The official thread for Lord Of The Rings - The Return Of The King [LOTR ROTK TROTK ROK] (NOW CONTAINS SPOILERS)

Er... no. It's nothing like that. You're ignoring the 'resources, cast and crew' condition. And maybe I should say an 'equally good job' rather than 'the same.' I believe this to be true.

Comparing Jackson to complete shit again (this time Bakshi) doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. I didn't say he'd done a bad job. I just fear he's taking more credit than he deserves for ORDINARY (and rather repetitive) direction. Simple.

I remain unconvinced that the above can be credited to the genius direction of Peter Jackson, esp. the latter. Let's try the genius of Andy Serkis instead for that one.

Spot the contradiction!

One thing Jackson and his editors noted in the extended DVD commentary and documentaries was that they intentionally broke up the battle sequence at Helm's Deep precisely because they figured an audience in general would be wearied by nothing but a constant assault -- thus they various cutaways to other locales (the Entmoot, Osgiliath). Jackson also spoke about wanting to show the build-up to the battle as being as important and mood-setting as simply the battle itself. To my mind that strikes me as cogent editing skill brought to bear.

You're ignoring the 'resources, cast and crew' condition.

You are also willfully overlooking the intertwined combination of resources that revolves around Jackson's various decisions of who to work with and why -- WETA, due to his longstanding relationship with Richard Taylor/Tania Rodgers, designers John Howe and Alan Lee due to his particular response to their interpretations (it could have just as easily been Ted Naismith or -- god help us -- the Hildebrandts), Howard Shore as the scorer of the music (John Williams would have been the obvious choice for most and he would have been a boring disaster with nothing new to add that he hasn't already), the choice of locations itself [Hollywood thinking might well have tended towards the Lucas/ILM thought of visual scope and set construction, ie, take it to studio almost entirely]. I think the only person who could have worked with that exact combination would be Jackson and trying to imagine someone else able to create that specific combination in the first place is a mug's game.

Implying that all anyone had to do was set up a camera, ask him to do some takes, chose which were the best takes, edit those takes together into something for WETA to realize digitally and then make sure that WETA did exactly that. Of course, Serkis would have been the only candidate to do all that, I see.

the action in the first movie is some of the best ever filmed. (and i think the final battle in Fellowship may be my favorite ever). plus he is able to impart, with pacing and editing and camera moves, a sense of urgency and emotion--that's the real miracle of his directing.

he has a great eye for the epic i think too -- the shot of Frodo almost giving in to the ring wraith at the end of TT was BREATHTAKING to me and if i remember correctly it's not in the book at all!

(lot's of x-posts so i will just add my two cents!)

Two out of three of the script writers WERE directors! They wouldn't be writing them without thinking about how the shots would be made and the takes done and they would and did rewrite and retake scenes based on if something didn't work (a notable example is the complete removal of Arwen from Helm's Deep, which is how that sequence was originally shot).

Peter Jackson was solely responsible.

I don't believe I said he was. I DID say he was the one who, being a producer as well as director/screenwriter/editor, had final say, gave directions to his staff, actors and crew to carry out their jobs and then put the final seal on the effort. Saying he was somehow not involved in that scene and that Serkis deserves the bulk of the credit is, again, baffling.

the attribution of *any* film's qualities to just one person's vision is fairly daft, i think: in that sense i totally agree with chrissie, this is was a monumental team effort, and jackson's just the ringmaster

So what if the scriptwriters were directors? I wasn't talking about the script. The quality of the script is a separate issue. I have no problems with the script, overall.

(even the "auteur theory" was intended as a way of discussing group creation coherently, but it turned into this daft director-as-poet ideology)

Let's just be clear that I personally did not say the direction was 'bad.'

Then what is it exactly? As it stands, I am not sure what in fact you are so annoyed with now -- you have nothing bad to say about the script, the crew, the effects, the locations. The only specific thing that gets your goat is a mention of too many sweeping camera shots, in which you're either annoyed at Andrew Lesnie as cinematographer or Jackson and his editing team as editors (again, if we're to take this as an instance of sole isolation of efforts, which I find strange).

Which is why I said he ain't no Orson Welles. OW made something like Othello out of nothing, with a cast of unknowns, no budget and locations that shifted on a regular basis. PJ made Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles.

