RicOlie_2 said:
Just like you have to reject the OT in order to properly dismiss the PT, right? Oh, wait, you don't.
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King. He is the George Lucas of the Southern Hemisphere.
generalfrevious said:
Peter Jackson should of just exhumed Tolkein's remains and used his skull as a coffee mug; that would have been more respectful than these Hobbitt films. This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start and that his encounter with Middle Earth was the worst thing to happen to JRR Tollein since the Great War. Why is it that Tolkein (and Batman) fans have to suffer so much when it comes to film adaptation?
Because they need to get over themselves.
generalfrevious said:
This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King.
DuracellEnergizer said:
generalfrevious said:
This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King.
At least it's apparent that Kiwi Jack actually doesn't like any of Tolkeins work. I hope Christopher Tolkein stays alive long enough to stop him from making the Silmarillion. That could end up as five really awful four hour movies with King Kong thrown just for spite.
DuracellEnergizer said:
generalfrevious said:
This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King.
Yep and I liked these movies.
So what if he didn't transcribe the book and give the Dwarves nothing to do but being saved at the last minute by Gandalf? He stuck to the books for three movies and did three movies of his own thing, they are both good for different reasons so I am happy.
Also just because he didn't stick to the books or made some bad movies doesn't mean he has never had any talent as a film maker. At least he didn't just stick people on a couch and use shot reverse shot in every scene that wasn't an action scene. Oh and even if you don't like the 48fps 3D at least he had the guts to try something new to try and fix people's biggest complaint about 3D movies, you have to give him that.
Oh and you can't make a good movie if you have no talent, it doesn't happen. So Jackson's films may not be your cup of tea but I have seen real bad movies and let me tell you the Hobbit films and everything made by Jackson are nowhere near being bad films. Jacks knows how to use a camera so you can see what is going on, he knows how to light a scene, he knows how to put a film together so viewers can follow the plot, and he knows how to direct actors. All of those things take talent and I have seen tons of movies from directors who can't get even one of those things right.
So no these are far from being bad movies, let alone the products of someone who doesn't have any talent.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
generalfrevious said:
This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King.
Yep and I liked these movies.
So what if he didn't transcribe the book and give the Dwarves nothing to do but being saved at the last minute by Gandalf? He stuck to the books for three movies and did three movies of his own thing, they are both good for different reasons so I am happy.
Also just because he didn't stick to the books or made some bad movies doesn't mean he has never had any talent as a film maker. At least he didn't just stick people on a couch and use shot reverse shot in every scene that wasn't an action scene. Oh and even if you don't like the 48fps 3D at least he had the guts to try something new to try and fix people's biggest complaint about 3D movies, you have to give him that.
Oh and you can't make a good movie if you have no talent, it doesn't happen. So Jackson's films may not be your cup of tea but I have seen real bad movies and let me tell you the Hobbit films and everything made by Jackson are nowhere near being bad films. Jacks knows how to use a camera so you can see what is going on, he knows how to light a scene, he knows how to put a film together so viewers can follow the plot, and he knows how to direct actors. All of those things take talent and I have seen tons of movies from directors who can't get even one of those things right.
So no these are far from being bad movies, let alone the products of someone who doesn't have any talent.
Yeah, but he still pissed on Tolkeins grave. I don't care if he was the next Bergman or Kurosawa; he was disrespectful to his work.
Nobody ever kvetches like this about the Rakin/Bass tv movies, or Bakshi's film. ;)
Where were you in '77?
SilverWook said:
Nobody ever kvetches like this about the Rakin/Bass tv movies, or Bakshi's film. ;)
At least Rankin Bass made only one Hobbitt movie, not three. It was probably more loyal to the book as well. And we all know Jackson was more influenced by Bakshi's version than the actual source material.
Personally, in this case, I don't really care about how faithful the movie was to the book but the fact that some movies are way worse doesn't mean that these are not bad movies. Sure they have good aspects but to me, they are just boring as hell - especially the last two.
Like, there certainly are many films worse than the SW prequels but that doesn't make them any less bad.
My review:
I have isolated the three fatal flaws of The Hobbit trilogy:
1. Too much content, not enough substance (Empty Carbs)
2. Too reliant on CGI because it's easier (George Lucas Syndrome)
3. No Boobs ( . ) ( . )
Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.
generalfrevious said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Just like you have to reject the OT in order to properly dismiss the PT, right? Oh, wait, you don't.
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King. He is the George Lucas of the Southern Hemisphere.
This isn't really a suitable response to what RicOlie_2 wrote.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
Plus we had Viggo Mortensen outing Jackson on focusing on CGI over subtlety in the second and third LOTR films. According to him they almost went direct to video.
generalfrevious said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Just like you have to reject the OT in order to properly dismiss the PT, right? Oh, wait, you don't.
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King. He is the George Lucas of the Southern Hemisphere.
He's not George. Unless he goes back and puts CGI characters into Meet The Feebles. ;)
Where were you in '77?
generalfrevious said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
generalfrevious said:
This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King.
At least it's apparent that Kiwi Jack actually doesn't like any of Tolkeins work. I hope Christopher Tolkein stays alive long enough to stop him from making the Silmarillion. That could end up as five really awful four hour movies with King Kong thrown just for spite.
TV's Frink said:
generalfrevious said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
generalfrevious said:
This just proves he was a talentless filmmaker from the start
Jackson has not made a good film since Return of the King.
At least it's apparent that Kiwi Jack actually doesn't like any of Tolkeins work. I hope Christopher Tolkein stays alive long enough to stop him from making the Silmarillion. That could end up as five really awful four hour movies with King Kong thrown just for spite.
