Well I guess I only call some people idiots because they bash the hell out of Star Wars any chance they get and do it non stop. It's just getting ridiculous and old. I know that maybe a stupid answer but it's true.

Yes we're entitled to our own opinions but non stop bashing by some folks here on the board is getting quite old as I said. Give it up, it's just a movie not a part of our own daily lives. If you don't like it and you hate it so bad don't watch it any more. Quit ruining it for those of us who do enjoy the films.

I honestly don't give a flying fuck about others opinions and I don't see why others should give a flying fuck about mine.

I want to clarify one thing in this argument.

Recently, I've talked to someone who was quite close to the production and who gave up a few spoilers here and there during Episode III's production run online. Anyway, talked to this person about some of the stories from the set and as he stated to me, the 115 million price tag for both Episode II and Episode III are smoke screens.

As it turns out, both films cost right around 100 million to make, give or take a few million...not the 115 million that was reported. I was just as surprised to find that out when he told me.

Just wanted to share that info. I trust his word completely.

And no, Skull Island is not even in the same league as any of the Episode III environments. I'll give you 1933's New York. It was quite stunning. But the rest, not even close.

And you can't compared Grievous to Kong? Two totally different types of characters. Hell, you can't even compared Kong to Yoda. Just totally different. For the most part, Grievous and Yoda are a bit more believeable than Kong for the majority of the time. Kong has some rough spots throughout the film.

Believe it or not, people generally don't spend money to see something they think will suck. If the first two prequels were terrible, they wouldn't have turned out in droves for Episode III. Just look at the Matrix franchise:

The Matrix: $171,479,930 (great WOM leads to:)
Reloaded: $281,576,461 (terrible WOM brings:)
Revolutions: $139,313,948

No one in the country is going to continually waste $8 on something they don't like. As for Kong, it's a great film. I think Sith's better, but that's only a matter of pacing. Jackson spends too much time on the Venture trying to establish his characters. It's admirable, but they're either cannon fodder, or they don't go anywhere (I'm looking at you, Jimmy). In terms of Visual FX, Kong is far and away the greatest CGI character ever put to film. But on the whole, Ep. III is much more consistent. There's a shot in Kong where you can still see blue pixels around Naomi Watts' hair, for god's sake.

You have 15-25 minutes to establish characters before the story begins. Any director who assumes otherwise is a self indulgent fatass.

Jackson has just riden the material he was provided to fame. He's the Phil Jackson of film.

That's bullshit. Jackson was making great films long before The Lord of the Rings.

Oh, you're right, I forgot. Did Meet the Feebles win Best Picture in 89? Silly me. The only other movie I know of him making is Heavenly Creatures, which got some critical success, but that's about it. Kong was, all things considered, the biggest flop in the history of film, so, basically it boils down to LOTR and Heavenly Creatures. So you might want to revise your statement to Jackson made great "film" before LOTR. Not really sure how you can slap a plural on there.

Jackson's a hack and LOTR is the biggest jackoff franchise ever. You could cut each one down to 90 minutes because of the amount of scenes where fuckall happens.

FOTR- walk, run, fight, talk, run, talk, walk, fight, run, wizard dies, run, talk, fight, talk, fight, run, fight, slow motion, nearly drown, off to Mordor, roll credits for Willow Redux.

TTT- flashback, talk, walk, run, halfass fight, slow motion, talk, fight, talk, fight, flashback, talk, fight, run, run, walk, I AM WOMAN I AM WARRIOR, run, slow motion talk, fight, fight, fight, cut to fight, cut back to fight, yay elves, fight, run, bullshit motivational seminar, ride horses, fight, get saved by dead wizard, fight, talk, talk to self, credits.

ROTK- ride, fight, stupid hobbit, run, fight, run, fire bad fire bad, fight, flashback, fight, run, talk, fight, flashback, flashback, flashback within flashback, talk, run, flashback, talk, flashback, ooooooh ghosts!!, fight, fight some more, another motivational seminar, slow motion, fight, run, oops lost a finger, bye bye ring in slow motion, talk, talk, talk, slow motion talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, cry, talk talk talk talk, gayhobbitsexorgy in slow motion, talk, flashback, teary-eyed farewell, credits.

12 hours long and nothing happens, oy...

That about sums the movies up thecolorsblend.

GL had just as many boring pans in the PT as PJ had in LotR.

