|
|
Post by jppiper on Sept 21, 2020 16:44:04 GMT
a long time ago (even though it wasn't really a long time ago) in a Galaxy not too far away Peter Jackson Joss Whedon and J.K. Rowling were the rulers of Geekdom. while George was getting dragged through the mud by pretentious fanboys and critics Peter Joss and J.K. were getting all the praise for giving the fans what they want.
Peter with the LOTR Trilogy which dominated the Box Office with ROTK winning the Best Picture Oscar (a big win for fans of sci-fi and fantasy) Joss had Buffy the Vampire Slayer Angel and Firefly and it's big screen adaptation Serenity (which people said would be what the Star Wars Prequels weren't) his planned film version of Wonder Woman (which didn't pan out more on that shortly) His Avengers was a record-breaking Blockbuster and J.K.'s Harry Potter Book and film franchise was a phenomenon much like Star Wars was in it's heyday peter and joss's names were passed around to direct the long awaited sequel trilogy with fans thinking they can right the ship that Lucas led astray.
you probably know where this is going peter's long awaited remake of King Kong while successful wasn't the big Blockbuster people hoped for the next film he was involved with District 9 (which he produced) fared much better but his next directorial effort the Lovely Bones was a Box Office Disappointment then came the highly anticipated big screen adaptation of the LOTR prequel The Hobbit which was going to be 2 movies before it was decided to make it into a trilogy and much like another certain prequel trilogy before it disappointed critics and fans despite box office success in defense of jackson Warner Bros got too Greedy from making it into a trilogy to demanding filming get started immediately resulting in a lot of problems behind the scenes then came Mortal Engines which he produced which became one of the biggest box office flops in recent memory.
Things didn't go so well for joss either The Avengers sequel Age of Ultron while successful was considered a step down from it's predecessor while serenity released 10 years earlier flopped derailing that franchise later his unproduced WW script was leaked with accusations that it was sexist along with a nasty divorce with his ex-wife accusing him of being a fraud and fake feminist then the sith really hit the fan when he took over direction of Justice League during production with accusations from Cyborg actor Ray Fisher that he was abusive apparently this goes back to buffy when he lashed out at poor James Marsters who played Spike because fans swooned over him even though he was a villain.
and J.K. where do we begin? her attempt at a non-HP novel while successful couldn't match the story of the Boy who Lived her revealing TMI on certain things in the Potterverse (like how they went to the bathroom) her saying Ron and Hermione wouldn't work out the Cursed Child play (while she came up with the story she didn't write the script) the Fantastic Beasts films (yet another series of prequels) and her comments on Transgenders.
in short of the three once proud rulers of Geekdom who has fallen the hardest?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Sept 21, 2020 17:26:08 GMT
a long time ago (even though it wasn't really a long time ago) in a Galaxy not too far away Peter Jackson Joss Whedon and J.K. Rowling were the rulers of Geekdom. while George was getting dragged through the mud by pretentious fanboys and critics Peter Joss and J.K. were getting all the praise for giving the fans what they want. It's truly funny how things go. Life has a habit of evening things up and making everything come out in the wash in time. Compared to Joss Whedon and J.K. Rowling, Lucas appears to have less skeletons in his closest. Is he a bigot? An abuser? A narcissist? A bully? A tyrant? The record would suggest he is none of those things. But of course, nobody is perfect, and despite all the opprobrium thrown at Lucas in the past, a few more compromising nuggets -- like the fact he basically entered into a capitalistic conspiracy with Steve Jobs to keep his employees' wages artificially low -- have mostly escaped people's notice. In fact, all the methods and schemes Lucas used to become a multi-billionaire have never been seriously investigated, and perhaps they should be. Nobody becomes a billionaire by playing nice. And sometimes, to be honest, it's clear that Lucas' greed got the better of him. Cheating "Dinotopia" creator James Gurney out of a stake in Star Wars and phoning him the day after TPM went on release, given how close Lucas sailed to the wind on that occasion, was also a dick move. Hopefully, a deal was struck and Gurney was paid enough to justify his keeping quiet about it since. Ironically, by taking his arch-capitalist impulses to their zenith and selling to the biggest entertainment company in the world, Lucas has managed to give the appearance of impartiality and moral superiority. In many fans' eyes, he has gone from a figure of hate and resentment to a flawed but eccentric genius; or at least a guy with one or two genuine visionary dimensions to his character. Emblematic of this turnaround is how prequel-hater and J.J. Abrams confidante Simon Pegg, once ready to spew vitriol about the prequels and even their fans at the most inopportune and inappropriate of moments, has since performed a slight mea culpa and expressed a measure of regret that Lucas isn't still around to guide his creation under Disney-owned Lucasfilm. Because there are now a bunch of new fall guys to blame (Bob Iger, Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson, J.J. Abrams, et al.) and Lucas has essentially washed his hands of his creation (or at least has only very limited direct involvement), fans have turned their guns away from Lucas onto different targets, and Lucas seems lovable and enlightened by comparison. That's truly how you become a multi-billionaire and recover your artistic legacy in the process. As Kanye rapped/sang: I sold my soul to the devil that's a crappy deal
Least it came with a few toys like a happy meal
This game you could never win
Cause they love you then they hate you then they love you again |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Sept 22, 2020 1:07:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Sept 22, 2020 10:03:46 GMT
Whedon sounds like an egomaniac, as the writer puts it, screaming at his actors and so forth. Reminds me of James Cameron. Lucas, by contrast, is one of these "iron fist in a velvet glove" types. Plus, on the prequels, he got Rick McCallum to be the bad guy, screaming at staff and throwing tantrums. Good cop, bad cop. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Sept 23, 2020 9:37:41 GMT
I never held them in high regard to begin with, specially Joss Whedon and his works. His BTS behaviour is sadly not a surprise, Hollyweird in a nutshell.
Peter Jackson made some movies I like and others that I didn't like. Nothing out of the ordinary. He's not responsible for those who saw him as a guarantee of success.
Rowling created her own original, fictional world and was successful with it. So props to her. Hopefully now she learned not to bow down to the mob.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Sept 30, 2020 19:40:15 GMT
I'm sure someone does. Just like someone else thinks the opposite. Fortunately that decision is in the hands of Rowling, the author, not someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Sept 30, 2020 20:57:53 GMT
I'm sure someone does. Just like someone else thinks the opposite. Fortunately that decision is in the hands of Rowling, the author, not someone else. I agree with you on that one. The blog article is just a bunch of whiny crap. It has no more depth or poise than your average prequel-basing hit-piece. It's little more than reactionary groupthink and puritanical soapbox preaching. I love how the person says they aren't calling for anything to be cancelled, right as they're arguing that a beloved franchise needs to end. "I'm not censoring you, but I'm censoring you." It's far easier to be a criticiser than a doer. I'd love to see them come up with something of the complexity and appeal of Harry Potter. I say this as more or less a non-fan of the books and of J.K. Rowling. Even if I hold Rowling to be a bigot where the topic of transgenderism is concerned (and yes, I do), focusing on just that is ignoring all the good she's done, like encouraging young people to read and develop their imaginations. There's also such a concept as creators being flawed people (because, y'know, creators are human and humans are flawed), and their output both embodying their limitations and exceeding them. The human spirit is guided by external factors (the ancients literally believed in benign demons guiding their thoughts; although, if we just want to say it's the laws of physics, that's fine), and then readers themselves take many lessons and draw various sorts of inspiration from their work. Or in other words: even if you don't agree with a creator, you should still be able to enjoy their work; it shouldn't be a prerequisite. Or in yet other words: trust the art, not the artist. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Sept 30, 2020 21:06:07 GMT
I agree with you on that one. The blog article is just a bunch of whiny crap. It has no more depth or poise than your average prequel-basing hit-piece. It's little more than reactionary groupthink and puritanical soapbox preaching. I love how the person says they aren't calling for anything to be cancelled, right as they're arguing that a beloved franchise needs to end. "I'm not censoring you, but I'm censoring you." Exactly. I noticed that (all too common) hypocrisy right at the beginning, which was enough to make me stop reading the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Oct 31, 2020 23:19:37 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the connection between three apart of the fact that the typical genre of art they make is fantasy. Maybe you like them a lot, but comparison here would be like comparing apples and oranges. First, J. Rowling is a writer. The movies are another topic but they are not made by her. So if we compare them to the rest of the group we should compare the directors.
For the record, while I should have a soft vibe for Harry Potter series because they use elements of the folklore of my country (and the author herself confirmed it) I don't particularly like them.
