Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Deeper reasons for the lack of perfection
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

AriesT
Bree


Dec 27 2013, 10:42am

Post #1 of 57 (1522 views)
Shortcut
Deeper reasons for the lack of perfection Can't Post

Ever since AUJ came out, I thought about deeper reasons of why the Hobbit trilogy is not as perfect as the LOTR trilogy was (though I love the films anyway). And I'm worried to see how many of the friendly people here do not like DOS. Aside from the book's short length and complexity, I always believed there is something else about it. It isn't the overuse of CG and I do not think it is the split in three movies in general. There must be something deeper.

So I might have figured out some reasons why PJ is not pushing boundaries and a new level of perfection anymore... or what made the LOTR production so much "better" (for lack of a better word).

1. The "once in a life time" feeling for all the crew in 1999.
We all know the videos and behind the scenes videos from the first trilogy, how excited they all were to make one of the biggest movies ever made. PJ and all the actors and crew members were just astounded and excited about being part of this huge production. You really could see it in their eyes and the way they talked.
This is not the case in 2010 anymore. From the VLogs and behind-the-scenes information, we barely get the feeling that they were still in this "oh this is something special and unique" mindset. The crew already have done it before, everyone talked about how excited they are but something was missing aside from Elijah's reaction.

2. The bond between the actors and the crew
With actors being in their late teens and early 20s, you have some very open-minded and fresh and adventuresome characters as your main actors. The 18 months shooting LOTR created a very strong bond between the actors and a father-like standing for Peter regarding the very young members of the cast. Which can be seen in the Good-bye Elijah video when both Peter and Elijah cried because their journey was over. Many of the actors became friends in real life (Elijah and Dominic for example). You had Viggo playing the hero even when the camera was off and everybody loved him.
And let us not forget about the "9" tattoo. This will remember all of them for the rest of their lifes. Everyday when looking in the mirror.

That being said, I don't see this incredibly strong bond in the Hobbit cast when watching the VLogs and interviews. Of course, they all have fun being part of the crew, they play ping pong and stuff and you see how much they love it when watching them acting in the films. However, there is no dwarvish "13" tattoo or anything like this which reminds them of their journey, there seems to be no new Viggo taking his role to real life and having adventures with the crew (camping, fishing and stuff); and there seems to be no such relationship between the actors becoming buddies afterwards.

3. Peter Jackson lacking passion
Don't get me wrong here. He is a master, he is great and I love him. However, ever since he started the production of the Hobbit, it seemed like he does not have the passion anymore which made him and the production of LOTR so great 10 years ago. Remember the first Vlog of the Hobbit when he says he never intended to do the films. Plus, I always have the feeling he -subconciously- does not appreciate the value of the new films when talking on panels.
Now remember the LOTR production when he looked more interested and passionate about everything and putting much more effort in the every scene. The way he talked to his crew, like he cried and felt deeply sad when Viggo and Elijah had their last takes. Even with the equal if not higher stress factor back then taking care of 8-10 units.

What do you think are the deeper reasons behind the lacking perfection? Let's have some discussion and brainstorming about it. :)

I am Aries and this is my zodiac sign.

(This post was edited by AriesT on Dec 27 2013, 10:49am)


haarp
Rivendell


Dec 27 2013, 10:59am

Post #2 of 57 (948 views)
Shortcut
7 [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think it's a lack of passion but the choice to make the films (1) mostly using green screens and (2) crappy writing.


(This post was edited by Eledhwen on Dec 27 2013, 2:59pm)


moreorless
Rohan

Dec 27 2013, 10:59am

Post #3 of 57 (827 views)
Shortcut
There the source material as well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd agree with some of your points(especially that Jackson was at his peak for LOTR) but I think a clear issue with the Hobbit films is that your simply not dealing with a story as good as LOTR.

Whilst Jacksons films are obviously different in tone from the book I think both are clearly more "fun" adventures(at least until the very end) rather than great emotional depth of LOTR. Honest that was always my expectation of these films which is why I'd guess I'v been less disappointed than some.

