|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elfhelm
The Shire
Dec 27 2014, 5:15pm
Post #1 of 91
(3350 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"The reasons why Peter Jackson’s Hobbit movies failed"
|
Can't Post
|
|
A rather negative view of the films posted today in a Finnish newspaper, for anyone interested.
NOTE: This is not my (re)view! Yours truly only did the translation from Finnish to English as a little exercise, so please don't shoot the messenger! (Apologies for any oddities in the mostly literal translation)
(I do actually agree about the overuse of CGI)
27.12.2014 10:38
The reasons why Peter Jackson’s Hobbit movies failed
-- Column by Jussi Ahlroth in the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat – www.hs.fi
Peter Jackson directed three excellent movies of the novel The Lord Of The Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien. Now he has made three failed movies of Tolkien’s fairy tale The Hobbit. What happened?
The biggest reason to the failure of the Hobbit movies is that Peter Jackson should never have directed them. He took the helm at the last moment. Originally the Mexican Guillermo del Toro had been enlisted as director.
Jackson said in 2009 that he wouldn’t want to direct the Hobbit movies, because he would end up competing with his own Lord Of The Rings movies. That would restrict him too much as a movie-maker.
After Del Toro left in 2010, Jackson however took on the responsibility. His fear proved to be true.
The Hobbit movies never got the space to grow into their own, because Jackson suffocated them with his own baggage from the Lord Of The Rings movies. This shows in the films in three ways.
Firstly, Jackson is obsessive about combining the Hobbit with the Lord Of The Rings movies into a single story. That takes the Hobbit movies far from the book’s fairytale feel, favoring a dark warlike epic instead.
Secondly, Jackson has filled the movies with winks to the viewer, where he says ”did you notice how I just amusingly referred to the Lord Of The Rings movies?”
The third observation is the most worrisome. Peter Jackson repeats time and again the same setups and scenes from one movie to the next. When I watch the last Hobbit movie I cannot help thinking this is because Jackson simply cannot create new solutions.
The elf Galadriel shows her strength just like she did in The Fellowship Of The Ring. Laketown denizens flee like the Rohans did in The Two Towers. Gandalf rides into Dale just like he rode into Minas Tirith in Return Of The King.
Gandalf’s actor Ian McKellen has said that he repeatedly told Jackson during the shooting of The Hobbit, ”We cannot do this, Peter. We already did this in The Lord Of The Rings”.
One must take seriously the alternative that Peter Jackson simply was unable to direct any better Hobbit movies. He was at his limit in the Lord Of The Rings. You should remember that before The Lord Of The Rings Jackson only made splatter horror movies. Between the Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit he directed two movies. One of them is The Lovely Bones, one of the weirdest movie failures of the last few years. It is a grotesquely style-less depiction of a girl killed by a pedophile murderer, who then from Heaven helps to find her murderer.
Jackson has told that he originally wanted to make the Lord Of The Rings films so that he could create the monsters in the story. In the documentaries the reasoning he most often uses for his artistic choices is, “I thought it would be fun to...”.
After earning a huge fortune with The Lord Of The Rings he has used it to collect old military airplanes. He doesn’t even want to fly them. He just collects.
He has told that if he hadn’t become a director, he would’ve wanted to work with miniatures.
A while ago he had an interview where he told about his director friends Steven Spielberg and James Cameron. According to Jackson they are all boys at heart, still.
As a movie-maker Peter Jackson is a little boy with hundreds of millions digital toys at his disposal.
Another reason to the failure of The Hobbit can be found in Jackson’s documentaries about the making of these Tolkien movies.
I love The Lord Of The Rings documentaries. I have watched the documentaries that add up 20 hours in total over ten times. They show an enormous dedication to the project on every level. Hundreds of people used years of their life to make the movies, sacrificing even their relationships and families in the process. Artistic director Grant Major tells how he for a few years practically never saw his under school age child.
Two New Zealander men tinkered with rings cut from a 12km long plastic pipe to create chain mail armor for three and a half years. One of them tells it was the best time of his life.
The scope of the documentaries is unprecedented in the history of movie-making. It is possible that Jackson’s movies will at last earn their place in history due as much to these documentaries as the films themselves.
The documentaries for The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit are similar, but there is one significant difference.
