SoulManX
The Inspector!
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,028
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 58
On the eve of last week's Comic-Con International, I spoke to Peter Jackson about oppressed aliens, Hobbits and, most interestingly, the proliferation of remakes, sequels and adaptations in Hollywood. The interview was for a lengthy Los Angeles Times Calendar cover story previewing the San Diego expo. Only a few quotes were used in that piece; here's the full Q&A... -- Geoff Boucher
GB: Welcome to Southern California or, as we like to call it, the fiery surface of the sun...
PJ: Yes, its very hot. Ive just come from winter in New Zealand. My God, It was like stepping into a furnace yesterday. The hot wind coming off the concrete was just appalling.
GB: I saw the trailer for "District 9" and I'll be watching the whole film soon. It's looks quite compelling. You must be excited to be bringing it to San Diego.
PJ: I think one of the good things with that movie is that no one is expecting anything really. So I think one of the advantages weve had is weve sort of came out as a complete surprise which was actually quite good, really. It wasnt really planned that way but we quietly made it down to South Africa and New Zealand sort of under the radar. It was never a film that people knew about until it suddenly started getting the trailers and the posters started going around and then it was like, 'Oh my God this is a weird, little strange film.' "
GB: "District 9" is a bit of a rarity in the Comic-Con sector in that it's not an adaptation of a comic book or a toy, it's not a remake or a sequel, it's not based on an old television show....
PJ: Yeah, I guess so. I mean I guess Comic-Con in a way celebrates popular culture so its emphasis is always going to be on the culture that exists, I guess, which is clear enough. But I suppose it covers everything doesnt it? It covers movies and TV and its obviously become a place where if youve got something new its a good place to expose it to the fans.
GB: Certainly, it's a place to introduce the new and celebrate the past, but I suppose what I was suggesting is that these days it seems difficult to make a big special-effects film unless it's based on some pre-existing, known quantity in pop-culture, such as a novel, comic book, video game, TV show, toy line or previous movie. You look at the Harry Potter films, "Iron Man," "Star Trek," "Transformers"...
PJ:I mean, personally I think thats one of the most depressing things about the film industry generally today. The writers and directors should be blamed just as much as the studios because really everything seems to be a remake or adapting a 1970s TV show that was never particularly good. Why anyone thinks that it would be a good feature film now, you know, goodness knows why. And I guess its easy to say it's security that you know a studio is only prepared to put $150 million or $200 million into something if its a known quantity. But at the same time Im also aware that audiences are getting fed up with the lack of original ideas and original stories. And if you look back to the great days of "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" and those sorts of movies, they werent based on TV shows, they werent based on comics. They were inspired by them and they had DNA in them which came from years of Flash Gordon and various things in the past but nonetheless they were original. And yet we seem to be incapable as a general industry, which includes not just the studios but the filmmakers and writers and directors, we seem to be incapable of doing that now for some reason. Its a little bit depressing. But hopefully its a cycle. Everything in the film business tends to be cyclic and hopefully this all drains itself out in a couple years and well be back into original stories again.
You can read the rest here...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/her...e-fed-up-with-the-lack-of-original-ideas.html
GB: Welcome to Southern California or, as we like to call it, the fiery surface of the sun...
PJ: Yes, its very hot. Ive just come from winter in New Zealand. My God, It was like stepping into a furnace yesterday. The hot wind coming off the concrete was just appalling.
GB: I saw the trailer for "District 9" and I'll be watching the whole film soon. It's looks quite compelling. You must be excited to be bringing it to San Diego.
PJ: I think one of the good things with that movie is that no one is expecting anything really. So I think one of the advantages weve had is weve sort of came out as a complete surprise which was actually quite good, really. It wasnt really planned that way but we quietly made it down to South Africa and New Zealand sort of under the radar. It was never a film that people knew about until it suddenly started getting the trailers and the posters started going around and then it was like, 'Oh my God this is a weird, little strange film.' "
GB: "District 9" is a bit of a rarity in the Comic-Con sector in that it's not an adaptation of a comic book or a toy, it's not a remake or a sequel, it's not based on an old television show....
PJ: Yeah, I guess so. I mean I guess Comic-Con in a way celebrates popular culture so its emphasis is always going to be on the culture that exists, I guess, which is clear enough. But I suppose it covers everything doesnt it? It covers movies and TV and its obviously become a place where if youve got something new its a good place to expose it to the fans.
GB: Certainly, it's a place to introduce the new and celebrate the past, but I suppose what I was suggesting is that these days it seems difficult to make a big special-effects film unless it's based on some pre-existing, known quantity in pop-culture, such as a novel, comic book, video game, TV show, toy line or previous movie. You look at the Harry Potter films, "Iron Man," "Star Trek," "Transformers"...
PJ:I mean, personally I think thats one of the most depressing things about the film industry generally today. The writers and directors should be blamed just as much as the studios because really everything seems to be a remake or adapting a 1970s TV show that was never particularly good. Why anyone thinks that it would be a good feature film now, you know, goodness knows why. And I guess its easy to say it's security that you know a studio is only prepared to put $150 million or $200 million into something if its a known quantity. But at the same time Im also aware that audiences are getting fed up with the lack of original ideas and original stories. And if you look back to the great days of "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" and those sorts of movies, they werent based on TV shows, they werent based on comics. They were inspired by them and they had DNA in them which came from years of Flash Gordon and various things in the past but nonetheless they were original. And yet we seem to be incapable as a general industry, which includes not just the studios but the filmmakers and writers and directors, we seem to be incapable of doing that now for some reason. Its a little bit depressing. But hopefully its a cycle. Everything in the film business tends to be cyclic and hopefully this all drains itself out in a couple years and well be back into original stories again.
You can read the rest here...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/her...e-fed-up-with-the-lack-of-original-ideas.html