Going back to your point about the bond between the crew I suspect a lot of that has to do with the shift away from on location filming. LOTR was one of the most ambitious pieces of location shooting in film history, the Hobbit has a bit of this but from the sound of it isn't anywhere near as tough. I do think both Freeman and Armitage are in "their" roles though just like a lot of the LOTR cast, what there going to be remembered for in 30 years time.


(This post was edited by moreorless on Dec 27 2013, 11:00am)


painjoiker
Grey Havens


Dec 27 2013, 11:06am

Post #4 of 57 (797 views)
Shortcut
They didn't take tattoos this time, [In reply to] Can't Post

but they got rings for all 13 in the company pluss Martin Freeman, and possibly Ian McKellen as well Smile

Vocalist in the progressive metal band 5 Minutes Late
and the progressive doom rock band Mater Thallium


Annatar598
Rohan

Dec 27 2013, 11:10am

Post #5 of 57 (901 views)
Shortcut
Wow, that is awful [In reply to] Can't Post

Personal attack much?


DavidDevant
Lorien

Dec 27 2013, 11:27am

Post #6 of 57 (781 views)
Shortcut
For me, a different set of thoughts. [In reply to] Can't Post

1. It is a bit of a funny question to ask. LOTR's success was unprecedented for the genre so the question should really be why should these films match that success, not why shouldn't they.
2. I think there can be little doubt that DOS has been better received than AUJ. Some will say that this is in spite of being a less literal adaptation, I would suggest it is because of this. So my second issue would be lack of confidence to be much firmer with the fan service elements of (particularly) AUJ, such as Bag End, which were so unpopular with most of the audience, at the expense of creating a compelling narrative.
3. I think there has been more difficulty with finding a tone in these films, for various reasons. However the answer to this is not simple. For every person who wants more tra-la-la-lally, someone wants less. For every comment calling for more Bag-endery, another comment demands no more.


jtarkey
Rohan


Dec 27 2013, 12:47pm

Post #7 of 57 (713 views)
Shortcut
You certainly make some valid observations... [In reply to] Can't Post

I was always confused when people accused PJ of being somewhat of a shallow and effects driven filmmaker... up until I saw AUJ that is.

There is some very raw emotion in LOTR that you simply don't find in a lot of blockbusters. Thus, I always imagined PJ would make The Hobbit a very introspective film that focused heavily on Bilbos POV. Obviously, this isn't the case.

The Hobbit COULD be adapted seriously, and beautifully regardless of some silliness in the source material. Instead, Jackson chose to make these films an ensemble piece ala LOTR that simply doesn't suit The Hobbit.

All of the emotion of the story lies within Bilbo. When you try to make it more of a prequel to LOTR, you lose that simple beauty.

I also don't buy the argument "The Hobbit isn't as serious as LOTR, so it can't be better". It certainly could have been.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Dec 27 2013, 12:49pm)


jtarkey
Rohan


Dec 27 2013, 1:09pm

Post #8 of 57 (684 views)
Shortcut
Regardless of that... [In reply to] Can't Post

Desolation of Smaug is a step in the right direction. Not on par with any films in the LOTR trilogy, but an awesome adventure flick none the less. Far superior to AUJ,

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.


Scorchster
Rivendell

Dec 27 2013, 2:05pm

Post #9 of 57 (643 views)
Shortcut
Source material and production time [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it might be a little premature to begin comparing the trilogies before TABA comes out next year. After all, TABA is similar tonally to LOTR, with big battles, many deaths and much politics. I feel that when it gets to TABA Peter Jackson will very much be in his element, and we'll get a film equal to the quality of the LOTR films. I suspect TABA will be very well received because of that.

I don't think it's a question of PJ lacking passion, he did say DOS was the film he had made so far. I think the reason why The Hobbit films are not as well received are perhaps due to many different expectations. The general public expects a film with the same epic intensity and seriousness of LOTR, hence they prefer DOS to AUJ. The fans, on the other hand, expect a closer adaptation of the source material, so they like AUJ over DOS. AUJ and DOS will hardly get universal acclaim because people expect different things.

TABA, on the other hand, contains many serious and epic moments. Casual fans and Tolkien readers alike will expect the same things, and everyone will be pleased if PJ delivers.

