Peter Jackson Blacklisted..

[LogicDonny]

Peter Jackson the director who made Lord of the rings film has been banned from New Lines Cinema for good for suing them.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/754/754322p1.html

This ticks me off because he did an excellent job on LOTR movie and I thought it would be awesome for him to do The Hobbit but since he was a jerk to New Lines, good!

[Jo Dawn]

I've never been a fan of his, so I really don't have a big opinion on this.

But I will say that I prefer the (original?) Hobbit movie from the 80's, heh... (Same as the Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe. BBC version all the way for me.)

[Spitfire]

I really didn't want to sit through another 3 hours movie of his anyways. They start off cool and then I want to fall asleep by the end. That guy needs to learn how to edit.

[Peanut]

Did you even see King Kong? It started off boring then got cool, before becoming boring again. The same pretty much goes for Fellowship. I thought Two Towers and Return of the King were perfect, though.

[Roseangelo]

I didn't mind the length of LOTR, given the source material, but King Kong was waaaay too long.

I honestly don't think I care about this. I think I'd almost prefer it if The Hobbit didn't get made.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

I honestly don't think I care about this. I think I'd almost prefer it if The Hobbit didn't get made.

Yeah. Honestly, The Hobbit isn't all the exciting until the very very end anyways, and it wasn't even so great then, so it's not too big of a loss in my eyes.

[LogicDonny]

Ya.. I agree with many posts here espeically king kong.. Good movie yet too long.. I thought the ending to ROTK was fantastic..

I um feel bad that he did this but there are other directors as well besides Peter Jackson that could make a good Hobbit movie.

[gobo]

Only PJ movie I really cared for was The Frighteners (w/ Michael J. Fox & Jake Busey). I waited until the Director's Cut was available before buying the DVD. I wish I hadn't bothered. While it wasn't absurdly lengthy, It just wasn't as fun as the theatrical cut. Minor changes made it play like a taking-itself-too-seriously horror film. And, that just doesn't sit well with me.

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Did you even see King Kong? It started off boring then got cool, before becoming boring again. The same pretty much goes for Fellowship. I thought Two Towers and Return of the King were perfect, though.

Saw it in theaters. When they reach the island*Oh yeah that's like 40 minutes into the movie...* it's interesting and then it get so boring. Your right haha the beginning was boring.

Funny I like Two Towers as well but more Rings fans like it the least out of all 3 films. I own all 3 still, but their the extended cuts -_- So their like 4 hours long*They were gifts* Those movies make me feel like I have ADD cause I never can watch them in one sitting without turning them off to do something else or falling asleep.

[Monkey Ambassador]

You people don't know what good cenima is. Peter Jackson is brilliant. The Lord of the Rings films are among the best ever made. They are brilliantly crafted. And King Kong was a work of art. I thought it moved to fast in the beginning, it could have allowed more time for some character development. And if you're a fan of the original Kong (wich most of you probably are not, judging by your opinion of this one), you'd notice that proportionally, Kong is introduced sooner in the 2005 than in the 1933,

[Krang's Uncle]

Jackson did a wonderful job on the LOTR movies. I thought Kong was good too. Its too bad that he wont work on the Hobbit due to his troubles with New Line, but im sure there are other directors out there that can do a competent job with it too.

[Mecha Cow]

Wasn't it the case that if New Line didn't put out a Hobbit movie within a certain period, they would lose the rights? There is still a chance of Jackson making it for a different studio.

And seriously, I wouldn't want anyone but him on this project. Yes, King Kong was too long and kind of boring, yes, LotR was like 50 HOURS LONG AND GAY LOL, we've heard it all before. They're not everyone's cup of tea, but the LotR movies are still brilliantly made and Jackson and WETA did an amazing job of bringing Tolkien's world to life.

This lawsuit is crap anyway. "He's already rich but he's still suing us!" What kind of retarded argument is that? By that logic, they shouldn't bitch because his LotR saved them from bankrupty.

Either way, I hope we still get to see Jackson's Hobbit at some point.

[Ecto Jedi]

Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx

Saw it in theaters. When they reach the island*Oh yeah that's like 40 minutes into the movie...* it's interesting and then it get so boring. Your right haha the beginning was boring.

What the heck? What's with all the King Kong-hate? I thought it was a superb movie, and I didn't mind the length at all because it all added to grand scale and scope of the film. It was an epic, no doubt about it. And "boring" is an adjective I never thought I'd hear used in the same sentence as King Kong...

