I believe the guy is enormously talented. Some people seem to think it's cool to dis him now that he's King of the Universe. The thing is, long before LOTR, I saw Bad Taste (marginal but kinda cute), Dead-Alive (only watch the unrated version, don't bother with the R-rated one), Meet the Feebles (I don't think I can discuss it on a Family... (OH, come on now), Heavenly Creatures (terrific) and even The Frighteners is far superior to your average commercial horror/comedy. Now, he's gonna make King Kong with Naomi Watts. To me, it sounds like a match made in heaven. Please discuss anything you want to about PJ, his films, his flaws, etc. Just try to know of where you speak.

I am a big fan of all of his movies. Meet the Feebles ia absolutely brilliant, the perfect movie to distort memories of your muppet-watching years! Dead Alive and Bad Taste are two of the best low budget splatter films ever made. Heavenly Creatures is an almost flawless movie, and the Frighteners is a light and fun flick that far exceeded my expectations. The Lord of the Rings trilogy speaks for itself. King Kong does scare me a little though, I think the story is past it's glory years and I suspect no matter how well done the film is, it won't be an overwhelming financial success.

Peter Jackson is a writer and director that everyone in Hollywood should take lessons on. He is so knowledgable and shrewd about what makes good stories and how to do special effects that look really amazing without relying 100% on computers. Its always really pleasureable and informative to listen to his commentaries on LOTR Extended Cut DVDs.

I hadn't seen any of his material before the trilogy, which I thought was a masterful bit of cinema and which obviously owed a lot to the director. I don't know how much I like the King Kong idea, but I more or less believe he'll salvage something at least passable from it; I also think Naomi Watts is brilliant.

Smenkharon and Vykromond (you're not related are you?),

Don't sweat King Kong. If Jackson does anything remotely close to what he did with LOTR, it will be HUGE!!! I don't give a sh-- about boxoffice anyway, KING KONG has always been about sex and a lack of respect, and with Watts , Jackson has the sex symbol for our time (strong, since she knows what she wants) and the ultimate monster/outsider. I hope I'm right and survive long enough to see it.

Peter Jackson is indeed a great man. However, remaking a classic is something that should not be done - ever. Why don't film makers understand that remaking already good movies is a bad idea?

I would encourage remakes of shit movies, but of ones that can already stand tall alone? Why? Why don't they learn from their mistakes? Godzilla? Ladykillers? Psycho? Come on! They've all failed! Every one of them!

King Kong must be stopped. We can't let this disaster occur.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Godzilla? Ladykillers? Psycho?

---

I don't know if these examples pertain, per se. The first, yes, but I thought Ladykillers was tolerable (without the bodily function jokes, maybe quite good) and Psycho was a weird Gus Van Sant thing that nobody quite understood the purpose for, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify as a "remake" in the traditional sense of the word so much as the literal =p

I guess Ladykillers was somewhat tolerable, and yes maybe it would have been good had there not been jokes about farting and shitting; but those jokes were in the movie nonetheless. Having bowel problems and saying the word "nigger" can only go so far. To use those mechanisms thoughout the entire film? That's just being lazy. You know the Coen brothers are intelligent and witty, yet they decided to settle for stupidity rather than wit. I know I could have come up with some more obvious examples, but I still consider Ladykillers a failed remake.

I see your point about Psycho. However, what exactly is the traditional sense of the word "remake"? I mean granted Van Sant used the exact same camera angles and everything, but there were different actors and a distinctly different look. It wasn't EXACTLY the same.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
King Kong must be stopped. We can't let this disaster occur.

---

Now I don't want to sound like some "fanboy", and I won't let this turn into something like that discussion about "Lost in Translation." But I do believe there are several reasons to remake "King Kong", even though I love the original, and for me, that means the version with all the restored violence and more blatantly-sexual references.
First, even though the special effects were state-of-art, I believe that PJ and crew will be able to update them and increase the intensity of the action scenes. This might appeal to a younger generation. I've shown the original to public school kids, and although many enjoy it, most are turned off by the b&w and what they consider hokey effects. I haven't read much about exactly which way the script is going, but PJ did say he was remaking the original only and that it would be a period film.
Second, as can be seen from LOTR, New Zealand is a beautiful location to shoot in, and it should provide a much more exotic setting than the backlot Skull Island in the original.
Third, the acting in the first film is borderline-atrocious. Fay Wray certainly had sex-appeal and she could scream with the best of them, but Robert Armstrong and Bruce Cabot weren't exactly great actors, and even though I don't know anything about the casting, I'm sure that the new version's acting will be tops. EDIT: I just checked IMDB, and besides Naomi Watts in the Fay Wray role, the cast includes Adrien Brody as the stalwart hero played originally by Cabot and Jack Black(!) as the filmmaker/entrepreneur played by Armstrong in 1933. I actually think Black could add a nice touch of the maniacal to the role of Carl Denham.
I could probably come up with other reasons but that's a start. Besides, does anybody have anything to say about Dead-Alive or Heavenly Creatures?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

Oh come on, there was nothing wrong with the Lost in Translation debate. Everyone needs to vent their anger once in a while. And besides, I thought it was rather amusing.

Anyway, as for your reasons for remaking King Kong, I guess I can agree with you on the acting and whatever (even though I disagree with your optimism over Black). However, there is something seriously wrong with the argument of appealing to a younger generation. That's exactly what they were thinking when they remade Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, and most recently Walking Tall. Granted, Dawn of the Dead was good, but that's one success as compared to the other hundred failures.

The Seven Samurai was in black and white, and the action sequences are no longer appealing to the newer generations. Should we encourage a remake of this classic?

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
However, there is something seriously wrong with the argument of appealing to a younger generation. That's exactly what they were thinking when they remade Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, and most recently Walking Tall.

---

To tell you the truth, K-Dog, I thought the LIT thread was hilarious, not amusing, but it also carried a small element of embarrassment.
Now, I want to make it clear that I'm not Superman Seer who has the power to know things before they happen, but I am a Super Film Lover who's in touch with some kind of truth (others might call it BS.) Now, my take on what you have to say is that your examples were completely unnecessary remakes and mostly made by studio heads (who have no concept of film history) to supposedly make money. I love Tim Burton, but I find it hard to believe that he had an overwhelming desire to remake what I consider a great film.
On the other hand, PJ, who must have more money than he and his progeny could spend in a century (hell, he doesn't even own hardly any clothes), has a powerful urge to develop, design, and recreate something which he obviously loves and respects. So, as naive as I am for a 48-year-old, I see a big difference between "King Kong" and all the other remakes/sequels being turned out by Hollywood. Remember that New Zealand is not Hollywood, at least not yet.
As far as the younger generation goes, maybe introducing them to a GOOD film (as opposed to remake) will make them go back to the classics.
As far as "Seven Samurai" goes, I wouldn't touch a hair on Kurosawa's or Mifune's head, but they did make a pretty good remake in 1960 with a great cast and director, "The Magnificent Seven."

Eh, Magnificent Seven was more of an adaptation than a remake. Good yes, but remake...arguable.

Also, I unfortunately don't get your Burton referance. But hey, you learn something new everday. So if you could explain that'd be grand.

But why such a sharp edge? My post never meant to offend you...sir. And embarrassment? In an anonymous on-line forum? Metacritic may mean a lot to you, but I hope for your own sake it doesn't affect the way you percieve yourself.

And why do you feel the need to bring out the big guns? "I'm 48 years old." Oh, ok. In that case I guess I'm not qualified to have a civil debate with you. Seriously, who gives a monkey's ass how old you are. Damn it, now look what you've done. You made me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

Just kidding. Anyway, your biting sarcasm and bitter remarks aside, I would like to continue this debate ABOUT MOVIES.

First thing. Quote:

quote:

---

written by mark f
So, as naive as I am for a 48-year-old, I see a big difference between "King Kong" and all the other remakes/sequels being turned out by Hollywood.

