Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[Doctor Who?]

I am sure Issac knows alot more about film making then The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The Academy Awards are really overrated. I mean, look at all the important directors who never won an Oscar:

    * Robert Altman (5)
    * Michelangelo Antonioni (1)
    * Ingmar Bergman (3)
    * John Cassavetes (1)
    * Charles Chaplin (1)
    * Cecil B. De Mille (1)
    * Federico Fellini (4)
    * Howard Hawks (1)
    * Alfred Hitchcock (5)
    * Stanley Kubrick (4)
    * Akira Kurosawa (1)
    * Fritz Lang (0)
    * David Lynch (3)
    * Alan J. Pakula (1)
    * Sam Peckinpah (0)
    * Jean Renoir (1)
    * Francois Truffaut (1)
    * Orson Welles (1)

Another thing, I seem to recall that Waking Life was initially supposed to be nominated for a "Best Animated Film" Oscar, but they nominated the derivative, poorly-written, badly-designed film Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius instead, because some bright guy got the idea that if an R-rated animated film would win an Oscar, all Hell would break loose, that there would be too much controversy. I don't trust an awards ceremony that eliminates films based on how controversial they perceive the reactions to that film winning would be.

So instead you want want us to judge a good movie from a bad based on what you say is good and bad,and everyone had better agree with you or they are stupid.

No thanks.

I know no one is perfect but i will take the words of people who work on films over yours,sorry.

If you don't like the films that is cool but there is a diforance between not caring for something and it being badly made.

I would say there is more of a chance of you just not caring for the films becouse you wanted every page of the book to show up on screen and that didn't happen.

If Jackson only cares about money why did he make the lord of the Rings to begin with?

Every studio turned him down,No one thought the film would make back their budget(Everyone was saying that The Two Towers and The Return of the King would go out TNT becouse theaters would not want them),an he had to leave his favorite project(King Kong)to make them, he made them in the longest most expensive way possible,and when the studios tried to force him to do a one movie version he refused.

That does not sound like the work of someone who was only in it for the money to me.

[Doctor Who?]

OK I am sorry for calling Issac Hitler.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

when the studios tried to force him to do a one movie version he refused.

Jackson wanted to make LOTR as two movies, but either New Line or Zaentz convinced him that three movies would be better. This directly the opposite of what happened during the production of the first adaptation, which was planned as a trilogy, but the studio said "you know what, we'll give you two films. I think you can do a good job with that. Have fun."

So instead you want want us to judge a good movie from a bad based on what you say is good and bad,and everyone had better agree with you or they are stupid.

Never said that.

there is a diforance between not caring for something and it being badly made.

The Fellowship of the Ring had a shot where they forgot to CG out a car before the film got into theaters.

[GregMcduck]

Why should I trust you, Isaac? YOU'RE HITLER!

Actually, from what I understand, Jackson originally pitched it as two films was because he didn't think he had a chance of convincing the studio to make a trilogy, not for a "I'm the director, I'll do what I want" reason.

[Doctor Who?]

No he was doing two movies becouse that was all he was given the money for at first.

He walked away when they wanted one movie,but he then went to New Line after they said they wanted to do all three and that was what he wanted to begin with.

Also i will be taking Jackson's word over why he made the movies over yours,I mean how can you claim to know why he made them?

Every movie that has one blooper in 12 hour of film is now awful,Issac has decreed it.

By the way i have watched that movie i don't know how many time looking for the car and i have never seen it.

Missing one care doesn't prove you don't care.

I mean he recast one of the lead actors three days before he didn't him becouse he didn't think the actor he had cast was right in the end,angain that is not the type of thing you do if you are only in it for the money.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Actually, from what I understand, Jackson originally pitched it as two films was because he didn't think he had a chance of convincing the studio to make a trilogy, not for a "I'm the director, I'll do what I want" reason.

Well, that's backing down. That's putting the financial perception of making a film ahead of any artistry. On the first adaptation, the director tried to make a three-film version, but United Artists told him "No. We think it'll work just fine in two films." Second adaptation, "I want to make two films of this." "No, make three films." "Uh, okay. Not sure if that would work, but thanks."