All I'll say about that is there are just too damn many scenes of ships landing in the PT. But it's probably just me. Carry on.

T - Lucas does not linger on shots. Frustratingly so. Just as an example, the opening shot of Theed in TPM we hardly get to take in the vistas. If PJ was filming that scene we would have seen a shitload more.

I like both directors -just playing devils advocate.

No doubt. Jackson would've had a 30 second long moving helicopter shot of the palace with some dumbass eagles flying around slow-mo with midgets on their back.

UPDATE- actually, it's unlikely he would do anything of the sort. After all, it's not like he created his most notable box office successes, he just remade or adapted what someone did first.

All I gotta say is screw "prestige", to hell with bullshit awards, and fuck "critical acclaim". Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, and Dead Alive (aka Braindead) are three of the all time coolest gore flicks to come out of the 80's-early 90's horror boon. All bullheaded arguments about "quality" aside, these movies are some of the most fun I've ever watched, and the fun factor is to be perfectly honest one of if not THE single most important elements of a movie, a fact that's been lost on critics and other assorted "taste" snots for eons.

This whole thread is starting to read like the embittered reactions of a jilted lover. Look I'm in the same camp as most of you with regards to Star Wars. I love the OT and PT just the same, and feel 90% of the whiney criticisms lobbed at both Lucas and the PT to be largely unfounded, ridiculous, and about as logistically consistent as Bush's foreign policies (ok I'll be fair and say 85%). But in spite of all that, my head isn't so far up George Lucas' rectum that I can't recognize an awesome movie by a "rival" director such as Peter Jackson when I see one. In fact I've said it many times in the past and I'll say it again; I simply do not comprehend where the "rivalry" between LOTR and SW came from. To me the two series' are so polar opposite ends of the spectrum, in tone, subject matter, style, etc. that the comparisons between the two strike me as asinine and out of left field. All they have in common is that they're both big budget trilogies with a large pre-existing geek fan base. By that rationale you might as well pit Akira against The Little Mermaid. Both were large grossing animated films from the late 80's. They have about as much to do with each other as LOTR and SW.

Whether or not Tolkien is your personal cup of tea, it takes a stubborn and raging bias to completely disrespect the mammoth undertaking that was Jackson's attempt to translate these books, long considered "unfilmable" from print to film just because you're upset that his films got more attention than SW. Just as by the same token (as many of you have argued before) it takes glasses of the rosiest tint to completely wall out Lucas' amazing technical advancements with the PT simply because he set out to make his films the way he wanted them instead of resurrecting everyone else's nostalgic childhood fuzzy bunnies. It goes both ways. To compare Jackson's and Lucas' achievements with their trilogies is an exercise in subjective futility. Both men set out to accomplish two completely different goals in completely different filmmaking arenas. It's like arguing over which was the greater or more significant sports victory; Muhammad Ali defeating Joe Frazier or The Red Sox's finally winning a World Series. There's no basis for comparison amongst two entirely different sports.

Yes it's unfair that Jackson's trilogy hogged the entire spotlight from Lucas' as I believe both to be great directors. In a perfect world BOTH would've been honored for their filmmaking achievements. But just because Lucas' films are underrated/under appreciated, doesn't make Jackson's films overrated, over praised tripe by comparison, since there's no BASIS for comparison.

damnit, I can't even go to a star wars board without being reminded that goddamn Red Sox won a world series.

Er, really? Kong made $500 million worldwide on a $200 million budget. You know what "flop" means, right?

I realize that in the end, it turned a profit, dumbass, but it was expected to be huge, and it had a relatively shitty box office. 500 million worldiwde is shit. A "flop" is just a huge disappointment, which King Kong was. Furthermore:

A) The PRODUCTION budget is listed as >>> 200 million, which means its actually probably more
B) The MARKETING is at LEAST another 100 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_(2005_film)#Finance._Box-office_.26_other_revenues

To quote wiki:
"It is a general rule of thumb that a big-budget movie must earn at least twice its production and promotion budget to break even. In the case of King Kong, that would mean $600 million, considerably more than what it will earn at the box office"

This movie was expected to make closer to 400 million domestic than 200. It was a FLOP. Deal with it.

Speaking of flops, I'm now assuming stanMarsh is a Yankee fan. Let's compare Kong to the Yankees. The Yankees spend about 200 mill every season now, and continue to make the playoffs, which makes their season seem a success, just as Kong's $500 million worldwide falsely suggests success. But as they are expected to win the series every year, and due to their enormous payroll they really have no excuse not to, it is a disappointment every year they don't win the title.

