And when everything was going so well...

[Jolly Rogers]

No, its just that he's getting all this credit and he really had nothing to do with it except the stupid parts that he felt the need to add. Tolkien had mad reference materials, including art.

Look at all his other movies and you'll see what a no-talent hack he is. I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises.

PS- On the whole, I like the LOTR movies, but I know that he had little to do with this fact.

Sounds like he's getting all the blame from you for things other people in the production crew did. 2 other writers got writing credit for the script, it's not like he was responsible for all the changes and additions. In fact the 2 other writers took credit for most of that.

PJ even hired Alan Lee and John Howe to do illustrations and other production art for the movies. They are the ones who did the illustrations for the books in case you don't know. Some of the "changes" and "additions" came directly from the appendices and references as well. I don't see where all these false accusations are coming from.

[wakobi]

Misread it? So you're dyslexic as well?

Not at all.

Just freely admitting my own mistakes and reinserting my tolerance of a-holes like you.

[Mr March]

No, its just that he's getting all this credit and he really had nothing to do with it except the stupid parts that he felt the need to add. Tolkien had mad reference materials, including art.

Look at all his other movies and you'll see what a no-talent hack he is. I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises.

PS- On the whole, I like the LOTR movies, but I know that he had little to do with this fact.

Wow. The ignorance toward filmmaking in those statements is utterly astonishing.

As I'm reading it, the only way you can make a case for what you just posted is to mean PJ didn't invent the LOTR story. But that sure doesn't sound like what you just wrote.

As fas as credit for a filmmaker (to say nothing about thecredit for the work that goes into a film the size of LOTR), well I'll just wait to see if I'm mistaken about this post.

[Max Jenius]

Have you seen any other Peter Jackson movies?

I'm basing my judgement of PJ on his work as a whole.

How many times do I have to say that I do like the movies, I just happen to know that PJ isn't the reason I like them.

If you wanna check out the changes(not just from the apendices... and here I get called ignorant) go here http://www.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_fotr.cfm

The changes really aren't the issue w/ me however. I think the majority are just fine, a few of them I do not see the point of.

But it looks like I am going to have to make it blatantly obvious;

I like the Lord of the Rings movies. I do not like Peter Jackson. I think after LOTR, he will disappear once again into obscurity.

[Jemstone]

Hey, Max, how do you feel about Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh?

[Max Jenius]

Hey, Max, how do you feel about Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh?

Partners in crime.

[muswp1]

This might be slightly OT, but since I can't find the thread that was done about it, I'll ask anyway. Did Peter Jackson give a reason why he suddenly cut all of Christopher Lee's (Saurman) parts out of Return of the King??

[Jolly Rogers]

He felt the placement of the scene didn't go well with how the movie was paced so he trimmed it and saved it for the Extended Cut.

[Mr March]

Since when is it a requirement to like every film done by a single director? You are aware most filmakers have worked on numerous commercially unsuccessful/barely profitable products before they ever make a film that has mass appeal yes? None of that is the issue anyway. You're somehow claiming Peter Jackson isn't to credit for the quality of the Lord of the Rings films because "you" don't like his other work. Does that mean the James Cameron is a talentless hack because I personally hated all his films except Terminator 2? Is Steven Speilberg not to credit for Schindler's List because I didn't like any of his films up until that point? I sure hope this isn't what you're saying.

You've already said you liked the films twice and now I'm going to say something twice, how does your dislike of PJ's other films negate Jackson's credit for his work on LOTR? Cause I'd love to hear a logical reason, which so far I haven't.

[Max Jenius]

Since when is it a requirement to like every film done by a single director?

It isn't. Never said it was.

You are aware most filmakers have worked on numerous commercially unsuccessful/barely profitable products before they ever make a film that has mass appeal yes?

Yep.

None of that is the issue anyway.  You're somehow claiming Peter Jackson isn't to credit for the quality of the Lord of the Rings films because "you" don't like his other work.

I'm claiming that I do not like Peter Jackson based on his other work, and his contributions to the LOTR series were minor. I like the LOTR movies, however I recognize that there is nothing that makes their success due to PJ.

Does that mean the James Cameron is a talentless hack because I personally hated all his films except Terminator 2?

Perhaps. Its called an opinion. You're entitled to yours.

Is Steven Speilberg not to credit for Schindler's List because I didn't like any of his films up until that point?

See above. I'm sure there are people out there that think that way.

I sure hope this isn't what you're saying.

Why? Because I do not share the same views as you do?

You've already said you liked the films twice and now I'm going to say something twice, how does your dislike of PJ's other films negate Jackson's credit for his work on LOTR?  Cause I'd love to hear a logical reason, which so far I haven't.

