Peter Jackson returns to the fantasy genre

[Cyrusbales]

OK, try to detect where you gave out that impression...

He filmed around making effects, this restricted his creativity. He used very plain filmic language, no interesting shots, the image was quite oftne plain, he didn't shoot it badly, he just shot it. It was boring from a directorial point of veiw, yes he put in effort, but everyone did on the movie, it was a multi million blockbuster, so of course other people were involved and they all worked hard! And as it's nearly 2am, I shall resume this discussion another time, good night and good luck.

 

[SilentType]

He filmed around making effects, this restricted his creativity. He used very plain filmic language, no interesting shots, the image was quite oftne plain, he didn't shoot it badly, he just shot it. It was boring from a directorial point of veiw, yes he put in effort, but everyone did on the movie, it was a multi million blockbuster, so of course other people were involved and they all worked hard! And as it's nearly 2am, I shall resume this discussion another time, good night and good luck.

I'm not arguing with you, I was pointing out that you originally gave the impression that you didn't think Jackson did much work.

 

[The Shape]

Um, because acting IS the most important aspect of a film. Pretty pictures and good technical production mean nothing if the acting is poor. Whereas good acting can save a poorly framed shot.

Yeah, and telling a good, cohesive story doesn't matter all that much, as long as the actors are good. They can save poorly framed shots, after all.

:

 

[sithgoblin]

Yeah, and telling a good, cohesive story doesn't matter all that much, as long as the actors are good. They can save poorly framed shots, after all.

:

What the hell? The actors are the means by which the story is told.

 

[Edd Extraordinaire]

What the hell? The actors are the means by which the story is told.

Nobody should backtalk Sithgoblin.

 

[sithgoblin]

Punk ass kid, who just happens to run a film production company? I like the way you resorted to insults there, really mature

And there's a huge different between making a nine minute short and three three hour epics. If you are involved in the industry you should know how hard directing is. Or maybe not, if you're just a production manager.

And I would love to see these shorts your company has made.

 

[sithgoblin]

Nobody should backtalk Sithgoblin.

 

[Cyrusbales]

And there's a huge different between making a nine minute short and three three hour epics. If you are involved in the industry you should know how hard directing is. Or maybe not, if you're just a production manager.

And I would love to see these shorts your company has made.

Well the feature is released in England in Feb, pick it up at a DVD store or select cinema.

 

[Cyrusbales]

What the hell? The actors are the means by which the story is told.

Ok, how about....2001: a space oddysey, the actors weren't the main focus, the story was told through other means.

 

[sithgoblin]

Well the feature is released in England in Feb, pick it up at a DVD store or select cinema.

Well I asked about your shorts, but nice name drop you did there. And I see you are the director of all of these. What training/experience do you have? Attempting a feature at your age is pretty damn impressive, or pretty damn foolish, depending on the person... though Murali Thalluri pulled it off. Then again, your posts in this thread don't fill me with confidence. What are you shooting on? And, I ask again, are any of your shorts avaliable online?

 

[sithgoblin]

Ok, how about....2001: a space oddysey, the actors weren't the main focus, the story was told through other means.

I can't get into a debate about that, it's been too long since I've seen it. But 2001 is one of the most unique films of all time, you can't use it as an example of mainstream filmmaking, or even most arthouse filmmaking. There's nothing else like it.

Funny you should mention it though, because a cinema near me is screening a 70mm print starting tomorrow, which I am sure as hell going to see.

EDIT: But you know what, I don't see how what I said is any less valid here. 2001 had actors, you know. You couldn't have told its story without them.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Well I asked about your shorts, but nice name drop you did there. And I see you are the director of all of these. What training/experience do you have? Attempting a feature at your age is pretty damn impressive, or pretty damn foolish, depending on the person... though Murali Thalluri pulled it off. Then again, your posts in this thread don't fill me with confidence. What are you shooting on? And, I ask again, are any of your shorts avaliable online?

My shorts are sold across the internet, so they are non-downloadable, atm they're touring film festivals and stuff, and you probably saw the news page on one being shown on SKY.

I use high def camera's and editing suite. I don't know model numbers, because I let my tecnical people and camera men handle that. Just because I don't like PJ, it doesn't mean i'm going to be rubbish or anything, lol.

