Fuck You, Mr Jackson!
Peter Jackson, you tubby, fatuous shit.
You just cannot sit still. Hollywood gave you power, and now you think you can go defecate anything you wish with your putrid feces. I know your type. A big fan of the 'Lord of the Rings' books? Why not make them into tiring, CGI-laden fuckin' borefest that turn into incredibly dated looking memories after about three years of release? Selfish, selfish, selfish.
King Kong is your favourite movie? Oh, well then, how about remaking it in such a renegade, cocky fashion that the whole premise of the film is lost in your splurge of budget and imagination? Does that seem like a good idea. Peter Jackson says: Yes.
Having an overworked imagination is encouragable, but there is always exceptions of this; in order to pay respect to the original source material you are basing your big ideas on. Merian. C. Cooper and Ernest. B. Shoedsack's King Kong is one of my favourite films of all-time. It's wonder and fantasy truly captured me as a little boy. I distinctly remember viewing the film not as a sucky, old, black-and-white relic, but as one of the most exciting things I'd seen. It helped me form the template of understanding of motion picture, of dialogue, of spectacle, of story and climax. The 1933 King Kong was the first film I recognised as more than a film, even as a child. I recognised the message, the beautiful moral of man's power struggle. That brandishing juxtaposing of man and beast, when, only after Kong has been slain in its last attempt at salvation, us humans realise the beast is us, those who would imprison and slaughter innocence.
The original King Kong is an anti-Hollywood movie at its core. Where so much destruction, intrusion, loss of innocence and downfall is all in the efforts of entertainment. Claiming Kong's kingdom as a movie set, capturing Kong as an international exhibit, Hollywood is the true blood-thirsty beast. Which is why I have such a dilemma with Jackson. Remaking and exploiting for means of entertainment is exactly the sort of issue King Kong represents. And the fact that Jackson has pushed his new rendition to more than three hours hurts. The original is a mere 100 minutes. How dare Jackson remake a film, whilst adding a senseless 80 minutes.
This is exactly the sort of behaviour I for one stand against. If Mr. Jackson truly was as passionate about the story of King Kong as he constantly states, than why, oh why, did he feel the need to remake the film in his overbearing, frosted video-game style. How does that show appreciation. Couldn't he have spent money on restoring and re-releasing the original to theatres?
I mean, I have a lot of respect for the late Fay Wray, who played Anne Darrow in the original Kong movie. But re-animating her corpse and covering her with cosmetics to look young and hip to suit the 21st Century would be the most indignifying thing ever. So why is it so fulfilling to treat a movie in the same way?
To you Mr. Jackson, I say: Fuck You.
You just cannot sit still. Hollywood gave you power, and now you think you can go defecate anything you wish with your putrid feces. I know your type. A big fan of the 'Lord of the Rings' books? Why not make them into tiring, CGI-laden fuckin' borefest that turn into incredibly dated looking memories after about three years of release? Selfish, selfish, selfish.
King Kong is your favourite movie? Oh, well then, how about remaking it in such a renegade, cocky fashion that the whole premise of the film is lost in your splurge of budget and imagination? Does that seem like a good idea. Peter Jackson says: Yes.
Having an overworked imagination is encouragable, but there is always exceptions of this; in order to pay respect to the original source material you are basing your big ideas on. Merian. C. Cooper and Ernest. B. Shoedsack's King Kong is one of my favourite films of all-time. It's wonder and fantasy truly captured me as a little boy. I distinctly remember viewing the film not as a sucky, old, black-and-white relic, but as one of the most exciting things I'd seen. It helped me form the template of understanding of motion picture, of dialogue, of spectacle, of story and climax. The 1933 King Kong was the first film I recognised as more than a film, even as a child. I recognised the message, the beautiful moral of man's power struggle. That brandishing juxtaposing of man and beast, when, only after Kong has been slain in its last attempt at salvation, us humans realise the beast is us, those who would imprison and slaughter innocence.
The original King Kong is an anti-Hollywood movie at its core. Where so much destruction, intrusion, loss of innocence and downfall is all in the efforts of entertainment. Claiming Kong's kingdom as a movie set, capturing Kong as an international exhibit, Hollywood is the true blood-thirsty beast. Which is why I have such a dilemma with Jackson. Remaking and exploiting for means of entertainment is exactly the sort of issue King Kong represents. And the fact that Jackson has pushed his new rendition to more than three hours hurts. The original is a mere 100 minutes. How dare Jackson remake a film, whilst adding a senseless 80 minutes.
This is exactly the sort of behaviour I for one stand against. If Mr. Jackson truly was as passionate about the story of King Kong as he constantly states, than why, oh why, did he feel the need to remake the film in his overbearing, frosted video-game style. How does that show appreciation. Couldn't he have spent money on restoring and re-releasing the original to theatres?
I mean, I have a lot of respect for the late Fay Wray, who played Anne Darrow in the original Kong movie. But re-animating her corpse and covering her with cosmetics to look young and hip to suit the 21st Century would be the most indignifying thing ever. So why is it so fulfilling to treat a movie in the same way?
To you Mr. Jackson, I say: Fuck You.
posted by Ryan at 6:23 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home