I actually found it kinda boring... Really over- and unnecessarily-done.

But Jackson IS a brilliant director, though.

...

It's too bad that Kubrick wasn't alive to follow through with A.I. There were scifi sudo-philosophic elements that I thought were absolutely brilliant (i.e. What is the true difference between Man and Machine? or The creation of a true tragic hero - a creature/child that will ultimately outlive the one thing/person it was CREATED to live for). There were some great dark elements to it, but the end was absolutely abysmal.

I would have LOVED to see Kubrick complete A.I. ALONE. No Spielberg.

• The movie would have ended tragically (as it should have - I can identify the exact point where it SHOULD have ended). Spielberg's shit cheese ending would have been GONE.
• It would have been much, much darker (more social and civil unrest between humans and the humanoids)
• It would have been much much more raw

Or so he liked to claim in the King Kong doc. I don't recall hearing one lick of Max Steiner's classic score in that film.

Figured you for a Roger Vadim fan!:rolleyes:

i thought it was 100% pure movie magic .. the creatures, the dinosaurs ..the big monkey ! if i had seen it as a kid it would have been the film that would have addicted me to movies - not indy, not star wars - this would have been my fanboy dream.

the book ... the book is the source i'm talking about.
He did an amazing job with Lord of the Rings.

as far as king kong goes ... why would you reuse anything origional in a remake ? thats a little too close to the source.

According to Jackson, in the Kong doc, he professed his lifelong love for the film, and intended to remake it as close to the source film as possible. And for the most part, he did. The plot, characters and scenes are almost identical. But Steiner's score is also intrinsic to the original, and not including even a chord of that score in the remake was an insult to the great composer. But aside from that, the original Kong had punch and pacing that the remake didn't even come close to capturing. The finale on the Empire State Building was excruciatingly long and overplayed. I will take that old fashioned 1933 movie over the Jackson(or any other remake of it) version, anyday.

Good God I couldn't disagree more.

Lird of the Rings is so far from Tolkein it should be renamed Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings.

What about giving Christopher Nolan a shot at that?

i've read lord of the rings several times.

i completely understand every change that was made.
some books cant possibly be filmed verbatim - what may work in print doesn't necessarily work on film.

i feel the same way about Lynch's Dune and the Harry Potter films.

i'm an avid reader ... but i'm also very aware of how films are made and the choices that are taken when converting print to a movie. you cannot make a movie word for word from any book - at least not as large as LOTR or Dune..
They just wouldnt work - they'd be 25 hours long for one thing..

It had nothing to do with length or changes to charcter, etc.

Has to do with the underlying vision. IMO Jackson's was far different than Tolkien's.

Do you really think my reasoning was as shallow as that? I know how to read too, and do it frequently. I also know the process by which literature is adapted for the screen.

I still disagree with you.

Ridley Scott - Alien 3.

With all due respect to Cameron and his reworking for Aliens, Scott's vision for Alien was exceptional and brilliant. Developing the characters of Newt, Ripley, Hicks and the whole Alien saga in a new setting (preferably Earth) would have been quite a challenge, and Scott was the man to do it, with Alien still fresh in his mind.