Here's the news. New Line studios has kicked Peter Jackson off directing a movie adaption of The Hobbit as well as a second movie based on Tolkien's notes to tie The Hobbit into the beginning of Lord of the Rings. The reason comes down to this, Jackson was apparently owed something like 100 million dollars more for his share in the trilogy (which has earned something like 3 billion dollars worldwide). He stated that he wouldn't do the next movies until they straightened things up with him. As time has wound on and their rights to produce The Hobbit are coming to deadline they decided he's off the project, and they may be canning the whole thing.
This makes me furious in a way few things do. Peter Jackson is a good guy and deserves his due. Certainly he's the only guy I would want to see at the helm of the Hobbit, and his idea of crafting a whole new picture from the interviening period's notes is an awesome one. It makes me livid.
So here's my plan. I'm looking to boycott. No New Line movies for me until they settle things with Peter Jackson. I'm encouraging my friends to do likewise. I'd encourage all of you fine folks to do likewise. I want this Hobbit movie and whatever sequels Peter Jackson has in mind. Hopefully this will make it happen. Yarg, I hate this political garbage messing up the stuff I love. I'm not giving another blessed dollar of my money to these folks until they sort their stuff out!
I'd like to see Peter Jackson direct a movie version of The Hobbit as well. I'm a bit wary of an intervening film (sequel to The Hobbit / prequel to The Lord of the Rings) but I'm more likely to trust Mr. Jackson not to bungle it than anybody else.
I read somewhere that most of New Line's pictures this year and last have fallen flat at the box office. Apparently they used to have the rights to the Turtles and they let them lapse. Then TMNT goes on to win the box office title one week. Salt in the wound. One part of me says, ha! they're getting what they deserve for trying to cheat Peter Jackson. Another part of me says, if they are losing money, they're less likely to pay Peter and therefore I'm less likely to get The Hobbit I want to see.
Unfortunately, I think we all (fans, Jackson, New Line) lose on this one. I'm just glad I've got my LotR DVDs.
A friend of mine was telling me about this a few weeks ago. There was some kind of personnel change at the very top of the tree of New Line. The new guy basically refused to pay Jackson what he was contractually owed as far as profits go. I don't see why really. The point of a contract is that things will be concrete. Personally I don't think I want anyone else but Peter Jackson to do Smaug.
|
Here's the news. New Line studios has kicked Peter Jackson off directing a movie adaption of The Hobbit as well as a second movie based on Tolkien's notes to tie The Hobbit into the beginning of Lord of the Rings. The reason comes down to this, Jackson was apparently owed something like 100 million dollars more for his share in the trilogy (which has earned something like 3 billion dollars worldwide). He stated that he wouldn't do the next movies until they straightened things up with him. As time has wound on and their rights to produce The Hobbit are coming to deadline they decided he's off the project, and they may be canning the whole thing.
This makes me furious in a way few things do. Peter Jackson is a good guy and deserves his due. Certainly he's the only guy I would want to see at the helm of the Hobbit, and his idea of crafting a whole new picture from the interviening period's notes is an awesome one. It makes me livid.
So here's my plan. I'm looking to boycott. No New Line movies for me until they settle things with Peter Jackson. I'm encouraging my friends to do likewise. I'd encourage all of you fine folks to do likewise. I want this Hobbit movie and whatever sequels Peter Jackson has in mind. Hopefully this will make it happen. Yarg, I hate this political garbage messing up the stuff I love. I'm not giving another blessed dollar of my money to these folks until they sort their stuff out!
Personally, I don't give a stuff if he does it or not. I wasn't terribly blown away by his interpretation of the LotR (esecially films 2 and 3, though I did think he did a good job on 1) and he displayed increasing self-indulgence as the trilogy went along (and also in King Kong - a whole hour of my life passed before we even got to Monkey Island, or whatever the place is called, and I can never get that back). So while it would probably be nice if Jackson does it, I'm not convinced that it would make that much difference in the end who does it. After all, is Peter Jackson the only film director who loves Tolkien? I doubt it, somehow. And let's face it, his treatment of the text of LotR wasn't that reverential.
As for the money thing.... The issue is currently under legal dispute, and probably no one on these boards has actually seen a copy of his contract, so I will suspend my condemnation of New Line until it his ground through the relevant processes. If the Hobbit movie and LotR 0 come out without him at the helm, I will happily go and see them, unless I reckon they are s%~*, in which case I might not. But the criterion will be the quality of the movie(s), irrespective of who makes them. I don't think Jackson deserves to be considered the only possible interpreter of Tolkien - the films weren't that good.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As for the money thing.... The issue is currently under legal dispute, and probably no one on these boards has actually seen a copy of his contract, so I will suspend my condemnation of New Line until it his ground through the relevant processes. If the Hobbit movie and LotR 0 come out without him at the helm, I will happily go and see them, unless I reckon they are s&&*, in which case I might not. But the criterion will be the quality of the movie(s), irrespective of who makes them. I don't think Jackson deserves to be considered the only possible interpreter of Tolkien - the films weren't that good.
Not that good! Someone get a rope, it's time fer a lynchin'. Limey Bastard (btw, is that an insult that means anything or is it sort of like calling us Damn Yankees?).
I generally agree, though, to be fair, it might be that I don't like the LotR trilogy (better bring extra rope for the lynchin'). Still, the quality difference between the first two X-men movies and X-3 cannot be denied. Given all the failed sword & sorcerery films prior to LotR, I'm willing to buy into the argument that, to the extent such a film can be done well, Peter Jackson is the guy to do it.
All that being said, I have a hard time getting my head around a boycott. Boycotts are for real issues, like New Line adopting a no-minorities policy or selling nukes to the Cub Scouts. It's just a movie. If it sucks, life goes on.
As far as I can tell, the only thing Jackson brings to a movie is the ability to find the right people to work on it. I didn't get nearly as much enjoyment from the story itself as I did from the sets, costumes, mass combat, and graphics.
I doubt the Lord of the Rings would've been very enjoyable at all for me if it weren't for WETA and Andy Sirkus.
|
|
Not that good! Someone get a rope, it's time fer a lynchin'. Limey Bastard (btw, is that an insult that means anything or is it sort of like calling us Damn Yankees?).
I suspect a lot of British don't know what a limey is. And if we wan't to refer to "yankees" in a derogatory manner, it's normally "those bloody Americans". Which at least has clarity on its side.
I generally agree, though, to be fair, it might be that I don't like the LotR trilogy (better bring extra rope for the lynchin'). Still, the quality difference between the first two X-men movies and X-3 cannot be denied. Given all the failed sword & sorcerery films prior to LotR, I'm willing to buy into the argument that, to the extent such a film can be done well, Peter Jackson is the guy to do it.
Perhaps. He's a good film maker, and respected his source rather than being embarassed by it. And I am willing to say that he has made high fantasy movies respectable, which is probably his trail-blazing achievement. But I didn't like the sentimentality in his version of it. And Frodo being such a terrible wimp. And lot's of other things, frankly. Considering the films as an artistic statement, the script was a bit shakey, the acting variable, some of the scenes a bit silly (the doomed charge of the knights of Gondor and the scene where Aragorn's army gets surrounded at the gates of Mordor - come on, has no one heard of military tactics?) and it seemed to rely overly on spectacle to get you over the ropey bits of plotting. That's nothing new in Hollywood.
All that being said, I have a hard time getting my head around a boycott. Boycotts are for real issues, like New Line adopting a no-minorities policy or selling nukes to the Cub Scouts. It's just a movie. If it sucks, life goes on.
Quite. I mean, Grimmy, get a life. It's only a movie. I love your stuff - the Shandura campaign is really cool, and Greis is a great laugh - but maybe more of a sense of perspective might help. I guess you were being tongue-in-cheek, but even so....
Where would I find a link to this story?
Not that good! Someone get a rope, it's time fer a lynchin'. Limey Bastard (btw, is that an insult that means anything or is it sort of like calling us Damn Yankees?).I suspect a lot of British don't know what a limey is. And if we wan't to refer to "yankees" in a derogatory manner, it's normally "those bloody Americans". Which at least has clarity on its side.
I'm from the south and Yankee is meant to be a insult for pretty much anyone above Kentucky. I am NOT a Yankee. I don't care if I am from the U.S. I have read several stories about southerns in Euorpe and the UK during WWII getting pissed over being called Yankees.
I will have to agree with Sebastian on the X-1 X-2 vs. X-3. I have to think something along the same lines would happen if Peter Jackson doesn't have his hand in The Hobbit.
Fizz
P.S. No offense to all ya'll Yankees out there. It's just some good old fun.
The cinematography in the LotR films was fabulous.
The majority of the casting was better than I expected, though I still have a little trouble to this day seeing John Rhys-Davies playing Gimli. Do you know how big that guy really is? *twitch*
That said, I remember after Fellowship hit the theatres, I saw a filmed interview with Jackson, explaining the creative process for distilling that huge story into three films (or about 9 hours of celluloid). Essentially he said (paraphrasing):
“We broke the story down to its most basic essence: Frodo’s journey to destroy the ring. We had to evaluate each section of the story to determine how much part it played in supporting that essence. Whatever didn’t fit had to go. That’s why we tossed Tom Bombabil, Goldberry, and the whole Barrow Wight scene. It just didn’t do enough to further the core of the story to take the time and money to include it. There were other changes, like incorporating multiple small supporting rolls into each other to save on time and budget. That’s how Arwen ended up helping Frodo cross the river. We just couldn’t justify including Glorfindel, as originally written; too complex re. time and money.”