Hmmm... let me see if I can put this in terms that you can understand(not a dis, just you don't seem to get what I am saying). Let me start by saying that I have seen most of Peter Jackson's movies on accident. This was because one of my room-mates was dead set on seeing EVERY bad movie that he possibly could(no joke, that is a direct quote). It was only after FotR came out that I made the connection between them all.

Now, when I watch LOTR, I see that the art department did their homework for the most part. When I see environments in middle-earth they are just as I pictured they would be in a live action movie. Do you know why? Because I had already seen the art books. Now when I read through changes made "by" PJ I understand that he may have had little to do with it, however being both the director and a producer it is not like he does not have a decent amount of influence. But then again, that is a small reason for my dislike of PJ.

As for not liking a director based on his previous work; what do you base your like or dislike of a director on? Now I beg the question: Just what about LOTR, makes it distinctly Peter Jackson? I see message boards with "Oh Peter Jackson should do this... Peter Jackson should do that." Why? Because he managed not to botch LOTR?

Perhaps in the future he will prove himself worthy of my support, but as it stands right now he is nothing but a hack riding on the coat-tails of a classic book that's reputation preceded his touch.

So if you still do not understand my position, then I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Unless you feel the need to explain why you like Peter Jackson. But I really do not need to hear your reasoning, because its called having an opininon.

[Jolly Rogers]

Dude, being the director doesn't mean he gets the final say. Remember NewLine had an "executive producer"on the set to make sure the movies are made to be cookie cutter eough for mass appeal. He's even in the frigging control room when they did the final mixing and editing. Besides, they are not given a blank check for the production. Several things PJ would have liked to have filmed for the movie (Gandalf's battle with the Balrog from the dungeon to the mountain top, for example) didn't get shot because there simply wasn't enough money for them.

Face it, the movies could have turned out much worse... like the Dungeons and Dragons movie.

[Angel's Fury]

Wow! Based on all the comments that I've read, I take it that PJ screwed up badly ?

Edited December 14, 2003 by Angel's Fury

[Max Jenius]

Oh hell no he didn't screw them up at all. I just don't like Peter Jackson as a director and think that he is currently over-rated.

[Mr March]

So if you still do not understand my position, then I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Unless you feel the need to explain why you like Peter Jackson. But I really do not need to hear your reasoning, because its called having an opininon.

I see no position except expelling venom at PJ for no apparent reason other than "my opinion, I'm entitled, and I don't like him". As for the rest, it's just diversionary except for the only relevant point.

I like the LOTR movies, however I recognize that there is nothing that makes their success due to PJ.

And I again ask why?

For my part, I've no need to explain myself or my position. This debate began with your generalization and being called on it. As for my opinion, how about we wait until you provide some reason or critique of why PJ has nothing to do with the success of the LOTR films. If you don't have anything, other than just your opinion, that's fine. However, I say again, it's ignorance to state PJ has nothing to do with the success of LOTR...and that is what's called my opinion.

[CoryHolmes]

I will grant Peter Jackson this:

He made two (and soon to be three) very entertaining films out of a trilogy of books that I couldn't stand reading past the sixth chapter. The novels are, in my opinion, poorly written and very, very slow.

Jackson took that material and managed to lose most of the excess baggage while keeping the spirit and story in one cohesive unit.

[Max Jenius]

So if you still do not understand my position, then I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Unless you feel the need to explain why you like Peter Jackson. But I really do not need to hear your reasoning, because its called having an opininon.

I see no position except expelling venom at PJ for no apparent reason other than "my opinion, I'm entitled, and I don't like him". As for the rest, it's just diversionary except for the only relevant point.

Except that I see nothing extraordinary about him or his style or, most importantly, the movies he has directed.

I like the LOTR movies, however I recognize that there is nothing that makes their success due to PJ.

And I again ask why?

Read my above posts.

For my part, I've no need to explain myself or my position. This debate began with your generalization and being called on it. As for my opinion, how about we wait until you provide some reason or critique of why PJ has nothing to do with the success of the LOTR films. If you don't have anything, other than just your opinion, that's fine. However, I say again, it's ignorance to state PJ has nothing to do with the success of LOTR...and that is what's called my opinion.

Who says generalizations are never right? That's why they're called generalizations, because in general they are true. I can form an opinion about a director whose films I happen to have seen a lot of. Additionally, I have no doubt in my mind that they could have been better. So yes, I can say what I say.

