What went wrong?

The funny thing to me is that after LOTR Spielberg brought him on as his protege. Reminds me of when I bought a stock and it tanked to 5 cents

Most directors tend to get their view contaminated over time. Just look at Robert Rodriguez, how kino was his first movie compared to the rest.

I think this is common in most arts. Definitely in music the debut album is usually the best, or the most creative. Artists run out of ideas over time.

People say that the reason this happens is because they had 20 years to work on the first and only a few to work on the following ones, but even when they get 10+ years of 'vacation', they rarely come up with good material.

I believe what happens is the environment they are immersed in changes, and they get 'contaminated' for being too close to other famous creators and money people.

Good point.
A great example of this is of course Rage Against The Machine, who became instant millionaires after their debut album. I guess it's hard to change your course as an artist when your first ideas made you successful. Never change a winning team, so success breeds creative laziness.

It's not just that success itself breeds stagnation but that there's so much demand for more of the original work. Only a few people can withstand the expectation of more of the same after a success. Lynch is one of few people who can for example. But also George Lucas and a few other directors who are more accessible.

For a trilogy of movies that were a bad idea in the first place, that he clearly didn't want to make, The Hobbit movies weren't that bad. Someone left a big pile of shit on his doorstep, his Mexican cleaning man took one look at it and quit, and so he said "fine, I guess I'll have to clean that up myself" and he did as good of a job as you can expect, but there will always still be the slight smell of shit about the doormat.

kys troll

Pleb.

King Kang was good, fuck you.

The first one was okay. The second was fucking garbage that I'm glad I didn't pay to see. The third was legitimately one of the most atrocious big budget movies I have ever seen and I actually wanted to destroy something out of sheer depressed rage after watching it.

Could you explain to us human beings why do you think it is good?

How is i trolling if it is true? Fans wanted a TFA thing from him after RoTJ but instead he made something new and fresh. He still had that creativity left in him and with the new technology made more imaginative worlds and creatures appear on screen than ever before and made an entirely original story that still tied into the OT.

Like it or not but this guy isn't one of the sellouts.

Except that he hasn't had an original idea in his life. Star Wars is basically an amalgam of ripped off ideas, plus the only original ideas in the saga aren't his. When he does take full creative control of a movie (for example Attack of the Clones) it's complete shit. Also you are a ritalin-zombie millenial if you think RoTJ is original or good in any way.

Aka OC, this is what every single new thing ever is.
He only wrote and directed the films and had the final say in all creative decisions, he couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the movies. Sure, Mike, if that helps you sleep.
Wrong, it's the best film in the series.

Do you know that OC is short for original content?

Yes. All original content builds upon what already is.

Heavenly Creatures was his best film though. The Frighteners wasn't bad either.

There are no original ideas. All you can really do is rearrange existing things into interesting new variations, which Lucas did very well.

no reddit OC doesnt mean that

hi Lucasfilm Ltd. shills

I assume you're referring to games and comics

OP, you fag, why make this thread when you apparently didn't watch all his early movies

Simple. He is has Shyamalan Syndrome. He made one good film and has been coasting on it ever since while each subsequent release has been utter shit.

The point was he was good until he wasn't and it showed in LOTR later on

This director felt in love with EXCESSSSSS. The same ways Spielberg was in love with the innocence of children, Shayalaman with big twists, Chris Nolan with a love story feature a dead wife/girlfriend/daughter, Snyder with slow-motions, Cuckden with idiotic stronk wymen.

Normally, everyone of them tried to shoehorn those fetishes inside their movies. For a film to work, a good director managed to put their fetishes on a minimum that does not effect the plot or even enhances it greatly.

PJ loved excess. Fortunately for him LORDS OF THE RINGS WAS FUCKING EXCESSIVE ALREADY. With so many useless things, PJ had to cut it and there went his fetishes. The trilogy is great and there are more to be found in the extended edition that are also superb. Unfortunately because of lotr success, they trust him so much, he could do whatever he want. Unlike lotr, the rest of his movies had very simple plots and he made too much of it. Everything was made bigger and longer to the point that the point was numb. Scenes in films are supposed to be concise, straight to the points, every scenes served a purpose, with PJ, the scenes were there because he wanted it to be there. He a simple man who like the make simple conversations, plots, characteristics, more epic, longer, and gravitas.

I prefer to call it the Nolan Syndrome, the guy is obsessed with his woman dying and a love story that he had to put it in every movie he made.

Are you talking about the Simpsons character? He was indeed great.
But if you misspell and wanted to mention the 2004 film. Here why it sucked: THE WOMAN is absolutely disgusting, an abhorrent human being on every level. Dozens of men died trying to save her, she did not give a shit about any of them. The beast murdered little girls, innocent people, that who she cared for, that is what the director wanted us to care for. The movie wanted us to have sympathy for this animal and none for the human victims who died heroically or innocently. We should care for this bestiality instead.

Digital Photography and green screen Gimmickry my man.

Cost of doing a movie in 2001 or 2003 with all those WETA physical effects substantially lower than in 2011, after the 2008 recession.

All of the digital movies suck and all of the physical movies are good.

In addition Jackson relies on his script. Each book in Lord of the Rings translates pretty well into script format. There's enough in it that you can cut and still have a good movie.

On the other hand, trying to make "The Hobbit" three movies is asking for punishment due to the lack of material.

Look at this picture of the King's Hall or whatever in Rohan. The top part is real. It's something they built on a hill. Therefore you can look at it and choose how you want to photograph it in person.

The bottom part with all the houses is digitally put there in post production. They couldn't afford to build the extra houses necessary to show that there are a lot of people around.

I bet they wouldn't finance a Hobbit movie with only one or two parts.
I bet they wouldn't fund "The Silmarillion" as a movie or netflix series.
The price is too damn high!

That explains so much of why he sucks now.

Fixed

AoTC is a beautiful movie.

...

The Hobbit was originally meant to be one film, then it became two and then finally, three. The book was very short, about a sixth of the LOTR in terms of size, yet still got three big films put toward it. You can't stretch out a kids story so far without adding in a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.

...

I'm watching the extended cut and I had to pass out last night since I watched TTT before. But the first hour and a half is very very good, I definitely shouldnt have shit on it. To be honest all the extra scenes might actually make ROTK better, at least the stuff added in the first half, they make it so much more full with gandalf, saruman, pippin, faramir, frodo, sam, gollum etc