I watch at least a film a day, so I have been exposed to a lot of films, I guess I don't like PJ because I've seen so many films and directors that are better, it's like when i was like 10 i really liked 'the fallen' which is a good film, but now, having seen so many better films, it's been pushed miles down my list.

I have had great feedback from critics so far, and 'this town: Part-time saint' was one of the two featured programmes of the day when it aired. And Nada Al'Sanjari, we're quite good freinds, she loves my work, she gave a few constructive criticisms, but genuinely loves them, so that's all good.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I can't get into a debate about that, it's been too long since I've seen it. But 2001 is one of the most unique films of all time, you can't use it as an example of mainstream filmmaking, or even most arthouse filmmaking. There's nothing else like it.

Funny you should mention it though, because a cinema near me is screening a 70mm print starting tomorrow, which I am sure as hell going to see.

EDIT: But you know what, I don't see how what I said is any less valid here. 2001 had actors, you know. You couldn't have told its story without them.

Different filmmakers use varying degrees of actors and general shots and landscapes and narrative devices. 2001 is very special, but other directors use large amounts of non-acting narrative devices.

There were actors in 2001, but they barely had to do anything, they did what they had to do well, but still, they were not the integral part, so to speak.

And Kubrik showed that you can have a heavily acting based film, and be innovative with shots and filming techniques, ie: BArry Lyndon(his best work!)

 

[sithgoblin]

My shorts are sold across the internet, so they are non-downloadable, atm they're touring film festivals and stuff, and you probably saw the news page on one being shown on SKY.

I use high def camera's and editing suite. I don't know model numbers, because I let my tecnical people and camera men handle that. Just because I don't like PJ, it doesn't mean i'm going to be rubbish or anything, lol.

I watch at least a film a day, so I have been exposed to a lot of films, I guess I don't like PJ because I've seen so many films and directors that are better, it's like when i was like 10 i really liked 'the fallen' which is a good film, but now, having seen so many better films, it's been pushed miles down my list.

I have had great feedback from critics so far, and 'this town: Part-time saint' was one of the two featured programmes of the day when it aired. And Nada Al'Sanjari, we're quite good freinds, she loves my work, she gave a few constructive criticisms, but genuinely loves them, so that's all good.

Where are they being sold? I did a google search and I can't find them anywhere, except your site and propeller tv, which seems to be a user submitted content channel. What festivals are they circulating?

I find it quite strange that you don't actually know what camera you shoot on. How much do you know about the technical side of filmmaking? Do you know lenses? Focal length? Shutter angle? How can you expect to make the best possible film you can if you don't even know what you're shooting on?

And I'm not rubbishing your opinion because you don't like Peter Jackson. Anyone is entitled to their opinion. I happen to think he dropped the ball with Kong. The film was bloated, it needed much tighter editing.

I question you for the reasons you gave for not liking Jackson. They are the kinds of things I would expect someone who knows nothing about the industry to say, certainly not a director! Do you not take an active part in all areas of your films? Perhaps not, not even knowing your camera?

Don't think I am bashing or knocking you. I am trying to understand you, because quite frankly, you baffle me.

And finally, who the hell is Nada Al'Sanjari?

 

[sithgoblin]

Different filmmakers use varying degrees of actors and general shots and landscapes and narrative devices. 2001 is very special, but other directors use large amounts of non-acting narrative devices.

There were actors in 2001, but they barely had to do anything, they did what they had to do well, but still, they were not the integral part, so to speak.

And Kubrik showed that you can have a heavily acting based film, and be innovative with shots and filming techniques, ie: BArry Lyndon(his best work!)

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that acting is the only important part of a film. God no. Of course camera work, pacing, lighting, music, sound, editing... I feel stupid even having to type this.

What I said was, great acting (brought on by great directing) can make a poorly framed shot, or a poorly written line of dialogue, work. Whereas the best framing in the world won't make a bad performance good. And the fact remains that actors are the main means by which films tell their story. Without actors you don't have a film.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Where are they being sold? I did a google search and I can't find them anywhere, except your site and propeller tv, which seems to be a user submitted content channel. What festivals are they circulating?

I find it quite strange that you don't actually know what camera you shoot on. How much do you know about the technical side of filmmaking? Do you know lenses? Focal length? Shutter angle? How can you expect to make the best possible film you can if you don't even know what you're shooting on?

