The Hobbit

Crap! They're finally airing Sherlock here in the States. I gotta check that out, it looks fascinating.

Frankly, Peter Jackson had me at Heavenly Creatures. The fact that he made a movie that amazing about a couple of girls killing an older lady gave me 100% faith that he could handle Middle Earth well.

Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe it was all the Kate Winslet Girls' Love that gave me such faith in him.

Same here. I'm probably one of three Americans who even knew who Jackson was before his Lord of the Rings adaptation came out.

I'm one of the other two.

Official casting notices. Ian McKellen is still playing Gandalf, Andy Serkis is coming back as Gollum, and Martin Freeman will play Bilbo.

YES!!!

Excellent!

Is there Beorn? I'm in the mood for killer werebears.

A recent BBC story says it's still two parts, though I'm not 100% sure if it's still the "linking story" mentioned earlier.

Wow, I totally forgot about this topic.

I'll be interested if Jackson gets dropped and del Toro by some miracle comes back on board.

I'm not watching anything that has Jackson's name on it, ever again.

That's a bit harsh. Any reason why?

I've seen five Peter Jackson movies (the LOTR trilogy, King Kong and Braindead) and frankly I got to wonder where this supposed filmmaking genius is. All I see is a B-Movie fanboy who had a lot of money thrown at him so he made big-budget adaptations and remakes... which he applied his B-Movie mentality to.

Now, I've only seen two Guillermo del Toro movies (Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage), and I hated the former, but even so both movies showed me that this was a man of skill—someone who knew his chops. He wasn't a retard like Jackson—he knew what he was doing.

I was actually excited when I heard del Toro might direct The Hobbit. But now that its Jackson, I'm just shunning it.

There were some differences between the books and films, but they're incredibly natural. I can't actually think of any way those changes could've been done better.

I can: If they had been done by del Toro.

or Ralph Bakshi.

Possible Fandom Heresy but I'd even be willing to say Rankin-Bass did a better job than Jackson.

Jackson?

Retard?

I don't even...

If you didn't like the Lot R movies, that's one thing, but Jackson clearly has a lot of skill at making films, especially since a book-to-film adaption of Lot R's scale is really, really difficult.

The Bakshi adaption wasn't much good in any case. It was more literal, but it was less exciting, more dragging and just stopped at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep.

edited 28th Oct '10 8:05:10 AM by MadassAlex

Yeah... Jackson's got skills and is an intelligent person. There's no need to imply that he has a mental impairment, or that the under-funded and unfinished cartoon from the early '80s is somehow better than (or even in the same ballpark as) a full and complete Academy Award-winning live-action trilogy.

Also, Pan's Labrynth is awesome.

Jackson doesn't seem to understand themes very well, so his films look right but the feel is off.

The Frighteners. That is all.

jewelleddragon: Please elaborate on PJ's misunderstaning of themes, if you can.

The Frighteners is a load of fun.

edited 28th Oct '10 2:56:15 PM by Dracomicron

Misunderstood? The Lord of the Rings is applicable. You fill in the gaps with your own perspective. He stated that himself, but he also acknowledged Tolkien's biases which also made their way into Lot R 9to their benefit in many cases). Its restrained and behaved multicultural people who live in peace with nature while advancing at a reasonable versus the monotonous and destructive forces of Sauron. The films delivered on that pretty well.

And to say that Bakshi did a better job is...well, I'd get banned for saying I really feel about anyone who dares to say that.

Well, I think it's okay to say what Bakshi did right like the Frodo's stand against the Nazgul at the border of Rivendell.

Hardly. Frodo did squat against the wraiths. Courage only ever matters if it does a lick of good. Frodo trying to attack the wraiths or ordering them to go away was utterly worthless, as without outside interference both times he'd have been dead. Frankly, I'm with the Live-Action Movie's Frodo's policy of trying to flee since there's no point to frontally opposing them unless you're Eowyn.

You don't understand characterization at all, do you?

Imagine there is a story about a greedy mizer who, on EVERY SINGLE PAGE, is shown to horde money, bargain-shop, never give to charity, and so on.

Then on one page, smack-dab in the middle of the story, the guy gives ten dollars to someone he doesn't even know. There's no buildup, no established reason for this, and he immediately goes back to his miserly behavior for the rest of the story.

This is what we call "an out-of-character moment."

Tolkien's Frodo was consistently characterized as someone who, despite being in a position of helplessness, was willing to see danger and hard times through and try his best.

Jackson's Frodo was characterized as a wusspuppy who always tries to avoid peril and just let his friends do everything.

Which one of those seems more like the kind of guy who would walk into a demon's domain and right up the edge of a volcano even knowing there's a bunch of pants-shitting Eldritch Horrors and a nearly limitless number of orcs along the way?

Yes, you can argue Frodo's cowardice makes sense strategically, but Jackson's not playing a strategy game, he's telling a story and stories have to have believable characters—and his movies usually don't.

