My goodness, it's taken me a while to get through posts.
I had no idea Jackson's next project was 'The Lovely Bones' .. how wonderful
and how remiss of me not to have read something of this previously! I
really loved the book.
Shelly
----Original Message Follows----
From: Toochis Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Toochis Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MOPO] "King Kong," Peter Jackson and "The Lovely Bones"
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 17:59:21 -0700
Hi David,
Thanks for your words on King Kong and Lovely Bones. I agree that King Kong
should have been nominated.
I look forward to seeing LOVELY BONES and want Peter Jackson's diet.
Toochis
David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ooops, well I garbled
that one. "King Kong" IS considered a box office bust (and I'll stand by
that) -- only because it "struggled" to make back its $207 million in the
U.S.A., where it barely broke even and where, despite its "down under"
roots, it remains the "country of origin" or as they say in the film and
book business, "country of first publication."
In fairness, overseas box office and DVD sales have changed the economics
of the film business, as in the case of Ridley Scott's box office bust,
"Kingdom of Heaven," which still made money because it was better received
in Europe. But in crazy Hollywood, the unfair stigma of a film performing
"below expectations" sticks -- if your picture CANNOT break even in the
U.S.A, a nation of nearly 300 million which continues to matter to the bean
counters in Hollywood who plan budgets and what not. "Overseas" box-office
continues to be viewed as a "safety net" that p.r. "spinners" invoke when a
film financed in the U.S.A "underperforms" in the U.S.A. Jackson earned his
right to make the picture he wanted, but I think he himself was a little
embarrassed that his film took weeks and weeks to make money (which may
explain why he's chosen to assume complete financial risk for his next
project, see below).
Secondly, I re-read my note and while I dismissed the film's length,
people have forgotten that I praised "King Kong" and enjoyed it. I found it
too long, but not enough to knock it out of the top 5 favorite films I saw
last year. Yes, it was all action and people rightly carped about all the
excess CGI, the apparent "padding" of scenes, but it was also quite amazing
for me as a movie-goer -- to get all worked up over an ape. I was surprised
how touching and tender it was amid all the spectacle. I got into "King
Kong" film more than Jackson's LOTR films, the latter being steeped in
classic Tolkien mythology that's a bit dense for novices like me -- but
obviously not to film goers, many whose first introduction to Tolkien was
through these films, who made ALL 3 stratopheric successes and Jackson a
millionaire many times over. I just think it took too long to get to the
ape and frustrating to see a magnificent personality like Jack Black
"strapped in." But those were
small quibbles because I felt I got my $10 worth.
During the winter, I remarked how disappointed I was that "King Kong" was
not nominated for Best Picture, how I felt it was unduly snubbed by an
Academy that picked five other films, most of which have zero replay value
and will be forgotten within 5 years. Jackson IS a genius and you guys are
right, this is the man, who before he successfully tackled and delivered his
visionary "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, also brought us "Heavenly Creatures,"
a remarkable little film that introduced most of us to a then unknown Kate
Winslet.
Finally, about "The Lovely Bones," Jackson's next project. There is
actually a welcoming feeling I have about Jackson being attached to this
project, despite my fears he might "over do" it. So many best sellers I
like are unable to "cross-over" to film in a big-time way without an
established name. Before Jackson, Scottish director Lynne Ramsay was
attached to it, she of "Morvern Caller" and "Ratcatcher," art films few
people saw, and I worried "Bones" would get lost in the "Landmark Theaters"
circuit, if it EVER made it across the Atlantic.
But Peter Jackson is a world-wide name. And like George Lucas before him,
"The Lovely Bones" will be 100% financed by Jackson himself. He's using his
own money. "The Lovely Bones" is delicate material, yet controversial
because it was dismissed as being too sentimental, too rough, too open-ended
and w/o spirituality, despite its "ghostly" theme and a dead protagonist who
speaks from a heaven that has no basis in theology. But it resonated in a
way that defied belief, especially with young women, who helped (w/o Oprah's
hands on it) publisher Little, Brown move more than 1 million copies in less
than four weeks and almost two years before it finally appeared in
paperback. It wasn't the "Da Vinci Code," but it was a sensation for
first-time novelist Alice Sebold, who was better known to journalists for
her 1999 memoir, "Lucky" -- about surviving an attempted murder and rape
when she was a student at Syracuse University.
Peter JacksonOh BTW, off the subject -- but have you guys seen Peter
Jackson lately? My wife now thinks he's tremendously handsome. He no
LONGER looks like a hobbit. He lost so much weight, changed his hair style,
etc., that he now has what she describes as a "dashing" look to him (no
kidding, this is what she says).
-koose.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________ How to
UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF
MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
