Lowtax vs. Uwe Boll... I have to see that. I guess the second match will be Lowtax vs. Eric Baumann?

Both underweight to fight Uwe Boll? You guys are tiny, tiny people.

They are some skinny mofo's. I, on the other hand, am over the upper weight limit. Because I'm hoss.

It really sucks halo is recieving the royal treatment when there are hundreds of more important and just overall better gaming franchises.

Yes but none of them have MS behind them. Wait, that's not true. A Battletech movie would have MS's backing. Oh man, a Battletech movie could be so great *drool*.

I demand Super Paper Mario be a topic of discussion every week. I don't even care if you make stuff up about it, I just like hearing those three words in succession.

Yey I am mentioned more than once!

"I think that with King Kong, Peter Jackson proves that he is really more devoted to making a well-crafted action film than anything of any true significance, despite what the Academy Awards say about Lord of the Rings."

Burch, read that back to yourself and tell me it isn't the most preposterous example of movie snobbery that you've ever heard. The Lord of the Rings movies, for the material they were adapted from, were AMAZING.

Just because they weren't done by some fruity European auteur director, and they made a ton of money, doesn't mean they weren't significant.

Hugs hahahaha

I actually thought King Kong was a waste of time.. talk about a bloated movie.

King Kong WAS a bloated movie....I'm not sure about a waste of time though...simply from a technological standpoint I enjoyed watching it. The CG was amazing. Sorta like why I watched Advent Children: the movie SUCKED, but I liked watching the pictures

King Kong has ten times more content and art than Final Fantasy: Advent Children.

Lindy: My remark is movie snobbery, I won't deny it, but today's audiences could use to be more snobbish. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies are among the best fantasy epic pictures, but there's not much competition, and I only hope something better comes out soon. (If a film ever does top LotR, the Academy Awards will ignore it.) And although the films missed the point of Tolkien's work in several regards, the major misstep is merely the slapdash narrative style. Certain scenes are utterly incomprehensible because of Jackson's layers of cuts and audio; his methods are proven faulty by the large amount of reshoots and redubs he had to do just to make the movie make sense. In King Kong it is clear he had a chance to plan and breathe: he knew what his themes were and what he wanted to film. A project as massive as Lord of the Rings deserves more respect than having five different "assistant" directors filming entire chunks of important plot. Now, if the final product was cohesive, I wouldn't complain about his methods; however, one look at the pretentiously named "Appendices" on the LotR DVDs shows that Jackson and Co. revel in their mosaic method.

My major complaints with the film's lack of cohesion, narrative pull, and thematic emphasis can be traced to Jackson's use of his camera. Instead of making an expressive film with a swooping God's-eye perspective, Jackson abuses his ability to place the camera anywhere in space and makes his Middle-Earth look like a diorama or a real-time strategy videogame. Then he uses the most banal of methods to film a conversation with two characters, and it is no wonder we get bored (the first half of The Two Towers is wickedly snooze-worthy). Finally, too much of the film is shot handheld - much unlike the cinema-verite of French New Wavers Godard and Truffaut, and moderns like Paul Greengrass or even Steven Spielberg, Jackson's handheld camera seems cheap and wasted when compared with the massive CGI landscapes and lush, romantic score that cover the film. Spielberg's Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan have an immediacy through their handheld cinematography, while LotR's reeks of scotch tape and glue. Why, tell me, is LotR shot with more handheld camera than King Kong? Surely King Kong, a film with less ideas and having no real content, should have more whizz-bang action shots. Yet King Kong has far more deliberate framing and composition than LotR. In King Kong, Jackson presents themes of gender, masculinity, and sex that, while still shallow, are deeper than anything found in LotR. King Kong exposes LotR for what it is: a cheaply filmed, overproduced masterpiece of lifeless fantasy film. In satisfaction and depth, it is more akin to the cheap emulations of Tolkien than to his actual work.

I stopped reading that long, long post when I was reminded you reside in Oregon.

PREFONTAINE, FOOL

Bah. Double bah.

Yeah, I know, all that CGI, all that detail in the sets and costumes, and he shoots it as if none of that stuff were there! That's what I love about the film - they worked for years getting the smallest details right, and then PJ shot it as if it were a regular film. Handheld shots that put the focus on the action from the character's perspective during the epic battle scenes. Close-ups when the characters are talking with each other, even when they are in fantasitic locales - fantasitic locales which are generally highlighted beautifully when characters discover them.

