QUOTE (Madam Corvax @ Aug 11 2004, 12:23 AM)
Those are the words of a prophet. I cannot agree more. Look at LOTR trilogy. The same director, three different editors. Result - the first part is a work of a genius, the third part is a just choppy collage of breathtaking images. I think I will start a thread on that in the film section some time ...
That's a true enough sentiment, I think, editing can significantly alter a film somewhat, although I don't think it can make crap out gold and vice versa. "The Phantom Edit" may speed up the pacing and remove Jar Jar, but it doesn't fix the underlying problems with the film itself - it merely trims the excess fat and tidies it up a little. Similarly, the theatrical cut of ROTK is choppy, but that doesn't detract too much from the fact that it's a stunning and well-executed film - it just makes the seams a little obvious and often leaves scenes in an unsatisfying way.
And, in defence of ROTK, the reason it's choppy is not really to do with the editor, Jamie Selkirk. Most of Peter Jackson's other films were edited by Selkirk, and they don't really suffer in the same way. Not only that, but Jackson kept (as he has with all his films) a relatively good eye on the editing - he would always sit in on as many edit sessions as he could, especially with the LOTR trilogy to ensure that, although each film would be different in tone, the style would remain consistent throughout.
The main reason ROTK feels hasty in its editing is because it was rushed. Due to time constraints, Jackson had to deliver five minutes of completed film per day in the run up to release, and that meant that he didn't get to see the entire completed film until the premiere, and I think it's that that caused the problems with the edit. He may have seen every completed scene, but he didn't see the completed film, and that's something a director must have; the scenes themselves may work, but they can often feel out of place when taken in context with the scenes immediately before and after.