33441, then you didn't read the books|
Posted by 40thStreetBlack, Sat Dec-17-05 05:09 PM
>filmmaking that they are praised as. I see Jackson's work as
>an empty text. His own unique voice and style appear NOWHERE.
... because this is simply not true.
>In an age where Tarantino is criticized for plagarism, how
>does Jackson get a free pass? Jackson more or less plagarized
>another man's work over the course of 9 hours
No, the Wachowski brothers more or less plagarized other people's works (particularly William Gibson's). Peter Jackson adapted a film version of a book. Not the same thing.
>attempting to challenge the racism that exists in the author's
this much is true.
>Jackson is not a groundbreaking filmmaker,
Gollum alone makes Jackson a groundbreaking filmmaker.
>but a man who
>treats his art as product and is doing his best to cash in. If
>you don't believe me, then go to your local Burger King and
>get a King Kong double whopper.
JAckson doesn't own the marketing rights to LOTR, the studio does.