bones	Mar 25th, 2006 04:56:48 PM
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 :)
"Does anyone actually remember him doing so?" by DocPazuzu	Mar 25th, 2006 04:58:04 PM
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.
I want to know about Halo... by Bean_	Mar 25th, 2006 05:01:20 PM
Is he considering directing it?
I have one question .... by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 05:08:20 PM
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?
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Mar 25th, 2006 05:15:12 PM
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.
"quite a few of us, actually" by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 05:17:40 PM
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.
Ringwearer9 by DocPazuzu	Mar 25th, 2006 05:20:39 PM
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?
I have one question, too... by blackwood	Mar 25th, 2006 05:20:48 PM
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.
I see, so someone who knows you from your picture ... by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 05:22:16 PM
... 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.
Emeraldboy -- Why George Lucas is wrong (again) by StrangeCo	Mar 25th, 2006 05:25:41 PM
"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.
Ringwearer9 by DocPazuzu	Mar 25th, 2006 05:27:48 PM
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?
DocPazuzu by StrangeCo	Mar 25th, 2006 05:35:19 PM
Long time no talk! How ya been? How's the kiwis hanging?
QUESTION 17- Did you really let Singer in? by thegimik	Mar 25th, 2006 05:36:01 PM
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
um all you hardcore PJ fanboys by mikey mike	Mar 25th, 2006 05:45:47 PM
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
Tough questions? Ask about film art vs. digital art. by JDanielP	Mar 25th, 2006 05:49:21 PM
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.
CAN'T........SPEAK..... by L. Duderino	Mar 25th, 2006 06:09:25 PM
TOO.....BITTER!
Lovely Bones? Halo? by stew312856	Mar 25th, 2006 06:19:44 PM
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
The magically stable/unstable bridge in Kong by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 06:24:15 PM
http://www.moviemistakes.com/f ilm5366 .... 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.
Jackson wasn't apologizing, he was Advertising. by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 06:26:04 PM
Duh.
Kong Was Fantastic by Jericho42	Mar 25th, 2006 06:32:01 PM
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.
Jericho42, the reason History will not be kind to PJ's by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 06:43:15 PM
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.
Ringbearer by brokebackcowboy	Mar 25th, 2006 06:55:51 PM
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.
Brokebackcowboy, "Fantasy" doesn't mean "stupid" by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 07:11:59 PM
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.
How did you get away with making the same film twice? by Winterchili	Mar 25th, 2006 07:23:46 PM
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.
oh well... by decfx	Mar 25th, 2006 07:25:12 PM
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.
re: V. REX battle by decfx	Mar 25th, 2006 07:28:46 PM
also ridiculous.
AICN fans have a reputation as being arseholes by Regicidal_Maniac	Mar 25th, 2006 07:29:06 PM
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.
In my frustration I forgot my suggestion. by Regicidal_Maniac	Mar 25th, 2006 07:32:46 PM
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.
also the above should read "for whom" by Regicidal_Maniac	Mar 25th, 2006 07:34:37 PM
but since most of you think "teh" is a good enough approximation of the I should let myself off the hook.
argh fuck I also misspelled tongue by Regicidal_Maniac	Mar 25th, 2006 07:36:05 PM
damn you my lack of proofreading before posting.
My Questions: by uberman	Mar 25th, 2006 07:36:21 PM
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!
PJ should remake Godzilla Vs King Kong by brokebackcowboy	Mar 25th, 2006 07:48:10 PM
That would be dope.
DRATH! by Carl XVI Gustaf	Mar 25th, 2006 07:50:45 PM
Martin Freeman as Bilbo, inspired! I'm there!
Disagree by Jericho42	Mar 25th, 2006 07:56:28 PM
"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.
Question : by ILK	Mar 25th, 2006 07:56:46 PM
When do we get a ww1 zombie film from you?
"I don't care if dinos care 'bout bein trapped in vines by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 08:12:51 PM
"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.
why is the first hour so goddamned long? by Tall_Boy	Mar 25th, 2006 08:13:36 PM
Zzzzzzzz. That's my question, dammit.
what purpose does Jimmy The Cabin Boy serve in the plot by Tall_Boy	Mar 25th, 2006 08:15:46 PM
Because I really didn't like Jimmy. I really, REALLY didn't like Jimmy. Goddamnit.
Oh, and DocPazuzu, you are OWNED by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 08:28:48 PM
"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.
Somebody please shoot by veritasses	Mar 25th, 2006 08:31:10 PM
... any and all a-holes responsible for holding up 'The Hobbit'.
PJ should remake Star Wars Ep1-3 by veritasses	Mar 25th, 2006 08:33:14 PM
'reimagine' might be better...
Jackson's HOBBIT ... Let's hope it never happens by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 08:41:16 PM
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.
Just watched Kong for 1st time on DVD 8x speed... by CorneliusStrange	Mar 25th, 2006 08:44:26 PM

