amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
A movie
Mar 22, 2005 22:04:02 GMT -5
Post by amodman on Mar 22, 2005 22:04:02 GMT -5
I totally agree Jackson just doesn't get LOTR...I remember the first time I heard an interview with him about LOTR. He said the reason he wanted to make the movies is (paraphrasing) because when he first read the books he had the thought everyone has 'when's someone gonna turn these into movie?' I thought that was stupid.
|
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 23, 2005 10:56:16 GMT -5
Post by twyrch on Mar 23, 2005 10:56:16 GMT -5
Jackson just doesn't get LOTR. I think that's a little harsh, but to each their own I guess. I have to give props to Jackson though. He had a Massive amount of material to wade through.... and I feel he kept to the 'spirit' of the story remarkably well... For filming an unfilmable movie, I think he did a stupendous job. |
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
A movie
Mar 23, 2005 21:59:15 GMT -5
Post by amodman on Mar 23, 2005 21:59:15 GMT -5
I think that's a little harsh, but to each their own I guess. I have to give props to Jackson though. He had a Massive amount of material to wade through.... and I feel he kept to the 'spirit' of the story remarkably well... For filming an unfilmable movie, I think he did a stupendous job. I wouldn't say they were unfilmable at all. Song of Ice and Fire, now THAT's unfilmable...unless they wanna devote six movies to each bloody book! lol |
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 24, 2005 8:50:01 GMT -5
Post by twyrch on Mar 24, 2005 8:50:01 GMT -5
I wouldn't say they were unfilmable at all. Song of Ice and Fire, now THAT's unfilmable...unless they wanna devote six movies to each bloody book! lol LOL! That and the fact that the original cast will be dead before the next book in the series is written...  |
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 24, 2005 9:10:20 GMT -5
Post by Riothamus on Mar 24, 2005 9:10:20 GMT -5
I think that's a little harsh, but to each their own I guess. I have to give props to Jackson though. He had a Massive amount of material to wade through.... and I feel he kept to the 'spirit' of the story remarkably well... For filming an unfilmable movie, I think he did a stupendous job. As a workman, Jackson's very good. It's precicely the "spirit", though, that he doesn't get; his meddling with the Frodo-Sam dynamic in ROTK, and his expunging of the Scouring of the Shire (admittedly difficult to fit into a proper movie,) along with is consistant dumbing-down of characters, show that he hasn't a clue what the book's really about. |
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 24, 2005 13:55:39 GMT -5
Post by Child of Immanuel on Mar 24, 2005 13:55:39 GMT -5
Exactly.
I love the movies, but I can't watch them too often for fear I'll start tearing my hair out and raving at Jackson. Every two months or so I pull them out.
|
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 25, 2005 7:40:55 GMT -5
Post by Riothamus on Mar 25, 2005 7:40:55 GMT -5
So, too, with me. This opinion of mine does not mean I can't enjoy the movies; I really do like the modelwork (Minas Tirith is astounding,) and the actors (for the most part) and the music, et cetera. It's just that Jackson isn't "with it." (Though it could be argued--and no doubt will, eventually--that a film-maker who was "with it" could not have made such good movies. I have no reply to that, oddly enough. ) |
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 25, 2005 8:38:49 GMT -5
Post by twyrch on Mar 25, 2005 8:38:49 GMT -5
I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one...
*Slowly backs out of the thread*
|
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 28, 2005 13:51:26 GMT -5
Post by CynanMachae on Mar 28, 2005 13:51:26 GMT -5
So, too, with me. This opinion of mine does not mean I can't enjoy the movies; I really do like the modelwork (Minas Tirith is astounding,) and the actors (for the most part) and the music, et cetera. It's just that Jackson isn't "with it." (Though it could be argued--and no doubt will, eventually--that a film-maker who was "with it" could not have made such good movies. I have no reply to that, oddly enough. ) Well, as far as a MOVIE goes, I'd say that LoTR is " 'da bomb" i mean, if you compare the movies with the books, they(the movies) are gonna suck, but as far as a movie goes, these could be the greatest films ever. All the workers for these films, actors, director, producers, blah blah, they all did SUPERB jobs.... |
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 29, 2005 8:16:29 GMT -5
Post by Riothamus on Mar 29, 2005 8:16:29 GMT -5
I take it that by "greatest" you mean "biggest and loudest"?  |
|
|
|
A movie
Mar 31, 2005 18:06:14 GMT -5
Post by CynanMachae on Mar 31, 2005 18:06:14 GMT -5
I take it that by "greatest" you mean "biggest and loudest"? I meant BEST... most spectacularly awesome, most awesomely spectacular... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on Apr 1, 2005 7:57:42 GMT -5
 I withdraw comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by twyrch on Apr 1, 2005 8:41:28 GMT -5
I meant BEST... most spectacularly awesome, most awesomely spectacular... ;D Yep. I think that just about covers it. |
|
|
|
A movie
Apr 1, 2005 15:49:53 GMT -5
Post by Child of Immanuel on Apr 1, 2005 15:49:53 GMT -5
Good point, FF. If you don't compare it to the books, then it's great. Just to stir up controversy, Riothamus, I will tell you that I enjoyed the movie King Arthur. |
|
|
|
A movie
Apr 1, 2005 16:05:50 GMT -5
Post by twyrch on Apr 1, 2005 16:05:50 GMT -5
Good point, FF. If you don't compare it to the books, then it's great. Just to stir up controversy, Riothamus, I will tell you that I enjoyed the movie King Arthur. I've never seen King Arthur... Was it as bad as First Knight? I was doing MST3000 on that thing.... |
|
Twyrch /|\
I withdraw comment.