Post by Paul S. PersonI did read it.
It is, indeed, his story that he did his best after Benicio del Toro
bailed, and he may well be correct.
And the finished product is what I am always thinking of when I
attack his films. Does your "of course" mean that you agree that PJ
is responsible for the finished form of both the /LOTR/ and the
/Hobbit/ films? And that all blame accrues to him and cannot be
pushed off on "accomplices"?
accomplice
noun
a person who helps another commit a crime.
Your narrow mind rears its head again.
There are no accomplices since no crime has been committed. You may dislike the
movies to your hearts content, but using this kind of schoolyard name calling
isn't really helping your credibility in a serious discussion about them.
Making a movie isn't the product of one person. You have screenplay writers,
producers, actors and a thousand other persons that contribute to the end result.
There are thousands of movies made that aren't the vision of their directors
(hence the multitude of "Director's cut" out there). It's safe to say that the
Hobbit movies would be quite different had they been given the same type of
attention from the start by the same people.
Whether or not you would have liked *that* version more or less is pure
speculation, of course.
In fact, a lot of film productions that change directors during production turn
out to be real messes. Some example are A.I. that was directed by Kubrick and
then Spielberg when he died. Another is Exorcist: The Beginning and The Island Of
Dr Moreau and last but not least, the Walking Dead TV-series. There are, of
course, productions that have survived such a change as well.
But mostly the problems arise from the producers, where the director is severely
limited in applying his vision due to restrictions, edits, cuts, alterations
prompted by the producers. Famous movies are Terry Gilliam's Brazil, but you have
X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Golden Compass, The Hunger Games and Spider-Man 3.
So, while the director takes the blame, and is forced (mostly) to own up to the
end result, the end result is always, always has, and always will be, the result
of a myriad of decision-takers in the process.
--
Sandman