*shrugs*

I guess you'll just have to be content with not understanding. I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you to change your views, let alone explain your affections for his work. So I'm just going to let the issue rest at agreeing to disagree because it is clear that we are getting nowhere. Too much typing! If you really wish to continue the debate, you are free to pm me.

[bsu legato]

I think that, without a doubt, the success of the LOTR films lies in the strength of the source material, Tolkien's original novels. Given the amount of detail that was lavished on the books and all of the licensed material since, all a competent director had to do was "connect the dots" so to speak. Jackson, whatever his faults and merits, was smart enough to surround himself with some very talented people on both sides of the camera, and the results show. The LOTR films are good, and if nothing else Jackson must be given credit for juggling all of the variables to get everything onto the screen. I know he had a hand in writing the trilogy, but I'm not sure to what extent, so I can't really comment on that.

That said, I do think that Jackson isn't "all that and a bag of chips." If you look at the way the trilogy was filmed, there isn't anything truly new or revolutionary. In fact, I've noticed an overreliance on a few cinematic tricks to make us "feel" in numerous spots. For example, have you noticed that every time a character dies we cut to a dreamy slow motion scene, replete with the mournful angelic choir? Ok, they're dying! We get it! Or what about any of the numerous travelling scenes? Each time somebody goes somewhere, we get treated to a swoopy, circling helicopter shot where the main star is New Zealand's scenic landscape.

The notion that Jackson is suddenly the savior of modern cinema is just plain dumb. The LOTR movies are undeniably good films, but if he's going to truly prove himself to me, he's going to have to make something original that will be entirely his own creation. For example. critics like to attribute The Empire Strikes Back's success to Kershner and Kasdan while simultaneously minimizing Lucas' involvement. But remember, Kershner went on to make Never Say Never Again and Robocop 2, while Kasdan recently treated us to Dreamcatcher. Likewise, I'll judge Jackson on what he'll do next.

[Mr March]

*shrugs*

I guess you'll just have to be content with not understanding. I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you to change your views, let alone explain your affections for his work. So I'm just going to let the issue rest at agreeing to disagree because it is clear that we are getting nowhere. Too much typing! If you really wish to continue the debate, you are free to pm me.

That was a nice attempt to force closure. But you're right in one respect, if you can't defend your position without retreating to "it's my opinion", then by all means, attempt to place onus on the person who called you out and end the debate. As for PM, there is no reason to move this discussion to any other venue...this thread is the perfect forum for this very discussion and is in no way off topic.

[Isamu Atreides 86]

For example. critics like to attribute The Empire Strikes Back's success to Kershner and Kasdan while simultaneously minimizing Lucas' involvement. But remember, Kershner went on to make Never Say Never Again and Robocop 2, while Kasdan recently treated us to Dreamcatcher. Likewise, I'll judge Jackson on what he'll do next.

but then Lucas treats us with things like Howard the Duck and Phantom Menace......

[red_xavier]

There's seems to be an open house policy for ignorance and arrogance in this thread. It should stop in case someone says something really stupid.

I will ask one question though:

Max Jenius - Have you seen the extras on the Extended Editions dvds?

[bsu legato]

but then Lucas treats us with things like Howard the Duck and Phantom Menace......

Yes, but I mentioned Kershner because he's a notable example of a director working on somebody else's material, much as Jackson is doing with LOTR. For better of for worse, Phantom Menace was 100% Lucas, so it's not really the same thing.

[Jolly Rogers]

There's seems to be an open house policy for ignorance and arrogance in this thread. It should stop in case someone says something really stupid.

I will ask one question though:

Max Jenius - Have you seen the extras on the Extended Editions dvds?

I doubt it. When there was a thread about the extended cut of The Two Towers, he said he wouldn't buy it for more footage that PJ made up and are not from the books.

Let's not forget his comment about PJ not using the art from LOTR for his movies too, when Alan Lee and John Howe were flew over and fed for years to work on designs and give creative input.

Edit in:

Plus several scenes that were directly influenced by Howe's and Lee's illustrations.

Edited December 14, 2003 by Jolly Rogers

[Max Jenius]

Max Jenius - Have you seen the extras on the Extended Editions dvds?

Yeah, I just got a chance to see the extended TT. Man, I was OD-ing on LOTR, I don't think I'll be watching that again for a while.

Hey, its clear we're getting nowhere with the PJ debate. I even went so far as to have other people read the thread. They understood. So I guess if you don't get it, you're never gonna get it.

