Author Topic: Peter Jackson  (Read 12939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ębrad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4506
  • Respect: +218
Peter Jackson
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2003, 08:17:18 AM »
0
that introduction was done with respect to the people who didn't read the book. The first 100 pages or so of the fellowship to the ring is really just a lot of exposition. jackson on the DVD describes the difficulty in adapting this part of the book. The introduction was really the only way to do it.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Peter Jackson
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2003, 11:06:44 AM »
0
I know that, of course. But still, I think it is a rather amateur-like solution for such an obvious problem. If a director insists on an off-commentary, it is absolutely tabu to let the off-voice describe what's happening on the screen. I strongly agree with Billy Wilder on this point, cf. his interview with Cameron Crowe.

Spike

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Respect: +3
Peter Jackson
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2003, 11:53:19 AM »
0
Lester Burnhams off-commentary is also often describing what he's doing at the moment in "American Beauty" and it was a very high acclaimed movie. Stanley Kubrick had often off-commentarys in his films and he's still on the biggest genius' of the last century.

Spike
"We're gonna celebrate St. Suck-My-Big-Fat-Fucking-Sausage'a!!!"

RegularKarate

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 6047
  • Respect: +204
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/regularkarate/
Peter Jackson
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2003, 12:28:10 PM »
0
Quote from: chriskelvin
it is a rather amateur-like solution for such an obvious problem. If a director insists on an off-commentary, it is absolutely tabu to let the off-voice describe what's happening on the screen. /quote]

Well, yeah...he could have left off the narration there, but then he would have had to hang name tags on all the characters, listing who they are, where they come from and what side they're fighting for since you don't see most of them the rest of the film and I think putting name tags on all the characters would be a tad more tabu.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Peter Jackson
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2003, 01:41:44 PM »
0
Quote from: cecil b. demented
Quote from: M
No, Jackson stole Kubrick's beard.


yes, that is correct. after spielberg murdered our beloved kubrick, he sold the beard to jackson



Okay, that's my favorite thing anybody on this board has ever said. Cecil, you mind if I put that as my signature quote?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

oakmanc234

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
  • Respect: +3
Peter Jackson
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2003, 03:53:02 PM »
0
I can't stand his first three splatter comedies (especially 'Feebles', oh how I loathe...). I think 'Heavenly Creatures' is twisted yet beautiful (the ending FREAKED me out), and I LOVE 'The Frighteners' (damn that flick is under-rated). As for 'LOTR', got nuttin' but love for them. I'm not a freak or hardcore geek fan, I just think they're damn brilliant movies. It vexes me as to how good they are.

And personally, I think Jackson is going to nail 'King Kong'.
'Welcome the Thunderdome, bitch'

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Peter Jackson
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2003, 04:07:48 PM »
0
Quote from: Spike
Lester Burnhams off-commentary is also often describing what he's doing at the moment in "American Beauty" and it was a very high acclaimed movie. Stanley Kubrick had often off-commentarys in his films and he's still on the biggest genius' of the last century.

Spike


Well, first, I don't think that American Beauty deserves its acclaim either, but that is another story. (Though I agree it is a good film). Second, Lester Burnham's off-commentary is more ironic than narrative. Concerning Kubrick, whose films I simply adore, he never ever used an off-voice like Jackson did in LotR. His off-voices always helped developing a character (inner monologue, cf. A Clockwork Orange) or the story itself (cf. Full Metal Jacket, Barry Lyndon).
I'm totally aware of the fact that the majority of the audience didn't know the story of LotR in advance. But it is possible to establish the characters without an off-commentary or "name tags", with a well-structured screenplay and a story less based on fighting scenes, nice shots of nice digitally manipulated landscapes and less characters of minor importance played by actors with even less importance, but with a lot of make-up and a lot of popularity.
I'm sorry, but that's filmmaking Ó la George Lucas. And I just don't want to watch an empty, soulless, even before the release fully merchandized, test-audience approved McMovie.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
  • Respect: +151
Peter Jackson
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2003, 04:18:25 PM »
0
As everyone knows, I really hated Lord of the Rings and don't give any respect to Jackson for just adapting the book into a movie whether or not the finished product is of any standards. If it was, then it would be a different story. It is like saying someone who wrote the dumbest book, but made it the longest book in history should be given admiration for doing that. Its useless and just hides the quality of the bad work. The book could have been adapted into some good movies, but personally, I would have hacked 90% of the book right off and added a lot of things. Not saying I wouldn't try to honor the book. I still would. I would just aim for understanding of the purpose of the book instead of trying to lift its narrative directly.

~rougerum

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Peter Jackson
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2003, 04:24:03 PM »
0
gold trumpet -- do you have a desire to make films or are you more interested in theory?
...your excuses are your own...

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Peter Jackson
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2003, 04:24:20 PM »
0
Yeah, but, c'mon... if you make major changes to LOTR... well, somebody would probably shoot you. And justifiably so.

They're not the greatest movies, but they look damn good, they stick pretty well to a wonderful novel, and for big budget / popular type movies, it's as close as I'm gonna get to agreeing with the masses.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
  • Respect: +151
Peter Jackson
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2003, 04:36:42 PM »
0
Right now, theory. Later, who knows.

I think Lord of the Rings is capturing the narrative feel of the book, but only that. It is really missing out on some great themes and with the last one, has identified itself it is more interested in the action scenes that are possible from the book. My problem with the first one is that when the story started to get rolling, it became a video game and just repeated itself to death with fighting some weird creatures one after the other til it ended on the finale fight scene, that fittingly enough, wasn't even much of a finale, but just a little longer and against, yes, different creatures. Why not just have one battle sequence to exist for all those? They are the same anyways and focus on something more important and interesting for the rest of the movie. The second one was a narrative for the excuse of the last 20 minute battle. At least somewhat of a finale though. My main point is that a novel is getting butchered off its fruits here in order for the big sell. Fans of the book flock because they are seeing their fav characters here but it is butchery of the book.

I really wish that Princess Mononoke was in this position of hype and love instead of Lord of the Rings.

And to look into theory more, the whole purpose of adapting a previous work is to make it new. Just remaking it directly holds no identity for the person making the new work and just says only for the old. If you try to make it new and different, you aren't taking away but looking at it a new way. The old will still always exist but never should the remake exist just for the purpose of the old. If thats the case, you always go the old and forget the new anyways.

~rougerum

Cecil

  • Guest
Peter Jackson
« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2003, 07:56:18 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: cecil b. demented
Quote from: M
No, Jackson stole Kubrick's beard.


yes, that is correct. after spielberg murdered our beloved kubrick, he sold the beard to jackson



Okay, that's my favorite thing anybody on this board has ever said. Cecil, you mind if I put that as my signature quote?


not at all. its an extention of my kubrick/spielberg theory found here (scroll down to my post). http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=387&start=0

abbey road

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Respect: 0
Peter Jackson
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2003, 04:15:20 PM »
0
i think peter jackson and lord of the rings  films r both entirely overrated, i dont see anything even particularly special about his "artistry," his films just annoy me and make u want to get out of the theater so i can go watch a PTA film and resurect some brain cells.
"we'll meet again in a life when we are both cats"
"you are what you love, not what loves you"
"I don't think your an asshole Royal, I just think you're kind of a son of a bitch"
"royal with cheese"
"i'm sure you have no idea what i'm talking about...but don't worry...you will someday"

Mesh

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Respect: +3
Peter Jackson
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2003, 04:57:54 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
The book could have been adapted into some good movies, but personally, I would have hacked 90% of the book right off and added a lot of things. Not saying I wouldn't try to honor the book. I still would. I would just aim for understanding of the purpose of the book instead of trying to lift its narrative directly.


Wow.  This makes staggeringly little sense w/r/t The Lord of the Rings.  How could a film that was 10% faithful to the novels have succeeded in any way, shape, or form.  Everything that happens has to happen and much of what is said must be said as well.

Mesh

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Respect: +3
Peter Jackson
« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2003, 05:01:51 PM »
0
Quote from: abbey road
i think peter jackson and lord of the rings  films r both entirely overrated, i dont see anything even particularly special about his "artistry,"...


Oh my shit.

Jackson's (and his team's) attention to detail and his filmmaking acumen are both off the chart awesome.  If any valid criticism can be leveled at the LOTR movies, it's that the characters are hastily drawn and at once asked to fill huge emotional "shoes."  (Even that can be argued; he's only got so much running time for these things, you know...)

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy