Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jackson Comments On Gaming, Kong Sequel

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the love-that-hair dept.

Movies 58

GameDailyBiz has a piece detailing comments from Peter Jackson on next-gen gaming, and the possibility of another King Kong title. From the article: "'It'll be very interesting when a filmmaker creates a video game-based film experience that goes beyond what people thought it could be,' continued Jackson, who is executive producing the Halo film with special effects from the brilliant WETA team. 'For example, music videos were originally just musicians playing music while being recorded on video so people could watch them, but now they are elaborate short movies that do everything from interpret the song through the medium of visual art to communicating political statements.'"

cancel ×

58 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Kong sequels? Please god no! (3, Funny)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779354)

I just can't take a remake of King Kong Lives! [imdb.com] .

Mind you, King Kong vs Godzilla [imdb.com] I could stand. Although given the Empire State turn of events, that would rather have to be a prequel wouldn't it...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779525)

As long as it's not King Kong vs American Godzilla [imdb.com] . *shudder*

Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779534)

Fucking right!

I'd love to see a game based on Meeet the Feebles [imdb.com] .

Get cracking, Mr. Jackson! How can you go wrong with a game based on a movie that featured a puppet singing the following song?


You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy

Don't worry if you feel ashamed
It's been around for years
Thousands more than can be named
Are interested in rears
Don't worry about hell
No harm will come to your soul
We're not all Pentacostal
But everybody's got an asshole

Let me tell ya 'bout sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy

It might just improve your sex
It's a hard act to follow
The fact that fundamentalists
Find difficult to swallow
So join me as I sing
Of an activity that's fun
Open up your ring
And try it front to bum
Bum-bum
Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum

Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy

SODOMY!

Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779657)

>I just can't take a remake of King Kong Lives!.

Agreed. Stupifyingly bad. Worse than Lady Caroline Lamb [imdb.com] .

>Mind you, King Kong vs Godzilla I could stand.

How about Kong vs. one of the Nazgul's winged beasts? I know the Nazgul all flew into Mount Doom at the end, but they must have had a hatchery somewhere.

Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779911)

I would love to see Daryl Hannah doing a similar role than in Kill Bill, but impersonating again the 50ft woman [imdb.com] , this time vs King Kong. 3 Sequels in one, that should be great (or at least, gigantic).

Yes Jackson (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779357)

Lets beat that dead horse. Didn't make enough money off King Kong compared to LOTR, so lets franchise it to death. Perhaps the next King Kong game will actually be beta tested so that you can actually see it playing on next gen consoles.

Re:Yes Jackson (1)

Grench (833454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783446)

In what way were the graphical failings of the King Kong game for the X-Box 360 any fault of Peter Jackson?

Re:Yes Jackson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789184)

Actually, I thought the game looked fantastic on 360. It was dark but I didn't think it was too dark. If anything, I think the Ubisoft's admission that the 360 was just a cover for all the bugs the game had - namely the scripted events getting themselves into a screwed up state so that you couldn't continue on in the game without resetting and restarting from your last save. Aside from that, I still thought the game was incredibly intense and atmophsheric, if a bit repetitive and short.

Beyond? (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779385)

It'll be very interesting when a filmmaker creates a video game-based film experience that goes beyond what people thought it could be

Easy to say since most of the previous game-to-movie adaptions were utter shit... We're not expecting anything anymore.

Re:Beyond? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779868)

Chronicles of Riddick: Butcher Bay

Re:Beyond? (1)

beetlefeet (866517) | more than 8 years ago | (#14791120)

Riddick didn't start out as a game.

What is your point?

Hmmm...

Validation (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779390)

It's good to see a major player in Hollywood acknowledge that games are still in the infancy of their role as a medium. Every time we have another person like Jackson weighing in on the side of games as a legitimate source of entertainment and expression, we get a little closer to the media putting an end to their projected ignorance and real public understanding.

Music videos - wrong (3, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779423)

> For example, music videos were originally just musicians playing music while being recorded on video.

