06-16-2006, 02:33 PM
Funny, I thought the opposite. Since you can make a movie from a short story, any movie based on an entire book - much less three - will have to edit a lot out. I think he should have taken the books merely as raw material, and chopped it up. So I thought his mistake was leaving too much in. Since all the fans know the story, you really don't need to tell all of it.
And you're never going to please everyone, so why try? Particularly in the last film (with multiple pointless ending tableaux), where it would have made much more sense to end it in Mordor with the destruction of the ring. He even had a good shot as I recall, looking down on Frodo and Sam next to the lava.
Oddly, from what I've read of King Kong, he took the opposite approach and bloated up a simple story.
I can understand the desire to make an epic, but let's face it - he's no David Lean. Or no Kurosawa. His films rely too much on effects and he's not in the league of those two as far as visual composition.
And you're never going to please everyone, so why try? Particularly in the last film (with multiple pointless ending tableaux), where it would have made much more sense to end it in Mordor with the destruction of the ring. He even had a good shot as I recall, looking down on Frodo and Sam next to the lava.
Oddly, from what I've read of King Kong, he took the opposite approach and bloated up a simple story.
I can understand the desire to make an epic, but let's face it - he's no David Lean. Or no Kurosawa. His films rely too much on effects and he's not in the league of those two as far as visual composition.
the hands that guide me are invisible