Well time to scratch that off my watch list.
See some of his early films when he was working with the couple of thousand dollars he could scrape together from his day job and from his friends. Do not make the mistake in thinking that the financial support he has got since the success of the Rings movies mean Jackson is just an accountant directing funds towards special effects projects. The fact that he now works with massive budgets and with some of the most talented people in the world in regard to special effects has very little to do with his film making style.Spearhead wrote:
Peter Jackson. The man obviously knows the logistics of handling large amounts of money and incorporating some excellent special effects. But so does George Lucas. He's a lot like Chris Nolan in the fact that he pretty much nails down the cinematography and then tries to build a film around it. The LOTR trilogy was decent but did not deserve nearly half the accolades it got, in my opinion. Now he's cashing it out, Lucas style, with a prequel trilogy. What a hack.
Jackson is far more comparable to Sam Raimi than George Lucas in terms of film making style. I can't think of a film Lucas has directed that is comparable to anything Jackson has done while Raimi and Jackson have had similar career arcs and have a lot of the same tone in their films.
Jackson and Lucas are comparable in their enthusiasm for special effects. Lucas has Industrial Light and Magic, Jackson has Weta Workshop/Weta Digital. Both attempt to pioneer different aspects of film making - Lucas was the first to switch to digital filming, (Attack of the Clones,) and now everyone does it. Jackson is the first to move to 48fps and we'll see how that goes. Lucas was the first to introduce an entirely digital supporting character, Jackson was the first to do it well.
Jackson perhaps is overrated for the sole reason that someone who is rated as highly probably just is. But he's not a hack. Nor is Lucas for that matter given that his films have been let down more by writing and casting than directing.
Also I would point out that dismissing the Lord of the Rings as being undeserving of accolades is ignoring what a massive task it was and the huge success it turned out to be. Making a blockbuster like that outside of the establishment in Hollywood was unheard of in the late 90s when production began. The infrastructure simply did not exist. Creating a trilogy of movies in one go had never been done. The director chosen had only really done low budget horror comedies. It was being made in god damned New Zealand. Additionally it was pioneering new technology such as digital performance capture, (Gollum.) It also utilised extremely clever techniques, most notably the forced perspective required to make the Hobbits and John Rhys-Davies, (the tallest actor in the Fellowship,) the right size. It was also a production that required an awful amount of work, it was not a small project. The sets needed to be huge, the costumes numerous, swords and armour needed to be forged, horses needed to be trained. It was huge, I remember how it was here when it was being made, pretty much everyone in the country was involved in some way, (including me,) or at least related in some way to someone who was in it.
And after all that their success is unequalled. I realise it's a moot point when talking about whether something is overrated but all three films still sit within the top 25 movies on IMDB. 30 Oscar nominations, 17 Oscar wins including Best Picture and Director for King - and these are fantasy films too which are generally overlooked by institutions like the Academy. That is a Hell of an accomplishment regardless of whether you think these accolades are deserved.
I'll let you know if my opinion changes once I see The Hobbit. It may be a cash-out but let's be honest, after Rings a Hobbit movie was going to be made and Jackson was going to be involved in some way. Was always going to happen.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Lol Act of Valor opening scene.
Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2012-12-17 17:27:33)
Bridesmaids: 7/10
The storyline was fairly predictable once all the characters were introduced but it was still pretty dang funny.
GF made me watch it last night but I had to admit, the first half of the movie had me laughing pretty hard.
The storyline was fairly predictable once all the characters were introduced but it was still pretty dang funny.
GF made me watch it last night but I had to admit, the first half of the movie had me laughing pretty hard.
The cast is good enough that the predictable material still makes you laugh. Not a bad chick flick to have to sit through.pirana6 wrote:
Bridesmaids: 7/10
The storyline was fairly predictable once all the characters were introduced but it was still pretty dang funny.
GF made me watch it last night but I had to admit, the first half of the movie had me laughing pretty hard.
Nobody says you have to watch it. I had my doubts when I heard it was going to be two, then three movies, but after seeing what he did with the first part, I perfectly look forward to the following two. Sure I'll have to buy tickets for three different movies and will buy the BR sets for them as well, but he's not ripping us off. There's just that much material that's been filmed. I find it refreshing that there's a book-to-movie production that doesn't gloss over detail.Spearhead wrote:
Peter Jackson. The LOTR trilogy was decent but did not deserve nearly half the accolades it got, in my opinion. Now he's cashing it out, Lucas style, with a prequel trilogy. What a hack.
Like Ty said, he's definitely no hack.
In the theater for Hobbit now. Oblivion and After Earth trailers look interesting.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Don't kiwi's get a small percentage of Peter Jackson movie gross totals as a year end tax rebate? Your post makes 87% more sense if you do.Ty wrote:
See some of his early films when he was working with the couple of thousand dollars he could scrape together from his day job and from his friends. Do not make the mistake in thinking that the financial support he has got since the success of the Rings movies mean Jackson is just an accountant directing funds towards special effects projects. The fact that he now works with massive budgets and with some of the most talented people in the world in regard to special effects has very little to do with his film making style.Spearhead wrote:
Peter Jackson. The man obviously knows the logistics of handling large amounts of money and incorporating some excellent special effects. But so does George Lucas. He's a lot like Chris Nolan in the fact that he pretty much nails down the cinematography and then tries to build a film around it. The LOTR trilogy was decent but did not deserve nearly half the accolades it got, in my opinion. Now he's cashing it out, Lucas style, with a prequel trilogy. What a hack.
Jackson is far more comparable to Sam Raimi than George Lucas in terms of film making style. I can't think of a film Lucas has directed that is comparable to anything Jackson has done while Raimi and Jackson have had similar career arcs and have a lot of the same tone in their films.
Jackson and Lucas are comparable in their enthusiasm for special effects. Lucas has Industrial Light and Magic, Jackson has Weta Workshop/Weta Digital. Both attempt to pioneer different aspects of film making - Lucas was the first to switch to digital filming, (Attack of the Clones,) and now everyone does it. Jackson is the first to move to 48fps and we'll see how that goes. Lucas was the first to introduce an entirely digital supporting character, Jackson was the first to do it well.
Jackson perhaps is overrated for the sole reason that someone who is rated as highly probably just is. But he's not a hack. Nor is Lucas for that matter given that his films have been let down more by writing and casting than directing.
Also I would point out that dismissing the Lord of the Rings as being undeserving of accolades is ignoring what a massive task it was and the huge success it turned out to be. Making a blockbuster like that outside of the establishment in Hollywood was unheard of in the late 90s when production began. The infrastructure simply did not exist. Creating a trilogy of movies in one go had never been done. The director chosen had only really done low budget horror comedies. It was being made in god damned New Zealand. Additionally it was pioneering new technology such as digital performance capture, (Gollum.) It also utilised extremely clever techniques, most notably the forced perspective required to make the Hobbits and John Rhys-Davies, (the tallest actor in the Fellowship,) the right size. It was also a production that required an awful amount of work, it was not a small project. The sets needed to be huge, the costumes numerous, swords and armour needed to be forged, horses needed to be trained. It was huge, I remember how it was here when it was being made, pretty much everyone in the country was involved in some way, (including me,) or at least related in some way to someone who was in it.
And after all that their success is unequalled. I realise it's a moot point when talking about whether something is overrated but all three films still sit within the top 25 movies on IMDB. 30 Oscar nominations, 17 Oscar wins including Best Picture and Director for King - and these are fantasy films too which are generally overlooked by institutions like the Academy. That is a Hell of an accomplishment regardless of whether you think these accolades are deserved.
I'll let you know if my opinion changes once I see The Hobbit. It may be a cash-out but let's be honest, after Rings a Hobbit movie was going to be made and Jackson was going to be involved in some way. Was always going to happen.
