How Peter Jackson Directed The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. It's easily the best trilogy ever made and, taking its influence in the world of visual effects and high scale cinema, it's possibly the most important film of the 21st century. Peter Jackson made something extraordinary. That said, his direction has some issues.
This video essay is a nitpicky analysis that points out some visual problems Jackson consistently makes throughout "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King".
We'll go through his framing issues, which include too many close-ups and not enough attention given to the extraordinary sets during most shots. There's the non-stop camera movement too, that is extraordinary in wide shots, but excessive in private moments. Why so many push-in close-ups, by the way? Then there's the blocking, which could be better.
But Jackson does many things amazingly well. His Sweeping Wide Shots are jawdropping and they make him a master of spatial continuity. The audience is always visually told about the size, distance and scope of each important element. His battle scenes are also amazing thanks to how detailed each action is. And that's the secret of why the films work so well: details. And Howard Shore. What music!
00:00 The Lord of the Rings
01:06 Close-ups
03:26 Blocking
04:42 Framing
06:20 Cuts
07:51 Camera Movement
09:38 Sweeping Wide Shots
11:16 Bad Framing
12:40 Sad aside...
13:00 Details
Scheming Weasel (faster version) by Kevin MacLeod incompetech.com
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/scheming-weasel
Music promoted by Audio Library • Scheming Weasel (faste...
Investigations by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Brandenburg Concerto No4-1 BWV1049 - Classical Whimsical by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Bensound: "Sexy" - Royalty Free Music

[@trongtin7754]

the close up on Orcs, Uru Kai were great because it showed how good the make up and visual effect were

[@srpowell]

You can't expect a multi-hour story to be all poetry. Homer: *coughs*

[@abyzz4419]

Whos that

[@niktri8312]

While I agree that Jackson uses excessive cutting and his frames sometimes leave something to be desired, I don't think the Eowyn picking up Merry scene was a particularly good example, because he needed to cut in order to conceal that Merry isn't actually as short as a Hobbit. The cutting is still a bit jumbled, but it would have literally been impossible to do in one shot.

[@TheSuperQuail]

His point was that they could have done it in 2 shots, but they added twice as many for no reason.

[@luismancerapascual4608]

Or he could do it from behind to hide the stunt double face, or with a wide frame. Or maybe she could just stop and ask him to climb up, helping him instead of using the force of 10 bodybuilders to lift him single handed. The options are infinite

[@fredscallietsoundman9701]

More impossible than the forced perspectives between Gandalf and Fredo or whatever his name is? More impossible than the (for the time) cutting edge Golum effects? We're talking about a director who once blew up a goat with a bazooka here, so anything's possible.

[@cube2fox]

I bet picking up someone from a running horse is pretty hard, especially for a woman who doesn't have a lot of strength in her armd, and especially for an actress who is not a professional horse rider. And all that comes in addition to the fact that they have to pick up a body double (pippin actor is too tall) without it being obvious. Given how difficult this scene must have been I think they did a good job.

[@bongoman2613]

Dude it's a shit cut.

[@tiamzy]

Jackson’s dynamic camera work and always moving type of shots is what sets it apart from other epics. I find the Villeneuve’s Dune almost devoid of life because of the stillness of almost every shot.

[@burtingtune]

I wish I´d never found your channel because all I do now is notice the endless close ups and the poor blocking in virtually everything I watch. Aggghhh!!!!!

[@johnjay370]

Yes. But in the righ context useing many close ups can work. In the right context. Most films unfortunately are lazy.

[@benjamingentile1660]

69% of the 420 shots are closeups

[@johnjay370]

Wow.

[@jerryschramm4399]

Could it be that a generation of directors, who were inundated with watching television from an early age, allowed their cinematic choices to be influenced by how television directors tend to have the same tendencies? This doesn't have to be done on purpose, but that their experiences tend to make their movies more like movies made for TV, rather than the wide screen. Just a thought. And, though I find the video very interesting, this has only made me want to re-watch the entire trilogy, one movie per night.

[@Moviewise]

It makes a whole lot of sense since TV was born as the realm of close-ups. It's often said TV shows are looking more and more like movies, but it's probably partly because movies are looking more and more like TV shows. And if I made you want to re-watch the trilogy, that's a great conclusion cause, no matter what, these movies are worth it!

[@badinfluence3814]

That's part of it but another part is that many current, famous directors have worked their way into the business without going through formal training and without truly understanding what makes a great film work, whether that be an individual scene or the piece as a whole. Jackson, Edgar Wright and Nolan aren't good directors. All more or less went straight into directing features without having a stint directing TV (Wright did with Spaced, which was a sketch show) and all broke in by making low-ish budget high concept films that were successful because of the ideas in the films rather than any sort of sophisticated directing prowess. Their success is admirable but their directing ability is lacking and it still shows, decades later. I believe Damien Chazelles backstory is similar and it's no wonder La La Land has also been picked to pieces on this channel.

[@GrandSlamSilver]

100% true.

[@natashaestes154]

Put on the coffee. All in one go 😅😎

[@sheets75]

It's a widespread thing. I remember when I dabbled in film school for a couple of years, the lecturers were constantly banging on about how close-ups were the most important types of shots and I got dinged some grades on projects because I didn't use enough of them.

[@pabloiranzo3371]

I could never ge tired of thousands of close up of the faces of McKellen and Mortensen and Wood acompained by the score of Shore and the lightning of Lesnie.

[@cube2fox]

I especially agree with the shots within the awesome set pieces. We mostly see them only for a very short moment, or just from afar, and then it's immediately close-ups only. He could have created more immersion by showing off the the respective set piece more and doing fewer cuts to the faces.

[@DFMoray]

I think the moving table and camera was designed to sell the forced perspective. We’ve seen static forced perspective before. Having the camera move made our subconscious believe he really was a small person compared to the tall wizard. Similar to what happened with the cgi dinosaurs in Jurassic park. Those types of effects used to be done with opticals which always have to be static. Same with matte paintings. You see the same thing happening in avatar. The camera is usually moving to sell the world because he doesn’t have a built in real world that we already live in like the films of say, David Fincher. If the movie takes place in the real world, the camera movement and slight “turn tabling” isn’t necessary. The parallax helps make it real for the mind. It’s like a forced 3D or something. It “deflattens” the image. I think also these movies came out at the height of MTV and I remember all the “extreme close ups!” And stuff like that being really popular. All that being said all your points are well made and taken. I love your videos and you are a great teacher. Have you considered teaching a class of some kind? Like an online zoom class or something?

[@ChristopherCopeland]

I’ve been trying to keep myself from commenting before I finish the video, and now that I have, my critique of the critique here is this: While Jackson’s visual storytelling does lack in a technical sense, and arguably an aesthetic sense part of me can’t help but feel that a very very very significant part of the filmmaking required for these movies was disguising the flaws and limitations of VFX/CG at the time and also shooting all three movies simultaneously, jumping from shots for one movie to the next in the same day often. I’m not giving this as an excuse for Jackson’s sloppiness, but rather a compliment that he was able to accomplish such a feat and go on to the have subsequent cultural (and personal) impact these movies had. The second part is not necessarily a compliment to Jackson, but maybe even an observation of an accident: I can’t help but feel that something about the fact that he is NOT using finely tuned cinematic language consistently may actually have even helped with the immersion of so many people in a “fantastical” world. Particularly the use of close ups and inserts. He brings a lot of humanity and tangibility to such an elevated and whimsical story by not making it feel so much like a movie, but rather like we’re seeing people in real spaces. Often, sci-fi and fantasy directors often go far out of their way to make sure things feel fantastical and designed, but I would argue these “better” filmmaking techniques may actually elevate the alienation a more general audience could easily feel by a secondary-world fantasy series. These movies also changed my life and I’m biased for sure (although their flaws and weaknesses have become increasingly apparent with age and experience), but I have always wondered what it is about Jackson’s approach that makes it feel welcoming to general audiences rather than making them feel like they’re in the wrong theater, as it were. Great videos man! I’ve been going through your channel for a few days now. And I do appreciate your ability to criticize and compliment where credit is due 🙌🎉

[@ChristopherCopeland]

Also, I could go on and on about how Jackson uses campy b-horror filming techniques to significant (albeit arguably cheap) emotional effect. In fact, this personal touch of the filmmaking is what adds a lot of depth to the experience of these movies in my estimation. It’s not a clean-cut cinematic blockbuster where everything is polished and printed as if copy and pasted from the previous blockbuster. It’s got this whole quirky campiness that serves almost as a subtext to the general cinematic thrust of the movies as fantasy/action films. Something about that imperfection and rawness adds a voyeuristic quality to the visual experience while having those quirky campy parts/shots that do feel very “movie-like”, which almost buffers the movies from having an over-seriousness about them, which when adapting a highly famous and revered work, one could easily get up their own ass about making sure they’re not doing anything to detract from the majesty of the original works.

[@johnjay370]

Thay accomplished the high quality effects but useing minimal CGI. Most of what you see in the films are actors in poetics and makeup. Not to mention miniature sets and larger sets. It had nothing to do with the editing or the shot composition.

[@johnjay370]

@@ChristopherCopeland the horror effects were the directors stylistic choice. No more no less. The same manipulation of the audience could have ben achieved with any number of effects. It was a stylistic choice. But that doesn't mean that some shots detracted from the immersion. Still love the lord of the rings films.

[@Alastherra]

I have never loved any movie as much as I do LOTR. Since I was 10yo and saw the first one in the theater. Nor have I rewatched anything as many a time as LOTR (…maybe Matrix back in the day). But bloody hell, HOW did I never realise that in the panning shot through the forest you eviscerate to bits you can ACTUALLY *SEE* BOROMIR DOWN THERE. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. IT WAS THIS CLOSE?! Since it takes such a long time before Aragorn arrives I always assumed Boromir was further down the hill and closer to Nen Hithoel 😅😅😅

[@user-to9je2if3u]

I think you're inverting cause and effect here: over-reliance on close-ups and intense camera movement is ubiquitous in modern cinema BECAUSE jackson made it popular with lotr in 2001. A style that fits the film, I'd say, both because of the subject matter and the runtime. Blocking is lazy but, again, it fits the story: characters standing and delivering makes the film look like a painting. Compare it to the bad moments in rings of power or game of thrones: characters move way too modern-like, and everything feels like a costume party.

[@jmwilliams88]

11:20 - Sometimes "imperfect framing" is an intentional artistic choice. Having so-called imperfections can make a scene feel like a real moment caught on camera, rather than something staged. For instance, If you stumbled up a live battle and tried to capture it with your camera, you wouldn't have perfect framing because you wouldn't know what was going to happen. Your camera would be trying to "keep up" with the live events. As was even stated, the function of the shot was to orientate the viewer with the geography of the fight scene, which it accomplishes, not necessarily to showcase the choreography of any particular cast member.

[@arhturlegend007]

You are the best 👌👌👌 Can't get enough of your videos. Amazing content, always waiting for your new uploads.

[@LukeRanieri]

Beautifully done! Really incisive.

[@guruuu6609]

Good Video man Waiting for next one.

[@liltick102]

I agree so much - and all those shots you chose are the one’s I would have chosen too, one’s I love- 10/10 video g - so much truth

[@steffengerlach8395]

Hilarious and brilliant video! Love your style!👌

[@Moviewise]

And I love your taste in videos!

[@steffengerlach8395]

@@Moviewise Thank you, sir!

