Peter Jackson won’t do a Marvel movie, says ‘the industry has lost its way

[Petey's Wheatcake]

Peter Jackson would split the Amazing Fantasy #15 origin story into four movies, and by the end of the first, Peter Parker would finally come to be known as Midtown High's only professional wallflower.

 

I'm guessing that he'd get to the spider bite somewhere near the halfway point of the second film.

[Doohickamabob]

Yeah well....

That just, like, your opinion, man.

[rjrjr]

Peter Jackson would split the Amazing Fantasy #15 origin story into four movies, and by the end of the first, Peter Parker would finally come to be known as Midtown High's only professional wallflower.

 

I'm guessing that he'd get to the spider bite somewhere near the halfway point of the second film.

 

This might be true, but one thing Peter Jackson did was build an attachment to the characters in the Lord of the Rings movies so that you felt for the characters when events happened to them. That is why these "slow" scenes are important to the story and why those movies will be considered classics in the years to come.

 

I bet in a Peter Jackson Spider-Man movie, you would care for the characters and feel the gravity of the situations they are placed in.

 

Many of the superhero movies I've seen do not build up the characters, so much so, that you could care less what happens to them. Avengers was an example of this. The audience has no attachment to the characters whatsoever. The movie is fun to watch, no doubt, but the audience has no attachment to the characters, so they don't really feel any anxiety when the characters are battling it out at the end. I don't see many of the superhero movies being considered classic as the years go by because of this. These superhero movies are akin to the "paint by the number" action movies of the 80s and early 90s, many of which are long forgotten.

[revat]

Michael Bay has been tapped to direct the Nitro movie.

 

I hope you're talking about WCW Monday Nitro!

 

 

[rjpb]

Peter Jackson complaining about movie franchises is like Babe Ruth complaining about cheap women, hot dogs, bourbon, home runs and making more money than the president.

 

+47

 

No kidding. Talk about a lack of self-awareness. I haven't seen a Jackson film since the first LoTR movie, and between that and his other films I've seen; King Kong, The Frighteners and Heavenly Creatures ( the last of which is worth watching, but overrated) , he strikes me as being a highly skilled technician who makes surprisingly dull films, but he obviously has a huge fan base that feels otherwise.

[ebtorres]

Petey Jackson won't do a Marvel movie?

 

[Goldeneye]

For decades we barely had any superhero movies because the technology wasn't there to make them appropriately. Now we do, so we're making up for lost time.

True. But there's also such a thing as too much of a good thing.

 

Not saying that audiences are there yet en masse, but as a lifelong comic book reader who is, at best, a marginally curious observer of the modern superhero movie phenomenon (fad?), I know that I'm very close to the tipping point. The tedious sameness of it all becomes more and more clear to me with each new trailer I see...

 

 

This is where I stand with the comic films right now is a tipping point. The comic movie franchise is a fad that started with Blade in 1998 being the first success of the modern era for Marvel in the theaters. From there we got ten years of movies some great, some middle of the road, and some terrible in which the comic film medium seemed like it was going to die in 2007 then in 2008 we got Dark Knight, Iron Man, and the Incredible Hulk and new life was breathed into this medium. What we are getting now is way too many films to the point all other films are getting little to no focus on to some at times very mediocre films from comics. So lets look at our track record since 2008 in comic films.

Iron Man 2 - Decent film, but a remake of the first film good for one watch

Thor - Passable - not worth watching

Captain America - The First Avenger - Good film worth re-watching

The Avengers - Decent film worth one watch, but loses everything after watching once

Iron Man 3 - Terrible film seemed like a bad remake of Tomb of the Cybermen save your money

Thor: The Dark World - Not as good as the first, but worth one watch would make a decent made for video film

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Best film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to feature a flagship character worth watching multiple times

Guardians of the Galaxy - Best film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it was all new characters in a much different setting and had James Gunn as director

Now lets look at films outside the studio

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - Possibly the worst comic movie ever made