I wasn’t all that pleased with Fellowship (I’d read LotR so many times I could quote whole sections of text and knew instinctively that Gandalf was an angel), but after that explanation I had to give the guy credit; he was using some brains and his logic seemed sensible and intelligent. So, I cut him some slack. I waited for 2-Towers with some hope. *sigh* It was not to be. He invented scenes that were never written (Aragorn almost drowning), rearranged events (Eowyn’s relationship with Aragorn all wrong), and generally butchered the entire volume to the back 40-acres of perdition. When in Osgiliath (where Frodo and Sam never went in the original story) Sam said, “Face it Mr. Frodo, we’re to supposed to be here.” My wife said, loud enough for the whole theatre to hear, “You got that s*^t right!” There was laughter and applause. They knew what she meant and agreed whole-heartedly. About 500 people thought her comment was the best part of the show.
Peter Jackson should never be allowed to touch a camera, a movie prop, a casting list, makeup, costumes, or any other facet of film-making, theatrical production, or public entertainment of any kind for as long as he lives. Personally, a flogging (cat-o-9 and all) live on international satellite feed for his sins almost seems a just desert. The fact that any studio considered letting him continue his butchery and gross hypocrisy is mind- boggling. I’m glad they dumped him.
Tolkien is weeping in his grave at what was done to his story, true fans of his work are livid at Jackson for his utter incompetence and, tragically, it will probably be 50 to 75 years before anyone tries again. That’s a screaming shame.
As far as I know, limey is a derogatory term that derived from the fact that british seafarers chewed a lot of limes in order to stave off some illness or other. I know, because I was always "limey bastard" when I played Napoleon in Europe with my history buff friends in school.
As for the Hobbit and Peter Jackson, I'm with Grim on this one. LotR is by far the best movie I have ever seen; there are a few nitpicky details that I don't like, but that's unavoidable. That said, it's beyond me why New Line would allow anyone else to get their hands into the Hobbit. Sure, another director might do it well (possibly even trump LotR's awesomeness), but with Peter Jackson I'm assured another awesome movie.
P.S. King Kong was meh. Peter Jackson did an incredible job of turning the s@+#tiest plot ever into a moderately entertaining movie.
Quite. I mean, Grimmy, get a life. It's only a movie. I love your stuff - the Shandura campaign is really cool, and Greis is a great laugh - but maybe more of a sense of perspective might help. I guess you were being tongue-in-cheek, but even so....
Get a life? Hold on a minute here. Do you know me or something? It's not like I'm writing this while sitting in the dark in my mom's basement petting my Shadowfax action figure. I'm a grown up guy, pretty mature and well adjusted from most accounts. I don't think that's a very mature sentiment, thanks.
As for boycotting, I didn't know it was such a big deal. It's a way to get your mind known to business. I'm not saying no Hobbit is like the next global warming or that I'm going to chain myself to the door of the studio or anything. It's a financial deal. It bugs me, sure, but it's not like I'm putting it up there with ethnic clensing in Africa or other real issues. It's something I'd like to see. I believe in it. I choose to vote with my pocketbook. Is that really a problem? You don't like Peter Jackson's movies much. Fine, that doesn't really matter to me. That's your thing. I do kind of think its my right (and fairly reasonable) to withhold supporting a company so I can try to persuade them. I really don't see it as so dire. Please man, respect.
|
Here's the news. New Line studios has kicked Peter Jackson off directing a movie adaption of The Hobbit as well as a second movie based on Tolkien's notes to tie The Hobbit into the beginning of Lord of the Rings. The reason comes down to this, Jackson was apparently owed something like 100 million dollars more for his share in the trilogy (which has earned something like 3 billion dollars worldwide). He stated that he wouldn't do the next movies until they straightened things up with him. As time has wound on and their rights to produce The Hobbit are coming to deadline they decided he's off the project, and they may be canning the whole thing.
It's probably got more to do with SZ, who actually owns the media rights to JRRT's work. SZ is (in)famous for screwing the creative geniuses who really make their films succeed; reference Peter S. Beagle and the whole _Last Unicorn_ fiasco...
|
|
I wasn't terribly blown away by his interpretation of the LotR ...
You know, all I'll say to this comments is: LotR (Jackson's films, I mean) are a lot like any Stephen Speilberg movie. Have you ever watched it without the music? Both directors really know how to guide their scorers to draw pathos from a crowd. Imagine the films without Howard/Williams, and the movies...well...not really so mind-blowing...
All that being said, I have a hard time getting my head around a boycott. Boycotts are for real issues, like New Line adopting a no-minorities policy or selling nukes to the Cub Scouts. It's just a movie. If it sucks, life goes on.
No nukes for the Cub Scouts? I'm not sure I want to live in the kind of world that wouldn't allow Cub Scouts to have nuclear weapons.
|
|
Get a life? Hold on a minute here. Do you know me or something? It's not like I'm writing this while sitting in the dark in my mom's basement petting my Shadowfax action figure. I'm a grown up guy, pretty mature and well adjusted from most accounts. I don't think that's a very mature sentiment, thanks.
As for boycotting, I didn't know it was such a big deal. It's a way to get your mind known to business. I'm not saying no Hobbit is like the next global warming or that I'm going to chain myself to the door of the studio or anything. It's a financial deal. It bugs me, sure, but it's not like I'm putting it up there with ethnic clensing in Africa or other real issues. It's something I'd like to see. I believe in it. I choose to vote with my pocketbook. Is that really a problem? You don't like Peter Jackson's movies much. Fine, that doesn't really matter to me. That's your thing. I do kind of think its my right (and fairly reasonable) to withhold supporting a company so I can try to persuade them. I really don't see it as so dire. Please man, respect.
Don't take yourself so seriously. Jeez, life is too short. If you want to get so aerated over a fairly minor point like this you only make my point for me. I was vaguely kidding with you - so don't tell me to grow up, please.
I respect your view on the hobbit thing - Jackson would probably make an OK movie - but I basically disagree. Jackson doesn't deserve the praise heaped upon him. He's made the best fantasy movie(s) since Star Wars (and that is fantasy, not science fiction, but let's not go there today) but it is still only OK-to-good, not mind-blowingly brilliant.
|
|
The cinematography in the LotR films was fabulous.
Agreed, though he got a lot of help from the New Zealand scenery.
The majority of the casting was better than I expected, though I still have a little trouble to this day seeing John Rhys-Davies playing Gimli. Do you know how big that guy really is? *twitch*.
I always wondered how they pulled that off - that guy must be well over 6' tall.
That said, I remember after Fellowship hit the theatres, I saw a filmed interview with Jackson, explaining the creative process for distilling that huge story into three films (or about 9 hours of celluloid). Essentially he said (paraphrasing):
“We broke the story down to its most basic essence: Frodo’s journey to destroy the ring. We had to evaluate each section of the story to determine how much part it played in supporting that essence. Whatever didn’t fit had to go. That’s why we tossed Tom Bombabil, Goldberry, and the whole Barrow Wight scene. It just didn’t do enough to further the core of the story to take the time and money to include it. There were other changes, like incorporating multiple small supporting rolls into each other to save on time and budget. That’s how Arwen ended up helping Frodo cross the river. We just couldn’t justify including Glorfindel, as originally written; too complex re. time and money.”
I wasn’t all that pleased with Fellowship (I’d read LotR so many times I could quote whole sections of text and knew instinctively that Gandalf was an angel), but after that explanation I had to give the guy credit; he was using some brains and his logic seemed sensible and intelligent. So, I cut him some slack.
Me too - the changes he made in the first film made sense in the cinematic context, and was fairly happy with it.
I waited for 2-Towers with some hope. *sigh* It was not to be. He invented scenes that were never written (Aragorn almost drowning), rearranged events (Eowyn’s relationship with Aragorn all wrong), and generally butchered the entire volume to the back 40-acres of perdition. When in Osgiliath (where Frodo and Sam never went in the original story) Sam said, “Face it Mr. Frodo, we’re to supposed to be here.” My wife said, loud enough for the whole theatre to hear, “You got that s*^t right!” There was laughter and applause. They knew what she meant and agreed whole-heartedly. About 500 people thought her comment was the best part of the show.
Peter Jackson should never be allowed to touch a camera, a movie prop, a casting list, makeup, costumes, or any other facet of film-making, theatrical production, or public entertainment of any kind for as long as he lives. Personally, a flogging (cat-o-9 and all) live on international satellite feed for his sins almost seems a just desert. The fact that any studio considered letting him continue his butchery and gross hypocrisy is mind- boggling. I’m glad they dumped him.
Tolkien is weeping in his grave at what was done to his story, true fans of his work are livid at Jackson for his utter incompetence and, tragically, it will probably be 50 to 75 years before anyone tries again. That’s a screaming shame.
Yup. I still have the images from the book in my mind, so I can forget about the cack-handed handling of books 2 and 3 in Jackson's version (I hated The Two Towers movie - utter crap, missed the point entirely, was boring in parts, and made the Nazgul look incompetent too ("Take the ring!" <flap, flap> "Take it!" <flap> "Take the f$$$ing ring, what sort of useless super-baddie are you, can't even take the uber-ring when it is waved at you by a useless hobbit?!!") - and was dissillusioned by time The Return of the King came out and just let it wash over me indifferently.
This is why I can't understand the Jackson cult - you may not notice the problems with the films if you haven't read the books. But if you didn't read the books (surely the core fantasy text of the 20th century) why would you like the movie, since you probably don't like the Tolkien "thing"? As a book adaptation, it fell apart in films 2 and 3. So I would dread Jackson's version of the Hobbit - what would he do to it?
Well, I rather liked Jackson's LotR films (liked them better than the book, anyway).
That said, I think he would be wrong person to do Hobbit. Style of Hobbit is different from LotR, it's much more a fairytale...in that sense I would say Alfonso Cuarón or Guillermo del Toro would most likely do a better job.
I have no real problem with the movies (particularly the extended cuts) - this coming from someone who used to read them every few years starting in 3rd grade. My only niggle was that there were moments when Peter let special effects rather than acting (and he had a ton of very good actors) rule the day. This was particularly evident in Fellowship I thought. On the whole the movies are pretty well balanced, lots of stuff (humor, adventure, action, thrills, scares, thoughtful moments, epic ones, moments of sorrow and joy ("I know your face."), etc....) for all ages, genders and tastes. Really, who didn't sit up and at least notice the Rohirrim charging down into Helm's Deep?
"Why would anyone see it?" It's just another medium through which to experience the story. I had my doubts as well and there was a time that that slight niggle was a like a burning canker. Time and open mindedness has apparently mellowed me on some things, but not others (I'm looking at you Lucas! I want my money back!!!).
As for the Hobbit the story is a sentimental one (it's old and rustic and involves politics and wars in distant lands and is more focused coming from the title character's prespective than the trilogy's multitude), and while I think Jackson could do it, I don't think that precludes others from attempting it as well. I guess I have more concern over who might play Bilbo, Smaug, and Thorin...(but that's another thread).
As for the 100 million New Line may or may not owe Peter, really does anyone, and I mean anyone, actually need that much money? The studio and Pete could divide that between a 1,000 other people ($100,000 is a nice down payment on a modest home - if it doesn't just buy you one). One thousand families with no mortgages. I personally think the argument is stupid on both sides. In the end it's only entertainment.
Bread and circuses my friends, bread and circuses.
GGG
Some people appreciate Peter Jackson, others think he's a hack. Hardly worth arguing over.
Personally, I would much prefer Peter Jackson direct the Hobbit (though I HATED his version of King Kong). Regardless of how one feels he did on adaptation from the books, there is no denying that he pretty much resurrected the fantasy movie genre. How can you fault him for that?
Grimcleaver is free to boycott New Line but I heard they were pretty much on the skids anyway. Not sure they'd care if a portion of the population stayed away from their movies, which has been noted have been recent flops without a boycott.
Aubrey, I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from. You obviously have strong feelings against the LOTR movies but their immense popularity places you in a distinct minority. It's narrow-minded I think to assume those who never read the books would have no interest in the films. My husband had never read the books but loved the films. I read the books several times and though I have some minor complaints with the movies, as a whole, I enjoyed them very much(sometimes better than the books). You're entitled to your opinion and are welcome to express it but be careful about implying that those who don't share it are idiots or sheep.
And Lawgiver, how do you know that 500 people, or even 5 people, thought you're wife's comment was the best part of the movie? Did you do an exit poll or something? (this is tongue-in-cheek). Personally, nothing ticks me off more in a movie theatre than those who assume I'm interested in hearing their comments during the movie.
And let's not start an argument about the unfair pay scales of stars (in Hollywood, sports, or anywhere else). The "there are children starving in Africa" argument is silly. If the contract was signed saying Jackson earned said amount, then he should be paid it. Period. It's not for anyone else to say whether he deserves it or needs it or the manner in which he should dispense his wealth.
I understand leaving parts of a story out due to time and budget constraints but then to invent scenes that didn't exist and change story lines to fill time, makes absolutely no sense. I find Jackson's interpretation mediocre at best.
Perhaps exposure to the movie will pique some interest in the books and cause some to read it but it has been my experience that most will just see the movie. It galls me to know that thousands of people will now go through life thinking Peter Jackson's version of LOTR is the "true" story and that people give Jackson credit for the story rather than Tolkien.
As for giving Jackson credit for resurecting the fantasy fiction genre I have to disagree. For years we have seen movies of this genre, Excalibur, Clash of the Titans, Ladyhawke, Legend, Highlander, Dragonslayer,13th Warrior, Dragonheart, Willow, Labrynth, Harry Potter, etc and so forth. All Jackson had was a bigger budget and a lot more exposure.
I'm not saying that the movies were bad, just not true to the books. Just like First Knight, is a fairly good story, but it is not Arthur and Guinevere. Change the names and you have a decent Love story, base it on the LEGEND and it flops.
It's narrow-minded I think to assume those who never read the books would have no interest in the films. My husband had never read the books but loved the films.
The essential problem here is that those who saw the films before they read the books usually don’t bother reading the books. Has your husband read the books yet? My daughter is a case example. She’s 23 years old and has never read the books, even though I suggested to her that she should; at least one volume before each film, just to get some perspective. No dice. She saw the films and enjoyed them because she had no benchmark to measure by. Now she refuses, stolidly, to have anything to do with the original story, afraid (by her own admission) that her illusion of satisfaction with the films will be destroyed. That’s the main shame of it all. How many people will not experience the grand work and true inspiration for those films? Love them or hate them, their root came from books that should be appreciated on their own merit as “the beginning”, “the original”, “the granddaddy of them all”. Do you recommend people read only Cliff Notes of Gone With the Wind, David Copperfield, War and Peace, Of Mice and Men or any other great literary work? No. Getting the basic gist of the story from that source is fine but one owes it to one’s self to consume the original as well to get the full impact. My daughter’s example is seminal to pointing out the intellectual and artistic crime that Jackson has committed. All those potential readers and fans of the stories cut off and cast out into a self imposed exile from enjoyment of a story because Jackson didn’t make the films close enough to the story to entice them into it. Instead, he pushed them away. Shameful.
Personally, nothing ticks me off more in a movie theatre than those who assume I'm interested in hearing their comments during the movie.
My wife asked me to make sure I point out that her comment was inadvertent. She had no intention of actually saying it out loud, let alone loud enough for everyone to hear. It just slipped out. We both agree with you that noisy patrons can ruin one’s film experience, but…
how do you know that 500 people, or even 5 people, thought you're wife's comment was the best part of the movie? Did you do an exit poll or something? (this is tongue-in-cheek).
They told us, more or less. As I recall, after Sam’s line there was no dialogue for a bit, just a lot of camera panning and some musical score for effect. There was nothing happening on the screen which should have incited an audience that size to clap, whistle, and laugh at that level. If that isn’t enough, we clearly heard numerous people outside the theatre afterwards commenting about her comment, quoting her (repeatedly) and laughing again. It was quite clear.
(NOTE: I saw the “tongue-in-check” comment and take it as such, but felt the need to respond to it anyway.)
Wow, I never would have thought that LotR would cause so much controversy on the Paizo boards.
A note to Aubrey and others who joke on the boards: I understand how Grim is offended by such comments as "geez, get a life...". I'm sure that you are just joking, but keep in mind that nobody else can hear the tone in your voice, nor the expression on your face. Without those, all we have to go on is what you type.
A note about poor directing: I don't understand many of the comments flying around here about Pete's directing skills. "The scenery helped", "He just knows how to pick great actors", "The musical score made the movie"...correct me if I'm wrong, but these things are indicative of great directing skills. I'm no film buff, but isn't this stuff the director's job? To get all the elements of the film together and then make them work in harmony with each other in order to create the final product?
On books and movies: The two are separate entities. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. If Pete had made a true-to-roots LotR film, it would have been boring as heck for anyone except Tolkien buffs. Personally, I'd rather see Arwen participate in the story rather than watch a more exact rendition of the books. Further, I hold no angst or disdain against anyone who has experienced the movies but not the book, or vica versa, as it is simply the lifestyle that they choose. I think it's rather presumptuous to think that by skipping one or the other, they are missing some fundamental experience.
What movies has New Line put out that have been flops? I'm totally uneducated regarding the film world.
I understand leaving scenes out due to time and budget constraints but to totally rewrite the story inventing things that didn’t happen to fill time or be creative is absurd, especially making Gimli the comic relief. I find Jackson’s interpretation of LOTR to be mediocre at best.
It galls me to know that thousands of people will go through life believing Jackson’s version as the “true” story. Perhaps some people will have their interest piqued enough to pick up the books and read them but it has been my experience that most will not, thus giving Jackson credit rather than Tolkien. And that my friends is a sad state of affairs.
As for giving Jackson credit for reinventing the fantasy genre, this is just not the case. For years the studios have been producing these types of movies, Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, Ladyhawke, 13th Warrior, Highlander, Dragonslayer, Dragonheart, Harry Potter etc. so forth and so on, not to mention the TV series, Hercules: the Legendary Journeys (Keving Sorbo) and Xena: Warrior Princess, thus keeping the fantasy genre alive and well.. All Jackson had was a bigger budget and a lot more exposure.
I’m also not saying that LoTR were bad movies, they have their points, but they were not true to the books. Just like “First Knight” was a fair movie, but it just wasn’t Arthur and Guinevere. Change the names and you have a nice little love story but base it on THE LEGEND and it flops.
|
|
Aubrey, I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from. You obviously have strong feelings against the LOTR movies but their immense popularity places you in a distinct minority. It's narrow-minded I think to assume those who never read the books would have no interest in the films. My husband had never read the books but loved the films. I read the books several times and though I have some minor complaints with the movies, as a whole, I enjoyed them very much(sometimes better than the books). You're entitled to your opinion and are welcome to express it but be careful about implying that those who don't share it are idiots or sheep.
