In my opinion, Jackson is reaching George Lucas levels of overrated, if we look at his main resume it's patchy at best. LOTR, Very Good, but hasn't aged that well and DOES have it's flaws. (Cheesy at times, stilted dialogue, straying from the source material, battle scenes bailing out the "boring" character development) King Kong, below average The Lovely Bones, poor The Hobbit, average His main claim to fame is obviously The Lord Of The Rings, which won a lot of oscars and made him practically a God in his native New Zealand , but really I can't see how anyone could have failed with Lord of The Rings, the material, that cast, the budget, it was destined to succeed. Point is I don't think the guy is more than a slightly above average director but I feel he's got a reputation he doesn't deserve, a lot of people seem to put him up there with Spielberg when I don't see him as anywhere remotely close to that level. Considering his poor work since LOTR, and now going back to do The Hobbit which he said he had no interest in, AND making it into three movies I think he's just gone back to what he had success with, but from the first in this new trilogy it looks as though he's been unable to do that at the same level as before. You can almost see a "lucas" happening here where Jackson may have more creative control than last time, plus a lesser quality cast and things are just not shaping up the same way, granted it's not as huge a drop in quality, but you can notice it. Not trying to bash the guy or anything, just don't see him on the level many do. Thoughts?
I'm not sure anyone could have succeeded with LOTR, to be honest a giant trilogy of films featuring orcs and dwarves and magic and swords wasn't desitined to succeed, they succeeded because they were very good. That said I think success has gone to his head a bit (but to be honest I could say the same of most high profile directors) and I thought King Kong was a bloated mess. But then I quite enjoyed the Hobbit, though it was flawed. The guy does have a lot of talent though. You only have to watch Heavenly Creatures to see that, a truly wonderful film--but then most directors seem to do their best work when they're constrained.
A) god but not enough or prolific enough for a man of his reputation. B) even if it were he's still dining out on a reputation he built two decades ago.
Frankly, it's a common problem IMO. A lot of directors who become labeled as "great" or "iconic" or "visionary" often fail to continue to live up to such. And I think the reasoning for such is simple: it goes to their heads and most important, to the heads of those around them. No one challenges them anymore. Questions them. Tells them an idea is stupid. You can't have creativity in a vacuum absent difference of opinion, IMHO. Such is why a lot of "names" have fallen from their greatness. Some of the best films have been made with pressure from studios and trouble here and there and arguments about how to move forward. While it can kill a film too, the ones that pass through the crucible are better for it.
I love "The Frighteners". "Meet the Feebles" and "Bad Taste" are quite amusing as well. And while it's not my cup of tea, "Heavenly Creatures" is very well made. My only real complaint with him is that "King Kong" does not deserve the 3 hour LOTR style treatment. The characters are not worth it.
And what does overrated even mean when it comes to stuff like this? All it means is that you think otherwise.
The word "overrated" is, in my opinion, a snobby and rather puerile way to state one's opinion. Not content to simply expressing their point of view and backing it up with valid arguments, most people who are fond of the term "overrated" want to make it sure that you know what they think of anyone who dares disagree with them. It's not just that they don't like something, it's that anyone who likes it is wrong, as if they could compare the general consensus about a movie, a book, a TV series with some kind of intrinsic scale of quality that only they have access to.
Then you're obviously not trying one bit, particularly since he co-adapted the screenplays and cast the thing as well as directed it (thus personally securing much of the material and budget). I'd say that Jackson and his films get their healthy share of criticism from both the fan and critical communities. Heck, Hobbit AUJ didn't even get a green Metacritic rating, which is critical backlash, not overrating. Whingeing charge is whingeing.
The LoTR trilogy are an amazing achievement, no matter what your quibbles about the minutiae. They were a career high for him. It looks like he's trying to keep going with the Hobbit but it's already looking like it's not going to happen. People just aren't that interested.
I think LOTR has aged well. I watched all three movies recently and thought it still holds up very well. I have not read the sorce material so it doesn't bother me that he strayed from it. Film is a different media than print so the stories in each will be told differently. I don't think Jackson is overrated, I think he just needs a good editor and needs to be reigned in a bit.
So what is he? PG? R? I think the LOTR trilogy has aged just fine and far surpassed anything I imagined when reading the books 30 years ago.
Bad Taste, Heavenly Creatures and Fellowship of the Ring are among my favourite films to watch. Love Jackson, one of the world's premiere fantasy directors. If you want overrated then look at JJ Abrams, who people in the other section treat as a God-like genius despite having only directed 3 films. One of which is Mission: Impossible 3 (!?).
From the stuff of his that I've seen, I think he has great talent as a director. I just think that he needs to get over his own "epicness." There is a time and a place to tell an epic, 3-hour story. That time is not every time. Dude needs an Editor Sidekick.
Actually, LOTR bored me silly, I thought King Kong was great, I'll wait for the Hobbit to come to TV and I wouldn't watch Lovely Bones on a bet. He's not overrated. Just some of his movies.