> I have heard from NetRaptor (whom is also an LoTR freak) that the guy does gory movies.
>
> *gulp!*

Gory? Well. Ok, among Peter Jackson's directorial credits is a movie called "Meet the Feebles," which is a Muppet-like movie, except that the puppet characters are a little more demented. For example, there's the heroin-addicted Vietnam veteran, the rabbit with HIV, the poofy ball kind of puppets that, ahem, "soil" a manic-depressive elephant's office and later get smooshed into, yes, gory messes. There's the drug dealing warthog, the porcupine with an illicit crush on a poodle, and the walrus and the siamese cat that have a love scene or two.

Unfortunately, I am not making this up.

Another of his movies is the famed "Dead Alive," often considered one of the most disgusting movies ever made.

This is why I say he is probably not terrestrial. Your cover as an earthling is blown when you make a movie about Muppets that shoot up.

However, while I'm tempted to be truly evil and let Joseph cower in a corner and quiver, let me say why I am nevertheless excited that Peter Jackson is directing these movies.

Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive are supposed to have a purpose behind the complete lack of taste. I have not seen either film, but from what I understand, they are not gratuitous exercises in bad taste but a satire expressed via shock and tastelessness. I'm guessing I would still not like either movie, but at least this means what we're dealing with is a completely berko artist rather than a doddering frat boy with no sense of taste.

Peter Jackson is also responsible for "Heavenly Creatures," a movie I can't say I liked as a whole but whose production I admired very much. It's obvious from watching it that Jackson's directorial hand is confident and capable. He has a remarkable sense of tone and balance. He can use a low-key style have a dramatic impact on the viewer. There are moments in Heavenly Creatures which are played out very naturally and subtlely yet which are downright shocking to the viewer, more so because the movie itself -- the camera, the music, etc -- doesn't seem to be "in" on it. Jackson lets the events on screen speak for themselves and knows how to accentuate the impact they have with wholly unobtrusive filmmaking techniques. Contrast with the average horror flick, where the camera and the jump chords dictate audience fright as much or more than the story or characters do.

Jackson is in full recognition of the fact that he has in his hands a classic work of literature, and if he changes its events or its tone, he'll have betrayed his audience. Yeah, he's made movies that are effective due to excess. He's also made movies that are effective due to restraint. Until the movies come out and I can determine for myself first-hand, I trust him to have the discernment to handle the movies in a tone faithful to the spirit of Tolkien's work and the talent to work within that spirit to translate the story effectively on screen.