Might I also suggest another reason for the poorer reception to the Hobbit films thus far? I think the production time of the Hobbit films was a lot shorter than LOTR due to del Toro leaving, and PJ basically had to redesign everything again, and IIRC the production team worked really hard and got the film out just a day before the premiere of AUJ. If only they had more time to perfect the CGI...


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Dec 27 2013, 2:07pm

Post #10 of 57 (681 views)
Shortcut
DoS is a step further in the wrong direction [In reply to] Can't Post

There were much less character moments in DoS than in AUJ. AUJ took its time introducing the characters and explaining the quest and Necromancer plot etc. Where DoS just kept bombarding us with new characters and not explaining where they stand, who they are or what their motivations are.

It then spent ages dragging out over-the-top CGI action sequences in favour of any real story line or even making sense within the plot. If PJ succeeds where he stays closest to the books, then he succeeds in only 2 instances in DoS, those being the Spider fight and the Smaug introduction.

Oddly enough the best scenes in AUJ are the Gollum introduction and Gandalf introduction, so I think it's safe to say The Hobbit is at its best when there are no characters crowding around and Martin Freeman is just giving us a great performance as Bilbo, something which The Hobbit should be doing all the way through. Instead Bilbo is being pushed to the back and we're being forced to concentrate on the less interesting secondary characters as they do ridiculous stunts that not only look unrealistic but have absolutely no emotional resonance or tension both because of how fake they look and because we don't empathise with or understand the characters.

The film just needs to slow down, take a breath and reconsider its priorities.


DavidDevant
Lorien

Dec 27 2013, 2:13pm

Post #11 of 57 (645 views)
Shortcut
Though there are of course different views, you would accept [In reply to] Can't Post

I take it, that this is completely at odds with the critical reception of the two films in almost every detail? And thus, not to labour the point, that what is the wrong direction for you may well be the right direction for many, many others?


IdrilofGondolin
Rohan

Dec 27 2013, 2:33pm

Post #12 of 57 (610 views)
Shortcut
Feelings [In reply to] Can't Post

I will address the one point in your post that I think is most important -- the feelings the cast had for one another in LOTR. You could see their closeness on the screen. And when we all saw the "making of" documentaries we were enthralled that Viggo was so nice to everyone and Dom and Elijah had become close and all the rest of it. We then transferred all of those feelings to the movies. One can't watch Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli tracking the hobbits without "seeing" the story of how PJ got that sunrise shot. The backstory on the making of LOTR casts a glow around the movies that make them better in our minds then they actually were. (I've argued here before what I thought were serious problems with LOTR, so won't do it again.)

AUJ and DOS do not carry this magical patina. We simply are not as emotionally tied to these films as a result.

Just my two cents. It's worth at least half that.


Lindele
Gondor


Dec 27 2013, 2:40pm

Post #13 of 57 (601 views)
Shortcut
Agree, mostly Disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that The Hobbit films are not as good as The Lord of the Rings films, but I do not agree with your reasons.

If you follow the making of the new trilogy closely it is quite easy to tell that PJ has not lost his passion. It is however, pretty obvious that he has less restraint this time around, and he is going with decisions that he wouldn't have on LOTR. But rightfully so, he has earned it. His inner child is coming out way more this time than it did before. Don't forget that The Hobbit is a different story than LOTR. It doesn't have the epic stakes that LOTR has, and no matter how The Hobbit is approached it is not as serious and dark as LOTR.

As far as the cast and crew not being as close this time? Again I totally disagree. It is obvious that lifelong friendships have arisen from this production, just like in the LOTR days.

To me the reasons that The Hobbit movies are not as 'good' as the LOTR movies are because.

1) It is a different story, writing not as tight and epic
2) Filmmakers have less restraint, less at stake
3) Too much CGI (I didn't feel this way after AUJ, but DOS went too far)

Still, The Hobbit films are very good, and better than your average blockbuster. It is quite obvious by now that there is an inherent bias against these films from critics and even audiences, but I haven't put my finger on why that one is quite yet.

