logo Sign In

Obi Jeewhyen

User Group
Members
Join date
1-Aug-2006
Last activity
1-Feb-2007
Posts
440

Post History

Post
#251254
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251254/action/topic#251254
Time
I think the decision to cross-cut instead of chron-shift was very arbitrary. Made not for artistic sake, but rather (I suspect) to cater to the audience's perceived lack of concentration skills and lack of comprehension abilities. This is a lazy filmmaker's tactic used almost solely to prevent one story line from being on screen "too long" - cutting furiously between two or three threads so that your audience supposedly doesn't tire of any of them.

The Empire Strikes Back used this tactic, and I hated it. It set up such a stupid rythym in the middle third (imo) ... Dagogah to Vader to Falcon to Vader to Dagobah to Falcon to Vader. Bleh.


In contrast, cross-cutting a single segment in a movie that doesn't abuse the process can be brilliant. Case in Point - Star Wars, which used it to good effect cutting between Princess danger on the Death Star -and- Luke racing home to find Beru and Owen slaughtered. Raiders of the Lost Ark also used it wisely in the cross-cutting between Karen Allen's seductress-escape plans -and- Indy & Sallah finding the Arc. Minimal use to good effect, not entire swarths of movie constantly cross-cutting between story threads for hours (in the case of LotR).



William Friedkin made a remark about cutting so much out of his film version of The Exorcist, to the effect that he removed most of the lead-up about whether Regan had a mental disorder because audiences already knew she really was demonically possessed. Gak, that may be true ... but it's not telling the story. Everyone knew the Death Star would be destroyed, knew the Ring would be destroyed ... but you tell the stories anyway.

And so, when cross-cutting instead of chron-shifing eliminates the story element where most of the characters think Frodo has been captured and killed, and the audience is left in the dark about that to great suspense ... then cross-cutting is more than just lazy filmmaking - - it's story blundering.


I cannot know for certain, but it seems to me that Jackson's decision to cross-cut in chron order was to aid pacing, audience comprehension for dummies, and attention-deficit-disorder pandering ... but NOT for artistic merit. The red herring that Frodo has been killed is one of Tolkien's most important and dramatic story points ... I doubt very much it was cast away for artistic purposes.


.
Post
#251221
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251221/action/topic#251221
Time
Far from faithfulness, I find Fellowship to be the best adaptation precisely for its changes .. hence "adaptation." Filming the book is not adaptation at all, and I would not find that appealing (see, e.g., the first two Harry Potter films vs. the third).

I'm aware the Grey Havens and such were in the book, and thus had a "rightful" place in the movie. But we are talking about adaptation here, and when most audiences feel the film had 12 endings and went on endlessly, then adaptation skills are duly called into question. There had to be a better "filmic" way of expressing all the stuff that went on after the Ring is destroyed. Very tough stuff to adapt, but the truth is ... the story did not end with the destruction of the Ring, but was merely 5/6's finished. That presents a valid adaptation problem, because the equivalent of the Death Star destruction is not nearly the of the story ... though it was the story's Maguffin.


Similarly, the chronology-shifting of the second two "books" make for much more difficult adaptation than the first. And I think Jackson plainly failed. His decision to present events in chron order, through cross-cutting, was a lazy and standardized choice that neglected the tale's true effect of chronology-shifting. It was not simply Tolkien's device of convenience ... it was the way in which the story must be told if you are telling the story of The Lord of the Rings. Much in the way that a remake of Memento told in forward order would not be telling the same story at all, erasing the chron-shifting of LotR negates many of Tolkien's most important story points.




Oh, and while I'm at it ... changing Faramir's character to a charlatan was up there in the big, big goofs.
Post
#251214
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251214/action/topic#251214
Time
I will grant the excise of Tom Bombadil, but to change the ending of ANY story is a disgrace - - much less the ending of one of the world's literary masterpieces ... especially unthinkable if you have the urge to adapt it into a 10-hour film.

The Scouring of the Shire was not merely a rousing bit of action, it was the demonstration of the main characters' arcs ... their growth from simple, rural hobbits to world-wise, inner-strength-filled, uber-hobbits!

Considering that most audiences felt the movie's ending went on and on and on (the 12 endings of Return of the King is legend in parody) ... there was certainly room for this VITAL story point in the films.

I am all for not simply filming the book. Changes are good. But the basics of a famous story must not be changed. That is folly.