[@SomeWhiteGuy1]

I have only watched the extended versions of the films. They’re great films and to know that it’s not perfect gives me hope for my film career

[@michaelmcaree6296]

I can deal with rushed blocking, some sloppy shot compositions. The movies on the whole carried a lot of story without dragging. Things I could have done without: - Gimli being a comic relief character. The line about Helm's Deep being able to stop an army like water on rocks was supposed to be his, not Theoden's. Every chance for Gimli to say something, they just cut his line, or gave it to someone else, because the writers thought they needed at least one character to be ridiculous. They didn't - this is an epic story of heroes, and not everything has to have comic relief. - CGI Goblins climbing the walls like they were spiders. In general, any time large groups of creatures were needed, the CGI struggled to convince us they existed. Yet when they would have one alone, like that cave troll or the balrog, they were amazing. So maybe he just should have settled on shooting crowds more conventionally, and not relying on CGI to create artificial scale? I don't know; it's hard to gauge what the response might have been had he shown armies only in small groups at a time. That also leads to criticism. But in any case, i would not have had the goblins crawl around like gravity had not effect on them. Even the cartoon LOTR dealt with the goblin swarm better. - The army of the dead being ghostly rather than physical - the scene of them running through the orc army had no impact. CGI ghosts sweeping through massive armies like a swiffer mop diminishes the effect of the massive army. - Terribly scripted and composed large battle scenes. The skirmishes all looked great, but the battles were just wall of CGI mashing into other walls of CGI. Who would send cavalry right up the middle when charging those elephants? That's like sending a jeep right up the middle of a line of tanks. You are drawing all of their fire, ensuring death. Peter Jackson never heard of flanking? But ... somehow the cavalry didn't all die though? So what, the archers on the elephants didn't know what they were doing, and the elephants were no threat on their own? Diminishes the effect of the big scary elephants, surely. I think Jackson should have added a medieval warfare consultant to his film crew, and actually listened to that consultant. Or maybe just watch Spartacus? - Denethor lighting himself on fire before going on a long run and jumping off a cliff. He should have just thrown his body onto the pyre, like in the book. That scene had horrifying gravitas before Jackson turned it into a cartoon. This is probably the greatest misuse of a dramatic scene in the series. - Heavy over-reliance on music, sound, and CGI to show the "power of the ring." Sean Bean was the only actor allowed to show the influence of the ring without bombast. Meanwhile Ian McKellan, Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett, and poor Elijah Wood all had scenes where their reactions to the ring were displayed via extreme closeups, slow motion, music effects, sound mixing, even CGI effects to make them grow in size or distort their faces. Galadriel's scene was the worst culprit - she has some good lines, showing how the ring would sway her ambition and turn her into a tyrant. It's a beautiful scene in the novel. Too bad we can't understand the lines because apparently Cate Blanchett's acting needed CGI and sound effect help? There are some other things, but mostly that's the stuff that bothered me. These are great and epic films; no one had tried to do better and likely no one ever will. But they do have problems, and I would not say they are in the shot composition and the blocking.

[@AudieHolland]

ADDED: no film is perfect. For the true 'The Lord of the Rings' experience, read the books. The books aren't perfect either though. But they give a infinitely more back ground story and description than is technically possible in a movie. EDIT: my excuse for Peter Jackson shooting way too many close ups is the fact he had to shoot three feature length movies back to back. So he probably thought about framing certain shots, then after a few months he just said, screw that, shoot it in face to face close ups, let's get on with this! I remember from watching the Behind The Scenes on the DVDs that a good many pick up scenes were literally shot in the studio's backlot. In those instances of course you don't want to show too much of the background, which looked 'more or less' like the original sets. It's the George Lucas school of shooting a film. Especially the 'prequels.' Correction, it's the MTV-school of editing. Entire generations have grown up with this as the 'regular' way of editing. Shot, close up longer than a few seconds? Cut, the audience is falling asleep/checking their phones! That last thing about the phones is not entirely untrue, I'm afraid. Last time I went to see a movie in a theatre were these three movies. Whenever I noticed someone checking their phone, which was easy because where does this extra light come from in the sacred darkness of the theatre? I wanted to strangle them.

[@user-pj3vj3lv7y]

You tell Norma to get in line and I immediately have to hit the like button 🤣

[@alisonelizabethmarshall]

Fascinating.

[@TheXelsky]

I love this channel

[@josiahanderson9328]

I am willing to give Sir Peter Jackson some concession simply for the fact that he actually managed to turn books like The Lord of the Rings into films in the first place.

[@allahdaniel212]

I have been watching your videos all day long. I didn’t hit the subscribe button or the like button until I saw “Push-in close ups for love scene” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@thesoundofonemanlaughing]

Thank you so much for talking s**t about these movies. Orson Welles said that "Even Lassie can act in a close-up!" I didn't like these movies because there was no subtlety about anything; because everyone is departing on a long journey when it's dark (not city-street, car with headlights dark, but The Moon and nothing else dark); because Alan Lee's art is dull and ugly; it's too often cartoons and bad CGI. I disagree that Eowyn pulling Merry up onto her horse at full gallop is a problem with the multiple shots - it's bad because a muscular man could not have done that, let alone Eowyn.

[@johnjay370]

Yes you are right it was unrealistic for her to grab him in full armour. But I disagree with you about the multi shot you speek of It did not serve any function in the film at all and did not show anything to bring in the film's style. It took me out of the film. It was bad on its own even with out the story.

[@johnjay370]

And I thought I was alone in seeing the blurry muli cut of of Eowyn grabbing Pippin.

[@matibraun2023]

You need to make a video on how to direct copyright avoidance.

[@glenn.6202]

Do you think Jackson 's directing ELAMIDAM or Sober? I don't know but I love his close ups, supported by his amazing cast (maybe because I am too familiarized of close-ups), how about his movies such as King Kong and The Hobbit trilogy? and can you give us the list of your top movies, would like to know your taste overall! nice vid btw, thanks for finding faults even in such perfect movies :p

[@Moviewise]

Great callback! I'd say his directing is mostly sober. Using many close-ups is pretty common nowadays, so most people won't even notice it. Though he does use some flourishes like slow motion and those (great) over-the-top camera movements, which one could call moments of ELAMIDAM. I loved his King Kong, but not the Hobbit trilogy. They're very much directed like The Lord of the Rings, but the Hobbit films seem too fake, missing that attention to detail that made his earlier films work. The scripts also don't help. And I do plan to make a video of my Top 10 films of all time probably in January! And thank you for sticking around!

[@davidmouser596]

You forgot the plethora of b####y slow motion shots and that Sam has to yell MR FRODO every five b####y seconds for every enemy to hear. But while it is at times a train wreck it is a glorious one and you just cant not look, can you! Oh yes and break dancing wizards;)

[@agitatedzone]

i like the closeups -_-

[@juju10683]

One could argue the shitty framing is to somehow make the fantasy world look more “realistic”

[@TheStrangerSpeaks10]

Haven’t finished the video yet, but couldn’t some of the blocking stuff be attributed to the fact that he has to convince us that characters are all the wrong height?

[@TheStrangerSpeaks10]

If I have a 6’5” inch actor playing a dwarf, I’m definitely having him sit down when I can. He may even be built into the chair.

[@cube2fox]

You are right. Any scene involving both hobbits and humans/elves had to involve various tricks, like close-ups, body doubles, forced perspective and so on. In Bree they even used people on stilts in order to show the height difference between humans and hobbits.

[@WildFungus]

I actually had problems with the cinematrography and shot compositions watching all these as a lad when they were released in theaters. Magical camera shots and close ups the entire film. I fell asleep watching all three of these in theatres. You forgot to talk about business, there's no blocking and there's barely any business except when they eat. it's actually very similar in how it's shot to the Star Wars Prequels, just shot reverse shot. Actors doing nothing.

[@badinfluence3814]

Ah, but who's the best at blocking, editing and framing? Jackson or Christopher Nolan? Or should that be, who is the least terrible?

[@emmagrove6491]

I picked up on all of this on first viewing, too, that so much of the framing and blocking was merely servicable and seemed rushed in a lot of places. A lot of the framing in the Borimir final battle IS pretty weak. But I'd read an article before seeing the first film that they shot all 3 films at once over the course of a year, so I forgave Peter Jackson for a lot.