With the exception of Smaug the dragon the Hobbit documentaries don’t deal with the original book by Tolkien at all. They tell nothing of how the screenwriters transformed the original material into film. Instead they focus on shooting and design of the world and its inhabitants.
This is significant because in the Lord Of The Rings documentaries Peter Jackson and screenwriter Philippa Boyens give long and detailed justifications to the changes they made – such as leaving out Tom Bombadil, or Frodo sending Sam away. The respect for Tolkien is immense.
In the Hobbit movies the respect is gone. Jackson and Boyens knew they had taken so many liberties in the tale that they don’t even want to talk about it. They very briefly comment some choices in the movie commentaries – which only us, the most fanatic of fans will listen to.
Especially in the second movie The Desolation Of Smaug Peter Jackson steps completely onto his own path and leaves Tolkien as background material.
Of course he knows this.
Maybe this is why the first person that is seen in the whole movie is Peter Jackson himself. He has made a small cameo appearance in each of his Tolkien movies. In The Desolation Of Smaug he does it right at the beginning. He staggers into view, looks at the camera and bites a carrot.
The message in this odd moment seems to be that we are now watching specifically his movie.
The last line in the movie is said by Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) as Smaug flies towards Laketown – ”What have we done?”.
It is as if Jackson is asking himself and his screenwriter colleagues.
The failure of The Hobbit is sealed by all the digital toys in Jackson’s hands. In the Hobbit movies digital film making changed from a means to an end in itself.
During the shooting of The Hobbit Jackson quickly changed to almost entirely using digital effects. In the Lord Of The Rings large scale miniatures were still used and make up and costumes were relied on. Digital effects were just that, effects.
Viggo Mortensen, Aragorn in the Lord Of The Rings movies, spoke openly and critically about Jackson’s work habits in an interview by Telegraph earlier this year. According to Mortensen The Fellowship Of The Ring movie was still alive. The scenery was real, the film had a roughness to it and the actors could act with other actors. According to Mortensen Jackson sacrificed all this subtlety to computer graphics as The Lord Of The Rings went on, movie by movie.
“In The Hobbit all that went up tenfold”, says Mortensen.
The all encompassing digitality is why a large part of Middle Earth in The Hobbit movies looks like it was made of varnished plasticine. Many of the fantasy creatures are unbelievably clinical.
The worst is that the digitality hampers the actors’ work. The brilliant veteran actor Ian Holm plays old Bilbo in the movies. He stands at the steps of Bag End in the first Hobbit film talking to Frodo, played by Elijah Wood.
But Ian Holm is alone in a studio in England. Elijah Wood’s part was filmed in New Zealand.
You can hear from Ian Holm’s voice that he is speaking to no one. You can see in his eyes that he is desperately trying to find something real to look at. Something with human feeling.
He doesn’t find it.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 5:29pm
Post #2 of 91
(1922 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What an odd series of thoughts.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
By the time we get to criticising the director for not carrying out his hobbies correctly, it feels like we are off the path, to me at any rate.
Rather a hymn to conservative tastes, all in all.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Dec 27 2014, 5:40pm
Post #3 of 91
(1850 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nothing we havenmt heard many times before...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Honestly I didn't find it especially interesting, most of the points he makes we've heard made many many times before.
One thing I would comment on is that I think Jacksons "it would be fun" comments often say less about the focus of his film making and more about his own rather humble character not given to talking up the weightier dramatic aspects of his films in what might be consider a pretentious fashion. Infact I would suggest that in a lot of ways he's actually rather similar to Tolkien in this respect which perhaps goes someway to explain the success of his adaptations that don't go to far towards either the shallow or the overly arty.
The point about Jackson going over similar ground does I think carry the most weight but honestly I think a big issue there is simply the nature of the story itself that was effectively a dry run for LOTR in many respects. To me GDT is notable not in how different a filmmaker he is to Jackson but in how similar he is.
Jackson does I would agree get a little carries away with his "toys" at points post LOTR but never IMHO to anything close to the degree of Lucas. Most of the technical wizardly we see is in service of the story with just the odd Goblin/Barrel/Sauropod chase thrown in. With Cameron I don't think that's really the problem either, the weaknesses of Avatar were IMHO more in its design and script than its use of CGI.
