![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#10 | ||||
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D. C., USA
Posts: 299
![]() |
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:
Quote:
Estelyn: Quote:
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. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |