The Movie Anticipation Thread.

[Animavore]

I am less inclined to judge on previous work than the current production if that were the case no one would have invested in nor gone to see Lord of the Rings..

I don't get you. Peter Jackson's previous works were great.

I never believe those things Ani unless it comes from a reliable source and certainly not someone who has never posted on IMDb before.

I am sceptic about that too.

As for COTT I can't imagine Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes or Pete Postlethwaite signing up for something shit.. it's not like they need to .. is it?

Respectively: The Phantom Menace, The Omen (remake), Red Dragon.

I want COTT to be great, I really do, but the standard of these summer blockbusters has dropped even further than I thought possible. Last year we had Terminator 4, Transformers 2 and Wolverine. All of those films sucked balls.

[JimC]

The next Harry Potter movie...

Don't all attack me at once...

[Elessarina]

I don't get you. Peter Jackson's previous works were great.

Yes but not exactly in keeping with making a family friendly big budget version of a classic and beloved piece of English literature

Respectively: The Phantom Menace, The Omen (remake), Red Dragon.

A new addition to sci-fi classic, shit I grant you, Hannibal Lector. But if you look at ANY actor's/ director's/writer's/ any person ever's history you will find less succesful or regarded films/ things they did..so that argument is pointless

[Animavore]

Yes but not exactly in keeping with making a family friendly big budget version of a classic and beloved piece of English literature

I don't see how that is relevant. He proved himself to be a good director with a mastery of special effects, the latter I've already mentioned COTT's director has. Not so good a director though with a flare for the farcical.

I can't tell whether or not it will be any good but I will certainly be holding back and let others watch it first and wait for feedback before I even consider watching it. But that's not just this film. I shall be treating all of the so-called "blockbusters" like this from now on because I refuse to waste any more cash on them after the last couple of years of complete dross.

[Elessarina]

Yes but not exactly in keeping with making a family friendly big budget version of a classic and beloved piece of English literature

I don't see how that is relevant. He proved himself to be a good director with a mastery of special effects, the latter I've already mentioned COTT's director has. Not so good a director though with a flare for the farcical.

well if it is not relevant then why is what the directors or writers of COTT did before relevant?

[Animavore]

Yes but not exactly in keeping with making a family friendly big budget version of a classic and beloved piece of English literature

I don't see how that is relevant. He proved himself to be a good director with a mastery of special effects, the latter I've already mentioned COTT's director has. Not so good a director though with a flare for the farcical.

well if it is not relevant then why is what the directors or writers of COTT did before relevant?

What? Your point was that Jackson hadn't made a family friendly film before LOTR. I said it wasn't relevant because he still made good films, and had a good writer as it happens, (same writer for almost all his films) before he made LOTR so if I had've looked at IMdB and seen Jackson's name along with the writer it would of been fair to conclude that it was going to be good to awesome.
When I look at the films COTT's director has made and the films the writers have written it is equally fair to conclude that the film should be treated with scepticism. But that's not to say I won't be surprised. In fact all of the COTT's director's films had there moments (yes, even Transporter 2) so if he's learned from past experience what works and what doesn't COTT might have all the good qualities of his films with none of the bad.

I shall still be waiting for others to watch it first.

[Elessarina]

What? Your point was that Jackson hadn't made a family friendly film before LOTR. I said it wasn't relevant because he still made good films, .

Films that you think are good.. I am not sure they are generally considered as "good" (I may be wrong) but low budget gore horror.. is a long long way from big budget fantasy epic.

[Animavore]

What? Your point was that Jackson hadn't made a family friendly film before LOTR. I said it wasn't relevant because he still made good films, .

Films that you think are good.. I am not sure they are generally considered as "good" (I may be wrong) but low budget gore horror.. is a long long way from big budget fantasy epic.

Not as far as you think. One of the things that helped Jackson get LOTR was that he had an understanding of animatronics, puppetry and special effects. He also made Heavenly Creatures which is pretty close to fantasy. It's the same principle writ large.

[Elessarina]

Not as far as you think. One of the things that helped Jackson get LOTR was that he had an understanding of animatronics, puppetry and special effects. He also made Heavenly Creatures which is pretty close to fantasy. It's the same principle writ large.

I don't think you're correct with what you said about his knowledge of puppetry and special effects being influential..New Line knew very little of his previous works when they agreed to fund LOTR -they were his last chance saloon before he flew back to NZ and gave up.. literally - it was the last afternoon before his flight back.

Heavenly Creatures was based on a real case it's hardly in the same league as LOTR.

[Animavore]

Why would a company agree to fund something that big without knowing about the director's previous work? That doesn't make sense to me.
I'll try find where I read/saw that (I think it was in an interview with Jackson either on TV or on the DVD extras but its foggy now).

[Elessarina]

Why would a company agree to fund something that big without knowing about the director's previous work? That doesn't make sense to me.
I'll try find where I read/saw that (I think it was in an interview with Jackson either on TV or on the DVD extras but its foggy now).

Another company had agreed to fund it as a one movie deal

[Animavore]

Yes I can see that on Wiki now. I can also see that Peter Jackson had his own special effects company which he set up for Heavenly Creatures and used for LOTR so it would be reasonable to assume that this would have played a part in him getting the original deal with the earlier company before New Line heard about this and decided to offer him the full trilogy.

[Elessarina]

Yes I can see that on Wiki now. I can also see that Peter Jackson had his own special effects company which he set up for Heavenly Creatures and used for LOTR so it would be reasonable to assume that this would have played a part in him getting the original deal with the earlier company before New Line heard about this and decided to offer him the full trilogy.

I read about it in the FT way back like in 2002.. I am sure i have the article still somewhere. But I am certain that when NL offered him the deal they had not seen his previous films and then viewed them subsequently... I may be wrong though..

[JimC]

This is better than any tennis match - sensational long rallies, no disputed linesman's calls...

[Elessarina]

This is better than any tennis match - sensational long rallies, no disputed linesman's calls...

I'll bring up the alien biology conversation in a bit and then Ani will moan he has a hangover..