Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Jackson Comments On Gaming, Kong Sequel 58

Posted by Zonk
from the love-that-hair dept.
GameDailyBiz has a piece detailing comments from Peter Jackson on next-gen gaming, and the possibility of another King Kong title. From the article: "'It'll be very interesting when a filmmaker creates a video game-based film experience that goes beyond what people thought it could be,' continued Jackson, who is executive producing the Halo film with special effects from the brilliant WETA team. 'For example, music videos were originally just musicians playing music while being recorded on video so people could watch them, but now they are elaborate short movies that do everything from interpret the song through the medium of visual art to communicating political statements.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jackson Comments On Gaming, Kong Sequel

Comments Filter:
  • by mccalli (323026) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @03:51PM (#14779354) Homepage
    I just can't take a remake of King Kong Lives! [imdb.com].

    Mind you, King Kong vs Godzilla [imdb.com] I could stand. Although given the Empire State turn of events, that would rather have to be a prequel wouldn't it...

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • Lets beat that dead horse. Didn't make enough money off King Kong compared to LOTR, so lets franchise it to death. Perhaps the next King Kong game will actually be beta tested so that you can actually see it playing on next gen consoles.
  • It'll be very interesting when a filmmaker creates a video game-based film experience that goes beyond what people thought it could be

    Easy to say since most of the previous game-to-movie adaptions were utter shit... We're not expecting anything anymore.

  • It's good to see a major player in Hollywood acknowledge that games are still in the infancy of their role as a medium. Every time we have another person like Jackson weighing in on the side of games as a legitimate source of entertainment and expression, we get a little closer to the media putting an end to their projected ignorance and real public understanding.
  • Music videos - wrong (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrSkwid (118965) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @03:57PM (#14779423) Homepage Journal
    > For example, music videos were originally just musicians playing music while being recorded on video.

    This is wrong.
    Early music videos/films include "Strawberry Fields Forever" by The Beatles which wsa the fab four being arty in a field.
    The canonical "first" music video was "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen which heralded the mega-bucks music videos of Duran Duran, and the launch of MTV. The Eighties bands competed with each other to be more and more extravagant.

    Live performance videos are really just a cheapskate way to make a video. The artists and not the record company pay for their own promotion, including having any videos comissioned. Decent directors for music videos command a high fee and film making in general is expensive if it is on a commercial basis. (and add 15% if you need liability insurance for your shoot).

    You don't get much $ for having your video played on MTV, I think I got $150 for the two I had played on MTV Europe (albeit at 1am Sunday =)

    • Actually, early music videos go much earlier than that. Arguably the first were created by Oskar Fischinger [wikipedia.org] in the 1920s. Not too long afterwards came music videos by the Fleischer Brothers, such as Snow White [wikipedia.org], starring Betty Boop and Cab Calloway. Neither of these examples is anything like what Jackson describes.
      • True, I have a VHS of plenty of Fischinger's work whcih I used to use during my live VJ days.

        Indeed, you can also include Disney's Fantasia, back when they innovated.

        There is also some of The Monkees work when they got more creative control, particularly Head.

        Perhaps Jackson meant video as in tape rather than the film based material pre 1980s.

        Or maybe back in NZ no-one made any music videos that weren't just the band on stage =)
    • by Golias (176380)
      Not to mention that the very first music video on MTV was the very high-concept "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles.

      The very first video I ever saw (before NBC got off the ground with "Friday Night Videos" IIRC) was the Talking Heads video for "Once in a Lifetime", in which David Byrne was doing his famously quirky dance moves in front of a white background, with the aid of various cheesy video effects.

      DEVO's first album was intended to be a video art project, sold on VHS. It never got off the gr
    • I read that one of the first music videos was done by The Three Stooges [3-stooges.com]:

      This song, sung in "Violent is the Word for Curly", was called "Swingin' the Alphabet". It happens to be, officially, the first "music video", in that the sound track was recorded in a studio, and the actors would lipsync to the playback during filming.

  • Hobbit (Score:3, Funny)

    by twd (167101) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @03:58PM (#14779431)
    Just get busy making the Hobbit, please.
    • my thoughts exactly! mod points for this post's parent.
    • Re:Hobbit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Winterblink (575267)
      Or, God forbid, something new and refreshingly original. You know, something Hollywood has been lacking? Lord of the Rings proved he's a super duper director, let him loose on something other than a remake.
      • New and original? What are you talking about? "King Kong" is a remake of a remake. Halo2 isn't new or original.

        He's proven to be good at visualizing other people's source material so why doesn't he get on with completing the Hobbit before the principal actors die off. Nothing wrong with him working on a complete series.
    • Just get busy making the Hobbit, please.

      It won't happen until at least 2024 in Canada, and then you won't get to see it in the United States until 2033 or in Europe and Australia until 2044. I seem to remember reading that Tolkien Enterprises is not likely to authorize film prequels because Christopher Tolkien didn't like the story changes in the 2000s film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

    • I agree, but as Tepples pointed out, the Tolkien estate refuses to relinquish the rights.

