Peter Jackson Blacklisted.. - Page 2

*Ecto Jedi* · 01-11-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gobo

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.

Ahh, I see, I see. I used Kong-hate as a broad term, simply to refer to the negative things that were being said about the film. I can see how one could misinterpret that.

Peanut · 01-12-2007, 02:12 PM

I never said I hated King Kong. If I did, I wouldn't own the regular and SE versions on DVD and the HDDVD version, would I? But the beginning of the movie was soooo boring.

I'm also a huge LotR fan. I find the beginning of Fellowship a little slow and boring, but that doesn't mean I don't like it. I love all three of those movies.

*Ecto Jedi* · 01-12-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peanut

I never said I hated King Kong. If I did, I wouldn't own the regular and SE versions on DVD and the HDDVD version, would I? But the beginning of the movie was soooo boring.

I see. But I disagree with your take on the beginning of King Kong -- I thought it was all important, and brilliantly set up the rest of the movie. To each his own, I guess.

Peanut · 01-12-2007, 05:00 PM

It was important. No disagreement there, but it really wears on after awhile. I guess it's just because I really really wanted to see Kong. The same applies for Hulk. I liked that movie, but it took too long to get to the Hulk and actually get some cool scenes going.

*Ecto Jedi* · 01-12-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peanut

It was important. No disagreement there, but it really wears on after awhile. I guess it's just because I really really wanted to see Kong. The same applies for Hulk. I liked that movie, but it took too long to get to the Hulk and actually get some cool scenes going.

Yeah, I agree that it's a while before we actually get to see Kong, but I new the movie was pretty damn long when I went to watch it, so, even though the beginning was long, I never felt it cut in to the ball-grabbing action scenes.

Monkey Ambassador · 01-12-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peanut

It was important. No disagreement there, but it really wears on after awhile. I guess it's just because I really really wanted to see Kong. The same applies for Hulk. I liked that movie, but it took too long to get to the Hulk and actually get some cool scenes going.

So, you don't like to original Kong either?

Ra · 01-13-2007, 04:56 AM

Peter Jackson is getting blacklisted by a cinema? That's defiantly new

I don't really mind LOTR, but yeah, Jackson really needs to meet people who know what "editing" means. King Kong is basically about a giant ape that is taken from his natural habitat and thrown into New York, thus suffering from culture shock. It should really take about 90 minutes end to view the movie, but yeah...

I'll shut up now

*Mecha Cow* · 01-13-2007, 09:27 AM

I think most people's problem with King Kong is that Jackson made it in the same 'style' as LotR. The 'epic' scope worked for LotR, but it didn't fit KK too well. I liked the movie, but there's really no reason for it being 3+ hours long.

**Jo Dawn** · 01-13-2007, 11:11 AM

I actually like King Kong. But not LOTR. *shrugs*

Peanut · 01-13-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Ambassador

So, you don't like to original Kong either?

Didn't we just clarify that I liked the movie? Good lord.

*Brodie* · 01-13-2007, 11:49 AM

Well, like he cares, he still gets to make Halo...somewhere... And weird new Halo moviegames.

Stimor · 01-13-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx

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.

You study movies so you are always right about them, *cough*

Peanut · 01-13-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stimor

You study movies so you are always right about them, *cough*

Dude, who ARE you? All I see you do is post to troll people. Knock it the hell off.

*Warhorse* · 01-14-2007, 01:51 AM

Well, in my opinion, I think The Hobbit will tank without Peter Jackson at the helm. Just my opinion. He has a vision and a love for the Tolkein world that I don't hink will be equalled.

And studios do tend to be almost evil. Like look what they are forcing the creators of the TMNT new cartoon to do with Fast Forward, just to sell a couple of stupid toys!

*Spitfire* · 01-14-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stimor

You study movies so you are always right about them, *cough*

I never said I was "right" about anything I was simply defending my opinion. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me.

Quote:

And studios do tend to be almost evil. Like look what they are forcing the creators of the TMNT new cartoon to do with Fast Forward, just to sell a couple of stupid toys!

You do know FF was Pete's idea right? I mean FF was going to happen one way or another the only difference is they toned FF down a bit and the animation style was changed. Now that makes a huge difference I know but FF probably would have been Batman Beyond-ish had it actually been done the way Peter wanted. Either way Cody would still be there and the episodes we have now would have no doubt played out the same. The plots were most likely mildly altered. We can see that Shakobozo*How ever the heck you spell that* was set up to be a pretty dark character. Either way Peter's obsession with Sci-Fi Star War-ish future stuff is getting old with me. Didn't last long with me in Season 2 and even less time in FF.

*Warhorse* · 01-14-2007, 03:54 AM

^I'm not aware of Peter Laird having much to do with Fast Forward. I thought he had to compromise on agreeing along with it's production to keep the Tribunal episodes from being canned all together, and I heard FF was something Fox4kids and some toy company was working on.

*Spitfire* · 01-14-2007, 04:44 AM

They took it over but it was always Peter's idea to shoot TMNT into the future.