I wasn't aware that I did imply that. I'm not that hostile to the films as such - I went and saw all three after all - but what I don't get is Peter Jackson's elevation to the status in some people's eyes, such as Grimcleaver for example - as having the sole call on making Tolkien movies. They weren't that good. Sorry. That is my main point.
Now, it must be said that in my case I am raising the bar very, very high. LotR is a long, complex and rich book, whic I have read several times and have found new things in it each time. It is very popular, and hard to do full justice to the content of what is in there and adapt it to the screen. My contention is that he did a pretty good job on the first movie (which I did say above), but badly dropped the ball on the second film, which stank in my humble opinion. If you wish to judge LotR in a similar vein to, I dunno, your average action flick, then of course they are definately a cut above the average by a significant margin. On that basis, I'm not surprised your husband liked it - they are fairly enjoyable as popcorn munchers, and I don't wish to derogate his experience as a cinema-goer (and nor was I, actually).
But if you wish to judge it as an adaptation of a book I know well and love, it was poor. Particularly the second film which, unlike the first film which seemed to me to be a sypathetic editing of The Fellowship of the Ring, seemed instead to say, "Sheesh, this book is boring crap, let's sling in some action scenes, pad it out a bit and cut out the dull bits." That is why I don't like the Jackson version much - from film 2 onwards, it seems to be Peter Jackson's LotR and not Tolkien's.
Now, as an arguable "purist" my views may not accord with those who just liked them as movies, without the baggage of the books. And I think people are entitled to their views in any case - as am I. But don't put words in my mouth about me insulting anyone.
My daughter’s example is seminal to pointing out the intellectual and artistic crime that Jackson has committed. All those potential readers and fans of the stories cut off and cast out into a self imposed exile from enjoyment of a story because Jackson didn’t make the films close enough to the story to entice them into it. Instead, he pushed them away. Shameful.
So they were too good?
Damn that cad!
GGG
The "there are children starving in Africa" argument is silly.
And really who the hell cares; they live in Africa for god's sake. I bet you they didn't even go see the movies.
If the contract was signed saying Jackson earned said amount, then he should be paid it. Period. It's not for anyone else to say whether he deserves it or needs it or the manner in which he should dispense his wealth.
For me money is a bit of a natural resouce in the thought that there's a finite amount of it yet it is as nessessary to mainstream life as water (the bill for which you can't afford without money). So yes, I think it is in everyone's intrest to know how overly large gobs of it are being used, and to what ends. Money (like power) is a resposibility. Period.
GGG
Wow, I never would have thought that LotR would cause so much controversy on the Paizo boards.
A note to Aubrey and others who joke on the boards: I understand how Grim is offended by such comments as "geez, get a life...". I'm sure that you are just joking, but keep in mind that nobody else can hear the tone in your voice, nor the expression on your face. Without those, all we have to go on is what you type.
A note about poor directing: I don't understand many of the comments flying around here about Pete's directing skills. "The scenery helped", "He just knows how to pick great actors", "The musical score made the movie"...correct me if I'm wrong, but these things are indicative of great directing skills. I'm no film buff, but isn't this stuff the director's job? To get all the elements of the film together and then make them work in harmony with each other in order to create the final product?
On books and movies: The two are separate entities. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. If Pete had made a true-to-roots LotR film, it would have been boring as heck for anyone except Tolkien buffs. Personally, I'd rather see Arwen participate in the story rather than watch a more exact rendition of the books. Further, I hold no angst or disdain against anyone who has experienced the movies but not the book, or vica versa, as it is simply the lifestyle that they choose. I think it's rather presumptuous to think that by skipping one or the other, they are missing some fundamental experience.
Hear, hear,
GGG
Get a life? Hold on a minute here. Do you know me or something? It's not like I'm writing this while sitting in the dark in my mom's basement petting my Shadowfax action figure. I'm a grown up guy, pretty mature and well adjusted from most accounts. I don't think that's a very mature sentiment, thanks.
As for boycotting, I didn't know it was such a big deal. It's a way to get your mind known to business. I'm not saying no Hobbit is like the next global warming or that I'm going to chain myself to the door of the studio or anything. It's a financial deal. It bugs me, sure, but it's not like I'm putting it up there with ethnic clensing in Africa or other real issues. It's something I'd like to see. I believe in it. I choose to vote with my pocketbook. Is that really a problem? You don't like Peter Jackson's movies much. Fine, that doesn't really matter to me. That's your thing. I do kind of think its my right (and fairly reasonable) to withhold supporting a company so I can try to persuade them. I really don't see it as so dire. Please man, respect.
Don't take yourself so seriously. Jeez, life is too short. If you want to get so aerated over a fairly minor point like this you only make my point for me. I was vaguely kidding with you - so don't tell me to grow up, please.
I respect your view on the hobbit thing - Jackson would probably make an OK movie - but I basically disagree. Jackson doesn't deserve the praise heaped upon him. He's made the best fantasy movie(s) since Star Wars (and that is fantasy, not science fiction, but let's not go there today) but it is still only OK-to-good, not mind-blowingly brilliant.
Indroductory edit: It took me forever to word this... by the time I got it out the door, it's all been resolved. BUT DAMN YOU! THIS TOOK ME FOREVER TO WRITE AND IT WILL BE POSTED DESPITE ITS OBSOLESENCE!
My big fat thoughts on Get A Life:
"Get a life" is telling someone that what matters to them doesn't really matter, and that's always BS because nothing really matters unless someone says it does. It's all interpretive and subjective. Therefore one man's lifelong quest to plant apples cannot be compared to one woman's fight to cure cancer because apple guy lives and dies by apples and that's what matters to him.
"Get a life, apple boy!" Why with that attitude we wouldn't have a nationwide surplus of applesauce.
Clearly it was a charged thing to say, otherwise why offer Grim compliments on his Shandura campaign. But rather than act as a strategy for soothing any ruffled feathers it suggested a subtext of, "Look... on some level you're a person worthy of respect but, uh..."
Reference, unexpected kick to the groin.
My big fat thoughts on Peter Jackson's LotR:
I've seen so many people knock the LotR trilogy and blows my mind. But then it comes down to did the movie affect you emotionally. Me, yep. Big time. Fireworks baby. I'm not a first timer to cinema, knocked back by an introduction to big boomy SFXy things. I'm a man of mature age who's devoted far too much time to seeing almost every film from every country ever made/still existing (that is available for viewing here in the US).
When a group of friends go out to see a movie and all are emotionally affected by it, be it sadness, longing, or wonderment, they often walk out silently. It's a given that they were probably all affected and so no one initiates a conversation about it. When people aren't affected, one guy starts picking it apart academically and listing its pros and cons. Everyone just stares at him, lightly nauseated that he's upsetting that private and holy feeling inside. Eg., Thelma and Louise drive into the grand canyon. Everyone walks out in a sentimental fog. One guy shouts in a thick New Yawk accent, "Man, I'd do Susan Sarandon!"
One film that did nothing for me that affected everyone else on Earth it seems? Titanic. I just could not understand how, one hooking sad song deleted, you had the highest grosser ever. But then, I wasn't a young girl at heart (don't have any of the other parts to constitute a young girl either) and I wasn't touched by the romance.
"Look! I'm down here in on the poor deck dancing with real shabby schlubs and their ill fitting shoes! We sure are crossing socioeconomic lines here! Our courtship is truly romantic!"
However, I realized that I was the odd man out, and divorced from feeling anything where others had no such block. So when folks prattled on about their love for it, I respected that it had touched them, and I don't analyze people for feeling passionately about film, I just let them feel it. Otherwise I'd be the be the cinegrinch. Are you the cinegrinch?
"I loved it."
"Titanic sucked!"
"It... it made me cry..."
"It sucked! I can name 114 historical innaccuracies!"
"But... we named our daughter after the charact--"
"I'm a very good swimmer?! What is he the Rain Man of a great golden age of bad ship piloting?"
"I hate you, Reggie."
"Good. At least you're learning how to hate something finally."
Some who disliked Jackson's trilogy go on to talk up the strengths of those mostly horrid sci-fi channel movies. That always makes me physically unsure if I'm standing or sitting. Clearly, we all have our own very specific ways of judging what our filmic palates will find tasty.
Here's what LotR did quite well. It managed to get across the human condition (odd for typical genre fare), blew many people's minds, and made some cry as well. I didn't... not because I'm incapable... I was touched, it just didn't get to misty eyes stage... but in Return of the King? OMG... In this country the entire thing wound up serendipitously serving as an unplanned 9/11 metaphor. I spied full grown firemen and cops weeping like babies in front of their children. That was a heavy experience and I recall not feeling like I could look around at the other theater goers without invading personal space.
A movie that can elicit that sort of reaction is arguably great, not good. And unlike most recent Oscar winners such as Crash or The Departed (Solid, good Scorcese film but anyone here ever see State of Grace?) I think it fully deserved Best Picture of the year.
As for giving Jackson credit for reinventing the fantasy genre, this is just not the case. For years the studios have been producing these types of movies, Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, Ladyhawke, 13th Warrior, Highlander, Dragonslayer, Dragonheart, Harry Potter etc. so forth and so on, not to mention the TV series, Hercules: the Legendary Journeys (Keving Sorbo) and Xena: Warrior Princess, thus keeping the fantasy genre alive and well.. All Jackson had was a bigger budget and a lot more exposure.