Kick - Good film worth re-watching

Kick 2 - Mediocre not worth re watching

Man of Steel - Bad film, but worth watching just once for the visuals

Dark Knight Rises - Great film worth watching on more than one occasion'

Sucker Punch - I felt like I got sucker punch with the ending, but worth watching just for visuals

Green Lantern - Terrible film

Amazing Spider-Man - Great film best of the entire franchise worth watching on multiple occasions

Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Terrible film wish I received a refund

Watchmen - Very good and underrated film

Wolverine Origins - Good for one view decent

X-Men First Class - The people at Marvel need to watch this film to learn how to make a good team movie. Good film worth rewatching.

The Wolverine - Good film and decent to watch on multiple occasions

X-Men Days of Future Past - Decent film, but not worth rewatching

these are just a few so lets go through are ratings

Films worth re watching - 9

Films just below the re-watching level but good for one view. I would consider these films watch on my couch films for better enjoyment and not in the theater. - 7

Films not worth watching - 6

 

So by my book less than half these films are watching more than once and either at the pass level or below. Maybe Peter Jackson is right just saying.

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

It's a race to see which studio can make the most money from the genre before it burns out.

[romanheart]

ASM & Batman movies would never stop.

 

There is going to be a moment when non-comic book lovers begin to lose their appeal with superhero films, but they will live on.

 

There should be more emphasis on making movies that comic book fans would love and not the typical hollywood rebranding that is done.

[revat]

For decades we barely had any superhero movies because the technology wasn't there to make them appropriately. Now we do, so we're making up for lost time.

True. But there's also such a thing as too much of a good thing.

 

Not saying that audiences are there yet en masse, but as a lifelong comic book reader who is, at best, a marginally curious observer of the modern superhero movie phenomenon (fad?), I know that I'm very close to the tipping point. The tedious sameness of it all becomes more and more clear to me with each new trailer I see...

 

 

This is where I stand with the comic films right now is a tipping point. The comic movie franchise is a fad that started with Blade in 1998 being the first success of the modern era for Marvel in the theaters. From there we got ten years of movies some great, some middle of the road, and some terrible in which the comic film medium seemed like it was going to die in 2007 then in 2008 we got Dark Knight, Iron Man, and the Incredible Hulk and new life was breathed into this medium. What we are getting now is way too many films to the point all other films are getting little to no focus on to some at times very mediocre films from comics. So lets look at our track record since 2008 in comic films.

Iron Man 2 - Decent film, but a remake of the first film good for one watch

Thor - Passable - not worth watching

Captain America - The First Avenger - Good film worth re-watching

The Avengers - Decent film worth one watch, but loses everything after watching once

Iron Man 3 - Terrible film seemed like a bad remake of Tomb of the Cybermen save your money

Thor: The Dark World - Not as good as the first, but worth one watch would make a decent made for video film

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Best film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to feature a flagship character worth watching multiple times

Guardians of the Galaxy - Best film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it was all new characters in a much different setting and had James Gunn as director

Now lets look at films outside the studio

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - Possibly the worst comic movie ever made

Kick - Good film worth re-watching

Kick 2 - Mediocre not worth re watching

Man of Steel - Bad film, but worth watching just once for the visuals

Dark Knight Rises - Great film worth watching on more than one occasion'

Sucker Punch - I felt like I got sucker punch with the ending, but worth watching just for visuals

Green Lantern - Terrible film

Amazing Spider-Man - Great film best of the entire franchise worth watching on multiple occasions

Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Terrible film wish I received a refund

Watchmen - Very good and underrated film

Wolverine Origins - Good for one view decent

X-Men First Class - The people at Marvel need to watch this film to learn how to make a good team movie. Good film worth rewatching.

