 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.183.129.156
In Reply to: Re: "King Kong" posted by Analog Scott on December 4, 2004 at 11:54:31:
If Universal is footing the bill, then he's making a Hollywood picture.No offense to Jackson, BTW. I'd rather see him tackle another project like Rings than diddle around with a classic.
Follow Ups:
Intersting. So "A Very Long Engagement" is a Hollywood film as well?
I'm sure they have very similar budgets, not to mention similar promotion and advertising :)
Is there a minimum budget for a Studio funded movie to be considered a "Hollywood" movie? How much do you think the budgets were and are for the two movies? Right now "A Very Long Affair" is being thoughroughly represented by the studio and their promotional department. I doubt that King Kong will be more marketed so substantially more that one would have to declare one a "Hollywood" movie and the other not.
I surmise we'll be seeing a "Kong Burger" at Burger King before it's all said and done.
So? Is this how one determines whether or not a movie is a "Hollywood" movie? I always thought it had to do with the people who made the film.
It's going to be a big budget Hollywood film, no matter how you slice it. I think Universal gave Jackson like $20 million upfront to do it.For what it's worth, I enjoyed LOTR---and he will probably do a pretty good job with Kong. I just wish that Hollywood (however you define it) would stop rehashing everything from old movies to TV shows and pour more time, money and effort into something new...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]