I'm not saying that fantasy movies weren't being made, they were - just not in a manner demanding/deserving of respect, inside or outside of the industry. Jackson provided that, thus resurrecting the genre. I don't include the Harry Potter movies in this equation (which I admit I have never personally seen) because the books were a phenomenon to begin with. The movies were only created to soak even more money from the insatiable fan base. I would guess that the vast majority of patrons attending Harry Potter movies had previously read the books. I would further postulate that a significant amount of LOTR movie-goers had NOT read Tolkien's work. Tolkien definitely has a fan base but #1 it's nothing compared to Harry Potter fan membership and #2 the LOTR movies were obviously not marketed to Tolkien fans.
The special effects and epic "feel" of the LOTR movies were nothing new and yet Jackson obviously (based on the movies' popular acclaim) used techniques available to other directors and created a blockbuster hit in a genre that I still maintain was almost a guarenteed ho-hum rating previously (and since Star Wars and other industry leaders).And let's compare LOTR to other "revolutionary" film series. Star Wars was so spectacular at the onset at least partially because Lucas was doing things with special effects, etc. that had never been done before. Jackson had the arguably harder task of creating something wonderful when others with the same technology had failed (sometimes miserably) to do the same (can you say "Dungeons & Dragons, the movie"?). Not that it's a series, but take Titanic. When James Cameron announced he was making a water movie he was given a major horse-laugh. Poseidon Adventure had been the only water-based movie to ever NOT lose money and Cameron was sinking (sorry for the pun) record amounts of money into creating the film. Not everyone loved the final result but it was an enormous hit and the new gold standard for water & disaster films since. The flop of copycats like Pearl Harbor and the newest Poseidon version shows that the director is critical to the film and Cameron's success doesn't mean just anyone else can pick up the reigns on such a project. Like him or hate him, Jackson has definitely set the new gold standard for epic fantasy films with his LOTR series. The string of pretender films that have come out since (and basically been ho-hum at best) once again point praise in his direction (again no pun intended!).
Bottom line - Jackson has given the fantasy genre a much needed shot in the arm with his films. Maybe that was at the expense of devoted Tolkien fans but I don't imagine it's a complete "crime" since consumers might not read Tolkien necessarily but may very well pick up some similar book or (gasp, dare we hope...) a D&D magazine/game book.
|
|
Wow, I never would have thought that LotR would cause so much controversy on the Paizo boards.
You obviously missed the previous thread....
A note to Aubrey and others who joke on the boards: I understand how Grim is offended by such comments as "geez, get a life...". I'm sure that you are just joking, but keep in mind that nobody else can hear the tone in your voice, nor the expression on your face. Without those, all we have to go on is what you type.
I've been playing in the Grimmbold Manor play-by-post with Grimcleaver, so maybe I was overly casual in my comment with a guy who I thought I already had a sort of connection with via that. Unfortunately, he chose to get on his high horse. Ah well....
A note about poor directing: I don't understand many of the comments flying around here about Pete's directing skills. "The scenery helped", "He just knows how to pick great actors", "The musical score made the movie"...correct me if I'm wrong, but these things are indicative of great directing skills. I'm no film buff, but isn't this stuff the director's job? To get all the elements of the film together and then make them work in harmony with each other in order to create the final product?.
Agreed. I think Jackson has a great visual sense, and has put the movies together well as a spectacle. My beef is much more along the lines of the script.
On books and movies: The two are separate entities. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. If Pete had made a true-to-roots LotR film, it would have been boring as heck for anyone except Tolkien buffs. Personally, I'd rather see Arwen participate in the story rather than watch a more exact rendition of the books. Further, I hold no angst or disdain against anyone who has experienced the movies but not the book, or vica versa, as it is simply the lifestyle that they choose. I think it's rather presumptuous to think that by skipping one or the other, they are missing some fundamental experience.
It is always a tricky one, and LotR was going to be hard to adapt on a scene by scene basis. I never had a problem with judicious editing (I certainly never missed Tom Bombadil, for example, and they very effectively cut the Gordian knot of the (in the book) very long chapter where they discuss Middle Earth history at length at the Coucil of Elrond) as I saw that as inevitable in the adaptation process. The problem I had was with the radical changes to the plot in the second film, as I pointed out above. I didn't think they added anything much to the plot, and actualy detracted from the narrative. OK, if you never read the books, maybe it doesn't show up. But obviously I have, and I thought the changes were vastly inferior to what was in the book. I think for detractors such as myself (and without wishing to speak for others, though I think Lawgiver's views very definately chime with mine, though I think he is marginally more negative than me to be honest, and Duchess DragonLady too) this is the problem that we have.
For me money is a bit of a natural resouce in the thought that there's a finite amount of it yet it is as nessessary to mainstream life as water (the bill for which you can't afford without money). So yes, I think it is in everyone's intrest to know how overly large gobs of it are being used, and to what ends. Money (like power) is a resposibility. Period.
GGG
Okay. So if all of a sudden on one payday your boss refused to hand over your check, you wouldn't complain as long as you already had accumulated enough personal wealth to cover your needs?
Hey, I'm rolling-pennies-for-gas broke too and wouldn't mind some of these obscenely overpaid folks to divert some money in my direction too but I think it's the ultimate arrogance to tell someone they don't deserve to receive what they've been promised (and worked toward) because the world economy has vast extremes of wealth and poverty. If I make sacrifices just to secure food & shelter and you, because of some random condition, are blessed instead with an abundance way above mere basics must you therefore never see recompense for any work you do? This seems absurd to me.And I'm all for Spidey's axiom "With great power comes great responsibility" and I agree that those with great wealth certainly have some moral responsibility to use if "wisely". However, it doesn't really matter how ridiculous the amount promised to Jackson was; the fact remains that the signed contract promised that he would indeed receive it for the specific work accomplished. He upheld his side of the bargain. Why is it fair if New Line does not? And why is Jackson responsible for his huge gobs of money but New Line not responsible for theirs? It's not like New Line gave Jackson's promised profits to alleviate the sick/poor (not that they would have the right to do so anyway). They're just keeping it. That's theft and fraud.
And who, do you suppose, should be in charge of making sure all the world's money is spent "responsibly". Who decides what responsible means? And who enforces those standards?
Maybe some homeless person doesn't think you should've spent your hard-earned dollar on something as frivolous as a plastic D&D miniature or yet another supplimental play book when he is starving. Does his lack of money or your posession of it give him some God-given right to tell you how to spend your cash? And if ten dollars or even 100 dollars spent is too small to be someone else's business, then where do you draw the line? Thousands, millions? And who says your plans for spending MY money are better or more worthy than my own?
Let's keep in mind, Jackson didn't inherit or win this money. He entered a contracted project and worked for it. He should get paid. Anything less is slavery.
|
|
Indroductory edit: It took me forever to word this... by the time I got it out the door, it's all been resolved. BUT DAMN YOU! THIS TOOK ME FOREVER TO WRITE AND IT WILL BE POSTED DESPITE ITS OBSOLESENCE!
I'm touched you took the time.
My big fat thoughts on Get A Life:
"Get a life" is telling someone that what matters to them doesn't really matter, and that's always BS because nothing really matters unless someone says it does. It's all interpretive and subjective. Therefore one man's lifelong quest to plant apples cannot be compared to one woman's fight to cure cancer because apple guy lives and dies by apples and that's what matters to him.
"Get a life, apple boy!" Why with that attitude we wouldn't have a nationwide surplus of applesauce.
Clearly it was a charged thing to say, otherwise why offer Grim compliments on his Shandura campaign. But rather than act as a strategy for soothing any ruffled feathers it suggested a subtext of, "Look... on some level you're a person worthy of respect but, uh..."
Reference, unexpected kick to the groin.!
<sigh> Yeah, well, see my comments above, on the specifics of my relationship with Grimcleaver.
My big fat thoughts on Peter Jackson's LotR:
I've seen so many people knock the LotR trilogy and blows my mind. But then it comes down to did the movie affect you emotionally. Me, yep. Big time. Fireworks baby. I'm not a first timer to cinema, knocked back by an introduction to big boomy SFXy things. I'm a man of mature age who's devoted far too much time to seeing almost every film from every country ever made/still existing (that is available for viewing here in the US).
When a group of friends go out to see a movie and all are emotionally affected by it, be it sadness, longing, or wonderment, they often walk out silently. It's a given that they were probably all affected and so no one initiates a conversation about it. When people aren't affected, one guy starts picking it apart academically and listing its pros and cons. Everyone just stares at him, lightly nauseated that he's upsetting that private and holy feeling inside. Eg., Thelma and Louise drive into the grand canyon. Everyone walks out in a sentimental fog. One guy shouts in a thick New Yawk accent, "Man, I'd do Susan Sarandon!"
One film that did nothing for me that affected everyone else on Earth it seems? Titanic. I just could not understand how, one hooking sad song deleted, you had the highest grosser ever. But then, I wasn't a young girl at heart (don't have any of the other parts to constitute a young girl either) and I wasn't touched by the romance.
"Look! I'm down here in on the poor deck dancing with real shabby schlubs and their ill fitting shoes! We sure are crossing socioeconomic lines here! Our courtship is truly romantic!"
However, I realized that I was the odd man out, and divorced from feeling anything where others had no such block. So when folks prattled on about their love for it, I respected that it had touched them, and I don't analyze people for feeling passionately about film, I just let them feel it. Otherwise I'd be the be the cinegrinch. Are you the cinegrinch?
"I loved it."
"Titanic sucked!"
"It... it made me cry..."
"It sucked! I can name 114 historical innaccuracies!"
"But... we named our daughter after the charact--"
"I'm a very good swimmer?! What is he the Rain Man of a great golden age of bad ship piloting?"
"I hate you, Reggie."
