ROUND 3, DEBATE 2 - THE KING VS THE NIGHT!!!
First off...Sods took it!
He tooks it hard from Liman!
He tooks it likes he owns it!
And he is a bit cocky about it!
He tooks it hard from Liman!
He tooks it likes he owns it!
And he is a bit cocky about it!
SO...while he's off shooting Ocean's Twenty-Three...
The New Debate!!!
Peter Jackson VS M. Night Shyamalan
Jackson directed the Lord Of The Rings movies...but he also directed King Kong.
Night directed Unbreakable...but he also directed Lady In The Water.
Now...are any of these 'bad' movies?
Not for me to say.
It's up to you!
SO DEBATE BEYOTCHES!!!
posted by Erin_Echo | 10:31 AM
13 Comments:
Jackson made Lord of the Rings. Enough said. I can forgive Kong, especially if he goes back and makes The Hobbit. Night is progressively getting worse and worse. As we've said, he needs to direct somebody else's script. The only filmmaker that comes to mind that has continually written and directed their own material with good results is Cameron Crowe. Night will most likely lose the amount of control he has gained over his pictures. Too bad, so sad.
Winner: JACKSON
At the beginning of this debate, I think we would all agree that if we checked Vegas odds on who would win, Jackson would have had great odds on coming out victorious- as evident by Erin’s questionable first and second round bye for him. But, the debate has to happen for him to move on
This is where it gets tricky now, for me the debate between these two guys gets rather difficult- Jackson made Lord of the Rings (and as Joe said- enough said) and everyone has at least one M. Night movie on their personal top ten list (Signs for me).
However, for the sake of this debate, Jackson has really only one other movie beyond LOTR- King Kong- that’s it! Yeah, I know, he’s made a bunch of smaller cool looking genre pics, but for me, artistically, he’s moved way beyond those early movies. Those movies no longer reflect his directing taste or skill (bring on the hate).
Lord of the Rings stands as a major achievement for him (and financial one for New Line) and is one of the greatest trilogies of all time (until Spiderman 3 comes out next summer). However, King Kong was a step back. The non-effects shots (early in NYC and on the boat) were embarrassingly weak and almost amateurish. I will forgive him for his lack of control on certain scenes (the bug pit and the bronto stomp) and for his lack of editing control in others (almost every other action sequence was way too long), but those early scenes curiously do not demonstrate the necessary directing skills for a non-genre filmmaker. For me it was almost shocking.
My problem with M. Night has always been his creative choices (The Village), but at no time during any of his movies have I questioned his technical directing skills, ability to create emotional response and achieve his desired outcome. He has demonstrated incredible skill at all aspects of film making and in various genres (some might say he has created his own genre). So why isn’t he a more successful filmmaker? Why hasn’t he achieved super stardom? Probably, as the media has been pounding into our heads, his ego has been getting in the way. I personally value ego and feel it’s a valuable tool when dealing with studios and bean counting marketers (did I just say that?), however, as Mel Gibson can tell you, it can get you into trouble.
So, what does it come down to? For me, I think M. Night will overcome his ego problems and get back to work and will continue his upward trend toward super stardom. Jackson on the other hand is doing a non-genre picture next, which I don’t have supreme confidence in its outcome. I have this bad feeling that he’ll be forced to return to the world of hobbits to salvage his stardom- which shouldn't be good for a guy of his stature.
Side note: I have not seen ‘Lady’ so I can not comment on the recent bad reviews and questionable creative choices.
Winner: M. Night
I too shall join in with the sentiment that Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings. ‘nuff said.
I view Lord of the Rings (much to the dismay of people like Pete0 as one giant, 9 hour movie – hey, if Andy Warhol can give me a nine hour opus of a dud sleeping, then, Jackson can give me a 9 hour epic about a ring and midgets with hairy feet and a gay old wizard.
I always enjoyed Jackson’s earlier films for their sheer sophomoric enjoyment of gore and bad taste (see what I did there?) Heavenly Creatures was a fine little feature and everything else Jackson has done since then is light years away.
M. Night has impressed me since The 6th Sense.
His writing and film making show a confidence that your film makers of today don’t display.
