Tuesday, December 06, 2005
King Kong doubters -- what the Hell?
From a BBC article about the enduring appeal of King Kong:
"Both Mr Freer and Mr Setchfield dismiss critics who say the film is merely an indulgence by its director.
"Jackson wanted to remake Kong because it's a real labour of love," says Mr Freer.
"I don't think it is a vanity project," adds Mr Setchfield.
Who the heck are these critics? What's wrong with an indulgent vanity project when it's Peter Jackson? Did they even see Lord of the Rings?
The "labour of love" scenario is the best thing movie audiences could hope for, and it's the opposite of the way most movies are made today. Some day I would love to helm a beautiful, expensive stop-motion movie that my peers loved and that made no money, becoming a cult movie that doesn't recoup it's costs until a decade of dvd sales. I'd rather make something successful, natch, but sometimes I think I'd be more likely to pull that gag, and just get suckers to bankroll me once.
With its five-day opening weekend, I'll be very surprised if Kong doesn't make back its production costs by the 18th.