When it comes to the tone of the films I just don't see how the books could have been followed without creating a serious mismatch with LOTR either, As it is we get a kind of middle ground between the two but I think a "true" version of the Hobbit would probably need not just a different director but an entirely different setup, different actors, designs, etc as well I would say as some kind of narration though much of it.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Dec 27 2014, 5:46pm)
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Dec 27 2014, 5:46pm
Post #4 of 91
(1734 views)
Shortcut
|
A composure and reproduction of the criticisms we have heard ad nauseam many times before.
"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"
|
|
|
Riven Delve
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 5:47pm
Post #5 of 91
(1767 views)
Shortcut
|
Sounds like the writer doesn't like Peter Jackson's way of doing things and has put together some evidence toward that thought, in no particular order, with some tenuous links to one another. In the end I think he remembered he had intended to critique the movies, but I can't be sure.
“Tollers,” Lewis said to Tolkien, “there is too little of what we really like in stories. I am afraid we shall have to try and write some ourselves.”
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Dec 27 2014, 5:56pm
Post #6 of 91
(1801 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd like to see a review that doesn't include the words "Lord of the Rings" in them! 
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
Azaghâl
Lorien
Dec 27 2014, 6:15pm
Post #7 of 91
(1735 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think he was spot on with most of his points.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I still love the hobbit movies though, but I also see them as a bunch of missed opportunities clutered together in 3 movies that sometimes stray too far from what makes this universe so great.
I especially agree with his lines about PJ trying to copy and make way to many call backs to LotR instead of making the world bigger it makes it seem smaller.
And Ian Mckellen saying "we already did this Peter". Yes PJ ran out of ideas. and instead of going for good storytelling he tried to either outdo himself or be overcreative, and in the end it made for a story that seems less grounded in reality than the first trilogy and there for making it to inconsistent to count as a good prequel.
That is my oppinion at least 
I still love these films. With all my heart 
*Baruk khazâd! Khazâd ai-męnu!*
(This post was edited by Azaghâl on Dec 27 2014, 6:30pm)
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Dec 27 2014, 6:35pm
Post #8 of 91
(1727 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One thing that espeically seems overplayed to me...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One criticism that seems brought up repeatedly to me that I don't think is really justified is the idea that Jackson references LOTR for its own sake.
There are of course many links between both sets of films, some of which didn't exist in the book but the vast majority of them relate to the plot, there are actually very few "winks" to LOTR for there own sake. Legolas looking at Gloin's picture of Gimli perhaps, maybe Bilbo looking at Narsil although I would argue that serves to further highlight Sauron's presense in the story, Legolas being told about Aragorn as well isn't so much a "wink" as a setup for his character.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Dec 27 2014, 6:37pm
Post #9 of 91
(1687 views)
Shortcut
|
it would be nice for Pj to get through ten minutes of hobbit film with shoving a blatant inappropriate lord of the rings reference in- but we didn't get that either.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Dec 27 2014, 7:16pm
Post #10 of 91
(1643 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The review fails to fairly support its hypothesis IMO
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A good scientist (or writer) knows that when presenting a theory, that all possible known supporting factors are also presented, even if it means standing in front of a room and saying "and we observed this, but we don't know why."
(I just watched a TV show on the so-called "God particle" and it stuck in my head, these world-class physicists are willing to stand up and say "we don't know").
E.g., you cannot put forth a creditable hypothesis and "cherry pick" statistics or evidence to support your hypothesis, or engage in magical thinking.
For instance:
1) The writer claims the Hobbit movies "failed", although they are without a doubt both a financial, and often (not always) a critical success. They are also successes in the DVD/BR market. Also, there is no guarantee for any film with any director that a film will appeal to audiences. Nor does he define what he specifically he means by failure. Certainly the fans camped out for days for the Hobbit premieres would not consider these movies to be failures.
2) Winks to the viewer re LOTR? What? - PJ has been open about connecting the films to LOTR, AND not wanting to do a "children's movie". So to me this statement undermines the writer, in that to me it comes across as a writer who has not done even the most basic research - like, yah know, reading a few articles where PJ was interviewed about his approach to the Hobbit. Wouldn't have taken the writer 10 minutes - just do a Google search.
3) I love The Lord Of The Rings documentaries. I have watched the documentaries that add up 20 hours in total over ten times. They show an enormous dedication to the project on every level. Hundreds of people used years of their life to make the movies, sacrificing even their relationships and families in the process.