Mr. March: It is obvious that you are playing dumb, as you have not hounded the others in the thread that share my opinion with as much tenacity. However, I am flattered at the attention. You've refused to answer any of my questions for you and come up with reasons to back up your own opinion(as in 'What makes this film distinctly Peter Jackson?'). Meanwhile I've cited numerous reasons for my dislike, that you just don't seem to be able to grasp.Take it up with Bsu or TruBlu, because I don't think I can make you understand without the use of visual aides. So until you hold yourself and your opinions up to the same scrutiny as you do mine, I guess you're going to have to be content with the information I have given you. See, you claim that this is a debate, but due to your own evasive nature you're making this a "Max explains himself over and over. Mr. March doesn't get it." I've backed my opinion up sufficiently with personal experiences, and that is all one needs to deem someone a no-talent hack. That's how we form judgements of directors or any other artist: through experiencing their work. I have experienced Peter Jackson, and I do not like his work, additionally I believe that his contributions to LotR in today's world of CGI and massive expense were minute(read 'connect the dots').

So to put a slightly different spin on a Hideaki Anno quote - "If you don't understand, its your problem."

Bsu: You remind me of something; earlier in the thread JR and March were deferring the blame for the LotR changes from PJ, saying "He didn't do this, he didn't do that." Well, that brings up something else- What exactly did he do? "connect the dots?" Si senor. There is nothing but film-making convention!

Jolly Rogers: Above I stated that the Art Dept. did their homework.

[Agent ONE]

Max,

Lock this thread... These guys are talkin a whole lot of nuthin'. The subject of this thread has already proven to be a falacy, coupled with the fact that various members have trouble handling criticism, resulting in whining.

March, what is your problem, you are just calling Max out for a fight over the queerest issue in the world. Drop it.

Complainers should change their avatar to this:

[Noyhauser]

I will grant Peter Jackson this:

He made two (and soon to be three) very entertaining films out of a trilogy of books that I couldn't stand reading past the sixth chapter. The novels are, in my opinion, poorly written and very, very slow.

Jackson took that material and managed to lose most of the excess baggage while keeping the spirit and story in one cohesive unit.

I'm sorry for going into this thread that is so horribly OT... but I had to point this out.

Possibly the greatest english author of all time, the Lord of the Rings was voted yesterday in a BBC poll as the most readable book in English history, Tolkien was professor in English in Oxford, helped edit the Oxford english dictionary, and designed his own language

...and he is poorly written....

...Sigh

Its arguable whether or not PJ is a good director. He had one of the greatest works of all time to work with. I think its a LOT harder to say that the Lord Of the Rings is a poorly written book.

[Max Jenius]

Well it is a matter of personal taste. When I was reading through them, I noticed that Tolkien tends to be quite wordy and while it certainly is beautiful, I can see how it would put some people off.

[Noyhauser]

Well it is a matter of personal taste. When I was reading through them, I noticed that Tolkien tends to be quite wordy and while it certainly is beautiful, I can see how it would put some people off.

accessively wordy and poorly written are two different things. You may be put off by the style of writing, but to claim it is poorly written is something else entirely. Would I classify Hamlet as being poorly written because it uses Elizabeathen English?

[Max Jenius]

Well it is a matter of personal taste. When I was reading through them, I noticed that Tolkien tends to be quite wordy and while it certainly is beautiful, I can see how it would put some people off.

accessively wordy and poorly written are two different things. You may be put off by the style of writing, but to claim it is poorly written is something else entirely. Would I classify Hamlet as being poorly written because it uses Elizabeathen English?

True. True.

[Isamu Atreides 86]

Would I classify Hamlet as being poorly written because it uses Elizabeathen English?

Try reading titus andronicus. THATS badly written. so is Milton's Paradise lost. of course, those are my opinions....

[CoryHolmes]

By "poorly written" I meant in the sense that the activity level and story tend to wax and wane, not keeping a consistent level.

As others have said, it's exessivly wordy, and there are great gleaming parts where nothing but dialog occurs, characters are introduced and given detailed history and descriptions (over many paragraphs) who are never seen again, plot development is rocky, and the novels just seem to sit in neutral for most of the time.

Yes, reading and watching movies is entirely about taste and personal preference. Not everyone can write (or direct) to please EVERYONE, but a good writer and a good director can please most people with their works. And judging by the amount of money it's made, the LotR movies have pleased a lot more people than just the ones that enjoyed the novels. That much you have to grant the crew behind them.

Tolkien was professor in English in Oxford, helped edit the Oxford english dictionary, and designed his own language

Doesn't mean he can write well.

And though this might be somewhat offensive, to those that say PJ did a good job here because of the source material he had to work with... well, think of Shakespear. Think of all the movies and theater productions of his plays. There's a LOT of source material there to work with, and it's still easy to screw everything up and get a crappy film/play/whatever.

