[BadAss]

I feel soory for Peter Jackson because now every one has made he some sort of God in the movie world its going to be hard for him to turn up trumps a second time.

His next movie is yet another remake, King Kong. A film most of us are very familiar with. A film that has had a sort of modern day release in the form of Godzilla/Jurrasic park.

How on earth is Peter Jackson going to come out of this with his reputation still intact?

I think he should quit now while hes still Lord of the Directors.

[Semiskimmed1976]

why should he quit? He's already said that he will probably never surpass his "achievments" in the LOTR trilogy - but what he has now is the ability to choose his films and enjoy film-making...I doubt he'll care too much if people keep saying "Its good but not as good as Lord of the Rings..."

Do you think Lucas should have given up after Starwars....hmm maybe you shouldn't answer that one

[BadAss]

I just don't think Peter Jackson has made a good choice of movie to follow up LOTR.

When you take away all the special effects and Toilkens writing your left with a half decent score and some half decent acting. King Kong is a movie that just doesn't lend itself well to the things that made LOTR what it was is.

He should of made a movie with no special effects what so ever, shown he was a credible director and then made The Hobbit.

Flame Suit on.

[KraGorn]

He happens to love King Kong so he wants to re-make it .. given the deal he's got from the studio, more power to him I say.

[the_pauley]

Well judging by the script...

http://geocities.com/scifiscripts3/scripts/kingkong.txt

...it should hopefully be a good 'un!

[Dimmy]

Personally, I question the extent to which his 'directing' made the LOTR trilogy what it was.

LOTR was a composite of brilliance. The Score, the Books, the set design, the SFX. If you think about it, taking away any one of these elements would reduce the impact of the films quite a lot. Peter Jackson, to my mind, was another ingredient in the brilliance.

I think if he surrounds himself with the same ingredients in future film-making, there's no reason he can't shine again.

I don't think King Kong is going to provide the script for that, but perhaps I'm wrong...

[Mr.D]

I doubt King Kong will be his next film.

[Crocodile JD]

Personally, I question the extent to which his 'directing' made the LOTR trilogy what it was.

LOTR was a composite of brilliance.

Yes but who the hell do you think pulled that team of brilliance together and who managed it??

Anyway regardless of what film he does next, when he does The Hobbit, it will be equally as good as LOTR, maybe even better. The Hobbit being a more self contained element of the whole story lends its self better to film. The characters and sets are already laid out at least in general format and we know he'll do a brilliant job of that.

I predict that there is at least one more masterpiece left in Peter Jackson

Croc

[Kevo]

A lot of directors reach a peak (sometimes early in their career) and then never seem to make anything decent....

Coppola, Carpenter, Scorcese, Bogdanovich to name but a few

[eviljohn2]

Originally posted by BadAss

He should of made a movie with no special effects what so ever, shown he was a credible director and then made The Hobbit.

Flame Suit on.

Not a flaming as such, but I think his previous work shows him as a credible director. He'd never have landed the LOTR job otherwise!

[Lex]

Originally posted by Mr.D
I doubt King Kong will be his next film.

He is already making it!

Originally posted by Dimmy

Personally, I question the extent to which his 'directing' made the LOTR trilogy what it was.

LOTR was a composite of brilliance. The Score, the Books, the set design, the SFX. If you think about it, taking away any one of these elements would reduce the impact of the films quite a lot. Peter Jackson, to my mind, was another ingredient in the brilliance.

I am certain that Jackson is a team player and would be the first to recognise the contribution other people made to his films, but I really think you underestimate the job he has done... if a great film was only a matter of Score, SFX, good source material and set design then every blockbuster would be a master piece - Batman & Robin had all of the above, but it was a pile of steaming ****

Originally posted by BadAss
He should of made a movie with no special effects what so ever, shown he was a credible director and then made The Hobbit.

It is special effects that first got Jackson into film making in the first place - all of his past films have big special effects. I really recommend watching his first film Bad Taste and its accompanying documentary... It will show you what he is all about. Also, there was a lot more to LOTR than SFX - he has already proved what a great character director he is imho!

He definitely has a lot more great films in him - LOTR was no accident!

[the_pauley]

King Kong is a movie that just doesn't lend itself well to the things that made LOTR what it was is.

???

Great story, action packed set pieces, superb pace, SFX galore, not to mention "...the tallest, darkest leading man in Hollywood.". I would say to the contrary, that "King Kong" lends itself perfectly to what made the "LOTR" movie trilogy what it was.

The original 1933 version is one of the planet's true treasures, and if it is to be remade then it's probably in very good hands with Jackson. Of course he is not a film making genius, but he is an extremely competent, workman-like director who has proven more than equal to the task of delivering spectacular FX driven action material while understanding and maintining the all-important emotional core of a story.

More importantly he loves the original "Kong" with a passion, so it may as well be him who remakes it. Personally I have high hopes. And if they're dashed, well, we've still got the original...

[CooperUK]

Peter Jackson will always suffer comparisions to LOTR Trilogy, but bearing in mind it had been said that LOTR was unfilmable I wouldn't put it past him to come up with some decent stuff in the future.

King Kong is a film he has been wanting to make for years, just as LOTR had been a 'pet project'. Look what he did with that.

The man is only human though, and hey, if his next film isn't the best ever made in the history of the world ever, he can fall back on the knowedge that, so far, ROTK is the best fim ever, bar none

My two penneth...

I don't think we can judge his next film until we see it.

Personally, I'm not looking forward to King Kong, as I don't like the original (it's too silly for my liking: I'm not into giant monsters). However, I'll probably watch it, to see what he does with it.

I'd love to see The Hobbit though! It should make a great film.

[Miyazaki]

I second the Hobbit motion!

Can't wait to see that fleshed out and brought to life!

Especially the battle of the 5 armies!

Just a thought, but do you reckon the Hobbit would be better split into two films?

The book has less 'padding' than Lord of the Rings, I think it'd be hard to pack into 3 1/2 hours...

[Nobber22]

Originally posted by rhoamish
Just a thought, but do you reckon the Hobbit would be better split into two films?

Easy tiger! Don't go giving the studios any more silly ideas.
One long film is better than two normal length ones IMO.

Yeah, but two long films is better than one long film...I reckon.

[Steve T]

Originally posted by rhoamish

Personally, I'm not looking forward to King Kong, as I don't like the original (it's too silly for my liking: I'm not into giant monsters). However, I'll probably watch it, to see what he does with it.

I'd love to see The Hobbit though! It should make a great film.

I bet you're hoping he cuts out the giant monster, Smaug the Dragon then

I like the odd giant monster, but I don't really like the whole story to be based around it. I was thinking more of King Kong, Godzilla, etc.

I'm looking forward to King Kong as i love the 1933 original.

Hope they release The Frighteners on dvd again with all the extras which u get on the laserdisc and DTS sound, i also want an uncut Braindead aka Dead Alive.

[Lex]

I agree with rhoamish - after the success of the LOTR trilogy, and now that Tarantino has done it with Kill Bill, I think it is almost definite that THe Hobbit will be in two parts - it is years since I read the book but I remember it being quite long and involved, and I don't see how it could be done in 2.5 hrs...

[Zone]

Been years since I read it also (mental note to read it again soon ) but from what I remember the book itself isn't particularly long, not as long as say FOTR, TT or ROTK anyway.
I'd say go for a 3hr Cinematic blockbuster full of everything we've become acustomed too from PJ and his crew, extending that to 4hrs for the obligatory extended edition DVD
Sweet..

[clancol]

[i]
Do you think Lucas should have given up after Starwars....hmm maybe you shouldn't answer that one [/B]

Well if he did. there would be no
Indiana jones-
THX
Pixar-Toy story-monsters inc- Nemo
ILM
Harrison Ford
Jedi Knight,1,2,acadamy
lightsaber duel with yoda.

[the_pauley]

Mr and Mrs Ford are responsible for Harrison, surely?

[Lex]

Originally posted by Zone
Been years since I read it also (mental note to read it again soon ) but from what I remember the book itself isn't particularly long

I think you might be surprised actually - there ia a lot of plot crammed into that liitle book!

[Lex]

Do you think Lucas should have given up after Starwars....hmm maybe you shouldn't answer that one

Originally posted by clancol
Well if he did. there would be no
Indiana jones-
THX
Pixar-Toy story-monsters inc- Nemo
ILM
Harrison Ford
Jedi Knight,1,2,acadamy
lightsaber duel with yoda.

Plus there would be no
Jar Jar Binks
Howard the Duck
Mediclorians
Cute 10 year old Sith Lords
Star Wars: Jedi Starfighter
Jar Jar Binks
14 yr old girls elected as queen
Jar Jar Binks

[BadAss]

One thing Peter Jackson had in his favour is that most people had either already read the books so basically had intimate knowledge of how the film was going to look and feel.

Producing a movie from scratch is a very different entity all together. Ridley Scott had nightmares making films such as Alien and Blade Runner because nobody new what to expect, it was breaking new ground.

Peter Jackson had most of the work done for him.

The script was already a written master piece.
The artwork/look of the film had already been drawn.
Every one was already clued up on the background info.

Now I'm not trying to take anything away from Peter Jackson LOTR is a stunning piece of work, but when you take it into context what other directors have done....

Look at Mel Gibson, his first Directors Job was Brave Heart, a stunning film in my eyes with no CG what so ever. It didn't have as broad appeal as LOTR because it was aimed at an adult market but it's still as enjoyable.

[the_pauley]

Agree broadly with some of what you said about Jackson, but let's keep things in perspective re. Mel Gibson.

Braveheart was hardly "...a stunning film...". It was by-the-numbers Hollywood multiplex fodder with production-line point-and-shoot direction by Gibson. Totally anonymous.

A talented director could probably have given us a far superior movie to the mono-dimensional result Gibson delivered.

Totally disagree with u Pauley, Braveheart is a classic and touched my emotions and thats what any good film should do .

P.S. Gibsons first directorial effort was The Man Without A Face and it was very well directed too.