Er, watching the Appendices and reading the WETA books, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of dedication by the crew of the Hobbit movies. Indeed, we have Richard Taylor discussing the skyrocketing costs of creating a film such as the Hobbit, and being forced to make more use of computers (e.g. laser cutting) vs. hand work. Yet we also see staggering amounts of hand craftsmanship and exhausted digital artists, and indeed an exhausted PJ himself (working 18-hour days).
Again, this author undermines himself by not presenting accurate evidence - and indeed carefully avoids mention of the hand work done on the Hobbit. Nor does he mention the skyrocketing costs within the movie industry, the competition for business in the special effects industry, or the difficulty of obtaining funding for a film after the economic downturn. It was a different industry, 10 years ago.
(And I'd also add that I, personally, don't consider Viggo Mortensen to be the ultimate sage on LOTR or the Hobbit films. Again, without ALL of the actors sounding off it's difficult to determine a consensus of what the actors, as whole, might of thought re filming with PJ. Overall, the best I can determine is that in general, nobody likes the green screen work, but the actors seem to appreciate the collaborative nature of working with PJ).
4) After earning a huge fortune with The Lord Of The Rings he has used it to collect old military airplanes. He doesn’t even want to fly them. He just collects. So what ? I know someone who collects teapots. She doesn't use them, she just collects them....collectors PRESERVE things. Like the Hobbit NZ stamps I bought. The implication seems to be that PJ and other directors are rather childish. Yet that very childishness IMO is a wellspring of imagination - that can be good, or bad.
5) You can hear from Ian Holm’s voice that he is speaking to no one. You can see in his eyes that he is desperately trying to find something real to look at. No, I can't. What? This is so lame...personally re this writer I'm desperately trying to find something that isn't just hysterical ranting.
The shame of these kind of opinions printed bolstered by "cherry-picked" evidence is that they may have a "frame" of being published or on a website that might possibly lend weight to the ranting, for an unknowing and unsuspecting reader.
On the other hand, a reader familiar with both the Hobbit films and LOTR is likely to have more knowledge of the productions (more than this writer, anyway), and a more "general" reader will simply move on to the next article.
Unfortunately, as film critiques go, I find this particular article to be another example of poorly researched, unprofessional writing.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Dec 27 2014, 7:22pm
Post #11 of 91
(1615 views)
Shortcut
|
There is no way to make a Hobbit movie that pleases everyone. Too many people want very different things. Or think they do.
After reading what some people think that PJ should have done, I'm glad they weren't the ones making these movies.
I'm a bit dubious about about some of the decisions made by PJ and Co during the making of the Hobbit films, but overall I think I have some idea of their reasoning and intentions, most of which I'm perfectly fine with.
I suppose it could also be that I'm less picky than some other viewers but for myself the Hobbit Trilogy ticks most of the right boxes.
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Dec 27 2014, 7:23pm)
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Dec 27 2014, 7:40pm
Post #12 of 91
(1584 views)
Shortcut
|
A troll with a newspaper job. I wish I could translate the comments under the original article.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 8:08pm
Post #13 of 91
(1542 views)
Shortcut
|
Well that was a plethora of confusing thoughts (by the reviewer). I guess I'm just easier to please than most. I had some issues (especially with DoS) than most, but overall I found the movies entertaining, enjoyable and interesting and certainly much more so than half the stuff that's on the big screen right now. But whatever. Not everyone is going to like them.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Dec 27 2014, 8:28pm
Post #14 of 91
(1547 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think you misunderstood my comment
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I meant was that so many reviews consist only of comparisons of the Hobbit films to the LOTR films rather than commenting on what they find good or bad in the films themselves. I'm not talking about the films, but about the reviews.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
(This post was edited by Old Toby on Dec 27 2014, 8:34pm)
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 8:32pm
Post #15 of 91
(1521 views)
Shortcut
|
Jackson has been clear that his vision for these is that they are six films that go together in one suite. He deliberately meant them to be tied together.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
patrickk
Rohan
Dec 27 2014, 8:36pm
Post #16 of 91
(1576 views)
Shortcut
|
...is not really in touch with literary tropes, and obviously not classically trained (even those tropes from his part of the world - see the Russian writer Anton Chekov). He (I am assuming it is a bloke) has absolutely no idea of foreshadowing as a standard and very important part of classic story telling. All the forshadowing is to make the six part series (Peter's ultimate aim) work for the viewer. For example when Arwen saves Frodo with Athelas it makes sense because the viewer has see it before with Taurial and Kili (a much less important character to the series); and I could go on with many more such cases.
