 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 27, 2005 - 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Greg Bryant
(Member)
|
Seems like this report is the standard operating procedure for the studios. Its all part of the marketing spin to get word of mouth out about the movie.
So many films get this kind of spin, becuase they might be "troubled" productions. The film already has a guarenteed audience in Peter Jackson fans. And instead of hurting the film, it actually increases the box office by attracting the crossover viewers that the studio really is aiming for.
Why would Universal publicly proclaim that their film is in trouble? On face value, it would hurt the films prospects. No, if the film was truly troubled, they would release it without saying anything, no advance screenings for critics, that sort of thing.
No, Universal is going for the "auto accident" effect. If they claim that its troubled, then more people will show up to gawk, just like people do at the scene of an auto accident.
I think this film's box-office is all but guaranteed. Why they chose to replace Howard Shore is probably a story we'll never know the true story to.
Of course, James Newton Howard also replaced Mark Isham on that other famously overbudgeted "troubled" film from Universal, Waterworld.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 (some non-film composers, I believe)
2001 (did North score any of the prehistoric sequences -- I can't recall)
Yep, in fact, most of the music North wrote was for the first half of the movie. He didn't score the journey of the discovery to Jupiter, or the "Jupiter and Beyond" sequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 hrs????????
Is Godzilla going to make an appearance and fight Kong once they get to New York?
On Skull Island will Denham find Son Of Kong and Peter Jackson knocks two movies out for the price of one?
3 hrs???? Wow I expecting this to run 2hrs at the most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 27, 2005 - 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
David Maxx
(Member)
|
Universal Pictures took a daring leap, paying [Jackson] $20 million to direct, produce and be the co-writer of the film...the extra length has helped increase the budget by a third, to $207 million...
That's insane!
[Jackson] said the extra effects shot would cost "considerably below $32 million."
...for JUST an effects shot. That, my friends, is why they don't have the time or money to release old scores. I realize something like this is going to sell more than an album of Williams' FAMILY PLOT, but come on!!
Hollywood has been struggling this year at the box office, with overall revenue down more than half a billion dollars, about 8 percent, from last year's total
Boo hoo.
Industry experts attribute the decline to a migration of audiences to other forms of electronic entertainment, whether television, DVD's, video games or the Internet.
That's right, blame everybody but the culprits. Perhaps if they stopped making shitty movies and got people like James Cameron back, they could save their asses. That man, IMHO, is the epitome of making a hit movie that is also good!
Mr. Jackson...was granted an unusual degree of control at a time when studios are trimming costs and tightening their grips on most productions.
[Alicia Silverstone]As if![/Alicia Silverstone]
I hope KING KONG flops. I really do. I am immensely curious as to what they'd do to save face afterwards. On the other hand, if it succeeds (assuming because it is actually good, and not just big and loud), that would be just as relieving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and one reason why there is NO Bigfoot or Abominable Snowman/Yeti or anything like that is that besides the fact that the concept is ridiculous from a common sense point-of-view, there is no way a big ape could possibly have survived for millions of years without leaving a very prominent fossil trail like all the other fossil apes/men we have tons of evidence for.
________________
You mean... there really is NOT a galaxy far far away? No Yoda? Oh Sweet Mother Mary Of God!
________________
If Jackson had been smart, and done like he said he was going to do, he would have followed his LOTR success with a SMALL film.
I agree with one of the other posts here... I want reality back in the movies... I want sets and matt paintings ala Blade Runner or Alien for my fantasy films... and I want SCRIPTS with real dialogue and stories.
I don't want to see these sorry ass things like the(recent)Mummy or League of Extrao. Gentl. All over blown CGI films with no content. CGI has been greatly mishandled (and now so easy to spot)... these last couple of decades will date themselves horribly, where as the giant ants in THEM! may not suit everyone's taste for a well contructed critter, they still play real enough for me in a story that is more mystery than "spectacular". Spectacular=flop more often than not.
There's that old saying "One's eyes were bigger than their stomach" which can so easily apply to Hollywood today.
Mr. Jackson should have done a film big on character, not big on superannuated ape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, James Newton Howard also replaced Mark Isham on that other famously overbudgeted "troubled" film from Universal, Waterworld.