And I'm not rubbishing your opinion because you don't like Peter Jackson. Anyone is entitled to their opinion. I happen to think he dropped the ball with Kong. The film was bloated, it needed much tighter editing.

I question you for the reasons you gave for not liking Jackson. They are the kinds of things I would expect someone who knows nothing about the industry to say, certainly not a director! Do you not take an active part in all areas of your films? Perhaps not, not even knowing your camera?

Don't think I am bashing or knocking you. I am trying to understand you, because quite frankly, you baffle me.

And finally, who the hell is Nada Al'Sanjari?

To buy my films, (PLUG) you can E-mail me, although they'll be bonus features on my feature film's DVD, so you may as well wait till then? Festival wise, Northern heights, SF4 and end of the pier. They're still circulating, but no awards as of yet

I see what you mean, I know the camera's are sony HDV somethings... I am the DP, writer and editor for my work also. So I make each shot look how I want, I have a selection of lenses and stuff, filters etc, but I can't tel you what they're called, I just know what it looks like when I use them. I know how i want things and how to make them that way, I just don't know what to call certain things, lol. I don't know the exact type of wide angled lens I use, or the model number of the microphone etc. I know the effects.

As hard work goes, I had to edit 'This town..' frame by frame to adjust the image and make the High def image into a low grade thirties style looking image. EFFORT!, lol.

Nada Al Sanjari is a film critic, she used to work on channel 5, she's pretty cool, a good laugh, a bit of a feminist tho..

 

[Cyrusbales]

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that acting is the only important part of a film. God no. Of course camera work, pacing, lighting, music, sound, editing... I feel stupid even having to type this.

What I said was, great acting (brought on by great directing) can make a poorly framed shot, or a poorly written line of dialogue, work. Whereas the best framing in the world won't make a bad performance good. And the fact remains that actors are the main means by which films tell their story. Without actors you don't have a film.

There are many films without actors, Sans Soliel is rather poigniant. But A good director can make a good performance great, or a bad performance good. Also a bad director can make a great performance bad.

 

[Mentok]

Is that a double negative

 

[Cyrusbales]

Is that a double negative

I can't see one, where is it?

 

[The Lizard]

Hopefully Jackson will dial down some of the over-the-top sequencing and meandering dialog that tripped up King Kong. He seems like a guy who can learn from his mistakes, so I'm still optimistic about this new franchise.

 

[The Shape]

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that acting is the only important part of a film. God no. Of course camera work, pacing, lighting, music, sound, editing... I feel stupid even having to type this.

What I said was, great acting (brought on by great directing) can make a poorly framed shot, or a poorly written line of dialogue, work. Whereas the best framing in the world won't make a bad performance good. And the fact remains that actors are the main means by which films tell their story. Without actors you don't have a film.

You said that acting IS the most important aspect of film. Check back a little bit to see for yourself. I'm not arguing that they aren't very important, the the MOST important? Not really.

The line you just said -- "Without actors you don't have a film" -- can be said about any of the people that work on films.

"Without screenwriters, you don't have a film."
"Without editors, you don't have a film."
"Without camera men, you don't have a film."
"Without DIRECTORS, you don't have a film."

The truth is that all of the departments of filmmaking are necessary, especially for big budget films. To say that actors are the single most important aspect is inaccurate.

 

[Mr. Credible]

i really hate the term overrated, i think it gets thrown aound on the hype waaay too much, and especially when it isn't appropriate...

... that said; peter jackson is so overrated i can't even stand it. he's got a good visual style, and he's made some good movies, but all 3 lotr movies and king kong were boring boring boring crap

 

[Kmack]

i really hate the term overrated, i think it gets thrown aound on the hype waaay too much, and especially when it isn't appropriate...

... that said; peter jackson is so overrated i can't even stand it. he's got a good visual style, and he's made some good movies, but all 3 lotr movies and king kong were boring boring boring crap

 

[The Shape]

i really hate the term overrated, i think it gets thrown aound on the hype waaay too much, and especially when it isn't appropriate...

... that said; peter jackson is so overrated i can't even stand it. he's got a good visual style, and he's made some good movies, but all 3 lotr movies and king kong were boring boring boring crap

Agreed. On all points.

 

[Flexo]

...that said; peter jackson is so overrated i can't even stand it. he's got a good visual style, and he's made some good movies, but all 3 lotr movies and king kong were boring boring boring crap

Bah. Bah, I say.

That and a