This is wrong.
Early music videos/films include "Strawberry Fields Forever" by The Beatles which wsa the fab four being arty in a field.
The canonical "first" music video was "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen which heralded the mega-bucks music videos of Duran Duran, and the launch of MTV. The Eighties bands competed with each other to be more and more extravagant.

Live performance videos are really just a cheapskate way to make a video. The artists and not the record company pay for their own promotion, including having any videos comissioned. Decent directors for music videos command a high fee and film making in general is expensive if it is on a commercial basis. (and add 15% if you need liability insurance for your shoot).

You don't get much $ for having your video played on MTV, I think I got $150 for the two I had played on MTV Europe (albeit at 1am Sunday =)

Re:Music videos - wrong (1)

foonus (950198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779530)

Actually, early music videos go much earlier than that. Arguably the first were created by Oskar Fischinger [wikipedia.org] in the 1920s. Not too long afterwards came music videos by the Fleischer Brothers, such as Snow White [wikipedia.org] , starring Betty Boop and Cab Calloway. Neither of these examples is anything like what Jackson describes.

Re:Music videos - wrong (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779726)

True, I have a VHS of plenty of Fischinger's work whcih I used to use during my live VJ days.

Indeed, you can also include Disney's Fantasia, back when they innovated.

There is also some of The Monkees work when they got more creative control, particularly Head.

Perhaps Jackson meant video as in tape rather than the film based material pre 1980s.

Or maybe back in NZ no-one made any music videos that weren't just the band on stage =)

Re:Music videos - wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14785896)

It is my understanding that in India, the "Bollywood" area produces vast numbers of full-length films that mostly are nothing but music videos. So, Jackson is incorrect in specifying "short movies".

Re:Music videos - wrong (2, Interesting)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779556)

Not to mention that the very first music video on MTV was the very high-concept "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles.

The very first video I ever saw (before NBC got off the ground with "Friday Night Videos" IIRC) was the Talking Heads video for "Once in a Lifetime", in which David Byrne was doing his famously quirky dance moves in front of a white background, with the aid of various cheesy video effects.

DEVO's first album was intended to be a video art project, sold on VHS. It never got off the ground, but they managed to use their material to create some seriously messed-up videos on MTV.

Peter Jackson is clearly remembering it wrong.

Heck, you could even go back to the Elvis & Beatles movies.

Back even further, to black & white footage of Leadbelly playing his guitar by night while wearing a prison uniform.

Re:Music videos - wrong (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780142)

I read that one of the first music videos was done by The Three Stooges [3-stooges.com] :

This song, sung in "Violent is the Word for Curly", was called "Swingin' the Alphabet". It happens to be, officially, the first "music video", in that the sound track was recorded in a studio, and the actors would lipsync to the playback during filming.

Hobbit (3, Funny)

twd (167101) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779431)

Just get busy making the Hobbit, please.

Re:Hobbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779472)

No shit. Nobody (as the box-office receipts will attest) gives much of a shit about some big-ass gorilla in 2006.

king kong is not a failure (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779592)

dude, the film has grossed $542,681,518 worldwide.

Re:king kong is not a failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779974)

Too bad they spent 200 million on marketing and expected to gross a billion eh?

Re:king kong is not a failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14781197)

That's not what IMDB says (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business [imdb.com] ). Looks like it has barely broken even, neglecting marketing costs which are typically as much as the production itself.

Re:king kong is not a failure (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14781499)

look at box office mojo (www.boxofficemojo.com). That's where I got the number from. The world

Re:king kong is not a failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14781800)

You're only looking at US returns, not worldwide.

Re:Hobbit (1)

zephc (225327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779578)

my thoughts exactly! mod points for this post's parent.

Re:Hobbit (2, Insightful)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779659)

Or, God forbid, something new and refreshingly original. You know, something Hollywood has been lacking? Lord of the Rings proved he's a super duper director, let him loose on something other than a remake.

