It's available online, but I haven't checked it out yet, but sounds like it's well worth a look...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm more interested in the camera. But I'd still like to see the movie. King Kong sort of killed any thoughts I might have had about Jackson being a cinematic genius.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
What was wrong with King Kong?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: What was wrong with King Kong?
It was unnecessary.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Unnecessary because it was already made? The original was terrible. It wasn't supposed to be a comedy, but I can't not laugh at the effects.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't not laugh at the ridiculousness of the new one.
Was this a remake of King Kong or the Island of Dr. Moreau? I thought it was a giant mass of CGI inspired uslessness. I never saw the old one, but I thought the new one was pretty goofy.
I might not have been 100% thrilled with the content of LOTR, but I was, and am still, in awe of the life he brought to Middle Earth. King Kong gave me the opposite feeling.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Unnecessary because it was already made? The original was terrible. It wasn't supposed to be a comedy, but I can't not laugh at the effects.
I saw the remake in theaters and had an excellent time, but the film was totally unnecessary in almost every respect. Jackson, fresh of the success of The Lord of The Rings saga, was in the unique position of having the power to make virtually anything he wanted, but all he delivered was a decent remake of a classic. It was dissapointing because, instead of an original work of art, we got a vanity project.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think the Tolkien movies were good because he got all the lovers of Middle Earth together to work on it. Passionate people make for really good art. But the storytelling of it didn't move me. To me, the part that Peter Jackson did was just like any dull action-thriller. The parts that made the movie come alive were the sets, costumes, and props, and so on. I mean, he isn't a total hack, he did have the vision to propose making 3 movies together, which had never been done before, but I don't think he's a great filmmaker at all. I think the quality of the LoTR movies came mostly from Tolkien, and the passion of all the Tolkien fans of the world who contributed, and not that much from Peter Jackson.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ouch. I think that's overly harsh. While I don't think he's a mastermind or anything, I think he should get a bit more credit than that. He assembled a fantastic team, organized an effort practically unheard of before for filming a movie, and made amidst the thousands that could have been chosen for the rolls of various characters, he picked many who now seem to embody the role, who made them come alive. True much of that credit goes to some fantastic actors, but also to Jackson in some incredible casting choices.
My biggest problem was with the script. I didn't like the unnecessary changes he made, things that were left out that should have been included, and things that I felt we left in for no reason. Maybe most of the magic (the look, feel and sound) come from other people, but he put it all together, and it couldn't have been easy. I give him a lot of credit for all that.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Let's not forget that before Jackson came along, Lord of the Rings was considered unfilmable.
QUOTE: (re King Kong) The original was terrible. It wasn't supposed to be a comedy, but I can't not laugh at the effects. UNQUOTE Well, I couldn't diasgree more. I saw the original KK in around 1975, at college, and went prepared to laugh at the pathetic effects. I was blown away by how convincing the effects were. Sure, they weren't up to today's levels, but hey, it was in black and white too. So what, they made amazing use of the technology levels they had then, and anyway the movie is the story, not the effects. Unlike the crappy job they did on the later Star Wars movies - JarJar Binks, anyone? [And has anyone noticed that with all the amazing technological breakthroughs that are supposed to exist in the Star Wars universe thousands of years in the future (planet destroying death stars, faster than light travel, etc) they still couldn't make a decent holographic projection?]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
That is one awesome camera.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: That is one awesome camera.
For $25K a pop, it damn well better be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:thousands of years in the future
It was a "long time ago," not in the future.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I thought the original King Kong was made in the '30s.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: That is one awesome camera.
For $25K a pop, it damn well better be.
One camera with the works is only $17,000 + $2,750= $19,750
Did you know that IMAX careras cost roughly $40000 each?
Now you know.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: That is one awesome camera.
For $25K a pop, it damn well better be.
That is really quite cheap when you consider the things it can do. Low-end pro DV cameras are often four times that - and that's just for the kind they use for local TV news.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Before he did Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson did Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners, both of which were great. It's a shame those movies are now completely eclipsed by his other work.
I've decided to just pretend King Kong doesn't exist. I'm really looking forward to seeing what he does with The Lovely Bones.