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

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.

apart from orson welles, who would have disappeared to mexico seven years ago and spent the entire budget on rushes of the hobbiton introductory sequence, seen through crazy circus mirrors with a hammy voiceover. ;-)

And yeah, the film is cool in a lot of ways. I hadn't realised just how elevated PJ's sacred cow status had become, though. My mistake!

Yeah, I very much think you are. But I doubt it matters much.

The Balrog sequence was great, actually. It wasn't shot similarly to the stuff I mentioned, though... it's almost 100% CGI for starters.

Pulpo: I know it was a joke. And quite funny. I just don't reckon you'd need to avoid PJ to get any laughs on here, see.

Ooh Madchen well do bear in mind that we've not yet seen Saruman leave Isengard so he could easily do the chucking down/finding of the palantir at the start of the next film.

Or perhaps they'll just come across a Carphone Warehouse.

Friend-making tip #2: stop being so fucking rude.

I think we got (and mostly agree with) what you're trying to say about Peter Jackson's skills as a classical director, it's just that when you started talking about how Sam Raimi would have done that we fell off discussing directors into discussing what a director on this film is. Though Ned and Nichole did bait you into that one.

I know, it's a terrible question. Ned? :)