Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'  
User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Because of the ongoing dispute between New Line Cinema (production company for The Lord of The Rings trilogy) and Peter Jackson (director of The Lord of The Rings trilogy), Jackson will not be directing the prequel to the trilogy, 'The Hobbit'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6167972.stm

Fair use excerpt:

Quote:
Jackson, a devoted Tolkien fan, said he had been removed from the Hobbit project by New Line, who also hold the rights to a second Lord of the Rings prequel.

The Oscar-winning director said New Line would not allow him to make the films unless he dropped the lawsuit.

Does anyone else feel that this is a bad move on the part of New Line? Jackson's vision, creativity, and ideas are what caused TLOTR trilogy to explode. As a fan of that trilogy, I'm concerned now that The Hobbit, and whatever the other prequel is, will be too disconnected from TLOTR.

New Line are out of order on this one in my opinion. They need to settle the case with Jackson and get on with making a blockbuster Hobbit movie, instead of playing silly buggers and making a bad marketing and bad artistic move like this.

Your thoughts?

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Well,

I've heard that Clint Eastwood is available and is a good director.


 Smile



Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 1):
I've heard that Clint Eastwood is available and is a good director.

FFS. It would end up being a lame movie like that 'Right Stuff' film he did a few years ago.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12362 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I thought the Jackson in the thread title was Michael. rotfl 


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

New Line wanted a film under 3 hours.

User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I fell asleep during the first LOTR and didn't bother going to see the others. I won't lose any sleep if another isn't made.


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

While I have no idea whether or not it was reasonable to sue New Line, I can see why New Line is not willing to further collaborate with a director they consider sue-happy.


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy had to be among the most over-rated films ever. I reckon they were a case of The Emperor´s New Clothes. Over-acted, over hyped and over-rated, they were the biggest cinema disappointment ever. The characters, apart from Gollum, Sam Gamgee and the Ents, had no depth to them at all, and I couldn´t have cared less whether any of them, apart from the above, lived or died.

The Hobbit is a much more down to earth book than LOTR. Hopefully whoever directs it will avoid the style of LOTR.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 7):

Man, there are about a billion geeks in this world and I think they would all kill you in very imaginative and horribly creative ways if they heard you. Fortunately, Geeks don't hang out here...

Wait an minute...

Dude I'd find a play to hide...soon.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8):
Man, there are about a billion geeks in this world and I think they would all kill you in very imaginative and horribly creative ways if they heard you

Bring on the Orcs . . .


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2467 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 7):
The Lord of the Rings trilogy had to be among the most over-rated films ever. I reckon they were a case of The Emperor´s New Clothes. Over-acted, over hyped and over-rated, they were the biggest cinema disappointment ever. The characters, apart from Gollum, Sam Gamgee and the Ents, had no depth to them at all, and I couldn´t have cared less whether any of them, apart from the above, lived or died.

I could almost guarantee yours is decidedly a minority opinion. The staggering worldwide financial success of the trilogy, as well as "The Return Of The King"'s 2004 Oscar sweep, unprecedented for a fantasy film, a genre the Academy has traditionally shunned, UTTERLY discredit your exceedingly myopic assessment. The LOTR trilogy is one of the most remarkable achievements in film history and will still be revered fifty years from now. I'd avoided it in the theaters, thinking then it was just another entry in the tired sword & sorcery genre. Once I'd finally caught it on DVD, I realized how wrong I was. Thanks to Peter Jackson's incomparable skill, it transcends its supposed sword & sorcery label with a beguiling mix of great drama, adventure and pathos, bringing wonder, joy and tears to a grand spectacle. You also couldn't be more wrong about the other characters, all were written and performed with exceptional skill. You're entitled to your opinion but it's truly sad you can't see the greatness in this fabulous work, especially when someone like I so initially biased against seeing it, given its "Olden Times" style, has been totally converted into a huge fan. Jackson is a true master of cinema, right up there with Spielberg. It's truly a shame that he and New Line couldn't come to terms on "The Hobbit". I can practically also guarantee that new film won't be nearly as good or as successful without his direction.


User currently offlineKiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1672 times:

Quoting IFEMaster (Thread starter):
As a fan of that trilogy, I'm concerned now that The Hobbit, and whatever the other prequel is, will be too disconnected from TLOTR.

I don't think it's too much of an issue. Jackson did a good job, but I doubt whether alternative interpretations will fall out of step much with the LOTR trilogy. The story/fantasy is the real quality of this type of movie, the director's interpretation is secondary.


