Jackson Comments On Gaming, Kong Sequel 58
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.'"
Kong sequels? Please god no! (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (Score:2)
Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (Score:2)
>I just can't take a remake of King Kong Lives!.
Agreed. Stupifyingly bad. Worse than Lady Caroline Lamb [imdb.com].
>Mind you, King Kong vs Godzilla I could stand.
How about Kong vs. one of the Nazgul's winged beasts? I know the Nazgul all flew into Mount Doom at the end, but they must have had a hatchery somewhere.
Re:Kong sequels? Please god no! (Score:2)
Yes Jackson (Score:2)
Beyond? (Score:2)
Easy to say since most of the previous game-to-movie adaptions were utter shit... We're not expecting anything anymore.
Re:Beyond? (Score:1)
What is your point?
Hmmm...
Validation (Score:2)
Music videos - wrong (Score:4, Informative)
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 =)
Re:Music videos - wrong (Score:1)
Re:Music videos - wrong (Score:2)
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 =)
Re:Music videos - wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Music videos - wrong (Score:2)
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)
king kong is not a failure (Score:2)
Re:king kong is not a failure (Score:2)
Re:Hobbit (Score:2)
Re:Hobbit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hobbit (Score:2)
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.
Copyright license is not available (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Hobbit (Score:1)
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
He's pretty conventional (Score:1)
maybe games have reached a critical threshold... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (Score:2)
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.
Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (Score:2)
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
Re:maybe games have reached a critical threshold.. (Score:2)
Going to an athletic event might be more like paying to jack into your favorite player
Video Games Love Sequels (Score:3, Interesting)
link to the real article (Score:1)
Heres a comment on a King Kong sequel (Score:2)
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?
Not a movie sequel (Score:2)
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
Peter Jackson's role as Executive Producer in Halo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Peter Jackson's role as Executive Producer in H (Score:1)
Re:Peter Jackson's role as Executive Producer in H (Score:2)
I Vote For... (Score:1)
The game was better. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not Kong. (Score:2)
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
Re:Not Kong. (Score:1)
Totally agree, Jackson's overblown (Score:2)
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
Re:The game was better. (Score:1)
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.
Re:The game was better. (Score:1)
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.
Re:The game was better. (Score:2)
Re:The game was better. (Score:1)
Now that's a game console (Score:2)
Sweet! A game console that dispenses hallucinogenic drugs directly into your bloodstream.
Translation: (Score:1)