Well, Spaghetti, that may be true, but Peter Jackson, just like anyone else, wants to make money. I mean, authors publish their books in hardback and then paperback and the HB is always more expensive. They just want to make money too.
Here's where your kind heart gets the better of you, mi amigo. First, we know that the book industry makes its bread and butter from paperbacks. Additionally, the cost of paperbacks is far below the cost of legitimate DVDs in western countries. Then there's the fact Jackson's films already made money. Now, speaking of The Frighteners, the film was not considered successfully, but that didn't stop the pretentious-yet-talented turd from going balls out and producing a bloody six hour documentary so rife with flatulent self-importance that someone would have done well to slap Jackson upside the head and remind him of the virtues of humble pie. He didn't make Lawrence of Arabia. He made a Michael J. Fox ghost movie.
Then there's the fact that most authors don't pretend that "someone," some nameless, faceless entity, "made" them truncate their books and this year-later "double dip," was what, "you were supposed to see" even though the liar perpetuating such horseshit had final cut! What you saw on cinema screens was what Jackson wanted. What you got on the DVD was fine. Who doesn't love alternate versions of their favorite movies??? However, to lie about it and to have fans claiming that these were the versions you were (are) "supposed to see," is just silly. It's also enabling an ego that needs to get back to reality.
Speaking of Jackson, his remake of King Kong was so abysmally bad! It was built on a pretentious house of sand and boy did it crumble! Jackson's proposed World War II movie, his proposed pseudo follow-up to Heavenly Creatures*, another WWII movie that was supposed to have seen Jackson return to his horror roots, the film version of the Halo video game, and his Spielberg Tin-Tin adaptations have all disappeared. He has spent the last two years adapting the novel, "The Lovely Bones," which I think he wrapped shooting over a year ago. If that's true, it means it has been collecting dust on a studio's shelf: that's never a good sign. I'd also add that he nearly got cock-blocked out of The Hobbit films by his former LOTR producers, and as a concession, he will "produce" them and Guillermo Del Toro** will direct the pair of films*** based on the book.
Maybe he's finally getting some humble pie. I'd love to be able to see the Peter Jackson of old, who wasn't so bent on feeding bullshit to the public about his films and their supposed importance. His work spoke for itself, and he was humble and not out to milk his fans of their money for the sake of milking them of their money.
When all is said and done, the extended versions are just plain better. More cool scenes, especially the ones that got so rudely cut containing Christopher Lee, a cutting that I found to be an almost unforgiveable slight of a true Hollywood legend.
You forget that Jackson had FINAL CUT, meaning what made it to the theaters were HIS versions! The director's cuts. And here you illustrate what I mean by enabling a guy. You repeat what he wanted you to believe, that he wasn't at fault for trimming those scenes, but if you dig deep enough in print media, Jackson had final cut on the last two (if not all three) of the Lord of The Rings films. The studios didn't make him cut them, despite the cop out of claiming they did. When your films will sell based on name alone, and then hit the ball home based on the talent involved, and the first entry rakes in obscene amounts of cash, how was not cutting 10-30 minutes going to prevent a further take? No, Jackson decided to cut those scenes and after the first DVD, realized he could be greedy and get suckers to pay more for "more," rather than actually show some respect to his fans by just giving them the full flick right off the bat.
Jackson "slighted," Lee.
King Kong was not the best movie ever but I assume you still wathced it? One wonders why? I mean, you must have realized that it was going to be filled with all the Hollywood trappings, riddled by some mediocre perfomances as so many movies are today.
Huh? Let's see, pretentious Peter is still a filmmaker of talent. The LOTR films were good. I enjoyed all of his previous works. He earned my interest, so I check out King Kong based on the fact that I think he'd deliver a modicum of quality. He didn't. It was a monumental fuck up and audiences reacted accordingly. Have you noticed how long it's taken Jackson to follow up? It's no coincidence. I think the guy was at the height of his hubris and he got some humble pie. I'm hoping he returns to form even though he's a filthy, lucering goon who likes to rip off fans with double dipping. Ever since The Frighteners he's proved he can make Hollywood films that are not garbage. King Kong, however, is the exception. That was hot shit on a flaming stick.