Which is a GREAT score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I've never come close to seeing an artist working at this level."
Thus spake Universal executive Marc Shmuger. What is he, twelve? To make a statement like that just reflects what is wrong with the movie business today - it's run by nincompoops. However, if this film tanks, none of the quoted executives at Universal will be working there anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 27, 2005 - 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike Esssss
(Member)
|
With regard to the Universal suits coming down on Jackson, this part of the article jumped out at me most:
"... But few elements of the film have been seen by the larger public, and even Universal executives saw a finished version of King Kong's face - with its expressive eyes, broadly fierce nose and mane of computer-generated hair - only in recent days ..."
Reading between the lines, as Ford suggested, I would take this to mean that the suits, even in light of their huge investment, have been relatively hands off. Forget the actors, Kong is the star of this picture. And his "salary" is taking up the biggest chunk of the production budget. For the suits not to see their star all gussied up and ready for his close up (ie, where their money is going) tells me that they actually are giving Jackson the latitude the article talks about.
And if they were really, genuinely unhappy with the film, do you think they would allow the three hour cut to stand? You can talk about doing reshoots, replacing composers, what have you, but the cheapest and quickest way to change a film is to edit it. I think the three hour length is a vote of confidence.
Having said all that, I don't think the article gives you any clues about the Shore situation. No one's heard any music. No one's sat in on meetings with Jackson and Shore. According to Jackson it was a creative decision and they parted ways on the project amicably. Why is that not enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to seeing KING KONG anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the article gives you any clues about the Shore situation.
And you'd be mistaken..
The Clues are this
The Film Is Over Buget runs far too long for the Studio's tastes, but their Deal with Jackson won't allow them to cut it down and if they did they'd get awful press..
Also three hour films as a rule aren't very popular with Theaters because they can only show it maybe 4 four times a day as opposed to a 2 hour film they can show 6 Times a day.
LORD OF THE RINGS-RETURN OF THE KINGS and TITANIC were the exceptions that proved the rule.
Also, when folks hear that a movie is THREE HOURS LONG, you'd be amazed at how that can turn off the average person.
The other IMPORTANT clue is that Jackson needed them to pay certain bills and they wanted some changes, the music being one them.
Remeber THE GOLDEN RULE..
HE OR SHE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES..
The fact that Shore was replaced not long after viewing the film in New Zealand and that it clearly was a choice made very high up the food chain...
The bottomline is that they have a 207 Million Dollar 3 Hour film that someone has concerns about at UNIVERSAL...
At this late stage of the game they can only do TWO THINGS
1.) Reedit the film (which given Jackson's contact might not be very possible)
2.) Change the music and get a more EXCITING SCORE then what Jackson had wanted...
As for this fantasy that JACKSON fans will flock ot the film, there aren't that many...
Remember people went to see THE LORD OF THE RINGS, not a Peter Jackson film...
They might well not turn out for this one...
Only time will tell.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that Peter Jackson doesn't have a fan crowd big enough to carry King Kong all by itself (there is no director who does, not even Steven Spielberg, and he's as big as it gets), and people certainly went to see The Lord Of The Rings and not the latest Peter Jackson movie. However, if Universal has given Peter Jackson such an enormous amount of freedom, and if the execs gave their blessing to a three hour cut of the film, I do not think it to be very likely that they were the ones replacing Howard Shore with James Newton Howard. If you are that deep into the water, you have to swim. It does not appear likely that Universal is going to honor the "final cut" agreement with Jackson but then goes ahead pissing of Jackson by firing (or insiting on firing) his composer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This always happens. A director makes a smash hit, and then producers stand in line to throw money at him, assuming his next film will be a similar smash, and it rarely is. Billy Wilder followed SUNSET BOULEVARD with ACE IN THE HOLE. Michael Cimino created the marvelous THE DEER HUNTER, and followed it up by wrecking United Artists with HEAVEN'S GATE. Further examples abound.
Like Close Encounters after Jaws (then 1941 after Close Encounters.) And The Conversation after The Godfather. And ??? after Titanic.
Hmm. Maybe that isn't a trend to be concerned about...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
