Posted Jun 10, 2007 by DaveHelps
I know nothing about movies except that I like watching them; so I'm not commenting on whether your entry is accurate or not.
Although this entry begins well, a who-what-where-when-how set of important facts, it descends into an almost essay-like review of "Why Tim Burton is better than Peter Jackson, for Beginners". Nothing wrong with that, but it should be in an entry entitled "Why Tim Burton is better than Peter Jackson, for Beginners".
Break off the Case study into a seperate entry, and add a link to it at the end of this one, mereckons.
.D
|
 
|  | |
|
|
Posted Jun 10, 2007 by U2006
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
That wasn't my intention, but under the theory Peter Jackson IS the weaker director, using two different directors was intended to illustrate how each would be perceived. I personally think Peter Jackson is a good director, hence the line:
“Therefore, although he is a perfectly good director, he lacks the credentials to be labelled an auteur.”
This is one of the major criticisms of the theory, as I explain:
‘Another problem with the theory is that it creates a hierarchy within film circles. Those who subscribe to it would automatically assume that an auteur is a better film maker than a 'normal' director, many of whom might make wonderful films.’
It wasn’t intended to appear bias at all, merely state the facts.
|
 
| | |
|
|
|
|
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
Home
Reply