Gone are the days of Olivier, where thespians perfected their crafts and then deigned to appear in movies.
I disagree. Those days aren't gone because they were never really, "there," back in the day. In fact, I think those days happened in the eighties and are a construct that emerged after the seventies!
Sure, throughout the first one hundred years of cinema there were men and women who stuck to their guns, just as there are today, but such widespread practice in the forties, fifties, and up into the seventies was a fabrication of publicists and do-gooder Hollywood kiss asses who wouldn't know a film if it didn't come off the Tinseltown assembly lines. It's the usual, soundbyte friendly, safe, glamorous myth making of old Hollywood that the studios themselves created, just like Rock Hudson being straight, and studio chiefs being benevolent!
Since we are on the topic of Lord of The Rings, Viggo Mortensen is one of those individuals who plays by his own rules, and he has a body of work where it shows. After the success of the LOTR films he turned down a lot of guaranteed blockbusters based on his distaste for towards the scripts. He broke through the mainstream with LOTR and yet he took his demand and focused in on projects he wanted to do. Javier Bardem has been doing the same, not just after the success of No Country For Old Men, but for his entire career previous. George Clooney, Adam Sandler, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman*** and Mr. Scientology Tom Cruise and little Mr. Scientology Will Smith are yet more with that power. Some simply focus on their Hollywood blockbusters, but all call their own shots (for better and for worse).
Today, if you look good naked and can stand in front of an explosion, you can win an Oscar.
You forget who votes for the Oscars, Eric: Hollywood studios! People in the industry! Believing that an Oscar is actually some merit of artistic quality is no different than you or I setting up "Saloonie" awards and handing them out to ourselves so we can market ourselves off of - and brag about - being great!
Now, while I disagree with your opinion I do respect it and appreciate the opportunity to have some discourse.
*The complete, uncut versions of Brain Dead (aka "Dead-Alive" in North America) and Heavenly Creatures. The 'uncut' version of Dead-Alive in North America only refers to the gore. There's six to ten minutes of character bits that are available on prints from every market except North America. As for Heavenly Creatures, the only complete version seems to exist on home video in Australia and New Zealand, and has yet to actually, legally, appear in North American and European markets. It's pretty ironic that the guy who claims his extended versions are, "the ones you are supposed to see," hasn't been so keen on seeing that his preferred versions of those films become available. He certainly did that for The Frighteners, King Bomb, and LOTR.
**Del Toro is everything Jackson claims himself as being, but Del Toro doesn't tell you this. He simply lets his films speak for themselves. He also doesn't play the, "I had final cut on the film but these here longer versions are really the ones you're supposed to see, not the final cut I submitted to theaters, but this one here that I want you to fork over a lot of money to buy for a second or third time," card. Only one of his films received an "extended" version and that was Hellboy, and that was because he didn't have final cut on the theatrical version. Jackson had final cut on at least two of the three LOTR films, and he still played the greed game.
***I worry about the corrupting, Jackson hubris. Rather than make a singular, solid live action version of The Hobbit, they announced a pair of films before a script was even commissioned. The wheels of double dipping begin before a single letter is typed!
****Morgan Freeman was long a respected actor of stage and television, but his sticktuitiveness worked against him until he finally broke the mainstream in the late eighties and early nineties. I recall an old interview with American talk show host Charlie Rose, where Freeman read off some of the very big films he turned down earlier in his career. Some of them went on to lead other actors to success, like Danny Glover. Freeman lucked out though, and in spite of the racial and ageist glass ceiling that still exists in Hollywood, he's able to do the films he wants to do, cherry picking parts he'd like, and demanding a salary he feels he's worth. He didn't change, but the eyes and ears of power brokers in Hollywood did. Now, to be honest: I think many of the films he appears in are shit, but it's rarely ever the result of his on screen performances.