User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

Whilst I enjoyed the films, some of the acting was awful. Frodo being particularly bad.

There was too much artistic licence with huge differences to the book, completely changing some characters and the sequence of events.

The Hobbit was a book that really sucked you in so that you were part of the journey. A film would have to be very good to re-create that feeling.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
The staggering worldwide financial success of the trilogy, as well as "The Return Of The King"'s 2004 Oscar sweep, unprecedented for a fantasy film, a genre the Academy has traditionally shunned, UTTERLY discredit your exceedingly myopic assessment. The LOTR trilogy is one of the most remarkable achievements in film history and will still be revered fifty years from now

Box-office returns are no indication of artistic mertit, neither are Oscar wins, and, if you happen to think so, this UTTERLY discredits YOUR exceedingly myopic assessment.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
You're entitled to your opinion but it's truly sad you can't see the greatness in this fabulous work

The film was a travesty of the book. The book was a series of episodic adventures, each a tale in itself, in which the characters were fleshed-out and given depth. The films turned a masterpiece into a Hollywood blockbuster, strong on visual effects (I give them full marks for that) but populated with cloned cardboard characters (apart from the handful I´ve mentioned) with no personality or depth whatsoever.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
Whilst I enjoyed the films, some of the acting was awful. Frodo being particularly bad

That bug-eyed "caught-in-the-headlamps" look he affected throughout the entire three films made me want to punch him in the face.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
There was too much artistic licence with huge differences to the book, completely changing some characters and the sequence of events

You and I saw the same films, Saintsman, something I think a lot of other people didn´t.

In all fairness, you CANNOT make three three-hour films of a book that length without losing most of it. If LOTR were to be done properly, it would be as a series of hour-long TV episodes, which would give the viewer the sense of time involved in the series of adventures, something the films did not.

The test of a good film is whether you´d want to see it again. I´d walk backwards over hot coals before having to sit through any of them a second time.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
In all fairness, you CANNOT make three three-hour films of a book that length without losing most of it. If LOTR were to be done properly, it would be as a series of hour-long TV episodes, which would give the viewer the sense of time involved in the series of adventures, something the films did not.

Having read the books multiple times and seen the film multiple times I have to disagree with everything you've said on this subject.

You've got to be one of those who are aghast at the missing Tom Bombadil episode, or some of the other minor scenes in the books that where left out.

Your right in order to make a film even one of the length of LOTR the books had to be pared down. Those episodes are just DULL. They don't advance the plot. Even breaking LOTR into separate hour long TV episodes won't change that. What you'd get would be episodes you could safely skip without losing the narrative thread.

I thought LOTR was the perfect blend of Sweeping Epic and intimate introspection that the books were. Jackson made some choices that frankly surprised me but on the whole the Movies work VERY well, and stand up with the books proudly.

Jackson as a director, lost me with King Long... I'm sorry, Kong. His over indulgence in getting everything he wanted in, worked with something as dense as LOTR. But King Kong was a cheap B MONSTER movie of the 1930s. It was meant as children's entertainment! It took a frickin' hour of screen time just to get the frickin' island for Christ sakes. I was so bored until they FINALLY got the ape to New York.

So I'm glad Jackson lost the Hobbit. I think he really needs to sit back and rethink his craft.


User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
I could almost guarantee yours is decidedly a minority opinion.

 checkmark 

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
The LOTR trilogy is one of the most remarkable achievements in film history

Again,  checkmark  I can't think of another trilogy, with the exception of the original Star Wars movies, that broke so much ground in visual effects and fantasy adaptation.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
Jackson is a true master of cinema, right up there with Spielberg.

And again,  checkmark  The fact that Jackson won't be involved in The Hobbit is going to let the movie down. His vision and creativity, as displayed in LOTR and other movies he's done, show that he knows exactly how to communicate his artistic interpretation of a story or scene. There are way too many directors out there who are just Media School lovies who see it as a job and not a passion.

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 11):
The story/fantasy is the real quality of this type of movie, the director's interpretation is secondary.

