|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Sep 3 2012, 9:57pm
Post #51 of 98
(1136 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't wish to hear that which may be disagreeable, particularly if it's right...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The author brings up several valid points. The concerns that Jackson may be milking the franchise and using the appendix to the Lord of the Rings as a sandbox for 3-D saturated epic overkill are ones shared by other Tolkien fans, including myself.
To be honest, one film may require cuts to the original story that many folks may dearly miss. Two films would surely encompass the whole original plot in grand style; however, given Jackson's track record, one should suspect that two films would find PJ diddling about with absurd plot twists as found in the 3 LotR movies.
But three films? I find myself paraphrasing the awkward and whiny quote by Elrond in FotR that things are being stretched a bit too th-i-i-i-i-n-n-n. A simple, linear story is being elongated and pulled out of shape in order to add baggage that may render the main plot insubstantial. Rather than seeing The Hobbit, we may get the "The No-bbit: An Unexpected Journey into Subplot Hell".
I don't agree with everything the author says. His comment that Tolkien "seems to have created the idealised past of Middle Earth in order to escape a confusing present", is incredibly misinformed and downright silly.
And I don't believe that "Jackson is running entirely on empty, pushing this side project to ridiculous extremes because he has nothing else to offer". But I do agree that Jackson's other efforts since making his award-winning LotR films have been sub-par (I cringe at seeing Jack Black in King Kong, The Lovely Bones was passably interesting with some nice effects and suspense, and I didn't care for the look of Tin-Tin at all).
And the overarching point of the piece, that Hollywood is sequalizing books to cinematic death in order to take the pennies off the eyes of the dead, is valid as well.
It may not be because the critic is negative and sees the glass as half full; on the contrary, the concern may be that too much is poured into the glass and it spills all over your carpet.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
dalecooper
Ossiriand
Sep 3 2012, 10:10pm
Post #52 of 98
(1060 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Somewhere between 1 film/2 hours and 3 films/x hours is what I was hoping for.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes, Rankin/Bass did it in 77 minutes with technically just a few major deletions, but if you revisit the movie now (I just did recently to refresh my memory, after the 3 films announcement gave me a major case of sadface) there's a lot of insane compression. Events that should take 15-20 minutes or more are often compressed to, literally, 2 minutes. The slow, funny introduction of all the dwarves and Gandalf that unfolds over several pages in the book is handled in just a couple minutes in RB's version: Gandalf shows up and announces himself with a few sentences, then all the dwarves walk out from behind trees and bushes simultaneously, and seconds later they're chipping glasses and cracking plates. The Battle of Five Armies is abbreviated on the page anyway, far more so than it will be in the new movies, but in RB's take it's the mega Cliff's Notes edition - you could hardly believe that five whole armies could even get in and out of a battle quite that quickly. 
Beyond all of that, we know the entire Dol Guldur sub-plot will take up quite a lot of screen time. Your mileage may vary on whether that's a good thing, but I resigned myself to the addition long ago; what it means, in any event, is that it's not JUST the text of "The Hobbit" that is going to occupy all three of these movies.
I still think three seems like a lot and wonder if it couldn't have been done better and more succinctly in two. Don't suppose I'll know until I see them. But I'm tentatively non-pessimistic about it now, and no longer think Rankin and Bass's 77 minutes is much of a standard at all, considering how choppy and rushed their take was. I have a lot of affection for that movie, but even with the notable subtractions it should have been two hours long, not less than 1.5.
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Hithlum
Sep 3 2012, 10:24pm
Post #53 of 98
(1078 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That doesn't appear to be the point of the article at all.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The author raises it as something which has been suggested but states he himself does not believe that:
"I'm also not sure money is the only factor. In fact, I think something much more dispiriting has motivated the decision: creative stagnation."
"While it may be maddening for those who see cold, hard profit as the prime motivation behind The Hobbit, it looks sad rather than venal to me"
I don't think I agree at all that, as you suggest, the overarching point is about Hollywood, or splitting films for profit.
The overarching point is the suggestion that returning to previous creative endeavours, without intervening alternative successes on the same scale, is indicative of creative bankruptcy (and this is evidenced by the extension of the sequels' duration).
I don't find this particularly convincing, especially in anticipation of the actual work, and more generally when one considers all the artists who would be beside Jackson on such a firing line (Tolkien included).
