# Peter Jackson Silmarillion yay or nay?



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

Posted this thread in the film section of Tvtropes forum thoughts I'd post it here too.

So coming out of the theater after seeing "The Hobbit": Desolation of Smaug I gotta say it did a lot of good over some points in the book. It beautifully cleans up mistakes which were the reasons for the short-comings of the first film of the trilogy and so driving I'm thinking "Why the fuck not make this happen?" 

It'd be epic 


​
Above: Christopher Tolkien in 1996



> _What follows is the first ever press interview of Christopher Tolkien, the official executor of J.R.R. Tolkien's estate, and the interpreter of his father's unpublished works. This original article and interview appeared in Le Monde on July 9, 2012. With the film version of the The Hobbit hitting theaters, we are publishing it for the first time here in English._





> "I could write a book on the idiotic requests I have received," sighs Christopher Tolkien. He is trying to protect the literary work from the three-ring circus that has developed around it. In general, the Tolkien Estate refuses almost all requests. "Normally, the executors of the estate want to promote a work as much as they can," notes Adam Tolkien, the son of Christopher and Baillie. "But we are just the opposite. We want to put the spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings."
> 
> Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
> 
> This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."





Quoting someone comment section of shorter version of the full article: Christopher's son and his *FATHER's* grandson even made a fucking cameo in Return of the king.

This petulant twit is being a brat and has no idea what in the bloody hell he is talking about. His whole babble off are the words of an ingrate and total moron.

To further my argument here's a quote from one of the users from the article comment section:



> Books don't translate to film word for word or even tonally, especially a Tolkien book. If anything these movies have driven more people to go back a read the books. He must of asked the studio for something and didn't get it so now he is a whiny brat. Shame on this fool.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 15, 2013)

As long as Jackson not directing it.

They should have just went with Silmarillion to begin with, instead of trying to make an "epic" out of Hobbit.
But it has no Gandalf gandalfing, so it won't sell as much.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 15, 2013)

Jackson disappeared up his own ass to make a good film.


----------



## martryn (Dec 15, 2013)

Make it on HBO and I will be on board.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Joakim Mogren

Unless Peter Jackson faces off against Christopher Tolkien in a wrestling match he can't go anywhere near Silmarillion. Christopher owns the rights to the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin.


----------



## Yasha (Dec 15, 2013)

The naysayer in me has doubts that anyone could have successfully adapted Silmarillion without butchering it. Just try to visualize the Music of Ainur. I know I can't. Yet there is another side of me who wants to see someone attempt it simply because Silmarillion is my favourite Tolkien's work.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

Please no, just no.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> Unless Peter Jackson faces off against Christopher Tolkien in a wrestling match


They should just make a movie about that. I'd go see it.


----------



## Louis-954 (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Joakim Mogren
> 
> Unless Peter Jackson faces off against Christopher Tolkien in a wrestling match he can't go anywhere near Silmarillion. Christopher owns the rights to the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin.


I hope you know that the Tolkien's haven't profited a *dime* off the Hobbit or LotR movie trilogies. I don't blame him for saying "fuck you Peter Jackson and fuck you Hollywood." The Silmarillion is his inheritance and he has *the right* to protect its integrity from incompetent twits like Peter Jackson.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

No one has the rights to turn Silmarillion into a movie so it's not happening in the future, and I hope it stays that way. I want see something original, hasn't there been enough of movie adaptions of books, comics and such. Hell, most blockblusters are mostly based on comic books or sequels these days.
I haven't read the Silmarillion yet so I am not sure but I understood it's not even fit as a movie?

Waiting for the next Nolan's and Tarantino's movies...

Even though I understand why Christopher Tolkien is disappointed how the movies turned out to be, don't you think that maybe he could have affected to how they would have been if he had accepted Jackon's invitation? I think he's a bit harsh there, he didn't even write those books.

*BUT* if they are making a Silmarillion movie some day, I would prefer PJ to direct it aswell since it's his vision that has been put into films so far. It would probably be too weird to see someone's else vision there now. And what if the new director would want to use new composer for music? I personally prefer Howard Shore's music for Middle-Earth. I can't imagine for example John Williams's work. (even though he is one of the great composers out there)


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

As long as Peter Jackson is directing it i'm down. I also agree that Chris is being a whiny little bitch. The LOTR movies elevated the books like never before. I know a lot of people that didn't read the books prior to watching the movie and the movies made them go and read the books. This is actually the case for a lot of people. 

and lol @ idiots downplaying jackson because the Hobbit isn't as good as they thought it would be. The LOTR trilogy is still a masterpiece and the greatest fantasy movies of all time. Given the material in Silmarillion, Jackson would be able to make movies more similar to LOTR than the Hobbit but i bet half these guys haven't even read it.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

> The Silmarillion is his inheritance and he has the right to protect *its integrity* from incompetent twits like Peter Jackson.



Yeah because the Lord of the Rings being hailed as a masterpiece that influenced a countless number of people to delve into the world of Tolkien really fucked up its "integrity". Shut up.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Louis-954

I'm sorry dude,but that's bullshit.

The Lord Of The Rings/Hobbit/Silmarillion verse is a success thanks to Peter Jackson. 

Shit the whole world knows about Tolkien's works because of Peter Jackson. And because of him the books are a worldwide success. Christopher Tolkien doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Shit, I read the books and I still prefer the film over the original material for some key moments in LOTR. I mean Tolkien did practically jack with Radagast in contrast to Peter Jackson.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

Um, don't you mean that Peter Jackson is a success because of Tolkein? All of those stories you just cited were famous well before Peter Jackson was even born. 

Just because some of you guys are young and uncultured doesn't mean that those stories were not world famous and heavily influential. I've heard of both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings way before the Fellowship movie came out, and I was just a normal kid who barely read books.


----------



## Louis-954 (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Louis-954
> 
> I'm sorry dude,but that's bullshit.
> 
> ...


:rofl

The Hobbit and LotR were world famous long before Peter Jackson got his hands on the intellectual property rights to make movies. Why the hell do you think people went to see the movie adaptions in the first place?


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Violent By Design

Believe it or not buddy but there's still a wall of difference between jotting down the dialogue and other story elements that you thought up into a 300+ page novel and translating that to a film. It's the same for the difficulty level for when adapting those details and the actors and everyone else during production has a grasp of the terminology, and are in tune with the character who they are portraying.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Violent By Design
> 
> Believe it or not buddy but there's still a wall of difference between jotting down the dialogue and other story elements that you thought up into a 300+ page novel and translating that to a film. It's the same for the difficulty level for when adapting those details and the actors and everyone else during production has a grasp of the terminology, and are in tune with the character who they are portraying.



What does this have anything to do with what I said?



*Spoiler*: __ 





> Um, don't you mean that Peter Jackson is a success because of Tolkein? All of those stories you just cited were famous well before Peter Jackson was even born.
> 
> Just because some of you guys are young and uncultured doesn't mean that those stories were not world famous and heavily influential. I've heard of both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings way before the Fellowship movie came out, and I was just a normal kid who barely read books.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

Louis-954 said:


> Why the hell do you think people went to see the movie adaptions in the first place?



Answer me this question first: Which do you think people have more familiarity with? The book or the movie in the 21st century? 

I'm not saying that the book was never that much of a franchise success; the film however, drew more attention towards the franchise and the books.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

Jackson needs to retire.  

I'm tired of his boring films wasting good holiday season release slots.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Violent By Design

Excuse me? Are you seriously insinuating that people without knowledge of the books are "young and uncultured"? Seriously? Dude, I am as much of a book reader as the next articulate bookworm you see quietly reading in the library.

Also nice job misinterpreting my entire post. I said the movies made Tolkien *MORE* famous.  It also made more people read those books. The series wasn't as commercialized as you believe it was during Tolkien's time. Peter Jackson's films did.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> Answer me this question first: Which do you think people have more familiarity with? The book or the movie in the 21st century?


 How can you quantify that? 

Even if you could, how does that mean anything? You said their success is due to Peter Jackson, which is false. Just because they had success in a more mainstream medium doesn't mean that the original source material is not more iconic. They have different standards, and LOTR as a book is more successful and dominant than LOTR was as a movie franchise. 



> I'm not saying that the book was never that much of a franchise success; the film however, drew more attention towards the franchise and the books.



I's the highest selling book of all time, and the Hobbit is right up there with it. Next you're going to tell me that Stan Lee should thank Raimi for making the Spiderman movies or Merry Shelley should thank the lord that Warner Brothers made Frankenstein.

It's called an adaption bro. There's a reason why Peter Jackson wanted to make a movie on LOTR. It's because he knew it'd make money.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

lol.  F Scott Fitzgerald owes Leo and company for making Gatsby.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

Rukia said:


> Jackson needs to retire.
> 
> I'm tired of his boring films wasting good holiday season release slots.



Then don't watch his movies for christ sake. 

How can any movie waste "slots" for holiday season, it's not like there can be only certain amount of movies in a year.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> Um, don't you mean that Peter Jackson is a success because of Tolkein? All of those stories you just cited were famous well before Peter Jackson was even born.
> 
> Just because some of you guys are young and uncultured doesn't mean that those stories were not world famous and heavily influential. I've heard of both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings way before the Fellowship movie came out, and I was just a normal kid who barely read books.



No shit it was world famous and heavily influential. The point is that Jackson's movies increased the interest dramatically and especially in the 21st century where it was waning. Just look at the prevalence of LOTR merchandise in the past 10 years. 



> The Hobbit and LotR were world famous long before Peter Jackson got his hands on the intellectual property rights to make movies. Why the hell do you think people went to see the movie adaptions in the first place?



The success that it has experienced in the 21st century is due to Jackson's movies. If Jackson had not made the movies, the LOTR verse wouldn't be even NEARLY as successful as it is. Obviously without Tolkien there would be no success but you goods aren't criticizing Tolkien; you are criticizing Jackson.

There is no reason to believe that Jackson would do a bad job on an adaptation like this given his success with the LOTR. The Hobbit may not be as successful or as critically acclaimed but they are still good adaptations (so far). You guy also fail to realize how fucking difficult it is to adapt such work.




			
				Joakim Morgen said:
			
		

> As long as Jackson not directing it.





I wonder how LOTR would have been if "jackson" did not direct it.

I see a lot of hipsters in this thread.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Violent By Design
> 
> Excuse me? Are you seriously insinuating that people without knowledge of the books are "young and uncultured"? Seriously? Dude, I am as much of a book reader as the next articulate bookworm you see quietly reading in the library.


Uh...yes? If you don't know what Lord of the Rings is, then you are either very young or uncultured. No other way around that, if you fall under that category, then you're either really young (like elementary school) or uncultured. If you're a book worm and you didn't know what LOTR is, then wow. Next someone is gonna be a football fan and not know who Jim Brown is. 

We're not even talking about an obscure book, we're talking about a huge fantasy novel that inspired many sub genres. 



> Also nice job misinterpreting my entire post. I said the movies made Tolkien *MORE* famous.  It also made more people read those books. The series wasn't as commercialized as you believe it was during Tolkien's time. Peter Jackson's films did.


Considering the gap between Tolkiens time and Jackson's time is pretty large, that isn't saying much. The series was commercialized enough by the time the movies came around.

I still don't get your point. Every movie adaption makes a book series more popular, regardless if the movie was successful or not.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

I don't watch his movies.  But they still hurt me.  Some other project didn't get made because the funds were given to Jackson instead.

Additionally.  I stand by my slot remark.  You don't know how studios work apparently.  Studios typically announce when their big films are going to come out almost a year in advance.  And other studios respond by avoiding those dates.  Pretty simple.


----------



## Yasha (Dec 15, 2013)

Rukia be trolling.




> if they are making a Silmarillion movie some day, I would prefer PJ to direct it



This.

Not to say he will succeed (because Silmarillion is difficult to translate into movie), but if there's anyone who could do it, it's PJ.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

If anything The Hobbit is exactly why Peter Jackson shouldn't do any more Tolkien stuff. The Hobbit is done in the same tone with LOTR, when it is nothing like LOTR.