Night is not afraid to set the camera in one place and have the shot go on for the entire seen, as opposed to the Baz’s and Bay’s who feel the need to edit every 2.4 seconds. Imagine what Night could have done with Moulin Rouge?
1. We would have been able to see the actual fucking costumes and sets
2. The dialogue would have been soooooo much better
3. Baz would have been out of a job and I would have been happy to keep that fucker away from film stock for one more day! Yippee! (that was my Jake Lloyd impression at the end there, by the by)
As the minority that appreciates The Village for what it is (a drama about the lengths one will go for who they love) I think that has been the beginning of the end of this part of M. Night’s career.
Now calm down.
I’m not saying homeslice is finished, I’m saying THIS part of his career is winding down – thus, a new part will begin. I haven’t seen Lady In The Water (he whispered) but am dying to.
OK, I’m rambling here – here’s the thing.
Night has yet to let me down. Night has yet to make a movie where I walked out going, it could have been a better movie…it was good, but not great!
Like King Kong.
I re-watched parts of Kong recently. I think the beginning works great. Then they get on the ship. And it’s the merry, ship mates hour. We have bizarre sub plots with crew members that, for some reason, we’re supposed to care about, even though they won’t be with us through out the whole movie. We have crew members who may or may not be bunking up together. We have crew members who like young lads that read Joseph Conrad (hey, that rhymed! I’m a regular Mos Def!) It takes forever to get to the island.
Once they get there, the villagers are creepy, the abduction of Anne is creepy, Kong’s intro is great…then it gets a little discombobulated (wow, according to spell check, I spelled that right!) Scenes go on for way to long, scenes that aren’t necessary are installed.
I love Jackson and his passion he brings to the screen (as evidenced by the last half hour of Kong) but he needs to find his clarity again (like he had on LOTR)
Night has a vision.
He knows what he wants, he knows what he’s trying to say, and damn it, he’ll do it his own way – marketing people be damned (“The Village is a thriller about monsters!” No it’s not you asses!)
I’m hoping Jackson scales back and does a couple of intimate films to find his voice again.
Night, love him or hate him, has never lost his.
WINNER: NIGHT
I'm sorry Joe, but did you seriously like "Vanilla Sky"? That was movie was a huge dissapointment. I also think "Almost famous" is very overrated. Sorry, I just think he is way overrated.
I like Night better. He has such a clear vision in his films. He doesn't let anything influence the film he wants to make. The same be said of Jackson, but Night's films seem more personal and there's few wasted scenes.
I like the slower style of storytelling.
Pete you say you have always had a problem with Night's creative choices, but you only give one example(The Village). Are there other Night film's you didn't like?
I don't hate Crowe, but Vanilla Sky is horrible. Worst ending ever.
Ray,
Yes, I liked 'Vanilla Sky.' However, I haven't seen it since it was in theaters, so I'll need to give it a second viewing to see if it still stands up to my standards. Also, that is the one time Crowe didn't use an original story of his own, so if you (or anyone) didn't like it, it only proves my point that he can get away with writing and directing his own material. Although I'll also admit that Penelope Cruz can't act her way out of a paper bag (what exactly does that phrase mean, anyway?). I also just like to hear Cameron Diaz say, "But I swallowed your cum!" 'Almost Famous' is awesome, and I can't believe you didn't like it. "I am a Golden God!!" Maybe it's because I love '70s classic rock, especially Led Zeppelin. I haven't seen 'Elizabethtown' yet, but I know the critics kind of panned it. Can anyone back or dispute that? 'Say Anything' is in my top three films of all time. I strive to be like Lloyd Dobbler. And of course, 'Singles' and 'Jerry Maguire' are great. But I realize that his films are not for everyone. They just happen to have a personal appeal to me.
Also, Ray, I think your balls are overrated!! (I'm not quite sure what that means either).
Hey, is Crowe even a part of this debate, or was he voted out in one of the early rounds that I missed?
Sorry Joe,
I'm with Ray on this one (let the record show that Ray and Pete agree on something). Crowe is way over rated.
