Also directorial hubris. Peter Jackson thinking The Hobbit needs to be "expanded and improved", changing the whole theme of the work thereby to meet his own ideas.
Small wonder Tolkien's kids (who he wrote The Hobbit for) hate Peter Jackson's guts.
I would be okay with a two-part Hobbit, two flicks around two hours. It is a short read but LOTS happens that can be expanded, especially if you add in the appendice material (ie what Gandalf is doing). I really would.
Three three hour movies... I was bored out of my tree in part 1.
The only real gap in the book is 'where Gandalf buggered off to before Mirkwood', and I wouldn't trust PJ to adapt and expand 'See Spot run', let alone what little Tolkien wrote about that. Not to mention that shoehorning in all this grand legend and behind-the-scenes string-pulling belittles Bilbo's own pretty good adventure and his growth from parochial parlour-putterer to doughty little warrior and hero. (Not that it hasn't already been mucked up as soon as the troll scene) When Anon 2:54 above says that Christopher Tolkien hates the action-movie direction, it's *not* because they cut out 'the walking and talking', it's because they cut out the character growth. Heck, they cut out the character, period. PJ doesn't do character, and subtlety, and clever nuance. He does the kind of string of glitzy, epilepsy-inducing, over-CGed action scenes that stand in for 'story' and 'plot' in so many movies.
it is most likely the businessmen at the studios who, more often than not, are coming up with the trilogy idea these days, rather than the primarily creative people.
if they chop a story up into 3 parts and charge thrice for it... then even if the first part isn't necessarily so great, some members of the audience who are irrationally loyal to the franchise will still feel obliged to pay twice more just to finish the story. and that is how they get your money. three times. it's hollywood's answer to comic books' variant covers and company-wide crossovers.
Before people start complaining about turning a rather short book like The Hobbit into three films starts (I guess I'm a bit late already, but whatever): The Hobbit was never meant to be the full account of the adventure. The book is written from Bilbo's perspective, which means that everything from Dol Guldur to the White Council to even the majority of the Battle of Five Armies is all largely absent. Tolkien even started writing a more complete account of the events of the Hobbit (staring with a rewrite of the riddles with Gollum), but was told nobody would be interested.
This also sort of refutes one of the above anon's claim that Jackson is changing the theme. The Hobbit was always meant as a rather light-hearted account of what was an otherwise rather grim adventure (I personally found the film to strike a pretty good balance between these extremes). The reason Christopher Tolkien hates the Lord of the Rings trilogy is because it's become too much of an action movie. If it were up to him, there would probably be even more walking and talking and less action, but I highly doubt he would prefer a single movie.
Jackson pulled the whole thing about Azog pursuing the dwarves out of his ass whole cloth. Quite apart from the fact that in the original, proper tale Azog was long since dead by the hand of Dain, the whole pursuit theme was unnecessary and hamfistedly bolted on from start to finish. Then there's movie Bilbo cunningly tricking the trolls instead of crawling off into the bushes like a useless tit he was at that point in the tale. Don't you think that if book Bilbo's role in this episode had been in any was as heroic, by your theory he would have mentioned it in his "perspective"? And don't get me started on little Bilbo facing down Azog to rescue Thorin. What a load of old cobblers.
That's not "completing the tale". It's completely altering it, in plot and theme, with a load of spackled in self serving directorial BS..
I'm all for filling the blanks, like the White Cuncil part and such, and I don't mind small madifications to enhance the movie experience or fit the story better to a movie medium vs book medium, but pulling a whole new story arc out of one's ass does not qualify. o_O
I still choose to believe that a lot of the stuff added was added to try and fill space after it was decided to have three movies instead of two... Most of the stuff I didn't like in the movie felt like deleted scenes...
The 'it's true' tag should have an expansion: 'it's true, oh holy crap it's so true'. To be wheeled out for sspecial cicumstances, like the derision of auto-trilogies, the Hobbit movies, and Peter Jackson.
$$$$$$$$
ReplyDeletePretty much this.
DeleteAlso directorial hubris. Peter Jackson thinking The Hobbit needs to be "expanded and improved", changing the whole theme of the work thereby to meet his own ideas.
Small wonder Tolkien's kids (who he wrote The Hobbit for) hate Peter Jackson's guts.
Same thing for Prometheus.
ReplyDelete????
DeleteSurely Prometheus is just one crummy movie?
A trilogy can only fix it at this stage.
It would have to be a hell of a trilogy.
DeleteYeah, I mean I would have prefered Prometheus to be a good stand alone movie instead of a crummy "to be continued" trilogy teaser movie.