He pulled the same goddamn shit with Jack Driscoll in King Kong, turning a hardened sailor into a fucking nerd who was in over his head. Does it make sense that a hack playright would know how to use grenades or be able to look at a giant ape without shitting his pants and fainting? No.

Peter Jackson is a symbol of the disconnect with reality the internet age has caused: He doesn't think about this shit, doesn't consider it. Like a teenager, he's more concerned with "cool" and instant gratification pleasures. J.R.R. Tolkien was a professor who actually served in war and Meriam C. Cooper was a globe-trotting adventurer who got his start doing documentary films, they both had enough innate wisdom from life that they didn't need to think about this shit—it had just seeped into their chakras. Directors like Jackson don't have that, and that's why they fail.

Yawn

edited 28th Oct '10 4:33:28 PM by WeirdRaptor

You don't understand characterization at all, do you?

Imagine there is a story about a greedy mizer who, on EVERY SINGLE PAGE, is shown to horde money, bargain-shop, never give to charity, and so on.

Then on one page, smack-dab in the middle of the story, the guy gives ten dollars to someone he doesn't even know. There's no buildup, no established reason for this, and he immediately goes back to his miserly behavior for the rest of the story.

This is what we call "an out-of-character moment."

Or, to paraphrase Gandalf, "Hobbits truly are remarkable creatures. You can learn all there is to know about them in a month, yet after a lifetime they can still surprise you."

EDIT: Aren't you the one who praised Dragon Ball for taking exactly that same approach? You pointed out that every Saiyan we ever meet is a crazy warmonger, to the extent that one wonders how they ever learned to rub two sticks together to make fire. Then you pointed out that they had power level scouters—where the heck did those come from? You called that deep worldbuilding.

edited 28th Oct '10 6:28:15 PM by MetaFour

Imagine that's a real person and not a fictional character. That moment is what we call "the moment you realize you don't understand them as well as you think you do".

Dude, there are all sorts of people in the world. There are people who are craven and cowardly and would indeed hide from danger only to turn around and do something completely nuts (like movie-Frodo), there are others who would bravely stand up to all odds even knowing that they could and possibly would fail (like book-Frodo).

We can't possibly say "Frodo would behave like X if he were real" without applying personal views of humanity to it (and well, he's not a human, so you really can't). We can only say what does or doesn't make sense based on what we've seen him do.

Or, to paraphrase Gandalf, "Hobbits truly are remarkable creatures. You can learn all there is to know about them in a month, yet after a lifetime they can still surprise you."

Remember the context of that line—it was when Frodo, after hearing of the Ring's true nature for the first time, immediately decided he was going to undertake a long and dangerous journey (with absolutely zero coaching from the wizard, mind).

EDIT: Aren't you the one who praised Dragon Ball for taking exactly that same approach? You pointed out that every Saiyan we ever meet is a crazy warmonger, to the extent that one wonders how they ever learned to rub two sticks together to make fire. Then you pointed out that they had power level scouters—where the heck did those come from? You called that deep worldbuilding.

I did? Maybe in my younger and stupider days when I was high on painkillers. You'll notice that in IJBM now I have a whole topic attacking the notion of "deep."

Also, I always assumed that their technology came from Freeza.

Not that I'm sure what any of this has to do with Jackson's skills as a director/storyteller.

edited 28th Oct '10 7:19:17 PM by Edmond_Dantes

He pointed out your hypocrisy, genius.

Pointing out someone's hypocrisy only works if the person being called out is actually being hypocritical.

By the way, just keep up that tone. See how long you last around here.

edited 28th Oct '10 7:06:26 PM by Edmond_Dantes

You're the one with the tone. You launched into a rant over a simple question we asked you. By the way, Jackson is not a symbol of disconnect. He just portrayed Frodo in a way that didn't gel with you.

EDIT: Why am I getting worked up over this with you? The film's altogether grossed ove $3 billion, they won about 20 oscars, and are highly regarded by far more credible people than you. Do whatever you want, its not like Jackson's piggy bank will suffer from the loss of your money.

edited 28th Oct '10 7:20:34 PM by WeirdRaptor

You're the one with the tone. You launched into a rant over a simple question we asked you.

No, I "launched into a rant" over your suggestion that Frodo's displays of courage were meaningless. I didn't see a question in that post.

By the way, Jackson is not a symbol of disconnect. He just portrayed Frodo in a way that didn't gel with you.

Because I expect things to make sense.

EDIT: Why am I getting worked up over this with you?

[REDACTED]

The film's altogether grossed ove $3 billion, they won about 20 oscars, and are highly regarded by far more credible people than you. Do whatever you want, its not like Jackson's piggy bank will suffer from the loss of your money.

You know what else is popular? Crack.

Popular does not equal Good.

edited 28th Oct '10 7:30:13 PM by Edmond_Dantes