If Jackson can't even properly adapt the Hobbit how is he going to do the Silmarillion? It will require a director who is more abstract and sublime than Jackson.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

Good point VBD.  Hard to argue with that.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> No shit it was world famous and heavily influential. The point is that Jackson's movies increased the interest dramatically and especially in the 21st century where it was waning. Just look at the prevalence of LOTR merchandise in the past 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Rukia said:


> *I don't watch his movies. * But they still hurt me.  Some other project didn't get made because the funds were given to Jackson instead.
> 
> Additionally.  I stand by my slot remark.  You don't know how studios work apparently.  Studios typically announce when their big films are going to come out almost a year in advance.  And other studios respond by avoiding those dates.  Pretty simple.



So you haven't seen any of his movies but yet you don't like them? I knew you had bad taste, but this is just stupid.

[QUOTEViolent by design]The series was commercialized enough by the time the movies came around.[/QUOTE]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You're one of those guys that dislikes the fact that the movies are so popular and so you believe that thinking they are overrated makes you stand out.



> Thanks partly to filmmaker Peter Jackson, the Tolkien brand has never been stronger. *Fully one-third of the 150 million* copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series.





The Lord of the rings was published in 1949.

1949-2001 = 100 million

2001-2007 = 50 million

Do I even need to extrapolate further on what these figures mean? Do you now understand the influence of the movies?


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

I think things lean the other way to tell you the truth.   Two thirds of his sales occurred before the movies came out.  He didn't need Jackson.  100 million in sales.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> So you haven't seen any of his movies but yet you don't like them? I knew you had bad taste, but this is just stupid.
> 
> [QUOTEViolent by design]The series was commercialized enough by the time the movies came around.



You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You're one of those guys that dislikes the fact that the movies are so popular and so you believe that thinking they are overrated makes you stand out.[/quote]

Rofl what? You're saying LOTR wasn't commercialized prior to the films coming out? Is this real life?


First off, your just a typical moron who assumes that because someone says something about something popular they are a hipster. Lord of the Rings is a shitty book, and the movies are better. That's hardly a "hipster" opinion, so stop stereotyping just because people don't overrate the same shitty stuff you like.

Doesn't change the fact that LOTR didn't need a movie franchise to be a world renowned and popular. It was popular way before LOTR the movies came out. Did the movies broaden its demograph? Um, yes? Movies are more popular than books. What does that have to do with quality? 






> The Lord of the rings was published in 1949.
> 
> 1949-2001 = 100 million
> 
> ...



Actually, do you know what those figures mean?

You do realize the post you quoted said "the books were long commercialized before the films"

You then posted figures that actually proved what I said was right.

You do realize that LOTR doing 100 million by the time the movies came out, still meant that it was the third highest selling novel ever right? Like, what your saying is the equivalent of saying that Harry Potter wasn't commercialized before its movie (it's actually even far crazier than that). Though I am sure you and Bender will tell me that no one knew what Harry Potter was before its movies too. 


Did the movies boost the sales for those books? Absolutely, hence the sales increase in the past decade. Did it make LOTR commercialized? Um, no..? It was already a household name.


And to put things in perspective, you do realize that when Fellowship of the Ring came out, there was already a core fanbase of *100 million people* wanting to see the movie just because of its title right? Those 100 million people told other people that LOTR was going to be fucking sick as soon as the trailer was shown. 

LOTR would have made a ton of movie whether it was a good or bad movie, just like the Spiderman movies did. That is the point of an *adaption*, to already hawk a preexisting fanbase, and as you can tell by the sales figures you just cited LOTR already had a huge fanbase way before the movies came out.

People adapt movies because it is easy marketing. No one needs to thank Jackson for jack shit.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

I also don't find the reaction of the Tolkien family to be so appalling.  Did Stephen King like the The Shining?  Is Alan Moore happy when one of his works is made into a film?  It's perfectly natural to be defensive.  This is basically the family legacy at this point.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Violent By Design

You have idea what the hell it is you're talking about buddy-boy.

I knew about "The Hobbit" book because of that cartoon film.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> There is no reason except
> 
> LOTR isn't like the Silmarillion
> 
> ...



lmao how dense are you? What I am "basically" saying is that aside from Jackson being a very good director; Jackson has had the experience of making both the LOTR and the Hobbit; he would therefore be the "best" candidate to make a "good" adaptation out of Silmarillion. Moreover, Jackson is a massive fan of the Lord of the Rings. These are all very good reasons for why Jackson would be best suited to make an adaptation.





> *Probably still pretty good assuming it still had a 300 million dollar budget and it was given to a good director. *
> 
> Peter Jackson is nothing special, did a great job with LOTR but he's nothing with out a huge budget. How good was King Kong?



Yeah because all it takes is a "good" director to make a near-flawless movie. Your claims are utterly ridiculous. I guess There Will be Blood would have been as good without Anderson at the helm. The Dark Knight trilogy would have still probably been pretty good without Nolan. All of these directors that have made a name for themselves making great movies are nobody special; any good director would have still made it as good. 

Yeah I loved King King btw.



> The Hobbit is done in the same tone with LOTR, when it is nothing like LOTR.



Except it isn't done in the same tone with LOTR. I dont even know what the hell you're talking about now.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

> Shit the whole world knows about Tolkien's works because of Peter Jackson



The most influential cornerstone of modern literary fantasy in history
>The whole world knows about tolkien's work because of peter jackson

hooooooly shit why do people even let you post any more


----------



## Zhen Chan (Dec 15, 2013)

Simarillion was a boring book and would make for a suicide worthy movie


----------



## Rukia (Dec 15, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> The most influential cornerstone of modern literary fantasy in history
> >The whole world knows about tolkien's work because of peter jackson
> 
> hooooooly shit why do people even let you post any more


I think this guy is joking.  Surely he will be satisfied after the Hobbit is completed.  That will be 18 hours of the same repetitive nonsense.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

I can't wait for the 50 Shades of Grey movie. That series is really underrated!! If it had a movie, then more people would know what it is!!


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> Peter Jackson is nothing special, did a great job with LOTR but he's nothing with out a huge budget. How good was King Kong?



I thought King Kong was pretty good. It has good reviews in Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.



heavy_rasengan said:


> The Dark Knight trilogy would have still probably been pretty good without Nolan. All of these directors that have made a name for themselves making great movies are nobody special; any good director would have still made it as good.



I kinda agree and disagree with this. True, any good director could make a good movie, but I think The Dark Knight trilogy was so good specifically because of how Nolan envisioned it, more realistically and less like a comic book-like how Burton's Batmans were.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Guriko of Suzuran

Silmarillion is one of the best history-laden type films.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Violent By Design

King Kong was fucking epic city.

Hell it's one of those films that won Academy Awards chum.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> First off, your just a *typical moron who assumes that because someone says something* about something popular they are a hipster. Lord of the Rings is a shitty book, and the movies are better. That's hardly a "hipster" opinion, so stop stereotyping just because people don't overrate the same *shitty *stuff you like.



Calls me out for stereotyping as he stereotypes himself. You truly are one dense fuck.



> Doesn't change the fact that LOTR didn't need a movie franchise to be a world renowned and popular. It was popular way before LOTR the movies came out. Did the movies broaden its demograph? Um, yes? Movies are more popular than books. What does that have to do with quality?



Nice strawman. When did I claim that it "needed" a movie franchise to be world renown and popular? I have merely claimed that the movies renewed a surge of interest for the books and the verse in general. My statement has been backed up with evidence. 





> Did the movies boost the sales for those books? Absolutely, hence the sales increase in the past decade. Did it make LOTR commercialized? Um, no..? It was already a household name.



It made LOTR more commercialized than EVER BEFORE. 




> People adapt movies because it is easy marketing. No one needs to thank Jackson for jack shit.



If the movies were shit, people would be less interested to read the books. This is common sense. Because the movies were so damn good, there was a resurgence of interest towards the books. Without the movies, Tolkien sold 100 million in 52 years. With the movies, Tolkien sold 50 million in 6 years. This is a massive figure and downplaying Jacksons involvement in it is just retarded.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

Pain comes to those still sore
Truth hurts the butt so tender
And who of all could hurt more
Than in truth, a butt like bender


Rukia said:


> I think this guy is joking.  Surely he will be satisfied after the Hobbit is completed.  That will be 18 hours of the same repetitive nonsense.



And enough singing dwarves to make Snow White look like Simon Cowell


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Sauron said:
			
		

> I kinda agree and disagree with this. True, any good director could make a good movie, but I think The Dark Knight trilogy was so good specifically because of how Nolan envisioned it, more realistically and less like a comic book-like how Burton's Batmans were



I was being sarcastic....I believe the same and I believe that the LOTR movies were so good because of how Jackson envisioned it. Then we have retards like VBD saying; "derpp any director could have made it good". What a ridiculously stupid claim.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

> It made LOTR more commercialized than EVER BEFORE.



So did fucking Twilight, how's that an argument?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

yeah man, everyone knows how Eragon nearly went into bankrupcy after that terrible avril lavigne movie and couldn't even finish it's four volume trillogy of doorstoppers


----------



## martryn (Dec 15, 2013)

> If anything The Hobbit is exactly why Peter Jackson shouldn't do any more Tolkien stuff. The Hobbit is done in the same tone with LOTR, when it is nothing like LOTR.
> 
> If Jackson can't even properly adapt the Hobbit how is he going to do the Silmarillion? It will require a director who is more abstract and sublime than Jackson.



I agree with this statement.  The Lord of the Rings was epic in scope.  Gravitas.  The Hobbit was fanciful.  A children's book.  Peter Jackson is making both trilogies with the same tone, which is somewhere in between the two.  The Hobbit is too serious, and contains too much Legolas.  The Lord of the Rings was too fanciful.  Too much stupid humor, turning characters like Gimli into a joke, and turning entire segments of the movie into what looked like props for video games.  

I love the Lord of the Rings movies.  I love them mostly because I'm a fan of the books.  I'm embarrassed by parts of those movies, and can't help but think what a different director would have done with those films, that budget, and that cast of actors.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> So did fucking Twilight, how's that an argument?



Why don't you read the whole thread before making stupid comments? An argument for what? Do you even know what I am arguing for?


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Violent By Design
> 
> King Kong was fucking epic city.
> 
> Hell it's one of those films that won Academy Awards chum.



For it's technical aspects only, not that winning an Academy Award means much anyway.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

lol @ logic "people adapt films because they're easy".

If that's true how the fuck come Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin sucked bigger and harder dick than the director ever did in his whole cock-loving life?


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Samavarti

IT still got praised as being true to the spirit of the old King Kong film.

Departed movie Roger Ebert even gave it four stars and called it "best film of 2005". 

So tell me what was that about Peter Jackson being terrible again guys?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

>Bragging about  Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Visual Effects.

Good lord


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

King Kong is slammed by just about every film enthusiast out there. The only reason why it is even decent is because of its gigantic budget. I like it more than most, and it's like a 5/10 movie. 

If you think King Kong and the Hobbit are great movies, maybe you just have bad taste and low standards. Hard to swallow, I know. 



Bender said:


> lol @ logic "people adapt films because they're easy".
> 
> If that's true how the fuck come Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin sucked bigger and harder dick than the director ever did in his whole cock-loving life?



No one said it is easy to make a film adaption, you're just making a strawman because you're salty.

And if anything mentioning Batman & Robin hurts your argument, because Batman and Robin sold a lot simply because it was Batman. Lord of the Rings sold a lot, because it was Lord of the bloody Rings. If Lord of the Rings was a bad movie, it would have sold a lot simply because of name recognition.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@heavy_Rasengan

Do yourself a favor and try not to respond to Ban too much. It's the wise thing to do. Especially, for the sake of your sanity.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

>Bragging about using someone else's ideas well
>Ignoring major director criticism such as length and pace


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Samavarti
> 
> IT still got praised as being true to the spirit of the old King Kong film.
> 
> ...



And the Academy Award you were you using to praise the movie just a few post ago disagree, as do a bunch of other critics.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> @heavy_Rasengan
> 
> Do yourself a favor and try not to respond to Ban too much. It's the wise thing to do. Especially, for the sake of your sanity.



Your shame is expected and fills me with pride I must say


----------



## Yasha (Dec 15, 2013)

If you're not from English-speaking countries and not an avid reader of fantasy genre, chances are you haven't heard of Lord of the Rings until the movie franchise came out. The books were translated into many foreign languages for the first time after the phenomenal success of the movies. The trilogy expanded the international fanbase of the series exponentially.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Violent By Design

Dude, it's also because it continued from the Tim Burton films that it sold well. After Batman Forever we thought we'd see something just as good. WE didn't.

Lord Of The Rings trilogy did not do well just because it was "Lord of the rings" it was because of how beautifully it did review-wise as well.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

Yasha said:


> If you're not from English-speaking countries and not an avid reader of fantasy genre, chances are you haven't heard of Lord of the Rings until the movie franchise came out. The books were translated into many foreign languages for the first time after the phenomenal success of the movies. The trilogy expanded the international fanbase of the series exponentially.



THANK YOU.

@ Ban and Violent By Design

Yasha pointed out precisely the fuck I was saying.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

But that is ultimately a problem with global literacy, not the value of art


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 15, 2013)

So you are saying Joel Schumacher sold so only because the fame of someone else work and brand recognition?


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

And that doesn't defuse the fact that the books did more for the movies than vice versa. It is a silly point to say thanks to Jackson the LOTR are more popular than ever. No  shit they're more popular, but it gives a silly implication that Jackson is responsible for LOTR's success.

It's literally the same thing as saying Raimi is responsible for the success of the Spiderman movies. It's safe to say a lot more people have seen a Spiderman movie than read a Spiderman comic in the past 10 years. It's just a stupid point to try to hype Jackson into something he isn't.

And for what it is worth, a lot of directors could have made a good LOTR movie if they had a 300 million dollar budget. Peter Jackson isn't even a top 100 director. Cameron who I don't care for could have made LOTR with half the budget. Stop pretending like Jackson is Orson Welles.

And no one actually explained why him making the Simarillion is a good idea. If your logic is because if Jackson makes it it can be similar to LOTR, then the adaption would already fail before production stars. Those books may take place in the same canon but they are written entirely differently, if anything it is more reason for a different director to have their take on it. 

They already dropped the ball with The Hobbit, even if the Hobbit ends up a decent series it's still going to come off as LOTR lite, when it shouldn't.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I was being sarcastic....I believe the same and I believe that the LOTR movies were so good because of how Jackson envisioned it. Then we have retards like VBD saying; "derpp any director could have made it good". What a ridiculously stupid claim.



I agree that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is so good partly because how PJ envisioned it. And don't forget, alot of other people who worked to make the movies happen were also big fans to the books. Personally I believe the main reason why the movies were a success was because it was made by fans of the books.



martryn said:


> Too much stupid humor, *turning characters like Gimli into a joke*, and turning entire segments of the movie into what looked like props for video games.



From the extended editions my ONLY dislikes are those "goofy-Gimli" moments. It was a right decision to cut them from the theater version.

I don't agree with video game part though, Hobbit looked like a video game in some parts though, but not LOTR in my opinion.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Samavarti

Joel Schumacher got those people that he did to see Batman and Robin was because of the moderate success of Batman and Robin. If not that then we'd never eve had acknowledged that piece of shit.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> THANK YOU.
> 
> @ Ban and Violent By Design
> 
> Yasha pointed out precisely the fuck I was saying.



So, much like a certain Director, you're humping at someone else's work to parade as your own?
Reminds me back of when you plagiarized caf? threads from other sites comment sections

Anyway, yes, kudos to Yasha for discovering the mysterious power of marketing..

Or you know, the book being the house hold institution in all fantasy in the turning epoch of globalization, who just so happened to coincide in the time the trilogy first came out

Truth is, I work with lots of eighteen to twenty one year olds right now, and actually 80% haven't seen a single LOTR movie, because it was "before their time" and don't have a fucking clue who gandalf is either way, but in the literary circles, tolkien still is as famous as he always was, moreso now that people can better talk to one another about their logophilic endeavors

I can point and laugh at the useless posturing going about in this thread all day long, but truth is, all I have to do is wait a little longer to be vindicated, and then point and laugh again


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Sauron

Aye, some of those traits are what defines the most iconic and key moments for a film in theater history.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 15, 2013)

LOTR was already translated and distributed all over the world. A lot of the major markets had been exposed to LOTR. You have to take into account that Yasha is from Malaysia. 

LOTR has a presence in US, Latin America, Europe & Oceania. Maybe it didn't have one in Asia, so yes the movies did help it expand, but it's still lolsworthy to not say the momentum from the original source material wasn't why the film was not a huge success. 

If they made a Catcher in the Rye movie, you don't think it would sell like hot cakes? Or is that book not famous either?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

The Great Gatsby wasn't worthy of wiping my ass before the glorious baz luhrman rubbed Leonardo DiCapprio's sweet sweet face all over it


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Violent By Design

And Peter jackson's films popularized it more than it was before.

EDIT:

Catcher in The Rye is too much of a classic and deserving of its current medium as a book. That and I want to respect the author's wishes to not convert it to a film.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 15, 2013)

Ahem

I'm just gonna post this here



			
				Bender said:
			
		

> I knew about "The Hobbit" book because of that cartoon film.



And just sit here laughing while I wait for an actual peer


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 15, 2013)

Bender said:


> P
> 
> This petulant twit is being a brat and has no idea what in the bloody hell he is talking about. His whole babble off are the words of an ingrate and total moron.
> 
> To further my argument here's a quote from one of the users from the article comment section:



That article its lying, they didnt dislike the Lord of the rings movies. But I am helluva sure that they havent liked the Hobbit movies one single bit.

Also PJ has proven that he should Not be doing the story and if he directs then its with a bloody leash, cause otherwise he WILL make BS. Like in the hobbit movies.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> That article its lying,* they didnt dislike the Lord of the rings movies.* But I am helluva sure that they havent liked the Hobbit movies one single bit.



Source? I haven't found a single article where he would have said liking LOTR movies.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2013)

Did Bender just suggested that Batman Forever and the Burton movies was good?


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Did Bender just suggested that Batman Forever and the Burton movies was good?



Did you just suggest that Burton's Batman movies weren't good?


----------



## dream (Dec 15, 2013)

I just want a high quality Morgoth vs Fingolfin fight.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2013)

They weren't.

But I love 'em anyway.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2013)

When you can show me anything that is actually Batman beside some one dressed like him I will concede.

-Batman kills
- Catwoman some secretary not a cat burglar 
- army of penguins with rockets
- physically useless Alfred 
-  Penguin as some circus freak.
- the Batwig shot down by a hand gun

Etc



Okay I am done derailig the thread my bad Bender.


As for the thread as I said earlier the book is too complicated to be properly adapted.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Danger Doom

It's cool. 

I'm honestly more concerned by the thread's direction on Tvtropes forum than I am for the one here.

EDIT:

lol hopes you're joking if you think that I said Schumacher's films were good. I'm saying that Batman Forever was decent. It strongly strode the line between shit and god awful.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2013)

Oh you better think forever was shit because that was he film that introduced us to Batnipples.


----------



## dream (Dec 15, 2013)

The Wachowskis directing a Silmarillion adaption...yay or hell no?


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Danger Doom


(Thinking)

What the fuck was I thinking..oh crap I totally forgot I'm channeling my mom's idiotic thinking and what-the-fuck-his face who played Bruce Wayne was good.


----------



## The World (Dec 15, 2013)

I would like to see the Silmarillion adapted someday

I don't care if it's by Peter Jackson or whoever as long as they love the books and are competent.


----------



## The World (Dec 15, 2013)

What I really want is a masterpiece of cinema but a man can dream


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 15, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> *King Kong is slammed by just about every film enthusiast out there.* The only reason why it is even decent is because of its gigantic budget. I like it more than most, and it's like a 5/10 movie.
> 
> If you think King Kong and the Hobbit are great movies, maybe you just have bad taste and low standards. Hard to swallow, I know.



Why don't you stop pulling figures out of your ass? 

)



> The film received generally positive reviews from critics. The films holds an 84% "Certified Fresh" rating on aggregate review site Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 7.7/10 based on 258 reviews. The site's consensus from the collected reviews was *"Featuring state-of-the-art special effects, terrific performances, and a majestic sense of spectacle, Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong is a potent epic that's faithful to the spirit of the 1933 original."*[38] The film's most common criticism was its excessive length and lack of pace but was *regarded as one of "a few good epics" and was placed it on several 'top ten' critics lists.*[39] Roger Ebert gave the film four stars, and listed it as 2005's eighth best film.[40] The film received four Academy Award nominations for Visual Effects, Sound Mixing (Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges, Hammond Peek), Sound Editing, and Production Design, winning all but the last.[41][42]



"King Kong is slammed by just about every film enthusiast out there."

Derppp 

Don't make ignorant claims just to look stupid after. lol armchair critics. 




			
				Banhammer said:
			
		

> >Bragging about using someone else's ideas well
> *>Ignoring major director criticism such as length and pace*



lol what the fuck? You do realize that the Lord of the rings was universally acclaimed and that Peter Jackson won an oscar for directing?



> And for what it is worth, a lot of directors could have made a good LOTR movie if they had a 300 million dollar budget. Peter Jackson isn't even a top 100 director. Cameron who I don't care for could have made LOTR with half the budget. Stop pretending like Jackson is Orson Welles.



No he couldn't and there is a difference between making a "good" movie and making a "masterpiece". A lot of directors could have made a "good" movie but there is nothing to suggest that any of them could make a masterpiece like Jacksons.

The Lord of the Rings was a major financial success. The Lord of the Rings was universally acclaimed among audiences. The Lord of the Rings was universally acclaimed among critics earning 90%+ each film and the Lord of the Rings was nominated for 30 oscars in which it won 17. In EVERY aspect, the Lord of the Rings was a complete success and yet you would have me believe that ANY good director could replicate these results?


----------



## The World (Dec 15, 2013)

Yasha said:


> The debate on whether the books popularized the movies or the other way around was silly.
> 
> Also, people's discrediting or downplaying PJ's contribution to LotR success did rustle my jimmy a little. Having seen the Harry Potter production crew managed to turn such a fantastic source material into crappy adaptation makes me appreciate PJ and his crew even more. I am not convinced that any directors could have done better with the LotR project given the same cast, budget, etc. PJ's personal childhood passion in the source material and his own vision on the world created by Tolkien shone through the trilogy and played a major role in making the movies impressive as they are. These are the intangibles that are not easy to replace.



Yasha you're wisdom makes my naughty bits fuzzy and warm


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 16, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Why don't you stop pulling figures out of your ass?
> 
> )
> 
> ...



I mention film enthusiast, you counter with rotten tomatoes. Enough said.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 16, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> When you can show me anything that is actually Batman beside some one dressed like him I will concede.
> 
> -Batman kills
> - Catwoman some secretary not a cat burglar
> ...



*When you can show me anything that is actually Batman beside some one dressed like him I will concede.* For a movies that were made in 1989 and 1992 I think Batman's costume looked nice. There are still people who thinks that it certainly looks better than Batman's costume in The Dark Knight trilogy.

*-Batman kills* This is probably your only fair point here.

*- Catwoman some secretary not a cat burglar * So what if she was secretary at the beginning? She became cat burglar once she was Catwoman.

*- army of penguins with rockets* Villain was Penguin after all and it was Tim Burton's movie. And these weren't realistic-like Batman films like Nolan's movies, I don't see how it's a problem that a villain named Penguin uses real penguins for his plans in a comic book based movie.

*- physically useless Alfred * Alfred is just a butler after all, what did you expect him to do?

*-  Penguin as some circus freak.* I give you that he was different in the comics but it was Tim Burton's vision. It was different yes, but I think it was fine. Remember Venom in Spider-Man 3? 

*- the Batwig shot down by a hand gun* Yes, it's not realistic that Batwing was shot down by Joker's big gun but I am again using the point that these weren't supposed to be realistic-like films like Nolan's Batmans were. That ridiculous big gun was just another asset of Joker's, like how those penguins with rockets were Penguin's. If Batman's flying machine was shot down with a hand gun in Nolan's movies, I would agree.