One may as well say Canaletto would have been much better if he'd knocked the boats on the head after his first couple of pictures.
LR
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Sep 3 2012, 10:42pm
Post #54 of 98
(1075 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You skipped an entire germane paragraph...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Here:
The critique is pretty simple – Jackson and his team are stretching a simple story beyond reasonable limits to make more money from ticket sales. Harry Potter was the first franchise to split books, turning the Deathly Hallows into two separate movies. Although there was some creative rationale for the split – Deathly Hallows was a long book, and it meant we got two tonally distinct movies – it's also true Warner Bros probably increased its grosses by many hundreds of millions in the process. Other franchises, including Twilight and The Hunger Games, have since followed suit. Jackson, though, seems to be taking this idea to extremes, and many fans are up in arms at what they see as a blatant cash grab.
Saying that the author mitigates this damning statement by adding ""I'm also not sure money is the only factor", does not minimize the accusation. He includes "creative stagnation" as the crown atop the original criticism, and then expands on it. But I see the gist of your argument, yet he's really using the "fans" commentary to bolster his own. Let's just say the points are coeval in their evil.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Sep 3 2012, 10:44pm)
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Hithlum
Sep 3 2012, 10:49pm
Post #55 of 98
(1039 views)
Shortcut
|
That's his summary of the critique he perceives others have ( those posting on the internet referenced immediately before the paragraph you quote and the fans referenced at the end of it).
His own is quite different in primary nature as the entire article makes clear.
LR
|
|
|
Escapist
Mithlond
Sep 3 2012, 11:02pm
Post #56 of 98
(1069 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So how long is reasonable for The Hobbit?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your observations match my memory of the cartoon version.
Not even considering the addition of appendix material and the inclusion of parts of the original story that cut when making the cartoon,
if scenes that could have easily taken 5 to 15 (let's say 10 for simplicity) took only 2 minutes of screen time (at the cost of characterization, detailed description, and dialogue) then it seems logical for a full detailed movie to take five times as long correspondingly (roughly speaking - as an estimate of just what might be reasonable).
I get about 6 to 7 hours of film from that. This could be 2 really long films (or 3 reasonable length films) without any appendices. But parts of the full story of The Hobbit are found in the appendices and referred to later in LOTR so now there are easily another one or two hours and 2 films just isn't enough. That's without even going outside the events that happen with only the main characters in The Hobbit. If that gets extended into events involving main characters after The Hobbit or before, then I could even see 4 or 5 movies (dodges popcorn).
I guess that these debates have already taken place - I just thought this comment (scenes in the cartoon that would have taken around 10 minutes to show, getting rushed through in only 2 minutes or so) was just one more way to look at it.
And quite honestly, I just don't see what is so wrong even if the film makers were considering the benefit of making more money! Yeah ... that's what they do! I'll give them more of my money if they have more cool stuff to show me. Is there something wrong with making honest money by creating products that people want and are willing to pay for? Call me a dirty capitalist, but to me this is totally fine.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Hithlum
Sep 3 2012, 11:09pm
Post #57 of 98
(1046 views)
Shortcut
|
If it's an excellent set of films, whatever it turns out to be is reasonable of course.
If it's bad, bad, bad all the critics will say "I told you so," but hardcore fans will love everything they get anyway, and more in the extended editions.
The measure can only be done in retrospect, perhaps even if you're Peter Jackson.
|
|
|
Demosthenes
Sr. Staff
Sep 4 2012, 12:13am
Post #58 of 98
(1015 views)
Shortcut
|
|
why three? differing motivations from differing camps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've been saying this for a while:
1) Warner Bros wants to make money. Art, for them, is a secondary consideration. More films, more money.
(that's the easy bit)
2) I think Jackson just likes working with his peeps. So he saw half a chance to stretch things a bit more and took it.
(this is an inference based on how tightly knit Jackson's crews are and have always been.)
Whether the decision will turn out for better, or for worse, is still up for grabs.
Creative vacuum is an interesting argument, but I don't really buy it. Jackson would achieve the same sort of kudos from two films. The leap with three isn't that much greater. Diminishing returns and all that.
TheOneRing.net Senior Staff
IRC Admin and Hall of Fire moderator
|
|
|
Bound
Nargothrond
Sep 4 2012, 8:34am
Post #59 of 98
(957 views)
Shortcut
|
While some here seem to be bashing this journalist for suggesting something they don't agree with you have to accept that this is an opinon post. the journalist is paid to voice his view on things. He's not doing a critical essay on Peter Jacksons career...