      I can't say as I blame Christopher. "The Hobbit" was written for he and his brother(s?). It's much more personal to him than LotR.

      I was completely divided on the LotR movies. I truly enjoyed seeing Jackson's vision of Tolkien's writings brought to life. However, the massive changes and ommissions were inexcusable.

      Perhaps the Tolkien estate can work with Jackson and his writers and come to a compromise: stick to the b

  • So let's see, what kind of groundbreaking approaches could we expect from Mr. Jackson?

    "I think that intrinsically, most video games, and virtually all movies, do one basic thing: tell stories... (Y)ou still have characters, plot, environments, dialogue, or types of interactions and this is standard fare."

    "Each new console amazes me with the graphics, sound, and what video game makers can accomplish," he said. "I definitely see improved graphics and sound as continuously positive attributes for consid

  • by BewireNomali (618969) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:11PM (#14779529)
    The difference between current and next-gen games is significantly reduced relative to the leaps of generations past. It's possible we've reached a critical juncture of gaming evolution, where the next step in video games require not so much advances in rendering graphics and quality sound, but in interfacing specifically.

    That's why Nintendo's experiment with their controller is risky and interesting. Ultimately, gaming has matured - for the most part, genres are cemented and experience evolutionary tweaks that refine a preexisting gaming experience. The next step involves interfacing, i.e. how the gamer interacts with the game.

    We respond with our eyes, ears, and tactile sense now. But what happens when we can control our characters the way we control our own bodies - i.e. with a direct neural interface? When we feel the pain of a bullet or are rewarded with a rush of endorphins? The next step in gaming is to eliminate the obvious disconnect between the real experience and virtual one. The direct neural interface - brain-gaming is going to be the next killer ap. brain-gaming - brain-teaching - how quickly can you teach a child using direct interfacing mapped onto their brains?

    I'm not sure how many generations away from this we are - but I can imagine that this world is an amazingly different place.

    How about this: imagine a company that makes its money by inserting a neural interface in free ranging tigers - the neural interface can be mapped to any person so you can briefly experience what it feels like to be a tiger - or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.
    • How about this: imagine a company that makes its money by inserting a neural interface in free ranging tigers - the neural interface can be mapped to any person so you can briefly experience what it feels like to be a tiger - or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.

      Or better yet, why not use those brain-scan beams the NSA is using to detect terrorist intentions at the Superbowl? You could wire the signals right into another person's brain for interperetation.

    • Dude. Sounds like you're Overdrawn at the Memory Bank [imdb.com].

      I'll go out on a small limb and predict that we will *never* have direct mind to game interfaces in the manner you describe. Directly manipulating the sensation of pain or level of endorphins? That's insane. Do you really want to play a game that would give you post-traumatic stress disorder?

      Teaching children via mind-interface? Are you out of your mind? Our brains are extraordinarily complicated beings, capable of processing tons of information at once
      • I disagree with you. I not only think we will have direct mind to game interfaces, but as usual, porn will pave the way. Re: level of endorphins - we do it all the time - modulate our moods and endorphin levels with drugs, diet, exercise, etc. Feeling the cold when playing a winter scene or feeling the water when I wade through muck isn't likely to give me PTSD - nor is stimulating the olfactories to add to the experience.

        Going to an athletic event might be more like paying to jack into your favorite player
  • by UberMench (906076) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:17PM (#14779570) Homepage
    I know King Kong was hyped... the video game was hyped... and they both lasted about the same amount of time, but I enjoyed the few hours I got to play King Kong. Sure, spearing your way through 16,712 bats, caterpillars, and tiny-dinos got repetitive and was ridiculously easy, but I like to think of it as foreplay. You spend the majority of your time doing a tedious repetitive action and then as a reward, you get some quality time with your furry prize. In this case, that just so happens to be a 25 foot gorilla. But man, was using flying elbow drops and shoulder charges to kill "V" Rexes awesome. And smashing through a city, although brief and linear, was tons o' fun. So Petey, if you'll give us more monkey in the sequel, and less whiney screenplay writer, we'll keep playing.
  • This [yahoo.com] is the real article .The story linked to is a summary of the original article.Why would you link to an article that links to the original interview?
  • NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    Seriously, Kong wasnt that bad,it was decent for a monster movie, but thats that. Everybody knows the next King Konk movies SUCKED big time, purely sticking to the success of the first, no one wants to see them EVER again.

    What about enders game? the hobbit, Halo (he is producing it anyway) even a remake of Excalibur (which is almost on the line of LOTR anyway) are much better ideas , Hell! why not a new script? Why do they even have to make remakes of old movies or books?
    • Seriously, Kong wasnt that bad,it was decent for a monster movie, but thats that. Everybody knows the next King Konk movies SUCKED big time, purely sticking to the success of the first, no one wants to see them EVER again.