"Good. At least you're learning how to hate something finally."Some who disliked Jackson's trilogy go on to talk up the strengths of those mostly horrid sci-fi channel movies. That always makes me physically unsure if I'm standing or sitting. Clearly, we all have our own very specific ways of judging what our filmic palates will find tasty.
Here's what LotR did quite well. It managed to get across the human condition (odd for typical genre fare), blew many people's minds, and made some cry as well. I didn't... not because I'm incapable... I was touched, it just didn't get to misty eyes stage... but in Return of the King? OMG... In this country the entire thing wound up serendipitously serving as an unplanned 9/11 metaphor. I spied full grown firemen and cops weeping like babies in front of their children. That was a heavy experience and I recall not feeling like I could look around at the other theater goers without invading personal space.
A movie that can elicit that sort of reaction is arguably great, not good. And unlike most recent Oscar winners such as Crash or The Departed (Solid, good Scorcese film but anyone here ever see State of Grace?) I think it fully deserved Best Picture of the year.
Hmmm. I wouldn't disagree with your definition. I walked out of The Two Towers angry and quite voluable about how crap that movie was. Is that the sort of emotional reaction that makes it great? I suspect not.
It is, or course, a question of personal taste about what people like in a movie. Certain movies are quite cynical about emotional manipulation. Dumbo, for example, makes me cry (or nearly - the scene manages to stop just at the point before I lose it and embarrass myself). But I don't see that on the list of all-time greats either. LotR didn't affect me emotionally, at least not films 2 and 3, other than to piss me off (I liked film 1 in a "sense of wonder" sort of way). I found the sentiment in it treacly and over-done. Maybe it is time and place. Maybe it is culture (British stiff upper lip and all). But I just didn't like what Jackson did - he had a big budget, but in the end a lot of the script was, frankly, very unremarkable. I have detailed it at length above and elsewhere on these boards and we are definately straying from the point of the OP (should Jackson direct the Hobbit movie and LotR 0) so I'll leave it there.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Let me start off by saying that I support Boy Scouts having nukes, just not Cub Scouts. I'm willing to make an exception for those with an Arrow of Light.
Re: Boycotting, I stand by my position that this is not an issue worthy of action. It may be as a personal matter of taste, and that's fine, but the initial post was an attempt to garner my outrage and cooperation with respect to the boycott. Such a request is unjustified given the facts.
Re: The Sacred Books, I roll my eyes in the strongest manner possible. I read and draft public company filings, contracts, and other dry and boring documents for a living and I can't even make my way through the LotR books. Congratulations if you did, but every part of the books are not necessary to, nor should they be included in, a movie. That being said, Aubrey, if you would be willing to expound on what should have been included in movies 2 & 3, I would be interested in hearing that.
The essence of the LotR books and the movies, and the reason they are horrible stories, is that Frodo is the worst protagonist in the history of human literature. All he does is mope, whine, get injured, get saved, etc. Whenever an opportunity to act as a hero arrives, he flinches away from it. I maintain that had Sam been given the ring, he would've made it to Mt. Doom and back in half the time of Frodo.
As for giving Jackson credit for reinventing the fantasy genre, this is just not the case. For years the studios have been producing these types of movies, Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, Ladyhawke, 13th Warrior, Highlander, Dragonslayer, Dragonheart, Harry Potter etc. so forth and so on, not to mention the TV series, Hercules: the Legendary Journeys (Keving Sorbo) and Xena: Warrior Princess, thus keeping the fantasy genre alive and well.. All Jackson had was a bigger budget and a lot more exposure.
Let's see:
Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, and Ladyhawke are all from the last sword and sorcery period in pop culture, i.e., the same period from which D&D hails. You may note the dearth of successful mainstream productions after that point until LotR/Harry Potter.
13th Warrior - No sorcery and not a big hit, about the level as Highlander.
Highlander - Not really sword and sorcery.
Dragonslayer - Is that from the 80's too? If so, see above.
Dragonheart & Harry Potter - Did help, but were basically kids movies. The latter is not strictly sword & sorcery (lacking the swords, if you will).
Hercules and Xena: Ha ha ha. Not exactly what you would call mainstream (nor what most would call high enough quality to inspire the genre).
I stand by the statement that LotR gave S&S a new life. HP provided a great deal of help, but the assorted t.v. shows, prepackaged to appeal to the same hardocre fantasy audience that has always consumed such fare, did not. Movies made before 1985 can hardly be said to have revitalized anything in the 00's.
|
|
For me money is a bit of a natural resouce in the thought that there's a finite amount of it yet it is as nessessary to mainstream life as water (the bill for which you can't afford without money). So yes, I think it is in everyone's intrest to know how overly large gobs of it are being used, and to what ends. Money (like power) is a resposibility. Period.
GGG
That's piffle.
Okay. So if all of a sudden on one payday your boss refused to hand over your check, you wouldn't complain as long as you already had accumulated enough personal wealth to cover your needs?
Hey, I'm rolling-pennies-for-gas broke too and wouldn't mind some of these obscenely overpaid folks to divert some money in my direction too but I think it's the ultimate arrogance to tell someone they don't deserve to receive what they've been promised (and worked toward) because the world economy has vast extremes of wealth and poverty. If I make sacrifices just to secure food & shelter and you, because of some random condition, are blessed instead with an abundance way above mere basics must you therefore never see recompense for any work you do? This seems absurd to me.
And I'm all for Spidey's axiom "With great power comes great responsibility" and I agree that those with great wealth certainly have some moral responsibility to use if "wisely". However, it doesn't really matter how ridiculous the amount promised to Jackson was; the fact remains that the signed contract promised that he would indeed receive it for the specific work accomplished. He upheld his side of the bargain. Why is it fair if New Line does not? And why is Jackson responsible for his huge gobs of money but New Line not responsible for theirs? It's not like New Line gave Jackson's promised profits to alleviate the sick/poor (not that they would have the right to do so anyway). They're just keeping it. That's theft and fraud.
And who, do you suppose, should be in charge of making sure all the world's money is spent "responsibly". Who decides what responsible means? And who enforces those standards?
Maybe some homeless person doesn't think you should've spent your hard-earned dollar on something as frivolous as a plastic D&D miniature or yet another supplimental play book when he is starving. Does his lack of money or your posession of it give him some God-given right to tell you how to spend your cash? And if ten dollars or even 100 dollars spent is too small to be someone else's business, then where do you draw the line? Thousands, millions? And who says your plans for spending MY money are better or more worthy than my own?
Let's keep in mind, Jackson didn't inherit or win this money. He entered a contracted project and worked for it. He should get paid. Anything less is slavery.
Quite. If Jackson is contractually entitled to the money, more fool New Line for signing the contract.
|
|
Re: Boycotting, I stand by my position that this is not an issue worthy of action. It may be as a personal matter of taste, and that's fine, but the initial post was an attempt to garner my outrage and cooperation with respect to the boycott. Such a request is unjustified given the facts.
I love it when you get all legal-sounding on me. <pant>
Re: The Sacred Books, I roll my eyes in the strongest manner possible. I read and draft public company filings, contracts, and other dry and boring documents for a living and I can't even make my way through the LotR books. Congratulations if you did, but every part of the books are not necessary to, nor should they be included in, a movie. That being said, Aubrey, if you would be willing to expound on what should have been included in movies 2 & 3, I would be interested in hearing that.
The essence of the LotR books and the movies, and the reason they are horrible stories, is that Frodo is the worst protagonist in the history of human literature. All he does is mope, whine, get injured, get saved, etc. Whenever an opportunity to act as a hero arrives, he flinches away from it. I maintain that had Sam been given the ring, he would've made it to Mt. Doom and back in half the time of Frodo.
OK, please bear in kind that I haven't seen these films for years and only saw them once, so this will by definition be incomplete. However, one of the big flaws of the film is Frodo. He isn't the irritating, whiney, pathetic individual portrayed by Elijah Wood (whether that was his interpretation or just what was written, or both, I don't know) but a plucky individual with a job to do. Yes, he gets tired by his burden, yes he is ultimately corrupted by the Ring. But he isn't as slappably annoying by any stretch as he is in the films.
OK, now, I can't remember film 3 very well at all, since I was pretty indifferent by then, but the outrage I felt at film 2 provides some inspiration. So here goes:
- Merry and Pippin carried off by the orcs. OK, there were two factions of orcs in the book: Sauron's "bog-standard" orcs and the uruk-hai from Saruman. The two leaders of the these factions are distinctive characters, with dialogue and agendas (interestingly, they talk just like one would imagine British Army NCOs talking, given Tolkien's WW 1 experiences). They ultimately fall out, and betray eachother during the attack of the Rohirrim. I always liked those two orcs, and the fact that they were characters instead of just "monsters".
- the ents. The ents were barely present in the film. I don't doubt that, for cinematic reasons, the ents needed pruning (ho ho) as the entmoot, where they agreed to attack Isengard, would have been pretty boring to watch (it was for Merry and Pippin in the book - tree-people taaalking veeeeery slooooowly). On the other hand, they have a key part to play in the downfall of Saruman, so a bit of build-up before Treebeard went on the offensive (by himself, pretty much) on the spur of the moment (as it appeared in the film) might have been nice. And, of course...
- the sacking of Isengard. Barely mentioned. Saruman is a major mover in the first film, there are about ten seconds of ents giving him some stick (again, ho ho) and that's it. There was apparently a soap opera where one character was written out when he went upstairs to "polish his skis" and never returned. I guess Saruman was polishing his wand (nudge nudge, wink wink).
