The ballard of Peter Jackson

[Marcus Telcontar]

I bring to you the ballad of The Ballad of Peter Jackson and the Critic. Enjoy...

In cin'mas dark the critic sat, pen in hand, note book open
The lights they dimmed, the movie started, but the critic was busy, his nose he was pickin'

His name was Ebert and rotund was he
His girth wider than you or me
His belt three times the length of mine
Many times a day he'd dine

Still, hobbit ways to him were strange
Their habits way beyond his range
of thought, proud Ebert thought them "twee"
And of Tolkien he'd say only, "Gee..."

"...It's been a score and 10 since I read him
And the memory of the 'xperience grows dim,"
Said Ebert, who forgot the Rings,
And adventure, heroism, such lofty things

Like taking chances, bravery, daring
And, like Peter Jackson, directing
Braving daunting budgets, fans, critics' ire
He breathed sweet life into the Shire.

And Middle-earth, that darkling plain
To recreat it, he took great pains,
No minute detail escaped his eye
And purists' doubts he would belie

Still, Tolkien's masterpiece was daunting
Mingling beauty, truth and legends haunting
Most lesser men had run for cover
But Jackson embraced it like a lover

Three movies Jackson made at last
Effects galore and a stellar cast
Though much of Tolkien's story was cut
What stayed behind, it was enough

Tolkien's tale, 'tis a trinity
Three books in one, a unity
Three movies, no less, to tell the tale
The doubters left to gnash and wail

And Ebert, munching on his popcorn
Missed the point, no foot to stand on
"Three stars he'll get, and not a fourth one!"
Said Ebert, the backstabbing, filthy hun.

Peter Jackson meanwhile listening
To praises many his movie receiving
Box office records it was setting
And nominations many getting

Two movies more still are waiting
For Tolkien fans, truly sating
Them with beauty, truth and daring
'Cause Peter Jackson was directing

[Champion of the Force]

That's pretty nice. :)

But Marcus, why did you post this in Misc (of all forums) instead of in BO? :huh

[Marcus Telcontar]

Cause I thought it was more appropriate here. You can move it if you think it should be in the B.O forum.

[Champion of the Force]

Well it's up to you.

It's just that as a result of a board discussion regarding more generalised topics and their placement it was decided that the BO forum could also serve as a general forum for posters as well (which is why it's now called SW Boxoffice & Other Discussions and has a mention regarding general topics being allowed in the description).

The Misc. forum is only kept around for sig testing and the like. :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Okay, move it :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know Ebert had problems with FOTR but he said it was because the movie could never live up to his vision of the books, he sounds like of those Tolkienits who feel the same way. He does admit that reason is why he tells people that his review is practically meaningless, well at least he is honest.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Which means he did not review the movie on it's own merits. And not right.

The Tolkienist who dont like the movies are few and far between I believe. The majority of Tolkien fans were ready to execute the moive - like me. I was highly doubtful it would work and was really worried, especially with the increased role of Arwen and I do believe that would have been the prevailing view. As the movie got closer and I began to hear glowing reports, I and others dared to hope....

Finally, the critics have their say and Poeper and Elbert stand out as the very, very rare critic who wasn't almost gushing in praise. And as the critics and then the public were all proclaiming how good the movie was, it really becomes evident Elbert missed the plot somewhere. What was his problem? That it didnt match his private view of how the movie should be?

Does that MATTER?!?! The question is, is FOTR a good film? Elbert does not answer that question. And probably the reason why fans of the film have the knives out and sharpened for Elbert.

Certainly, I fail to understand how Harry Potter earned 4 stars and FOTR 3. Something is wrong there.

[ReturnOfTheCB]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I know Ebert had problems with FOTR but he said it was because the movie could never live up to his vision of the books, he sounds like of those Tolkienits who feel the same way. He does admit that reason is why he tells people that his review is practically meaningless, well at least he is honest.

Well, unless Jackson made Middle-earth resemble Candy Land, or the Big Rock Candy Mountain, I don't think it'd be possible to live up to Ebert's vision :D

[Master Yoghurt]

Bravo, bravo!!

I like the poem! :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL that was cruel. Maybe he is like Star Wars fans who had build up this image of and the movie couldn't live up to it. Still it is not like he hated it 3 stars is still a good review, and I still generally like Ebert as a critic most of the time he makes the right grade, just LOTR he was a little off, maybe he might change his mind when he sees it again. There are some people on this board, not to name any names:rolleyes who did not like it that much so it is possible that he had problems with it because he had built it up to a point where it couldn't succeed.

[Marcus Telcontar]

AGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

TAKE THE AVATAR AWAY!!!!! I FORGOT YOU STILL HAD THAT!!!

[ReturnOfTheCB]

cruel or not, I couldn't resist :)

[TheHolo.Net]

Originally posted by Marcus Q'Dunn
AGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

TAKE THE AVATAR AWAY!!!!! I FORGOT YOU STILL HAD THAT!!! If you need to do that Yog, I would suggest having a look at the forum announcement located at the top of the forum list (its the same in all forums).

[Master Yoghurt]

Marcus: Thank you! I dont know how much longer I could stand the agony.

Ogre: I posted as requested. Please change it quick! Quick!

http://www.thegjo.com/sig/yog1.jpg

[Master Yoghurt]

Thank you, Ogre!! :D

[TheHolo.Net]

You are welcome and >D

[Taylor Millard]

:lol to it all :lol

[Champion of the Force]

Which means he did not review the movie on it's own merits. And not right.
That depends.

I remember back last year when a critic from another review site wrote to the Movie Answerman and asked why The Mummy Returns had been given a panning since it was clearly a 'popcorn film' and thus deserved to be viewed that way.

The response back was that if everyone were to do that with every film than most films would be given good scores since every 2nd film can be considered good if looked from a certain angle.

When reviewing a film, game, book or whatever, the reviewer draws from their own likes and dislikes when deciding if the item was good or not. Ebert did the same with FOTR. You might condier it unfair that he based it upon his own experiences with the novel, but when you think about it - what else could he do? He has read and enjoyed the novel, and as such when he saw the film it would nearly be impossible for Ebert to base his review solely on the movie because he has his own experience with the novel which inevitably resulted in the comparison.

I loved FOTR, but I did exactly the same thing as Ebert did - draw from my experiences with the novel. For me it worked, for Ebert it didn't. Is either of us more in the wrong than the other?

Some food for thought. :)