Max Jenius

*shrug* Well, like I said. I feel I've sufficiently explained myself and am not going to take this any further with you because frankly it really isn't worth the effort. Additionally, you've stated no counter-arguments thus; there is no argument. So I'm pretty sure that I will be able to continue on with my live having you disagree with me on Peter Jackson. In the end, it really isn't that big a deal to me.

accessively wordy and poorly written are two different things. You may be put off by the style of writing, but to claim it is poorly written is something else entirely. Would I classify Hamlet as being poorly written because it uses Elizabeathen English? True. True.

Well it is a matter of personal taste. When I was reading through them, I noticed that Tolkien tends to be quite wordy and while it certainly is beautiful, I can see how it would put some people off.

I don't have a problem with what you said and I think that it would work on a board that is more open for a variety of discussions. However, we have the rules clearly posted. Rules that we have had approved and edited by Shawn himself. As I've said before; Myself, along with the other moderators are pretty much sick of explaining why a thread is deleted, when we took the time to compose such a large list of rules/regulations. But its all good because I love you EXO.

Yeah, I just got a chance to see the extended TT. Man, I was OD-ing on LOTR, I don't think I'll be watching that again for a while. Hey, its clear we're getting nowhere with the PJ debate. I even went so far as to have other people read the thread. They understood. So I guess if you don't get it, you're never gonna get it. Mr. March: It is obvious that you are playing dumb, as you have not hounded the others in the thread that share my opinion with as much tenacity. However, I am flattered at the attention. You've refused to answer any of my questions for you and come up with reasons to back up your own opinion(as in 'What makes this film distinctly Peter Jackson?'). Meanwhile I've cited numerous reasons for my dislike, that you just don't seem to be able to grasp.Take it up with Bsu or TruBlu, because I don't think I can make you understand without the use of visual aides. So until you hold yourself and your opinions up to the same scrutiny as you do mine, I guess you're going to have to be content with the information I have given you. See, you claim that this is a debate, but due to your own evasive nature you're making this a "Max explains himself over and over. Mr. March doesn't get it." I've backed my opinion up sufficiently with personal experiences, and that is all one needs to deem someone a no-talent hack. That's how we form judgements of directors or any other artist: through experiencing their work. I have experienced Peter Jackson, and I do not like his work, additionally I believe that his contributions to LotR in today's world of CGI and massive expense were minute(read 'connect the dots'). So to put a slightly different spin on a Hideaki Anno quote - "If you don't understand, its your problem." Bsu: You remind me of something; earlier in the thread JR and March were deferring the blame for the LotR changes from PJ, saying "He didn't do this, he didn't do that." Well, that brings up something else- What exactly did he do? "connect the dots?" Si senor. There is nothing but film-making convention! Jolly Rogers: Above I stated that the Art Dept. did their homework.

I see no position except expelling venom at PJ for no apparent reason other than "my opinion, I'm entitled, and I don't like him". As for the rest, it's just diversionary except for the only relevant point. Except that I see nothing extraordinary about him or his style or, most importantly, the movies he has directed. And I again ask why? Read my above posts. For my part, I've no need to explain myself or my position. This debate began with your generalization and being called on it. As for my opinion, how about we wait until you provide some reason or critique of why PJ has nothing to do with the success of the LOTR films. If you don't have anything, other than just your opinion, that's fine. However, I say again, it's ignorance to state PJ has nothing to do with the success of LOTR...and that is what's called my opinion. Who says generalizations are never right? That's why they're called generalizations, because in general they are true. I can form an opinion about a director whose films I happen to have seen a lot of. Additionally, I have no doubt in my mind that they could have been better. So yes, I can say what I say. *shrugs* I guess you'll just have to be content with not understanding. I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you to change your views, let alone explain your affections for his work. So I'm just going to let the issue rest at agreeing to disagree because it is clear that we are getting nowhere. Too much typing! If you really wish to continue the debate, you are free to pm me.

what a nice birthday present.

Oh hell no he didn't screw them up at all. I just don't like Peter Jackson as a director and think that he is currently over-rated.

