|
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc.
In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway.
|
I hope it remains faithful to the mood of the literature. I dont mind if they make any narrative adjustments to it as long as they retain the tone Tolkien set for Hobbits
|
On December 12 2011 21:07 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway.
I'm just saying that the way LOTR is filmed, the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting and that therefore it's probably not appealing to what one would call a cinephile.
What one can like is the content; for everything that is related to cinema as an art, Jackson goes for speed, efficiency, effect. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages, just of creativity from a director.
Again, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just a style, very commercial, appealing to global audience of action packed blockbuster. I find that deadly boring and repetitive, but that's just my taste.
I would also add that in order to make a superproduction with thousand of actors, big battles and everything and still do something artistic, you better be a fucking genius (and I really don't think Jackson is a genius at all). The only one that come to my mind is Kurosawa. And although he filmed the most epic and incredible battles that I have ever seen, in comparison on which LOTR looks like a boring and mindless video game (I think of Kagemusha in particular), he has never been super popular among american teenagers and young people, which is the condition to make a movie as expensive as the ones Jackson does.
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
That's pretty fair to be honest.
I used to think pretty highly of Sir Peter. It was mandatory for all Kiwis to after all. After the disgraceful way he handled the union dispute during the filming of the hobbit. Acted like a prissy little bitch and got his buddies in the government to sort the mess out for him, funneling a large sum of taxpayer money into some hollywood fat cats pockets as he did so. Such a disgrace.
With my blinkers off after the entire debacle, I could see the LOTR films for what they were: Great score, great costumes, scope, depth etc etc. Great entertainment to be sure, but not masterpieces.
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. But who reads books because of the style? Oh wait, my dad...
Most people only care about the story and in that regard Tolkien is the master.
As for Peter Jackson, I don't like what he did to LotR, he basically murdered everything great about the book, but hey, the Hobbit is a lot shorter and it's coming out in two parts so I hope he manages to stay true to the story.
|
wow all the hate on PJ and Lotr, shouldn't be in this thread :|
|
On December 12 2011 22:22 Copymizer wrote:
wow all the hate on PJ and Lotr, shouldn't be in this thread :|
Agreed.. :/
|
I don't think it's necessarily hate on PJ and LOTR, just saying that compared to other literary works and films it is not as good. I think the reason why most people think the books are amazing is because they don't actually read very much. When the movies were announced/came out A LOT more people read the books than had read them before, and I know for a fact that a lot of the people I know personally read them even though they don't normally read much, so of course they will think they are epic and amazing books, but they don't have much experience with truly great novels. I enjoyed the books, I read them once many many years ago, don't think I'll ever read them again.
|
Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean the are "haters". I too think that the LotR movies are very lackluster and fail to capture what was great about the books. And the books in themselves are far from perfect, some parts are great but the pacing is pretty aweful at times.
My biggest gripe is why they turned Gimli into a comic sidekick? Is it beause of the PG-13 rating? Is it because they thought the movie would be to serious without a comical character? Watching Fellowship is great up until the Moria fight where Gimli stumbles around like a tard while Legolas is portrayed as the awesome superhero. Sucks when your favorite character is butchered like that...
|
when you want something intellectual and artistic appealing, i suggest going to the theatre.
LOTR is, both books and movies, for what it is meant to be, a masterpiece.
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
|
1019 Posts
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
I can see your point but I don't think people call LOTR good literature because its stylistic like charles dickens or whatever. I think people like him because of his imagination. The middle-earth culture, history, language...I mean he made up a whole world all by himself. I think thats why people like him. And he's the guy who first came up with the idea of high fantasy genre. Almost every fantasy novel/series these days is basically ripped off of tolkienesque characteristics.
I find his writing style pretty dense but his book was written 60 years ago..other text from that time was like that too
|
On December 12 2011 22:39 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know.... Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels. Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
The Oscars isn't really the best argument as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema.
Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
|
On December 12 2011 22:45 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 22:39 Zorkmid wrote:On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know.... On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels. Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless. The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema. Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by.
well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general?
it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!"
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
How can you seriously say the lotr trilogy has low artistic value? Hundreds of people worked on those movies for 6+(?) years, and if you'd seen some of the backstage content you would realize how much artistic work is needed to make a movie based on a book. Plus it was made by a pretty much unknown director, crew and actors (Orlando Bloom for example they picked up straight out of acting school). So to sum it up:
- Unknown crew
- Unknown actors
- World built from scratch based on books
- Unique location
- Revolutionizing technology
Can it get more artistic than that?
I know the cinephile type, and they only praise movies in foreign language with 50 subliminal messages and an upset ending. Movies like Old boy, Jacob's ladder, Let the right one in etc. And dont get me wrong I love those movies as well, but lotr trilogy will always be superior for what it is.
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Well I don't agree with how "unimaginative" tolkien was. I will agree that LOTR the movies were somewhat butchered. Left out ALOT, would have love to see LOTR done as a 10 part miniseries per book, like the way game of thrones is being done. They left out nothing from the book in that show.
|
On December 12 2011 23:08 Naphal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 22:45 karpo wrote:On December 12 2011 22:39 Zorkmid wrote:On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know.... On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels. Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless. The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema. Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work. the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general? it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!"
You come of as kind of a fanboy.
For example, the guy you quoted said he found Tolkiens writing monotone and unimaginative. Those are valid complaints and i kinda feel the same way, his imagination is awesome but the actual writing is pretty bland and slow paced to me. You retaliate by putting words in the guys mouth AND talk about the history and mythology thereby totally missing the actual point.
|
i would really go see this without a doubt.
|
On December 12 2011 21:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:07 Psychobabas wrote:On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway. I'm just saying that the way LOTR is filmed, the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting and that therefore it's probably not appealing to what one would call a cinephile. What one can like is the content; for everything that is related to cinema as an art, Jackson goes for speed, efficiency, effect. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages, just of creativity from a director. Again, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just a style, very commercial, appealing to global audience of action packed blockbuster. I find that deadly boring and repetitive, but that's just my taste. I would also add that in order to make a superproduction with thousand of actors, big battles and everything and still do something artistic, you better be a fucking genius (and I really don't think Jackson is a genius at all). The only one that come to my mind is Kurosawa. And although he filmed the most epic and incredible battles that I have ever seen, in comparison on which LOTR looks like a boring and mindless video game (I think of Kagemusha in particular), he has never been super popular among american teenagers and young people, which is the condition to make a movie as expensive as the ones Jackson does.
Everytime I see someone write something like that I can't help but to think that if we were living in other times they'd probably be saying the same thing of Victor Hugo or Shakespeare...
The "commercial" aspect doesn't have anything to do with its quality. Some (a lot of) commercial films are pure shit, tLotR isn't one of them. Honestly if you can't tell the difference between Peter Jackson and Michael Bay I don't think you can call yourself a cinephile...
Also "the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting" doesn't mean anything...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
