Posted on 08/31/2006 8:45:18 PM PDT by Hal1950
Another movie coming up from famous director Peter Jackson who announced that he’s gathering a team for a “Dam Busters” remake.
As a child, Peter Jackson said he was a real fan of the 1954 version of “Dam Busters”, a movie based on the book with the same name written by Paul Brickhill, which revolved around inventor Barnes Wallis and mission commander Guy Gibson. He was 12 when he watched the movie for the first time.
“I always thought that out of all the World War II true stories this is one of the most extraordinary," Jackson, a longtime aviation and war buff, told The Dominion Post.
"My parents were English and they were both involved in the war. When it comes to World War II, I'm very based in this English mindset. Mum and Dad talked about it all the time. I almost feel like I lived through World War II."
About 10 years ago, he thought about producing a remake of the movie but he was surprised to find out that Hollywood star Mel Gibson had bought the film rights, held by British broadcaster Sir David Frost, and hoped to star and direct. Jackson said his agent “came back and said that [film company] Icon had the rights and that Mel Gibson was going to direct and possibly act in it. Obviously that didn't happen".
"I'd been chasing it for a long, long time but I forgot about it for a while at that point," Jackson said.
"Then, about two years ago, my agent got back to me to say Mel Gibson had dropped out and they were looking around for suitable film-makers to take it on. That's when I jumped on board."
Speculation over a possible “Dam Busters” remake was initially sparked in May, when Jackson reportedly spent a day filming one of the last surviving Lancaster bombers that took part in the mission.
The story of one of the most daring RAF mission in the Second World War was immortalized by director Michael Anderson starring Michael Redgrave, and it recounts the true story of Britain's military developing bouncing bombs to blow up German dams.
Sir David, on board as one of the executive producers, said: "This is a dream come true. It turned out that, even before we met to discuss it, Peter and I had both been excited by the idea of a remake of The Dam Busters.
“Peter Jackson is the ideal producer, not only because of his film-making genius, but also because of his aeronautical expertise and unique understanding of the human pressures wrought by war”, he added.
Jackson said it would be "as authentic as possible and as close to the spirit of the original as possible".
"So much of it was still secret," said Jackson. "They weren't even allowed to show the bomb itself and had to create a fictionalized bomb. We also want to include a lot more about the development of the bomb. Barnes Wallis (the inventor of the bouncing bomb) had to overcome incredible bureaucratic hurdles to get the bomb taken seriously.”
"It was seen as a crackpot, vaguely nutty idea. The RAF, as were all defense departments at the time, was always being approached by eccentrics claiming they had the weapon to end the war. But he persevered.”
“There's that wonderful mentality of the British during the war - that heads-down, persevering, keep-on-plugging-away mentality which is the spirit of Dam Busters," he told Screen Daily.
"One of the things that's really important for us, which isn't in the original film, is to capture how young these pilots really were," Rivers said.
The shooting is set to start early next year with a budget of $30-40m (£16-21m) and will be directed by Christian Rivers, the animation director on King Kong who will make his directorial debut on the project, renamed “Dambusters”.
It will be backed by Hollywood's Universal Pictures and Europe's biggest film company, StudioCanal. Jackson's agent Ken Kamins and Sir David will be executive producers.
"Let me guess....Two guys in love with the same beautiful girl....Seen it!"
that was my thought as well - mucking it up with a love story. Then they'd ad in a CGI jar jar binks to keep the kids entertained.
As an aside with regard to WWII flicks... I like the Kirk Douglas flick "Heroes of Telemark." I haven't seen it in years... I don't think it is on DVD (at least not here in the States).
Wouldn't mind that one getting a re-do too.
When a director makes extraordinarily successful pictures, it wins him a lot of freedom to make whatever he desires. Money becomes (almost) no object. They are often referred to as tent pole directors. But most often, directors do have great amounts of passion for what they do. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. I would also point to Brian Singer's "Superman Returns."
An interesting side note for you: it is a fact that King Kong is Peter Jackson's all-time favorite movie. People have said that he almost gets a childish glee when he discusses the original with them. The proverbial "Hollywood" didn't make the movie; Peter Jackson did. Hollywood is an industry, not a movie director.
When I walked out of the movie with my 8 year old son, I asked him how he liked it. he told me that he liked the B&W one better.
I don't know if I'd have taken an 8-year old to see that movie, but from the artistic standpoint, I hope your son doesn't grow up to be a movie idiot. I like to bring an open mind to whatever I go see. Why does one have to be "better" than another? Why do movies have to compete for our affection? Why can't we approach them with an understanding of each film's intent?
CGI does not make a movie, and with Peter Jacksons over blown, 1 hour too long epics...