DeleteI would be okay with a two-part Hobbit, two flicks around two hours. It is a short read but LOTS happens that can be expanded, especially if you add in the appendice material (ie what Gandalf is doing). I really would.
ReplyDeleteThree three hour movies... I was bored out of my tree in part 1.
Was that tree walking when you were bored out of it?
DeleteAye. The two movie thing would have worked perfectly.
DeleteOne for "There"
And another movie for "Back Again"
The only real gap in the book is 'where Gandalf buggered off to before Mirkwood', and I wouldn't trust PJ to adapt and expand 'See Spot run', let alone what little Tolkien wrote about that. Not to mention that shoehorning in all this grand legend and behind-the-scenes string-pulling belittles Bilbo's own pretty good adventure and his growth from parochial parlour-putterer to doughty little warrior and hero. (Not that it hasn't already been mucked up as soon as the troll scene)
DeleteWhen Anon 2:54 above says that Christopher Tolkien hates the action-movie direction, it's *not* because they cut out 'the walking and talking', it's because they cut out the character growth. Heck, they cut out the character, period. PJ doesn't do character, and subtlety, and clever nuance. He does the kind of string of glitzy, epilepsy-inducing, over-CGed action scenes that stand in for 'story' and 'plot' in so many movies.
True as this is, I thought the third Hobbit was studio-mandated so it's not completely Peter Jackson's fault?
ReplyDeleteUnless you count making the LOTR trilogy such a big success that the studio wanted another 3-part money making machine.
it is most likely the businessmen at the studios who, more often than not, are coming up with the trilogy idea these days, rather than the primarily creative people.
Deleteif they chop a story up into 3 parts and charge thrice for it... then even if the first part isn't necessarily so great, some members of the audience who are irrationally loyal to the franchise will still feel obliged to pay twice more just to finish the story. and that is how they get your money. three times. it's hollywood's answer to comic books' variant covers and company-wide crossovers.
Before people start complaining about turning a rather short book like The Hobbit into three films starts (I guess I'm a bit late already, but whatever): The Hobbit was never meant to be the full account of the adventure. The book is written from Bilbo's perspective, which means that everything from Dol Guldur to the White Council to even the majority of the Battle of Five Armies is all largely absent. Tolkien even started writing a more complete account of the events of the Hobbit (staring with a rewrite of the riddles with Gollum), but was told nobody would be interested.
ReplyDeleteThis also sort of refutes one of the above anon's claim that Jackson is changing the theme. The Hobbit was always meant as a rather light-hearted account of what was an otherwise rather grim adventure (I personally found the film to strike a pretty good balance between these extremes). The reason Christopher Tolkien hates the Lord of the Rings trilogy is because it's become too much of an action movie. If it were up to him, there would probably be even more walking and talking and less action, but I highly doubt he would prefer a single movie.
Oh please.
DeleteJackson pulled the whole thing about Azog pursuing the dwarves out of his ass whole cloth. Quite apart from the fact that in the original, proper tale Azog was long since dead by the hand of Dain, the whole pursuit theme was unnecessary and hamfistedly bolted on from start to finish. Then there's movie Bilbo cunningly tricking the trolls instead of crawling off into the bushes like a useless tit he was at that point in the tale. Don't you think that if book Bilbo's role in this episode had been in any was as heroic, by your theory he would have mentioned it in his "perspective"? And don't get me started on little Bilbo facing down Azog to rescue Thorin. What a load of old cobblers.
That's not "completing the tale". It's completely altering it, in plot and theme, with a load of spackled in self serving directorial BS..
Amen.
DeleteI'm all for filling the blanks, like the White Cuncil part and such, and I don't mind small madifications to enhance the movie experience or fit the story better to a movie medium vs book medium, but pulling a whole new story arc out of one's ass does not qualify. o_O
I found the movie enjoyable nonetheless, BUT...
I still choose to believe that a lot of the stuff added was added to try and fill space after it was decided to have three movies instead of two... Most of the stuff I didn't like in the movie felt like deleted scenes...
DeleteBut Azog is such a strong character! Just like Darth Maul. :P
DeleteThe White Council part was so captivating... To the point that Gandalf was so bored that he texted Galadriel while Saruman talked.
DeleteThe Gandalf/Galadriel/Saruman love scene was totally gratuitous.
ReplyDeleteI hope the Smaug's Cup romance storyline gets fleshed out a bit in the next movie though.
The 'it's true' tag should have an expansion: 'it's true, oh holy crap it's so true'. To be wheeled out for sspecial cicumstances, like the derision of auto-trilogies, the Hobbit movies, and Peter Jackson.
ReplyDeleteknock trilogies all you like, Back to the Future needed all three movies
ReplyDelete