*Warhorse* · 01-14-2007, 05:11 AM

The story of the Turtles going into the future isn't the problem. It's actually not a bad concept. But the episodes in themselves has been greatly reduced in it's quality and stoytelling. Everything is way off, from the dialogue to the characters themselves. This is what I believe people don't like about the FF. ANd I also believe it's the studios fault in pushing such a dumned down show on it's faithful viewers.

*gobo* · 01-14-2007, 09:30 AM

While I want to believe that FF was only premised by Laird, and the rest was all compromise, I don't think we'll ever get a clear answer. Neither side is willing to blame it on the other. That way, they might be able to continue to do business, and dig themselves out of this hole. That... doesn't seem like it'll be a walk in the park.

But, stranger things have happened. Like a Peter Jackson discussion turning into a Fast Forward discussion.

Monkey Ambassador · 01-14-2007, 11:42 AM

Good deal.

01-13-2007, 04:56 AM	#27
Ra It's my desire? Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: In your pants. Posts: 4,441	Peter Jackson is getting blacklisted by a cinema? That's defiantly new I don't really mind LOTR, but yeah, Jackson really needs to meet people who know what "editing" means. King Kong is basically about a giant ape that is taken from his natural habitat and thrown into New York, thus suffering from culture shock. It should really take about 90 minutes end to view the movie, but yeah... I'll shut up now __________________ "So. The whole lot of you against little old me? How retarded."

01-13-2007, 09:27 AM	#28
Mecha Cow Gorgeous and modest too Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,699	I think most people's problem with King Kong is that Jackson made it in the same 'style' as LotR. The 'epic' scope worked for LotR, but it didn't fit KK too well. I liked the movie, but there's really no reason for it being 3+ hours long. __________________

01-13-2007, 11:11 AM	#29
Jo Dawn Inactive Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Authority On All Things Don Posts: 5,190	I actually like King Kong. But not LOTR. shrugs __________________

01-13-2007, 11:49 AM	#31
Brodie Certified Teacher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Bizarro Metropolis Posts: 6,495	Well, like he cares, he still gets to make Halo...somewhere... And weird new Halo moviegames. __________________ Stupendous Monster

01-14-2007, 04:44 AM	#37
Spitfire Writer • Director Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,035	They took it over but it was always Peter's idea to shoot TMNT into the future. __________________ Check out my online portfolio http://www.christopherpelletier.com/

01-12-2007, 02:12 PM	#22
Peanut Second Gear Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The New World Posts: 15,422	I never said I hated King Kong. If I did, I wouldn't own the regular and SE versions on DVD and the HDDVD version, would I? But the beginning of the movie was soooo boring. I'm also a huge LotR fan. I find the beginning of Fellowship a little slow and boring, but that doesn't mean I don't like it. I love all three of those movies.

01-12-2007, 05:00 PM	#24
Peanut Second Gear Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The New World Posts: 15,422	It was important. No disagreement there, but it really wears on after awhile. I guess it's just because I really really wanted to see Kong. The same applies for Hulk. I liked that movie, but it took too long to get to the Hulk and actually get some cool scenes going.

01-14-2007, 01:51 AM	#34
Warhorse Emperor Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 5,544	Well, in my opinion, I think The Hobbit will tank without Peter Jackson at the helm. Just my opinion. He has a vision and a love for the Tolkein world that I don't hink will be equalled. And studios do tend to be almost evil. Like look what they are forcing the creators of the TMNT new cartoon to do with Fast Forward, just to sell a couple of stupid toys!

01-14-2007, 03:54 AM	#36
Warhorse Emperor Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 5,544	^I'm not aware of Peter Laird having much to do with Fast Forward. I thought he had to compromise on agreeing along with it's production to keep the Tribunal episodes from being canned all together, and I heard FF was something Fox4kids and some toy company was working on.

01-14-2007, 05:11 AM	#38
Warhorse Emperor Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 5,544	The story of the Turtles going into the future isn't the problem. It's actually not a bad concept. But the episodes in themselves has been greatly reduced in it's quality and stoytelling. Everything is way off, from the dialogue to the characters themselves. This is what I believe people don't like about the FF. ANd I also believe it's the studios fault in pushing such a dumned down show on it's faithful viewers.

01-14-2007, 09:30 AM	#39
gobo Wacky Action Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: on Earth Posts: 12,784	While I want to believe that FF was only premised by Laird, and the rest was all compromise, I don't think we'll ever get a clear answer. Neither side is willing to blame it on the other. That way, they might be able to continue to do business, and dig themselves out of this hole. That... doesn't seem like it'll be a walk in the park. But, stranger things have happened. Like a Peter Jackson discussion turning into a Fast Forward discussion. __________________ Live and let live... or go to hell.

01-14-2007, 11:42 AM	#40
Monkey Ambassador Foot Soldier Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Savannah, GA Posts: 100	Good deal. __________________ Savannah College of Art and Design Last edited by Monkey Ambassador; 01-14-2007 at 12:23 PM.