Your only point I can somewhat understand here is that Batman kills people in those films, but if someone seriously thinks those are bad movies just because of that, then maybe he is taking them too seriously and shouldn't watch movies in the first place. It's not like he killed the main villains like Joker or Penguin, just some random thug. And although I admit I haven't seen the movies for a while I suspect those kills were there just for comedy purposes for the sake of the movie.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

^Those movies butcher their characters which made them great. You can't just slap someone in a black suit and call them Batman otherwise marvel would have made their own version and greatly capitalize on this success and Black Panther is no where in that league. 


The fact you think Alfred is just a butler tells me all I need to know about your argument. Alfred can physically hang with the best of the best after all he is a War Vet.

Selena didn't became a cat burglar in the film she just became some chic with 9 lives wanting revenge. Selena is more than just some psycho bitch. 
Except Penguin in Adam West Batman was more intimidating. 


All of Burton films have the same dark tone and Batman was just his excuse to continue it. The only thing he got right was the Batvoice and casting an attractive Catwoman. 


I can watch the first Burton Batman once in a while but the second is just a hot mess.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> I mention film enthusiast, you counter with rotten tomatoes. Enough said.



Why do you keep insisting on making yourself look like an idiot? Critics are not film enthusiasts? They get PAID to review movies and probably watch more movies than anyone else in the world but yet; they are not film enthusiasts? 

Even i was to dumb down to your ridiculous logic and assume that critics don't count.



> "King Kong is slammed by just about every film enthusiast out there."



How in the fuck can you make such a statement like this without consulting the "majority" of film enthusiasts out there? I mean, are you trying to look like as stupid as you are sounding right now?

Anyways, according to this idiot; 84% of the critics that gave King Kong good reviews have poor taste. The one's that put it in their top ten list must be especially useless. VBD and his battalion of armchair critics however have VERY good taste. I don't know how anyone takes you seriously here with such piss poor reasoning.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

When VBD says films enthusiasts he means the pretentious regulars in Konoha Theatre like Enno .


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 16, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> No he couldn't and there is a difference between making a "good" movie and making a "masterpiece". A lot of directors could have made a "good" movie but there is nothing to suggest that any of them could make a masterpiece like Jacksons.
> 
> The Lord of the Rings was a major financial success. The Lord of the Rings was universally acclaimed among audiences. The Lord of the Rings was universally acclaimed among critics earning 90%+ each film and the Lord of the Rings was nominated for 30 oscars in which it won 17. In EVERY aspect, the Lord of the Rings was a complete success and yet you would have me believe that ANY good director could replicate these results?


lel

The only reason LOTR turned out any good (and even then it's a line downhill) is because everyone involved worked with utmost output, since LOTR is the holy bible of nerds - 90% of those who work on movies. You take away the unparalleled efforts of set builders, designers, artists, engineers, composer, editor, actors, and you're left with Jackson's mediocre direction. The idea that he is the one who made LOTR movies any good, and just the general notion of people regarding any movie's success the solely director's archivement, is border line full retard.
Yes, any good director could have done either exactly as well, or better.

Also your obsession with insignificant awards and ratings, which are mainly instituted by producers to stroke their own ego cocks, is quite humorous and ignorant.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 16, 2013)

*"^Those movies butcher their characters which made them great. You can't just slap someone in a black suit and call them Batman otherwise marvel would have made their own version and greatly capitalize on this success and Black Panther is no where in that league."*

Are you sure you are not mixing the movies with Batman and Robin & Batman Forever? In those cases I could agree that the characters were butchered but not in the case of first two films.

*"The fact you think Alfred is just a butler tells me all I need to know about your argument. Alfred can physically hang with the best of the best after all he is a War Vet."*

"Alfred can physically hang with the best of the best"? Are you saying Alfred is supposed to go with Batman to beat thugs or something? I am not sure what your point is. I am not Batman expert, but isn't Alfred's role in helping Batman supposed to be in batcave and help him from there while Batman is the one going to field. How does "Alfred can physically hang with the best of the best" has anything to do with that? If you are an expert please enlighten me. Can you give me some example from the movie when you thought Alfred was "physically useless".

*"Selena didn't became a cat burglar in the film she just became some chic with 9 lives wanting revenge.*"

Yeah, she did had that room trashing scene and killed the guy who pushed her out of the window but she did also had the role of a cat burglar. Maybe you should watch the movie again.

"*The only thing he got right was the Batvoice and casting an attractive Catwoman."*

As with the rest of your points, I don't agree with this one either.

Apologies to Bender for making more off-topic posts in this thread. I guess this thread has had enough off-topic arguing aswell, so I'm gonna leave this Batman argument here since it's probably not going to lead anywhere and it is a matter of opinion after all.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

No I am spot on with Burton movies the fact that he kills without blinking is proof they butcher his character.

Alfred is more than " I will serve you tea master Wayne." He is a parental advisor that Bruce  respect utterly. There was no development on their relationship and Alfred was useless. Same can be said with the nonexisting buddy relationship with Bats and Gordon.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2013)

@Danger Doom

It's not just butchering man; Tim Burton is a well-known crackhead with his ideas. Hell, the dude even said he's not familiar with the Batman comics he just wanted to insert his input  in the Batverse and the usual dark and gothic theme that's present in all his films.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

Exactly Bender. 

 Burton has no range in his films. If you saw his idea for a Supes film he wanted to do with Nic Cage as Clark.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> lel
> 
> The only reason LOTR turned out any good (and even then it's a line downhill) is because everyone involved worked with utmost output, since LOTR is the holy bible of nerds - 90% of those who work on movies. You take away the unparalleled efforts of set builders, designers, artists, engineers, composer, editor, actors, and you're left with Jackson's mediocre direction. The idea that he is the one who made LOTR movies any good, and just the general notion of people regarding any movie's success the solely director's archivement, is border line full retard.



Your ignorance of the facts surrounding these movies and Peter Jackson is dully noted. Firstly, Peter Jackson was not only the "director" he was also a writer and producer for the films. Furthermore, Peter Jackson was largely responsible for gathering the crew responsible for all of the intricacies. If you even watched any of the "making of Lord of the Rings" videos you would see Jackson's influence on those set builders, designers, artists, engineers, composers etc. Many of them have outright claimed (in those videos) that Jackson pushed them to exhaustion in making sure everything is perfection. But knowing how stupid you are, you would probably retort with; "durr Jackson paid them to say it" or something similarly idiotic. No one has claimed that this achievement is solely Jacksons but given that Jackson was at the helm and that these movies would not have even been created without him; he definitely stands out.



> Yes, any good director could have done either exactly as well, or better.



No they couldn't. The Lord of the Rings was a groundbreaking achievement and its an insult to Jackson to claim that any good director could have replicated his results.



> Also your obsession with insignificant awards and ratings, *which are mainly instituted by producers to stroke their own ego cocks*, is quite humorous and ignorant.



Are you going to start giving evidence for your ridiculous claims or do you think people are as ignorant as you to take it at face-value?

lol the Academy Awards are insignificant. Critical reception is insignificant. Audience reception is insignificant. But, this random fucks opinion on an anime forum is "significant"! The audacity of some idiots on this forum.

Second Battle - Golbez vs Rain's Angel







> Joe Baltake
> Sacramento Bee
> Top Critic
> Insanely spectacular and never less than absorbing, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King not only fully celebrates J.R.R. Tolkien's classic literary work but fully explains Jackson's outsized obsession with bringing it to the screen.





> Rene Rodriguez
> Miami Herald
> Top Critic
> A movie that exceeds even the most formidable expectations without straying from its singular path.





> Terry Lawson
> Detroit Free Press
> Top Critic
> It not only stands as fantasy filmmaking on a peak of previously unscaled proportions, it now officially takes its place in the Great Hall of Movie Mythology, the place we return to again and again to share our dreams.





> Eleanor Ringel Gillespie
> Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> Top Critic
> With The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Peter Jackson brings his epic series to a glorious finish. And in doing so, he's made the greatest movie trilogy in cinema history.





> Kenneth Turan
> Los Angeles Times
> Top Critic
> As a model for how to bring substance, authenticity and insight to the biggest of adventure yarns, this trilogy will not soon, if ever, find its equal.





> Richard Roeper
> Ebert & Roeper
> Top Critic
> The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is Peter Jackson's crowning achievement.





> Jack Mathews
> New York Daily News
> Top Critic
> [Director Peter Jackson] can lay claim to one of the greatest achievements in film history.





> Alan Jones
> Radio Time
> Peter Jackson deservedly won the best director Oscar for this powerful and enchanting concluding episode to his massively ambitious adaptation of JRR Tolkien's trilogy.





> Felix Vasquez
> Cinema Crazed
> This is a masterpiece of filmmaking and Jackson truly deserves an Oscar.





"durrrr any good director could have done it! I'm an overly pretentious armchair critic! My opinion is the only one that matters!"


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> When VBD says films enthusiasts he means the pretentious regulars in Konoha Theatre like Enno .



lol thats exactly what I was thinking too. It amazes me that some people are so delusional and self-obsessed that they believe their opinions on an anime-forum > the academy awards, critical reception. When you bring up the latter they then claim that awards, critical reception and everything else that goes against their opinion doesn't mean anything. These people are the pinnacle of idiocy. 
This man believes that HE is a bigger film enthusiast than motherfuckers that get PAID handsomely to REVIEW movies and that write for the most prestigious newspapers and media outlets in the world.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 16, 2013)

man some people have problems with comprehension in this thread @_@


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 16, 2013)

Some of you are so pressed

I've never dissed LOTR, it's a great series but for anyone to claim it made the book series popular is so ridiculously retarded it's not worth arguing over. 

As for The Hobbit, it's a piece of cow shit. And no amount of RT reviews will make it better for me. I don't even bother with people who can't construct a opinion without the need to reference someone else's opinion.

As for the boring debate about how the Academy is so prestigious, go get a clue about Hollywood press really runs the game.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 16, 2013)

how are people gonna care about the Academy Awards anyway this is an institution that once called "Driving Miss Daisy", "The English Patient", and "Shakespeare in Love" as the best films of the year


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 16, 2013)

RT isn't a good site to use anyway. Sure if you want to see if a film isn't god awful go on there, but any mediocre movie that panders to enough tastes will get a high rating. I mean just look at Star Trek and Iron man 3. While films that will be memorable in a few years (only God Forgives) divides the whole site because it's not safe or inspirational enough, or whatever those jackasses on there feel a film should be.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> Some of you are so pressed
> 
> *I've never dissed LOTR*, it's a great series but for anyone to claim it made the book series popular is so ridiculously retarded it's not worth arguing over.



Shut up. You were dissing it a while ago calling it "childish" and "boring" and some other dumb shit on another thread.




> As for the boring debate about how the Academy is so prestigious, go get a clue about Hollywood press really runs the game.



There are various different categories in which a movie could win. I would agree with this if one day a movie like Transformers or Fast and the Furious won best picture but if I remember correctly; very big hollywood blockbusters like Avatar have lost out to movies like the Hurt Locker or The Artist.

Furthermore, if a movie is heavily awarded, has universal critical acclaim AND the audience loves it; then it is most likely a VERY GOOD movie regardless of YOUR opinion.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 16, 2013)

> Shut up. You were dissing it a while ago calling it "childish" and "boring" and some other dumb shit on another thread.



No I wasn't. Try again.



> Furthermore, if a movie is heavily awarded, has universal critical acclaim AND the audience loves it; then it is most likely a VERY GOOD movie regardless of YOUR opinion.



And some times a film that is heavily rewarded and loved like Silver linings, is a mediocre exercise in tepid filmmaking. So because Oscars don't give Transformer's an Oscar that makes it legit? There are plenty of films that are just as bad that have gotten awards from the Academy.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> RT isn't a good site to use anyway. Sure if you want to see if a film isn't god awful go on there, but any* mediocre movie* that panders to enough tastes will get a high rating. I mean just look at Star Trek and Iron man 3. While films that will be* memorable in a few years (only God Forgives) *divides the whole site because it's not safe or inspirational enough, or whatever those jackasses on there feel a film should be.



lol @ "only god forgives" becoming memorable in a few years. I understand why you hate the academy and RT so much. 

Also lol @ thinking that you are superior at detecting "mediocrity" in a movie than professionals that do it for a living. But of course you have them all figured out. Get over yourself man.



			
				Para said:
			
		

> how are people gonna care about the Academy Awards anyway this is an institution that once called "Driving Miss Daisy", "The English Patient", and "Shakespeare in Love" as the best films of the year



Haven't seen the latter two but I thought Driving Miss Daisy was great. What movies did it compete with?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> And *some times* a film that is heavily rewarded and loved like Silver linings, is a mediocre exercise in tepid filmmaking.



So then you agree that generally, this is not the case?





> So because Oscars don't give Transformer's an Oscar that makes it legit? There are plenty of films that are just as bad that have gotten awards from the Academy.



Stop changing the goal posts. My point is that big-budget or popularity or box office records =/= an Oscar.

Name me one film that was as bad as Transformers that won best picture.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 16, 2013)

Been hearing that The Silmarillion is _very_ long, so I agree it would be better to make it into a TV series. And doing it in HBO would be a good idea.

And I think Jackson would be involved in someway with it. Maybe a producer or something.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Just to clarify. I am not claiming that the Oscars is flawless or that it is the end all when judging the merits of a movie. I am merely claiming that IT IS an "indicator" while others are dismissing it completely.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 16, 2013)

If you really think just because they don't give Oscars to Comic Book films means Oscars are some highly fair awards is silly. We've had this convo before, you can stick to watching your crappy oscar baiting stuff.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> If you really think just because they don't give Oscars to Comic Book films means Oscars are some highly fair awards is silly. We've had this convo before, you can stick to watching your crappy oscar baiting stuff.





> Just to clarify. I am not claiming that the Oscars is flawless or that it is the end all when judging the merits of a movie. I am merely claiming that IT IS an "indicator" while others are dismissing it completely.



If you really think that awards, critical reception and audience reception are insignificant but YOUR opinions are when judging the merits of a movie; then you are a delusional, self-obsessed and pretentious movie-watcher that nobody should take seriously (if anybody even does).


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 16, 2013)

I hope you're not claiming Hobbit has all three because noone I know likes the film.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2013)

@Sennin Hardwork

The first half which contains the first age is only 255 pages long. The companion title which details a story which isn't described as well in "The Silmarillion" Children Of Hurin is similarly  of the same length in pages.

@Parallax

C'mon homie are you really going to align with the hard-core haters who don't know what the fuck they're talking about?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> I hope you're not claiming Hobbit has all three because noone I know likes the film.



I never claimed that. I was actually disappointed with both films but I still found them to be good. I liked the sequel a lot better. Even those that didn't like the films have to at least admit that they were technical wonders.


----------



## Swarmy (Dec 16, 2013)

I wanna see Ungoliant in all her glory and PJ is damn good at making creepy and realistic monsters


----------



## Parallax (Dec 16, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Parallax
> 
> C'mon homie are you really going to align with the hard-core haters who don't know what the fuck they're talking about?



you've completely misinterpreted their argument, missed the point, or just ignored their points.  It's not about whether I like the films or not, it's almost like 2 different arguments are being made by both sides


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Parallax said:


> you've completely misinterpreted their argument, missed the point, or just ignored their points.  It's not about whether I like the films or not, it's almost like 2 different arguments are being made by both sides



Care to elaborate on the points that they are making?

Let me list you the dumb shit spouted by people on here and you can tell me whether or not I misinterpreted or if you agree with it.

1. ANY GOOD DIRECTOR could have replicated the results of Peter Jackson

2. Peter Jacksons impact on the popularity of the novels is not significant

3.Peter Jackson is not a good director

4. " King Kong is bashed by just about every film enthusiast out there"

5. Awards, critical reception and audience reception have nothing to do with how good a movie is

6. Lord of the Rings isn't anything special


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

If Peter Jackson was still doing low budget indie shit we wouldn't have this argument right now.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 16, 2013)

Peter Jackson didn't really make the impact you claim it did

I mean it was a book that had sold over 100 million copies already and everyone I knew had at some point already heard of the books.

In fact Jackson's name didn't matter at all for the first film and wasn't a selling point till after the first one was a huge hit, nobody went to see the first one cause it was a Jackson film

it just happened that people really liked the first one and since they were all directed by him that for the 2nd and 3rd they just correlated his name to the product.

Jackson did have an impact but based on the first film's initial success people were going to see it either way regardless of the director or if it was a good film o:

and awards aren't really an objective or inherent indicator to a film's quality.  I mean none of Hitchcock's films won any of the major or "important" Oscar awards and now they're in film canon.  A lot of films that are seen great today have been bashed and shut out of awards for decades and decades when they were intially released.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2013)

@Parallax

Okay dude I think you're overthinking the flat and poorly concocted arguments that these schmucks have made. 

Also lol wat?

Dude PJ did a world of bitchin Commercializing that popularized LOTR


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Parallax said:


> Peter Jackson didn't really make the impact you claim it did
> 
> I mean it was a book that had sold over 100 million copies already and everyone I knew had at some point already heard of the books.



My argument was not that Jackson made the "books" popular. This is obviously not true. My argument was that Jackson's films made the Tolkiens verse popularity soar to unprecedented levels.

LOTR sold 100 million in 52 years. After the movies came out, it sold an additional 50 million in a mere 6 years. This is VERY significant. 



> In fact Jackson's name didn't matter at all for the first film and wasn't a selling point till after the first one was a huge hit, nobody went to see the first one cause it was a Jackson film
> 
> it just happened that people really liked the first one and since they were all directed by him that for the 2nd and 3rd they just correlated his name to the product.



Exactly. Jackson was a nobody prior to the LOTR films. It was the films that showed his directorial prowess and it was the films that made a name for him. 



> Jackson did have an impact but based on the first film's initial success people were going to see it either way regardless of the director or if it was a good film o:



This is a gross simplification of what actually occurred. Do you know how difficult it is to make a trilogy wherein every film in the trilogy is similarly, universally praised? On top of this, adapting a source material so effectively that at one point people thought impossible? People were going to see them anyways after the first film but that does not mean that the other films would have been as universally praised just because the first one was.



> and awards aren't really an objective or inherent indicator to a film's quality.  I mean none of Hitchcock's films won any of the major or "important" Oscar awards and now they're in film canon.  A lot of films that are seen great today have been bashed and shut out of awards for decades and decades when they were intially released.



I never claimed they were. I merely stated that they are an indicator and that if combined with both critical reception and audience reception; a very GOOD indicator. 

The problem I have with many people posting here is that they are unable to rate movies objectively. People like Ennoea and VBD are so self-obsessed and pretentious that if they don't like a movie or if they don't like the subject-matter they call it out for being a shitty movie. They then claim that they are "film enthusiasts". They don't have any intellectual humility.

For example, I loved the AVP movies but I will readily admit that they were not very good movies. In fact, I think they were terrible.

I hated "Gravity" but because I hated it; I will not claim it was a shitty movie. I simply do not like the subject matter of the movie and because of this I don't like it.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 16, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Parallax
> 
> Okay dude I think you're overthinking the flat and poorly concocted arguments that these schmucks have made.
> 
> ...




you're not really refuting their arguments you're actually just glossing over the points

I mean you haven't really even examined the fact that these books were already among the top 3 in most published/sold of all time.  I mean it had a base of roughly 100 million fans, that's quite a bit.  It's true that Jackson's films had a impact on making the material more popular but again people were already going to see the first movie when it came out regardless of who was directing it so Jackson had a impact after the fact; it was never oh man Peter Jackson is doing a trilogy of the LOTR books let's see it, it was oh man a LOTR trilogy this will be cool and then his name became a factor after the first film

but again even before the movies this was the 2nd highest selling/printed book of all time how much more can you really add to it?

You can't forget the sales of the books spiked at the announcement of the film and before it was even released with full sets selling out at their fastest rate before the release and during of the first film and peaking at around that time.  I don't think the sales of the books got higher than during the 2nd and 3rd films which would suggest that Jackson's impact on the popularity of the books wasn't a major factor.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

Listen how many actual fantasy adventure films are being made out there? Something that's actually watchable ? I personally would prefer new franchises that are not Tolkien works or Game of Thrones. Luckily for me Warcraft may deliver.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Parallax said:


> You can't forget the sales of the books spiked at the announcement of the film and before it was even released with full sets selling out at their fastest rate before the release and during of the first film and peaking at around that time.



Citation required.





> I don't think the sales of the books got higher than during the 2nd and 3rd films which would suggest that Jackson's impact on the popularity of the books wasn't a major factor.



Er, from 2001-2007, it sold 50 million copies. Half of what it had sold in 52 years. Come on now.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Listen how many actual fantasy adventure films are being made out there? Something that's actually watchable ? I personally would prefer new franchises that are not Tolkien works or Game of Thrones. Luckily for me Warcraft may deliver.



Me too bro. You would think that after the success of the LOTR; producers would be more inclined to create epic fantasies. 

Jackson has showed interest in the past to adapt the "Temeraire" series. I don't know if you've read any of the novels but I find them very good.

)

Personally, fantasy-themed movies and novels are among my favorite so I always have my eyes open for the next great epic.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 16, 2013)

I like Jackson's vision.
Imo he did great justice to LOTR. Those sets, locations, costumes, make up, special effects and everything were as they were supposed to be.
Some scenes were iconical, most of which involved the Nazgul in Fellowship Of The Ring.

He kinda fucked it up with Hobbit, mostly because they made it in 3 parts(a major deviation from the purpose of the book) and I think he had the mind set "ok we've had the appreciation of fans with LOTR, we've established something here. Now we can go and do as we like."

But still, I can't think of anyone else who'd be able to do Silmarillion as good as Jackson would.


And, btw I don't think Jackson will sign up for Silmarillion. He probably had enough of Middle-earth.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 16, 2013)

Um, no one in film seriously thinks the Oscars are anything more than producers jacking off to each other. That's what the academy is.

Citing the Oscars as if it is some objective merit to rate movies is laughable. You do realize there is a reason why the Oscars is on Network TV right? It exist to convince people who do not watch movies what good movies are supposed to be. That is why it gets huge ratings even though most people who watch the Oscars haven't seen half of the movies on there.  

You might as well cite the MTV movie awards. Not to mention the Oscars are more about Hollywood and any movie that has a strong influence in America. I don't think the Hobbit is getting a Palme D'Or any time soon. 

Other than that, the Rotten Tomato point is really stupid. For one you're merely citing masses, without any analysis on the critics opinions or taste because you're just looking at a number.

Two, you're totally evading the fact that getting an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't mean that people think that movie is great. It means that 84% of the people who saw King Kong thought it was *mediocre* or *better*. So citing Rotten Tomato metacritic for a movie being "critically acclaimed" (and King Kong wasn't, it had mixed reviews) makes little sense.

Also no, I am not citing people on an anime site as "film enthusiast" - though there are obviously people here who care a lot more about the medium than you (I am referring to the Rasengan guy). But any film maker, film festival or...film enthusiast site will have the same opinion. It's not like I am even talking about high brow stuff, the Hobbit and King Kong have been called long and boring movies by casual fans alike. You're just salty.

Lata.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2013)

@Violent By Design

Enough of your sore loser shit.  Look it's like a million to one in regards to people who favor Silmarillion getting an adaptation. 

Bye don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 16, 2013)

I'm a sore loser? What did I lose? I didn't know something was at stake.

For one, I never said the Silmarillion shouldn't get an adaption, so I guess I didn't lose. I said Peter Jackson should not make it, but since you have his dick in your mouth you think Peter Jackson = everything. 

Two, which is not totally relevant, but you have terrible reading comprehension and you've shown this through out the entire thread.

Three, even if I didn't want an adaption - uh..how did I lose? There's still no adaption for it you imbecile. I lost even though there's no plans to make this movie? Go back to school.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

Voilent By Design just got rustled by Bender. 

