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

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? :)

"Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc 'demon,' but only because of its phonetic suitability)..."

Rah.

Incidentally I can't believe you did that so quickly!!

Mopesalot, I CHOOSE YOU!

Eh, I'm at home sick today and the collected letters are close to hand. No trick, really. :-)

I get bored easily and I can be rude. This is true. No argument.

What was #1?

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.

Well, yeah, because I didn't want to discuss alternatives particularly. Also, I don't see why I should be challenged for having a personal opinion about something that is as valid or as worthless as anyone else's.

I am treading in the wrong thread/place, because to me this film is a bit of flashy, interesting hokum, and that's all. I realise it's probably a lot more important to other people. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong, and ultimately, none of it means a single damn thing.

Actually, it was that declaring yourself bored is never polite.

Also, I don't see why I should be challenged for having a personal opinion about something that is as valid or as worthless as anyone else's.

It is sort of all we do around here.

I wish! Have you checked theonering.net -- they seem to have a fair amount of pre-sale info around, though it might take some digging to find it.

Er... sorry to be rude (I'm sure this qualifies as rude, as does almost anything else I'm ever going to say), but isn't that the same as being rude? So #1 and 2 are actually the same?

Thinking about it... while I admit to be being capable of extreme rudeness, I don't actually consider 'declaring myself bored' to be impolite. Not on here. Wrong context. I hadn't noticed anyone observing any particular kind of etiquette -- this is, after all, the board that loves talking about wanking on a regular basis. The concept of being rude is dead in the water.

I think the Golden Rule about making friends obviously is to tell a lot of lies and say exactly what Whoever wants to hear under all circumstances.

I can't be arsed.

It is sort of all we do around here.

And this kind of rudeness (as valid a definition as any other on offer) is better than mine because...?

Oh, don't answer that. It's probably 'u r all gay' or something.

(BTW, that was sarcasm, not rudeness. Okay, rude sarcasm, maybe. I can live with that.)

(I knew I should've just posted: 'LotR is a pile of worthless shite and Peter Jackson is a fat, sweaty toad.' That woulda been a lot easier.)

interesting that someone brought up sam raimi, though. where i find the touches that are especially jackson's are something like what old-school (pre-blanding) raimi would have brought. i'm thinking of wacky horror-style shots: the crazy closeups of merry and pippin with looney tunes faces after blowing off the fireworks; smash-cuts to closeups of nasty orc-y faces, the fantastic shot that wheels in to show gandalf atop the tower then dives off into the orc mines.

for a director of GIANT EPICS i think he is smashing his competition in terms of actor's direction, too. i'm sure there are plenty of directors who could do the job well also, but just the direction of the king's poem before battle in the 2nd film ("where is the horse and the rider," etc) is a fantastic actor's moment that most director-ringleaders would have missed or fumbled entirely.

Maybe.