Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 701562" data-attributes="member: 5834">ReGo watch a movie of Peter Jackson's, then watch a film by Roman Polanski, Ridley Scott, or Martin Scorsese. You will see what I am talking about.Bits and pieces. Not the most interesting subject matter. I will give it a look. See if I think differently.Even if I do, I still feel many of the acting performances in both FotR and TTT were poor save for moments when the actors themselves really stepped it up a notch.Many of the performances were wooden with a few gems, which I mostly credit to the actors themselves.If you want me to detail the scenes I felt were poorly acted, I can do so. They are plentiful in both and I can tell that the actor was certainly trying, but did not have much direction but their own intution for the character.Yet, the visuals were so overpowering in both films, that most viewers overlooked certain parts that were poorly acted. This is coming from someone who greatly enjoyed both films. I am just not a mindless fanboy who refuses to acknowledge certain poor parts of the film.I hope you have read the book, so that what I say will give you some understanding of why this was wrong.In the book, Gandalf was infinitely respectful of Theoden king and his hall. So was Aragorn, Gandalf and Gimli.None of those characters would fight in the Hall of another King, and even on his worse day, Theoden would never allow any of his servants to attack someone in his hall. Period.As I stated before, PJ chose to add action, when drama should have carried the scene. It was a poor choice on his part that was entirely unncessary.The visuals were far too powerful in the movie. In the book, the change in Theoden was profound, yet subtle. That could have been carried off better purely by acting and less dramatic visual effects.</blockquote>

Verification