The Wolverine - Good film and decent to watch on multiple occasions

X-Men Days of Future Past - Decent film, but not worth rewatching

these are just a few so lets go through are ratings

Films worth re watching - 9

Films just below the re-watching level but good for one view. I would consider these films watch on my couch films for better enjoyment and not in the theater. - 7

Films not worth watching - 6

 

So by my book less than half these films are watching more than once and either at the pass level or below. Maybe Peter Jackson is right just saying.

 

 

 

 

Johah Hex - Equal to Ghost Rider 2.

The Wolverine - average. Watchable, but don't need to go out of your way to check it.

[Petey's Wheatcake]

Peter Jackson would split the Amazing Fantasy #15 origin story into four movies, and by the end of the first, Peter Parker would finally come to be known as Midtown High's only professional wallflower.

 

I'm guessing that he'd get to the spider bite somewhere near the halfway point of the second film.

 

This might be true, but one thing Peter Jackson did was build an attachment to the characters in the Lord of the Rings movies so that you felt for the characters when events happened to them. That is why these "slow" scenes are important to the story and why those movies will be considered classics in the years to come.

 

I bet in a Peter Jackson Spider-Man movie, you would care for the characters and feel the gravity of the situations they are placed in.

 

Many of the superhero movies I've seen do not build up the characters, so much so, that you could care less what happens to them. Avengers was an example of this. The audience has no attachment to the characters whatsoever. The movie is fun to watch, no doubt, but the audience has no attachment to the characters, so they don't really feel any anxiety when the characters are battling it out at the end. I don't see many of the superhero movies being considered classic as the years go by because of this. These superhero movies are akin to the "paint by the number" action movies of the 80s and early 90s, many of which are long forgotten.

 

I have no problem with "slow" scenes, and I do agree that Jackson's LOTR films should be considered classics of the fantasy genre. He is a talented director, and if he ever changed his mind about giving super heroes a go, it's likely he'd do a bang up job.

 

I was mostly joking about his unnecessary, bloated, eight-hour Hobbit adaptation. There were a few entertaining moments scattered throughout those films, but more often than not, he streeeeetched that story out past the breaking point. I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend with PJ, where everything has to be a three hour epic filled with slow motion crying.

 

Personally, I thought that Guardians and Winter Soldier really excelled in the character development department. Marvel Studios definitely raised the bar last year, in my opinion. I get where you are coming from concerning The Avengers though. That franchise relies on character moments hopefully supplied in the solo films, and anyone walking into the theater without any prior knowledge of the various storylines, may be left with nothing but fight scenes and inside jokes that they have no attachment to.

[Speedy-D]

Peter Jackson would split the Amazing Fantasy #15 origin story into four movies, and by the end of the first, Peter Parker would finally come to be known as Midtown High's only professional wallflower.

 

I'm guessing that he'd get to the spider bite somewhere near the halfway point of the second film.

 

This might be true, but one thing Peter Jackson did was build an attachment to the characters in the Lord of the Rings movies so that you felt for the characters when events happened to them. That is why these "slow" scenes are important to the story and why those movies will be considered classics in the years to come.

 

I bet in a Peter Jackson Spider-Man movie, you would care for the characters and feel the gravity of the situations they are placed in.

 

Many of the superhero movies I've seen do not build up the characters, so much so, that you could care less what happens to them. Avengers was an example of this. The audience has no attachment to the characters whatsoever. The movie is fun to watch, no doubt, but the audience has no attachment to the characters, so they don't really feel any anxiety when the characters are battling it out at the end. I don't see many of the superhero movies being considered classic as the years go by because of this. These superhero movies are akin to the "paint by the number" action movies of the 80s and early 90s, many of which are long forgotten.

Yeah, he got it right with LotR, but the Hobbit movies are terrible.

[Silver Surfer]

A guy that doesn't read comics books and doesn't want to try and read one? Suck on it Jackson.

[Aweandlorder]

[dupont2005]

Hollywood will always follow a trend if it sells, so that point I don't get from him. I did notice he's never read a comic and has no interest in Superheroes, so I can see that as a good reason not to participate: make movies about characters & subjects that interest you, that's the artistic way.