[@Zed-fq3lj]

As for the blocking and the claim characters in the background doing nothing in LOTR you are totally wrong! It is just purely ill-intentioned and subjective from your side because there are plenty of shots with background characters doing (and not overdoing) their part well! Close ups...well maybe over used but not a big deal as you make it out. Framing was indeed poor occasionally (as in the forest chase shown here). Interesting video, but not one of your best.

[@tronam]

You're only saying that because these aren't just movies to you. They're your precious!

[@MichielHollanders]

I've always felt his style was very heavily leaning on costumes, make up and tiresome close-ups. I had read the book 5 or 6 times before his first film came out and I was quite disappointed when it did. Not to say there's not a lot to admire. But when I will be in the mood for lotr I will grab the book, not rewatch the films. I also couldn't stand how Peter Jackson directed Kate Blanchett, she looks the part and she is an ace actress but here she's unrealistic, unmotivated, unnatural and almost unwatchable. Anyway. Thanks for the excellent critique

[@mrstephenpariah]

The music is guff

[@MrmerryPippin-tw6rv]

We like closeups.

[@johnjay370]

But thay are less effective when thats all you have.

[@MrmerryPippin-tw6rv]

@@johnjay370 yes, but.... when I think of LOTR, and ive watched these movies, countless, i mean countless times. I dont go... that movie, what a bunch of closeups thats all I remember. Its very nitpicky. This guy has ALOT of criticisms that are completely valid. 100% true. Needs to be said. But this sort of stuff....alright dude its a bit much. When he makes his own movie full of spielberg oners, we'll talk then

[@MrmerryPippin-tw6rv]

Yeah theyre walking in a straight line. duh. what of it. Sometimes you do that for a few seconds while hiking up a mountain.

[@MistbornPrincess]

I think it’s also because he had a number of little people actors for that shot-which is probably a lot of the rest of the films too.

[@goblinslayer7096]

I felt the range of Closeups helped the film to give it a wider visual range. There's shots where objects are literally miles away, and others where you're about 6 inches from the subject. For movies with such a vast runtime I think it really makes sense to have this visual range, and to add stimulation to the image to keep the energy up (like when Denethor is eating at the table and the camera moves.) a lot of those pushes also are leading into or out of adjacent shots.

[@fredscallietsoundman9701]

This video kept me more awake than the actual films (I suppose it has brevity going for it)

[@albertoflanolombardo4155]

Ah, theo George Lucas school of blocking: standing up and slowly walking towards the camera.

[@Penco40]

Was Eugene de Savoy a film critic?

[@owleye1127]

The close ups still make me cringe. All subtext is foretext, and there's nothing left.

[@brokended_pencil]

Mushrooms

[@lazybear236]

I disagree about the action scenes. The first two movies were great, but the action in the third and final movie was so overdone, it became tiresome. Like an MCU battle finale. To me The Two Towers deserved the Oscar instead.

[@dutchhistoricalactingcolle5883]

The framing is indeed atrocious, even when he imitates Murnau's Faust he gets it wrong

[@ConradSpoke]

No offense, but complaining about closeups in LOTR reminds me of complaints regarding the music in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Namely, that its music was disunified and should have been done by a single composer. (Maybe Alex North?) The problem is that maybe, in some alternate universe, if you got want the movie would suck. And you wouldn't know why.

[@bobbyjosson4663]

I prefer close-ups should be used as a flourish, to accentuate a point or moment. Also, the last film in the trilogy is a tremendous bore.

[@johnjay370]

@@bobbyjosson4663 I agree. The point of a close up is to draw attention from the audience and to say pay attention this is important. If you have the majority of your film in close ups you are losing the power and effectiveness of the close up. Its like over using the exclamation point. You are just shouting with out end.