Actually, there wasn't as much CGI as people think. Most of the scenery and backgrounds were created with miniatures (ironically, the same technology used in the original "Kong"). Although I can't help but wonder...if you're going to remake the greatest and most epic monster movie of all time, why NOT make it overblown? Why not go all out? Why not make it as awesome, long, and spectacular as possible? How else would it be done? Would you honestly use stop-motion animation because it isn't that "new-fangled CGI thing" and expect modern audiences to respond?
its clear he is more into himself then a good story!
I like to separate a piece of art from the artist, but Jackson specializes in movies that despite their slick technical expertise, have very classical-style and old-fashioned stories to them. Which might be why he's doing a remake of this film.
Hollywood is so talented..........They will do another remake!
I think it all depends on how much you like King Kong. I was bored out of my mind just watching the previews of Jackson's Kong, but I never found the Kong story terribly exciting in the first place. If you like Kong I'm sure the remake was great, if you don't like Kong it sucked, and the box office says not that many people like Kong.
I thought the previews sucked as well, but they didn't do the movie justice. Part of it was because they rushed too quickly to throw the movie together.
And the box office says not that many people like Kong.
That is absurdly untrue, and for the life of me, I can't figure out where you people are getting this. KONG WAS A HUGE HIT AT THE BOX OFFICE. It was in no way, shape, or form a box office flop.
They rushed too quickly to throw the movie together
Should read, "They rushed to quickly to throw the trailer together."
I think the preview was a fine shining example of what the movie was: a really freaking long version of one of the most copied movies of all time.
We get that because it is 100% true. Kong was not a huge hit, indeed it was almost a terrible belly flop. It cost 207 million dollars to make and on its opening weekend only got 50 mil. Somehow or another it managed to hang on to get a domestic gross of 218 mil, which is just barely break even territory (and actually when you consider the sliding scale of diminishing returns for the company it really isn't break even at all). It didn't even really do that great internationally only making about 50% more than domestic. If the movie hadn't cost 207 mil to make the numbers would have been nice, but with that kind of production budget and a 38 million dollar ad budget the movie didn't do well. It didn't flop, but it sure didn't make anybody laugh to the bank either.
It was #55 on the all-time Domestic list making $218 million. It was #35 on the World-wide all-time list making $549 million.
I would say it did pretty well, but not as well as the LOTR trilogy.
Oh my God!!! It didn't make 207 million in its opening weekend! (No movie in history ever has). It must have been a huge flop!!!!!
Somehow or another it managed to hang on to get a domestic gross of 218 mil, which is just barely break even territory
That's far above a domestic gross that most movies will ever make, but you're focusing on the domestic gross and not the worldwide one. You claim that the domestic gross "wasn't that great" by "only" being 50% more, but that's a pretty laughable statement.
To resolve this matter, the best thing I can do is quote from James Berardinelli's comments on this topic from January '06:
"If you listen to the mainstream media, Peter Jackson's King Kong is a failure - a box office dud that has underperformed since it opened a week before Christmas. The reality, as is sometimes the case, is less dire. Kong is performing respectably. No one is going to take a bath on this one - in fact, Universal stands to make a tidy profit. And Peter Jackson's name will not go down in the annals of cinema alongside that of Michael Cimino.
Perspective in this case is a matter of expectations. A week before King Kong opened, someone asked how much I thought it would make. I responded, "Between 200 and 250 million dollars." (I was refering to the domenstic gross, not the worlwide take.) This was based more on a hunch than anything else, although there were numbers to back me up. The 1976 version of King Kong grossed $52 million. That's when ticket prices were in the $2.00 range. If you convert 1976 movie dollars to 2006 movie dollars, you get a number between $200 million and $250 million. I see no reason to believe that Kong's popularity has skyrocketed in the last 30 years, better special effects notwithstanding. (After all, the 1976 production had top-notch effects for its day - it even won an Academy Award for them.)
A lot of analysts, possibly carried away by drinking too much eggnog, projected Return of the King-like numbers (between $350 million and $400 million) for King Kong, which was nonsensical. Not only does Kong lack the rabid built-in LOTR fan base, but it isn't the conclusion of a trilogy. Expecting it to perform at that level (or higher) was asking for it to fall short.
King Kong reached its core audience: males between the ages of 11 and 40. Older men were less inclined to see the film, with the nostalgia factor not wielding enough influence to get them into theaters. Women of all ages were disinclined to see the movie. My wife enjoyed it, but she married me, so she must have an affinity for monsters. But she's an exception. As Titanic showed, the way to make really big money at multiplexes is to find a movie that appeals to males and females, and gets members of both groups to come back again and again. King Kong is not such a production.
The final numbers for King Kong are not yet in. The movie has about another month of theater time left to it, although by then it will be relegated to the 120-seat auditorium in the back of the 'plex. To date, it has made $192 million domestically and $270 million overseas. Those numbers will inflate over the next few weeks, probably ending up around $220 million and $320 million, respectively. How can anyone consider $550 million a failure for a production that cost around $200 million?(Berardinelli's predictions were about right).
