Peter Jackson Not Pleased EA Experience

The New York Times reports in an article about the King Kong movie based game that director Peter Jackson wasn't entirely happy with his EA dealings. From the article: "Mr. Jackson, said close associates, chafed at his dealings with the industry heavyweight, Electronic Arts, during the making of the Lord of the Rings games. 'Electronic Arts was not interested in input from the filmmaker,' but later marketed the games as if he were closely involved, said Ken Kamins, Mr. Jackson's manager."

Comments

What's with the misleading headline?

[volpone]

The article has nothing to do with Electronic Arts. It briefly mentions it in a couple of sentences (conveniently copied above) as an aside. That's all.

It's a good article, but come on, enough with the obligatory EA bashing.

Re:What's with the misleading headline?

[sgant]

Yeah, no kidding. I clicked on the article thinking it would be a whole story about this, but come on...it's mentioned in a few times in an article that has nothing to do with this issue.

The summary that the main poster made was ALL of the EA stuff mentioned in the article!

Re:What's with the misleading headline?

[MoaDweeb]

Interesting to see the changes that PC/ console gaming has wrought upon the film industry. It has given them a new line up of tired ideas to create pretty, but dull, movies. Especially in the action genre are we far from where the films are basically promos for the game? After all it allows the financiers able to cash in not only on the movie (NZ$15) but also the game as well. The games (NZ$100) are always much longer and give a more immersive feel than the movies and keep interest alive until the inevitable sequel.

Re:What's with the misleading headline?

[Delphiki]

This is a good technique for slashdot. Now people don't need to RTFA too know all that the article has to say about the topic at hand.

Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, EA, I was almost hoping you would have a human aspect to your business dealings. Despite your games being nothing but movie adaptions or sports games, all the hype about LotR and King Kong and the dialogue between director/game studio and so forth kind of had me hoping that the company had enough initiative to do more than buy random companies out; however deeply buried it may be. If so, then there might be some hope for you actually making good games instead of just milking them.

Guess not. Ignoring Peter Jackson? For shame.

Forget Peter Jackson

[chriso11]

I'm sorry, but I can't get really bent about that. After Jackson basically chopped the LOTR, I don't give him much credit. If JRR had complained about EA not working with him, then OK, then there is someone who has a valid criticism.

But where does Jackson get the "Only Official way to interpet LOTR" badge? If he wasn't happy with how EA made the game, and didn't want his name attached, he could have easily sent lawyers.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[sgant]

Lol..."chopped the LOTR".

That's funny stuff there tough-guy. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. But I suppose, and this is only a guess, that you're one of those people that feels that everything in the books should have been put down on film including the Scouring of the Shire and such? Am I right about that? Oh, and the Elves at Helms Deep probably really sticks in your gums too doesn't it? Did you get up and walk out when that happened like I've heard others write?

Just wondering...guess this also can be thrown into all the Star Wars fans that hate Lucas for destroying their memories or something...

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[sgant]

Jackson doesn't get that badge...but he DOES get the badge for that particular vision of LOTR. It was HIS images and look and feel EA was using. If they didn't want his input, they should have brought in their own art directors and designers. It's not something he could have just taken his name off of when the entire thing looks like his movies.

Something to think about perhaps?

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[tiraid]

There were no Elves at Helms Deep! Where does that no good hack Tolkien get off writting a crappy book about Peter Jackson's movie!

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[sgant]

Lol.

But the fact of the matter is...who cares? It's a fricken movie...AND it's a fricken book! If both were erased from existence tomorrow the Earth would still spin on its axis and life would continue on. Getting upset about this crap is kind of silly.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[LordLucless]

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movies, and I think that they were some of the best book-to-movie conversions, especially on that sort of scale, that I've ever seen. But I really do wish they'd included Scouring of the Shire. It was my favourite chapter, and really added quite a lot to the book. Tolkien even wrote specifically about that chapter in his forward, saying that it was an essential part of the books, and planned from the very beginning.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[Kelson]

But where does Jackson get the "Only Official way to interpet LOTR" badge?

If they were making games based directly on the books, then yeah, there'd be no reason to get Peter Jackson involved unless they wanted to. But they made games based on his movies.

As for "he could have easily sent lawyers" -- he just as easily chose to pick his battles and vote with his wallet instead (by choosing another company the next time). Seriously, do *you* sue every business that does something you don't like? Or do you just file a complaint and take your business elsewhere?

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[chriso11]

Let me provide an example:

Compare the original theatical release to the extended DVD version. There is no argument that the extended release version tells the story better.

OK - your first thought is "DUH - the theatical release was the longest you can make a movie, so some things had to get taken out".

But then look at what was IN the theatical release that must have been deemed more important than actually telling the story - yes, the "Stair jumping in the Mines of Moria", hopping from tumbling step to crumbling step. So 10 minutes of some stupid video game excerpt was more important than explaining how Isildur died.

There is a whole host of things, from Gimli in the comic relief role, to Sauruman being a servant of Sauron, which simply add nothing to the story.

This may surprise you, but the Elves at Helm's Deep didn't bother me. But the Elrond lying to his daughter - that subplot was lame. I guess you think that the original LOTR books should all be taken out and burned, so that only Peter Jackson's Masterpiece should be available for the masses.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[Ayaress]

So 10 minutes of some stupid video game excerpt was more important than explaining how Isildur died.

Stuff like that was what worried me years ago when I first heard about the LOTR movies.

Not that they would do this, but that they' WOULDN'T. LOTR, as it's set in the books, isn't very theatrical. There's a lot of walking. A lot of discussion and revisiting of old topics, lots historical background, lots of closure to plot lines lines that didn't actually play a part in the trilogy, some of which don't make complete sense unless you also read the Silmarillion or the Hobbit. There were lots of bits of minor excitement leading to entire chapters - and Tolkein seems to have liked long chapters - of talking and singing and carrying on (The Tom Bombadil stretch is a good example), which could be skipped without damaging the major plot thread.

That works in books. It works very well in books, in fact. Just not in movies. With a movie, you have that invisible clock ticking - the LOTR movies were pushing the limits of how long I wanted to sit in a cramped, poorly cleaned theater chair pondering what caused the strange discoloration on the back of the seat in front of me.

A lot of the backstory had to get dropped. Look at Serenity: One of it's main weaknesses is that it's an ending, not a beginning. People who didn't watch Firefly tend to be lost. LOTR had to be a beginning. It was pulling the series off the shelves of nerds and putting it in front of the entire world.

Movies also have to end on a BIG finish. I liked the Scouring of the Shire, it was an important part of the books, but it wasn't that exciting compared to the apocalyptic battle that just finished. I've seen movies that end like that, and I find myself wondering more when it'll be done so I can go pee than what's actually happening.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

So Aragorn singing "I did it my way" is a better ending?

I find myself wondering more when it'll be done so I can go pee than what's actually happening
Sorry - don't order the big gulp before the movie next time.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[PGC]

Chopped it up ? Tolkien might have been the first fantasy writer. but he sure as hell wasn't the best. The story was mediocre (at best) and way too long-threaded. I am GLAD he chopped it up and made it 'wachtable' (and even then, some people considered the movies to be too long-threaded ). I can't imagine the amount of boredom it would have caused for the audiance if he hadn't.

One thing JRR should be severely punished for however is for the ending of the third movie. Half an hour of gay-ness, while the story was long finished. ( I was watching it in the cinema with some relatively devoted LotR fans and even they just had to laugh at the absurdity of the ending).

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[PGC]

I paid money to see that movie damnit ! :P It'd better stop spinning.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[PGC]

yes

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[GaryPatterson]

He sure did "chop the LOTR."

All the way from an unfilmable series of good books to a series of great films.

The pieces of the book that were chopped were sometimes good (Glorfindel), sometimes bad (Bombadil) but in the end not central to the story. I'd have loved the Scouring of the Shire as well, but that's the way it is.

It wasn't the absolutely perfect film trilogy it could have been, but it was pretty damn close. Using the books as screenplays would have turned out a horrible, unwatchable but incredibly accurate series of about six films. And the handful of fans that watched the final film would have wondered why the cinemas were so empty.

This may be one of those times when you have to just accept that a director like Jackson knows what he's doing better than some random guy somewhere on the Internet.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[drsquare]

10 minutes of wobbling around on steps is never acceptable, you didn't even actually try to justify it. I read the books but even I was hoping the steps would just fall and kill them all so we could get to the next fucking scene.

There have been films longer than LOTR that didn't rely on endless dull action.

Even then, there were action scenes in the book cut out that were more interesting than Jackon's made up stuff like crumbling staircases and endless stupid dream sequences.

How can he justify taking stuff out to keep the film shorter, then replacing it with made up stuff that's even more boring?

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[sgant]

I guess you think that the original LOTR books should all be taken out and burned, so that only Peter Jackson's Masterpiece should be available for the masses.

No, actually I don't. I think both things...the movies and the books...can exist in the world. I mean, let's boil it all down shall we? It's a fricken movie and book! As I said on another post WHO CARES when you get right down to it? They're both entertainment. If they were both wiped out of existence tomorrow life would go on. Getting pissed over one or the other is really kind of silly when you get right down to it. Enjoy both if you wish or neither. Does it really matter?

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[Grab]

It depends on whether you think the movie is all about Aragorn, or all about Frodo. It very much plays out JRR's experiences in WWI.

Aragorn is your typical uber-hero. He's spent his whole life fighting. He gets through it OK, gets the girl, gets the kingdom and starts the rule of Men in Middle Earth. Merry and Pippin don't start that way, but they are clearly natural rebels to start with, and have extensive support structures in the armies they join.

Frodo though is your typical "normal" person, put in a position where he has to do things totally outside his nature, left pretty much on his own, and fighting against horrors his life hasn't prepared him to deal with. He's the one who wins the battle, but he's completely spiritually broken by the experience, can never get over it, and in the end chooses to opt out of the world because he can't keep living with his experiences in a world that pretends nothing's happened.

Half an hour of gayness? I guess The Deer Hunter was all gayness as well then?

Yes, it could have been done better in the movie - and replacing Elijah Wood with a decent actor would have been a good start. The idea that LotR is all about people with big swords chopping each other up though is very far from the truth. If that's what you went to see, check out Arnie instead - you don't need a film with a plot or any kind of characterisation or character development.

Grab.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[jettoki]

Did you see the EA games based on LotR?!

Gandalf escaped Moria unscathed, because he used Lightning Sword.

Did you feel the ground tremor? That was Ronald Reuel spinning in his grave.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[stevey]

He's the one who wins the battle, but he's completely spiritually broken by the experience, can never get over it, and in the end chooses to opt out of the world because he can't keep living with his experiences in a world that pretends nothing's happened.

Not to mention of course that he failed his task.

The fact that the ring was destroyed was due to Gollum. Frodo himself failed (though he did a damn good job up until the moment inside Mount Doom).

I've always thought that was a large part of the reason Frodo was allowed to leave Middle-Earth (that and the wound of the Nazgul.)

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[superpulpsicle]

EA manager: We are making a fighting game.

EA marketing: Let's use Peter Jackson's name and the LOTR name.

EA dev: We have this D quality fighting game for 2 years, we just need to slap on a label.

EA marketing: Mr Jackson please sign here for $$$ and direct credit to the game.

Peter Jackson: Great. Now I think the environment should....

EA manager: STFU. Let's put this game on the shelf asap.

Re:Forget Peter Jackson

[mink]

Actually your example of Tom Bombadil is a BAD example. The end of his interaction with the Hobbits is how they get the Elven weapons, one of which is used to help bring down the Witch King of Agmar (did they even say they were special in the movies, I only remember some knives Strider gave them). Another important part of the Bombadil encounter is at the start with Old Man Willow. Apparently Jackson saw this as an important enough part to move it into the Fangorn segment.

IMO he should have been in there. They could have done all his stuff, left in the barrow weights and what not, and the total time spent on it could have been a zippy 10 minutes. Sure they probably would need to cut the singing (most of it) and reduced him talking to them and putting on the ring to a brief moment while they prepared for the journey out when they encounter the barrow weights.

I'm not saying it MUSST BE DONE(my precious), but it could have been done, not been goofy, and added to the film even if it only made it into the extended edition.

As for bladder problems I think realistically it should have been done like the real format of the books. 2 movies per part of the trilogy. If you go and look at them, usually they end of a decent cliff hanger. You know how disappointed I was that the two towers didn't end with Shelob? I was expecting an awesome suspense/action/cliffhanger ending to the film and I got nothing near as good. Maybe though this was something that nothing but the book can do well, in the sense of putting you into the action. The film version just could IMO not quite bring across the total of the fight Sam has with Shelob, followed by his sadness over Frodo's apparent death and his guilt/anger at discovering Frodo was not dead but merely mostly dead. Maybe my imagination just makes better work of the words then a movie script can. Shelob seemed to just be a big hungry spider in the film, while in the books they spend a good deal of time scaring you about/with her before you see her, and then her description is more like a big fleshy black widow or something.

Another problem I think was the films did bad job of showing you how much time everything took to happen. If when they switched people or major scenes they had flashed up the date or something it would have helped (just don't use a modern font and that typing sound).

Poetic Justice

[Detritus]

Now he knows how authors feel about the movie adaptations, or mutilations, of their work by "auteurs".

Entirely predictable

[petrus4]

Peter Jackson has been seen to be an individual of tremendous intelligence, creativity, and (unusual) humility. It is completely understandable that a person posessing such characteristics would have problems dealing with the brainless, soulless, mindlessly commercialistic ghouls that we have come to know and loath as Electronic Arts. Witness how they treated Richard Garriot. I truly find it difficult to adequately verbalise the intense hatred and contempt which I feel for this particular corporation. When contemporary Communists (such as the GPL advocates here on Slashdot) wish to make their case as to why capitalism in general is supposedly evil, companies like EA unfortunately provide a rich source of valid support for their arguments.

As far as EA are concerned however, creative individuals (and human beings in general, for that matter) are to be chewed up and unceremoniously spat out once they are percieved to have outlived their usefulness. The company gives capitalism an exceptionally bad name, and makes it difficult for those of us who, while not wishing to be part of the eight hour a day grind, simply wish to make an honest living nonetheless, in a manner which does not involve raping either the environment or our fellow man.

Capitalism in and of itself does not have to be a bad thing...I have long believed that, and will continue to. The problem is when you have corporations like EA which, in their belief that money is more important than life itself, engage in scorched earth tactics accordingly.

Re:Entirely predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand corporations and capitalism. The ONLY point of corporations is to make money for their shareholders. In fact they are required by law to do that as well as they can. Corporations are not alive, not human, so why should they care about "life"? Corporations are not required to be nice or make people happy. When EA behaves the way it does it is being nothing more than a normal corporation. It's a mistake to judge EA as if it were a person; it's apples and oranges. EA is not a bad corporation; in fact it is a pretty good one. EA is not giving capitalism a bad name, it is functioning exactly as the system encourages it too.

        Now whether we want to have a system that encourages entities like EA to exist is another question entirely. Personally I am bored with capitalism.

King Kong (the game) was made by Ubisoft

[core]

The King Kong game was created by Ubi pictures (a division of Ubisoft located in South France), makers of Ray Man, Tonic Trouble, and Beyond Good & Evil. Not sure what that all has to do with EA except they may be distributing. They had a ton of news coverage here with Peter Jackson visiting the developers and whatnot. Would journalists be guilty of hyping an empty story? .. Nah..

Best regards,
Emmanuel

--
Hit ball matching game for Windows and OS X, Atlantis: http://www.funpause.com/

Fairies, new game from the makers of Atlantis, just out!

money is all that matters...

[clragon]

I still can't believe that EA is still so popular... just look at B&W2, they gave the CE of the game a tiger pet, only unlockable if you bought the CE version, then EA goes and puts the unlocker on their site... as for the article, why is he complaining when (i assume) EA is paying him? if the game sells well he probably gets more money, using his name to advertise the game is only going to make the game more popular therefor more profit for both he and EA..

Re:money is all that matters...

[micpp]

Why is he complaining? Just a little thing called artistic integrity.