It's not a flop. A flop is a movie that doesn't make its budget back. Town & Country (budget: $90 million | gross: $6 million) and The Adventures of Pluto Nash (budget: $100 million | gross: $4 million) are flops. A movie that doubles its production budget worldwide is not a flop. But let's work with what you presented. I work with box office quite a bit, so obviously I know about the "studios don't get everything!" factor. The rule of thumb is that studios get roughly 55% of the gross.

So we'll use Kong's $207 million budget, and then maybe $100 million in marketing (which is absurdly high, but we'll use it). That's $307 million against a worldwide gross of $547 million. In the end, Universal made $300 million cash, a loss of $7 million. But since you're the expert, you obviously know movies nowadays are more meant to break even at the worldwide box office, and then profit on DVD. King Kong sold 6.5 million units its first week, which is something like $113 million (War of the Worlds sold 6.4 million discs last year, and that's its gross on the format -- it's a fair comparison).

Let's just assume then that Kong is pulled from the market. No more discount theaters or DVD sales. Universal then has made $106 million in pure profit. If you call that a flop, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, or are more likely just incredibly bias against the film and/or Peter Jackson.

Variety says a movie must make 2.5 times its production and marketing in order to break even, I've read in some places it must make THREE times. (The studio getting 55% is a high estimate)

So the fact is, Kong probably has NOT broken even yet, it certainly did not out of the box office, thats for damn sure.

And again, the $113 million it has made on DVD is not pure profit.

Not to mention the entire point of my post was that even if it did profit - it wasn't the profit that was expected. Flop = a disappointment. The fact that a movie like King Kong has to rely on DVD to justify its existence makes it a flop. And I'll say whatever the fuck I want about Peter Jackson, I'm on a Star Wars board, I actually like LOTR, and I actually think he's a decent director, he's just hugely overrated.

I for one completely agree with you here. As I stated earlier I don't give a fuck about anyone's opinion so why should anyone give a fuck about mine?

However it's a fact that Jackson is over-rated as are his LOTR films.

I can't sit through one LOTR film with out taking a break or two because it's too fucking long. I also can't watch the multiple times. With Star Wars I can watch them multiple times and sit through the whole thing with OUT taking a break.

By the way I agree with your whole post Manny. A flop=disappointment.

Raveers, I feel your pain about LOTR so I'll just give you the Reader's Digest version of the trilogy.

Frodo- "I feel... bad/hurt/sick/tired/constipated/gay/overwhelmed/strung out/tweaked/nauseated/hung over/high/drunk/hallucinogenic."

Sam (in slow motion)- "I know what it is. It's The Ring (cue ominous music)... isn't it? Let's go destroy it! Oh no, it's Gollum/Faramir/Elves/Balrogs/cave trolls/ollie phonts/what the fuck are those/terrorists/my nuts/Orcs/giantfuckingspiders OMG is this the new Superman movie?/bigass walking trees!!!!!!!!"

See? Easy! I could've saved New Line tens of millions...

That's one way to describe the LOTR movies!

Also half of the time I don't understand what the fuck they're staying in the LOTR films...

Oh I KNOW! People say the PT has bad dialog? Have they ever noticed what's in those phonebook screenplays filled with pretentious lyrical cliches? And then there's the screwed up accent Aragorn and others sometimes have but other times don't. LOTR has some good spectacle, but my God is it boring...

Boring? Compared to TPM and AOTC, it's all absolutely riveting. I'll watch any of the LOTR movies over Episodes 1 or 2 any day.

There's no accounting for taste, I guess.

Oh btw, I'll concede to Manny's definition since he has an actual source but I always thought of a flop as something which lost copious amounts of money. That could describe Mallrats, Gigli, Pluto Nash, etc. Notorious failures which will probably won't become "profitable" for another ten or so years.

So in that other guy's defense, the term's actual meaning isn't the same as what's in the lexicon.

If a disappointment equals a flop, then Star Wars: Ep. II is a flop. Hell, quite a few people expected The Phantom Menace to be the second film to gross $1 billion worldwide. It missed the mark, and yet was (at the time) the #2 grossing film of all time worldwide. Is that a flop too?



...are you joking?

Blech.

