Talk:Peter Jackson/Archive 1

LOTR characters in Hobbit film

The article reads:

"Gandalf, Elrond, and Gollum would look essentially the same in a prequel, and the same actors could conceivably reprise their roles."

There was an actor for Gollum (Andy Serkis), but his appearance is irrelevant because what appears on-screen is an animation (modelled upon his acting). He does provide the voice, but even that is digitally transformed.

Interestingly (going by the additional material on the special edition DVD versions), Serkis' role was highly acclaimed by the other actors and director as inspirational and crucial - even though there is nothing in the final movie which actually is him.

- A secret Wikipedia admirer.

I hate to argue and seem like an anonymous troll (though, really, I am. It's so easy to create an account too!), but if you remove Serkis, you remove the essence of Gollum. Serkis's images were often how the animation team was able to go in and design the character's facial expression. Serkis brought the voice, the acting, the animators and mo-cap team just added in some digital make-up. I'm off to create my account now! --72.228.127.101 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings

It states that principal photography whent from October 2001 to December 2000. Obvioulsy I don't know what the real dates are or I would fix it myself.

From Meet the Feebles to Lord of the Rings

when is "the hobbit" going to be filmed???

The Hobbit#Film This should give you enough information. Ratso 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird fact

From the article:

He was an early user of computer enhancement technology and provided digital special effects to a number of Hollywood films by use of telecommunications and satellite links to transmit raw images and the enhanced results across the Pacific Ocean, making good use of time differences between New Zealand and North America.

How can someone make good use of time differences? --Abdull 22:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy - when the work day in the US is finishing, it is just starting in New Zealand, so they can do processing work while it is nighttime in the US.

Weight

When are we going to have some comments on his weight loss?

Seriously, that's what I was wondering. I did some googling and can't find any info on how he lost all those pounds so quickly. --Quasipalm 14:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at http://www.kongisking.net/perl/newsview/15/1113355189 -- Cate 15:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I added a note about this in the article. This normally wouldn't be encyclopedic, but with Jackson, the change is so extreme I belive it's notable. --Quasipalm 18:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

Another Peter Jackson is the CEO of Associated British Foods. List of companies by revenue links incorrectly to this Peter Jackson.

I think there are too many other important Peter Jacksons for the filmmaker to have the "Peter Jackson" page. I think this page should be renamed "Peter Jackson (filmmaker)" and all links to "Peter Jackson" directed to "Peter Jackson (disambiguation)".--Jeff79 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the disambiguation page, I can't see anyone who is remotely as famous as this Peter Jackson. Perhaps in their own fields or countries some of them are very well known, but to me the big test is that a lot of people who don't really know about film or New Zealand have heard of this Peter Jackson, therefore he should get the page. I'm not sure why you would want to redirect all the Peter Jackson links to Peter Jackson (disamiguation). From 'what links here' it looks like pretty much everything which links to 'Peter Jackson' refers to the film maker. --Helenalex 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand-American

Is he really a "New Zealand-American"? Sure, he does make mainstream films that are popular in the USA but I don't think he fits that category unless he is actually living there full-time or has. King Kong and the Lord of the Rings trilogy were filmed in New Zealand. For now, I'm removing that category.

That means I removed it for the second time then. According to the page:

"A New Zealand-American is any of the following: An American citizen or a person born in the United States of America who is:

   * born in New Zealand
   * has any New Zealand ancestry"

and PJ doesn't fit into any of those categories. kju 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is there are no indications that he is an American citizen.

Digital Editing and Time Zone differences

He was an early user of computer enhancement technology and provided digital special effects to a number of Hollywood films by use of telecommunications and satellite links to transmit raw images and the enhanced results across the Pacific Ocean, making good use of time zone differences between New Zealand and North America.

Can someone please expand on this to explain how the time zone differences were beneficial to his work? Thank you. --malber 21:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings - how?

This article currently doesn't mention anything about how Peter Jackson (once a cult director best known for a couple of low budget splatter films) managed to end up as the director of the multi-million dollar "Lord of the Rings" movie franchise. This would seem to me to be a fairly major omission! 217.155.20.163 03:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a tax loop-hole in New Zealand, since closed, which provided a large amount of the funding. I have not heard whether the New Zealand IRD got a share of the final profits. Thus Jackson was able to provide a package including his talent and the $. XSebX 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time difference

"He was an early user of computer enhancement technology and provided digital special effects to a number of Hollywood films by use of telecommunications and satellite links to transmit raw images and the enhanced results across the Pacific Ocean, making good use of time zone differences between New Zealand and North America."