The design is as good, if not better than LOTR, the acting is top notch, Howard Shore has delivered again, New Zealand is as beautiful as ever….there is a lot of 'good' going on in these films.


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Dec 27 2013, 2:53pm

Post #14 of 57 (604 views)
Shortcut
I'd throw out another reason [In reply to] Can't Post

The landscapes, sets, and CG environments of Middle Earth in
"The Hobbit" are amazingly beautiful and detailed, in my opinion. But no one is looking at them saying "wow, I can't believe they did this, this is so amazing" as they did for LotR. Because now, we expect it.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 27 2013, 2:57pm

Post #15 of 57 (599 views)
Shortcut
My opinion [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I take it, that this is completely at odds with the critical reception of the two films in almost every detail? And thus, not to labour the point, that what is the wrong direction for you may well be the right direction for many, many others?


I certainly agree that his point is at odds with a lot of the reception of the critics. But, for me and quite a few others, the critics had it backwards as far as what was good and what wasn't (just our opinions of course!).

That's why I was going to respond to your post by stating that I share a different opinion from your second point. Personally, I think some of the best parts of AUJ was where it was close to the book (Bag End, and Riddles). Though, I wouldn't say I liked these parts because they were close to the book. I liked them because of their focus on the characters. I certainly like action scenes but I wasn't overly fond of the ones in AUJ and DOS, and didn't enjoy how the action really seemed to dominate most of DOS.

As you said most of the critics disliked the Bag End part. And from what I remember, they liked all of the action in the rest of the film. IMO, THAT is the reason why DOS was better received among critics. DOS seemed to have a lot more action, and less slower character bits.

The odd thing to me though, is that the great thing about LOTR (which had amazing critical reception), is that it seemed to have a generally good balance (more or less) between action, story, plot, and character arcs. And yet with these new hobbit movies, it seems like that isn't there and the critics are more into the action stuff. Again, just my opinion.

With all of that said I think you hit the nail on the head with your third point:

Quote
I think there has been more difficulty with finding a tone in these films, for various reasons. However the answer to this is not simple. For every person who wants more tra-la-la-lally, someone wants less. For every comment calling for more Bag-endery, another comment demands no more.


LOTR movies had a certain tone that was close to the books. And people definitely enjoyed that. One problem with the hobbit coming after LOTR is the question of whether or not to do it in a similar tone to LOTR movies or to the hobbit book. And it seems like there's a lot of mixture of both (which I actually think is a good idea in many ways). But some people want the more childish feeling well others want a darker, adult feeling for the movie. In the end it just comes down to what our own personal opinions are on each part.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Dec 27 2013, 3:26pm

Post #16 of 57 (561 views)
Shortcut
Don't really care what critics say [In reply to] Can't Post

They judge this as a big bidget movie not as a book adaptation, as such most critic reviews slated the film as being too slow, particularly disliking the Bag End and White Council sequences, which IMO are handled very well.

I really can't imagine these reviewers watching films like The Godfather, Spartacus or Ben Hurr if they can't sit through a little bit of dialogue.

It's like the reviewers look at big budget movies from the perspective of a child and more "Award worthy" films from the perspective of an adult and don't like there to be any cross-over in between. Frown


glor
Rohan

Dec 27 2013, 3:50pm

Post #17 of 57 (552 views)
Shortcut
Not on par with the LOTR trilogy [In reply to] Can't Post

well, look at almost any critics list, look at any list of the greatest films of all time, the most important, or cinematic history etc and the LOTR trilogy is in those lists.

Forget the Tolkien universe and fandom, The LOTR trilogy was one of, if not the most highly acclaimed movie series of all time, we aren't just talking popular or blockbuster lists, these films sit happily on many list alongside Battleship Potemkin. Citizen Kane, etc, they represent a pivotal moment in cinema history. Writers and serious credible critics were comapring the cast to that of the Godfather films(well the first two), and piled acclaim on to LOTR the likes of which is extremely rare in cinema history, one writer in Britains Telegraph newspaper, a broadsheet not known for it's love of popular culture, described the LOTR trilogy as 'the Sistine Chapel of cinema'.