No but it is a criminal offence to criticise him or talk to anyone who criticises him. I'm risking about five years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
The Hobbit - 3/10
The visuals, of course, were stunning. The plot of the movie sucked. I'm not talking about Tolkien's plot, I'm talking about Jackson's rewrite of the original story that sucks. Half the time I felt like I was watching cut-scenes from the forthcoming video game rather than a movie. Now I understand why it's a trilogy, he threw a bunch of stupid garbage into the plot to extend it and add drama. I stayed for the visuals, but by god, the story he wrote sucked.
The visuals, of course, were stunning. The plot of the movie sucked. I'm not talking about Tolkien's plot, I'm talking about Jackson's rewrite of the original story that sucks. Half the time I felt like I was watching cut-scenes from the forthcoming video game rather than a movie. Now I understand why it's a trilogy, he threw a bunch of stupid garbage into the plot to extend it and add drama. I stayed for the visuals, but by god, the story he wrote sucked.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The Hobbit is so long that it isn't really a movie. It's more like a miniseries that screens in theaters, and you have to approach it as such. I sort of liked the stuff he added in. Radagast was pretty much ignored until now.
Other than a few additions, it really didn't stray all that much. Any specifics?
Other than a few additions, it really didn't stray all that much. Any specifics?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
The stuff with Azog and the Orcs hunting them was not in the books. They changed a lot of the sequence at Bilbo's house. They changed the scene with the goblins. They added in the bullshit rock giant scene. They didn't get saved by Elves and fall into Rivendale. They changed the sequence with the trolls. They changed the sequence with the wargs and orcs at the end of the movie. They added in a non-existant hatred between Thorin and elves. They blamed the dwarves greed for the appearance of Smaug. And Radagast was retarded. I actually liked the addition of the Necromancer stuff as it was alluded to in other books and it was the reason that Gandalf disappeared from the group when they entered Murkwood.
The story was good enough to stand on its own, and it could've been stretched to two full length movies quite easily on it's own, especially with the addition of the Necromancer side conflict. The entire movie just felt over-actioned to the point that it was distracting and actually taking away from the plot.
The stuff with Azog and the Orcs hunting them was not in the books. They changed a lot of the sequence at Bilbo's house. They changed the scene with the goblins. They added in the bullshit rock giant scene. They didn't get saved by Elves and fall into Rivendale. They changed the sequence with the trolls. They changed the sequence with the wargs and orcs at the end of the movie. They added in a non-existant hatred between Thorin and elves. They blamed the dwarves greed for the appearance of Smaug. And Radagast was retarded. I actually liked the addition of the Necromancer stuff as it was alluded to in other books and it was the reason that Gandalf disappeared from the group when they entered Murkwood.
The story was good enough to stand on its own, and it could've been stretched to two full length movies quite easily on it's own, especially with the addition of the Necromancer side conflict. The entire movie just felt over-actioned to the point that it was distracting and actually taking away from the plot.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
A lot of stuff wasn't in the books. Some of it was supplementary material, and some of it was creative license.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Since the Hobbit is three movies, I think Peter Jackson wanted to emphasize the enmity between orcs and dwarves and the canon distrust between elves and dwarves. The elves didn't or couldn't help the dwarves at Erebor, and I think Azog helped bridge the gap between the ever-debated orcs vs goblins question. It stands to reason that Elrond would respond in force to the presence of warg riders near Rivendell, so the intervention makes sense (more sense, in fact, than Arwen's intervention in Fellowship just because they felt the movie needed some female action hero stuff). Thorin was far grumpier in the film than in the book because of all this, so the confrontation and Bilbo's intervention at the end pretty much killed any distrust the dwarves may have still had for the hobbit. Let's agree to disagree on Radagast though. I thought he was cool.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Since the Hobbit is three movies, I think Peter Jackson wanted to emphasize the enmity between orcs and dwarves and the canon distrust between elves and dwarves. The elves didn't or couldn't help the dwarves at Erebor, and I think Azog helped bridge the gap between the ever-debated orcs vs goblins question. It stands to reason that Elrond would respond in force to the presence of warg riders near Rivendell, so the intervention makes sense (more sense, in fact, than Arwen's intervention in Fellowship just because they felt the movie needed some female action hero stuff). Thorin was far grumpier in the film than in the book because of all this, so the confrontation and Bilbo's intervention at the end pretty much killed any distrust the dwarves may have still had for the hobbit. Let's agree to disagree on Radagast though. I thought he was cool.