[Jester]

I love how people comment honestly, on how they feel the movie's pace didn't work for them, not that they love or hate a movie, just that this in their opinion wasn't the best it could be and they are accused of Kong-hating. I liked King Kong. It was a bit long, in my opinion. I also see a couple of continuity holes (I mean where did the "pygmies" go when the crew comes back through after surviving Skull Island...but I digress.) All I'm saying is that just because you criticize parts of something doesn't mean you hate it. I don't care much for NT:TNM or TMNT:>>, but that doesn't make me any less a TMNT fan-boy.

[ZariusTwo]

Randall said it all in Clerks II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zAnWJDWN-k

[Jester]

"Ha Ha. I made fun of 'Lord of the Rings' so hard I made some super geek puke all over the counter. Where do we keep the mop and bucket so I can have Elias clean it up"

[ZariusTwo]

"We have cleaning products?"

[Ecto Jedi]

Originally Posted by Jester

I love how people comment honestly, on how they feel the movie's pace didn't work for them, not that they love or hate a movie, just that this in their opinion wasn't the best it could be and they are accused of Kong-hating. I liked King Kong. It was a bit long, in my opinion. I also see a couple of continuity holes (I mean where did the "pygmies" go when the crew comes back through after surviving Skull Island...but I digress.) All I'm saying is that just because you criticize parts of something doesn't mean you hate it. I don't care much for NT:TNM or TMNT:>>, but that doesn't make me any less a TMNT fan-boy.

Well, it's not like I took it to heart or anything, but usually describing a film as "long" and "boring" is a good indication that the person didn't really like the movie. Fair statement?

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Jester

I love how people comment honestly, on how they feel the movie's pace didn't work for them, not that they love or hate a movie, just that this in their opinion wasn't the best it could be and they are accused of Kong-hating.

Thank you, exactly. I know good cinema, I study it. But good cinema hardly ever gets noticed. I'm surprised Children Of Men got a wide release. It started out limited. The Fountain deserved wide...Pan's Labyrinth deserved wide. Did any of these movies get it? No because instead directors will watch these underground films, rip off the style of it in a wide release movie and get all this praise for something they basically stole.

Jackson's problem is his pacing. His movie is already 3 hours long yet it feel twice that with how it's paced. V For Vendetta is a 90 minute movie but it feels alot longer, because it's paced slowly. And that's okay because it's not long to begin with. I don't know about any of you but I personally have back problems and I can't sit for to long without being in hell. A movie that distracts me from that must be entertaining. So any movie over 2 hours better be damn good.

I base what I like off how entertained I am when I watch it and how it makes me feel. I base what's GOOD off of style, atmosphere, story, and presentation. Kong had a style I have seen already*Jurassic Park anyone?* and I don't see any style in huge CGI-fest movies. I hate CGI honestly it ruins movies for me. And I give props to films that use CGI right, where it still looks good years later. Or use a mix of CGI and make up effects.

Few movies can use CGI right though. You might disagree but Silent Hill used CGI right, the only thing that bothered me about it was the bugs that followed pyramid head were shown to closely. But for the most part they CGI'd stuff that we don't know what it looks like. I know that's a terrible sentence but honestly when we see a CGI form of a human it looks totally fake to use, why is that? Because we know what a human looks like. Just like I know what a monkey looks like. I don't know what a twisted demon head looks like or Spider-man cause I've never seen them in person.

I watched The Thing the other day. The way they did make-up effects in that movie was amazing. The whole movie is amazing. But it all reminds me of the old style of things and how creative it was and how I miss it . Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Aliens. The effects in these movies are ground breaking and for the most part still look awesome even today. Why can't we bring that back? I'm sick of this CGI crap.

[gobo]

Originally Posted by Ecto Jedi

Well, it's not like I took it to heart or anything, but usually describing a film as "long" and "boring" is a good indication that the person didn't really like the movie. Fair statement?

Yeah, that's a fair assumption. But, the difference between dislike and hate was the issue. I don't like being accused of hating anything unless I actually do hate it. So, I imagine that's Jester's complaint as well. I appreciated LotR & Kong for what they were, but there are several things I'd rather watch first. That doesn't mean I hate or dislike them. They're just low on my 'likes" list.