I love the adaptations of Peter Jackson both of LOTR and the Hobbit, extended editions (EE) naturally, but here comes problem N2: why Jackson at all made the EE or more precisely said, if he considers them as the true movies (obviously this is the case) why making the theatrical realises at all?! Is not only matter of longitude (the movies coild be split if necessary), is because Jackson worked with big studio although and obviously he tried to stay as far as is possible from Hollywood, both literally and metaphorically. You pay a price while working for big studio, that's why the "hero" of Marvel cinematic universe is not some director or writer but the producer Kevin Faige (or whatever the guy's name was, I'm not big fan of these live comics in general). So not Whedon bit the producer matters here. The important thing for such kind of movies is that they are more and more producer's movies and less director's movies so I consider the EE of Jackson as a little victory against studios politics: Disney for example never allows this, they rarely show even the reshots .
From the three Lucas was the most independent filmmaker and in PT he achieved what he wanted although I must say, big part of the audience obviously lack the necessary, I would say basic culture to understand it. This is not Jane Austen adaptation to feel difficulties to understand the antiquated language and social relations yet from what I read in internet obviously even this is hard to understand. Is not that these movies are simple but they are told as fairytales which should be understood by anyone with minimal imagination. Maybe that is the first explanation why part of the audience rejected them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 4, 2020 1:52:50 GMT
tonygA FAIRY TALE THAT DISNEY BUTCHERED!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 4, 2020 2:30:59 GMT
tonyg A FAIRY TALE THAT DISNEY BUTCHERED! I don't think they butchered it, but it's funny that many fans now seem to think so. I'm talking mainly about OT fans and those people who wolfed TFA down like it was filet mignon. I give prequel fans credit for having strong boundaries. The former set of people soon changed their tune. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Nov 4, 2020 7:39:40 GMT
tonygA FAIRY TALE THAT DISNEY BUTCHERED! Agreed. However, my point is that sometimes the audience can also reject something good (or let's say it, the majority in this audience). |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 4, 2020 21:40:25 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the connection between three apart of the fact that the typical genre of art they make is fantasy. Maybe you like them a lot, but comparison here would be like comparing apples and oranges. First, J. Rowling is a writer. The movies are another topic but they are not made by her. So if we compare them to the rest of the group we should compare the directors. For the record, while I should have a soft vibe for Harry Potter series because they use elements of the folklore of my country (and the author herself confirmed it) I don't particularly like them. I love the adaptations of Peter Jackson both of LOTR and the Hobbit, extended editions (EE) naturally, but here comes problem N2: why Jackson at all made the EE or more precisely said, if he considers them as the true movies (obviously this is the case) why making the theatrical realises at all?! Is not only matter of longitude (the movies coild be split if necessary), is because Jackson worked with big studio although and obviously he tried to stay as far as is possible from Hollywood, both literally and metaphorically. You pay a price while working for big studio, that's why the "hero" of Marvel cinematic universe is not some director or writer but the producer Kevin Faige (or whatever the guy's name was, I'm not big fan of these live comics in general). So not Whedon bit the producer matters here. The important thing for such kind of movies is that they are more and more producer's movies and less director's movies so I consider the EE of Jackson as a little victory against studios politics: Disney for example never allows this, they rarely show even the reshots . From the three Lucas was the most independent filmmaker and in PT he achieved what he wanted although I must say, big part of the audience obviously lack the necessary, I would say basic culture to understand it. This is not Jane Austen adaptation to feel difficulties to understand the antiquated language and social relations yet from what I read in internet obviously even this is hard to understand. Is not that these movies are simple but they are told as fairytales which should be understood by anyone with minimal imagination. Maybe that is the first explanation why part of the audience rejected them. The Connection being that they all got Acclaim and Creator Worship while Lucas was treated like garbage and now the tables have turned. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 26, 2020 2:55:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Dec 4, 2020 19:26:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Mar 26, 2021 21:24:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Aug 9, 2022 23:25:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Aug 10, 2022 20:23:28 GMT
I just watched the entire video - one of the best I've seen in a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Aug 11, 2022 0:13:39 GMT
I haven't watched the video yet, but Rick is such a naughty boy. First, he defends the Prequels and THEN dares to ask THAT question.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Aug 11, 2022 1:36:40 GMT
He did the epic video defending Woody Allen too. It's like 9 hours long or something.
|
|
