Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[Petey Wheatstraw]

So, you basically didn't give a shit if I provided a source for any claim I've made. You just want another opportunity to call me a jackass? Alright. I got ya. I think this board needs a playpen so we can keep the children out of these intelligent conversations.

[GregMcduck]

I think the Lord of the Ring is pretty neat.

Source: myself

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

first find me these intelligent conversations ive missed them.  

are you claiming that the wiki site you cited has connection to the following claims/inferences youve made in the last couple pages:

intimate knowledge of jacksons money and dealings with new line to include but not limited to things they suggested him to do with the movies and things they forced him to do

knowledge of jacksons phoniness

knowledge of jacksons insatiable greed

and of course etc

all im saying is tie in something specific in your source that you cited to something specific that you claimed, further when you make claims int the future cite sources.  

[Petey Wheatstraw]

I've never claimed these statements to be anything other than my own personal observation.

[Chaos]

I like having Isaac around. It's like a mental / intelligence / rationality barometer. As long as I disagree completely and utterly with everything Isaac says, I know that I am sane, rational, living in the real world, and have good taste.

It's still a mystery to me what the fuck Isaac sees in RiffTrax, since he clearly doesn't need other people to entertain him or tell him what is and isn't of value in the world. I've never seen someone in my life that reminded me more of Dios from Small Gods. Your world is the inside of your own skull. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out.

Too bad you won't have your own personal Brutha when you eventually get to the desert...

[Petey Wheatstraw]

How does it feel like to be an asshole?

[GregMcduck]

How does it feel to be HITLER!?!

[RobtheBarbarian]

He's just cranky because Obi-Wan is holding him back.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

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?

Exactly what does this have to do with anything else in this thread? What was the point you were trying to make?

Jackson didn't want to make LOTR as two films as a budgetary measure. Budget had nothing to do with it. Making LOTR in live-action will always be high cost. Cutting the story down to two films wouldn't necessarily make the budget lower in this case. At least not low enough to justify citing budget as a reason to do such a thing.

The point was that Jackson showed a lack of respect for the material he was trying to adapt.

[Chaos]

How does it feel like to be an asshole?

See? Validation. Everything is right with the world.

[Doctor Who?]

Yes it does make it cost less money becouse you are going to be cutting parts of the story out to get it down to two.

You are saying Jackson didn't care becouse he wanted two movies,I am saying that if you have listened to him you will see that he did care but he was doing what had to be done at the time to make the movies on a budget.

if Jackson was just after a quick buck at the time he would have just made a movie about a giant twister or something destroying L.A or New York,that is what was making money at the time.

Everyone in the know thought that the Lord of the Rings movies were going to bomb,they surprised people when they became a hit Jackson would not have made them for the money becouse there wasn't any money in it at the time.

Oh and why am i even debating this there is nothing wrong with making a movie for the money,filmmakers have to eat to you know.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Yes it does make it cost less money becouse you are going to be cutting parts of the story out to get it down to two.

Not necessarily. Major studios tend to favor action sequences rather than story and good conversation, two aspects that were a major part of Tolkien's writing. And Jackson's work tends to agree with that kind of aesthetic. You can already see in the final films that the pacing was set for today's marketing. These movies were made with the expectation that half the audience would be on Ritalin. Had Jackson made the story as two films, it would be even more marketable - and much more difficult for me to watch.

[Doctor Who?]

I am sorry to disagree with you again but i was paying a lot of attention to this movie while it was being made,and almost everything i read said that the movie was sure to bomb.

None really thought it could make back the $400 million that had been spent on it.

You have to remember that back when Jackson was pitching this(1997 or 1998)it was rare for a studio to spend more then $70 million on a movie,even one that they thought would be a blockbuster.  Also no one had ever made two movies at once except the Superman producers(and they failed with a known name director and two of the biggest stars of the day)it would have been suicide for Jackson to go in and ask for them to fund three movies at over $100 million each that were a type of film(fantisy)that had never produced a hit before. 

Also books have to waist a lot of space telling you what everything looks like on film they can just show you,so it's not insane to think that you could cover  the basic plot of The Lord of the Rings(A plot that at it's hart is very simple)in two movies.

A movie can never been anything over then based on a book,it's can't be the book. 

[Petey Wheatstraw]

it's not insane to think that you could cover  the basic plot of The Lord of the Rings(A plot that at it's hart is very simple)in two movies.

No, it isn't. But I don't think that Peter Jackson was the right person to do it.

[Fortis]

Yes it does make it cost less money becouse you are going to be cutting parts of the story out to get it down to two.

Not necessarily. Major studios tend to favor action sequences rather than story and good conversation, two aspects that were a major part of Tolkien's writing. And Jackson's work tends to agree with that kind of aesthetic. You can already see in the final films that the pacing was set for today's marketing. These movies were made with the expectation that half the audience would be on Ritalin. Had Jackson made the story as two films, it would be even more marketable - and much more difficult for me to watch.

The very fact that Peter Jackson has made 4 movies that are over 3 hours long (King Kong is the 4th if you are wondering) debunks your argument. Well, part of your argument (I agree that Major Studios favor action then story and characters) but the very fact that it is a movie over 3 hours long makes him have to pace it a little faster than what you think would be suitable for a movie adaption of Lord of the Rings. And even then, these movies aren't even close to the pacing of, say Transformers).