I don't think Jackson was a middling director, at all. He has problems, but a good eye for visuals and charachters, and a sense of the grotesque - certainly compared to most mainstream directors. I agree that he got seduced by the convenience of CGI, though.
Just to clarify, in spite of what I said in regards to
biggytitbo's post ("I completely agree with everything that you just said"), I don't agree that Jackson is a middling director. I'm a big fan of his earlier, independent films,
Bad Taste and
Braindead and whilst I do find his latter films
a lot less interesting, I still consider him a cut above your average Hollywood director. So, more accurately, I
almost completely agree with everything that
biggytitbo just said.
As biggy says, though, the issue is more with thing like camera work and CGI movement that our brains know is impossible.
This is exactly it. With practical effects, even when they look dodgy, at least there's a physical camera on set, filming them and as such, the shots are limited to what's physically achievable, in terms of camera movement. With CGI, a wise artist knows to mimic real-life achievable camera movement. Unfortunately, a great deal of directors have the camera swooping around 360°, like gameplay footage of an action videogame. The result is a disconnect between what's on screen and the viewer's conscious or subconscious knowledge of what's possible in terms of camera movement. Given that the magic trick is to sell to the viewer that what they're seeing is actually happening, within the bound of suspension of disbelief, or at the very least, has been filmed on a set with a physical camera, then in these cases, the magic trick is ruined.
Naturally, one's milage may vary and some may not be bothered by such things but for every person who's not, there's someone who is and that's why a savvy director avoids pulling off psychically impossible camera movement in a computer generated shot.