:benderlaugh


----------



## Stunna (Dec 16, 2013)

I like it when VBD goes HAM.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 16, 2013)

I'd also like to point out I'm not the only person who has called your points stupid Bender.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 16, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> Um, *no one in film* seriously thinks the Oscars are anything more than producers jacking off to each other. That's what the academy is.



Citation required. Please stop making a fool out of yourself by making these ridiculously broad generalizations that you have no fucking clue about. Pretentious and intellectually dishonest. 



> Citing the Oscars as if it is some objective merit to rate movies is laughable. You do realize there is a reason why the Oscars is on Network TV right? It exist to convince people who do not watch movies what good movies are supposed to be. That is why it gets huge ratings even though most people who watch the Oscars haven't seen half of the movies on there.



Citing your own opinion as if it is some objective merit to rate movies is even more laughable. Who the fuck are you? 

No one claimed that the Oscars are some objective merit to rate movies. I will however claim that it is an indicator given that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is filled with professionals of various different disciplines. 

Moreover, my initial point was that the awards in combination with good critical and audience reception generally points to a very good movie. 



> *You might as well cite the MTV movie awards.* Not to mention the Oscars are more about Hollywood and any movie that has a strong influence in America. I don't think the Hobbit is getting a Palme D'Or any time soon.



Yeah because awards based on the opinion of the general public = awards based on the opinions of professionals working in the film industry. 




> Other than that, the Rotten Tomato point is really stupid. For one you're merely citing masses, without any analysis on the critics opinions or taste because you're just looking at a number.
> 
> Two, you're totally evading the fact that getting an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't mean that people think that movie is great. It means that 84% of the people who saw King Kong thought it was *mediocre* or *better*. So citing Rotten Tomato metacritic for a movie being "critically acclaimed" (and King Kong wasn't, it had mixed reviews) makes little sense.



When the fuck did I say that King Kong was critically acclaimed? I stated that I loved it and that I thought it was a very good movie. The average rating for the film on RT was 7.7 which means that the average critic in 258 reviews believed that the movie was very good. It has an 81% on Metacritic. 

This was all in response to this dumb shit;

"King Kong is slammed by just about every film enthusiast out there."

Anyone with a brain can see how this claim is completely stupid and completely unsubstantiated. Yet you're to conceited and obsessed with your own opinion to even admit that you were exaggerating or being too harsh. 



> Also no, I am not citing people on an anime site as "film enthusiast" - though there are obviously people *here who care a lot more about the medium than you* (I am referring to the Rasengan guy).



Who you? The self-obsessed egotist that believes his opinions are superior to the academy, to critics and to everyone else? 



> *But any film maker, film festival or...film enthusiast site will have the same opinion.* It's not like I am even talking about high brow stuff, the Hobbit and King Kong have been called long and boring movies by casual fans alike. You're just salty.



a 5 second google search lead me to this;



> It's clear from what's up on screen that the people making it love this material, and Jackson has found a way to bring new life to it. He adds sentiment and heart to the exiting Kong mythos that’s never been there before. Once the script gets to New York, there’s such an air of inevitability to what happens, that even in the film’s happiest moments it’s also breathtakingly sad. This is easily one of the year’s most gut wrenching tragedies, and it’s a pretty good action-adventure movie too. You may have seen King Kong before, but you’ve never seen it like this.
> 
> 9/10





>Makes completely ridiculous universal claims 
>gets completely shat on
> calls me salty for not agreeing.

You're making this too easy.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2013)

@VBD

[YOUTUBE]MxgAGNJO22g[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]su33-sRHjAM[/YOUTUBE]

Please do so PJ and if you do I promise I will put a poster of you on the walls of my room. pek pek


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2013)

Yay to a (series of) Silmarillion adaptation(s). 

Nay to PJ's involvement. I dislike his interpretation of Middle-Earth, and while it just and just passes for the Third Age stories (LotR and the Hoobit), his style doesn't suit Silmarillion at all. 

Besides, why should one director have monopoly on Middle-Earth? Let's have some fresh air of diversity, and let other directors have their say.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2013)

@Amanda

Eh, I think Jackson's take on "The Hobbit" outside of Bilbo's scenes were done quite flexibly. If there's one thing that PJ did that Tolkien didn't it was make beautiful subplots involving other characters who you could label "flat" due to not having more to them than meets the eye. 

If just having Peter Jackson on board isn't enough then we should get Guillermo del Toro to collaborate with him do it minus Jackson.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm just gonna sit here and sigh at how self impressed some people are by the argument of "No you don't understand, the Lord of The Rings became even MORE of the number 1 fantasy book of all time thanks to peter jackson!"

Like someone owes anyone else a thank you note for helping him out in a race where he was already winning by several miles


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I'm just gonna sit here and sigh at how self impressed some people are by the argument of "No you don't understand, the Lord of The Rings became even MORE of the number 1 fantasy book of all time thanks to peter jackson!"
> 
> Like someone owes anyone else a thank you note for helping him out in a race where he was already winning by several miles



Well if you want to create petty strawmans and then sigh at them; be my guest. This isn't about a "race". This is about immersing people into the world of Tolkien. It doesn't matter if the books sold 100 million or 2 million prior to the movies. The point is that the movies created a resurgence of interest towards the books. This is an obvious fact. 100 million sold in 52 years------50 million sold in 6 years after the first movie was released. This was all in response to someone saying that Jackson compromised the "integrity" of the books and me replying with; Jackson's movies motivated many to read the books. 

Also, if i was an author, I would be thankful to anyone that read my book or recommended it let alone made a film about it that inspired a countless amount of people to read the source material.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 17, 2013)

but the argument was the sales figures bumped cause of the actual films being made not the director

i mean look at the huge jump in ASoI&F being sold once it was announced into a HBO show, numbers for American Gods are up since the announcement of a show that hasn't even aired a single episode

The Perks of Being a Wallflower had a jump in sales

Watchmen the comic book was selling like crazy even before the movie came out and The Walking Dead starting selling like crazy once the show got announced.

The sales for LOTR being much better I would argue are attributed more because A) the films were great regardless of Jackson's name and B) the material itself.  Jackson's name wasn't the cause or result of the surge in book sales, it was the film, the quality (which is all Jackson) is what sustained it but it certainly wasn't the initial or primary reason as you and Bender try to make the case for.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 17, 2013)

Amanda said:


> Yay to a (series of) Silmarillion adaptation(s).
> 
> Nay to PJ's involvement. I dislike his interpretation of Middle-Earth, and while it just and just passes for the Third Age stories (LotR and the Hoobit), his style doesn't suit Silmarillion at all.
> 
> Besides, why should one director have monopoly on Middle-Earth? Let's have some fresh air of diversity, and let other directors have their say.



What?! You don't want there to be 10-12 movies on Middle Earth that are all the same!?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Parallax said:


> but the argument was the sales figures bumped cause of the actual films being made not the director
> 
> i mean look at the huge jump in ASoI&F being sold once it was announced into a HBO show, numbers for American Gods are up since the announcement of a show that hasn't even aired a single episode
> 
> ...



I don't understand how this counters my point. Yes it was the "films" that bumped the interest and Jackson was at the helm of films. 



> The sales for LOTR being much better I would argue are attributed more because A) the films were great regardless of Jackson's name and B) the material itself.  *Jackson's name wasn't the cause or result of the surge in book sales, it was the film,* the quality (which is all Jackson) is what sustained it but it certainly wasn't the initial or primary reason as you and Bender try to make the case for.



I never said that it was "Jacksons" name that resulted in the sales. I have stated blatantly over and over again that it was the "films". 



> The point is that *the movies* created a resurgence of interest towards the books. This is an obvious fact. 100 million sold in 52 years------50 million sold in 6 years after the first movie was released. This was all in response to someone saying that Jackson compromised the "integrity" of the books and me replying with; *Jackson's movies *motivated many to read the books.



Would the sales have jumped regardless of who directed it or how good it was? Of course. 

Would they have jumped as high as it did? We can't be sure.

Regardless, it wasn't another director that took on this massive project, it was Jackson.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Well if you want to create petty strawmans and then sigh at them;


Projection is a terrible thing to suffer
Or so I hear



> This isn't about a "race".


You're talking about something that sold the most books being turned into something else that sold even more books

At this point, it's not a matter of turning people to the artistic work of tolkien, but of bumping brands and pushing sales

That is not the work of a director, that's the work of a decent marketer.



> This is about immersing people into the world of Tolkien. It doesn't matter if the books sold 100 million or 2 million prior to the movies. The point is that the movies created a resurgence of interest towards the books.



Yeah sure, the same way Michael Bay turned an interest to the Transformers franchise...
Who couldn't bow on their knees to the much superior glory of BOOM, FWOOSH?



> This is an obvious fact.


Obviousness is a common illusion to the insane


> 100 million sold in 52 years------50 million sold in 6 years after the first movie was released.


So, what you're telling me, is that the most well sold book of it's kind became the most well sold book of it's time, and that in the past ten years people started to read more
Whoop'dedoo



> This was all in response to someone saying that Jackson compromised the "integrity" of the books and me replying with; Jackson's movies motivated many to read the books.


Right, the same way the church should endorse people to blow lines out of a hooker's ass as long as they have bible verse tatoos in them
Enfranchisement = Artistic Outreach amirite 

Seriously though get real, or at least some self awareness of what you are saying. 



> Also, if i was an author, I would be thankful to anyone that read my book or recommended it let alone made a film about it that inspired a countless amount of people to read the source material.


Yeah, and if I were the president I'd end the congressional crisis, if I was a general, I'd re-kill osama bin laden and if I was a priest I'd talk to jesus.

Thankfully,people don't get to tell people to be thankful for shit.
The tolkiens (both of them, yes, JRR and Christopher, his massive posthumous editor to which we have only to thank on our knees for there even being a this massive tolkien work for us to talk over,  - the same guy the filipino dog wrestling op was guzling like a orc about earlier -) are scholars and artists, with their own definition and right of what constitutes as the integrity of their work. Better art is the next step on their career, not fame, and if you were anything of the sort, you'd know that, rather than pricking up your nose at people who have done more for the craft on a lazy sunday morning than you'll ever will for the rest of your life


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

Has contribution to the actual work so intimate he even got to draw the goddamned fucking map
>>hurr durr what an ingrate fucking twat, amIbritenoughtyetugays?


----------



## martryn (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm not sure what the argument is about.  The facts are pretty straight.

The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings franchises were massively popular before the movies were ever announced.  It has a definitive place in literary history, and would have kept that place regardless of the films.

The films did cause a massive surge in it's popularity, though, and many people that would never have read the books have done so due to their interest from the films.  The films certainly didn't hurt the legacy that is the Lord of the Rings.  

I personally bought two copies of the Hobbit after the movie was announced because I hadn't read it in six years and wanted one for my personal library.  The second one I bought because the book was cute (it's like pocket sized).


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

Which is a good thing too, because you certain had ample time to get reaquainted with the book during the 30 years it takes for Jackson to play one third of it


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> You're talking about something that sold the most books being turned into something else that sold even more books
> 
> *At this point, it's not a matter of turning people to the artistic work of tolkien, but of bumping brands and pushing sales*
> 
> That is not the work of a director, that's the work of a decent marketer.



lol what the fuck are you talking about? The Lord of the Rings films inspired millions of people to read Tolkiens work and you are casting it off as bumping brands and pushing sales? Stfu.





> Yeah sure, the same way Michael Bay turned an interest to the Transformers franchise...
> Who couldn't bow on their knees to the much superior glory of BOOM, FWOOSH?



The interest that Bay sparked is obviously not on par with the interest Jackson sparked given that the Transformers were shitty movies while LOTR is considered as one of the greatest trilogies of all time. Though, you can go ahead and keep failing with these stupid analogies like they mean anything.





> So, what you're telling me, is that the most well sold book of it's kind became the most well sold book of it's time, and that in the past ten years people started to read more
> Whoop'dedoo



Did you write the LOTR? Are you a fan of LOTR? So obviously a conceited prick like yourself wouldn't care. I'm sure Tolkien would be delighted that MORE people are READING his work. I'm sure fans of his work would also be delighted that more people are reading this trilogy. Get a fucking clue. 




