![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#5 | ||
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,510
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
![]() I often disparage Jackson, but there are many things he did right in the LotR films, and from a cinematographic standpoint I think he did fine. However, my stance is and always has been that Jackson's additions detracted from the movie and did not improve the plot over what was already in the books and not included in the films. Many people I have heard from over the years consider the first movie, FotR, as the best and the second, TTT, as the worst. Not surprisingly, the first movie had the least amount of additional drek (Warrior Princess Xenarwen the most notable) and the second had the most effluvia (right down to Aragorn kissing his horse amorously). The Hobbit movies are more egregious in superfluous scripting of a fan-fic nature than all three LotR movies combined, even to the point of adding an unnecessary and ludicrous Mary-Sue character. Jackson has gone so overboard that the last vestiges of The Hobbit (and the alleged main character, Bilbo) were removed when the hobbit-centric title "There and Back Again", reflecting the unassuming nature of Bilbo Baggins, was changed to "The Battle of the Five Armies" which assumes the character of Jackson's juvenile love for decapitations, CGI swarming legions and explodey things. Viggo was right. Jackson lacks subtlety.
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. Last edited by Morthoron; 05-18-2014 at 09:51 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |