Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nerwen
If Jackson & Co really made LotR this way, then, well, good for them, because it’s a terribly hard thing to carry off– but I think they must have been bringing a lot less ego along with them at that stage. (Or were more afraid of Tolkien fans.)
|
I remember Sean Bean saying Peter Jackson was a much different director than ones he had before. The major difference being, oftentimes the script wasn't completed for the scenes they were currently filming. During the Council of Elrond, Bean and most other actors had the scripts on their laps because it had just been given to them before shooting. Even then there would be stop-and-gos during filming as Jackson would reel off more things he wanted to add.
I think (and this really is just my guess) LOTR was a large enough story to contain a director like Peter Jackson....sort of this off-the-cuff director who seriously does not like the editting process. Yet Lord of the Rings is such an expansive story it mever felt like too much.
The Hobbit is quite different, and with the director Jackson is, you can see how easy it is for the story to get completely derailed. I was reading another article that had the actors saying why there were 3 films instead of 2 (not surprisingly "money" was not one of the reasons). Anyway, one reason was to tell more of the story (or well the story Jackson wanted to portray). Because if it had been 2 films then the Riddles scene would have been 8 minutes long instead of 12. Honesty, as good as the Riddles scene was, I just happen to think every scene could have used some trimming...and in other cases a woodman's axe.