Posted on 10/14/2010 9:45:32 PM PDT by This Just In
eter Jackson vs. The Unions
Posted By Leigh Scott On October 12, 2010
So my good friends, the labor unions, have decided to pick a fight with Peter Jackson and his upcoming production of “The Hobbit.” Of course, they are not my good friends, I say that sarcastically. Unions in general are bad news these days. The idea of “protecting the worker” has somehow morphed like a T-1000 into huge, multi-billion dollar corporations that stifle economic growth while using illegal methods of coercion to blackmail money from employers. The fact that they are a de facto wing of the Democratic Party also compels me to deny their friend requests on Facebook.
The entertainment industry guilds are particularly pernicious. They have singlehandedly forced film production out of California, and now, ultimately, out of the country. Their bullying knows no bounds. They are quick with a nasty press release (as in the case of “The Hobbit”) but have no qualms about making threats to commit illegal actions to get what they want. One of Mr. Jackson’s studios burned to the ground shortly after the release of his retaliatory statements.
(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com ...
“Mortensen is some kind of poet, which means he passes for an intellectual in Hollywood. He always seems like he’s about to cry in his movies. He was good in LOTR but The Road was absolute torture. He just seems like the kind of person you’d ask “Do you want a beer?” and he’d look off into the distance, start to talk, stop, finally mutter something about “In ancient Africa there was this tribe, gone now due to capitalism, and...” and you’d be like, “Dude, I just asked if you want a beer,” and then he’d start crying, silently, while looking disappointed at you.”
LOL
You’re right, of course, but this is an opinions thread. Do you think we’ll crack 1000?
When I think of screen writing I think of that Monty Python scene in the restaurant where, after witnessing a client gorging himself, the waiter offers just a “little” mint.
You just cannot pack it all in, not in a time period that audiences will watch.
What does somebody from the 10th Ward know anyway. ;-]
I don’t remember that scene from the movie. Is it in the extended version?
Have any of you ever read Shane? It could only be a movie. That said there’s so much to cover in the LOTRs that I think you have to edit it down.
Art De Vany wrote a paper, that I think he eventually turned into a book, on producing Hollywood blockbusters. His analysis is that it is essentially random. Stars, budgets, directors, screenplays, scores, producers, etc. make little difference.
It’s akin to the Butterfly Effect in weather - too many variables to control for. Part of the LOTRs success was the mood of the country.
!!!!! Busted. Luckily, my neighborhood has plenty of dupas to help me stay incognito....
There truly are and that’s the best camouflage you could ask for.
Nope, too bad it was him because for me all I saw was a dirty guy who sorta mouthed words and looked pathetic. But honestly I can't think of a modern day A-Lister who seems to fit the part.
Connery would have been good but his accent would have been distracting
True; no feminist icons there...
It wasn’t a substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel. In the book, it was Frodo who rode the horse and defied the Black Riders, not an elf.
If I hadn’t read the book, then when Frodo says he’ll take the ring to Mordor, I would expect Boromir to laugh and reply “You? You can’t spend a night in Bree without needing rescue! And you want us to trust you with an all powerful ring in Mordor? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
And everyone else would agree. In the book, Frodo is the main character. In the movie, he’s a runt that always needs rescuing.
I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m pretty sure Glorfindel is on the opposite shore and creates the river surge that kills off the Nine Riders’ horses. Gandolf then adds a few style points by making the waves waves look like riders and horses
And I don’t want to be one of those guys who NEEDS to be different, but to me, Sam is a man who fights war so he can move on and keep the life he has prior to the war; while Frodo is the hero who is affected by battle in ways not readily seen. Sam is more everyman; that’s why I say it’s hos story. A guy who suffered thru The Great War would tell the story of the man who did his duty and lived on, not the one who passed on Over the Sea.
“Until we cut TV off at the knees then we are slaves.”
If I punched you in the nose you would not say winos right fist is bad and should be avoided. You would avoid winodog.