The LOTR trilogy was also a massive blockbuster, a revolution in film with it's state of the art special effects, audiences and critics alike grappled with the concept of motion capture, that Gollum was not an animated character but a real actor, giving a revolutionary performance, in a completely new medium. Don't forget the way the battle scenes were generated and how WETA developed software and rendering techniques that mean audiences could see believable sweeping shots of huge armies for the first time.

The LOTR trilogy stood and stands alongside both great works of cinematic acclaim and history as well, as the massive blockbusters that have permeated modern culture like Star Wars.

So when people say the Hobbit is not up to the standard of LOTR is anyone surprised, few films are.


(This post was edited by glor on Dec 27 2013, 3:54pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 27 2013, 5:08pm

Post #18 of 57 (554 views)
Shortcut
First, I don't agree that there is a 'lack of perfection' in the new films.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... or that you will find any general concensus about the Hobbit films (or about Lord of the Rings ones, for that matter). I think the new films are every bit as good as films of The Hobbit as the Lord of the Rings films are of Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings. The material is very different and presents different challenges. On the one hand you have a rich, detailed and complex narrative addressed to an adult audience, which challenges those attempting the adaptation to condense it to manageable proportions without losing too much of the quality that has made it so loved. On the other hand you have a deceptively simple children's fable, with increasing darkness towards the end of the story. Having adapted the first book successfully (though not to everyone's satisfaction), Peter Jackson was pretty well committed to approaching The Hobbit in a similar style. With that in mind, it seems to me that he's making a pretty good job of it.

Any problems there may be seem to me to be as much in the expectations of the audience as in anything that is happening on or behind the screen.

It's a sad fact that looking for any experience to be repeated is almost always a recipe for disappointment. 'I want that time again'; 'take me back there'; 'can we do it again?' It's understandable to feel like that, and it's all too human, but it rarely leads to a happy result. You can build on good experiences from the past, but only by looking forward. You have to be open to difference and change - open to the possibility that some things may actually be better, if you let them. Keep focussing on the past and you start to idolize it, raising it to a peak of supposed perfection that in reality it never had, and that no new experience can possibly match. I think that's what is really happening here.

I would absolutely dispute that 'PJ is not pushing new boundaries and a new level of perfection anymore.' Seems to me that's exactly what he's doing. Look at the actors he has chosen this time. Look at the performances they're giving, and the way he is prepared to sit down with them and discuss the motiviations and actions of the characters in detail. Look at the computer graphics. Smaug, for goodness sake - 10 years ago nothing like that was even possible. And compare the new Gollum to the old....

So, taking your points one at a time:

1. The 'once in a lifetime' feeling.

Lord of the Rings
was the first time. A relatively inexperienced team from the other side of the world took on a huge project and surprised themselves - and everyone else - by the complexity of it, and by producing something amazing at the end. Well, OK, we're all fourteen years older now (audience too) and this isn't the first time any more. It's been done, we know they can do it. But I've looked at the v-logs and the EE documentaries and I see new passion, excitement, and commitment for a new film. If you keep lamenting 'once in a lifetime' you're going to miss 'We're BACK, and this time we'll make it better than ever!'

2. The bond between actors and crew.
Different people, different bonds. These actors are for the most part older and more established - not least because Peter Jackson can get pretty much who he likes these days, on the basis of that earlier success. But there are new bonds are there. Real human bonds that come from working together over a long period of time. Watch the EE documentaries on the dwarf bootcamp, the scenes which show PJ discussing characters and parts with his actors - the farewell scenes - the teasing and the banter that goes on. In one interview Martin Freeman actually talks about the tattoos and says they made a conscious decision not to do that, because they didn't want to imitate the past. Good for them, I say. It must be debilitating to be constantly compered to the previous cast, the previous films, which have taken on a rosy halo that the new ones can never hope to touch.

