Kor Qel Droma Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I know that chimps are a favorite in WOT, but I thought I'd add a linky to the new trailer... http://www.volkswagen.com/vwcms_publish/vw...al/en/home.html Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie.
Atomic Space Vixen Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I know that chimps are a favorite in WOT, but I thought I'd add a linky to the new trailer... http://www.volkswagen.com/vwcms_publish/vw...al/en/home.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't have much hope for this movie, its hack director is one big strike against it, but from the trailer it looks pretty good. My blog. - My photography.
Kor Qel Droma Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 its been so long since I've seen the original that I was wondering who those messing looking people were. Hows the flooding going? Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie.
Atomic Space Vixen Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 its been so long since I've seen the original that I was wondering who those messing looking people were. Hows the flooding going? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was wondering what you were talking about with the flooding, then I remembered. Wrong part of the province, I'm in Edmonton. My blog. - My photography.
Kor Qel Droma Posted June 29, 2005 Author Posted June 29, 2005 My bad, I thought it was your city as well as Calgary... Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie.
Child of Flame Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 I'm more excited about the liscensed movie-game made by Molyneux's team than the actual movie.
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 King Kong's story really doesn't appeal to me. But I don't understand calling Peter Jackson a hack. He has a really good body of work overall.
Atomic Space Vixen Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 King Kong's story really doesn't appeal to me. But I don't understand calling Peter Jackson a hack. He has a really good body of work overall. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> His last three movies were overblown dreck that could have stood using a good deal of editing, and could have stood being a lot less unintentionally funny. My blog. - My photography.
Blarghagh Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Knowing PJ's former works, I doubt it was unintentionally. Seriously. Bad Taste, anyone?
Ellester Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Hmm Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson
Arkan Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 King Kong's story really doesn't appeal to me. But I don't understand calling Peter Jackson a hack. He has a really good body of work overall. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> His last three movies were overblown dreck that could have stood using a good deal of editing, and could have stood being a lot less unintentionally funny. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How does it feel, having no soul? "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
Dark Moth Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 King Kong's story really doesn't appeal to me. But I don't understand calling Peter Jackson a hack. He has a really good body of work overall. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> His last three movies were overblown dreck that could have stood using a good deal of editing, and could have stood being a lot less unintentionally funny. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Um, no. You're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. I thought he did a superb job on the LOTR movies, and I felt they were among the best films ever made! And that's not my LOTR fanboyism speaking through, that's my unbiased opinion. While they all had flaws (length being one, but that was mostly unavoidable), I thought they were way better than most of the trash Hollywood churns out every year. And I'm sure most of the millions of fans who purchased movie tickets to see them would at least say there was something to like in them. As for King Kong, PJ is a great director, but I'm keeping my expectations low. King Kong just doesn't need a remake. It would be sweet if he did The Hobbit, just too complete the LOTR series.
Azarkon Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 His last three movies were overblown dreck that could have stood using a good deal of editing, and could have stood being a lot less unintentionally funny. Given that no one has ever successfully filmed an epic high fantasy trilogy other than Peter Jackson, your words mean very little. Coercing the movie going masses to sit through eight hours worth of the kind of stuff they make fun of you in high school for liking... Now that's talent. There are doors
Atomic Space Vixen Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 How does it feel, having no soul? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, quite normal, thanks! Um, no. You're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. I thought he did a superb job on the LOTR movies, and I felt they were among the best films ever made! And that's not my LOTR fanboyism speaking through, that's my unbiased opinion. While they all had flaws (length being one, but that was mostly unavoidable), I thought they were way better than most of the trash Hollywood churns out every year. And I'm sure most of the millions of fans who purchased movie tickets to see them would at least say there was something to like in them. As for King Kong, PJ is a great director, but I'm keeping my expectations low. King Kong just doesn't need a remake. It would be sweet if he did The Hobbit, just too complete the LOTR series. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If by "great director" you mean "hack", then sure. I watched the first two, and part of the third. I never saw the end and have no desire to. If an epic trilogy can't keep you interested in seeing how it all ends, it's done its job poorly. I did enjoy Magneto's magic flashlight though! As for the millions of fans, are these the same people who continue to make American Idol such a smash hit while ignoring great shows like Keen Eddie or Firefly? Popularity is no indication of quality, my friend. And no version of the Hobbit can top Leonard Nimoy's "Ballad of Bilbo Baggins", where at least the cheese was fun, unlike BoTR. Given that no one has ever successfully filmed an epic high fantasy trilogy other than Peter Jackson, your words mean very little. Coercing the movie going masses to sit through eight hours worth of the kind of stuff they make fun of you in high school for liking... Now that's talent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe it wasn't "high" fantasy, but Star Wars was as much fantasy as it was science fiction, and the first three films were fun, a word sadly lacking from Jackson's vocabulary. Unless the magic flashlight was intentional. And besides, he filmed all three back-to-back, before the first was even released. Even if it flopped, he would have still have filmed all three parts "successfully". That's talent in grubbing for money, not in directing. My blog. - My photography.
Oerwinde Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 While they all had flaws (length being one, but that was mostly unavoidable) I know, they were totally too short. Thats why I bought the extended editions. 4 1/2 hour Return of the King = The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Azarkon Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Maybe it wasn't "high" fantasy, but Star Wars was as much fantasy as it was science fiction, and the first three films were fun, a word sadly lacking from Jackson's vocabulary. Unless the magic flashlight was intentional. And besides, he filmed all three back-to-back, before the first was even released. Even if it flopped, he would have still have filmed all three parts "successfully". That's talent in grubbing for money, not in directing. Was LOTR deep and visceral? Probably not. But fun? I have a hard time believing otherwise, especially compared to Star Wars, which, ironically, fit better with your idea of quirky humor and "magic flashlights". As for being "successful" in the film industry, there are several factors. One is, obviously, the studio profits. You don't (and can't, really) deny that LOTR made ALOT of money, and that any argument specifying its "lack of fun" is futile against the millions of movie goers who apparently considered it fun enough to watch. But profits are not all there is to a film, of course. There is also the response from the critics and academia, in which case LOTR not only received over 90% positive for all reviews, but won more academy awards than any fantasy trilogy to date, including Star Wars. The natural argument against that is that the Oscars are rigged, the Golden Globes are rigged, the critics are crap, the academic is a bunch of bull****ting ivory towerers who follow the crowds, and that the eccentric (since you can't be average, as the film was so popular) film seer alone hold the truth in the matter, right? But then there is the technical and aesthetic achievement factors. Has LOTR broken a record in the film industry? Sure, it has: it is 1) the only fantasy epic to have been critically acclaimed throughout its three films 2) a technical marvel that resulted in numerous CGI innovations and 3) the first HIGH fantasy film that was more than a curiousity or genre piece. There is a huge difference between Star Wars and LOTR. Star Wars created its own franchise through the films. LOTR drew on a much older and richer tradition of Tolkien and D&D. The fact of the matter is, we don't know whether Star Wars makes alot of money because of the film quality or of the fact that it's the Star Wars world, as there have not been a single Star Wars movie that has "flopped." Yet we know that PLENTY of high fantasy films have flopped in the past, such as the D&D movie, the LOTR animated version, etc. Even including one that Lucas himself made (Willow). High fantasy itself does NOT lend very well, by its tradition, to critically acclaimed blockbusters that break industry standards. It does NOT lend itself to anything other than children films as far as the academia is concerned. Yet LOTR broke that tradition. It captured the imagination of a nation and brought an old Hollywood taboo down to its knees. Peter Jackson is not solely responsible for this, but even if he simply got lucky, even if King Kong will suck, Jackson still would've been no less credible than George Lucas, who I can just as well argue got lucky with the first three Star Wars films, since his aftermath hasn't exactly been stellar, either. To conclude, let me just say this: it's fine that you don't like LOTR, fine that you didn't enjoy it. I'm sure there are films that I don't enjoy that you consider masterpieces, as well. That's a matter of taste. But when it comes to calling a director a "hack", especially against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you had better possess arguments other than your own personal preference and vague generalizations about the movie. Really, calling Jackson a hack is the equivalent, in the gaming industry, of calling Bungie, Bioware, or Blizzard "hack developers" Sure, you might not like their games (I personally did not like NWN or KOTOR all that much), but no one in the gaming industry would ever take you seriously if you called them bad developers. So the question you have to ask yourself is this: do you know more than 90% of the people whose life pursuits are the gaming/film industry? Because if you do, then I advice that you get into the industry asap and show us all how it's done. There are doors
Darth Flatus Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 The quality of film is completely subjective, there is no universal good or bad. While LOTR was indeed very popular there is bound to be a number of people who didnt like it. Good on you for providing a treatise on why LOTR shoudl be lauded but you can't seriously think it will change anyone's mind.
Azarkon Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 The quality of a film is not subjective. Quality in a product refers to its objective measures, its "inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property", if you believe dictionary.com. For instance, you may not like Half-Life 2 as a game because you hate FPS's, but that does not mean that it's not a polished, quality FPS. Similarly, a person might not like Peter Jackson's directing skills, but that doesn't mean he isn't a quality director. What is subjective is whether you enjoy something as a work of art/entertainment. On that battlefield I'm not trying to win any medals. I believe in the subjectivity of art and that people should be free to have their own judgment even if everyone else disagrees with them. However, that does not mean a director's objective "qualities" are subject to the same argument, which is what I'm saying. There are doors
Blarghagh Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 As for the millions of fans, are these the same people who continue to make American Idol such a smash hit while ignoring great shows like Keen Eddie or Firefly? Popularity is no indication of quality, my friend. Completely barring the fact that all three of those are boring drabble on a scale not even an anime could muster. Eh, what can you expect from television? Series suck, period. Also, the magic 'flashlights' were in the book. That's not something you can blame PJ for. After all, having the elves at Helms Deep nearly cost PJ his fanbase because it strayed from the source material. And we all know what straying from the source material does anyway. Neverending Story II, anyone? The natural argument against that is that the Oscars are rigged, You see, this doesn't make sense because Wingnut and WETA Digital were not part of mainstream Hollywood, in fact, they weren't even part of Hollywood at all. The Academy HAD to vote for LOTR or else their credibility would have been shot to hell, considering the overwhelmingly positive reaction the series had, but they were basically screwing themselves doing so.
Darth Flatus Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 ....After all, having the elves at Helms Deep nearly cost PJ his fanbase because it strayed from the source material.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> erm, bit of an overstatement dont you think?
Blarghagh Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Not really. The uproar it caused was enormous. I didn't even follow the news about how they strayed from the books because I hadn't read them at the time(not much of a reader, don't have eyes fit for reading) but I heard people complaining about that left and right. It was even on some movie news show here in Holland.
Ellester Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Not really. The uproar it caused was enormous. I didn't even follow the news about how they strayed from the books because I hadn't read them at the time(not much of a reader, don't have eyes fit for reading) but I heard people complaining about that left and right. It was even on some movie news show here in Holland. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personally I think leaving Tom Bombadil out caused more of an uproar. Even I was ticked off at that. But I soon realized that he offered nothing to the overall story and realized it was a good choice. Personally I think movies and books are different, and they should be made differently. Imagine if the last 90 minutes of the Two Towers was following Frodo around the swamps. Jeeze, I found it incredible boring to read, imagine seeing it in a movie. Splitting it up between Sauramen and Helm Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson
Blarghagh Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 The uproar for that wasn't really all that big. Afterall, even some people totally obsessed with the books thought Tom Bombadil was kindof (not in my own words) gay.
Darth Flatus Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 I hated the tom bombadil part, i skipped it the first time i read it. Years later when re-reading the fellowship i decided to read the bombadil section. It seems that i did the right thing missing it out first time round. All this "uproar" was among the hardcore fans, so only a (irrational) minority of the gargantuan number of people that actualy saw the films.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now