|
|
Post by dragon on Dec 1, 2005 15:58:55 GMT
I just saw the trailer for the KING KONG remake and it shows Kong being attacked by biplanes. I also saw the tv commercial for the WAR OF THE WORLDS dvd showing the aliens being attacked by helicopters firing laser-guided missiles. The KING KONG trailer did NOT show Kong atop the Empire State Building being attacked by F-117 stealth jets. If Peter Jackson can faithfully remake a classic, why couldn't Tom Cruise do the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 3, 2005 12:48:01 GMT
Becase Spielberg is stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Child on Dec 3, 2005 15:13:14 GMT
there you go...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 3, 2005 16:07:45 GMT
Because peter Jackson is a better director than spielberg. He can create epics. Spielberg directs blockbusters
|
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 3, 2005 17:49:22 GMT
Amen
|
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Dec 5, 2005 19:58:10 GMT
I wouldn't say Jackson is a better director than Spielberg, they just make different kind of movies. So what... Spielberg makes blockbusters. I respect him as a director and as a person, the same for Jackson. Tripod  |
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Dec 5, 2005 20:17:48 GMT
Jackson creates epics because he is able to. Speilbergs one attempt at an epic, in his words, was War of the Worlds, and it came across as nothing but a glorified blockbuster.
|
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 6, 2005 13:44:22 GMT
there's no excuse for that!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Dec 6, 2005 19:19:06 GMT
well Spielburg USED to make some good films...
Shindlers List, ET, Jaws, close encounters
but movies like the Terminal, AI and WOTW are pure crap...
not saying Peter Jackson could have done a better film (as I really think lord of the rings is vastly over rated)
and people forget PJ gave us the frighteners... a terrible film, its only because he had millions of dollars and junk that LOTR turned out at least 62% decent
and I dont think King Kong is going to be all that good either
|
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 6, 2005 19:40:21 GMT
Et, Shindlers list, jaws, colse encounters, soldier ryan and jurassic park are good films. The Lost World, AI, The Terminal, catch me if you can, War of the Worlds... Buf, too many errors...
Yes, i hate the frighteners too but LOTR are probably in the top 10 list of the last decade, and are probably the best fantasy films of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Dec 6, 2005 20:02:05 GMT
well Spielburg USED to make some good films... Shindlers List, ET, Jaws, close encounters but movies like the Terminal, AI and WOTW are pure crap... not saying Peter Jackson could have done a better film (as I really think lord of the rings is vastly over rated) and people forget PJ gave us the frighteners... a terrible film, its only because he had millions of dollars and junk that LOTR turned out at least 62% decent and I dont think King Kong is going to be all that good either Well I have to totally disagree there on Peter Jackson but I agree that Spielberg has made some good films in the past but I think he's certainly lost his touch now - especially when it comes to the sci fi genre. |
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Dec 6, 2005 21:47:41 GMT
I just saw the trailer for the KING KONG remake and it shows Kong being attacked by biplanes. I also saw the tv commercial for the WAR OF THE WORLDS dvd showing the aliens being attacked by helicopters firing laser-guided missiles. The KING KONG trailer did NOT show Kong atop the Empire State Building being attacked by F-117 stealth jets. If Peter Jackson can faithfully remake a classic, why couldn't Tom Cruise do the same? Well if you had F-117s attacking King Kong then you wouldn't have a King Kong for long. Besides i doubt they'd use F-117s  He obviously wants to keep in tone with the original film which is cool. Looks interesting anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by marciano on Dec 7, 2005 7:17:47 GMT
And Spielberg could wants to keep in tone with the original novel.... But money is money
|
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Dec 7, 2005 17:45:55 GMT
And Spielberg could wants to keep in tone with the original novel.... But money is money Well i'd prefer a modern adaptation whether it be WOTW, Them! or King Kong. Although for King Kong the 30's setting should be cool. |
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Dec 7, 2005 18:18:05 GMT
Hehe, laser guided bomb VS Monkey....ouch
|
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Dec 11, 2005 8:21:45 GMT
Imagine a Peter Jackson WotW. It would be about three hours long, but it would kick SSWotW in to touch!
Just take a look at the job he did with Lord of the Rings.
As for King Kong, well, GO PETER! It's a movie I have been PRAYING to be re-made. (No offense to Ray Harryhausen.)
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Dec 28, 2005 22:08:48 GMT
Imagine a Peter Jackson WotW. It would be about three hours long, but it would kick SSWotW in to touch! Just take a look at the job he did with Lord of the Rings. As for King Kong, well, GO PETER! It's a movie I have been PRAYING to be re-made. (No offense to Ray Harryhausen.) Hes not offended cause he didn't do it! |
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Dec 28, 2005 22:14:36 GMT
Speilburg is very good at creating movies he can relate to. ie modern people, contempory reference, realism etc. Shindlers list and SPR are not far from this as you would think. The weopons are around. The witnesses for technical reference.
But give him a movie that takes out of his frame of mind and reference to real world settings and I dont think he can cope! Even his sci fi has alot of modern day connections and feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Jan 7, 2006 7:05:36 GMT
No, I thought Harryhausen did the SFX on the original (I wasn't implying he directed it). I didn't want to disrespect the original master of special creature effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripodcory on Jan 9, 2006 21:00:41 GMT
my opinion is that there both good movies!
|
|
![<[Iron Man]> Avatar](http://img8.picsplace.to/img8/18/BondA.jpg)