[GregMcduck]

Whaa...?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

heres what im talking about when i say you have poor arguing skills.  you made a point that many important directors never won an oscar and cited this list

Robert Altman (5)
    * Michelangelo Antonioni (1)
    * Ingmar Bergman (3)
    * John Cassavetes (1)
    * Charles Chaplin (1)
    * Cecil B. De Mille (1)
    * Federico Fellini (4)
    * Howard Hawks (1)
    * Alfred Hitchcock (5)
    * Stanley Kubrick (4)
    * Akira Kurosawa (1)
    * Fritz Lang (0)
    * David Lynch (3)
    * Alan J. Pakula (1)
    * Sam Peckinpah (0)
    * Jean Renoir (1)
    * Francois Truffaut (1)
    * Orson Welles (1)

however the list mentions the many times that people got nominated.  indicating that influential directors get nominated for awards as well as win them the list doesnt help your argument (which was that the awards are inflated)

further you say things like this:

Jackson wanted to make LOTR as two movies, but either New Line or Zaentz convinced him that three movies would be better. This is in direct opposition to the first adaptation, which was planned as a trilogy, but the studio said "you know what, we'll give you two films. I think you can do a good job with that. Have fun."

which can only be called hearsay as you and i repeat for the umpteemth time DONT SITE ANY SOURCE!!!!!!! 

[Doctor Who?]

Issac what you need to understand is that Film making is not a pure art form,it takes a hell of a lot of money and you have write your scripts to deal with that.

Citizen Kane was not the movie that Orson Wells was going to make at first he only made that film becouse of budget and time crunch,does that make it bad.  Does that mean that Wells didn't care?

[gbeenie]

issaac its time you came to terms with what is reality. 

you hate jackson (its an irrational hate deal with that too) because you loved jrr tolkeins books and other middle earth lore, and felt jacksons films didnt live up to what you wanted.  As such have blamed for all sorts of irrational things. 

To be fair, sarc, my interpretation of Isaac's statements is that he loves the works of Ralph Bakshi unconditionally (of ALL the people to lavish your uncritical devotion on...); as a result, because Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings differs from Bakshi's approach (the merits of which are beside the point), Isaac's decided that Peter Jackson is the devil incarnate, and that all his works and deeds are therefore to be derided. Near as I can tell, Isaac's irrational hatred of Peter Jackson is all retconned back from the point Jackson tackled LOTR.

But that's just the way I've interpreted his statements. Unlike Isaac, I can admit that I may be wrong.

[gbeenie]

You are like Hitler,you demand that we hate someone just becouse you hate them and you refuse to back up any of the millions of insane claims you have made about people you have never even spoken to.

We are all just supposed to do what ever you say and never disagree with you.

We all have like what you like and hate what you hate.

Sound like Hitler to me.

Good God, dude...

Seriously. Doctor Who?, it might be advisable to dial it back a little.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Bad puppy! Bad Imrahil! Don't urinate on the Roundtable!

DONT SITE ANY SOURCE!!!!!!!

Brian Sibley (2006). "Cheats, Spooks, Hobbits and Apes", Peter Jackson: A Film-maker's Journey. London: Harper Collins, 310-328. ISBN 0-00-717558-2.

Cited in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#Development

however the list mentions the many times that people got nominated.  indicating that influential directors get nominated for awards as well as win them the list doesnt help your argument (which was that the awards are inflated)

Yeah, but the point was that they didn't win. Fritz Lang and Sam Peckinpah weren't even nominated. If we hold the Academy Awards as the be-all, end-all of cinematic quality, Lang and Peckinpah might as well not even exist.

my interpretation of Isaac's statements is that he loves the works of Ralph Bakshi unconditionally (of ALL the people to lavish your uncritical devotion on...); as a result, because Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings differs from Bakshi's approach (the merits of which are beside the point), Isaac's decided that Peter Jackson is the devil incarnate, and that all his works and deeds are therefore to be derided.

No. That is absolutely not true. Jackson's film didn't work for me because it didn't keep with the spirit of the book. The earlier adaptation worked for me because it was in the spirit of the book, not because of the director. I do like the director, but that's not the reason.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

To be fair, sarc, my interpretation of Isaac's statements is that he loves the works of Ralph Bakshi unconditionally (of ALL the people to lavish your uncritical devotion on...); as a result, because Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings differs from Bakshi's approach (the merits of which are beside the point), Isaac's decided that Peter Jackson is the devil incarnate, and that all his works and deeds are therefore to be derided. Near as I can tell, Isaac's irrational hatred of Peter Jackson is all retconned back from the point Jackson tackled LOTR

unfortunately its potatoe Pot-ah-toe here (boil them mash them stick them in a stew)  

It doesnt matter if he has memories of a particularly good poster of elrond he found in on the internet that differs from jackson the point his irational connection to something is making him view other things irrationally and is apparently not consciously aware of it.  

Although i did get your point and it seems as you were technically correct (the best kind of correct)

[Petey Wheatstraw]

I'm being perfectly rational.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

your ALMOST there isaac you can do it.  you found a source DUN DUN DUUUUNNNNNN.   now all you need to do is point us to any of that sillyness backs up your arguments.  you just chuck a book at us and declare yourself the winner.  otherwise im throwing my annotated alice in your face to point out that since ravens our in fact like writing desks ted kennedy shot JFK.