Jerry M was the single biggest over rated movie of all time! To this day when someone talks about that movie I stand up and yell- Jerry Maguire didn't learn anything by the end of the movie!!! In his mind he still achieved success by getting his client the biggest contract!! Am I missing something?
Almost famous- yes also over rated, but a much better movie than his previous work. Nice post card from the 70s. And it’s not about Zeppelin, its about second tier American rock bands on the Mid 70s- best example would be Peter Frampton, Mountain, etc.
The one movie of his that I actually enjoyed was 'Elizabethtown'... as purely an exercise in tone and atmosphere- nothing else. If you let the pacing, cinematography and production design take you and drop any expectation for story or character you'll enjoy it.
Orlando Bloom is a movie star.
Also- you say that 'Say Anything' is in your top three films of all time. WHAT?
Ray,
The final scene when Jackson gives his big reveal in Unbreakable was unnecessary, you know my opinion of the Village and to a certain extent, the Bruce Willis character could have been done differently in The sixth sense and not been a ghost. I understand why he did it, but as i've said before- it was a creative choice of his.
It's as if he doesn't trust his ability to create a good thrilling movie. I know I do.
And for the record, I like all his movies. Really like Unbreakable and love Signs- which is a top 10 or 20 for me(depending on what day you ask me).
Don't close this debate yet, Erin. I posted my vote last night but I guess I hit preview and not post!
"The Great Director Debate 3:The return of Justin"
"The Great Director Debate 3:The revenge of Justin"
"The Great Director Debate 3:Justin strikes again"
"The Great Director Debate 3:Justin's revenge"
hmmmm. not sure.
It would be oh so easy to just give it to Jackson for those movies where people walked around alot. But what original (not adapted) work has he done that any of us have talked about for more than ten seconds. Sure, 'Heavenly Creatures' was interesting, but less than memorable. And I enjoyed 'The Frighteners' mostly for the Alex P. Keaton face-time (oh why didn't he cast Tina Yothers?!).
Both directors show insufferable signs of egotism. Night's being his tendency to write himself more and more into prominent parts in his scripts. Being probably the only one here to have seen 'Lady In The Water' (yes, I am a true Night fan), I must say that seeing the director in front of the camera for most of the film was a true distraction. Fortunately, he actually did a decent acting job in 'Lady'. Otherwise, it would have ruined the show. Thank God once again for Giamatti!
As for Jackson, he showed a severe lack of restraint in his final cut of 'King Kong', taking too many sideroads from the main story and indulging in CG spectacle for no apparent reason except to say "WETA is betta." Also, what's with those creepy chubby ladies who are always sitting two feet away from him at all times? How much input do they have in his film-making? I've never seen a pair of hefty broads orbiting Shyamalan.
In the name of singular vision and originality, I will lay my money on...
WINNER: NIGHT
P.S. Petey, could you clarify the "shocking" and "amateurish" shots during the New York scenes from 'Kong'? I recently watched the opening and thought the 30's era Manhattan scenes were epic.
Joe, don't eat crow because you like Crowe. He makes very personal, very original films. He has also conquered the unconquerable genre: the "Romantic Dramedy for Men". I think Ray is too macho too get in touch with his sensitive side and he only liked 'Jerry Maguire' because of the extended locker room footage (with bonus towel snapping action).
Ray, I'm going to bring down the thunder on your ass. But not now, it's getting late.
Sleep tight.
Pete-
Yes, I understand that 'Almost Famous' was not about Zeppelin. However, it was Crowe's experiences touring with Zeppelin as a writer for Rolling Stone that inspired the film. As for 'Jerry Maguire,' he learns to make his business more about the people. By having everything he has taken for ganted suddenly stripped away, he is forced to focus on what's important: one-on-one relationships not just with his clients, but with people in general. Sadly, the film did jump-start the career of Renee Zellweger, whom I would love to see drop far off the Hollywood map. So I'll tell you what Petey...I'll go on loving Crowe; you go on "loving" James Cameron. And we'll just agree to disagree. And in the immortal words of Lloyd Dobbler from 'Say Anything...', "She gave me a pen. I gave her my heart, and she gave me a pen."
Post a Comment
<< Home