Re:Hobbit (1)

valintin (30311) | more than 8 years ago | (#14788433)

New and original? What are you talking about? "King Kong" is a remake of a remake. Halo2 isn't new or original.

He's proven to be good at visualizing other people's source material so why doesn't he get on with completing the Hobbit before the principal actors die off. Nothing wrong with him working on a complete series.

Copyright license is not available (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779873)

Just get busy making the Hobbit, please.

It won't happen until at least 2024 in Canada, and then you won't get to see it in the United States until 2033 or in Europe and Australia until 2044. I seem to remember reading that Tolkien Enterprises is not likely to authorize film prequels because Christopher Tolkien didn't like the story changes in the 2000s film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

Re:Hobbit (1)

Avatar8 (748465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787555)

I agree, but as Tepples pointed out, the Tolkien estate refuses to relinquish the rights.

I can't say as I blame Christopher. "The Hobbit" was written for he and his brother(s?). It's much more personal to him than LotR.

I was completely divided on the LotR movies. I truly enjoyed seeing Jackson's vision of Tolkien's writings brought to life. However, the massive changes and ommissions were inexcusable.

Perhaps the Tolkien estate can work with Jackson and his writers and come to a compromise: stick to the book AND make it a great film.

He's pretty conventional (0)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779438)

So let's see, what kind of groundbreaking approaches could we expect from Mr. Jackson?

"I think that intrinsically, most video games, and virtually all movies, do one basic thing: tell stories... (Y)ou still have characters, plot, environments, dialogue, or types of interactions and this is standard fare."

"Each new console amazes me with the graphics, sound, and what video game makers can accomplish," he said. "I definitely see improved graphics and sound as continuously positive attributes for consideration among the Hollywood community. Actors will look more 'life-like' in HD and the sound continues to get closer to the theatrical movie experience -- this makes it easier to provide sound effects, artwork, and talent when you, as a filmmaker, know that the final game will be a strong representation of the film."

"I'm excited that with the new hardware and such amazing leaps forward in technology, I may be able to experience games that even I can't imagine..."

He also uses music videos as an example of the kind of innovation he means.

Does it sound like it'd take that much to push this guy's imagination, though, anyway? Does any of this sound especially amazing to anyone? He lauds new consoles not because of anything new they do, but because they're technically faster. (Ooh, life-line actors.) His ideas about interactive stories don't seem as open-ended as, say, the "Fallout" RPGs.

I guess it doesn't amaze me to see him hinting at a sequel as the parting shot teaser for this article... Oh joy, a sequel to your movie tie-in game.

(For that matter about halfway through the "Fellowship" movie I got pretty sick of the screaming CGI orcs. But leave that alone.)

maybe games have reached a critical threshold... (3, Interesting)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779529)

The difference between current and next-gen games is significantly reduced relative to the leaps of generations past. It's possible we've reached a critical juncture of gaming evolution, where the next step in video games require not so much advances in rendering graphics and quality sound, but in interfacing specifically.

That's why Nintendo's experiment with their controller is risky and interesting. Ultimately, gaming has matured - for the most part, genres are cemented and experience evolutionary tweaks that refine a preexisting gaming experience. The next step involves interfacing, i.e. how the gamer interacts with the game.

We respond with our eyes, ears, and tactile sense now. But what happens when we can control our characters the way we control our own bodies - i.e. with a direct neural interface? When we feel the pain of a bullet or are rewarded with a rush of endorphins? The next step in gaming is to eliminate the obvious disconnect between the real experience and virtual one. The direct neural interface - brain-gaming is going to be the next killer ap. brain-gaming - brain-teaching - how quickly can you teach a child using direct interfacing mapped onto their brains?

I'm not sure how many generations away from this we are - but I can imagine that this world is an amazingly different place.

How about this: imagine a company that makes its money by inserting a neural interface in free ranging tigers - the neural interface can be mapped to any person so you can briefly experience what it feels like to be a tiger - or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.

Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780150)

>> or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.

Never give a psychopath control of a tiger!

Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (1)

aphor (99965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780753)

How about this: imagine a company that makes its money by inserting a neural interface in free ranging tigers - the neural interface can be mapped to any person so you can briefly experience what it feels like to be a tiger - or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.

Or better yet, why not use those brain-scan beams the NSA is using to detect terrorist intentions at the Superbowl? You could wire the signals right into another person's brain for interperetation. Later it could be commercialized and they could wire it into movie cameras. Instead of just watching John Malkovitch, you could try being John Malkovitch....

Uh... never mind. That would suck.

Hmmm... Sucks... http://www.google.com/search?q=teledildonics [google.com]

Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780834)

i don't know why you're down on the man for lacking originality, his forte is artful interpretation of high quality source material, something he has done far better than 99% of the other people that mine books/real life events for their art, but a fount of originality he neither is nor has claimed to be

Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14781979)

Dude. Sounds like you're Overdrawn at the Memory Bank [imdb.com] .

I'll go out on a small limb and predict that we will *never* have direct mind to game interfaces in the manner you describe. Directly manipulating the sensation of pain or level of endorphins? That's insane. Do you really want to play a game that would give you post-traumatic stress disorder?

Teaching children via mind-interface? Are you out of your mind? Our brains are extraordinarily complicated beings, capable of processing tons of information at once in a mechanism we aren't even close to understanding. Directly manipulating it would be like tuning a computer processor with a hammer.

Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14782418)

I disagree with you. I not only think we will have direct mind to game interfaces, but as usual, porn will pave the way. Re: level of endorphins - we do it all the time - modulate our moods and endorphin levels with drugs, diet, exercise, etc. Feeling the cold when playing a winter scene or feeling the water when I wade through muck isn't likely to give me PTSD - nor is stimulating the olfactories to add to the experience.

Going to an athletic event might be more like paying to jack into your favorite player's neural net as opposed to just sitting courtside.

I know its going to happen.

We've just tapped the surface of the genome - but we're already swapping parts in and out - from species to species... upgrading and downgrading and organ-farming and the like. Humans will do it. It's what we do.

Video Games Love Sequels (3, Interesting)

UberMench (906076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779570)

I know King Kong was hyped... the video game was hyped... and they both lasted about the same amount of time, but I enjoyed the few hours I got to play King Kong. Sure, spearing your way through 16,712 bats, caterpillars, and tiny-dinos got repetitive and was ridiculously easy, but I like to think of it as foreplay. You spend the majority of your time doing a tedious repetitive action and then as a reward, you get some quality time with your furry prize. In this case, that just so happens to be a 25 foot gorilla. But man, was using flying elbow drops and shoulder charges to kill "V" Rexes awesome. And smashing through a city, although brief and linear, was tons o' fun. So Petey, if you'll give us more monkey in the sequel, and less whiney screenplay writer, we'll keep playing.

Re:Video Games Love Sequels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779584)

Sure, spearing your way through 16,712 bats, caterpillars, and tiny-dinos got repetitive and was ridiculously easy, but I like to think of it as foreplay. You spend the majority of your time doing a tedious repetitive action and then as a reward, you get some quality time with your furry prize.

OK, that was good.

link to the real article (1)

sleepophile (568417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779603)

This [yahoo.com] is the real article .The story linked to is a summary of the original article.Why would you link to an article that links to the original interview?

Jackson is delusional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779832)

First thing first, who says he can direct for gods sake. Inlcuding SEVERAL MINUTES of characters walking across the mountains (LOTR) is not smart directing, making a movie 3 hours long in average doesn't make the movie any better.

Second, who liked King Kong?, it sucked from minute one, having Jack Black as the star was a major error.

Somebody make him a favor and tell him to get off showbusiness before is too late.

Sure I'm not a movie director but I'm more important than that, I'm a consumer, the one that pays and contributes to these guys way of living, I'm their fucking boss like it or not, stand up and fight this kind of crap.