Just watched Kong for 1st time on DVD 8x speed... by CorneliusStrange	Mar 25th, 2006 08:46:51 PM
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??
Cornelius, why would you think the EE's would be better by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 08:51:54 PM
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 #1: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck...? by Ribbons	Mar 25th, 2006 09:10:01 PM
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.
Yep.... by Jaka	Mar 25th, 2006 09:13:25 PM
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.
I actually hope by BendersShinyAss	Mar 25th, 2006 09:59:59 PM
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.
(chanting) Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit. . . by Ingeld	Mar 25th, 2006 10:06:51 PM
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,H obbit,Hobbit,Hobbit,Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, Hobbit, (wheww, I'm out of breath now.) By the way, make the Hobbit.
I Can See by Jericho42	Mar 25th, 2006 10:43:33 PM
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.
Right on Lycanthope!!! by DoctorWho?	Mar 25th, 2006 10:46:08 PM
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!
Jericho, even Raiders or Star Wars had holes ... by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 11:04:55 PM
... 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.
DrWho,the Hobbit demanders and critics are DIFFERENT by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 11:10:22 PM
Not the same people. If Lycanthrope said that, he's retarded. And you are doubly so for agreeing with him.
And more ... by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 11:25:01 PM
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.
And why don't Anne's arms come off when Kong pulls? by Ringwearer9	Mar 25th, 2006 11:32:36 PM
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!".
One of my biggest gripes with PJ's Kong is the casting by Orionsangels	Mar 25th, 2006 11:40:48 PM
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.
why why why? by Orionsangels	Mar 25th, 2006 11:46:09 PM
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.
Kong was an excellent movie by dirtsandwich	Mar 26th, 2006 12:23:44 AM
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!
Here's a question for you Peter Jackson by OhDaesu	Mar 26th, 2006 12:29:10 AM
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.
Kong = A pulp novel... by Ford Prefect042	Mar 26th, 2006 01:13:53 AM
...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.
the real beast in Kong is.... by thebearovingian	Mar 26th, 2006 01:52:20 AM
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.
con't by thebearovingian	Mar 26th, 2006 01:56:09 AM
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?
KK = Bit of a chick flick by speed	Mar 26th, 2006 02:16:58 AM
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.
20 Questions by antonphd	Mar 26th, 2006 02:39:05 AM

The Hobbit by antonphd	Mar 26th, 2006 02:47:45 AM
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. :)
Kong was better BY FAR than any LOTR flicks by chien_sale	Mar 26th, 2006 02:48:18 AM
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?
Peter Jackson by TIMEBANDIT75	Mar 26th, 2006 02:57:06 AM
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
Boy, movies are subjective aren't they? by Alpha_Nerd	Mar 26th, 2006 03:17:27 AM
Because I thought KK was nowhere near as good as any of the LOTR movies.
Mr. Lauze & Doctor Who - thanks... Ringwearer9... by lycanthrope	Mar 26th, 2006 04:31:20 AM
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.
Imagine my surprise... by DocPazuzu	Mar 26th, 2006 04:56:00 AM
...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.
howard shore's king kong music by Joe Green	Mar 26th, 2006 05:02:37 AM
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.
Black and Brody casting combined with some dodgy CGI by emeraldboy	Mar 26th, 2006 05:19:57 AM
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.
They certainly are subjective by BendersShinyAss	Mar 26th, 2006 07:40:17 AM
Because I thought LotR & KK were on par with each other. Long drawn out and ultimately pointless.
In an interview/article in the observer newspaper... by emeraldboy	Mar 26th, 2006 07:40:43 AM
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.
I was thinking today by BendersShinyAss	Mar 26th, 2006 07:52:43 AM
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
BendershinyAss Lotr and KK pointless.... by emeraldboy	Mar 26th, 2006 08:12:28 AM
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 f

Talkbacks

Peter Jackson has some words for you AICN readers...