Quote

---

King Kong exposes LotR for what it is: a cheaply filmed, overproduced masterpiece of lifeless fantasy film. In satisfaction and depth, it is more akin to the cheap emulations of Tolkien than to his actual work.

---

Quote

---

his methods are proven faulty by the large amount of reshoots and redubs he had to do just to make the movie make sense.

---

Lars von trier > All

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

I really need to see Dogville. I'm still kicking myself over missing a chance to see it in a theatre.

Oh, Sveven, one more thing:

Quote

---

"I think that with King Kong, Peter Jackson proves that he is really more devoted to making a well-crafted action film than anything of any true significance, despite what the Academy Awards say about Lord of the Rings."

---

Movie theatre or conventional theatre?

Movie theatre. Film festival. I think there was a choice between Dogville and something machinima related, and I chose the latter.

words

There were three T-Rexes fighting a giant ape in King Kong. That movie is a success, regardless of what any of you may say.

King Kong was badass ONLY because of the non-stop action. I mean who didn't like King Kong fighting three T-Rexes or King Kong flipping over a giant tree or giant bugs killing the explorers or the GIANT stampede of dinosuars (forget their name).

It was all really - really entertianing to watch, even if the story wasn't the best.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wandering
I really need to see Dogville. I'm still kicking myself over missing a chance to see it in a theatre.

---

If you left after an hour you missed most of the good stuff. It starts slowly and while you're watching it you wish they'd just get to the point but in retrospect it's necessary to put the viewer into the right mood and properly show the development of each character (I'm trying to avoid going into any specifics since anything could be considered a spoiler here).

Seriously people read Evan's post and imagine being stuck in a room with him shouting those things for hours. ;-)

Quote

---

There were three T-Rexes fighting a giant ape in King Kong. That movie is a success, regardless of what any of you may say.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: SvevanLindy: My remark is movie snobbery, I won't deny it, but today's audiences could use to be more snobbish. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies are among the best fantasy epic pictures, but there's not much competition, and I only hope something better comes out soon. (If a film ever does top LotR, the Academy Awards will ignore it.)

---

Quote

---

And although the films missed the point of Tolkien's work in several regards

---

Quote

---

the major misstep is merely the slapdash narrative style. Certain scenes are utterly incomprehensible because of Jackson's layers of cuts and audio; his methods are proven faulty by the large amount of reshoots and redubs he had to do just to make the movie make sense. In King Kong it is clear he had a chance to plan and breathe: he knew what his themes were and what he wanted to film. A project as massive as Lord of the Rings deserves more respect than having five different "assistant" directors filming entire chunks of important plot. Now, if the final product was cohesive, I wouldn't complain about his methods; however, one look at the pretentiously named "Appendices" on the LotR DVDs shows that Jackson and Co. revel in their mosaic method.

---

Quote

---

My major complaints with the film's lack of cohesion, narrative pull, and thematic emphasis can be traced to Jackson's use of his camera. Instead of making an expressive film with a swooping God's-eye perspective, Jackson abuses his ability to place the camera anywhere in space and makes his Middle-Earth look like a diorama or a real-time strategy videogame. Then he uses the most banal of methods to film a conversation with two characters, and it is no wonder we get bored (the first half of The Two Towers is wickedly snooze-worthy).

---

Quote

---

Finally, too much of the film is shot handheld - much unlike the cinema-verite of French New Wavers Godard and Truffaut, and moderns like Paul Greengrass or even Steven Spielberg, Jackson's handheld camera seems cheap and wasted when compared with the massive CGI landscapes and lush, romantic score that cover the film. Spielberg's Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan have an immediacy through their handheld cinematography, while LotR's reeks of scotch tape and glue. Why, tell me, is LotR shot with more handheld camera than King Kong? Surely King Kong, a film with less ideas and having no real content, should have more whizz-bang action shots. Yet King Kong has far more deliberate framing and composition than LotR. In King Kong, Jackson presents themes of gender, masculinity, and sex that, while still shallow, are deeper than anything found in LotR. King Kong exposes LotR for what it is: a cheaply filmed, overproduced masterpiece of lifeless fantasy film. In satisfaction and depth, it is more akin to the cheap emulations of Tolkien than to his actual work.

---