True. If he did make a movie, and the characters weren't characterized correctly, there would be major fan meltdown anyway. Plenty of directors out there have to have been comic nerds when they were kids, let them handle the comic movies.

[dupont2005]

By the way, I couldn't sit through a single Hobbit or LOTR movie, and tried on three or four occasions.

[Hamlet]

I enjoyed the LOTR movies, but have not seen any of the Hobbit movies. I can't imagine what he does for 8-hours considering the source material is pretty short and light. The Hobbit is one book compared to the three LOTR books, and it is much, much lighter. You can read the Hobbit in an afternoon.

 

What could he possibly have spent 8-hours on?

 

 

I have no problem with "slow" scenes, and I do agree that Jackson's LOTR films should be considered classics of the fantasy genre. He is a talented director, and if he ever changed his mind about giving super heroes a go, it's likely he'd do a bang up job.

 

I was mostly joking about his unnecessary, bloated, eight-hour Hobbit adaptation. There were a few entertaining moments scattered throughout those films, but more often than not, he streeeeetched that story out past the breaking point. I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend with PJ, where everything has to be a three hour epic filled with slow motion crying.

[seanfingh]

I enjoyed the LOTR movies, but have not seen any of the Hobbit movies. I can't imagine what he does for 8-hours considering the source material is pretty short and light. The Hobbit is one book compared to the three LOTR books, and it is much, much lighter. You can read the Hobbit in an afternoon.

 

What could he possibly have spent 8-hours on?

 

 

I have no problem with "slow" scenes, and I do agree that Jackson's LOTR films should be considered classics of the fantasy genre. He is a talented director, and if he ever changed his mind about giving super heroes a go, it's likely he'd do a bang up job.

 

I was mostly joking about his unnecessary, bloated, eight-hour Hobbit adaptation. There were a few entertaining moments scattered throughout those films, but more often than not, he streeeeetched that story out past the breaking point. I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend with PJ, where everything has to be a three hour epic filled with slow motion crying.

 

There's about 35 minutes of the dwarves raiding Bilbo's larder.

[Mr 9.8]

Is that EVERY comic movie in your list? I can't help but think you left out a very important cult classic.

[Bookery]

I enjoyed the LOTR movies, but have not seen any of the Hobbit movies. I can't imagine what he does for 8-hours considering the source material is pretty short and light. The Hobbit is one book compared to the three LOTR books, and it is much, much lighter. You can read the Hobbit in an afternoon.

 

What could he possibly have spent 8-hours on?

 

 

I have no problem with "slow" scenes, and I do agree that Jackson's LOTR films should be considered classics of the fantasy genre. He is a talented director, and if he ever changed his mind about giving super heroes a go, it's likely he'd do a bang up job.

 

I was mostly joking about his unnecessary, bloated, eight-hour Hobbit adaptation. There were a few entertaining moments scattered throughout those films, but more often than not, he streeeeetched that story out past the breaking point. I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend with PJ, where everything has to be a three hour epic filled with slow motion crying.

 

There's about 35 minutes of the dwarves raiding Bilbo's larder.

 

That's about right! Actually this is as far as I made it... I had a friend over to watch part 1 when it came out on Blu-Ray... and after this opening scene, we shut the film off! Now... I still own it... and will go back and give it another try someday... but still...

 

There's no reason Jackson should make any more super-hero films if he doesn't want to. Because, for most of his mainstream career, that is all he has made.

 

How is LOTR not a super-hero film? If "Jason and the Argonauts" is a super-hero film... and I staunchly believe it is... as is "Percy Jackson" and others, certainly a team-up of assorted heroes all with individual super-powers and strengths banding together in a common "good" is a super-hero film.

 

Even "The Frighteners" is essentially one human leader (with special psychic powers) putting together an X-men of ghosts (who are literally ex-men) to do battle with a super Bad Guy.