3. Peter Jackson's supposed lack of passion
You say you admire PJ, and I'm sure you mean no harm, but honestly, reading this, your comments made me very sad. They underline the uphill struggle the man took on when he agreed to direct the film. Would you blame him for a lack of enthusiasm, supposing he felt one, when he knew that even the people who admire his work were going say, 'Oh, but it's not the SAME, you're not doing it like you used to, it's not as exciting as before. We want things to be like they used to be... '? He didn't want to be forced into a position of competing against himself; and any creative person might have felt the same. He also took on a project beset by difficulties - and I'd say that his level of enthusiasm for it has risen perceptively through the long process of making the films. Second-guessing what might be in someone else's subconscious is never helpful. Just look at his obvious delight in the new cameras and all the technical wizardry. Look at the sense of mischief that pervades the behind-the-scenes-material when he's around. Look at his cameos. Don't look for things to be the same. Look at what is with an open mind, and enjoy it for what it is, not for what you thought it might have been.

That's my take on it. Just my view, but from where I'm standing it seems that the deepest reason for the discontent some people express in The Hobbit is their own understandable but unrealistic expectation of what this experience might be, based on last time. I think the problem lies with the audience, not the cast and crew.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Dec 27 2013, 5:25pm

Post #19 of 57 (507 views)
Shortcut
Not surprisingly [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree completely.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Darkstone
Immortal


Dec 27 2013, 5:32pm

Post #20 of 57 (523 views)
Shortcut
Fan response to PJ's next Tolkien project: [In reply to] Can't Post

"The Hobbit movies were PERFECT! How could Jackson have so messed up The Sil?"

******************************************


May 1910: The Nine Kings assembled at Buckingham Palace for the funeral of Edward VII.
(From left to right, back row: Haakon VII of Norway, Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, Manuel II of Portugal, Wilhelm II of Germany, George I of Greece, and Albert I of Belgium. Front row: Alphonso XIII of Spain, George V of England, and Frederick VIII of Denmark.)


book Gandalf
Rohan


Dec 27 2013, 5:33pm

Post #21 of 57 (483 views)
Shortcut
disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

for me its simply the story, the writing in parts, and the hollywoodness of the action sequences.

nothing to do with passion, or a feeling. i think they just judged it wrong.

This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.


hutch
Rohan


Dec 27 2013, 5:48pm

Post #22 of 57 (478 views)
Shortcut
Too much money usually changes artists for the worst... [In reply to] Can't Post

...(notice the change between FOTR, TTT, and ROTK).


Too much attention on trying to show off his Digital Effects team. Also his reliance on CG makes him less able to COMMIT to decisions, giving him this awful tendency to flip the switch at the last second expecting his digital team to fix/change everything just before the premiere. The whole "making changes until the premiere" was cute the first time around. This time it just reeks of indecisiveness (something you'd think would be lowered after having done a trilogy like this already) and demographic marketing.


Nobody around to tell him "Nay." Being surrounded by only fawning fans is never a good thing. A sports team would never be repeat champs if they stopped training and surrounded themselves with hangers on telling them how great they are. Take a hint from Theoden King. PJ needs a Gandalf the White to go in there and wake him up! C'mon, bud, snap out of it!


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 27 2013, 5:50pm)


hutch
Rohan


Dec 27 2013, 6:09pm

Post #23 of 57 (447 views)
Shortcut
disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

First Howard Shore has been all but neutered this time around. In fact DOS is the very first time I couldn't remember a single tune from a ME film. In all the others it was effortless. I didn't have to search. They were there. AUJ almost doesn't count because of it recycled material. In the last trilogy HS was so hands on. He had multiple DVDs to to himself and the music alone. A slew of concerts and interviews and handled all aspects of the music himself. This time around it seems that after King Kong, the working relationship between the Jackson and Shore is not quite the same and HS's better judgment has been rebuffed. It seems obvious that PJ trusted his collaborators more to spearhead their respective departments last time. But this time...

Second what's with this idea that PJ has "earned" the right to shove a sub-par movie at us. He's not shooting a family video. Movies are to entertain an audience. That's how they make money. He doesn't just automatically get my money because he did good films in the past. Otherwise Lucas earned the right to crap on 'Star Wars'. PJ earned our initial support and benefit of the doubt, I agree...but he's squandered that. Artists/people can change. He may not necessarilly be the same filmmaker he was a decade ago, and it is possible that he's not just a "different" director that he may actually be worse than he was. It can happen. The lack of restraint is what makes in him worse now in my opinion. Being a director, above all, is knowing how to make the best decisions for the final product. He's totally lost that and is falling back on this idea that CG will fix everything up at the last second.