I don't know that I agree with this. While there would be no movie without the story, the director's interpretation is what creates the quality of the story telling, as such, I think the story and it's directive interpretation are on par with each other.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
some of the acting was awful. Frodo being particularly bad

 checkmark  The only bad acting in the entire movie, and it happens to come from the lead. Funny story though...I went to see The White Stripes at LA's Greek Theater a couple of years ago, and Elijah Wood was there. He is very small and looks incredibly pretty and effeminate. Just as the lights were coming down, some kid spotted him and shouts "Mr. Frodo! Mr. Frodo!" in an accent just like Samwise  Smile

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
neither are Oscar wins

Absolute BS. Oscar's are nominated and decided by artistic peers; the people who make movies and act in movies and write movies. They do what they do because they are good at it, and I would hazard a guess by saying that they know more of what they talk about than you do. An Oscar win is absolutely an indication of artistic merit.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
The film was a travesty of the book. The book was a series of episodic adventures, each a tale in itself, in which the characters were fleshed-out and given depth. The films turned a masterpiece into a Hollywood blockbuster, strong on visual effects (I give them full marks for that) but populated with cloned cardboard characters (apart from the handful I´ve mentioned) with no personality or depth whatsoever.

There's no possible way that any director could explore the complexities and depth of each character in 3 movies lasting 3 hours. I would suggest you watch the extended edition DVDs, there is a more character exploration, but at 4 hours per movie, it's just not viable for a theatrical release. Given the objective - tell the story, tell it well, captivate the audience, and show us some FX magic - I think New Line and Jackson did an amazing job.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
you CANNOT make three three-hour films of a book that length without losing most of it

Bingo. So surely you understand that, with that point of view in mind, LOTR trilogy was never going to explore the touchy-feely depth of each character that you desire?


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4801 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

The LOTR was great.
Hands up those with the extended edition boxed set.. *me* Big grin
I doubt this is true... its just sword swashling from new line...it wouldnt be the same without jackson, walsh and co, and of course weta studios.
didn't know there was 2 prequels... I did hear they wanted to split the hobbit into 2 tho.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11951 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
Hands up those with the extended edition boxed set..

*Hand up*

Looking forward to the film, as I still have not gotten 'round to reading the book...  scared 

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Quoting Andz (Reply 5):
I fell asleep during the first LOTR and didn't bother going to see the others. I won't lose any sleep if another isn't made.

Philistine!  Wink

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 11):
The story/fantasy is the real quality of this type of movie, the director's interpretation is secondary.

There was something extra concerning LOTR. Passion.

Jackson is a LOTR fanatic. He loved the books since he was a kid, and spent a whole decade working on converting his beloved passion into a film (or series of films) that would do justice in the eyes of fans - because he himself is a fan.

Unlike the Harry Potter series, whose books were meant for kids, LOTR is a sophisticated universe with fans who would not tolerate a superficial transfer.

For a Harry Potter film, you can hire a decent director and get a decent film. But even if New Line hires Steven Spielberg to direct The Hobbit, it will not be nearly as good as if Jackson did it (assuming that Spielberg is not as much of a fan of the books as Jackson is.)


User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
Hands up those with the extended edition boxed set

*hand up* Got it from the missus for Christmas a couple of years ago.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
I doubt this is true... its just sword swashling from new line...

I dunno. I think that Jackson's company may have burned their bridge with New Line. Great shame.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 14):
You've got to be one of those who are aghast at the missing Tom Bombadil episode, or some of the other minor scenes in the books that where left out.

It´s a long time since I read the book, but I remember Tom being a central character in the beginning. What was the point in leaving him out? You either make a film of Lord of the Rings or you do not.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 14):
Those episodes are just DULL. They don't advance the plot.

Couldn´t disagree more. LOTR is more than just a plot centred on the fate of the ring: it is the interaction between the characters and their dialogue and diversions along the way. THAT is what the book was to me, NOT a battle of good vs evil, nor a metaphor for World War 2, which some people thought it was. Tolkein wrote it partly as an attempt to re-create British folklore, a lot of which he belived had been lost over the centuries. THAT is what the book meant to me, so while you may have found these parts of it dull and boring, people like myself did not.

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 15):
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
neither are Oscar wins

Absolute BS. Oscar's are nominated and decided by artistic peers; the people who make movies and act in movies and write movies

While most Oscar-winning films would be of a certain standard, the awards themselves are often just a case of Hollywood patting itself on the back. Most winners are undoubtably good films, but each year any good film critic would have a list of others far more worthy of the award.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 20):
I remember Tom being a central character in the beginning. What was the point in leaving him out?