The pure story may be good enough to stand on its own, but turning it into multiple films changes the equation a bit. From the point it started to the point it cut off needed a bit of filler to make it work.Jay wrote:
The story was good enough to stand on its own, and it could've been stretched to two full length movies quite easily on it's own, especially with the addition of the Necromancer side conflict. The entire movie just felt over-actioned to the point that it was distracting and actually taking away from the plot.
"These are Rhosgobel Daleks. I'd like to see them try."
Went and saw Django Unchained. Was a 8.5/10. Good soundtrack. QT did a good job of picking music and setting up scenes that use it well. Something that he did well in Reservoir dogs and Pulp fiction but not in inglorious bastards. Speaking of IG...violence was pretty over the top but no worse than Inglorious bastards. I think it was a better movie than Inglorious bastards overall. Christopher waltz did his thing well. Like in IG he at many times outshined the main star. Where this all fits into the rankings of QT movies: Of the three post kill bill era of movies of his (deathproof, bastards, and Django I think are unique from Pulp, Dogs, and Brown which are both unique from Kill Bill) this was the best. Overall better than Jackie, not sure how to compare it with Kill Bill.
Pretty popular movie. Ton of people when I went. There was no one around for that stupid hobbit shit though.
tl;dr Django good. Hobbits bad.
Pretty popular movie. Ton of people when I went. There was no one around for that stupid hobbit shit though.
tl;dr Django good. Hobbits bad.
Puss In Boots - 6/10
So many missed possibilities.
So many missed possibilities.
Fuck Israel
Hobbit - 9/10
Visually stunning with the HFR 3D UltraAVX. I didnt notice any weirdness with the 48fps and high action scenes had much more clarity than usual. The story was much more lighthearted than other LOTR (as the books are). I've read the books recently enough to recognize some of the differences - I was really confused about the 5th wizard part until I remembered they were including The Silmarillion. I thought it was really well shot and considering it kept my interest for a solid 2+ hours it was quite enjoyable.
Visually stunning with the HFR 3D UltraAVX. I didnt notice any weirdness with the 48fps and high action scenes had much more clarity than usual. The story was much more lighthearted than other LOTR (as the books are). I've read the books recently enough to recognize some of the differences - I was really confused about the 5th wizard part until I remembered they were including The Silmarillion. I thought it was really well shot and considering it kept my interest for a solid 2+ hours it was quite enjoyable.
Battleship
Alien death-pegs locked on to us? Fuck that, just drift my battleship.
Alien death-pegs locked on to us? Fuck that, just drift my battleship.
Last edited by ROGUEDD (2012-12-25 22:46:25)
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
The Hobbit.
I know I'm expected to say it was good so I will just say it - it was good.
Saw it at the Embassy with it's new Dolby sound system and 48fps capabilities, all put in specially for the world premier. It really was a remarkable movie-going experience, so much so that it's difficult to separate my feelings about that and the film itself. I have to say I am pretty sold on 48fps. It is a new technology and it certainly isn't without its faults which I expect to be fine tuned in the future. That being said I can't understand the critics moaning and sobbing over how it made the film look too real and broke the illusion of cinema and how everything looked fake. Yes in the first action scene in particular you do notice a difference and it's a little unsettling, comparisons may be able to be made to TV dramatisations, at least in general vibe rather than anything to do with quality. But I think on the whole the addition was a plus and the work of Weta Digital and particularly Weta Workshop ensured that nothing looked cheap or fake. I guarantee there will be apologies in the future from critics who suddenly notice the difference when they see films not in 48fps - particularly 3D films as the 48fps worked wonders in fixing the problems with that. It seems to me they didn't like it not because it was bad, but because they weren't used to it.