Maybe I'm being a little slow here, but what on earth does the time difference have to do with it?Palefire 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Anyone? Well, it looks like nonsense to me, so I'm removing it.Palefire 10:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this above. I think what is meant is that because NZ is located on practically the other side of the planet, and on the other side of the International Date Line, Jackson could do the work during "off-hours" and have it ready by the next morning. The paragraph could make it more clear. --malber 13:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I didn't see that - I should read previous posts more carefully. But I think this is pure conjecture, and would need amplification. The time difference could just as easily be a handicap, depending on Jackson's working patterns, need to communicate with thre recipient, etc.Palefire 13:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awsome Director

Peter Jackson is the best director I know. I really love the "Lord of the Rings" series, and I saw "King Kong" a short time after it came out, and it was a great movie. I can't wait for him to make more movies, because he is awesome at it. I also think that he has a great taste for finding actors to star in these movies. Liv Tyler (Arwen), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), and Orlando Bloom (Legolas) all look like great elves, and Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) really hits me as a great ranger. He is really good at finding great actors. And also really good at finding a guy to play the digital people. Andy Sirkus was chosen to play both Gollum/Smeagle in "LOTR" and Kong in "King Kong" because of his ability to do amazing stunts without killing himself. Great choice by Peter Jackson. He's an amazing director. -J. R. Bryan (7 February 2006)

Peter Jackson is an untalented hack. (152.163.101.7 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think with the amazing job he did with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I was wondering if he might consider doing R.A. Salvatore's Dark Elf Trilogy and Icewind Dale Trilogy

If you want to see some great directing, go and see films by Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa etc. All Jackson did is copy the story from Tolkien, who has set out the entire plot for him. LOTR feels more like Tolkien's film than Jackson's film. Jackson need to direct his own original pieces, develope his own unique style to be considered even great. Directing one film split into three parts does not qualify.--60.228.160.15 14:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys didnt see the bit at the top of the screen that says this page isnt for general discussion of the subject? --Helenalex 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kong

Since Peter Jackson did King Kong, is he planning to do The Son of Kong as well? If he is there should be some information either in this article or in the King Kong article. Scorpionman 12:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms (similar to the ones found on Spielberg's page)

I believe Peter Jackson to be a very talented filmmaker; but should there be a criticism section on the article? Speilberg is often criticized for being very commercial and taking that over art; and I think this same criticism may also apply to Peter Jackson. For example, critics state that SPielberg compromises the themes made in his films by having a happy "hollywood" or "commercial" ending, etc.; would Jackson be guilty of these same or similar criticisms? Are the criticisms against Spielberg, and therefor, against Jackson justified? Or, are there not as many critics of Jackson as there are of Spielberg, so it's not worth mentioning in the article? Even then, should Jackson recieve the same criticisms? I've always felt they were both great directors; and now, after reading the criticisms found on SPielberg's page, I'm questioning their films and their motives (not necessarilly their talent)... 24.23.51.27 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find criticisms, start a 'criticisms' section - otherwise its just POV. And Speilberg and Jackson don't have a lot in common apart from directing blockbusters; no one could call the ending of Heavenly Creatures 'happy Hollywood'. --Helenalex 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Regarding the recent edits by User:67.23.55.185, this criticism is not reliably attributed to any person or group of people, and so can be considered both original research and a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point-of-View policy. Consider both revising and sourcing your comments, and placing them in an appropriate section of the article (the introduction is not the place to put this). Ziggurat 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have been re-edited, but the fact remains that the fact that he took liberties with the text of the Lord of the Rings seems to be quite irrelevant to any general discussion of the director (and I think pretty much every biography would agree with me on that count). It clearly shouldn't go in the introduction. Ziggurat 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The man is a bad filmmaker. Most people don't have the balls to say so. They just look at that stupid CGI crap, and use this to form an opinion. CGI DOES NOT MAKE A MOVIE! Peter Jackson is a no-talent hack! (152.163.101.7 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article does seem over the top on the positive superlatives. I think it should be toned down to read more like an encyclopedia rather than hype for the guy. I don't think it should lead off with User:152.163.101.7's option above, of course, but the article seems to over-do it. Removal of 80% of the adjectives in the first paragraph would be a start. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Don't get me wrong. I have much admiration for Mr. Jackson's achievements, but this article seems to be written by a (understandably) proud countryman, and reads more like an advertisement praising a product than an encyclopedic article. I haven't made any changes because I'd prefer the maintainers of this article to do that. Please let the facts speak for themselves. Fwend 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion to this effect with an editor who has been adding some of this stuff ([1]) - haven't received a reply, but the article as it stands is a bit gushy. Ziggurat 10:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Singer comment should be removed

Why is Jackson considered in the same league as Bryan Singer? Singer's influence on any part of hollywood is sketchy at best. Jackson has been around much longer and has achieved more in film (with the success of LOTR besting anything Singer has yet to achieve). In addition Jackson's early work as an indie filmmaker, combined with his interest in digital effects (WETA) puts him more on par with George Lucas in terms of influence....however Jackson's film output as a director already beats that of Lucas as his films are generally all well received by both critics and the public. They are NOT in the same league at all.

