• Announcements

    • Jay

      PLEASE DONATE to JWFAN if you can!   08/16/16

      Hello JWFan members,   The team behind JWFan needs your help!   We need annual donations to keep our community running   This is for the domain name, IPBoard license, and server space.   We hope you can help use with a donation of any size.   Use this link or the link on the mainpage. Thank you!   The Administration team

Nick66

Members
  • Content count

    436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nick66

  • Rank
    Regular Poster
  • Birthday May 4

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oxford, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1743 profile views
  1. The prequels are only "entertainingly bad" in retrospect, because everyone has accepted what they are and there's nothing to be done about it. At the time, there was nothing fun about experience of shear disappointment in watching them after so much anticipation. A corollary to this is that by the time ROTS rolled around expectations were so low that it seemed like it was better than it actually is.
  2. Well, I think expanding the Bard character was essential. Even in a one film version of the Hobbit, you'd have to give more depth to Bard. You just can't have a new character come out of nowhere and do that. I think there were mixed results with the way it was executed, so whether it "works" or not is another matter. But no, I didn't have a problem with expanding his character. Along these lines I also didn't have a problem with creating individual personalities for all the Dwarves and making Thorin a younger, and more heroic character than in the book.
  3. Yep. In the LOTR commentary, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens talk about how they intentionally tried to stay close to the source material through the at first several drafts of the scripts, and always had as the first priority staying true to Tolkien's spirit. Once they did that, only then did they allow themselves the freedom of deviating from Tolkien for purposes of making the story more engaging for cinema. As a result, the changes we did get were mostly good, and for the most part are things that aren't even really regarded as controversial today (e.g. the change in Faramir's character). On the other hand, on The Hobbit they seem to have regarded Tolkien's story as merely inspirational source material...a bare skeleton on which to hang their own ideas, many of which were insipid. As a result, much of The Hobbit doesn't work. And most of the things that do work are Tolkiens.
  4. I'm not sure I agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I think Jackson is an outstanding director, and while I have serious problems with The Hobbit, I think it's still far ahead of the Prequels in pretty much every way. That said, let's remember that George Lucas created something entirely original. Star Wars was an stunningly original piece of work that came from George Lucas' imagination and inspiration. The Force, Lightsabers, Wookies, etc. are all unique creations. Yes, Star Wars, like all works of art, had its (well known) influences, but it was an original creation. Jackson's Lord of the Rings, as remarkable achievement as it is, in an adaptation of the creative genius of someone else. So yes, Peter Jackson in 2001 or today is a better director than George Lucas in 2001. I think it's hard to argue with that. But could Peter Jackson have created Star Wars? I don't know. I don't think so. So maybe "inspired" wasn't the word you were looking for, because despite his many faults as director, I don't think Lucas lacked for inspiration.
  5. I bought all of the CR's as they came out, ripped them and don't think I've touched them since. Had no idea until I saw this thread that they'd gone OOP, or become so valuable. Not that I'd sell them, they'd have to be worth more than a few hundred pounds for me to do that. But glad I grabbed these when I did.
  6. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words...
  7. Yes, I know all this and agree with you. I've probably read Lord of the Rings alone dozens of time and adore Tolkien's language. Which is why I said "it's the language" that Tolkien's books are about. He was, after all, a philologist. You just said it more eloquently and, um, verbosely than I did.
  8. Tolkien's language can be challenging. But to a large extent it's the language that those books are about. And of course Tolkien is "failing to be like Shakespeare". He's not even trying to be like Shakespeare, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. Again, if you find the language off putting, fair enough. LOTR as literature is certainly not everyone's cup of tea.
  9. Mate, you are so missing the point.
  10. No idea if there's a stream, it's easy enough to do a direct download from his site, in whatever file size/format you wish. He does have some clips up. His work is impressive. The guys a professional film maker and you'd have no idea you were watching a fan edit if you didn't know it. Of course, if you're into the bloated Hobbit it won't be your thing, but if you're interested in a version of the Hobbit that's much closer to the book, and more focused on Bilbo, I'd recommend checking it out.
  11. I'm not one for fan edits, at all, but the Maple Films "JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit," clocking in at 247 minutes, is my go-to version of The Hobbit now. There's actually a pretty decent film under all of that bloat. It's amazing how much fat can be trimmed from those films and not miss a beat. Here's a pretty comprehensive list of what he did:
  12. As long as the original LOTR TE and EE's are available in whatever format and resolution a new cut is in, I guess Jackson can do whatever he wishes. He can stick Martin Freeman in the Fellowship prologue and do whatever other Lucas nonsense he's inclined to, as long as the original cuts available in the same quality and format. That said, I hope Jackson just leaves well enough alone. To be honest, I don't trust his instincts that much anymore. FOTR and TTT were masterpieces. ROTK was outstanding but Jackson's self-indulgent, over the top tendencies (that would later explode in The Hobbit) were starting to creep in by that point. I think he could only detract from these films by screwing around with them too much.
  13. I'm not so sure. He's mentioned doing something like that several times, in both the LOTR and Hobbit commentaries, I believe. Now, he sounded half joking most of the time, but even if he simply inserted Martin Freeman into the FOTR prologue, that would count as a third cut. So who knows. I'd be happy simply getting a FOTR w/o the green tint.
  14. Obviously they were referring to Jackson's extremely popular (but very secret) Myspace and AOL accounts. Either way, Monaghan got punk'd.
  15. Well, I wouldn't say he disavowed the release as much as "distanced" himself from it. In any event, I wonder how Dom Monaghan is feeling about now.