Jump to content

Talk:Peter Jackson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlueMoonset (talk | contribs) at 04:42, 29 November 2019 (Reverted to revision 920644856 by Rfl0216: Nominator is not a significant contributor to the article and did not consult those who are on this talk page per GA instructions; reverting nomination (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Someone needs to explain who Fran is

Allright, throughout the entire article Fran Walsh is adressed as Peter Jackson's "partner". I looked her up, and it said she was married to him, but the term "Partner" instead of "wife" makes me thing that Jackson is gay, and Fran Walsh is his male lover... Anyways, I just think that someone should specify exactly who Fran Walsh is in relation to Peter Jackson (I'm not going to because I don't know if their still married, when they got married, if they got divorced etc.). DurotarLord (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is an old observation, it's quite conventional for heterosexual unmarried (and they're not married) couples to refer to each other - particularly in NZ - as "partners". Two more points: does it really matter what gender Jackson's partner is; their having (non-adopted) kids makes it fairly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.52.113 (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then the usage on Fran Walsh' page is contradictory and one of the two needs to be corrected.  White Whirlwind  咨  12:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A November 30, 2012 New York Times articles quotes Walsh explicitly saying they're not married. I clarified. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on LOTR

The biography implies that the only important thing he has ever done is Lord of the Rings... while obviously the trilogy was his most important project, many people think Heavenly Creatures is a better film, and his early horror movies have a big cult following. A better chronology might be:

  • Early life (childhood etc)
  • Low budget films (Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, Braindead)
  • Heavenly Creatures
  • Breaking into Hollywood (The Frighteners, general career stuff)
  • LoTR
  • King Kong
  • What he's up to now.

A section on influences might be good as well, or this could be incorporated into the early life section. --Helenalex 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson himself divides his life that way, as cited. If you wish to expand though, why not go ahead? Wiki-newbie 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will - just wanted to make sure that no one was hugely attached to the current organisation. I don't see that Jackson supposedly dividing his life that way means that we should, and anyway, what context did he say that in? Was he talking financial, time-wise, how Hollywood treats him...? The opinion of a biographical subject on what parts of his/her life are or aren't important shouldn't determine how the biography is written. --Helenalex 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Helenalex's organisation and titling; it certainly makes much more sense. Ziggurat 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added a whole lot of stuff about his early career, as I think this isn't widely known outside horror movie cult circles and New Zealand. I would have liked to come up with a better name for the 'arthouse' section - I was going to call it Heavenly Creatures, but then I remembered Forgotten Silver, which sort of fits in there. --Helenalex 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out, LOTR is the only important film Peter Jackson has done. Think about it, he's made many cult classics, but honestly, how much money do cult classics make? How popular do they make someone? LOTR is what propelled him into superstardom, and was his first major achievement. As for King Kong, it was another popular film, but it didn't actually do anything to him like LOTR did. DurotarLord (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley

What is 'The Valley' that's listed in the filmography? It's not on IMDB, it doesn't have a Wiki page, and I've never heard of it. If it was an unreleased home-made movie (and from the date it surely has to be) it shouldn't be on the list. --Helenalex 04:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the movie and some information on http://tbhl.theonering.net/peter/film_valley.html . It is not a home made movie, but anyway it is a short movie, so not very important. Cate | Talk 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... this links to a page on Valley of the Stereos, made in 1992 and only co-produced by Peter Jackson. Is this what you meant to link to? --Helenalex 11:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. ok. It is an other movie: (see the top of http://tbhl.theonering.net/badtaste/makingof.html), so I will delete the link from the list, is it OK?. Eventually we could list in "early life", with the title of the other early projects. Cate | Talk 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "The Valley" IS listed on IMDB : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314831/ 81.190.36.200 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reference in 'early life' would be most appropriate. The filmography should be limited to things which had a cinematic, video or dvd release. Being entered in a short film contest doesn't really count. --Helenalex 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Valley of the Stereos in the cinema. I think it showed as a short film preceding Brain Dead. --Tirana 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw Valley fo the Stereos in a theatre. It was shown in the Wellington Film Festival in 1993 at the Embassy Theatre, as a short before David Cronenberg's feature film Naked Lunch. It's also been released on DVD, on the compilation "Dark Stories, Vol. 2: Tales from Beneath". Amazon.com link: [1] Pearce.duncan 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley is a short film he did as a teenager, it is talked about in his biography. The Valley of the Stereos may be real, but lets just make sure we make it clear that they are different. ProudHuman42 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand spelling

I just noticed a revision where "favourite" was changed to "favorite". I am sure the editor was well-meaning, changing it to the national variety that he or she is used to. (I primarily use American spelling conventions myself). The Wikipedia manual of style, however, suggests that an article about a New Zealander should use New Zealand spellings. Moreover, spelling should be consistent across the article and I noticed that most words were written according to NZ/UK conventions. I have thus reverted that edit, and tried to normalize other inconsistencies. (As I said, however, American English is my native tongue, so I may have missed some.) --Taranah 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Your "normalize" is not NZ. Try "normalise". ;) Wallie (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the Wikipedia conventions (written by Americans), the fact is that American spelling is non-standard, and should be limited to America topics and people (at most).

Order of Merit

PJ is categorized as a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, but the award is not mentioned in the article. If it can be sourced (likely from a G'ovt web page) it should be included perhaps in the awards section which just lists his oscars right now. Eluchil404 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor-General of New Zealand mentioned in this article, Sir Anand Satyanand, is styled incorrectly in this article, his title of 'Sir' having been left out. As Sir Anand was already a knight by the time he knighted Sir Peter, His Excellency's title should be included with His Excellency's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.88.135 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson was made a knight by the Queen. The governor general may knight people on behalf of the Queen, but the honour is bestowed by the Queen, not her representative.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Knight from the moment the honour is published by the Government (in this case 31 December 2009 on the web site of The Prime Minister and Cabinet of New Zealand (DPMC)). Sect (20) of The Statutes of The New Zealand Order of Merit (the statute) state "Ordinary and Additional members of the first and second levels of this Order may use the appellations of “Sir”, in the case of a man, or “Dame”, in the case of a woman, before their forenames from the date of their appointment".
Sir Peter Jackson's appointment was published first by DPMC and later in the New Zealand Gazette, issue 2, on 12 January 2010 (and can be viewed as PDF or HTML)) in accordance with Sect (18) the statutes). The sections quoted were not affected by the 2000 or 2009 reform.
My conclusion is that in accordance with the Statutes of The New Zealand Order of Merit, Sir Peter was a knight effective 31 December 2009. Can we all now accept Sir Peter's knighthood is legitimate.

Karl Stephens (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased view

The topic written has somewhat of a biased view towards Peter Jackson. It brings up numerous positive points and gloats about his success, while never addressing his numerous criticisms. 142.41.215.138 05:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering most of his films have 80% and up on Rotten Tomatoes, I think the article need not give undue weight to a minority. If you can actually bring up reliable sources of critisism, please do so, but frankly they'll be very hard to find. It's not like he was ever involved in a Twilight Zone: The Movie style incident. WikiNew 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, obviously your a big fan of Peter Jackson, as you edit and discuss his pages all the time, so don't bring your biased view into this, even the greatest directors have criticism. Many of my favourites are heavily critized. What's the point in having critics if the bad reviews are ignored? Peter Jackson is hardly anywhere near the greatest director, anyway. 142.41.215.138 07:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that, it was that given this is a biography of a living person you have to be very, very, careful of what you write. Like I said, PJ has never been in a Twilight Zone incident. As for negative reviews, add them, but balance them to represent the consensus. Frankly I'm merely following policy, nothing to do with being a fan, or else I could have you blocked for a personal attack. Please try to assume good faith. WikiNew 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous person, your argument seems to be that if someone edits and discusses a director's page, they must therefore be a big fan, and therefore they are biased. By that logic all Wikipedia pages must be biased. I think there is probably room for mention of some common criticisms of Jackson's work - length springs to mind, as well as the dodgy racial stuff in King Kong, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. And I definetely think that anyone who makes major criticism of a page should be prepared to fix the problems they have identified rather than just hiding and sniping. --Helenalex 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a new picture!

Peter Jackson has lost quite a bit of weight since the featured picture of him has been taken. Someone should upload a new one! Thomas M 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go and get one. Wikipedia requires free images. WikiNew 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly Quote and Credit, Please

I noticed that someone had misused a quote from the Extended Edition DVDs. A person had said something to this effect under the Style heading for Peter Jackson's article: "...general playfulness to the point where the Lord of the Rings miniatures director Alex Funke said 'the film is almost incidental really'." I have taken the liberty to correct this to "Alan Lee" who was the one who said this. Please make sure of your sources and who is making a quote (especially from DVDs) when adding such things to articles. Aj045 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KING KONG

The King Kong Article is in the wrong place and needs fixing for links.

