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

[bug33fouf]

I'm certainly in the minority, but I couldn't get into the Lord of the Rings movies...sat through 2 of them on an airplane, and was bored stiff.

 

I'm a huge King Kong fan, but even though he took everything from the original and in many ways improved upon it, the movie wasn't very good. I think the movie contained scenes that were too extended. A case of improved doesn't equal better.

(thumbs u

[jsilverjanet]

I'm curious if Peter Jackson had announced he wanted to direct a Marvel movie what the comments would be like

[Aweandlorder]

Marvel should be flattered that Mr Jackson refers to Marvel as "The Industry"

[Ken Aldred]

I enjoyed the LOTR films, both at the cinema and the DVD extended editions, but that was quite enough for me.

 

We read The Hobbit first year at grammar school in English class, and it was a bit of a short, easy read even then. Creating three lengthy films from the book was an obvious, drawn-out cash grab and I had zero interest in going along with that. I doubt I'll even bother when the trilogy ends up on TV.

[cujobyte]

I'll go against the grain here a bit.

 

Having worked in film for 8-9 yrs, the early Jackson films are truly revolutionary. If you don't think the creator of "Dead Alive" which is one of the best of it's genre, couldn't do wonders with certain comic characters, you're kidding yourselves.

 

As far as the Hobbit films, they're just "more of the same" from him imo. So I won't defend them, nor do they need defending I guess considering this new one did $90.5 million this weekend.

 

It's a shame that films like "The Godfather" (the first two) wouldn't even be made today, considering the average young movie goer's attention span is slightly longer than that of a gnat. I say this in jest, but it's fairly accurate. Having said all that, I think superhero films obviously have come a long way, and Marvel's been on a roll. People change their mind all the time in that industry, and I for one would love to see a Jackson/Marvel film in the same manner as Dead Alive.

 

I'll get off the soap box now.

[jsilverjanet]

[jsilverjanet]

[jsilverjanet]

I'll go against the grain here a bit.

 

Having worked in film for 8-9 yrs, the early Jackson films are truly revolutionary. If you don't think the creator of "Dead Alive" which is one of the best of it's genre, couldn't do wonders with certain comic characters, you're kidding yourselves.

 

As far as the Hobbit films, they're just "more of the same" from him imo. So I won't defend them, nor do they need defending I guess considering this new one did $90.5 million this weekend.

 

It's a shame that films like "The Godfather" (the first two) wouldn't even be made today, considering the average young movie goer's attention span is slightly longer than that of a gnat. I say this in jest, but it's fairly accurate. Having said all that, I think superhero films obviously have come a long way, and Marvel's been on a roll. People change their mind all the time in that industry, and I for one would love to see a Jackson/Marvel film in the same manner as Dead Alive.

 

I'll get off the soap box now.

 

I'm sure everyone who's had an issue with LOTR would qualify 2001 as boring space film

[Dr. Balls]

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

 

... to my house with a giant truckload of money."

 

I'm sure that given enough money, Peter Jackson would do a three-film prequel trilogy on The Golden Girls.

[Awax]

Meet the Feebles was a masterpiece. (thumbs u

 

 

[cujobyte]

Meet the Feebles was a masterpiece. (thumbs u

 

 

+1.

[dupont2005]

I'll go against the grain here a bit.

 

Having worked in film for 8-9 yrs, the early Jackson films are truly revolutionary. If you don't think the creator of "Dead Alive" which is one of the best of it's genre, couldn't do wonders with certain comic characters, you're kidding yourselves.

 

As far as the Hobbit films, they're just "more of the same" from him imo. So I won't defend them, nor do they need defending I guess considering this new one did $90.5 million this weekend.

 

It's a shame that films like "The Godfather" (the first two) wouldn't even be made today, considering the average young movie goer's attention span is slightly longer than that of a gnat. I say this in jest, but it's fairly accurate. Having said all that, I think superhero films obviously have come a long way, and Marvel's been on a roll. People change their mind all the time in that industry, and I for one would love to see a Jackson/Marvel film in the same manner as Dead Alive.

 

I'll get off the soap box now.

I love the Godfather. Period dramas are my favorite movies, and I can't stand 99% of action or even big budget movies today. But I also can't stand any of the Hobbit movies, because they suck. Also can't stand any super hero movies anymore though so it doesn't really matter. I'm a cranky old man when it comes to movies I guess. Avatar, Roger Rabbit, it's all cartoons to me.

[cloud cloddie]

Meet the Feebles was a masterpiece. (thumbs u

 

 

+1.

 

+2. Those are my favorite gifs to post

[slym2none]

I am thinking that Mr. Jackson is thinking about how to turn what amounts to a reference book into a feature movie.

 

 

 

-slym

[Hamlet]

I think this is mostly bull. I think the issue is that older people are always comparing young peoples' attention span with their own current attention span, rather than their attention span from when they were young.

 

Movies are as long as they've ever been, and young people are a large portion of the people going to them.

 

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/01/25/movies-arent-actually-much-longer-than-they-used-to-be/

 

 

 

It's a shame that films like "The Godfather" (the first two) wouldn't even be made today, considering the average young movie goer's attention span is slightly longer than that of a gnat. I say this in jest, but it's fairly accurate.

[catrick339]

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.

 

A friend and I discussed it, we believe you could edit the three Hobbit flicks into two solid 2 hour movies, or maybe one 4-1/2 hour epic for the DVD release. Everything beyond that is unnecessary padding

[jsilverjanet]

I think this is mostly bull. I think the issue is that older people are always comparing young peoples' attention span with their own current attention span, rather than their attention span from when they were young.

 

Movies are as long as they've ever been, and young people are a large portion of the people going to them.

 

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/01/25/movies-arent-actually-much-longer-than-they-used-to-be/

 

 

 

It's a shame that films like "The Godfather" (the first two) wouldn't even be made today, considering the average young movie goer's attention span is slightly longer than that of a gnat. I say this in jest, but it's fairly accurate.

 

I think he meant the speed on how the plot develops vs length of movie

[Mr Sneeze]

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.

 

A friend and I discussed it, we believe you could edit the three Hobbit flicks into two solid 2 hour movies, or maybe one 4-1/2 hour epic for the DVD release. Everything beyond that is unnecessary padding

 

Agreed. I remember looking forward to the extended editions of the original trilogy each of which made a measurable difference - to me at least. With the Hobbit I truly wish for a shortened edition to get rid of all the padding.

 

While I think it could have been done much better, the LOTR trilogy at times at least captured the sense of urgency of the books. With the Hobbit movies the spirit of fun and adventure is completely missing. The Hobbit is a much lighter book in tone and does not benefit from all the foreshadowing carp. As much as he is trying, the Hobbit is not the LOTR's.

[ComicConnoisseur]

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

I love long movies. I came a long way though, as I use to struggle to sit thru 90 minute FF movies. After the Heath Ledger Dark Knight movie`s greatness I now appreciate long movies, and feel ripped off if they don`t get close to the 3 hour mark.

btw I loved The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. A great scene about greed.

 

[musicmeta]

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

 

To each their own. I thought the LOTR movies were FANTASTIC! I have the boxed set of the extended edition in regular and Blu Ray. I've watched these movies quite often.

I read the books when I was in high school and thought they were amazing.