Heres a comment on a King Kong sequel (1)

AzraelKans (697974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780128)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Seriously, Kong wasnt that bad,it was decent for a monster movie, but thats that. Everybody knows the next King Konk movies SUCKED big time, purely sticking to the success of the first, no one wants to see them EVER again.

What about enders game? the hobbit, Halo (he is producing it anyway) even a remake of Excalibur (which is almost on the line of LOTR anyway) are much better ideas , Hell! why not a new script? Why do they even have to make remakes of old movies or books? Peter Jackson is ultra famous, he gets to put his name in the poster of the movie (and the name of the game based on the movie) and attract people with it!

Not a movie sequel (1)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780851)

Seriously, Kong wasnt that bad,it was decent for a monster movie, but thats that. Everybody knows the next King Konk movies SUCKED big time, purely sticking to the success of the first, no one wants to see them EVER again.

Jeez, no kidding. Talk about exploitation in the worst way possible; take a cheesy '70s movie based on a cheesy (but very influential) '30s movie, and make some terrble derivative pap.

However, I think he's referring to a video game sequel, not a movie sequel. Peter Jackson has more integrity than *that*.

I hope.

Peter Jackson's role as Executive Producer in Halo (4, Insightful)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780192)

Ugh, I know it must seem like a pedantic point to some, but his role as "Executive Producer" is much less interesting than some of us would like to believe. So far, Jackson has usually been the director, producer, and/or screenwriter for all of his movies. With "Executive Producer" the role implies a certain kind of vagueness. Usually, it means they deal with the business side of the film (financing) although they sometimes can leave their own imprint on things (for example, Bruckheimer and CSI). It doesn't mean Halo is his next movie, it doesn't even mean he's very artistically involved with it. At best, we'll see some Jackson-esque touches, at worst he was just paid a lot of money to have his name attached to the film and just occasionally acts as a go-between the different parties.

As far as the article? Jackson says "I definitely see improved graphics and sound as continuously positive attributes for consideration among the Hollywood community. Actors will look more 'life-like' in HD and the sound continues to get closer to the theatrical movie experience." If he had used the terms "rich medium" or "consumer-centric" I could've gotten Bingo on this Buzzwords Bingo tablet I have. It's also a dead giveaway that the interview was done via email, not by phone or in-person.

Re:Peter Jackson's role as Executive Producer in H (1)

BForrester (946915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14781791)

At least Halo won't be directed by Uwe Boll. Finally a good title that I won't suddenly need to hate because of a lacklustre bigscreen spinoff. If WETA is involved, and Jackson is willing to stamp his name on it, at least it'll be worth watching for the production values.

Re:Peter Jackson's role as Executive Producer in H (1)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14785285)

I actually have high hopes for it. It's being co-written between the game writer and the writer of 28 Days Later and The Beach (which has a video-game dream sequence at the end). And the director is Guillermo del Toro who's did Hellboy and some other good films in Spain.

I Vote For... (1)

KnarfO (320113) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780299)

a cage match between Kong, Mecha-Kong, and Ali G [67.172.249.234] :-)

The game was better. (2, Insightful)

syberanarchy (683968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780684)

Honestly, Jackson personifies what is wrong with the current state of Hollywood. A graduate of the George Lucas school of filmmaking (BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER), he decided the best way to follow up a movie trilogy lasting 12+ hours was to remake an 88 minute movie about a giant ape into a THREE HOUR EPIC.

Please, give me a break. We all know you're good with a camera. Now try to learn about telling a story with some efficiency. If your movie is going to be nothing but 3 hours of Weta jerking themselves off on film, why not just make your movie a video game and be done with it?

Oh, wait, they did make Kong into a game, and it was so good and so immersive in ways the movie never could have been (especially in HD + 5.1) that after playing, I don't care if I EVER see the movie. If I'm going to watch a three hour movie, it better be more than just "kill/evade exotic beasts on a remote island, reach the boss lair, save the princess." If that's your storyline, what you have is a video game, not a movie.

Now, I'll wait for all the slashtrolls to come out and wave all the money Kong made in my face; as if that's any measure of the product's actual quality.

Not Kong. (1)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780822)

Now, I'll wait for all the slashtrolls to come out and wave all the money Kong made in my face; as if that's any measure of the product's actual quality.

Jackson did Kong because he could, and not for any other reason. It was like a director masturbating on film, and us just lapping it up. And I liked it a lot.

But, if you want to see Jackson as his story-telling best, watch _Heavenly Creatures_. If you are human, you will be stunned about the time the credits start rolling. Amazing movie. Just fucking amazing.

LOTR was good, no doubt about it. Perhaps a bit self-indulgent (though no Kong), but good. Jackson has already proven himself a spare story-teller; now he's just showing off.

I can't blame him one bit.

I guess I'll have to get the Kong game, based on your recommendation.

Re:Not Kong. (1)

geordieboy (515166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14785690)

I afraid I thought Heavenly Creatures was shit. The girls were just unbelievably annoying and acted in such a fake way, I couldn't stand it.

Totally agree, Jackson's overblown (1)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784159)

We all know you're good with a camera. Now try to learn about telling a story with some efficiency.

After the second LOTR title, I decided it wasn't worth it to go back for Return of the King. Not only did Jackson introduce a whole lot of surfing-on-the-shield bozoness, he also spent roughly half of the first two movies shoving screaming CGI-ified orcs in my face. In particular his direction of dialog, which is hardly a strength of the Tolkien originals anyway, stunk like a wet sock drawer. My patience for declarative sentences -- "And so.... It Begins!" -- was at an all-time low after movie number two.

The real miracle with those movies wasn't Jackson, it was that someone shelled out the coin to make a well-produced version of the stories. The direction was mediocre at best.

For my money one director who really can make a difference would be Christopher Nolan, of "Memento" and "Following" indie reputation. I haven't seen "Batman Begins" or "Insomnia," but I'm curious because Nolan did stuff on a shoestring that Hollywood can't make happen by pouring money on projects.

Jackson's just a case of the money-pouring approach. His completely conventional comparisons between games and film here show that, again. Ooh, the new consoles are more powerful, so we can show more realistic looking actors...

Re:The game was better. (1)

Pitr (33016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14787125)

I don't care if I EVER see the movie.

So... you haven't seen the movie you're bashing?

Honestly, Jackson personifies what is wrong with the current state of Hollywood.

Are you sure you don't mean Uwe Boll?

Seriously, Jackson is a hell of a director, and if there were more like him, movies would suck much less. Don't get me wrong, 3 hours is a bit much for Kong. Jackson could stand to "rein it in a little", but that's the harshest criticism I think he deserves.

Re:The game was better. (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789406)

How is Jackson a good director? His films are just pure cheese, with cartoonish special effects and dialogue that clunks like a safe falling on a tank. Not to mention plenty of ham acting.

The main achievement with LOTR is that it got made at all, it probably would have been better with someone like Coppola or Spielberg in charge.

Re:The game was better. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797938)

Jeez dude, even when you're right you're wrong. I happen to share your dislike of Jackson's work. As you say, his dialogue sucks, and his overall stories are pretty lame. But anybody who thinks the special effects in his movies are "cartoonish" has their head up their ass.

Re:The game was better. (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14799123)

What that King Kong running around and tell me that looks realistic. It's like something out of Shrek.

Now that's a game console (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780762)

I may be able to experience games that even I can't imagine.

Sweet! A game console that dispenses hallucinogenic drugs directly into your bloodstream.

Translation: (1)

GhaleonStrife (916215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14781384)

"I like your money. Please send me more so that I may rehash something else and take credit for it as my own."

how hard is it (0, Offtopic)

clackerd (797052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14781911)

...to get a wireless keyboard with a modified case that sits comfortably on your lap to market? i hope infinium sticks around a little longer, as the stories about them just keep getting more and more entertaining. if all slashdotters pitched in $5, think of the ammo we would have in the comment section for months to come! go infinium! go infinium!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>