It's one of the funniest movies ever...and of course done out of nothing, with a cast of unknowns, no budget and locations that shifted on a regular basis.

Didn't I use the word ordinary? If you're equating that with 'bad,' we have a serious communication problem.

And it doesn't get my goat, either. The too much credit thing probably does. It's no big deal. I wondered if anyone had interesting thoughts about it, but apparently, all I'm likely to get is a lot defensive idolatry that is really not very fascinating...

I could be wrong, but I believe you're confusing script with direction again.

Well then, what is ordinary about it in particular? What is missing? Since nobody else would have created the project in exactly the same way, how would the perceived strength of another director than Jackson in categories you find Jackson lacking in automatically meant that everything else would be of the quality you approve of?

I believe you're confusing script with direction again.

I humbly note that you were the one saying that Jackson has to 'ride on the back' of other factors, such as an epic book -- or a centuries old revered play, alternately.

Yeah, well, that'd go perfectly well with my point that the direction was ordinary and that other factors made it a great show. If you're trying to find a contradiction, you're failing miserably.

As to the old revered play... oddly enough, that film's qualities certainly don't rest on its source very heavily, since the thing was dubbed, and not particularly convincingly.

I'm really going now. Have fun.

I'm just ensuring that I have it perfectly clear that Welles's reputation in general has nothing to do with Gregg Toland as cinematographer or Herman Mankiewicz as co-screenwriter or Boothe Tarkington as original author or anything like that and that he apparently stands out as a great director from all his talented assistants and inspirations who deserves sole final credit for his successes while Jackson owes everything to his own talented assistants and inspirations. That's all.

The core of Christine's argument, that this is not a fantastically directed movie, is true. As regards pure shot-zoom-lighting stuff, it's pretty good but not great, and he's certainly never met a slow-mo shot he didn't like (the Sam drowning at the end juust lost it the 100%, IMHO).

But the question "what would (name of most other directors) have done" isn't even a sensible query. Without a telepathic link to PJ the producer, PJ the writer, PJ the final-say on all design elements, another director would almost certainly have given up in rage before the first film came out, or made a complete dogs dinner of it.

Am I right in think that Christine's position is not without a certain irony, as its arguing that Welles would beat Jackson as shots-on-screen director (no contest), but Welles was one of the first to start to kill that job in favour of complete-ringmaster-director?

Ned, check yer mail-space.)

In the first movie, where does Gandalf go to learn about the ring near the beginning? What city?

(note: I've only seen the movies)

Gandalf goes to Minas Tirith (sp? the city of men that will feature big in ROTK) to learn more about the ring.

Minas Tirith is the chief city in Gondor (where Boromir and Faromir are captains* of the city)

*I may have their title wrong, but they are stand-in gubenatorial ambassadors of the city, which was formerly a kingdom.

The city that Faromir takes the Hobbits to in T2T is another city of Gondor: Osgiliath (sp?) which is being attacked by forces from Mordor, Sauron's evil kingdom bordered by the sharp jagged mountains that is adjacent to Gondor. The river runs through the middle of that city and Sauron's army is attacking the city from the East bank.

http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/lands/minastirith/images/lineofgondor_minastirith.jpg
http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/images/pelennor/image4.jpg

I got bored because I didn't get the kind of discussion I'd hoped for... I had to spend half the time repeating myself in a futile attempt to get responses that had anything to do with what I was on about. That's definitely boring.

Ned:
I'm just ensuring that I have it perfectly clear that Welles's reputation in general has nothing to do with Gregg Toland as cinematographer or Herman Mankiewicz as co-screenwriter or Boothe Tarkington as original author or anything like that and that he apparently stands out as a great director from all his talented assistants and inspirations who deserves sole final credit for his successes while Jackson owes everything to his own talented assistants and inspirations. That's all.

I don't even think Kane is Welles' best film. And Ambersons clearly isn't, though that's a whole story in itself. Anyhow, as it happens, nope, I don't think it's the scripts of the average Welles film that's earned him his reputation or made him influential. I've never heard anyone say, 'I want to WRITE a scene just like that one in Kane,' but a heap of big-shot directors have cited techniques and shots they've lifted. (Scorsese borrowed from the battle sequence of Chimes at Midnight in his Gangs epic, to give a recent example. Do you think he'd cite Manc as an important factor in his DIRECTORIAL influences? It's just vaguely possible that he wouldn't. No, really.)