It isn't. Never said it was. Yep. I'm claiming that I do not like Peter Jackson based on his other work, and his contributions to the LOTR series were minor. I like the LOTR movies, however I recognize that there is nothing that makes their success due to PJ. Perhaps. Its called an opinion. You're entitled to yours. See above. I'm sure there are people out there that think that way. Why? Because I do not share the same views as you do? Hmmm... let me see if I can put this in terms that you can understand(not a dis, just you don't seem to get what I am saying). Let me start by saying that I have seen most of Peter Jackson's movies on accident. This was because one of my room-mates was dead set on seeing EVERY bad movie that he possibly could(no joke, that is a direct quote). It was only after FotR came out that I made the connection between them all. Now, when I watch LOTR, I see that the art department did their homework for the most part. When I see environments in middle-earth they are just as I pictured they would be in a live action movie. Do you know why? Because I had already seen the art books. Now when I read through changes made "by" PJ I understand that he may have had little to do with it, however being both the director and a producer it is not like he does not have a decent amount of influence. But then again, that is a small reason for my dislike of PJ. As for not liking a director based on his previous work; what do you base your like or dislike of a director on? Now I beg the question: Just what about LOTR, makes it distinctly Peter Jackson? I see message boards with "Oh Peter Jackson should do this... Peter Jackson should do that." Why? Because he managed not to botch LOTR? Perhaps in the future he will prove himself worthy of my support, but as it stands right now he is nothing but a hack riding on the coat-tails of a classic book that's reputation preceded his touch. So if you still do not understand my position, then I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Unless you feel the need to explain why you like Peter Jackson. But I really do not need to hear your reasoning, because its called having an opininon.

Partners in crime.

Have you seen any other Peter Jackson movies? I'm basing my judgement of PJ on his work as a whole. How many times do I have to say that I do like the movies, I just happen to know that PJ isn't the reason I like them. If you wanna check out the changes(not just from the apendices... and here I get called ignorant) go here http://www.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_fotr.cfm The changes really aren't the issue w/ me however. I think the majority are just fine, a few of them I do not see the point of. But it looks like I am going to have to make it blatantly obvious; I like the Lord of the Rings movies. I do not like Peter Jackson. I think after LOTR, he will disappear once again into obscurity.

Haha, those were utter crap. Though, everytime I hear about them, people say they like them. *shrug*

Er, no. People liked the animated one just fine. PJ had nothing to do with the screenplay except the addition of worthless scenes. Plus, consider the amount of FoTR sold after the movie... I wonder how many finished that. Having mainstream appeal isn't everything. Like I said, everything was set up, he just had to knock em down. I strongly suspect that he was something of a last resort in the selection process... someone who would do it cheap since Tolkien already set up EVERYTHING. The story really isn't that complicated, its cutting through Tolkien's jungle of a writing style. I see people suggesting that PJ should direct all kinds of movies on forums etc. when it really would be a waste of time. You want a director for LOTR? Something with such a large amount of reference material? *hands you a phone book* As I said before, I like the movies. There is just not much relevancy in his contributions. <_< As for Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles et all; sure they're fun as novelties, but they both could have been directed by a 100 foot ape.

Lucas hasn't been over-rated for a long time. I remember people dumping on him since Howard the Duck. However, GL is probably over-rated in my mind, but that's just because he is king of all geeks. I love how he can say "wookie" etc... with a straight face. He loves the world he created, whether everyone else does or not.

I'm not too big a fan of Kong. So he can do whatever he wants to it.

Moderating makes one...bitter...doesn't it? No, its just that he's getting all this credit and he really had nothing to do with it except the stupid parts that he felt the need to add. Tolkien had mad reference materials, including art. Look at all his other movies and you'll see what a no-talent hack he is. I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises. PS- On the whole, I like the LOTR movies, but I know that he had little to do with this fact.

So it will fit right in with the rest of the SW Movies

Peter Jackson sucks balls.

Well, they were pretty much wiped out after the first battle. The cavalry was upon them and I do not think that they had the opportunity to regroup... at least not effectively. Carpe Diem. As for the cavalry uniform; he rejected the bureaucracy that had turned warriors with honor into pawns for said bureaucracy. Better than Braveheart and Gladiator? Perhaps, but the overall theme of the Warrior Code is still there.

I think its more of a mock sophistication.

in the extras they say it is Greedo... but it isn't canon I don't think.

I just think the OT needs to be taken down from its pedestal.

Christiansen was exactly how Vader was supposed to be when he was young. I was like "ahhhh, of course he's impulsive and whiny! He's like Luke Skywalker!" Portman was like 12 in that movie, she just had to act like a sad 12 year old.

come on pfunk, you're 29... I would think that it would take more than that to phase you.

Nope not a big deal. I just assumed that there was some way since I see some members have post counts in the 1000s after only 3 months. That's insane to think they accumulated that much in so little time! It took me 3 years to get to 600+ on the old board. Anyways, thanks for the info. Yeah, post-whoring can get you far.