I perfer TPM and AOTC over any LOTR film any day. If you don't like that tough shit that's my opinion, deal with it.

It doesn't bother me at all, I like the prequels as well. But to say someone has no taste because they like LOTR more than Eps I and II? That's laughable.

TPM made 925 mill worldwide, and the 1 billion expectation was a little outrageous. The $431 million it made domestic is pretty insane as it is, so no, TPM is definitely not a flop. Anyone who expected it to make Titanic numbers was an idiot, TPM, in my mind, at the very least met its expectations in terms of Box Office. King Kong was expected to rival LOTR numbers and, at the very least, hit 300+ maybe even 400 domestic, double those numbers worldwide, it didn't even sniff that. That is why it was a flop to me. I don't care if you want to use the word "flop" or not, can you at least admit that Jackson and co. must have been EXTREMELY unsatisfied with its box office numbers???

AOTC is the closest thing to a "flop", but being a sequel and makine $310 can't be considered a disappointment. I think it is the weakest film of the PT, and time will be kinder to the much better structured and crafted TPM (putting one's feelings of Jar Jar and Jake Lloyd aside, can anyone come up with an unbiased argument that Phantom Menace is not at least a fundamentally solid film?). But in the end, AOTC was not really a huge disappointment Box Office wise, looking back on it, in terms of its quality, even though I still like it and still think its a solid movie, it was a big letdown for me. It was good, but it was a missed opportunity in a lot of ways. (The editing room did it).

But back to the general issue, I love LOTR, and I'm not one who thinks its slow and all that, I've always loved LOTR long before the movies. I'm 100% sure someone could've done a better job with it other than Peter Jackson however, and for that, I will always be mildly upset. He did just a good enough job not to screw it up, but not good enough to be able to take any credit for its success. It's Tolkien's doing.

TPM's production budget was $115 million according to Box Office Mojo. It grossed $431 million. Manny Ortez said that a film must make 2.5 times it's production budget. For TPM to have been a "success", it would've needed to gross $287.5 million domestically. Well, last I checked $431 million is a higher amount than $287.5.

Internationally TPM grossed $493 million.

In total, TPM grossed $924 million. That's 8.03 times the original production budget.

I'd say that qualifies TPM as being a success according to Manny's formula.




...are you joking?[/quote]

Nope, there seriously is no accounting for taste. That's why some people think the Black Eyed Peas are the best thing since sliced bread while others think their "music" is an utter abortion.

I'll just say that the vast majority of people I know think that the LOTR movies were far superior to the prequels, and some of them are big Star Wars fans. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know that would prefer to watch TPM over a LOTR movie.

Most people think that Two and a Half Men is a better sitcom than Arrested Development. What's your point?

Like I said, I love LOTR, but what good is in them is Tolkien's responsibility, and there is a LOT of bad that Jackson can simply get away with due to Tolkien's work. It's almost as if Peter Jackson read a "filmmakers for dummies" book before he went and shot LOTR, what with just going crazy with all the slow motion and soft focus, over exposed nonsense. But like I said before, he can get away with this garbage filmmaking because LOTR lends itself to this melodramatic filmmaking. But under no circumstances would you need this slow motion overdone style to make LOTR good, in fact, I almost wonder if it would've been more powerful with a much less obtrusive filmmaker.

It's difficult to compare LOTR versus the PT as they are very, very different, but I'm not willing to say one is better than the other. They are both really great stories told by artists with certain inheirent flaws that you just have to accept. I am perfectly willing to say Lucas is a better filmmaker than Jackson even if I would be in the minority in saying so.

EDIT: Let me just ask you Demodex, do you really think Jackson did an outstandind job with LOTR? Do you honestly buy into his style?

I think it could have been better than it was, but I'm pretty satisfied with LOTR. The only disappointment for me with LOTR are the action sequences that are too hard to follow. Especially the Moria sequence in Balin's Tomb. Nothing in ROTK bothers me.

The PT could have been loads better and I'm not satisfied with the majority of it. The acting is horrible. Anakin's turn really bugs me. He does a complete 180 degree turn in a few seconds. I didn't see him seduced by the Dark Side as much as just being tricked into it. I guess that's why there is still good in him, but I just didn't buy his turning as believeable.

As for TPM and AOTC, they're just really boring except for about 20 minutes near the end.

In terms of just simple enjoyment, LOTR is much more satisfying than the PT.