Peter Jackson is the new George Lucas

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

It hurts to admit it, but it's true. He's making pretty much all the same mistakes GL did with the prequel films. There's so much CGI that everything looks very fake - more like a cartoon or a video game than a live action movie. The LOTR movies look so good overall after ~10 years because of how much they didn't use CGI, whereas this new movie already looks outdated. It's really stunning how much worse the orcs look in this movie than they did in LOTR.

The Goblin City is blatantly imitative of an amusement park ride. Characters get thrown around in the air and bridges collapse onto slides. It's absolutely ridiculous. This is obviously just a marketing ploy so they can build some theme park ride later. Jackson seems more interested in franchise marketability than artistic integrity.

I understand that The Hobbit is a children's book, but that is not an excuse for snot humor, that thing they called Radagast, and the countless other banalities. The book doesn't have any of the crude pandering to children that this movie does. It is a serious book with serious characters and events, told with an elegant simplicity that allows for children to understand and adults to appreciate as well.

Also it must be said that Azog is like Darth Maul all over again. He's the primary antagonist of the film, and yet none of heroes even know he's alive until the last 20 minutes or so. And then he's forgotten about pretty much as soon as he's dead. He really is a terrible excuse for an antagonist.

The new Hobbit movie is basically the middle-earth equivalent to Episode I.

#2 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

The Hobbit is still better than Episode 1 despite all this!

#3 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

as I haven't seen it; I can't attest to that.

Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.Laihendi

but it's hard to believe you're the same person, given the amount of blind faith you gave this director.

The Hobbit is still better than Episode 1 despite all this!

mitu123

Laihendi is equating them on how they seem to be cash grabs. but what makes the hobbit worse is that it's not only a terrible flick, much akin to Star Wars episode 1, but that is also butchered a beloved classic.

#4 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Hobbit is a masterpiece, please please don't compare this masterpiece to episode 1 cause you can not understand its not ment to be serious like two towers or return of the king, its ment to be a light hearted adventure. You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. And is that you Venekor?

#5 Posted by Postal_Guy (2643 posts) -

Hobbit is a masterpiece, please please don't compare this masterpiece to episode 1 cause you can not understand its not ment to be serious like two towers or return of the king, its ment to be a light hearted adventure. You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. And is that you Venekor?

ultimate-k

I have to agree with this

#6 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. ultimate-k

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

#7 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -
I'd say Gollum is the anti-Jar Jar Binks.
#8 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. SirWander

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

You havnt't watch the movie so you can't judge at all. Not lowing standards at all, just the Hobbit is a different tone to the LOTRs and he can't accept that. Please don't judge until you actually see the movie for yourself.

#9 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -
I didn't like the stupid stunts Legolas did in the two towers or Return of the King. I liked the rest of LOTR though. I hope they didn't add any dumb stuff to The Hobbit.
#10 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

You havnt't watch the movie so you can't judge at all. Not lowing standards at all, just the Hobbit is a different tone to the LOTRs and he can't accept that. Please don't judge until you actually see the movie for yourself.ultimate-k

true enough, I haven't seen it. and I don't plan on seeing it.
I've read some of TC's post in other threads about the hobbit, and he seems to know enough to have earned my respect on the subject. But then again I don't know anything about the lore of LOTR outside of the film adaptations.

it's good that you liked it at least. but it having a different tone than what he was expecting does not delegitimize the criticisms that laihendi brought up in the OP.

#11 Posted by brucewayne69 (2861 posts) -
Here are the only legitimate criticisms of this movie: 1. Goblin King. Fvcking stupid. So bad in every aspect. 2. Azog and other goblins/orcs looking CGI. Understandable criticism. 3. The Giants. I know that I'm in the minority, but that seen was too drawn out. It was quite boring. And where were the rock giants during LOTR? They could have been useful. And who created them? How are they alive. In the book, they could be interpreted metaphorically, but this was just stupid. 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now? All in all, I loved this movie. I feel that if they didn't make it as lighthearted as they did, it would have been better. With those 4 things fixed, it could have been a 10/10
#12 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71742 posts) -

Hobbit is a masterpiece, please please don't compare this masterpiece to episode 1 cause you can not understand its not ment to be serious like two towers or return of the king, its ment to be a light hearted adventure. You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. And is that you Venekor?

ultimate-k
pretty much this. Hobbit was a book written to Tolkiens sons when they were growing up. They weren't suppose to be dark and serious
#13 Posted by Blue-Sky (10325 posts) -

I think your real complaint it the 48fps.

High frame rates eliminate motion blur and causes CGI elements to stand out more (typically they use blur to blend in)

Just watch it in 24fps if you can't stand the effect you find that the special effects are far greater than LOTR.

#14 Posted by sonicare (53466 posts) -

Peter Jackson is making movies about books that already exist. So no.

#15 Posted by Dan_Lero (7484 posts) -

Also it must be said that Azog is like Darth Maul all over again. He's the primary antagonist of the film, and yet none of heroes even know he's alive until the last 20 minutes or so. And then he's forgotten about pretty much as soon as he's dead. He really is a terrible excuse for an antagonist.

Laihendi

[spoiler] Azog didn't die... so he'll continue into the next film, and we're learning his background int he process. Darth Maul on the other hand was a poor excuse as we knew little about him and then he died. Besides, Azog is in the Middle-Earth lore. [/spoiler]

#16 Posted by Kamekazi_69 (4704 posts) -

Peter Jackson is making movies about books that already exist. So no.

sonicare
True. He focuses much of his talent on book or other adaptions. It does take talent to project a book into film, but he has the entire foundation laid out for him. He's still a great director.
#17 Posted by brucewayne69 (2861 posts) -
[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Peter Jackson is making movies about books that already exist. So no.

Kamekazi_69
True. He focuses much of his talent on book or other adaptions. It does take talent to project a book into film, but he has the entire foundation laid out for him. He's still a great director.

This movie just makes him an even great director. It was amazing
#18 Posted by Serraph105 (28069 posts) -

I saw The Hobbit last night, and I must say that I loved it. It really lived up to the book in my opinion.

#19 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

The only meh scenes are the Rivendell ones. The last hour of the movie is the best of all four movies.

HFR is an incredible experience. I will not take any negative opinion seriously. Feel free to enjoy ghosting, juddering, flickering and less details in 24fps. I'm fully on board the HFR train.

Azog is awesome and doesn't die. Stuff like the Goblin King and the trolls is like this in the book. The deus ex machina actually gets really annoying in the book and Jackson improves these scenes.

BTW Azog is played by Manu Bennett, who is Crixus in the Spartacus TV show. I think Peter Jackson specifically wanted him to imitate the way he plays Crixus. It's exactly the same, except that he's a badass orc.

People in suits still play many orcs. Some use performance capture for the heads in order to get more creative designs. The eyes-mouth triangle is pretty restrictive and CGI allows more variety.

#20 Posted by TonyDanzaFan (2973 posts) -
I really am not a Peter Jackson fan. The only movie I can remember liking that he made was King Kong.
#21 Posted by Allicrombie (25197 posts) -
Strange, when I think of Tolkien, I never think "elegant simplicity."
#22 Posted by dave123321 (34065 posts) -
How was Mr. Wood ?
#23 Posted by brucewayne69 (2861 posts) -
How was Mr. Wood ?dave123321
He sounded a lot different than he did in the Fellowship, before they took off for Rivendell. Just a scratchier, deeper voice. He was in it for like 3 minutes, but it was enjoyable.
#24 Posted by curono (7710 posts) -
All I am saying is. The hobbit is a very short book. It could be divided in two ,ovies. Three movies will require padding like Twilight has never used before.
#25 Posted by brucewayne69 (2861 posts) -
All I am saying is. The hobbit is a very short book. It could be divided in two ,ovies. Three movies will require padding like Twilight has never used before.curono
Oh God, not this again. The Hobbit does not go into great detail, and only follows Bilbo's point of view. The movie is also going to be using the appendices. Remember when Gandalf left at the edge of Mirkwood? The movie is going to cover that. The next movie will cover his battle with Sauron and the battle of Dol Goldur. I'm sure there will be plenty of other stuff in the appendices. Really, it's a stupid argument.
#26 Posted by dodgerblue13 (20836 posts) -
[QUOTE="brucewayne69"] 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now?

Read the book.
#27 Posted by dodgerblue13 (20836 posts) -

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. SirWander

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

Lots of people who read The Hobbit as children hated the trilogy because it was comparatively darker and different from The Hobbit. Jackson did the films in reverse. Expecting the movie to be as dark as and comparable to the trilogy is unfair and, honestly, stupid. To make the movie dark is to completely alter the book, which TC et al would hate anyway.
#28 Posted by harashawn (27599 posts) -
There was a huge amount of CGI in The Lord of the Rings...
#29 Posted by Storm_Marine (10910 posts) -

All I am saying is. The hobbit is a very short book. It could be divided in two ,ovies. Three movies will require padding like Twilight has never used before.curono

if I rewrote LoTR in The Hobbit's style it would be a very short book as well.

#30 Posted by Storm_Marine (10910 posts) -

And where were the rock giants during LOTR? They could have been useful. And who created them? How are they alive. Ask Tolkien. Personally I consider them to be a sort of "rock ent".

In the book, they could be interpreted metaphorically, Not at all. Gandalf talks about how he "Really must find a more or less decent giant" and get him to block up the hole the goblins came through in the book.

but this was just stupid. 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now? Because they talk in the Hobbit book. Also just because the trolls in LotR don't talk doesn't mean they can't.

brucewayne69

if you're going to nitpick, nitpick on legit things, like Radagast and his sleigh.

#31 Posted by Serraph105 (28069 posts) -

[QUOTE="brucewayne69"]

And where were the rock giants during LOTR? They could have been useful. And who created them? How are they alive. Ask Tolkien. Personally I consider them to be a sort of "rock ent".

In the book, they could be interpreted metaphorically, Not at all. Gandalf talks about how he "Really must find a more or less decent giant" and get him to block up the hole the goblins came through in the book.

but this was just stupid. 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now? Because they talk in the book. Also just because the trolls in LotR don't talk doesn't mean they can't.

