Go watch King Kong

[CrONoS]

@Rufus
Here the screener:

http://www.thenewworldmovie.com/

Look like real good to me!!!!
Anyway, just to see the photography of the movie I'm ready to pay a lot of $$$$!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
@Rufus
Here the screener:

http://www.thenewworldmovie.com/

Look like real good to me!!!!
Anyway, just to see the photography of the movie I'm ready to pay a lot of $$$$!

I'll check out the screener later, on my good home computer rather than my crappy government computer.

But,yeah, I figured the cinematography would rock.

[FrostyBoy]

Man, Sava, from your posts, I am beginning to see that you're one of those excluded, weird type of people that no one can make sense of.


what do you have against Jack Black?


also, while I may not know much about this, I'm sure those who are praising King Kong, are not praising it because of lotr, but because it's a movie done by Peter Jackson, a lot of people are favouring his movies.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sn00py
also, while I may not know much about this, I'm sure those who are praising King Kong, are not praising it because of lotr, but because it's a movie done by Peter Jackson, a lot of people are favouring his movies.

And it's worth noting why people praise Jackson. If you look at his movies (I've not seen The Frighteners, but I think I've seen everything else), he clearly loves the ability of special effects to help him tell a story or evoke a reaction, but what he really seems to love storytelling. He never lets effects themselves substitute for storytelling. This is what makes him a great popular entertainer, and vastly superior to anyone else working in big-budget entertainment.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
He never lets effects themselves substitute for storytelling. This is what makes him a great popular entertainer, and vastly superior to anyone else working in big-budget entertainment.

Aeon Flux!!!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Aeon Flux!!!

Not a Peter Jackson film. Try again.

[CrONoS]

... I know.

Replace my last quote with:

"P. Jackson do not make movie like crappy Aeon Flux, a movie with SFX over storytelling....."

I wanted to do a free bash on Aeon Flux!!!

see ya

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not a Peter Jackson film. Try again.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
more american pathetic SFX trash

Insanely well-done SFX. The only time I've ever gotten vertigo from a movie was last night

The amount of people who have no intention of seeing this movie just because of their preconceptions is annoying, especially with what good reviews it's getting.

Jack Black is in it. Even if he gets eaten, it still is not worth it.

He plays his part well, the corny over the topness actually fits well in thos movie (I agree that he's usually annoying), Peter Jackson does camp very well (see Dead Alive).

Everyone is playing up the LoTR hype. This is not LotR... stfu already.

The SFX in King Kong are significantly better than in LoTR.

He never lets effects themselves substitute for storytelling. This is what makes him a great popular entertainer, and vastly superior to anyone else working in big-budget entertainment.

Exactly. I was a big leery going into the movie, but it really exceeded my expectations.

[JohnT]

C'mon, people. Y'all might like Peter Jackson and all, but don't forget that his four major films (LOTR(3) + KK) are nothing more than other peoples work. The man hasn't directed anything other than an adaptation since 1996.

So, yeah, he's a great storyteller - when it's somebody elses story.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by JohnT
C'mon, people. Y'all might like Peter Jackson and all, but don't forget that his four major films (LOTR(3) + KK) are nothing more than other peoples work. The man hasn't directed anything other than an adaptation since 1996.

So, yeah, he's a great storyteller - when it's somebody elses story.

Please explain how this makes him different from Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, or Martin Scorsese.

[JohnT]

Because Welles (Citizen Kane), Hitchcock (North by Northwest), and Scorcese (Mean Streets) all made classic films using original material.

Jackson makes classic adaptations of other peoples work.

It's the difference between being the Beatles and being the Worlds Greatest Cover Band. They're both fine in what they bring to the table, but the Beatles will be remembered far longer for their originality.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by JohnT
Because Welles (Citizen Kane), Hitchcock (North by Northwest), and Scorcese (Mean Streets) all made classic films using original material.

Jackson makes classic adaptations of other peoples work.

That's the difference.

All three made far more adaptations that Jackson, and Jackson has made more films from original screenplays than any of them.

Beyond that, I can't fathom why you would think directing someone else's original screenplay (as Hitch did in North by Northwest, and Mankiewicz convincingly claimed Welles did with Kane) is somehow more meritorious that directing an adaptation. A screenplay is a screenplay.

It's the difference between being the Beatles and being the Worlds Greatest Cover Band. They're both fine in what they bring to the table, but the Beatles will be remembered far longer for their originality.

Right. 'Cause nobody remembers cover artists like Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, or Elvis Presley.

[JohnT]

All three made far more adaptations that Jackson, and Jackson's made more frlms from orininal screenplays than any of them.

Please. The second clause in that sentence shows that you're not really worth debating on this subject. Jackson has a total of twelve total directorial credits to his name. Scorcese alone has thirteen movies that are not adaptations of others peoples work (he has more, but once I verified thirteen, I proved the lie to that statement).

I think that directing a original screenplay for an original production is far more "artistic" than copying somebody elses work. You don't. C'est la vie.

[JohnT]

Right. 'Cause nobody remembers cover artists like Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, or Elvis Presley

People who will be known for their popularity but not for their artistry, other than vocalization. Point?

[CrONoS]

Your sentence will be better:
"far more "artistic" than interpreting somebody elses work"

More accurate... since, he really put his vision in his work.
If you ever see LOTR, the one made in '70. You'll know what i mean.

I dont give a **** about the debate between if he is better than other. In what he is doing, he is really(but really) good!!

see ya

Originally posted by JohnT
I think that directing a original screenplay for an original production is far more "artistic" than copying somebody elses work. You don't. C'est la vie.