In any case, unless you're trying to say Welles wasn't a very good director (and if you are, we disagree), then you're making no sense whatsoever. I wasn't talking about Welles' reputation! Gee, I was talking about direction! Didn't I say that about 1,236 times before? In talking about direction, I mentioned the name Orson Welles as a -- wait for it -- director. Smoke and mirrors, maaaaaaaaan...

Andrew:
The core of Christine's argument, that this is not a fantastically directed movie, is true. As regards pure shot-zoom-lighting stuff, it's pretty good but not great, and he's certainly never met a slow-mo shot he didn't like (the Sam drowning at the end juust lost it the 100%, IMHO).

Well, yes, and this is all I was saying. I don't know why this idea seems to bother/baffle so many people.

But the question "what would (name of most other directors) have done" isn't even a sensible query. Without a telepathic link to PJ the producer, PJ the writer, PJ the final-say on all design elements, another director would almost certainly have given up in rage before the first film came out, or made a complete dogs dinner of it.

You know, since all I referred to was the direction, and you've agreed with me on that point, I don't think my idea that any other competent director could have handled THAT SPECIFIC ASPECT equally well (though probably a bit differently) is even remotely radical.

And people don't even see that I actually like the films, as a whole. I could live without them, but they're good entertainment with occasionally stunning visuals and great source material. Separating one component for discussion seems to cause some people immense difficulty. I don't understand that.

Am I right in think that Christine's position is not without a certain irony, as its arguing that Welles would beat Jackson as shots-on-screen director (no contest), but Welles was one of the first to start to kill that job in favour of complete-ringmaster-director?

No Irony, really, no. Because as I've been saying all along (to no avail), I was only speaking of the direction. I guess it has some irony. Do I think LotR is a better film than Othello? Probably not. It's a better-made film. Othello was badly-made even by 1952 standards. But, you know, he could've autographed every damned frame of the thing personally. That's what makes it for me.

Thinking about other directors, it'd be interesting to speculate about someone like Ang Lee. He's INTERESTING. About 50% of the total shots he makes, to me, it's seven or snake eyes. It's like, what's gonna happen? Something astoundingly beautiful or horribly cack-handed? That's kinda fun. Meanwhile, Peter Jackson gives up New Zealand Travelogue #4,289. Fine, but do something DIFFERENT with it, for fuck's sake. Just my personal reaction. Not the end of the world. The man is not god.

(That's Orson Welles, obv) :-)

I half-expected someone far more into it and knowledgeable than me to step in and dazzle me with science, and maybe I'd even learn something. That'd be a cool deal. My expectations are always far too high for reality to match up...

Well, these days you also get someone making detailed storyboards and there's often a lot of shooting ideas in the scripts... but theoretically, all the final choices should be the director's. How receptive he/she is to others' ideas is an individual thing.

(Interesting point about Toland's cinematograhpy on Kane: he found it interesting working with Welles because Welles wasn't entirely clear on what he was doing -- it being his first film and all -- and the challenge of making seemingly impossible things work was part of the fun of it.)

FWIW, Jackson storyboards his films very carefully well before shooting, as well as working closely with his pre-vis specialist Christian Rivers.

As for where I think this is all ultimately coming down to:

Separating one component for discussion seems to cause some people immense difficulty. I don't understand that.

Yes, bluntly put, it does cause difficulty -- essentially you seem to be the only one arguing that the direction CAN be separated out for discussion, especially in a case where Jackson is as thoroughly involved in the overall production in particular. You haven't convinced me, at least, and my sense is that you haven't convinced others either.

But this is like saying "That guy's clumsy. I bet if we put someone else's hands on him, he'd be great". The director can't be someone different to the other jobs I mentioned (I think). Because the idea of a director who can be inserted lego-style, well it might still work in Hollywood, but I don't think it could ever have worked here. This is the sort of thing that needs a ringmaster-director.

So you're saying that the quality of a particular aspect of a film is inseparable from every other aspect of the film? Er... WHATEVER.

As I said above -- why is it so hard to look at the quality of a particular aspect of a film, for the sake of discussion? You're point is fair and right, but it doesn't need making when discussing the perfectly measurable quality of a particular aspect. Think out of the box for a second; you already agreed with my quanlitative judgement, so in essence, you're seeing my point but just NOT seeing it. Hm.