View Single Post
Old 11-24-2004, 12:35 PM   #10
radagastly
Shade of Carn Dûm
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D. C., USA
Posts: 299
radagastly is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Most of my biggest FX complaints have already been addressed. Bilbo's transformation in Rivendell, and Galadriel's transformation when tempted by the Ring both come to mind. Neither actor needed their performance bolstered by such tricks, and I think in both cases, the scenes in question would actually have been better to let the actors do their job and leave it at that. Not that I thought the effects looked cheesy. It's simply that I thought them gratuitous, a general tendency with Jackson's approach to the films. In addition to the "Attack of the Blob" look of the Army of the Dead, I would add the Warg attack to what I thought was simply ineffective. Listening to the directors comments on the EE the other day, Jackson would agree with me. He wasn't completely satisfied with their look either. His problem is (to my mind) that he never questioned whether the attack should ever have happened in the first place. Again, gratuitous. I also have a bit of a problem with his decision to portray Sauron as an eyeball/searchlight. Setting aside the fact that he should not have been simply a giant eye in the sky, I question whether he should have been portrayed at all. Putting him there was another gratuitous move on Jackson's part. There is no more frightening a villain than an unseen monster, under the bed or in the closet or behind the bushes or walled in a black tower behind mountains of shadow. You'd think a horror director would have remembered that much, at least.

There is a Hollywood aphorism: Put the money on the screen. If you're spending 300 million dollars of someone else's money, you need to show where the money went, and you need to show it on screen in the final product. It might include exotic locations, or expensive actors or grandiose special effects. While this kind of story does demand a large amount of special effects, I still think Jackson went over the top in many instances, a natural temptation when there are so many toys to play with and investors to answer to, but still an error in judgement to my mind. Make no mistake, I enjoyed these films trememdously, but I think that, in this case, more discretion overall would have made for better story-telling.

Essex:
Quote:
Take a look at what Tolkien wrote (I admit this was straight AFTER her words, not during them)

Quote:
She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.
to show the last sentence in bold 'filmically' we must have something to contrast it to. Jackson took the words (above in italics) and put his stance on them. To me it worked well, especially when she 'diminshes' and shudders after her outburst.
Contrast that with this from early in the (book) story:
Quote:
Gandalf's eyes flashed. "It will be my turn to get angry soon," he said. "If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked." He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.

Bilbo backed away to the wall, breathing hard, his hand clutching at his pocket. They stood for a while facing one another, and the air of the room tingled. Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit. Slowly his hands relaxed, and he began to tremble.

"I don't know what has come over you, Gandalf," he said. "You have never been like this before. What is it all about? It is mine isn't it? I found it, and Gollum would have killed me, if I hadn't kept it. I'm not a thief, whatever he said."
"I have never called you one," Gandalf answered. "And I am not one either. I am not trying to rob you, but to help you. I wish you would trust me, as you used." He turned away, and the shadow passed. He seemed to dwindle again to an old grey man, bent and troubled.
Jackson got this effect exactly right with a simple zoom lense and a dimmer switch on the lights (and a justified reliance on two very skilled actors.) The Galadriel scene needn't have relied on the same tricks, but it also needn't have gone all green and windy. It was over the top for what it needed to be in the context of the film. Galadriel was not developed enough in the movie (especially in the theatrical release) to need such a spectacular transformation.

Estelyn:
Quote:
Just a brief reply for now; the one thing that immediately springs to my mind is the over-importance of the battle of Helm's Deep, which I suspect comes from the use of special effects for the armies (That 'Massive' software they developed had to make itself paid!). It was given so much weight in the movie that it seems to be more central than the battle of Pelennor Fields when comparing them in the context of the whole trilogy.
I think that the lengthy massiveness of Helm's Deep was more due to its placement as the action climax of and gist of "The Two Towers" movie, and the downplay of Pelennor Fields was for the same reason in it's placement in the third film. If it was too spectacular, the attack on the Black Gate and the destruction of the ring might have been less excitingby contrast, and so less of a climax for the film overall. I agree, though, that it was overdone. He could have spent more time (and more special effects) on the battle of Isengard and kept the death of Saruman and Wormtongue in the film (and skipped the extra battle at Osgiliath altogether--more gratuitous battle effects.)

Based on these and other previous films, Peter Jackson has a clear fondness for special effects films. I think that he may well have gotten himself caught up in telling that part of the story while (in some cases) sacrificing other (perhaps more legitimate) aspects. When I was watching the directors commentary on the EE the other day, I noticed a comment he made about the death of Theodred, and the politics of Rohan. I don't recall the exact comment, except that he seemed to find those aspects of the story boring and difficult to tell in a compelling manner. It's quite natural that, given that, he would rely more on the special effects in order to gloss over the more subtle aspects of the story he was telling. While I must stress again, that I enjoyed these movies a great deal, I do think a more restrained approach would have been more in keeping with Tolkien's taste and intent. It certainly would have been more in keeping with me.
__________________
But all the while I sit and think of times there were before,
I listen for returning feet and voices at the door.
radagastly is offline   Reply With Quote