Ironic because jackson missed the point of Tolkein altogether.
And besides, sometimes a hack can accidentally make a good film (I'm looking at you Shyamalan)
Am I the only one who thinks this looks like a Harlequin Romance cover?
Where were you in '77?
I used to have those trades. Still haven't read the books, I'm ashamed to admit. Read The Hobbit many times though. Any advice for ADHD readers? It's a Star Wars forum, not a psych one, why am I asking :p.
I know these movies are bloated cash grabs which are self-indulgent and overlong and bloated. But damned if I won't miss Middle Earth :(. I want to watch the EE of DOS before seeing the new one, but I'm waiting on the inevitable Mega-Middle Earth boxed set (Which will probably still omit the fucking extras from the theatrical cuts), and my libraries haven't gotten the EE yet, and it isn't available for rental anywhere. FML. So it goes, I guess.
Early buzz on this one was good, but it dropped fast on RT. I'll still see it. These movies are flawed, Lord knows, but I still like enough things about them to find them interesting, haters be damned :(. Reading a lot of negative press.
Have no interesting 3-D and haven't seen the HFR stuff as a result, but I've been reading about framerates lately. Kind of interesting.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
There's almost no Bilbo in the Hobbit itself. They were the only three dimensional characters in the books; and Jackson decided to focus on the less interesting characters, even making up characters on the spot. I read that Freeman only has 25 lines in the entire movie! Why did Jackson even make these movies in the first place?!? It's like an atheist adapted the Bible to film and removed all references to God.
Peter Jackson, WTH?! Interview
Peter Jackson said:
I don't really like the Hollywood blockbuster bandwagon that exists right now. The industry and the advent of all the technology, has kind of lost its way. It's become very franchise driven and superhero driven.
Umm, did he seriously just say that?!
MF: Now that the entire franchise is done, are there any characters from "The Hobbit" that you're sad you can't move into "Lord of the Rings"?
PB: You're the person to ask that!
PJ: You mean retrospectively?
PB: Tauriel.
PJ: Tauriel.
PB: I actually think the young girls are going to start watching this 1, 2, 3 and they're going to start wondering where she is.
PJ: We're really three or four years away from eight and nine year-olds discovering these movies and watching them in this order and will be wondering why she doesn't show up in "Lord of the Rings." Maybe we'll get Evangeline down to New Zealand, shoot a bunch of stuff, chop it up and put it into a box set.
I'm certain they are joking, but disturbing if they aren't.
emanswfan said:
Peter Jackson, WTH?! Interview
Peter Jackson said:
I don't really like the Hollywood blockbuster bandwagon that exists right now. The industry and the advent of all the technology, has kind of lost its way. It's become very franchise driven and superhero driven.
Umm, did he seriously just say that?!
MF: Now that the entire franchise is done, are there any characters from "The Hobbit" that you're sad you can't move into "Lord of the Rings"?
PB: You're the person to ask that!
PJ: You mean retrospectively?
PB: Tauriel.
PJ: Tauriel.
PB: I actually think the young girls are going to start watching this 1, 2, 3 and they're going to start wondering where she is.
PJ: We're really three or four years away from eight and nine year-olds discovering these movies and watching them in this order and will be wondering why she doesn't show up in "Lord of the Rings." Maybe we'll get Evangeline down to New Zealand, shoot a bunch of stuff, chop it up and put it into a box set.
I'm certain they are joking, but disturbing if they aren't.
Peter Jackson is turning into Saruman!
Well, it's not like there aren't other adaptations out there. ;)
Where were you in '77?
emanswfan said:
Maybe we'll get Evangeline down to New Zealand, shoot a bunch of stuff, chop it up and put it into a box set.
I'm certain they are joking, but disturbing if they aren't.
He already semi-joked about adding the deleted Sauron-v-Aragorn slugfest back in to ROTK on a future anniversary boxset on that film's commentary years ago.
I say why not?! Unlike Lucas he's already given us the theatrical cuts in HD (They're on my shelf right next to the EE BRs), so anything else is just a bonus, not a replacement. Tauriel in LOTR Super-EE? Sure I'd be down for that.
btw, I don't even want the Theatrical-Cuts of The Hobbit, as so far (I can't speak for 5 Armies yet) they feel like incomplete versions of the "proper" EEs. The shorter LOTR movies were valid versions in their own right with no wierd plot-holes and such.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Really? I felt like the EEs of the Hobbit were just longer versions of already too long movies and added very little substance (unlike for example TTT EE, which is a very different film from the theatrical version).
Harmy said:
Really? I felt like the EEs of the Hobbit were just longer versions of already too long movies and added very little substance (unlike for example TTT EE, which is a very different film from the theatrical version).
Just the Beorn stuff in DOD added plenty of substance for me (I'm hoping the 10 seconds of Beorn in 5 armies will be fleshed out in the EE too), and the remake of the 'Gandalf-Dol-Guldur' sequence was excellent.
On a side note, I felt that a lot of stuff was possibly missing from the end of 5Armies that will be in the EE. I'm putting it down to PJ still stinging from the legions of people who (wrongly) said ROTK had too many endings.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
SilverWook said:
Well, it's not like there aren't other adaptations out there. ;)
http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/9-wonderfully-bizarre-hobbit-adaptations-including-one-from-soviet-russia.php
All of them are probably a hundred times more faithful than Jackson's cash-grab sodomy, designed to piss off all Tolkein fans. No one can like the book and the movies at the same time.