Finally, why do some folks insist on falling back on this "The Hobbit is a different than LOTR" argument? We all know that. But it's obvious that doesn't really pertain to the films unless PJ & team want to use that to deflect criticism. TH is just as epic as LOTR-except when it's convenient to the filmmakers, then all of a sudden "Don't forget it has a different tone." PJ used to be MASTER at balancing tone in films. Not so much anymore.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 27 2013, 6:11pm)


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Dec 27 2013, 6:18pm

Post #24 of 57 (455 views)
Shortcut
LOTR Movie perfect [In reply to] Can't Post

All the films will draw a substantially different reaction from deep fans because we have such a strong emotional commitment to the books but those commitments themselves and the way they have been achieved are very different.

Meanwhile outside of the core fan base an awful lot of people are going to see these films and they do not get there knickers in a knot like we do.

I will say in two regards these movies are better.

The writing/story telling is much stronger with the drama emerging in a much more natural way. They have the confidence to build patiently toward denouement and reversal whereas the TTT was riddled with fake jeopardy arcs from Treebeard to Theoden.

The casting. Take DOS Beorn/Thranduil/Bard are superbly caste.To pull off the dwarves was astonishing whereas in LOTR I find a good deal I did not like about Frodo and Pippin and of course the big three are superb.

One thought we have not seen TABA or DOS EE then we can judge.

If I have a criticism so far it is of me I think it was a mistake to immerse myself in the story of the making of the films. I find the constant juggling that PJ does gives me an unnecessary challenge when i first see these films. Where is Thrain / this scene that scene/ why the switch of Azog for Bolg. However this shows he has a restless desire to get these films right and as for passion. Take a look at early shots before he started filming and now - you can see the huge effort he is making etched into the man.

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Dec 27 2013, 6:22pm)


morgul lord
Rivendell


Dec 27 2013, 7:49pm

Post #25 of 57 (438 views)
Shortcut
Nostalgia has clouded your mind. [In reply to] Can't Post

Not you specifically, but people in general. Audiences, critics, etc.

I read threads like this, and simply cannot believe how much nostalgia for LOTR seems to have warped people's memories. Everyone is talking like LOTR was perfect, but when it came out many fans (on this very site) were HOWLING with outrage. Even fans that loved the films, like me, recognize some very real flaws.

The Hobbit is no different. It has flaws, some bigger than LOTR, some smaller. But at the end of the day, it's a different project. The actors are different, the cast is generally older, PJ is older, etc. Of course you won't have the same type of bond that the 4 hobbits (or the 9 Fellowship members) had.

I think so much of the disappointment with this trilogy comes from nostalgia and unrealistic expectations, I agree they're not perfect, and they'll never be as good as LOTR, but I place most of that blame at Tolkien's door. The story just isn't as good. The book isn't as good. No Hobbit adaptation could ever be as good as LOTR. I'm a massive Tolkien fan, but honestly, I've never been crazy about the Hobbit. I think it's too episodic (until Laketown anyway) and actually kind of boring. I agree that PJ tends towards excess, going way over the top with a lot of things. Maybe two films would have been better, who knows? But overall I think he's done an amazing job so far, has actually improved on the book in several ways, and has largely succeeded in the tricky task of balancing the tone of the Hobbit to match the LOTR trilogy.

When I first saw LOTR in theatres, I was in my early 20s, and it was the best cinematic experience of my life. The whole trilogy was a huge part of my life, back then. I understand the nostsalgia. But I wish people would stop comparing The Hobbit to their LOTR experience. It's an unrealistic and unfair comparison (due to the source material, and other reasons) and will only lead to inflated expecations and disappointment. Try to just enjoy these films for what they are: an awesome fantasy adventure, and a return to the visual splendour of Middle-earth.


(This post was edited by morgul lord on Dec 27 2013, 7:55pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.