I agree - it's a bad comparison. Ziggurat 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the success of LOTR cannot be attributed to Jackson alone. He lacks directorial style and any previous experience outside of cheap cult films. Directing one well-received film does not automatically make him a great director. George Lucas at least writes his own scripts, and revolutionalised the film industry with the Star Wars films and CGI development.--60.228.160.15 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if Lucas had made 'Lord of the Rings', it would have been awful. Lucas has never been a good director or writer; 'Star Wars' was a success because of the effects, not the writing or directing (and the good parts of the script were lifted from Kurosawa and Joseph Campbell). IMHO Jackson isn't a great director, but he's very competent in the role, which is more than can be said for many working in Hollywood these days. Mark Grant 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If what you claimed is true, Star Wars would have been forgotten 10 years after it's release when better CGI outdates the film. Lucas's script for Episode IV is influenced by Kurosawa and Campbell, not lifted, as the universe is his own. Despite what you claim, Lucas succeeded in creating his own world, with characters such as Yoda, Vader and Han Solo, as well as his own script are in AFI's top 100 lists. A bad story would have never generated such a franchise and people who follow the Jedi philosophy in real life. Even Jackson himself credits lucas's visuals and directions a influence on the LOTR films. And who did you know that Lucas would direct LOTR awfully? Lucas also directed many good films, such as THX 1138 and American Grafitti.--60.242.159.224 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wingnut Films link

The Wingnut films links get redirected back to this page. Inego 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Overrated

This entire article actually features none of the criticisms that Jackson receives and makes this a little biased. Jackson is notorious for piling tonnes of special effects into his movies that seem to add little substance to his films. King Kong was a three hour movie with a half hour long plot. I almost fell asleep because of how boring it was on Skull Island - it was one monster scene followed by another for way too long. I know I'm not the only one who thinks that - every review says it too. And this article says he's 'the new Spielberg for the current generation.' There was an old Spielberg for the current generation? That was just bad grammar. Also in that comparison to Bryan Singer - I'd say Jackson is taking credibility away from big budget movies by the loss of humanity in his works, while Singer (along with Sam Raimi) have managed to revitalize the comic book based movie industry. I don't think Jackson is an important director and comparing him to anyone just dirties their reputation. Abrynkus 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Someone added a tiny piece of code to the introductory paragraph. The tag is made to be camoflaged on the edit page and therefore harder to remove. It's pasted below so you can see what it looks like. Looking on the Edit page, the tag appears as, in double brackets, New Zealand Order of Merit | CNZM. The tag appears to be configured so that when it is put on the article page it says "is a little boy that smokes to much weed." On this talk page, however, it simply says "CNZM."

Peter Jackson CNZM.

This tag has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.31.9 (talk • contribs)

That was corrected. I restored the CNZM. -- Gogo Dodo 05:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo in ROTK

"and as a rider during the charge on the Pelennor Fields in (The Return of the King)." Can someone please provide a screenshot or other reference to this, such as an interview or a DVD commentary. It doesn't seem to appear on any other such lists (except for those mirrored from here). The other cameos are more or less "official" as they have been commented by (for example) Jackson himself somewhere. --Nerwende 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add this to the article (very important)....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3867692a11,00.html

--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been added (check main page history). SparrowsWing 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the 'other prequel' to Lord Of The Rings?

Reports speak of two films that Jackson has just been taken off of. One's The Hobbit, clear enough. What's the other? Chunks of The Silmarillion? The Downfall of Numenor? Does anyone know? --GwydionM 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something off the Appendices. But this is not a discussion forum. Wiki-newbie 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to one person on the internet, it's supposed to be about the fall of Numenor, and it would be called Westernesse.

Well that's one guy's idea. Wiki-newbie 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Might a new photo of him with his weight loss be a good idea?

I totally agree, it shows him being fat but I think that a picture of his new look should be up. Tylerco113x 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, I think we need to show how he looks now

I updated the picture to correspond with the recent New Line/Wingnut Films lawsuit. (209.247.22.136 07:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Invisible vandalism?

right after Peter jackson, it says "MUST DIRECT THE HOBBIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ", but i can find no such text on the edit page.