Proclaimed A World Hero given the riches of the world and be worshiped daily
Be allowed to keep his profits and be left alone
To Have the showing of the disrespectfull films baned
Hung Drawn And Quaterd and Burnt at the steak
Well I have finally decided to come out and do it. I am starrting this association as I have a massive hatred of Peter Jackson and his version of LOTR I belive it tobe un true to The book and it is just an excuse for some one to alter it to how they want I dont know if this is true but I heard Peter Jackson has not even read the books. But anyway if you hate Pj and want to be part of a pettion against TTT film (not the book) then post your name hear if you want to discuss it then post hear
"He Wears Makeup, and has a Girls name. How Original." Alice Cooper on Marilyn Manson
Why? Because he made a great movie? Because that is what I think he did. Some wise people in this forum have adviced us to try to separate the book and the film. IMO that is an exellent idea. Give the man some credit: He has drawn new readers to Tolkien, although he didn't manage to stay true to the book itself.
If you don't like the movie, fine. That is your opinion. The book can still be read. It is there, unchanged.
The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
- Joseph Conrad
i'd like to see your a$$ do a better job, he did an amazing piece of work that will not be topped, he made 3 movies (which are completely seperate but are continuations of each other) back to back a feet that took a little over two years (no films/film series has ever taken that long to make), a feet that i believe will never be matched or even attepted to be rivaled again!!!
Thôl
This really pathetic. Hating Peter Jackson because he made a book that you love into a film you hate is just sad. It really doesn't make a difference in the long run. It's JUST A BOOK! Don't have such a major tantrum about it.Well I have finally decided to come out and do it. I am starrting this association as I have a massive hatred of Peter Jackson and his version of LOTR I belive it tobe un true to The book and it is just an excuse for some one to alter it to how they want I dont know if this is true but I heard Peter Jackson has not even read the books. But anyway if you hate Pj and want to be part of a pettion against TTT film (not the book) then post your name hear if you want to discuss it then post hear
- Ariana
"Home is behind ... the world ahead. And there are many paths to tread. Through shadow ... to the edge of night ... until the stars are all alight."
A-men sister!
*looks at Hung Drawn And Quaterd and Burnt at the steak* What do you have against him! His movie is better than the one from the 70's
*Lady Arwen*
Dimlandowen Vanya
Aerin
I think perhaps your poll is a trife premature. There is no one who does not know my feelings - pro and con - on the film (singular). I have great issues with Mr. Jackson, not the least because much of what he did was unnecessary and did not enhance his own efforts, never mind the book.
However, having said that, it is only fair, right and prudent to await the release of all the films. I don't think they are going to get "better" (meaning their faithfulness to the original), but it is frankly impossible to judge the value of the whole when one has only seen one-third of it. Certainly, Jackson's first film has considerable merit if one watches it as a film and doesn't try to "keep score" against the book.
Therefore, I would suggest, respectfully, that the author of the thread either limit his question to the first film alone - which would be rather useless under the circumstances - or withhold it until all the films have been released and debated. At that time, no doubt, a more credible judgment will be forthcoming from forum members!
Mrs. M., Queen of Farmer's Wives
I prefer my steak when it's not burnt, thanks.
Well, I basically disagree with all of you. "It could have been worse" and "no one could have done better" seem to be common arguments. Pathetic! These movies should never have been made. Many seem to want to make this into a "lesser of two evils" deal. It's not; no one made the guy do these movies.
But as little respect or admiration as I have for Mr. Jackson, neither do I agree with the choices on this poll. As much as I hate and oppose the movies, I have never denied Mr. Jackson's right to make them. They should certainly not be banned; that would be a severe violation of freedom of expression. Remember that LotR itself has been banned in places it was considered offensive.
Neither to I see the point in making pointless comments about what violence you'd like to do to the guy. I know you're kidding, but it's just a waste of time.
While I've never used any of those comments as my main arguement, I think it might be worth pointing out that there is some merit in them. It comes down to what I think separates a lot of people on the movie: one group is looking at the full half of the cup and the other is looking at the empty. In many peoples case it's quite unfortunate that it is the latter, because were they to look at what is there they'd find that they truly love the movie. For some, like you I suspect, there is little to nothing they enjoy about PJ's movie, in any and all respects. While I'd enjoy to actually discuss the specifics of your apparently extreme opinions, for here I simply maintain that to look at how much Tolkien goodness is presented to us, rather then what isn't, may be one way for some folks to enjoy this movie. Remember, this is only one telling of Tolkiens tale. It is NOT the telling. Seen from that perspective, I've suggested before that some might be better off seeing these movies as interpretive "tributes" to Tolkien, rather then the percise, detail for detail, line for line telling of LotR.Well, I basically disagree with all of you. "It could have been worse" and "no one could have done better" seem to be common arguments. Pathetic! These movies should never have been made. Many seem to want to make this into a "lesser of two evils" deal. It's not; no one made the guy do these movies.
"We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I think that that is the problem. LOTR to me is not just a book. It's the introduction into the magic of Tolkien. A world were elves, men and dwarves meet. It's storytelling in a whole new level. For the people who truly care about Tolkien, doing a movie about his works is something to be taken seriously, especially when the "director" states that he will try and stay "true" to the books.It's JUST A BOOK! Don't have such a major tantrum about it.
The change in the movie that truly annoys me is the There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale, when in reality the name is: There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Holiday. There is no way that that change is justified.
I was very upset with the way the movie turned out, but then I realized that it was not Tolkien, but a "Tolkenization" of a movie director.
PJ has his merits, of course, in that he has brought new entusiam to Tolkien and has his books in demand, but the magic that is Tolkien is not in the movie.
for since his torment upon Thangorodrim his spirit burned like a white fire within, and he was as one that returneth from the dead, keen and terrible; and they fled before him.
Guild of Scholars
I agree!Originally posted by Nóm
Maedhros was here
"He was indeed so powerful that only his great grace could temper the strength of his step"
I think that is the right word for what was missing, the "magic" that is Tolkien.
I wonder if any will disagree?
Mrs. M., Queen of Farmer's Wives
A very good film.
Nothing wrong with PJ.
The magic IS in the books.
Do you see that piece of land over there? That used to be a lake. And then this one November, all these ducks come by, and they landed in that lake, and then the temperature dropped so fast the whole lake just froze. Then the ducks took off and took the whole lake with them. Now that lake's somewhere over in Georgia.
No way I'll disagree on that. It's a very good film, but one must leave the memory of the real work outside the theater when watching it.
The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
- Joseph Conrad
all for it
damn the man! He had the means, the acting talent, the time, and the know how to create a completely detailed representation of Tolkiens vision. what does he do instead? He cuts, chops, switches and purees what could have been a masterpiece into armadillo meatloaf with cornflake armor! PJ's actions are utterly unforgiveable and I say to the Cracks of Doom with him!
I suggest you get a hold of the EE version on DVD, and listen to what he has to say about making the film. I think it might be just a little harder than we imagine, to make a movie of the magnitude he has done. It may seem easy, but how long has it taken, really? 7 years? 8? How on earth are you gonna keep the actors and staff occupied for so long. They all have other things to do as well I suppose.
And of course there is a lot of people who long to see all the books of Tolkien filmed 100% true. I for one would love that. But I really believe PJ did an honest attempt at staying as close to the book as possible. He had to think about the costs as well, and they had no idea if the first film would turn out to be a success. What would've happened to PJ and New Line if they had made a movie that was true to the book, but failed in making money.
I suggest you try to get a hold of a copy of the previous attempt by Ralph Bakshi, and see what you get out of that.
The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
- Joseph Conrad
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks