Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
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?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
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.
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.