No, Tom was not central to the action.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 20):
LOTR is more than just a plot centred on the fate of the ring: it is the interaction between the characters and their dialogue and diversions along the way. THAT is what the book was to me,

Because it's a DIFFERENT MEDIUM! Books can be character based and introspective because they are unique in allowing the reader to read the THOUGHTS of the characters. Film and TV are VISUAL. Therefore PLOT-centric. Introspection leads to long boring scenes or annoying voice over. A prime example: David Lynch's Dune. On the other hand a more plot oriented version in miniseries format was SciFi's Dune and it was much better.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 20):
THAT is what the book meant to me, so while you may have found these parts of it dull and boring, people like myself did not.

No, I didn't think those parts were boring within the books. However, had they been made part of the film they would have been. You want the Book READ THE FRICKING BOOK. A movie is just different.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2731 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

I can see Mt.Doom (Ngarahoe) out of my window.


" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21):
No, Tom was not central to the action.

He was a character in the beginning of the book. There was no reason at all to leave him out. Like I said, you either make a film of Lord of the Rings or you don´t.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21):
Because it's a DIFFERENT MEDIUM! Books can be character based and introspective because they are unique in allowing the reader to read the THOUGHTS of the characters. Film and TV are VISUAL. Therefore PLOT-centric. Introspection leads to long boring scenes or annoying voice over

Are you saying there are no character-based films? Film and TV are visual, as you say, but there are many which explore the characters´ depth. These are much more appealing to me than visual blockbusters, which is why I thought LOTR (the films) were so dull.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21):
You want the Book READ THE FRICKING BOOK. A movie is just different.

I really think LOTR is an impossible book to film properly. It had been tried in the 80s and was a disaster. You cannot turn a 1,000 page book into a one hour film, nor three three hour ones, and I don´t care whether you talk about the direcor´s cut or not. The reason the Jackson trilogy was so successful was because of the visual effects, the way Titanic and other recent blockbusters were. Other than this, and I have to admit the films WERE visually stunning, they had no artistic merit whatsoever.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 23):

Your whole argument is ridiculous.

First, have you EVER SEEN a movie based on a book where everything that was in the book happened in the movie?

Please name one.

Hell, they don't even do Shakespeare word for word and scene for scene.

You have a complete misunderstanding of Film and TV versus literature.

You can have a film based on character but VISUAL stuff has to happen to them. you can NOT have an introspective film. Not without making a REALLY visually boring film.

You think LOTR was impossible to film. Fine. Peter Jackson proved you wrong. The films ARE by the vast majority of people as close to the books as possible with film. You are in a distinct minority. I think you probably like it that way.

Your last line was a load of BS. The visual effects made the movie possible simple because of the SCOPE of the story. They were faithful to the story themes and language of the books and I like most people think they are very artistically worthy.

I get the distinct impression you simply don't like them because they are popular, and nothing popular could EVER be artistic. Take that Bohemian attitude and stick it.


