Heh. I don't know how "unbiased" I am, but I'll take a swipe at it anyway. Even I'm getting tired of hearing myself defend the movies in this forum, so I guess I'll quit rising to bait like this afore long. But until that time comes, let me offer an alternative to your rather cynical, "anything for a buck" judgment of the filmmakers' motivations. I think you may be seriously mistaken.
Peter Jackson is a fan. There can be no doubt of this. By the time the trilogy is finished, I'm betting he will have spent upwards of five years of his life adapting LotR to the screen. That's five years of practically round-the-clock LotR. Now, you may have problems with how he does the job, but he is doing it -- with zeal and passion and enthusiasm by all accounts. Now, I'm also certain that it took some convincing on his part to get the studio to pony up $300 million on a "swords and sorcery" picture, which traditionally are always duds (witness the late D&D movie). And I'm sure that there's enormous pressure on him to deliver $300 million dollars worth of movies that the studio feels good about. And at the end of the day, I'm sure the studio hopes to make their money back plus a tidy profit. Is it evil to make money off of art? The prof made money from his books. His estate sold the movie rights to begin with, and will make money from successful films.
Directing, while it certainly has some glamour attached to it, is a very demanding and difficult job. Sixteen to eighteen hour days are common. The responsibility for a $300 million investment (probably closer to $400 million after marketing) must be enormous. All I'm saying is that the guys and gals who do it, at least at that level, do it because they are passionate about filmmaking and about storytelling. I don't think PJ is spending years of his life on a difficult job simply to make a buck -- he was likely a millionaire several times over before he began.
Edited by: Mister Underhill at: 1/30/01 1:51:03 am
|