<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 17 2007, 04:18 AM) [snapback]305001[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
|
Peter Jackson is not that great a director. **SNIP** so great was the story on which they were based. Not that the films were really all that great anyway. Rankin Bass Productions did a much better adaptation of Return of the King way back in 1978.[/b]
|
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
|
The best thing about Jackson's trilogy is that it paves the way for someone else to come around, at a later date, and do it right.[/b]
|
I'd like that to be true, but dunno. The Academy suckers acclaimed it not only as the peak of a derided genre (adventure), but also as a gorgeous movie in its own merits. When it's nothing but more of that stinky John Woo discotheque violence which may be okay to gobble pop corn up especially if you're 13 years old but simply doesn't get along with Tolkien's epics. Yes Tolkien's story is there but only to be raped instead of adapted and in an extremely boring way into the bargain. Plus nowadays actors grossly overact when the movie's setting is not contemporary. Conan the Barbarian was way better as an adventure movie, better script, better directed, better movie, I bet the filming crew had better catering even. (However I'm fairly convinced that Conan's sequels are on the other hand complete crap even though I've seen like two minutes of one of them.)
Another LOTR movie can always be done but it's not in the Ideas pile of anyone's desk and no-one in Hollywood will want to compete in the short term with the handfull of Academy awards Jackson got directing as a spam bot.