25 Braybuddy : I can name two off the top of my head, both Neil Jordan films and one of them, Breakfast on Pluto was actually BETTER than the book. The author gave
26 Myt332 : Oh me too, I realy can't stand these films, pure crap in my opinion. I'd rather watch a romantic comedy, yes I said it, that's how crap I think LOTR
27 Post contains links and images Zkpilot : Yeah I drive past several times a year... Have climbed it before too... lots of fun... is all fine scoria, run down it jumping and its like your on t
28 UALPHLCS : I liked the films a lot. Don't think for one second that I think they are the greatest films ever. I can point out flaws in them, especially the neve
29 Braybuddy : Oh well. We REALLY are in different camps here. After the second Star Wars in 19-whatever I´d had enough. I wouldn´t consider Titanic to be worthy
30 FXramper : Bummer grande. Dunno if I should be upset with New Line or PJ... either way the film is gonna be made, with or without PJ onboard directing. Suggestio
31 JGPH1A : You have no soul. LOTR is a cinematic masterpiece, for it's sheer scale and imagination, and the courage it took to make it. Yes, there were reasons
32 AAFLT1871 : I say let George Lucas have a go at it.
33 Bill142 : Or the bridges of madison county
34 Braybuddy : Tell that to everyone who has read it from cover to cover! Pray tell, JGPH1A, pray tell. Each to their own and no disrespect, but if you couldn´t ma
35 JGPH1A : I did read the whole thing, twice, and it's a great book. But the first 200 pages are really tough going. It fails to grip the reader. Cate Blanchett
36 Post contains images Skidmarks : Sorry Alex, but you are showing a shallow and immature attitude here. I would suggest you are an easy reader and only interested in plots that are tr
37 Kieron747 : Much as I admire Lucas for his original Star Wars, I think if he were let loose on The Hobbit it would be a complete and utter disaster. He's probabl
38 Braybuddy : I agree. There are parts of it that could be pared down easily without losing any of the story. Cate Blanchett damned with faint praise, JGPH1A! But
39 Kieron747 : One good example is Jaws by Peter Benchley. I bought the book as a kid from a church fair, and guess what, someone had blanked out the many swear wor
40 JGPH1A : Hmmm, yes and no. When you have that size of ensemble piece and that HUGE story to tell, there isn't time in the movie for in depth character analysi
41 Post contains links and images Zkpilot : hehehe hmm well it would have made it a lot shorter! Remember to sign the petition to make New Line come to its senses! http://www.petitiononline.com
42 Post contains images IFEMaster : Oh please... Considering how dire Star Wars Episodes 1 through 3 were, I would say that the height of Lucas' genius ended when Return of the Jedi was
43 AvObserver : It seems you're content to dismiss not only the body of opinion of this thread but of most others besides yourself. I can't recall many, if any, bad
44 Braybuddy : What is sad about having your own opinion? Not all the critics loved it btw. A quick Google threw up the following reviews (among all the accolades,
45 Joni : Tom Bombadil was an obvious candidate to leave out from the beginning. Books in general have more characters than films. Overall Jackson, IMO, did an
46 TransIsland : Even though it sounds arrogant... could all those who haven't read the books leave the room, please. That said, while I enjoyed the films, I don't thi
47 AvObserver : Nothing wrong with having your own opinion and quite alright you don't like the films. What's sad is that you don't seem to even appreciate the blood
48 Zkpilot : Read LOTR.... its pretty descriptive of what they look like, and much of the movie characters looks come from LOTR artists who have been illustrating
49 Braybuddy : I don´t think you´ve been reading my posts. I HAVE read the book, and my beef is not with Jackson´s depiction of the book -- he did an excellent j
50 Post contains images Noora :       I have to agree with you guys totally. LOTR is a true masterpiece. I have a huge respect for everyone who took part in to the massive proje
51 Beta : AvObserver, could you possibly go a little overboard in praising Peter Jackson? Surely, he had directed an arguably great film in LOTR trilogy, but I
52 Jpax : The book sucked. Hopefully the movie will be better. The other movies were fantastic though... The review of the century, I know.
53 Myt332 : I'm a few days late here but still, it's my opinion. I hate stories like this, I don't even like reading fiction too much. I'm just not a wizard, hob
54 Braybuddy : The trouble with criticising something like LOTR is that it is SUCH a sacred cow that you are automatically branded a philistine for any valid critic
55 Myt332 : Oh well boo for me! Fantasy stuff has just never floated my boat. Well expect fantasising about Loui Batley.
56 JGPH1A : Nobody says you have to like fiction, but don't just dismiss it as worthless because you personally don't like it. It can still have merit, even if i
57 Myt332 : Well not from me it certainly doesn't. I don't like this genre thus it's a valid thing for me to say! Why do you say it's invalid? It can't be.
58 Braybuddy : I get slated for valid criticsm, Myt332 gets slated for merely saying he hates these type of films. You can't win!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why I Won't Mourn The Pope - Warning, Anti-Pope posted Mon Apr 4 2005 14:25:05 by 777236ER
Michael Jackson Officially Plays The Race Card posted Sun Mar 27 2005 19:44:14 by OPNLguy
Highest Amount Ever Won On The Weakest Link? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 06:55:51 by Boeing nut
England Has Won The World Cup! posted Wed Oct 11 2006 22:17:57 by Speedbird747BA
Florida Senate GOP Primary: The Vote Count Woman Won posted Wed Sep 6 2006 06:42:06 by FlyingTexan
Official: Mr. Calderon Won The Mexican Presidency posted Fri Jul 7 2006 01:43:32 by Luisde8cd
I Won The AustrianLottery! Thats What Mrs.Lu Says! posted Mon Apr 3 2006 19:25:18 by Kay
I Won The EuroMillions! posted Wed Mar 29 2006 02:11:25 by LHMARK
Who Won The Palestinian Election? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 09:44:26 by Thorben
The Gay Couple Won! posted Sat Jan 21 2006 15:36:19 by Dtwclipper