Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

innerSpaceman · 04-25-2008, 01:18 PM

There are definitely elements of all three that I love. I just think the second two were put together craptastically. I've planned a fan re-edit, but haven't got the resources (much less the time.)

There were also so many elements that SUCKED my balls.

Most of all, however, were the structural changes that were only "cinematic" if you think chronologically linear storytelling is all modern audiences can comprehend, and that constant cross-cutting between locales/characters is the only way to sustain audience interest.

I disagree with both contentions.

I have no trouble with adapting books to film and making them more cinematic. I love some of Jackson's adaptations.

But a story is not simply the plot elements arranged in chronological order. It's HOW it's told. And if the story is specifically told out of chronology to build suspense or to portray greater interest in one element over another at particular points in the story ... that THAT is the story, and changing everying to chronological does great harm.

Yet that's what Jackson did. And also used the lazy starwarsian tactic of constant cross-cutting because he was too lame to figure out a way to keep the film interesting while staying with one set of characters for longer than 6 minutes.

He also did not have enough love for too many of the story elements, most of which piled up in the third film. One of the parts I teared up at during that movie was the Ride of the Rohirrim to break the seige of Minas Tirith. It was so stirring.

So many other elements were not. Ahem, listen to Jackson's commentary on the DVD. He describes how he was always fascinated with that part of the story, and so devoted tons of time and energy to its realization. Then he goes on to admit the many parts of the story that simply didn't interest him .. and lo and behold, those nonetheless important story points are handled craptacularly.

As an aside ... another part I teared up at during the third movie was the lighting of the beacons atop the mountain peaks of Gondor. Though that situation was a feature of the book, it did not "happen" in the novel, and it's one of Jackson's more brilliant adaptations.

I will give him props for the things he did well. Great elements in all three films, and the first movie was a masterwork.

The second two Sucked.

I'm glad he's not directing The Hobbit.

The Hobbit 2 must DIE.

04-25-2008, 01:18 PM	#11
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	There are definitely elements of all three that I love. I just think the second two were put together craptastically. I've planned a fan re-edit, but haven't got the resources (much less the time.) There were also so many elements that SUCKED my balls. Most of all, however, were the structural changes that were only "cinematic" if you think chronologically linear storytelling is all modern audiences can comprehend, and that constant cross-cutting between locales/characters is the only way to sustain audience interest. I disagree with both contentions. I have no trouble with adapting books to film and making them more cinematic. I love some of Jackson's adaptations. But a story is not simply the plot elements arranged in chronological order. It's HOW it's told. And if the story is specifically told out of chronology to build suspense or to portray greater interest in one element over another at particular points in the story ... that THAT is the story, and changing everying to chronological does great harm. Yet that's what Jackson did. And also used the lazy starwarsian tactic of constant cross-cutting because he was too lame to figure out a way to keep the film interesting while staying with one set of characters for longer than 6 minutes. He also did not have enough love for too many of the story elements, most of which piled up in the third film. One of the parts I teared up at during that movie was the Ride of the Rohirrim to break the seige of Minas Tirith. It was so stirring. So many other elements were not. Ahem, listen to Jackson's commentary on the DVD. He describes how he was always fascinated with that part of the story, and so devoted tons of time and energy to its realization. Then he goes on to admit the many parts of the story that simply didn't interest him .. and lo and behold, those nonetheless important story points are handled craptacularly. As an aside ... another part I teared up at during the third movie was the lighting of the beacons atop the mountain peaks of Gondor. Though that situation was a feature of the book, it did not "happen" in the novel, and it's one of Jackson's more brilliant adaptations. I will give him props for the things he did well. Great elements in all three films, and the first movie was a masterwork. The second two Sucked. I'm glad he's not directing The Hobbit. The Hobbit 2 must DIE.
	Submit to Quotes