Anyways I'm just responding do say that I think the author actually hits close to bone. I agree with most of what he wrote. Peters movies post Lord Of the Rings have been pretty much all over the place. While Kong was enjoyable in parts, the movie was 40 too long with some awful characters thrown in on top. And The Lovely Bones.. Well nothing was good about that movie in my opinion bar maybe Saoirse Ronan.
I was unsure when Peter took over the hobbit but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But with the splitting of the movies into 3... I think I've lost all faith this man is the movie maker he used to be.
The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Sep 4 2012, 9:45am
Post #60 of 98
(933 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not the conclusion that's people are disagreeing with, it's the reasons for reaching that conclusion, which are ignorant and prejudiced.
Firstly, the journalist is starting from the assumption that fantasy, as a genre, is of lesser artistic merit than other genres.
Secondly, they are starting from the assumption that there is not sufficient source material to make three movies.
Whether or not PJ will actually produce three good movies is a whole different question, which can only be answered after the films are released.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Sep 4 2012, 12:10pm
Post #61 of 98
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
People who discuss whether this is a "PJ fansite" or not are missing the point - the topic is the article, nothing else.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Mithlond
Sep 4 2012, 12:22pm
Post #62 of 98
(903 views)
Shortcut
|
creative stagnation? Thats the most ridiculous charge I have heard yet. If anything PJ suffers from the opposite, he wants to do too much, has too many ideas and wants to stuff em all in, hence 3 films. He has huge creative teams supporting him and this alone would put a fire in his belly for more. the presence of Lee/Howe/Weta/Shore and hundreds of super creative costumers/ actors et al must be a siren song too hard to ignore. Who wouldnt want to continue making movie magic? Artists get swept up into their imaginations and the last thing on their minds are putting restraints on the creative juices once they flow. Its easy for desk ridden journos to critisize, its their job, but this chap hasnt even seen the film yet, what has he got a palantir?
|
|
|
dave_lf
Mithlond
Sep 4 2012, 12:39pm
Post #63 of 98
(847 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There will probably be a lot of that sort of thing this time around
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
warranted or no. Last time Jackson and Weta were outsiders with fresh ideas; now they're establishment. The films will have to be that much better to overcome the fact that the critical deck is stacked against them.
(This post was edited by dave_lf on Sep 4 2012, 12:40pm)
|
|
|
Bound
Nargothrond
Sep 4 2012, 12:45pm
Post #64 of 98
(839 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't agree that the Journalist suggested that Fantasy is genre of lesser artistic merit - In this line "surely he could choose more creatively ambitious projects than this" - I think the author is suggesting that Peter has done Fantasy before and that he might be better off with an new challenge.
I think it's fair to suggest that there isn’t enough material to warrant 3 movies. I've read the books, I know what he says he's getting extra material from. It seems to me that it is a stretch. I'm not even against him creating new characters/scenes that expand story lines but when it boils down to the fact that maybe - just maybe - Peter's lost track of himself and he can longer tell a focused story.
No one is suggesting the movies will be bad... we can't judge that until we see them but it does give people enough to worry ...
The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Gondolin
Sep 4 2012, 1:21pm
Post #65 of 98
(857 views)
Shortcut
|
though as others have suggested (including the blogger) it is difficult to say from this side of the premiere. And, as we know, this is precisely the sort of criticism Sir Peter was trying to avoid back in 2008, so he said.
However I think the article is more a reaction to the industry in general with PJ cast as unfortunate victim because The Hobbit is an attention grabber just now. A cursory glance at the industry reveals many directors "returning to their roots" -- even storied directors such as Scott and Cronenberg aren't immune to such criticism. There seems a reluctance to risk it all on original titles; instead we are seeing more and more reboots, re-releases of old favourites in 3D (so what?), and remakes of films that didn't need to be remade because the originals were already successful (for instance a remake of Stephan King's "It" was just announced). And because mainstream genres are so firmly established, even supposedly original titles turn out bland and predictable. Then there's the endless sequels and prequels, some that merely borrow a successful name but have nothing to do with the titular character (Bourne Legacy for instance). So even though PJ has followed a similar path, as the author lays out quite well, it is entirely unfair to single him out.
For my part, I'm more inclined to blame the studios and distribution side of the industry... there are original titles out there but only in limited release, if they are released for screen at all. You can blame neither audiences nor film makers if the system refuses to put original titles on big screens.
By the way, welcome back Bound, and congratulazioni!
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on 0 secs ago)
|
|
|
Bound
Nargothrond
Sep 4 2012, 1:38pm
Post #66 of 98
(845 views)
Shortcut
|
... Nothing is worst than the constant stream of remakes from Hollywood. It makes it feel like it is completely bereft of original ideas.
I'll also concede that Jackson and The Hobbit are easy prey for these type of articles, I remember the hunger games movie split got a fair bit of abuse too.
Ps...
Thanks for the congrats... And welcome backs. I kept an eye in on occasion but haven't been active in an age ;-)
The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed
|
|
|
morgenstern
Lindon
Sep 4 2012, 2:54pm
Post #67 of 98
(779 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How long will these films run?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If they run in the same vein as their predecessors (the LotR films, orig. release length), at an average run time of 3hrs 6min, then somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 to 3 hrs per Hobbit film is likely, therefore 7.5 to 9 hours to tell both the original story and whatever is included from the appendices which will serve as the perceived necessary bridge between the two film groups.
If this is the case, then the original story of 'The Hobbit' may be in there somewhere, but with everything that is being added in, I'm not able to imagine how it's not going to be overshadowed by the "greater tale" that is being threaded into this adaptation.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Sep 4 2012, 3:07pm
Post #68 of 98
(882 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The gripes that this is only "speculation" are pointless.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The positive reviews have no more facts than the negative ones do. We are ALL speculating.
Either criticize everyone for groundless speculation, or don't bring it up.
That being said, I would disagree that the 3-movie format is either a money-grab or stagnation on Peter Jackson's part.
I believe he is simply like a kid in a candy shop and he's out of control. His enthusiasm has overcome his good sense, and he doesn't know when to stop.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Sep 4 2012, 3:10pm
Post #69 of 98
(785 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And if you aren't going to read the whole article...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...it would probably be best if you didn't comment.
The OP does not convey what the critique is really about, not by a long shot.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Spaldron
Ossiriand
Sep 4 2012, 3:36pm
Post #70 of 98
(757 views)
Shortcut
|
I like how the main site has nicked my link lol. 
link
"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."
|
|
|
Olo Overhill
Registered User
Sep 4 2012, 4:05pm
Post #71 of 98
(783 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with Elenorflower that this is definitely not a case of creative stagnation. Peter Jackson originally wanted to make The Hobbit prior to LOTR. This has been a passion of his for many years and it is not some fall back project that he happened to get. Also why not him and his team. They have shown more passion, talent, and respect for the material than anyone I know. Anyways, just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Sep 4 2012, 4:08pm
Post #72 of 98
(765 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not all speculation is groundless
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If the basic assumptions of the speculation are valid, then it may or may not be true, but is worth considering.
If basic assumptions are false, as in this article, then any speculation that follows is worthless.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Sep 4 2012, 4:17pm
Post #73 of 98
(763 views)
Shortcut
|
It's the writer's opinion that PJ's films since LOTR have been weak, and for that reason, he thinks PJ is stagnating.
The fact that you disagree doesn't make those opinions false.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Sep 4 2012, 4:24pm
Post #74 of 98
(743 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Only one false assumption is required to invalidate a thesis
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And this person has two.
I agree completely about the quality of PJ's resent work. But that has no baring on the decision to make The Hobbit a trilogy.
It is also contrary to the suggestion that PJ should go and make something else.
Hitchcock had done thrillers. Therefore by making more he was obviously stagnating.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
SteveDJ
Ossiriand
Sep 4 2012, 6:30pm
Post #75 of 98
(744 views)
Shortcut
|
|
People seem to be forgetting about the LENGTH of the LotR movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The third film - RotK - is over 4 hours long (Extended Cut). That's two movies. For the shortest book of the trilogy (ok, yea, it included bits from TTT, like Shelob, but still...)
I can imagine that maybe WB doesn't want 3-hour epic(s) here, so 3 films about 2 hours each, maybe less even?, would still be quite reasonable for The Hobbit - even as a shorter book. (I say maybe less than 2 hours because, perhaps wearing 3D glasses for 2 - 3 hours just isn't feasible...?)
|
|
|
|
|