- Shelob's lair. Sure, it was in the third movie, but it actually comes at the end of the second book. I believe this was a squandered opportunity, as it ends on a cliff-hanger in the book (come on - Tolkien is supposed to be dry and boring, and he still understood the value of a cliffhanger better than St Peter of Aukland?). Frodo is carried off to the tower of (I think) Cirith Ungol by Sauron's orcs, paralysed by Shelob's venom. Sam is left alone with the Ring (Sam is a ringbearer in the book, with all the temptations which go with that, an aspect also left unexplored by Jackson) and has to decide whether the go on or rescue Frodo. Also, the scenes in the book with Shelob are really creepy - just eyes shining in the darkness. In the film, it's, "Oh look, giant spider. Big, eh!" Not much build-up or tension, more of a CGI action scene. (And let's also mention that the rescue scene, where Sam storms the tower where Frodo is held prisoner, which occurs in book 3 - quite a long action scene, left out, with more good orc characters. All ignored by Jackson.)
Now, as I said above, I never minded editing where it is necessary. But Jackson also put in a lot of stuff which wasn't in the original book, which seemed pretty pointless, especially in the context of what is, to me, the good stuff he left out in it's favour. Again, on my shaky memory:
- the worg attack. To be frank, I didn't mind this scene. A bit of action, and sort of justifiable as a "worg scene" was left out of film 1. Quid pro quo, but not in the original Two Towers. However, it led on to the execrable...
- Aragorn floating down the river. What!!? I still can't see the point of this scene, other than to give Arwen something to do. No action, no drama, just a guy in a river and an elf chick with serious back-lighting. What a waste of celluloid.
- Sam and Frodo in Osgiliath. In the book, Faramir lets Sam, Frodo and Gollum continue on to Mordor, demonstrating his greater wisdom compared to his brother, poor old Boromir (well played by Sean Bean in film 1, though his extended death scene is also a Jackson invention (he's just slumped dead against a tree when found in the book) though justifiable in the context of the death of a major character). In film 2, he's as big an idiot as Boromir, and hauls them off to Osgiliath. There (this is where the film just became STOOPID, the ultimate sin by Jackson) Frodo actually offers the Ring to a nazgul, and it doesn't take it. I hated that scene with a violent passion. The nazgul are supposed to be powerful and frightening, not dumb incompetent schmucks. The main protagonist waves the ring at it, and for some reason it can't take it. Frodo should have been dead in seconds, the Ring whisked off to Mordor, and the whole silly thing ended there. That was unforgivable in dramatic and story terms.
On the basis of the above, Jackson made changes I just don't understand. He had some pretty good material, but seemed to want to do a major rewrite instead. Now, I understand that pacing may have been an issue, as the Two Towers is is considerably longer than The Return of the King. But if so, why leave out stuff from the Return of the King too (like the above mentioned rescue of Frodo by Sam) that was pretty gripping in the book?
Now, to be fair to Jackson, he did lots of stuff well - Gollum in particular was very good, and the scenes where he wrestles with his conscience are both good cinematically and an effective adaptation of the book. The battle of Helms Deep had its moments (but honestly - orc suicide bombers?) and the freeing of Theoden from Wormtongue's influence is also well done (that scene is quite weak in the book - Theoden just seems to change his mind rather than be persuaded by Gandalf's pretty feeble rhetoric - so the imputation of supernatural influence over him makes more sense). I just felt that a lot of good stuff was thrown aside and some quite poor stuff put in.
As for giving Jackson credit for reinventing the fantasy genre, this is just not the case. For years the studios have been producing these types of movies, Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, Ladyhawke, 13th Warrior, Highlander, Dragonslayer, Dragonheart, Harry Potter etc. so forth and so on, not to mention the TV series, Hercules: the Legendary Journeys (Keving Sorbo) and Xena: Warrior Princess, thus keeping the fantasy genre alive and well.. All Jackson had was a bigger budget and a lot more exposure.
Let's see:
Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, and Ladyhawke are all from the last sword and sorcery period in pop culture, i.e., the same period from which D&D hails. You may note the dearth of successful mainstream productions after that point until LotR/Harry Potter.
13th Warrior - No sorcery and not a big hit, about the level as Highlander.
Highlander - Not really sword and sorcery.
Dragonslayer - Is that from the 80's too? If so, see above.
Dragonheart & Harry Potter - Did help, but were basically kids movies. The latter is not strictly sword & sorcery (lacking the swords, if you will).
Hercules and Xena: Ha ha ha. Not exactly what you would call mainstream (nor what most would call high enough quality to inspire the genre).
I stand by the statement that LotR gave S&S a new life. HP provided a great deal of help, but the assorted t.v. shows, prepackaged to appeal to the same hardocre fantasy audience that has always consumed such fare, did not. Movies made before 1985 can hardly be said to have revitalized anything in the 00's.
I think LotR benefited from being the first big budget high fantasy movie in the age of CGI. That is it's main selling point in my view. As such, I sort of disagree and agree with you both at the same time. Jackson had the budget and the technology to really make it work visually.
Holy smokes...this is a smoking subject due to the length of some of these replies. Let the emotions go, readers.
Personally, I think Peter Jackson did a fine job with a lot of factors with the LOTR series but his script was a weak aspect. A lot of posturing and borrowed scenes from other movies. I agree with Aubrey about the sentimentality involved, especially between Frodo and Sam which made me cringe at times (I don't know what that says about my thoughts on homosexuality). And the fifteen endings to The Return of the King.
Personally, I say why not give another director a shot. There is certainly room for improvement. Though hats off to Peter for the final battle in ROTK.
I’ll make some final points here and then leave the subject for others to resolve. Things are getting out of hand with the commentary and I don’t see a need to pour any more gasoline on the fire than has already occurred. So, in summation:
Let's see:
Excalibur, Legend, Labrynth, and Ladyhawke are all from the last sword and sorcery period in pop culture, i.e., the same period from which D&D hails. You may note the dearth of successful mainstream productions after that point until LotR/Harry Potter.
13th Warrior - No sorcery and not a big hit, about the level as Highlander.
Highlander - Not really sword and sorcery.
Dragonslayer - Is that from the 80's too? If so, see above.
Dragonheart & Harry Potter - Did help, but were basically kids movies. The latter is not strictly sword & sorcery (lacking the swords, if you will).
Hercules and Xena: Ha ha ha. Not exactly what you would call mainstream (nor what most would call high enough quality to inspire the genre).
I stand by the statement that LotR gave S&S a new life. HP provided a great deal of help, but the assorted t.v. shows, prepackaged to appeal to the same hardcore fantasy audience that has always consumed such fare, did not. Movies made before 1985 can hardly be said to have revitalized anything in the 00's.
1) I think the disagreement here is over terms used. Lady Aurora said that Jackson “resurrected” the S&S genre. Duchess Dragonlady was, I think, trying to point out that it didn’t need “resurrecting”. It was still alive and well, just not as major a slice of the entertainment pie from Hollywood as it might be now. Each had its fans and audience. Each had its place. Jackson didn’t do anything but use huge sums of studio money to attract a bigger audience. Your seeming derogation of Duchess’ point I don’t get. Implying these examples of the genre’s activity prior to Jackson are somehow non-sequitur seems disingenuous. Not meaning disparagement, but I can tell you’re a lawyer. Could we agree your “Mainstreaming” comment might be a better definition of what Jackson did with LOTR and let that point go there?
2) I go back to Duchess’ point that the genre was still alive, just not as “mainstream”. More people came to see it than just S&S buffs, true. Ok, give him credit for that. I said in my first post that cinematically it was spectacular and that the casting was better than I had expected. But, my sentiments run strongly with Aubrey’s… the outcome of Jackson’s mal-adaptation was terrible. Stilted dialogue, inventing elements not part of the original, etc., just go to show, at least in my mind, that he’s not all that great. Having done theatre, I am familiar with the need to balance time (on stage/film and off) with budget. I understand the need to trim everything unnecessary. Adaptation is, indeed, a key concept. It was Jackson’s inclusion of non-original elements in place of original material removed under the excuse of “time and budget” that I find the most hypocritical and, frankly, bad directing, bad editing, bad adapting…in other words, horribly unprofessional…the mark of a hack.
3) When Ralph Bakshi did his version back in 1978 it was an instant flop. Why? His adaptation sucked; again, cutting too much out for the sake of time/budget. He tried to fit all three books into two films. Picture one ran to halfway through 2-Towers. The movie was such a bomb the studio didn’t authorize the second half. They booted Bakshi, quite ignominiously, and let the rest go fallow. Jackson fared better only because the studios had such a huge investment in this version they didn’t dare let it flop. So, they poured in whatever amount of money it took to entice big enough audiences to make a profit. Hollywood did what Hollywood always does: they over-hyped it for profit motive…and got caught, at least by people who bothered to read the original before they went to see the “adaptation”. I find Jackson’s LOTR no better than Bakshi’s from the perspective of “adaptation”. Bakshi worked well with animation: the old Mighty Mouse cartoons, even Fritz the Cat (the first x-rated cartoon). But when he got loosed on mainstream film, he screwed it up with a will. Jackson is following Bakshi’s basic pattern. He came from other, lesser media (a couple of cheap slasher flicks) and television into the “big time”. He got lucky and landed a primo gig with arguably the greatest fantasy epic written since Plato’s Atlantis, the Iliad & Odyssey, or Arthurian Legend. He gets and “A” for effort but the fidelity of his “adaptation” rates a big, fat “F”.
consumers might not read Tolkien necessarily but may very well pick up some similar book or (gasp, dare we hope...) a D&D magazine/game book.
…
can you say "Dungeons & Dragons, the movie"?
Jackson did to LOTR what D&D, The Movie did for D&D, and it really wasn’t good.
LOTR is credited as one of the greatest inspirations for D&D. Elves, dwarfs, Hobbits (before the Tolkien foundation sued Gygax into the dirt for copyright infringement), wizards, magic rings, epic quests, ad nauseum. My love for RPG gaming comes from that enjoyment of LOTR. Tolkien sparked my interest, inspired my imagination and RPG gaming provided me a vehicle for exploring beyond the bounds of the pages of that one story. Jackson did no service to LOTR or RPG gaming. In my view: Peter Jackson is synonymous with Rev. Pat Robertson. Those of you who get the reference can now pick your jaws up off the table. Those of you who don’t should do some research. I equate the insult of Jackson’s treatment of that classic with the same insults I get from an ignorant public that equates my gaming with Satanic worship. The logic does not follow and I take huge exception to the unearned invective.
I support a boycott of Jackson and all his efforts. I will not ever knowingly pay money to see anything he has ever done, or anything else he will ever do. It was the studio that footed the bill for “mainstreaming” the genre, so to speak, not Jackson. It was the studio that did the real work to get the production rights, no Jackson. It was the studio that deserves whatever nebulous credit or positives that come out of the films. Jackson didn’t do anything but make some movies, and bad ones at that. Like the captain of a ship, blame goes to him for the final result. I didn’t like it and I never will.
sine die
Much like science and religion and high schoolers on the dance floor at their prom, books and movies should be separated at all times.
After having a few minutes to calm down, I went back and re-read some of what's posted here (both my stuff and others). My judgement on the matter has been clouded on a number of counts: artistic, ethical, et al, and if I offended anyone, I apologize. My feelings on the subject are obviously too strong to be allowed off the chain.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Isn't a summation supposed to be shorter than the unabridged version?
Aubrey - Thanks for the insight. I don't have a lot of patience for most LotR arguments which are largely predicated on demonstrating a person's uber-hardcoreness (e.g., any argument which cites the lack of Tom Bombadil as a failing of the adaptation, when in reality, it's a failing of the source). In response to a few points you made:
1. Your panting is creepy and I feel dirty.
2. I always hear that the spider thing was really cool in the book. A friend of mine talked up how cool it was going to be and my response was "uh, it's a giant spider. Woopty-freaken-doo." I have a hard time imagining how it could be otherwise (spiders are so overused), but realize that unseen horrors in books rarely translate well onto the big screen. PJ definitely could've done a little more (and making it something other than a spider couldn't have hurt).
3. I forget, but wasn't Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul who was riding on a big dragon right towards him to get it? I don't remember the Nazgul actually having a chance to grab the ring.
4. I still find Frodo to be too passive and the ending of the war to be too deus ex machina. I admit, I have not finished the trilogy, and its entirely possible that there are passages that completely rebut my opinion, but by halfway through book 2 those judgments still stood. In addition, I never found a character in the books about whom I gave a damn. My favorite character in the movies is by far golumn, he's the only one with any sort of personality.
Anyway, good luck to those of you doing the boycott. I think you're too far on the hardcore fringe to have any sort of impact, and will be discounted as such, but stranger things have happened.
Sebastian wrote:
[quote=]All that being said, I have a hard time getting my head around a boycott. Boycotts are for real issues, like New Line adopting a no-minorities policy or selling nukes to the Cub Scouts. It's just a movie. If it sucks, life goes on.
This is a big issue for some of us. The Lord of the Rings films were the only movies made from books that I have ever seen done well. It wasn't perfect but it was very good. I don't want another disapointment from a movie based on a book that I love (like Eragon).
|
|
Isn't a summation supposed to be shorter than the unabridged version?
Aubrey - Thanks for the insight. I don't have a lot of patience for most LotR arguments which are largely predicated on demonstrating a person's uber-hardcoreness (e.g., any argument which cites the lack of Tom Bombadil as a failing of the adaptation, when in reality, it's a failing of the source). In response to a few points you made:
1. Your panting is creepy and I feel dirty.
2. I always hear that the spider thing was really cool in the book. A friend of mine talked up how cool it was going to be and my response was "uh, it's a giant spider. Woopty-freaken-doo." I have a hard time imagining how it could be otherwise (spiders are so overused), but realize that unseen horrors in books rarely translate well onto the big screen. PJ definitely could've done a little more (and making it something other than a spider couldn't have hurt).
3. I forget, but wasn't Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul who was riding on a big dragon right towards him to get it? I don't remember the Nazgul actually having a chance to grab the ring.
4. I still find Frodo to be too passive and the ending of the war to be too deus ex machina. I admit, I have not finished the trilogy, and its entirely possible that there are passages that completely rebut my opinion, but by halfway through book 2 those judgments still stood. In addition, I never found a character in the books about whom I gave a damn. My favorite character in the movies is by far golumn, he's the only one with any sort of personality.
Anyway, good luck to those of you doing the boycott. I think you're too far on the hardcore fringe to have any sort of impact, and will be discounted as such, but stranger things have happened.
1. You know you love it, baby.
2. It was just another spider in the film, plus it happened at the beginning of film three, not the end of two, which also detracted from the impact.
3. My recollection is that the nazgul, sort of, just flapped there ineffectually. I can't remember what Frodo did after that, as my vision probably became a haze of red at that point.
4. Well, while not precisely faithful, the ending is more or less in train with the book. The problem is that the Wood Frodo is an annoying wimp. If you only read halfway through The Two Towers before giving up, that is probably the most difficult part of the book as it deals with lots of politics and so many similar sounding names (I disliked this bit when I read it as a kid, and only really appreciated it as an adult). The second half of book 2 is Frodo, Sam and Gollum, and it is fairly good at bringing out Frodo's character and the burden of bearing the Ring (without lots of big-eyed gazing to camera). But I appreciate that Tolkien is not to everyone's taste - his style is dryly academic compared to, say, Fritz Leiber or Robert E Howard. Out of curiosity, did you read the Hobbit first? I'm not sure LotR makes as much sense without reading The Hobbit first.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, while not precisely faithful, the ending is more or less in train with the book. The problem is that the Wood Frodo is an annoying wimp. If you only read halfway through The Two Towers before giving up, that is probably the most difficult part of the book as it deals with lots of politics and so many similar sounding names (I disliked this bit when I read it as a kid, and only really appreciated it as an adult). The second half of book 2 is Frodo, Sam and Gollum, and it is fairly good at bringing out Frodo's character and the burden of bearing the Ring (without lots of big-eyed gazing to camera). But I appreciate that Tolkien is not to everyone's taste - his style is dryly academic compared to, say, Fritz Leiber or Robert E Howard. Out of curiosity, did you read the Hobbit first? I'm not sure LotR makes as much sense without reading The Hobbit first.
I did read the hobbit first. In fact, my first exposure to fantasy was the hobbit/LotR cartoons (when I was 7 or 8, well before reading the Hobbit). I wouldn't go so far as to say they got me into D&D, but they were some of the first seed planters. I see the LotR movies as a similar gateway product, and even if they aren't perfect adaptations (whatever that means), the exposure they bring to the genre will plant similar seeds in similarly situated kids.
<--- chews on a blade of grass and spits the root at New Line. Rebel enough for ya? hehe
I don't subscribe to the idea that just because someone is rich they should be cheated out of profits because they've hit some sort of earnings ceiling. Whether it's Peter Jackson getting screwed out of his earnings, Chris Carter effing over Duchovny when he sold rights to X-files, or people downloading Metallica songs for free.
If you poured four years of your life into a project and people knowingly held back any profits that were promised to you, contractually or otherwise, you don't sit back in your chair and breathe deep the lavender incense saying only, "Ah well, I have so much... and the poor of the world have so little." One reason being? The poor aren't getting that money that's being denied you. Other disgustingly rich people are. It's his money and if he wants to buy hammered platinum flatware while the third world suffers that's on him.
Whether you enjoyed Jackson's trilogy or didn't is beside the point. Being cheated is a lousy feeling and I think it's less about how rich Jackson is and more about how dishonorable New Line was. That all said, I can't boycott New Line films. I completely agree that artists should be paid the money they're earned, and I'll continue to pay them, but my ongoing search for good films is one of my reasons for being, and I'm afraid I've only so many to spare.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Whether you enjoyed Jackson's trilogy or didn't is beside the point. Being cheated is a lousy feeling and I think it's less about how rich Jackson is and more about how dishonorable New Line was. That all said, I can't boycott New Line films. I completely agree that artists should be paid the money they're earned, and I'll continue to pay them, but my ongoing search for good films is one of my reasons for being, and I'm afraid I've only so many to spare.
I agree in princple, but the problem is, I don't have any insight into whether or not Jackson was actually "cheated." The parties have a contract describing their rights and obligations. To the extent that Jackson adequately failed to negotiate a contract that embodied the rights be believed he had with regards to the profits, that's really his own fault.
I see these situations arise constantly in contract negotations - the parties do not agree on a specific term but they want the deal done. Rather than negotiate the terms at that time, they leave it ambiguous and figure it will work its way out. What ends up happening is that they eventually negotiate the term, only in front of a judge/arbitrater instead of with each other. I say it's Jackson's fault above because in these situations where one party performs and then the other party pays, the later has more leverage to interpret the ambiguous provision in their own favor and the former must resort to the courts for relief.
What it boils down to is that if it were as simple as a contract saying "Jackson receives X" and New Line saying "We will not pay X," there wouldn't be a dispute.