That is all.

Iggy Pop bio-pic

What's the source for this? I've never read about it in print, and the only other reference I can find online are sourced from Wikipedia. Elijah Wood is supposed to be starring as Iggy in a bio-pic directed by Nick Gomez. Pearce.duncan 00:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Return of the King page

Who the heck changed this page so that it just redirected to the Return of the King movie? I've reverted it. Was that vandalism, or just idiocy? Pearce.duncan 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style

A lot of this was conjecture, at the very least unsubstantiated facts. Aside from a lack of verifiable sources, the section read more like a PR piece about Jackson's style. But by inference -- there are no objective sources to attribute any particular style to Jackson. Moreover, techniques such as "coverage" and wide-angle shots, and demanding that f/x are "seamless and invisible" are hardly stylistic, but rather common principles of filmmaking. Have there been any published analyses of Jackson's filmmaking style, or is this (as I suspect) a bit of puffery written by fanboys with a smidgen of film knowledge? Alcarillo 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Hobbit

Near-breaking news, but Jackson is expected to produce 2 films based off Tolkien's "The Hobbit". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sten28 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Pic?

Can we get a new picture of him since he's lost weight? He's lost a lot of pounds since LOTR, and he's practically unrecognizable now in comparison to what he used to look like, so a newer picture would be nice. DurotarLord (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FU. It'll be difficult to get a free image just to show what he's looked like since 2005. Alientraveller (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You actually need a new picture, as it's a pretty inaccurate portrayal of him now 222.152.85.125 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until October 2009, let's see if anyone will make a non-copyrighted image of him at the premieres of The Lovely Bones. Alientraveller (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I had no idea Peter Jackson looked like that. I thought some smarty-pants decided it would be funny to change his picture until I saw his picture on IMDB.72.85.193.28 (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Chronicles

This might be better 'chronicled' under a separate heading, as it is mentioned twice in two difference paragraphs under the upcoming features header. That section is untidy and could be cleaned up - surely some of the projects mentioned warrant their own headers?Full Chrome Logic (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Sir Peter Jackson here.

Could someone do this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.3.199 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative in creative thinking is important in new movie makers, too

Hello everyone,

I would love to tell everyone out there that the ideas that Peter Jackson has in mind is far beyond the contemporary movie circles. I grew up a young boy having started watching action movies and never felt much love though for it; I remember my first movie watched was Rambo First Blood, I was about four or five years old. The hit song, a song played on screen prior to the movie was by Phil Collins 'Everyday', I loved it a lot better.

However, with the experience I started in Legendary, Adventure, and real-like fictions in the movies while I was twelve from Conan the destroyer, Hex man to Lord of the rings has changed me entirely. And I really want to write a movie script "The Mentor" about what many directors, producers and actors have taught me in movies, I just believe that if I could get someone like Sir Peter Jackson to teach me write better movie scripts I will be perfect and give all I could in life for movie worlds. I need someone to show me a better way through.

Thank you everyone.

Dan Brian Amagi --196.0.7.130 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)--196.0.7.130 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)--196.0.7.130 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)--196.0.7.130 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)--196.0.7.130 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood, Weta, and the Film Commission -- Peter Jackson legal issues

In the Hollywood, Weta, and the Film Commission section, could someone verify the New Zealand listener legal issues. I couldn't find anything about it in the biography and all the google searches lead to this article or other wikia sites. -ProudHuman42 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honours should be listed at the end of the article

You know like the other articles are. The section should be better worded also. PJ wasn't knighted as such, he was given an knighthood honour that allows the use of Sir. Cj105 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jackson received the Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2009 New Year's Honours list and was knighted by the Governor-General, Anand Satyanand, in March 2010.User talk:Moriori (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honours should still be moved to closer to the end like the norm for articles involving people with honours.Cj105 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual weightloss?

The refrence says 13 kilograms, but the text in the article section says "over 50 pounds (23 kg)"

Any other sources?

Løbner (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life?

Had an idea of writing a personal life section? Putting stuff about weight loss, health issues, Fran and Kids in there? What do people think? Good idea, bad idea? Let me know please :) 86.29.28.91 (talk)

Make sure you have reliable sources for everything you add, and use inline references. Don't include material which breaches the privacy of third parties - eg kids names and their schools are unlikely to be appropriate.-gadfium 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peter Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peter Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Jackson&oldid=928437564"