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

[slym2none]

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

 

Heh, I am the sort that loves that story so much, I really enjoyed the Extended Versions (and I have Speedy's pick with those on it as one of my low # raffle choices) and heard that they still aren't what PJ would consider his "director's cut." If they were all remade into 6-hour movies with everything PJ wanted to keep, I'd be all shutupandtakemymoney.jpeg.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

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.

 

I have yet to see any of The Hobbit movies, and am torn as I love that story too, but it seems like PJ extended that a little too much... but I can't say for sure until I watch them.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[40sJohn]

For me the LOTR trilogy stands as one of the greatest achievements in movie making history. The extended versions of the movies are very good as well and in at least one instance, it is better than the theatrical release. What makes these movies so good for me is that it captured the look and feel of Middle Earth as I imagined it. I can't recall a movie capturing the feel of the books as well as these movies did.

[makeminemego]

Peter Jackson is probably right on some levels, but I simply don't get his Hobbit or LOOR movies. Bloated, plodding, and incredibly self-indulgent. I guess his non-involvement in future Marvel projects is a relief.

 

IMO, at least. I know lots of people love those flicks, my wife included.

[rjpb]

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.

 

While I'm sure far more people have seen the movies than read the books, it does seem if you loved the books, you loved the movies, and if you lost interest in the books, you lost interest in the movies, so in that respect one would have to say Jackson was faithful to the material. The continued success of the expanded Hobbit movies indicates that Jackson has created a large audience for his version of Tolkien's world, so he must be doing something right, if you have a taste for that sort of thing.

 

As a kid I far preferred the Conan books to LoTR ( which I never finished despite my brother's insistence that it was the best thing ever), and while I'm not as big on fantasy as I was then, I've enjoyed Game of Thrones and it's sequels far more than I ever did Tolkien.

 

 

[slym2none]

While I'm sure far more people have seen the movies than read the books, it does seem if you loved the books, you loved the movies, and if you lost interest in the books, you lost interest in the movies, so in that respect one would have to say Jackson was faithful to the material. The continued success of the expanded Hobbit movies indicates that Jackson has created a large audience for his version of Tolkien's world, so he must be doing something right, if you have a taste for that sort of thing.

 

That seems to make sense.

 

 

 

-slym

[RockMyAmadeus]

Peter Jackson can suck it.

 

There were no elves at Helm's Deep.

[slym2none]

What about Tom Bombadil?!?!? As long as those movies were, he couldn't put in the real way that the Hobbits all got their elven swords?

 

 

 

 

-slym (has few faults with the LOTR movies, but the ones he has are big ones)

[999ghosts]

Some people like superhero movies, other like LOTR and hobbit movies, and some like both while others like none.

And many people see the superheroes movies without reading the comics. Has an advantage, they don't see how bad most of them are (see ASM-2, all FF movies, etc.)

 

I think the LOTR movies are overrated. 3 movies about wandering the lands! Battles with 1000 of casualties but no drop of blood!!! He should have used a lawn mower in LOTR.

[slym2none]

I can't speak for movies, but I read the first Terry Brooks' "Kingdom Of Landover" novel and absolutely hated how much he skipped over while moving between lands & countries. It was all "we did this here, then we got on a magic dragon and now we were here and did this."

 

It was such a departure from what the genre holds, much less his own "Shannara" books, that I never bothered with any more of those Landover novels he wrote.

 

 

 

-slym

[dupont2005]

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.

 

I can sit through a long Scorsese movie. Not a Hobbit movie though.

[Mr Sneeze]

Peter Jackson can suck it.

 

There were no elves at Helm's Deep.

This

[Jeffro.]

Peter Jackson is probably right on some levels, but I simply don't get his Hobbit or LOOR movies. Bloated, plodding, and incredibly self-indulgent.

 

Isn't self-indulgence a pre-requisite for a movie director?

[NewEnglandGothic]

I can understand why Jackson would feel this way after getting Best Picture and having somewhat freedom to develop what he wants still even if it underperforms (King Kong). There is a certain prestige to do projects close to his heart with passion, that might be too controlled by Disney if he ventured into the Mouse House. He also might view these movies like others do of the WWE (muscle-bound men in spandex, making threats, duking it out, etc.).

 

Here's something to think about...

Besides Christopher Nolan, how many A-list directors can you name make funnybook movies after 2005?

A couple that didn't pan out in the past... Tim Burton.

Made great movies, but basically dropped from Batman Forever.

Ang Lee, is another.

That didn't work out so well.

Richard Donner.

Fired.

I'm not calling Whedon or Gunn a couple of hacks, mind you, but they are somewhat studio/producer friendly and play by the rules.

[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.

 

While I'm sure far more people have seen the movies than read the books, it does seem if you loved the books, you loved the movies, and if you lost interest in the books, you lost interest in the movies, so in that respect one would have to say Jackson was faithful to the material. The continued success of the expanded Hobbit movies indicates that Jackson has created a large audience for his version of Tolkien's world, so he must be doing something right, if you have a taste for that sort of thing.

 

As a kid I far preferred the Conan books to LoTR ( which I never finished despite my brother's insistence that it was the best thing ever), and while I'm not as big on fantasy as I was then, I've enjoyed Game of Thrones and it's sequels far more than I ever did Tolkien.

 

 

If you're talking about the Robert E. Howard Conan books, those were GREAT reads. Loved them!

[Jedi Clampett-migration]

This is like the time Kubrick refused to make a buddy cop movie even though they were all the rage,

Turner & Hooch could have been so great.

[Comicopolis]

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.