---

You do realize that King Kong is only revered as a classic right now because 1) it was a milestone in special effects and 2) because it's old. I hope you also realize that King Kong was a "Hollywood" movie. It was back then the equivalent of any other big monster blockbuster that comes out today. So you see, King Kong and today's "Hollywood" crap that you were referring to are not so different after all. I think their only big difference is their age, like how you pointed out that you were 48 years old earlier. So basically, you're giving more credit to both older movies, and well...older people.

And by the way, it's not my fault this argument seems to be going in the wrong direction. You started it old man.

K-Dog

This message has been edited. Last edited by: K-Dog,

K-Dog:
1) Tim Burton directed "Planet of the Apes."
2) In the intro section of these forums, I said I was the old man around here, so the "big guns" have already been fired.
3) I have no problems with how this thread is going.
4) Have you or anyone else seen any other PJ movies?
5) Later, Gator

Oh wow. I had no idea Burton directed Planet of the Apes. Wow. I think I've just lost whatever respect I had left for him.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vykromond: _Psycho_ was a weird Gus Van Sant thing that nobody quite understood the purpose for, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify as a "remake" in the traditional sense of the word so much as the literal =p

---

I agree, V, that "Psycho" was not a traditional remake, but it was a definite remake. Van Sant made a deal with Universal that, after "Good Will Hunting" became so popular, he could "remake" any film in Universal's catalog, no questions asked. He choose "Psycho", and I, for one, think since the Master came up with something so well-conceived that it isn't a bad film. Completely pointless, yes, but bad, no. Maybe someone will watch Tony Perkins, a lost soul if there ever was one, because of van Sant, and I believe that's the reason he remade "Psycho." Van Sant did add a few things that weren't in the Master's film too, so it isn't quite "literal."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

There is updated info about the new "King Kong" here. New cast members include ANDY SERKIS as KING KONG and Lumpy the cook (this latter character must be to get Andy an Academy nomination, although I remember Lumpy in several Shakespeare plays) and Thomas Kretschmann from "The Pianist." Tom Hanks' son is also in the cast. I guess that means we might expect some kind of combo between "King Kong", "The Pianist" and "Orange County." OK, cynics, this is your chance to weigh in because I'm thinking, "Lookin' good!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
K-Dog:
4) Have you or anyone else seen any other PJ movies?
5) Later, Gator

---

Mark:

I got here too late to join in on your Peter Jackson love-fest (having just joined this board about 2 weeks ago), but I will second all of your lauditory comments on the various PJ films (my personal favorite is Heavenly Creatures) and raise you one: Forgotten Silver.
Did you see his "mockumentary" on Collin MacKenzie, the wizard of New Zealand film, who invented (among other things) the close up and color film and single-handedly built a city to film Salome? You must not miss this gem!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol02:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
K-Dog:
4) Have you or anyone else seen any other PJ movies?
5) Later, Gator

---

Mark:

I got here too late to join in on your Peter Jackson love-fest (having just joined this board about 2 weeks ago), but I will second all of your lauditory comments on the various PJ films (my personal favorite is Heavenly Creatures) and raise you one: Forgotten Silver.
Did you see his "mockumentary" on Collin MacKenzie, the wizard of New Zealand film, who invented (among other things) the close up and color film and single-handedly built a city to film Salome? You must not miss this gem!!

---

Although this sounds very familiar, I have to swear that I haven't seen it, but I really want to now. Thanks, Carol, try to post here more often!

Bad Taste was exciting to watch in the way that Dementia 13 must have been. Surrounded by movies of incredible similarity, you can still always tell that an individual is in control. It's apparent within the first fifteen minutes of the movie even, and it is a feeling that only becomes stronger as the movie rolls on. While it may not be a fantastic movie overall, and in fact severely drags in the middle (again like Dementia 13) you could always tell that the creator had a lot of imagination and enthusiasm. I didn't take to Heavenly Creatures the way that others did, but there was definitely the feeling of something greater in the future in there as well.

[:

IAlthough this sounds very familiar, I have to swear that I haven't seen it, but I really want to now. Thanks, Carol, try to post here more often![/QUOTE]

Thank you!! This is a WONDERFUL site and I hope I will be able to contribute in the future.