Many of Jackson's amendments to the way the tale unfolded were brilliant, and wise filmmaking, and excellent story adaptation. But there were some major klunkers. Removing the Scouring of the Shire is way up there among them. And, in my opinion, telling the post-Fellowship tale in cross-cutting, rather than in Tolkien's chronology-shifting, was a gross error. A story is not simply the contents of the plot points, but the manner in which the tale unfolds. Going for the lazy, audience-dumb-down, cross-cutting - - and sacrificing one of the story's most important suspense points in the process - - was a horrible mistake.

There were tons of small blehs, and tons of brilliant invention. I am shocked the films were shot simultaneously, though, because the adaptation was magnificient for The Fellowship of the Ring, kinda lame for The Two Towers, and atrocious for The Return of the King. It seems as if the films were shot sequentially, with the creative team losing steam as things went along.

In any case, as I posted in the other thread, Jackson admits he had no passion for 9-out-of-10 story points in The Return of the King, and it shows. Great as the movie trilogy was, that should have been his red flag to leave this project alone. Ultimately, I consider it a failure. One great movie out of three is simply not sufficient.


.
Post
#250987
Topic
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250987/action/topic#250987
Time
Keeping two identical scenes in a row because you like them makes you a dismal failure as a filmmaker and an editor.

Stay out of the movie-making business, Go-Mer. The reason that's Screenwriting 101 is because it's the most basic rule of pacing and filmmaking. Do not bore the audience with the same information in two nearby scenes (and preferably not at all). No matter how much you like both scenes, if you were stupid enough to write them both and dumb enough to shoot them both, your last chance to be smart is to leave one of them on the cutting room floor.

Ahem, Star Wars '77 demonstrates normal filmmaking competence in this. George '97 proved himself a lametard old fart.


.
Post
#250853
Topic
Remember when...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250853/action/topic#250853
Time
I hope you take that advice to heart, Go-Mer. It's nice not to have everyone completey agree ("oh, yes, I quite agree" and "I think so, too" making for a very boring message board), but you should really take heed of the warnings that your, um, style is getting tedious and more than a bit annoying.

* * * * *

More on topic ... I remember when a bunch of models finally came out when Empire was released, and we bought all of them, built them hastily without painting them, had play battles with them, and destroyed them all within days! Such fun!
Post
#250615
Topic
What do you think of the <strong>Prequel Trilogy</strong>? a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250615/action/topic#250615
Time
Return of the Jedi has too much expository dialogue. There's that whole section where there's a talkie scene between Luke and Vader, then another one between Leia and Han. It was captivating on opening night because unknown information was being conveyed, but the scenes are ever-after unbearable ... precisely because all they are is exposition explained in a dull manner.

I'm not saying the ratio of poorly-executed exposition is equal between the O.T. and P.T., but I think Jedi is the worst offender of all six movies. *




* admitting that maybe I need to watch Episode One again to make sure, but ... ugh, I don't want to. What an awful film!
Post
#250466
Topic
POLL: Which version of the OT do you own?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250466/action/topic#250466
Time
Oops, I goofed on my poll response.

My recent 9/12 OOT DVD of Star Wars is my best, because it has the original crawl and looks just as good or better than my bootleg.

But I didn't buy the others, so my best of Empire and Jedi are the laserdiscs, best quality being the ones that have freaking 4 discs per movie, gak. I don't think I've even watched those ... someone gave them to me.

I also have the "regular" laserdiscs of all three OOT films, plus an earlier laserdisc release of Star Wars. About four versions of VHS Star Wars, and VHS of Empire and Jedi, plus a box-set of letterbox VHS versions of all three films. Then I have the SE DVDs from 2004 and the SE DVD of Star Wars that I was forced to buy with the Sept. 12 release.


Heheh, to boot, I have a VHS and DVD of Phantom Menace and a DVD of Attack of the Clones ... but NO versions of Return of the Sith. Heehee.


Do I own enough Star Wars on home video anyway???
Post
#250120
Topic
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250120/action/topic#250120
Time
Although I didn't see Star Wars till it had been out for over 3 weeks!, I saw each of the ensuing sequels and prequels on opening night in Hollywood, California - after waiting in line for 24 hours for Empire, 7 days for Jedi, one month each for Episode One and Attack of the Clones and 6 weeks for Revenge of the Sith.

I was 16 when I saw Star Wars in '77 ... and, ugh, the math speaks for itself.


.
Post
#250093
Topic
What do you think of the <strong>Prequel Trilogy</strong>? a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250093/action/topic#250093
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
But the acting in the OT is far superior and there aren't any lines that make you turn your head in disgust.

I dunno 'bout that. That whole nerfherder thing in Empire had me retching big time.



I really felt the authentic 30's-style banter of Star Wars had been dumbed down for the juvenile set. In fact, I think lots of Star Wars since then has been specifically aimed at the kiddies, while the first had a tone that worked perfectly for adults and children all at the same time.

