Go watch King Kong

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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.

Ignore my first comment; I meant to say that Jackson had written more of his own films than the other directors, which remains true.

But I really can't fathom why you would think the directing of an original screenplay is more meritorious than the directing of an adaptation. I certainly agree that writing an original screenplay is more meritorious than writing an adaptation. But once they're written, they're both just screenplays.

Following your argument, Scorsese's Mean Streets would have to be considered superior to Goodfellas and Last Temptation of Christ; I have a hard time imagining Scorsese would agree.

Also following your argument, our greatest living filmmaker would have to be...Woody Allen.

And to use your band analogy, what you're really arguing is that a Beatles cover band is better than an Elvis impersonator, because the Beatles were more creative than Elvis.

I understand your argument. I'm just waiting for you to make it make sense.

[Zkribbler]

I've been trying to resist, but I just gotta . . .

[Old Joke Mode]

Q: Why did King Kong climb to the top of the Empire State Building?
A: To catch a plane.

[/Old Joke Mode]

Sorry for my moment of weakness. Please go on with your thread.

[JohnT]

But I really can't fathom why you would think the directing of an original screenplay is more meritorious than the directing of an adaptation. I certainly agree that writing an original screenplay is more meritorious than writing an adaptation. But once they're written, they're both just screenplays.

Because one (original screenplay) is an unknown, untested product, the other (the adaptation) has sure indicators of what it takes to please the audience - the source material(s).

All Peter Jackson had to do was post a "Top 20 Things that *Need* to be in LOTR for it to be a Success" thread back in 1998 and actually include them. You can't do that with a Citizen Kane or a North by Northwest or an original work - who the hell knows?

Surely you can see the difference. It's a matter of artistic courage - are you going to stand on your own feet, or on somebody elses shoulders?

Giving that singing and composing are two different tasks, I'll leave that horribly messy impersonator analogy alone.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by JohnT
Because one (original screenplay) is an unknown, untested product, the other has sure indicators of what it takes to please the audience - the source material(s).

All Peter Jackson had to do was post a "Top 20 Things that *Need* to be in LOTR for it to be a Success" thread back in 1998 and actually include them. You can't do that with a Citizen Kane or a North by Northwest or an original work - who the hell knows?

Surely you can see the difference. It's a matter of artistic courage - are you going to stand on your own feet, or on somebody elses shoulders?

But a successful film is not the same thing as a good film, and a successful director is not the same thing as a good director. We were talking about what makes a good director, not what makes a successful one.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by JohnT
Giving that singing and composing are two different tasks, I'll leave that horribly messy impersonator analogy alone.

No, the impersonator analogy is spot on. My point is that you want to bring screenplays into it, and a director usually has nothing to do with writing (composing) screenplays; his job is to render them for an audience -- much the way a singer renders a song.

[JohnT]

A far better analogy would've involved conductors. But you didn't make it, so I don't have to respond to it.

[Dis]

So now they are saying King Kong is racist. Actually, they said that about the 1933 film as well. Apparantly this is a known issue. So it's kind of surprising someone would make a racist film now days.

Your thoughts?

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin154551776dec15,0,2915817.column

[dannubis]

nice movie, nice entertainement

very good special effects

if you are looking for something special, this film should not be your choice however

and racist ???? WTF ?

[FrostyBoy]

Peter Jackson made LotR and King Kong BECAUSE he loves the stories and wanted to re-create them on a grander scale.

He is perfectly capable of creating his own stories.


And don't forget, most movies released, come from books.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Come on. Didn't you even like the part in the end where Kate Winslet is on a raft big enough for two people, but Leonardo DiCaprio stays in the water and freezes to death??

if you were Kate Winslet, would you do differently?

JM

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Dis
So now they are saying King Kong is racist. Actually, they said that about the 1933 film as well. Apparantly this is a known issue. So it's kind of surprising someone would make a racist film now days.

Your thoughts?

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...2915817.column

Well the way that the "natives" were depicted was almost demonic, but the way the whites were was, if anything, worse. I don't see how you can call that racist...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
I like those conspiracy thrillers.

I want to see Syriana.

Movies are supposed to be about worlds that we don't live in JohnT.

Which is what Syriana precisely is.

Saw it tonight. Fine film, lots of quick cuts, keeps your interest, muddled as all hell. A poor mans Traffic.

I felt that the film lost its focus in the middle-third, especially during the trip to Beirut. That was the point where I began to ask "What does this have to do with anything?" (yes, he asked his acquaintance to do some wetwork on the oil prince, but did that really necessitate a trip to Beirut?)

All-in-all, a fine film, if more than a bit muddled. I don't think it had anything really profound or new to say, and even the statistics quoted were just dated (data about American production/consumption viz the rest of the world were from the 1970s) or just flat out made up ("90% of all oil is in the Middle East - and it's running out!") I like the fact that the two stars never met, except on the peripheries of their character's lives.

[Flip McWho]

Saw king kong tonight. Beautifully done.

As far as fight scenes goes its one of the most impressive when kong goes against the dino's.


Also to enter the other debate; JohnT:
There'd be loads more expectations riding on the adaption from a book to a movie. Creating an original is all fine but people go into it not expecting much whereas with an adaption you already know the general story (or the full story) and the director has to match up to peoples expectations. That wouldn't be the easiest thing to do.

[JohnT]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178983,00.html

'King Kong' Bombing Big Time at Box Office

What's happened? Peter Jackson's "King Kong" — a three-hour, $300 million extravaganza that wowed advance screening audiences — is a catastrophe in the making.

On Thursday, Kong's take was a measly $6,295,755 — off $3.5M from Wednesday's weak $9,755,745 opening day. Kong ranks now as the 21st best Wednesday opening ever — a dubious distinction.

Something is certainly wrong. It could be the movie's daunting length, or even a slow middle section that would have benefited from cutting. The leads are all solid actors — Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black — but none of them is a star attraction. That might be the trouble, but I doubt it.

In fact, Kong seems like a no-brainer. Great special effects, and a main character — the ape — that is more three-dimensional than a lot of humans in movies this winter.

But there's some kind of snafu, and if Universal doesn't figure it out shortly, "King Kong" could turn into a king-sized headache.

One stumbling block to a bigger take may be that you simply cannot take young children to see this movie. It is way too intense. So my advice: get a sitter. Jackson's movie is a smart three-hour video game/fun house/theme park.

Meantime, Jim Mangold's "Walk the Line" — the story of Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash — continues to hold its own and build a strong following. This terrific film is a sleeper — and Joaquin Phoenix's performance is not to be missed. At $78 million and change, "Walk the Line" is headed toward a $100 million crossover — and awards galore for everyone involved.

I'm kind of surprised. While I doubted it would beat Titanic, I thought it had a pretty good chance of topping $100 million for the five-day release - now it might not top $60 million, making this a less successful debut than Narnia.

[JohnT]

That "21st biggest Wednesday opening" puts it behind such films as Catch Me if You Can and Pokemon, not exactly world-burners.