Your enemy is the fedgov.con and the taxes it steals from us. We could stop supporting TV and the feds would still own us as property just like cattle.
I didn’t like Arwen in the movie, but the scene is confusing.
Yes, Frodo is braver and more thoughtful in the book, but this particular scene Arwen invokes the magic that destroys the Nazgul, no? That’s different than the book.
Here’s the Wiki entry:
“In Peter Jackson’s live-action The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), his role [of Glorfindel] is given to Arwen, who even takes Frodo to the Ford herself and summons the horses of water through an incantation. In the book the water horses and riders are actually only enhancements added by Gandalf to the pre-existing flooding curse that was previously set up by Elrond, as explained to Frodo in Chapter 13.”
That said, I agree with MR that Frodo is wimpish and Aragorn absurd. The more I see the movie the less I like Viggo’s portrayal. He seems more like a male model acting tough, than a real Ranger/King to me.
But, now that I wrote this I wouldn’t cross a Hegewisch Dupa, so I agree with him also. ;-]
I wore out my DVD set of the extended version of the movies - so I had to buy a second copy...so I don’t DISLIKE the movies.
I understand cutting out Tom Bombadil, for example, and placing more emphasis on action. The books include a lot of descriptions, and the language used would have hurt the movies as well.
The one that grated hard on me was putting in Arwen as a fighter, and then changing her to her role in the book - inspiration. The other big failing IMHO was Frodo, who needed to be a much stronger character. I don’t think, however, that the actor was up to the demands.
Viggo doesn’t bother me as much in the movie except that I think the actor plays him (and in his other roles) as if he would rather be reading poetry and wondering why evil white men have harmed the world so much.
‘Michael Douglas is one of the very few liberals who’s work I do watch on a consistent basis.’
Good taste in wives, too!
for the record, I also agree with Mr. rogers regarding Tom Bombadil, though it sure bummed me out - he fascinated me in the book with his ability to not be affected by the ring.
Patrick Stewart and a bunch of other BBC A-listers, too. That was a dream cast.
Both hotties - yes!
I’d actually like to see a treatment of Tom Bombadil as a separate installment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they did have quite a few adventures involving him and stayed with him for some time, no?
Viggo has begun to remind me of William Shatner. He seems so affected.
I'm not so sure about that. Arwen basically took over the roles ascribed to Aragorn and the Elf-Lord, not from Frodo. And it did have a purpose - basically to make Arwen something more than an off-screen and very colorless romantic interest.
The movie could not sustain the new characterization, so they had to drop it without explaining the enormous switch in Arwen’s personality. Had her role been what it was in the book, the remaining scenes with her would have made sense, while allowing the most important character in the book to show his mettle - to help us understand that Frodo was a strong person, both well taught and brave.
The point about Frodo, in fact all the hobbits, is that they are not well taught, they are not mighty warriors, they are very ordinary - and that is their main strength. LOTR is evil defeated by ordinary people with common sense and a mug of good ale. However, I take your point that the Arwen confronting the Ringwraths scene was a quite obvious attempt to pander to modern feminist thinking.
No, Viggo wasn’t at fault for the change in his character - but no matter how athletic he is (and I believe that is very), he plays roles as though he’d prefer writing poetry. Maybe that makes him more likable to women, but he remains too wimpy to have won Arwen’s heart and to be the ‘hope of the west’ - someone who could lead the forces against Sauron or plausibly get men to follow him to Mordor.
Perhaps, but the "High Men" of Gondor are supposed to be culturally advanced, into poetry and learning and lore - basically more elf like than man like. So perhaps that kind of fits. He certainly LOOKS more like a Dunedan than either Sean Bean or David Wenham.
I must admit I didn't like him as Aragorn when I first saw the film, but on repeated viewings he has grown on me. I agree there are limitations to his acting ability, but as I had never seen him in anything else beforehand and not much since, that doesn't really bother me much!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.