View Full Version : Anti-Peter jackson Club !!!
fadhatter
03-17-2007, 01:53 PM
Can you trust this guy with a masterpiece like "The Hobbit" ???
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/664/peterjacksonlj6.jpg
try this???
Erestor Arcamen
03-17-2007, 03:15 PM
Ummmmm..............................YES
I'm pretty sure I heard about a trilogy (set of 3 movies) that he did a few years ago, and i can't remember the names of the movies, but I know that people were lining up at the theatres and going nuts over them because they were so amazingly phenomenal. I'm pretty sure he won like a TON of awards over them too, and being he did such a good job on those movies, I'm sure he'll do just as good on the Hobbit, you blasphemist! lol (jk bout the blasphemist part):D
Looks like Fadhatter's crawled out from under his bridge again.
And I believe the correct term is "Blasphemer." I'll have to look it up.
Rhiannon
03-24-2007, 07:50 AM
Just because something wins an Oscar, it's not automatically 'good', I am not automatically required to 'like' it, I am not automatically required to think that the award was 'deserved', I am not automatically required to 'respect' the receiver, and I am not required to be 'excited' about the prospect of being forced to watch him desecrate yet another piece of something that is very precious to me and that I believe he lacks a fundamental understanding of and respect for--and the opinions of however many hundreds of other people have no business intruding on my opinion either.
Just because I have a nostalgic fondness for the Rankin-Bass animated version of The Hobbit doesn't give me the right to go around insisting that everyone else should like it, and just because The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book and had a huge influence on my formative years doesn't mean that everyone else in the world has to like it--because some of them don't, you know. If you want to be excited about Peter Jackson making The Hobbit into a film (and making up additional material, as he stated in an interview that he was looking forward to doing), be my guest. Run around in circles, jump up and down, wet yourself, do whatever you do when you're excited. Go nuts. Just don't complain if I don't join in the fun.
I will continue despising Peter Jackson until I am good and ready to stop.
Amen.
The Rankin-Bass version of "The Hobbit" is excellent. I can watch it over and over again, unlike those three darned LOTR movies that came out a few years back...
aragil
03-25-2007, 08:01 AM
... I am not automatically required to think that the award was 'deserved' ... and I am not required to be 'excited' about the prospect of being forced to watch him desecrate yet another piece of something that is very precious to me.
Seems like if you're not being forced into accepting it as being good, then you shouldn't have to worry too much about being forced to watch it either. Seems a bit masochistic, otherwise.
Rhiannon
03-25-2007, 09:03 AM
Seems like if you're not being forced into accepting it as being good, then you shouldn't have to worry too much about being forced to watch it either. Seems a bit masochistic, otherwise.
I didn't mean 'watch' in the literal sense of watching the film, but in the sense of being forced to watch it happen.
Arvedui
03-26-2007, 02:00 PM
I will continue despising Peter Jackson until I am good and ready to stop.
That was pure poetry!
Rhiannon
03-26-2007, 05:29 PM
That was pure poetry!
Well, I do try ;)
Barliman Butterbur
03-27-2007, 01:19 AM
I will continue despising Peter Jackson until I am good and ready to stop.
But will you go see the movie if he makes it?
Barley
Rhiannon
03-27-2007, 01:30 AM
But will you go see the movie if he makes it?
Barley
Not in theatres, unless it was a dollar theatre, and even then probably only if someone else paid. At the moment I don't feel as though even the right to talk smack about it (by virtue of having seen it myself) is likely to be worth $8 to me. I imagine I'll see it eventually, on DVD or television or some such, but I'm not willing to pay. I'm very picky about the movies I see in theatres for inflated prices. As a rule, it's not worth it to me.
Barliman Butterbur
03-27-2007, 04:42 PM
Not in theatres, unless it was a dollar theatre, and even then probably only if someone else paid. At the moment I don't feel as though even the right to talk smack about it (by virtue of having seen it myself) is likely to be worth $8 to me. I imagine I'll see it eventually, on DVD or television or some such, but I'm not willing to pay. I'm very picky about the movies I see in theatres for inflated prices. As a rule, it's not worth it to me.
I concur about movies. You're lucky that the price is still "only" $8 where you live. My wife and I rarely go to movies anymore, mainly because the sound is so goddam loud. And now that we have a HDTV and DVD player, and now that HD DVDs are coming more into vogue, and now that there is Netflix, we go even more rarely than before. But certain movies of grand sweep need to be seen on the big screen at least once.
So if PJ actually does The Hobbit (is that actually confirmed yet?), I'll go see it at the moviehouse at least once. However, after seeing what he did to LOTR, I shall be appropriately wary.
What I'm waiting for is the DVD of Daniel Radcliffe in Equus — NOT (although I'm sure the bubblegum crowd will buy every copy)!
Barley
Ermundo
03-31-2007, 10:09 PM
I personally think that PJ did a great job on the movies. There a few details I could point out that weren't too great, but that's all in the past. If a movie you make get's an academy award, or 30, than there's problably some part of the movie that anyone, and I mean anyone, will problably think "good job", even if that person hates the movie as a whole. Right?
But is not the whole, and not the parts, that makes a movie worth watching?
Alexander had many excellent set-pieces and battles. That didn't save it from me thinking it was one of the most disjointed, and mayhaps the worst, movie of all time.
And "Titanic" won eleven Academy Awards. I didn't like that much either. Oscars aren't worth much to me, and just because someone won an oscar isn't going to influence my opinion on that person's merit as a film-maker.
Barliman Butterbur
04-01-2007, 02:57 PM
But is not the whole, and not the parts, that makes a movie worth watching?
Alexander had many excellent set-pieces and battles. That didn't save it from me thinking it was one of the most disjointed, and mayhaps the worst, movie of all time.
And "Titanic" won eleven Academy Awards. I didn't like that much either. Oscars aren't worth much to me, and just because someone won an oscar isn't going to influence my opinion on that person's merit as a film-maker.
PJ is only human, and a transcendentally creative one. He created something wonderous in his version of LOTR,, and, it had flaws insofar as he felt the need to put in his own "touches." The good far outweighs the bad. Why are we still beating this dead horse? If you want to berate him for something, berate him for King Kong!
That is the most inane plot ever to come to the screen, and even his magic didn't keep the story line from being monumentally sappy. I'm just glad he got it out of his system though — I consider it a practice run for all the computer magic that would go into The Hobbit, should he ever get the chance to make it.
Barley
Why are we still beating this dead horse? If you want to berate him for something, berate him for King Kong!
Yes, I don't much like "King Kong" either, compared to the original. There was no reason for the film to be remade.
Strangely, the only film by Peter Jackson I've liked so far has been "The Fellowship of the Ring". I just wish he'd carried things over to the other two.
What I said wasn't aimed strictly at PJ, it has to do with anyone who points out a film/director/writer's popularity as a measure of quality. The simple fact is, if I don't like it, I'm not going to like it no matter how many other people do.
I consider it a practice run for all the computer magic that would go into The Hobbit
I actually thought the CGI in "King Kong" was creaky in many areas, and worst than in the LOTR films. The island was, in my opinion, very ubelievable and quite obviously CGI patchwork. Even Kong wasn't as convincing as Gollum (though he was by far the best thing in that entire film).
You know, of course, Barley, that there is and EXTENDED cut of Peter Jackson's "King Kong"?
As if the original cut wasn't already far too long?
I'll stick with the black-and-white original, thank you very much.
Barliman Butterbur
04-02-2007, 03:34 AM
You know, of course, Barley, that there is and EXTENDED cut of Peter Jackson's "King Kong"?
I never knew that. I wish I still didn't know it...
Barley
fadhatter
04-12-2007, 08:36 AM
So if PJ actually does The Hobbit (is that actually confirmed yet?), I'll go see it at the moviehouse at least once. However, after seeing what he did to LOTR, I shall be appropriately wary.
What I'm waiting for is the DVD of Daniel Radcliffe in Equus — NOT (although I'm sure the bubblegum crowd will buy every copy)!
Barley
i could a sworn this Barley dude adored PJ"s work !!!
Anyways this is the masterpiece to watch out for !! ;)
http://blog.morph.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/BROKEBACK%20MOUNTAIN%202.JPG
fadhatter
04-12-2007, 08:57 AM
That is the most inane plot ever to come to the screen, and even his magic didn't keep the story line from being monumentally sappy. I'm just glad he got it out of his system though — I consider it a practice run for all the computer magic that would go into The Hobbit, should he ever get the chance to make it.
Barley
Looking at what PJ's WETA did with "300", we will likely get another urine-stained-colored CGI-fest monstrosity. WETA cant seem to add color into their CGIs
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.