The other criticism that gets tugged out it that it is too long and the source material has been stretched so that the film is just too slow and uninteresting. And it is fair to say that critics would predict this - Hell, I would have agreed - based on the decision to split a modest-length children's book in three. But I think critics had their predictions confirmed by the first act and once the quest proper was underway and they found that they were wrong they were too annoyed to bother changing their opinion.
Because the film certainly didn't seem spread too thin to me, so much so that I'm thinking these critics saw a different movie entirely. A dragon attack, an orc/dwarf battle, the three stooges trolls, the open country skirmish, whateverthefuck was going on with Radagast, Rivendell, storm giants, goblin city, riddles, finale... and all this after the admittedly too-long introductory scenes. There was plenty going on.
The highlight for me was Riddles in the Dark. Andy Serkis deserves some sort of official recognition for his work in pioneering performance capture. He's just getting better and better and Riddles was the clear highlight in a film which didn't really have a definitive scene as did Fellowship with the Mines/Balrog. Serkis/Gollum was threatening, funny, and absolutely pitiful, he completely stole the scene. Weta Digital wasn't passing up the opportunity to show how much they'd improved in the last ten years either, showcasing Gollum's various 'thinking' facial expressions. Their Goblin King was superbly gross too, almost bringing back Jackson's splatterhouse roots, (though the clear decision away from gore in order to get the more desirable rating was evident.) Barry Humphries clearly had a blast playing him.
On special effects I imagine Joe Lettri and Richard Taylor will get their 5th and 6th Oscars respectively, the only reason they wouldn't would be because the Academy is sick of looking at them. I like to imagine they have a cupboard labelled "Oscars" where they just throw them now.
The story itself I have little to complain about, it delivered what I expected. The character arc of Bilbo's acceptance by the dwarves was a little meh, particularly the ending which came across as line-for-line predictable and suddenly-out-of-character cheesy. All in all I was pretty happy though. No it didn't break any barriers like Lord of the Rings and no-one could have realistically expected it to. It was a successful return to Middle Earth from Jackson, it opened the way to an exciting part two, and on it's own left me feeling entertained and impressed. It'll make Rings fans happier than it'll make Hobbit fans but I think it will have all evened out by the end of the trilogy.
I know there are many who wanted to see Jackson fail and I'm sure many will still insist he did but being as objective as I can I'd say Jackson takes round one quite comfortably.
I know I'm expected to say it was good so I will just say it - it was good.
Saw it at the Embassy with it's new Dolby sound system and 48fps capabilities, all put in specially for the world premier. It really was a remarkable movie-going experience, so much so that it's difficult to separate my feelings about that and the film itself. I have to say I am pretty sold on 48fps. It is a new technology and it certainly isn't without its faults which I expect to be fine tuned in the future. That being said I can't understand the critics moaning and sobbing over how it made the film look too real and broke the illusion of cinema and how everything looked fake. Yes in the first action scene in particular you do notice a difference and it's a little unsettling, comparisons may be able to be made to TV dramatisations, at least in general vibe rather than anything to do with quality. But I think on the whole the addition was a plus and the work of Weta Digital and particularly Weta Workshop ensured that nothing looked cheap or fake. I guarantee there will be apologies in the future from critics who suddenly notice the difference when they see films not in 48fps - particularly 3D films as the 48fps worked wonders in fixing the problems with that. It seems to me they didn't like it not because it was bad, but because they weren't used to it.
The other criticism that gets tugged out it that it is too long and the source material has been stretched so that the film is just too slow and uninteresting. And it is fair to say that critics would predict this - Hell, I would have agreed - based on the decision to split a modest-length children's book in three. But I think critics had their predictions confirmed by the first act and once the quest proper was underway and they found that they were wrong they were too annoyed to bother changing their opinion.