And one last thing. If you think PJ is so horrible at what he does, let's see YOU go out and make a good movie.

[Mr March]

Mr. March: It is obvious that you are playing dumb, as you have not hounded the others in the thread that share my opinion with as much tenacity. However, I am flattered at the attention. You've refused to answer any of my questions for you and come up with reasons to back up your own opinion(as in 'What makes this film distinctly Peter Jackson?'). Meanwhile I've cited numerous reasons for my dislike, that you just don't seem to be able to grasp.Take it up with Bsu or TruBlu, because I don't think I can make you understand without the use of visual aides. So until you hold yourself and your opinions up to the same scrutiny as you do mine, I guess you're going to have to be content with the information I have given you. See, you claim that this is a debate, but due to your own evasive nature you're making this a "Max explains himself over and over. Mr. March doesn't get it." I've backed my opinion up sufficiently with personal experiences, and that is all one needs to deem someone a no-talent hack. That's how we form judgements of directors or any other artist: through experiencing their work. I have experienced Peter Jackson, and I do not like his work, additionally I believe that his contributions to LotR in today's world of CGI and massive expense were minute(read 'connect the dots').

So to put a slightly different spin on a Hideaki Anno quote - "If you don't understand, its your problem."

Bsu: You remind me of something; earlier in the thread JR and March were deferring the blame for the LotR changes from PJ, saying "He didn't do this, he didn't do that."

Max: I've challenged the fact that you haven't a clue what you are talking about when you say Peter Jackson is a no talent hack and isn't to credit for the LOTR films. Your supposed "reasons" for why you've got this position amount to "I realize", "I know", "I understand" without providing any real tangible arguements. Is "PJ wasn't part of the art department" one of your supposed reasons? Cause if that's what you call a reason, it's captain obvious to the rescue. PJ is a film director, not a clay sculpture artist.

As for the nonsense I'm focusing on you and no one else, you and you alone made the outrageous "no talent hack who's not to credit for the work" garbage and I'm responding from a filmmaker perspective. No one else in this thread has been that audacious, nor made a generalization nearly as arrogant. If they had, I'd have debated them. If there is anyone here who isn't understanding and needs to be pointed from A to B to C, it's you.

Lastly, I'm keeping this debate directed. You don't get to push the arguement away from "Why Max is calling PJ a no talent hack and claiming PJ deserves no credit" and into "Mr March, you are ordered to state what you like and why you think PJ's talented because Max said so". Like I've said, it was your mistake, not mine...and that's what I'll debate.

And just to clarify:

Bsu: You remind me of something; earlier in the thread JR and March were deferring the blame for the LotR changes from PJ, saying "He didn't do this, he didn't do that."

No, March never said anything of the sort....guess what that just proved. Thank you, have a nice day, come again soon.

[Mr March]

March, what is your problem, you are just calling Max out for a fight over the queerest issue in the world. Drop it.

Since when are members at MW forbidden to point out a flawed arguement when they see one? It's amazing how everyone has great things to say about my opinions when they correct a newbie or or common member. The moment the elite, long standing members are challenged for saying something stupid, I'm labelled a whiner or I MUST have a motive.

Thanks for letting me know your garb of consideration and maturity is donned only when it's fashionable.

[Max Jenius]

*shrug*

Well, like I said. I feel I've sufficiently explained myself and am not going to take this any further with you because frankly it really isn't worth the effort. Additionally, you've stated no counter-arguments thus; there is no argument. So I'm pretty sure that I will be able to continue on with my live having you disagree with me on Peter Jackson. In the end, it really isn't that big a deal to me.

[Mr March]

Whatever. I'll avoid stirring the pot with a last word kind of post if you wish to end this. However, no onus will be placed on myself, so the no counter arguement theory stands officially challenged for the record. Thank you for playing.

[red_xavier]

Hey, its clear we're getting nowhere with the PJ debate. I even went so far as to have other people read the thread. They understood. So I guess if you don't get it, you're never gonna get it.

Since when has there been any confusion about what you're saying? I understand it, as Mr March does. We just don't agree with you. In fact, I think you're outright stupid in saying such things... which is why I asked you whether you've seen the extras on the EE dvds but I know you haven't - thus you're talking about something you know nothing about.

It's not just a PJ revelant subject either, your opinion shows you're generally ignorant about the movie-making process, about what a director is responsible for...

With an argument flawed on practically every level, how could anyone with a brain express anything but total and utter derision?

Lock this thread before you really make an ass of yourself.

To clarify for your seeming inability to read posts properly, I get what you're saying.... I just think you're talking crap