That's like someone else playing Han Solo in Return of the Jedi after the first 2 Star Wars movies. PJ did the best possible job on LotR, better than anyone else even thought possible. Why would you get another director/writer, ANYONE, to do a prequel to LotR? It would be like what happened with the Star Wars prequels.... huh, what? The SAME guy that did the originals wrote those too? Wow, what happened?
Don't know if that Solo example is really applicable...
What would be applicable is arguing about directors (like you sorta said), and arguing something like a different director coming in after the first Star Wars movie was succesfully directed by George Lucas.
...wait a sec...George Lucas didn't direct Empire Strikes Back (which is the best of the bunch).
Originally posted by Strangelove
I think that's more indicative of the studio's infatuation with him after LotR than Jackson himself having a ego.And King Kong wasn't a terrible film, just long. Come to think of it, I still haven't finished it
One scene I'll point out in particular is when Naomi Watts was dancing in front of Kong like an idiot and Kong pushes her over and laughs ridiculously. If any other director did that, he would never find work again. But because it's Peter Jackson, people praise him for it.
Peter Jackson's King Kong is a very good film, long, but none the less a sold film, and I simply do not understand people getting irritated by it.
Someone mentioned that Empire Strikes Back (the best of the SW bunch) wasn't directed by George Lucas, but by Eric Kershner, and yes, that is true; but there is a difference between hadning over a franchise to a well respected yet mostly unsung director like Kershner, and a mogul like Raimi.
I may be biased, I find the Spiderman films (as so far) to be particuarly drab and gormless, but I just don't believe Raimi should touch something like the Hobbit. We could have any Phantom Menace travesty on our hands.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I just don't believe Raimi should touch something like the Hobbit. We could have any Phantom Menace travesty on our hands.
All you keep pointing to is "Spiderman"..."Spiderman"
...are you aware of his back-catalogue?
And even 2 years before Spiderman, Raimi was still making movies like "The Gift" (which is an R-rated thriller, and a decent film)
He is a versatile director.
Lucas on the other hand says Star Wars movies (which are almost all of his movies) are for kids.
Yes, I am aware of his back catalogue, but I don't see any franchises inbred to pop culture in there. I am merely setting a scenario with Spiderman; this is what he done with Spiderman, yes it's succesful, and most people seem to enjoy it, but it's not who I want directing one of my favourite childhood books.
Originally posted by WolfieOkay, but that still doesn't indicate an ego on Peter Jackson's part. It indicates the studio's willingness to forgive him. Lots of famous, great directors have made bad films. Steven Spielberg, for instance. That guy has an ego.
That's where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, King Kong [B]is a terrible film.One scene I'll point out in particular is when Naomi Watts was dancing in front of Kong like an idiot and Kong pushes her over and laughs ridiculously. If any other director did that, he would never find work again. But because it's Peter Jackson, people praise him for it. [/B]
Originally posted by Strangelove
Okay, but that still doesn't indicate an ego on Peter Jackson's part. It indicates the studio's willingness to forgive him. Lots of famous, great directors have made bad films. Steven Spielberg, for instance. [b]That guy has an ego. [/B]
AND he can make crap films with the worst of them! i.e. War of the Worlds
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes, I am aware of his back catalogue, but I don't see any franchises inbred to pop culture in there. I am merely setting a scenario with Spiderman; this is what he done with Spiderman, yes it's succesful, and most people seem to enjoy it...
I guess it's like Speilberg taking Kubrik's film A.I., going with what's worked best, and then making a mess of it like he did 'cause he's kind of a nerd.
Like that?
Woah woah woah. Now let's not get too in love with ourselves shall we?
A.I, War of the Worlds, King Kong; they are all good films, no, they aren't Jaws, there not Close Ecnounters, Schindlers List or what have you, but you simply can't call them terrible, bad or crap. I don't know why you fancy being so general about them; they are good films, not seminal classics, but I'd rather watch one of those mentioned as crap than a Micheal Bay film 9sorry to pick on ya mickey), another Saw film, or yet another Marvel comics adaptation.
I'm not someone who will overlook a films flaws just because it has Spielberg on the directors credit, or Jackson, but even these directors worst is simply above what many others try to achieve. And yes, I realise your not completely serious when you mock a film like War of the Worlds, but show a little more thought.
That's my rant over. I apoligise.
None of those are terrible, in the same way Michael Bay's crap is...I'm just making a comparison between someone who is prone to mess up a movie because of what's worked best with him in their recent past and on a public scale (like you said Raimi might do) and like I said Speilberg did.
A lot of A.I was total Speilberg...the guy freakin loves harping on "message" in his movies...(even if indeed there was a message to be told in A.I.). Kubrick would've pulled it off a lot better as a Kubrick film...
...ahhh...I could only imagine.
And yes, King Kong and War of the Worlds aren't bad films...they just fell short.