Because the film certainly didn't seem spread too thin to me, so much so that I'm thinking these critics saw a different movie entirely. A dragon attack, an orc/dwarf battle, the three stooges trolls, the open country skirmish, whateverthefuck was going on with Radagast, Rivendell, storm giants, goblin city, riddles, finale... and all this after the admittedly too-long introductory scenes. There was plenty going on.
The highlight for me was Riddles in the Dark. Andy Serkis deserves some sort of official recognition for his work in pioneering performance capture. He's just getting better and better and Riddles was the clear highlight in a film which didn't really have a definitive scene as did Fellowship with the Mines/Balrog. Serkis/Gollum was threatening, funny, and absolutely pitiful, he completely stole the scene. Weta Digital wasn't passing up the opportunity to show how much they'd improved in the last ten years either, showcasing Gollum's various 'thinking' facial expressions. Their Goblin King was superbly gross too, almost bringing back Jackson's splatterhouse roots, (though the clear decision away from gore in order to get the more desirable rating was evident.) Barry Humphries clearly had a blast playing him.
On special effects I imagine Joe Lettri and Richard Taylor will get their 5th and 6th Oscars respectively, the only reason they wouldn't would be because the Academy is sick of looking at them. I like to imagine they have a cupboard labelled "Oscars" where they just throw them now.
The story itself I have little to complain about, it delivered what I expected. The character arc of Bilbo's acceptance by the dwarves was a little meh, particularly the ending which came across as line-for-line predictable and suddenly-out-of-character cheesy. All in all I was pretty happy though. No it didn't break any barriers like Lord of the Rings and no-one could have realistically expected it to. It was a successful return to Middle Earth from Jackson, it opened the way to an exciting part two, and on it's own left me feeling entertained and impressed. It'll make Rings fans happier than it'll make Hobbit fans but I think it will have all evened out by the end of the trilogy.
I know there are many who wanted to see Jackson fail and I'm sure many will still insist he did but being as objective as I can I'd say Jackson takes round one quite comfortably.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
the dark knight rises: 8/10
t'was good, had all the tech i expected, anne hathaway was awesome as cat woman (when she had costume and mask on anyway) and hans zimmer-produced music score was incredible, as always. worth watching.
t'was good, had all the tech i expected, anne hathaway was awesome as cat woman (when she had costume and mask on anyway) and hans zimmer-produced music score was incredible, as always. worth watching.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
The Hobbit:
It annoys me when perfectly good stories are messed with for no other reason than the director decides he's going to, so I'm geared up to be angry about this film.
Still, you have to admire Martin Freeman's dedication - going through all that surgery to look exactly like a gnome.
It annoys me when perfectly good stories are messed with for no other reason than the director decides he's going to, so I'm geared up to be angry about this film.
Still, you have to admire Martin Freeman's dedication - going through all that surgery to look exactly like a gnome.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-26 03:26:41)
Fuck Israel
Looper: As with all time travel movies, it just kind of falls apart when you think about it. The end was a huge letdown and the concepts of time travel in that movie just make you go crosseyed.
And the plot holes.
And the plot holes.
Dredd - 9/10
Taken 2 - 5/10
Taken 2 - 5/10
Taken 2
2/10 because it was christmas yesterday and apparently jesus was born and we're happy
on a side note I'm sure whoever is responsible for the scenario is one of those people who were forced to vote for Mitt Romney because all the other lovely candidates were eliminated .
2/10 because it was christmas yesterday and apparently jesus was born and we're happy
on a side note I'm sure whoever is responsible for the scenario is one of those people who were forced to vote for Mitt Romney because all the other lovely candidates were eliminated .
ƒ³
Um, ok? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htmMacbeth wrote:
Pretty popular movie. Ton of people when I went. There was no one around for that stupid hobbit shit though.