There's a very fine line between "get this big, walking carpet out of my way" and "nerfherder," but I felt it was definitely crossed.




Post
#250092
Topic
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250092/action/topic#250092
Time
Originally posted by: Dr. Tongue
"Return of the Jedi" ... it's got the best space battle ever filmed, and IMO the Luke/Vader confrontation is the highlight of the entire series.


OMG, that one-two fx shot. You all know the ones I mean. Have you ever seen so many tie fighters in your freaking life?!?! Sitting in the front row of the Egyptian on opening night, those two shots coming one after another were like a physical assault!

And, I've mentioned it here before, but the moments when Darth Vader was actually making a choice between Palpatine and Luke had the loudest fan reaction of any Star Wars opening night ever.




Forget fan edits of the movies. I want a fan edit of the 50 greatest moments of the O.T.


.

Post
#250052
Topic
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250052/action/topic#250052
Time
Originally posted by: Puggo - Jar Jar's "Yoda"
. Billy Dee Williams just can't make up for the loss of Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing.

I cannot stress enough why all the other films are substandard to me, and why I think Star Wars was uniquely brilliant in its casting. Those two veterans elevated the film so incredibly much. After that, Star Wars became famous and rested on its own laurels of the stars it created. And yeah, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill were great, but there were no more heavyweight actors to give the sequels the heft that Star Wars had.


And it's no small measure of why Attack of the Clones is far and away my favorite prequel that they used similar casting philosophy in featuring Christopher Lee as the villain. It was a brilliantly StarWarsian touch in what I consider the all-around most StarWarsian of the P.T. films.



.
Post
#249881
Topic
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249881/action/topic#249881
Time
I call shenanigans on this poll.

My favorite Star Wars movie is that one called, oh what is it again? oh yeah - STAR WARS!


Why is that not an option?


I thought by now, with the movie out on DVD in (what purports to be) its original form, EVERYONE would know that it's not called "A New Hope." That is a bullsh!t tag put on in the first round of Lucas revisionist history.

It's called STAR WARS.




Please get it right.



.
Post
#249607
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249607/action/topic#249607
Time
That's all well and good Go-Mer, and you are entitled to that opinion. I was simply trying to point out that it's not cut-and-dried, and that there has been quite a shift in copyright ownership rights over the last century, while art itself has existed for millennia.


So, if an artist's heirs have rights to ownership in your view, do you believe in the public domain at all?
Post
#249599
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249599/action/topic#249599
Time
Go-Mer ... which is correct? A) Copyrights that expire in 5 years, with art then belonging to the public domain ... or B) Copyrights that survive for the life of the copyright holder PLUS 75 years, and only then revert to the public domain?

One is copyright law in the 1920s and the other is copyright law today. Is one right and the other wrong? Or are each potentially just, but one coming after corporations have usurped a great amount of power and authority that used to belong to the American people in a republic created by the people, of the people and for the people?



Personally, I come down somewhere in the middle. I think the creator of art should make all the money that can be made from sale of his art in a reasonable amount of time (say, 20 years). But art is unique in that it is put "out there" and, at some point, becomes indelibly part of the culture at large and thus legally public domain. I think that happens long before the artist grows old and dies, much less 75 years later.


In my morality, which would be exceedingly generous to copyright holders a mere 80 years ago, Star Wars would have long become part of the public domain. Whatever your particular take on copyright law might be, will you deny that Star Wars has become an indelible part of the culture at large???
Post
#249580
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249580/action/topic#249580
Time
And since he's a known liar, his statements about what his intentions were cannot be trusted.

Heck, I'm not a liar, and any statements I might make about my intentions a quarter century ago should not be trusted either.


In any event, though I myself am perfectly accepting of other people's opinions, I am NOT accepting of art revisionism.



BTW, just because laws are on the books does not make them just. Copyright laws are onerous and, imo, completely unjust. Star Wars is - in my book - far less "owned" by Mr. Lucas than by the public. That makes him a vandal in my book. Add in liar, and I don't have a picture of a good man at all.





Then, of course, there's that neck.
Post
#249333
Topic
your buying the PT all over again in Blue ray !!!!!!!!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249333/action/topic#249333
Time
I truly hope the 2007 box set will be on Blu-Ray. Because then I will have zero temptation to buy. I have no intention of upgrading to any HiDef format for many years to come (not until I can afford a new, spiffy, at least 60" wide monitor ... and till my current, reliable 40" good, old-fashioned tube set dies, that won't even be on my radar).


So go ahead and get all au currant on me, Georgie. I will yawn. (And yeah, no O.U.T., no deal anyway.)



.