Storm_Marine

if you're going to nitpick, nitpick on legit things, like Radagast and his sleigh.

Did I just agree with Storm_Marine? I think I did. Anyways, that would have been one of my few gripes about the film, but they threw cute rabbits at me, and instead I was just like "Dawwww". I'm easy to please like that.
#32 Posted by munkeypoo45 (3220 posts) -

personally i thought he did a fantastic job with The Hobbit. but i too was disappointed with CGI. i wished some of the orcs or goblins at least were make up/masks instead of CGI but it's not major problem because the movie was awesome!

#33 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. SirWander

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

The Hobbit isn't a serious tale by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that he should lower his standards, it's that you shouldn't expect what is already a slightly goofy fantasy adventure to be a dark, edgy, and serious quest of self-discovery like the LOTR was.

#34 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

I'll put it this way:

The Hobbit isn't LOTR. Don't expect it to be a serious journey, because it never was.

#35 Posted by Serraph105 (28069 posts) -

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. WiiCubeM1

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

The Hobbit isn't a serious tale by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that he should lower his standards, it's that you shouldn't expect what is already a slightly goofy fantasy adventure to be a dark, edgy, and serious quest of self-discovery like the LOTR was.

pretty much this, to turn it into something like that would be ruining movie for book fans.
#36 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You havnt't watch the movie so you can't judge at all. Not lowing standards at all, just the Hobbit is a different tone to the LOTRs and he can't accept that. Please don't judge until you actually see the movie for yourself.SirWander

true enough, I haven't seen it. and I don't plan on seeing it.
I've read some of TC's post in other threads about the hobbit, and he seems to know enough to have earned my respect on the subject. But then again I don't know anything about the lore of LOTR outside of the film adaptations.

it's good that you liked it at least. but it having a different tone than what he was expecting does not delegitimize the criticisms that laihendi brought up in the OP.

Except that anyone who knows anything about 'the Hobbit' should have expected a much different tone from 'the Lord of the Rings'.
#37 Posted by lamprey263 (23905 posts) -
I can't really speak to the effectiveness of the CGI, I was too distracted by the HFR 3D.
#38 Posted by brucewayne69 (2861 posts) -
[QUOTE="dodgerblue13"][QUOTE="brucewayne69"] 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now?

Read the book.

I have read both books, so I suppose my problem is more with Tolkien than with Jackson. Either way I loved the movie.
#39 Posted by dodgerblue13 (20836 posts) -
[QUOTE="brucewayne69"][QUOTE="dodgerblue13"][QUOTE="brucewayne69"] 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now?

Read the book.

I have read both books, so I suppose my problem is more with Tolkien than with Jackson. Either way I loved the movie.

That's fair. And yeah, the movie was very enjoyable if you took it for what it was supposed to be.
#40 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Hobbit is a masterpiece

ultimate-k

No, but it's good though.

#41 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
Obviously I wasn't expecting a second Lord of the Rings. I've read the books. A story can be for children without pandering to them. It's not like seriousness and appeal to children are mutually exclusive. The Hobbit is a serious book for children. So many people here are acting like something has to be full of snot humour and fart jokes if it's for children. The book isn't and the movie shouldn't be either, though it is. Undoubtedly Jackson was aiming to please children when he decided to put bird poop in Radagast's hair, but poop humour does not belong in a serious work for children that is meant to make them think and expand their imagination, while also providing entertainment. Tolkien's book is the work of an artist, whereas Jackson's movie is the work of a hack.
#42 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -

TBH, I know how Lahendi feels. It's not easy to see something you really like take a bad turn. I am yet to see the Hobbit, and I think it will be great, but I felt the same way regarding certain video games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood that I felt totally destroyed the franchise.

#43 Posted by brucewayne69 (2861 posts) -

TBH, I know how Lahendi feels. It's not easy to see something you really like take a bad turn. I am yet to see the Hobbit, and I think it will be great, but I felt the same way regarding certain video games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood that I felt totally destroyed the franchise.

BossPerson
Assassins Creed Brotherhood was amazing. I have no idea what you are talking about. Anybody who hates this movie should not be taken seriously.
#44 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

TBH, I know how Lahendi feels. It's not easy to see something you really like take a bad turn. I am yet to see the Hobbit, and I think it will be great, but I felt the same way regarding certain video games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood that I felt totally destroyed the franchise.

brucewayne69

Assassins Creed Brotherhood was amazing. I have no idea what you are talking about. Anybody who hates this movie should not be taken seriously.

Well thats a topic for another day

#45 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -

AC2 was the only good one.

coolbeans90
^^^ Though the story in AC1 was epic
#46 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -
Ubisoft has caused me both great joy and great torment. The bitterness of Warrior Within still lingers in my heart. So to does the abomination of Splinter Cell Conviction.
#47 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

AC2 was the only good one.

coolbeans90
If true I'll just play that one...
Ubisoft has caused me both great joy and great torment. The bitterness of Warrior Within still lingers in my heart. So to does the abomination of Splinter Cell Conviction. BossPerson
Buy Far Cry 3.