> *Right, the same way the church should endorse people to blow lines out of a hooker's ass as long as they have bible verse tatoos in them
> Enfranchisement = Artistic Outreach amirite *
> 
> Seriously though get real, or at least some self awareness of what you are saying.



Wow, that is a horrible analogy. 

Adapting novels into movies = "the church should endorse people to blow lines out of a hooker's ass as long as they have bible verse tatoos in them"

What great logic.

The LOTR trilogy was an artistic achievement in its own right you dimwit. Again, one that inspired millions of people to take interest into Tolkiens world. 




> Yeah, and if I were the president I'd end the congressional crisis, if I was a general, I'd re-kill osama bin laden and if I was a priest I'd talk to jesus.



lol dafuq does this have to do what I said? So then authors should not be thankful for people reading or taking interest in their work? How fucking stupid are you?




> Thankfully,people don't get to tell people to be thankful for shit.
> The tolkiens (both of them, yes, JRR and Christopher, his massive posthumous editor to which we have only to thank on our knees for there even being a this massive tolkien work for us to talk over,  - the same guy the filipino dog wrestling op was guzling like a orc about earlier -) *are scholars and artists, *with their own definition and right of what constitutes as the integrity of their work. Better art is the next step on their career, not fame,



So, film making is not an art? Directing movies does not constitute as an achievement of any sort?

What the fuck are you even arguing right now?



> and if you were anything of the sort, you'd know that, rather than pricking up your nose at people who have done more for the craft on a lazy sunday morning than you'll ever will for the rest of your life



Pricking up my nose at who? Novels and films are two different categories you dense fuck. I judge the novels on their own merit (as the author) and I judge the films on their own merit (as the director). For some reason this goof thinks that it was easy to adapt the trilogy and that nobody should get any credit for making a good movie because you know...it was adapted.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Also, when the fuck did I ever say anything negative about Christopher Tolkien? Stop talking out of your ass because you can't retort for shit.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Also, when the fuck did I ever say anything negative about Christopher Tolkien? Stop talking out of your ass because you can't retort for shit.



reading comprehension, I summon you!


> - the same guy the filipino dog wrestling *op *was guzling like a orc about earlier -)



OP = Opening Post


So... Stop talking out of your ass because you can't etc, etc, etc


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

martryn said:


> I'm not sure what the argument is about.  The facts are pretty straight.
> 
> The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings franchises were massively popular before the movies were ever announced.  It has a definitive place in literary history, and would have kept that place regardless of the films.
> 
> ...



lol these guys are butthurt that the trilogy did this. They are trying to deny that this happened because of their bias for the movies and for Jackson. I bet none of these fucks have even read the books. They just here to troll.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> reading comprehension, I summon you!
> 
> 
> OP = Opening Post
> ...





> and if you were anything of the sort, you'd know that, rather than pricking up your nose at people who have done more for the craft on a lazy sunday morning than you'll ever will for the rest of your life



So then who am I pricking my nose too? Do you even read what you write?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol what the fuck are you talking about? The Lord of the Rings films inspired millions of people to read Tolkiens work and you are casting it off as bumping brands and pushing sales? Stfu.


Oh heavens, not the "stfu" argument
No one can beat that.
Flawless lojic 



> The interest that Bay sparked is obviously not on par with the interest Jackson sparked given that the Transformers were shitty movies while LOTR is considered as one of the greatest trilogies of all time.


Oh no. You used a arbitrary and completely unfounded criteria for what is an apt parallel of universally accepted common denominator of disregard and the service provided by someone in a comparable profession
Anything but an arbitrary and completely unfounded criteria!
Damn it, you're right. My argument is wrong on the account of "you don't like it"


> Though, you can go ahead and keep failing with these stupid analogies like they mean anything.


THANK YOU OH MERCIFUL ONE



> Did you write the LOTR? Are you a fan of LOTR? So obviously a conceited prick like yourself wouldn't care.


Oh no, these flames are so hot I can feel my precious melting



> I'm sure Tolkien would be delighted that MORE people are READING his work.


HURR DURR DID YOU WRITE THE LOTR?
I'm sure you'd fucking know more about it than his goddamned son and editor, and his well presented and thought out arguments.





> I'm sure fans of his work would also be delighted that more people are reading this trilogy. Get a fucking clue.


A master speaker you are. Here, we're all laughing "with" you, I promise



> Wow, that is a horrible analogy.
> 
> Adapting novels into movies = "the church should endorse people to blow lines out of a hooker's ass as long as they have bible verse tatoos in them"
> 
> What great logic.



Well, I can see why you'd stand on that side of the aisle, because clearly, you can read for shit, and thus, wouldn't be best of friends with those of the logomantic presuasion
The analogy adapts because it refers to the objections that one holds the publication of one's ideology to things that go against the ideology's nature, or do so at, at the expense and sacrifice of it's own values.
Maybe the church doesn't aproove of drugs and whores, but should be all for it, as long as by the end of the experience, they got a verse snuck in it

My apologies. I didn't think the sophistication of hookers and blow needed to be dumbed down further for anyone's benefit


> The LOTR trilogy was an artistic achievement in its own right you dimwit. Again, one that inspired millions of people to take interest into Tolkiens world.


Right, the same way Alchoolic Anonymous inspires people to better themselves.
Of course, all the people who will now never read these books because they've done away with the movies, we'll never get to know what they think, but who cares, since someone made a buck out of it.



> lol dafuq does this have to do what I said? So then authors should not be thankful for people reading or taking interest in their work? How fucking stupid are you?



Not as fucking stupid as someone who argues what artists should and shouldn't be thankful at their publicists for.


> So, film making is not an art? Directing movies does not constitute as an achievement of any sort?


Sure it does. So does taking a mean shit in the toilet.
Doesn't mean they get to be appreciated equally.





> What the fuck are you even arguing right now?


It's okay. I think I'm past expecting you to keep up


> Pricking up my nose at who? Novels and films are two different categories you dense fuck. I judge the novels on their own merit (as the author) and I judge the films on their own merit (as the director). For some reason this goof thinks that it was easy to adapt the trilogy and that nobody should get any credit for making a good movie because you know...it was adapted.



Lol, my poor slow friend.
You're judging the people responsible for the novels when you start tossing passive agressive snipes at what attitude they should and should not show at those who make derivatives from their work

You'd know that, if you had the reading skills required to even engage in this conversation, having realized the topic of the individual in question in this particular stanza, not the objects that are his product

Unfortunately, you have thoroughly convinced me that you don't, so do feel free to return when you have finally taken to do some improvements upon yourself? kthnxbay


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet. I guess it's only a matter of time though.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

inb4 threadwide bans to one side for flaming, and to the other for being obliquely rude


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Oh heavens, not the "stfu" argument
> No one can beat that.
> Flawless lojic



Nice red herring. Stop ignoring my points. A movie can be both very good and very profitable; the two are not mutually exclusive. Stop implying that the movies were solely a cash grab.




> Oh no. You used a arbitrary and completely unfounded criteria for what is an apt parallel of universally accepted common denominator of disregard and the service provided by someone in a comparable profession
> Anything but an arbitrary and completely unfounded criteria!
> Damn it, you're right. My argument is wrong on the account of "you don't like it"



Peter Jackson's trilogy was a masterpiece that complimented Tolkiens masterpiece. Bay's movies were a piece of shit that was a loose adaptation of transformers. Stop comparing the two like they mean anything.





> HURR DURR DID YOU WRITE THE LOTR?
> I'm sure you'd fucking know more about it than his goddamned son and editor, and his well presented and thought out arguments.
> A master speaker you are. Here, we're all laughing "with" you, I promise



"Derpp his son didnt like the movies so therefore the movies were bad" Gtfo with your grade school logic.




> Right, the same way Alchoolic Anonymous inspires people to better themselves.
> Of course, all the people who will now never read these books because they've done away with the movies, we'll never get to know what they think, but who cares, since someone made a buck out of it.



lol how are you even taking your ridiculous analogies seriously right now? The movies were such an achievement that it inspired people to read the books and you are some how claiming that this inspiration is unwarranted? How?

Except the facts disagree with you but obviously you are too dense to comprehend simple facts. 6 years since the movies release saw the readership rise by 50 million. Facts > your shitty opinions. 




> Not as fucking stupid as someone who argues what artists should and shouldn't be thankful at their publicists for.



Yeah because everyone is a condescending prick like you that doesn't give a shit. Speak for yourself jackass. 



> Sure it does. So does taking a mean shit in the toilet.
> Doesn't mean they get to be appreciated equally.
> It's okay. I think I'm past expecting you to keep up



lol wtf? Some people appreciate literature while others appreciate films, this is completely subjective and yet here this pretentious prick is asking people to decide one or the other? 



> Lol, my poor slow friend.
> You're judging the people responsible for the novels when you start tossing passive agressive snipes at what attitude they should and should not show at those who make derivatives from their work



Again with the strawmans. All your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. When did I claim that they have to be grateful towards the movies or Peter Jackson? I don't give a shit if Christopher doesn't like the films. My point was that he should be grateful that the movies got people more interested in his fathers work. If you don't think so, then you're just a bitter prick.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

lol seems like to me that you're bitter because your shitty taste hasn't allowed you to like the films like everyone else has. So now you have it out for people that praise the movies for what they are. Hahaha pathetic


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

TL;DR:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa



			
				Banhammer said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, you have thoroughly convinced me that you don't, so do feel free to return when you have finally taken to do some improvements upon yourself? kthnxbay



Banhammer science


----------



## Parallax (Dec 17, 2013)

what do you mean you don't understand my counter point?!?

you and Bender have stated, to paraphrase, JACKSON PUT THE TEAM ON HIS BACK HIS NAME IS THE REASON THE BOOKS SOLD SOOOO MUCH

my counter argument is that the books would have sold regardless of who was director and that they would have been revisited period and that Jackson's name didn't even matter till the 2nd film.  The fact that you even said



> Regardless, it wasn't another director that took on this massive project, it was Jackson.



proves my point that it didn't matter initially who the director was the books would have sold immensely anyways.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> TL;DR:
> 
> Waaaa waaaa waaaa
> 
> ...



lol did you run out of bullshit to say? Concession accepted. 




			
				Parallax said:
			
		

> ou and Bender have stated, to paraphrase, JACKSON PUT THE TEAM ON HIS BACK HIS NAME IS THE REASON THE BOOKS SOLD SOOOO MUCH



Bro, when the fuck did I say this? Show me, go dig up even one sentence of me saying this. 



> my counter argument is that the books would have sold regardless of who was director and that they would have been revisited period and that Jackson's name didn't even matter till the 2nd film. The fact that you even said



True the books would have sold regardless of the director. BUT the books would not have sold regardless of the QUALITY of the movies. Moreover, again, I never said that it was jackson's name. I mentioned 100 times that it was the "films".


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

> lol did you run out of bullshit to say? Concession accepted.



>2013
> Pretending concessions are magical spell that activates when you call dibs on it

Tell you, have some candy as a reward for completely missing the irony of your remarks
I hear kids like candy


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 17, 2013)

> True the books would have sold regardless of the director. BUT the books would not have sold regardless of the QUALITY of the movies. Moreover, again, I never said that it was jackson's name. I mentioned 100 times that it was the "films".


But they selling before people watched the movie, not mention there have been many cases of bad movies boosting sells of whatever they are based, and no i'm not saying LOTR is bad.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> >2013
> > Pretending concessions are magical spell that activates when you call dibs on it
> 
> Tell you, have some candy as a reward for completely missing the irony of your remarks
> I hear kids like candy




lol don't get bitchy now because you can't retort against my arguments. Its ok, we both know you didn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Go debate with Ennoea and co., i'm sure they are better suited to your tastes (or your arguments lol).


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Samavarti said:


> But they selling before people watched the movie, not mention there have been many cases of bad movies boosting sells of whatever they are based, and no i'm not saying LOTR is bad.



