|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#21
10-09-2008, 04:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Trust me, if you dont have a "thing" for big boobs, you cant quite grasp what a drooling retard they make you.... Die Hard 2 should have been done by John Mctiernen... The last one should have been his too, but it was WAY better than 2... 
|
|
#22
10-09-2008, 05:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I was showing where I was coming from. I love the books and have reread them all many times since i was young ... I think Peter Jackson perfectly understood Tolkiens vision (power corrupts, good vs evil ..the bonds of friendship, the end of magic - nature vs technology etc) It seemed to me that Jackson covered all that - he just chose to put extra focus on the bonds of friendship angle - especially near the end. I understand why people who dislike fantasy in the first place would be bored by the rings (stolen pun) but honestly it's beyond me how a fan of the books wouldn't be delighted by what Jackson accomplished ... it floors me..
__________________
You make stupid look smart.
|
|
#23
10-09-2008, 06:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ha- somebody should film Bored of the Rings!
I did like the first 20 minutes or so of the first film- I thought he captured the Shire beautifully. Once they left the Shire, it just all went to crap for me.
__________________
Lee Widener, Author Website  Cartoon Artwork, Underground Art, Other Weird Stuff 
|
|
#24
10-09-2008, 06:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
still waiting for a sequel for "Lord of the G-Strings" Dildo Saggins.....he he http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323108/
|
|
#25
10-09-2008, 06:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Del Toro is making The Hobbit now. So, wait and see if he is faithful to the literary version. (though I would be inclined to say no, again)
As regards Jackson, he did a competent job blending his vision and ideas with Tolkien's works, IMO. Not great, nor faithful, but competent. Filmmakers do have a habit of mixing their ideas with an original work. It is like an addition - their silent stamp on the finished product. Kubrick & The Shining, anyone?
__________________
"I be a bad zombie."
|
|
#26
10-09-2008, 07:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm very much looking forward to Del Toro's Hobbit. I expect him to be more faithful than Jackson was.
__________________
Lee Widener, Author Website Cartoon Artwork, Underground Art, Other Weird Stuff
|
|
#27
10-09-2008, 07:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As they point out multiple times in all of the extra features in the special edition DVDs of the Lord Of The Rings: Things have to be changed, added and left out to translate a book to film, because the differences in the media demand it. A direct from-the-book translation would span several seasons of a TV series for Lord of the Rings. Books have the advantage of being able to take days weeks or even years to be finished at the reader's own pace.
A movie has to be able to hold an audience, and there was no way that they could have been made, in a watchable way at any rate, as an indy film (plus there are neither gay cowboys nor pudding) without a huge budget, and the only way to get said enormous budget is to make it pg-13 and accessible to a wide (IE, lowest common denominator) audience in order make it economically viable, therefore even be able to be made. At least an attempt was made to keep the essential elements and characters the same. Jurrassic park takes 90% of the core of each character and tosses them right out the window. In the book, one o fthe most essential parts of the Grant character was that he LOVES KIDS, because they are the only people who share his passion for dinosaurs. In the movie, kids mean (ew...) commitment to grant. Icky. I guess my point is that Peter Jackson did better than most (at least he was a life long fan of the series not just some big budget director who saw dollar signs (Speilberg)), and that a more faithful adaption would either be prohibitively long, or completely unwatchably boring.
|
|
#28
10-09-2008, 07:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I disagree with you as much as I disagree with Urge.
Once again- I'm completely aware things have to be collapsed and adapted. HE just didn't present Tolkein's world, IMO. He presented Peter Jackson's world. Well, he was a lifelong fan,so I guess that's okay. I don't care how many people say they thought it was great. I don't agree.
__________________
Lee Widener, Author Website Cartoon Artwork, Underground Art, Other Weird Stuff
|
|
#29
10-09-2008, 07:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I honestly dont know why I said anything, in retrospect. People's opinions are what they are, they are a reaction based on who they are, and they are about as easy to change as religious beliefs, and since they are opinions, there are no right and wrong answers, just majority rules. Now I kind of feel like a douche... I guess its just in our natures (at least for the more Alpha types) to try and change everyone to our viewpoint. Sorry about the tangent.
|
|
#30
10-09-2008, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't mean to disrupt the Peter Jackson fan club gathering, but........:rolleyes:
Cape Fear (1962) would have been a much better Hitchcock vehicle, and would have elevated the film to classic status(and probably made it unnecessary for Scorsese to remake), rather than just a capable thriller. Thompson's direction was rather meh in spots, although the casting was perfect. Hitch had worked with Peck before, and would probably have only encountered minimal friction from headstrong Mitchum. Bergen might have had to go(not blonde enough). It would have been a nice follow-up to Psycho.
|
 |
|
|