The "old" rule of thumb was that a movie had to domestically gross 2.5 times its production cost to break into the black. But that precept went out the window about 15 years ago. The "new" rule of thumb is that a movie has to domestically gross its production cost to break into the black. (The thinking is that the overseas money will take care of the difference.) So, before King Kong sees the DVD shelf, it will be making money. (Of course, Universal's well-paid accountants will find a way to put it into the red.)
But the bottom line is that it's pointless for the average Kong fan or movie-goer to wonder or worry overmuch about how much the film has made. Yes, if you like Jackson, you want it to do well. But the box office numbers aren't going to impact his reputation or delay his next feature. Jackson made King Kong for himself and other fans of the big ape. And by that determination as well as any other reasonable one I can think of, it's hard to consider King Kong to be anything other than a rousing success."
It's unbelievable that people would expect it to do that. "Kong" doesn't have the kind of rabid built-in fan base that LOTR has. The 1976 version made almost exactly the same amount as the new one ended up making (when you adjust for inflation, of course). There's no reason to believe that "King Kong" has increased in popularity since then, special effects notwithstanding.
"This is also one on my all-time faves. Paul Brickhill was also the author of a novel about escape from a German prison camp - I believe it was called The Vaulting Horse."
I don't know the book, but the 1950 movie was called "The Wooden Horse."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043147/
Yep, I just saw a trailer for a movie called, "Flyboys". It's an alleged WWI movie that appears to have been politically corrected, enhanced by computer design way beyone the pale and generally crappy.
Hollywood had a once in a lifetime chance to make "Pearl Harbor" and look how they fouled that one up. I fear we will never again see a good war movie.
I agree. I liked King Kong, but I thought it was long and could have been edited down and been a better movie. I really liked the part with Kong on the ice.
Opening weekend is important because that's the weekend when the distributor gets the highest percentage. And stop being a dork, I didn't say it needed to make it all back in one weekend and I didn't say it was a huge flop. Stick with what I actually say and stuff the hyperbolic crap where all crap belongs.
It might be far and above the domestic of what most movies make but it also COST far and above what most movies cost. If you spend $200 million making a movie you damn sure want to get more than $200 million showing the movie.
Wow what a whole lot of really boring quoting that says exactly what I said: it didn't to terrible but it didn't do great. Had you actually READ what I wrote instead of reacting to it with exlamation marks you'd have seen that's what I wrote. But instead you went straight into hyperbole land and missed the whole freaking point.
"The final numbers for King Kong are not yet in. The movie has about another month of theater time left to it, although by then it will be relegated to the 120-seat auditorium in the back of the 'plex. To date, it has made $192 million domestically and $270 million overseas. Those numbers will inflate over the next few weeks, probably ending up around $220 million and $320 million, respectively. How can anyone consider $550 million a failure for a production that cost around $200 million?"
(Berardinelli's predictions were almost dead-on).
If you spend $200 million making a movie you d*** sure want to get more than $200 million showing the movie.
And as I posted, and as luckystarmom posted, the movie ended up making about $549 million. I'd say that's a pretty hefty profit.
And stop being a dork
Stick with what I actually say and stuff the hyperbolic crap where all crap belongs.
Wow what a whole lot of really boring quoting
Had you actually READ what I wrote instead of reacting to it with exlamation marks
But instead you went straight into hyperbole land and missed the whole freaking point.
Well...I really liked "King Kong."
Universal damn sure expected it to do that. You think they coughed up 207 million bucks to make the movie and another 32 to advertise it with the hopes that it wouldn't break the $100 million line opening weekend (when they get the most money) and would barely bust 200 million in the entire domestic run? I think they were hoping for at least $100 million opening weekend and somewhere between 300 and 400 million for the whole domestic run. Now maybe Universal was stupid for thinking yet another Kong movie would make that much money regardless of the director, but I'm pretty sure if they thought it was only going to make $200 mil and change domestically they damn sure wouldn't have financed it for 207.
How many more times am I going to have to say it?
Let me make it easier for you, here's what I said in post 48:
It didn't flop, but it sure didn't make anybody laugh to the bank either.
You can consider 550 million a failure very very easily. For one thing 60% of that came from over seas where the American distributor doesn't get as high a cut as they tend to in America. For another thing only 50 million of that was the first weekend in America, which is when the distributor gets their highest cut. Given how long it took the movie to make that much money and how far the distributor's percentage shrinks as you get deeper into the release it's highly unlikely that 550 million in grosses actually gave Universal the 240+ million they spent to make and advertise the movie. If you don't make back what you spent it's a failure, regardless of how sexy the grosses look.
Whether or not you liked the movie has nothing to do with the simple FACTS that the movie didn't make as much as Universal thought it was going to and must be considered at least a minor financial failure. I've enjoyed many many movies that failed, some just barely like Kong, some spectacularly like Brazil, it happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.