Listen, i'm not arguing that the movies boosted readership so therefore the movies and jackson are the SHIT. I have many other points to use if I want to argue the latter. What I am arguing is that the movies boosted readership so therefore they had a positive impact on the image of the Tolkien verse. Thats it. That is all my point is.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

I also mentioned that the Tolkiens should be grateful (and they should) that the movies created so many news fans of their work. Now, before ignorant fucks like Banhammer take this out of context, I don't mean that they or anyone of them should be grateful in general. I know that they've had problems with the money that was due to them and that Chris did not like the movies. I mean that this aspect at the very least they should be grateful for. I would have never read the books if it was not for the films. I know MANY people that are in the same position.


----------



## The World (Dec 17, 2013)




----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol don't get bitchy now because you can't retort against my arguments. Its ok, we both know you didn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Go debate with Ennoea and co., i'm sure they are better suited to your tastes (or your arguments lol).



I don't know if any one has ever explained this to you before, but here it goes:

Raging harder does not persuade sensible people to paying you any more attention.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 17, 2013)

Hey guys you know the highest selling Fantasy books of all time, well Jackson made them famous in 2002.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I don't know if any one has ever explained this to you before, but here it goes:
> 
> Raging harder does not persuade sensible people to paying you any more attention.



Oh then I shouldn't have replied to any of your posts in the first place. Ok I understand, thanks for that.



> Hey guys you know the highest selling *Fantasy* books of all time, well Jackson made them famous in 2002.



I don't think anyone but Bender was making such a claim. Anyways, I didn't know the LOTR outsold the Bible


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

>Implying the tolkiens should be thankful to anyone for turning them from beloved literary authors to generic movie stars

ruh ruh, I'm a kitty hear me roar


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Care to elaborate on the points that they are making?
> 
> Let me list you the dumb shit spouted by people on here and you can tell me whether or not I misinterpreted or if you agree with it.
> 
> ...




The feeble argument of the haters in this thread in a nutshell.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> >Implying the tolkiens should be thankful to anyone for turning them from beloved literary authors to generic movie stars
> 
> ruh ruh, I'm a kitty hear me roar



Do you want to demonstrate to me how the tolkiens have become movie stars? I mean, you were ranting about how the trilogy was so immensely popular prior to the films that Jackson hardly had an impact on the popularity and now you're here arguing the contrary? Piss poor credibility. 

What they should be thankful for (if anything at all) is that the films increased the number of people reading their books. I personally would be thankful that Jackson was able to adapt the trilogy so effectively (can't say this for the hobbit though) and beautifully but I am not them.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2013)

Look you LOTR book purist twats:



> Before Peter Jackson stepped into Middle-earth, J.R.R. Tolkien?s 1954 epic ?The Lord of the Rings? had already changed the world of fantasy, having sold more than 100 million copies and given birth to countless fans over multiple generations.
> 
> When it comes to adapting a novel for the big screen, though, fan expectations can be a major obstacle to overcome.
> 
> ...



Since a lot of the people who are against Jackson look at the bolded text:



> As one critic said shortly after the release of ?The Fellowship of the Ring,? the world would now be divided into two types of people: ?Those who have read ?The Lord of the Rings? and those who are going to.?
> 
> *Since the first movie was released in 2001, Tolkien?s books have become more popular than ever. ?The Lord of the Rings? has sold an additional 50 million copies and currently ranks as the third best-selling novel of all-time.*
> 
> *At No. 4, with more than 100 million copies, sits ?The Hobbit.?*


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

>Implying jackson's marketing ploy that really does nothing for the tolkien's standing in the literary market makes up for whatever jackson does to their name in the global over that of the person responsible for the brand itself creates any sort of obligation from the authors part.





Seriously though, the fact that your only argument is "look at how many people eventually learned better from what the hell I'm blabing about" and that you're using it do deliciously unironic is really the only treat worth indulging


And now even that is used up.
Quick, grab a cheerleader, maybe that will help


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

And yes Bender, every one knows your argumentative skills peak at the "Quote" button, when you don't bother to pretend someone else's coments are your own, again, so there's no need to keep showing that off like it's a dead bird


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 17, 2013)

> 1. ANY GOOD DIRECTOR could have replicated the results of Peter Jackson



They could have or they couldn't have. We'll never know but judging by his recent work, Jackson doesn't seem very special at all.



> 2. Peter Jacksons impact on the popularity of the novels is not significant



The novels have been popular for over 50 years, and have sold alot. The argument that Jackson made them famous is ludicrous and just frankly accept it already. All film adaptations have an impact on book sales, it's not anything new. But Jackson did not popularise the books. It only seems like that to illiterates or people who believe there's no decade outside of 00s. The books will continue to sell long after LOTR films have been forgotten.



> 3.Peter Jackson is not a good director



He's hit and miss. His recent work is nothing great, imo his and WETA's technical achievements are more impressive than his directing.



> 4. " King Kong is bashed by just about every film enthusiast out there"



Not really because it's not significant enough tbh, when was the last time anyone had a conversation about King Kong? It was fine but forgettable.



> 5. Awards, critical reception and audience reception have nothing to do with how good a movie is



Again this is just a general comment. Either cite examples or stop crying about it. Also no not really. Especially audience reception, the Pirate movies stand out in this context.



> 6. Lord of the Rings isn't anything special



Noone said this? They're well made films and most people in this section enjoy them. Just because someone's isn't jacking off on them doesn't mean they hate the films.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> >Implying jackson's marketing ploy that really does nothing for the tolkien's standing in the literary market makes up for whatever jackson does to their name in the global over that of the person responsible for the brand itself creates any sort of obligation from the authors part.



I know that your arguments are piss poor but at least use periods and commas so that they become understandable. 

Why did you ignore my comment? How have the tolkiens become generic movie stars? Don't post stupid shit and then falter when challenged.

What has Jackson done to their name? Have people suddenly lost respect for the Tolkiens because of Jackson's movies? Your arguments aren't even fucking coherent. 

Furthermore, who the fuck was talking about obligations? I merely asserted that one thing the tolkiens should be thankful for is the rise in readership and suddenly I am claiming that they are obligated to thank Jackson? Its become clear that you cannot hold a debate without committing to logical fallacies. On top of this, your sentences are hardly even coherent. If you want to continue to embarrass yourself further, be my guest.






> Seriously though, the fact that your only argument is "look at how many people eventually learned better from what the hell I'm blabing about" and *that you're using it do deliciously unironic is really the only treat worth indulging*



That was never my argument. The bolded doesn't even make any fucking sense. What are you 10?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

> That was never my argument. The bolded doesn't even make any fucking sense. What are you 10?


>Get called out for being so clearly unfit  to comprehend adult arguments
NO, U
>Get called out for making comments on a fashion that are unworthy of atention
WHY ARE U IGNORING MY COMMENT


----------



## Samavarti (Dec 17, 2013)

Bender said:


> Look you LOTR book purist twats:
> 
> 
> 
> Since a lot of the people who are against Jackson look at the bolded text:



And we are back to the page one of the discussion, amazing.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

> Furthermore, who the fuck was talking about obligations? I merely asserted that one thing the tolkiens should be thankful




tfw someone says a sentence like this with a straight face and then ends his post with "what are you, 10?"


:allmymaybes


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> They could have or they couldn't have. We'll never know but judging by his recent work, Jackson doesn't seem very special at all.



Given the success of the trilogy, the failure of past projects and Jacksons personal interpretation of the LOTR verse; it would be EXTREMELY unlikely for any director to have done as "good" or "better". I didn't know we were talking present-tense. It doesn't matter if he is no longer special; he has already cemented his legacy with those films.





> The novels have been popular for over 50 years, and have sold alot. *The argument that Jackson made them famous is ludicrous and just frankly accept it already.* All film adaptations have an impact on book sales, it's not anything new. But Jackson did not popularise the books. It only seems like that to illiterates or people who believe there's no decade outside of 00s. The books will continue to sell long after LOTR films have been forgotten.



When the fuck did I claim the bolded? Stop putting words in my mouth. 

100 million copies sold in 50 years. 50 million copies sold in 6 years during the trilogies peak. This suggests that there was a SURGE of RENEWED interest for the books in the 21st century. I wonder why? Oh maybe it could have been those big-budget, immensely popular movies!

So while the movies DID NOT popularize the books, they did rekindle interest for them which is what I claimed from the very beginning.





> He's hit and miss. His recent work is nothing great, imo his and WETA's technical achievements are more impressive than his directing.



Those technical achievements are a part of directing and again, his work on those movies will be remembered forever. Being the "mind" behind what is arguably the greatest trilogy in the history of cinema will give you a special status in history regardless of how many of your movies are good or bad.



> Not really because it's not significant enough tbh, when was the last time anyone had a conversation about King Kong? It was fine but forgettable.



Uh what? It is not bashed by practically ever film enthusiast because.....its not significant enough? 

Well anyways, at least you agree that the statement was wrong and frankly idiotic.



> Again this is just a general comment. Either cite examples or stop crying about it. Also no not really. Especially audience reception, the Pirate movies stand out in this context.



You and VBD were the ones crying about it TBH. Anytime I bring up critics or the awards, you guys are usually the first to start whining. 

So if audience reception, critical reception and industry awards hold no merit in how good a movie is; what does? You're digging your own grave here really.





> Noone said this? They're well made films and most people in this section enjoy them. Just because someone's isn't jacking off on them doesn't mean they hate the films.



No one said this? Have you been reading the shit Banhammer has been spouting? He has been implying for the last couple of pages that the movies were generic, a money grab, contrary to the spirit of the books etc.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> >Get called out for being so clearly unfit  to comprehend adult arguments
> NO, U
> >Get called out for making comments on a fashion that are unworthy of atention
> WHY ARE U IGNORING MY COMMENT



More red herrings and strawmans from you. To be honest, I never thought much of you anyways. Are you actually claiming that your sentences were readable lmao? Pretentious, intellectually dishonest, illiterate and just plain ol' stupid. You come with the whole package don't you.



> tfw someone says a sentence like this with a straight face and then ends his post with "what are you, 10?"
> 
> 
> :allmymaybes



lol do you want me to define the word "obligation" for you? Oh man you're dense.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

Hurr durr, fits of incoherent rage at self durr hurr


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2013)

@Heavy Rasengan

Just throwing this out there: When I made a thread on guns after the shooting at the school in Newtown Connecticut he went full troll throughout the entire debate thread. I'm not the greatest debater but the most renown ones in the NF Cafe for the main part, philosophy and debate section called him out on being a total troll with his arguments. Like he's showing here his responses were full of insults and less rebuttals to arguments made in another person's post.

So yeah, what you're looking at is nothing new.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:
			
		

> Implying jackson's marketing ploy that really does nothing for the tolkien's standing in the literary market makes up for whatever jackson does to their name in the global over that of the person responsible for the brand itself creates any sort of obligation from the authors part.





			
				Banhammer said:
			
		

> Seriously though, the fact that your only argument is "look at how many people eventually learned better from what the hell I'm blabing about" and that you're using it do deliciously unironic is really the only treat worth indulging



Behold! Banhammer's arguments. In what form? Pretty close to gibberish. Apparently, he insists that there is nothing wrong with the sentence structures or the fact that they just don't make any fucking sense (especially the latter paragraph).


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Heavy Rasengan
> 
> Just throwing this out there: When I made a thread on guns after the shooting at the school in Newtown Connecticut he went full troll throughout the entire debate thread. I'm not the greatest debater but the most renown ones in the NF Cafe for the main part, philosophy and debate section called him out on being a total troll with his arguments. Like he's showing here his responses were full of insults and less rebuttals to arguments made in another person's post.
> 
> So yeah, what you're looking at is nothing new.



His piss poor reasoning and horrid grammar may fly here but I can tell why he would get demolished in the Cafe.


----------



## Ms. Jove (Dec 17, 2013)

Here's where I come in and tell Bender that if I see one more fucking passive-aggressive post about Banhammer, you're going away for a while.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Ms. Jove said:


> Here's where I come in and tell Bender that if I see one more fucking passive-aggressive post about Banhammer, you're going away for a while.



Ms. Jove, Banhammer is the troll here.


----------



## Ms. Jove (Dec 17, 2013)

Oh, for fuck's sake.


That's it. thread's shut down.


----------