      Jeez, no kidding. Talk about exploitation in the worst way possible; take a cheesy '70s movie based on a cheesy (but very influential) '30s movie, and make some terrble derivative pap.

      However, I think he's referring to a video game sequel, not a movie sequel. Peter Jackson has more integri
  • by The-Bus (138060) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:21PM (#14780192)
    Ugh, I know it must seem like a pedantic point to some, but his role as "Executive Producer" is much less interesting than some of us would like to believe. So far, Jackson has usually been the director, producer, and/or screenwriter for all of his movies. With "Executive Producer" the role implies a certain kind of vagueness. Usually, it means they deal with the business side of the film (financing) although they sometimes can leave their own imprint on things (for example, Bruckheimer and CSI). It doesn't mean Halo is his next movie, it doesn't even mean he's very artistically involved with it. At best, we'll see some Jackson-esque touches, at worst he was just paid a lot of money to have his name attached to the film and just occasionally acts as a go-between the different parties.

    As far as the article? Jackson says "I definitely see improved graphics and sound as continuously positive attributes for consideration among the Hollywood community. Actors will look more 'life-like' in HD and the sound continues to get closer to the theatrical movie experience." If he had used the terms "rich medium" or "consumer-centric" I could've gotten Bingo on this Buzzwords Bingo tablet I have. It's also a dead giveaway that the interview was done via email, not by phone or in-person.

  • a cage match between Kong, Mecha-Kong, and Ali G [67.172.249.234] :-)
  • by syberanarchy (683968) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @06:19PM (#14780684) Journal
    Honestly, Jackson personifies what is wrong with the current state of Hollywood. A graduate of the George Lucas school of filmmaking (BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER), he decided the best way to follow up a movie trilogy lasting 12+ hours was to remake an 88 minute movie about a giant ape into a THREE HOUR EPIC.

    Please, give me a break. We all know you're good with a camera. Now try to learn about telling a story with some efficiency. If your movie is going to be nothing but 3 hours of Weta jerking themselves off on film, why not just make your movie a video game and be done with it?

    Oh, wait, they did make Kong into a game, and it was so good and so immersive in ways the movie never could have been (especially in HD + 5.1) that after playing, I don't care if I EVER see the movie. If I'm going to watch a three hour movie, it better be more than just "kill/evade exotic beasts on a remote island, reach the boss lair, save the princess." If that's your storyline, what you have is a video game, not a movie.

    Now, I'll wait for all the slashtrolls to come out and wave all the money Kong made in my face; as if that's any measure of the product's actual quality.
    • by Tony (765)
      Now, I'll wait for all the slashtrolls to come out and wave all the money Kong made in my face; as if that's any measure of the product's actual quality.

      Jackson did Kong because he could, and not for any other reason. It was like a director masturbating on film, and us just lapping it up. And I liked it a lot.

      But, if you want to see Jackson as his story-telling best, watch _Heavenly Creatures_. If you are human, you will be stunned about the time the credits start rolling. Amazing movie. Just fucking amazin
      • I afraid I thought Heavenly Creatures was shit. The girls were just unbelievably annoying and acted in such a fake way, I couldn't stand it.
    • We all know you're good with a camera. Now try to learn about telling a story with some efficiency.

      After the second LOTR title, I decided it wasn't worth it to go back for Return of the King. Not only did Jackson introduce a whole lot of surfing-on-the-shield bozoness, he also spent roughly half of the first two movies shoving screaming CGI-ified orcs in my face. In particular his direction of dialog, which is hardly a strength of the Tolkien originals anyway, stunk like a wet sock drawer. My patience for

    • I don't care if I EVER see the movie.

      So... you haven't seen the movie you're bashing?

      Honestly, Jackson personifies what is wrong with the current state of Hollywood.

      Are you sure you don't mean Uwe Boll?

      Seriously, Jackson is a hell of a director, and if there were more like him, movies would suck much less. Don't get me wrong, 3 hours is a bit much for Kong. Jackson could stand to "rein it in a little", but that's the harshest criticism I think he deserves.
      • How is Jackson a good director? His films are just pure cheese, with cartoonish special effects and dialogue that clunks like a safe falling on a tank. Not to mention plenty of ham acting.

        The main achievement with LOTR is that it got made at all, it probably would have been better with someone like Coppola or Spielberg in charge.
        • Jeez dude, even when you're right you're wrong. I happen to share your dislike of Jackson's work. As you say, his dialogue sucks, and his overall stories are pretty lame. But anybody who thinks the special effects in his movies are "cartoonish" has their head up their ass.
  • I may be able to experience games that even I can't imagine.

    Sweet! A game console that dispenses hallucinogenic drugs directly into your bloodstream.

  • "I like your money. Please send me more so that I may rehash something else and take credit for it as my own."

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"

Working...