[@MrJfairbrother]

Absolutely agree with every criticism. Without the forgiveness. A more measured director could have immersed me in this world, let me believe the characters existed, and wrapped up the essential narrative in a single three-hour epic (well, OK, maybe two). And I might've loved it even though it's about wizards and hobbits and magic rings and beardy white dudes with broadswords or whatever (none of which I find the least bit cool). But Jackson doesn't trust the audience's intelligence, imagination, or attention span enough to ever stop shouting at us: "Epic! Epic! Special effects! Epic!" When he isn't throwing the camera around, he defaults to shytty handheld cross-coverage, all of it so numbingly literal it knocks dead any sense of wonder the wider vistas might hint at. I just see cackhanded footage of actors in funny make-up and costumes, saying silly things in deathly earnest, while either posing on a studio set or scrambling around yet another Very New Zealand-looking location (I'm from New Zealand, so it's doubly hard to believe in Middle Earth when you know you're looking at a place you can catch a bus to). Even the battle scenes are too bloodless and repetitive to enjoy. The poor editor was seemingly under orders to use a shot from every set-up filmed, in as rapid succession as possible, and never let the emphatic score stop, to hell with visual elegance and rhythmic grace... For me this trilogy's not enthralling, just exhausting, and rather cringe. Jackson's first three splatter comedies, on the other hand, never take themselves too-seriously and have consistently rewarded my repeat viewings for decades now. Screening Bad Taste or Meet the Feebles for first-time viewers, especially unsuspecting LOTR fans, is one of those special pleasures only a sick cinephile can truly understand.

[@zetectic7968]

The only thing I hate more than the LOTR trilogy is the mess that is the 3 Hobbit films & I can't remember if I saw the last one. I saw the 3 films in the cinema & by the time of The Return of the King I was bored & and angry - not watched them since. The music is good but the way Jackson & wife decided to improve & alter the story made it worse for me. I just like the books so much & the BBC radio adaption. The casting was poor for too many characters: Sean Austin as Sam (the country bumpkin), Pippin & Merry turned into a comedy duo, Miranda Otto as Eowyn ( too plain & dull as an object of desire for Wormtongue & Faramir and unbelievable as a shield-maiden braving the Witch-King), substituting Arwen for Glorfindel and making her "badass". Lastly I absolutely hate that high pitch whine Serkis used for Gollum & completely ignored why Smeagol got the name Gollum. The awful special effect for Cate Blanchett in the Mirror of Galadriel scene, so OTT with the distorted voice. The ridiculous fight between Gandalf & Saruman atop Orthanc. I could go on. For me the over use of special effects, cramming a thousand or more extras into battle scenes where most would be dead within a short time because it is melee combat rather than organised units: lets rush headlong at these spears/pikes, lets ride our horses down a very steep slope, I know we'll use the old trope of getting archers to draw their bows & wait for the order to fire. Sorry this is too long but the films are a victory of style over substance like buying a cake then discovering they have used low-fat spread instead of butter and it is ersatz cream. Jackson forgot that sometimes less is more.

[@badinfluence3814]

I can't agree with your points about the changes from the books, simply as I've never read them to compare but agree with many of your other points. The Hobbit trilogy was just an extension of everything that was wrong with TLOTR trilogy. The issues may have been more obvious in the latter but they still existed obviously with the former. I loved the 'The Fellowship..' when it was released but was bored half way through 'The Two Towers'. I found the 'Return...' to be painful and haven't watched it since first viewing. Overlong, overly sentimental, multi-ending, CGI bore fest. As Moviewise points out however, the production and sound design are terrific, I'll give it that.

[@avidfather1864]

This video just comes off as someone who thinks he understands film language but doesn't at all. Close up push ins are a common technique and symbolize intrigue.

[@johnjay370]

Nope. Close ups draw attention from the audience and alert them to an objects importants. It has nothing to do with intrigue. Also if you use the close up too much it loses its power. Just like using lens flares too much. I am looking at you JJ Abrams star trek. By the way I love lord of the rings and still admit the films limitations. Its still a great movie regardless and thats what this film essay said.

[@avidfather1864]

uess you're right. I just don't get why he's specifically ripping on LOTR when for mainstream blockbusters, these are fairly well directed films that actually have a stamp of authority to them i.e. they were made by an actual filmmaker with a vision and not a corporation. I just feel that there are so many other blockbuster films that are much more deserving to get this treatment. The only reason I can think of is because LOTR is just so praised by the general public and generally also critics and filmmakers that he feels it justifies this critique.