The stuff about miniatures and collections is odd. They could not be used as much in The Hobbit due to 3D filming techniques and PJ is also collecting and having made miniatures and models for his Dambusters movie (a couple down the track). So what is his point!!!! He has something against collectors!!! PJ has set up an aviation museum in Wellington - is that really a problem???
...and I could go on but just to say I hope the work done on translating the article was not too arduous as it was probably not worth it ($3b failure indeed with 100m+ viewers for each movie - some failure!!!).
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 8:53pm
Post #17 of 91
(1493 views)
Shortcut
|
...is not really in touch with literary tropes, and obviously not classically trained (even those tropes from his part of the world - see the Russian writer Anton Chekov). He (I am assuming it is a bloke) has absolutely no idea of foreshadowing as a standard and very important part of classic story telling. All the forshadowing is to make the six part series (Peter's ultimate aim) work for the viewer. For example when Arwen saves Frodo with Athelas it makes sense because the viewer has see it before with Taurial and Kili (a much less important character to the series); and I could go on with many more such cases.
This is exactly right. The healing using the athelas herbs now has meaning in Fellowship because we've seen it in The Hobbit. Also, Balin's tomb has wayyyyy more emphasis and meaning now. He meant for these to make sense in relationship to each other. I note that many reviewers are having a difficult time with that.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
Silranhir
Bree
Dec 27 2014, 9:31pm
Post #18 of 91
(1488 views)
Shortcut
|
Such a superb piece. Spot on in everything it says, and I agree totally with the authors (and VMs) assessment of it all.
So so disappointed in this trilogy.
|
|
|
Dipling
Lorien
Dec 27 2014, 10:39pm
Post #20 of 91
(1418 views)
Shortcut
|
So many thoughts are wrong.
Like Gandalf ride into Dale is completely different from Minas Tirith ride,..., Elijah Wood was also in London, ...
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Dec 28 2014, 1:12am
Post #21 of 91
(1327 views)
Shortcut
|
The worst is that the digitality hampers the actors’ work
So off base it completely undermines the whole piece. In fact, I and many others including, fellow ringers, fans and professional critics would argue that The Hobbit films prove that green screen and CGI based films are not acting vacuums in which, actors struggle to give decent performances.
I would suggest they prove the opposite, that good if not great performances can be delivered on a green screen stage
No mascara can survive BOTFA
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Dec 28 2014, 2:06am
Post #22 of 91
(1319 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Jackson added lots of references to the Lord of the Rings films...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...that did not relate to the plot.
I think that is the sentiment being expressed by: "Secondly, Jackson has filled the movies with winks to the viewer, where he says ”did you notice how I just amusingly referred to the Lord Of The Rings movies?”
The following thread lists several examples from the first film alone: http://newboards.theonering.net/...g=References;#655701
One criticism that seems brought up repeatedly to me that I don't think is really justified is the idea that Jackson references LOTR for its own sake.
There are of course many links between both sets of films, some of which didn't exist in the book but the vast majority of them relate to the plot, there are actually very few "winks" to LOTR for there own sake. Legolas looking at Gloin's picture of Gimli perhaps, maybe Bilbo looking at Narsil although I would argue that serves to further highlight Sauron's presense in the story, Legolas being told about Aragorn as well isn't so much a "wink" as a setup for his character.
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Dec 28 2014, 2:09am
Post #23 of 91
(1292 views)
Shortcut
|
Bilbo's terrific confrontation with Smaug on the treasure horde. All green screen. Incredibly done.
All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you, Gandalf the Grey
|
|
|
peterLF
Rivendell
Dec 28 2014, 2:44am
Post #24 of 91
(1269 views)
Shortcut
|
problem is that a six part series is not what Tolkien wrote - so the fact that you point to this kinda says that you have no real idea of what the litterature is.
And calling reused scenes foreshadowing is just silly. That's not foreshadowing. Look it up.
|
|
|
patrickk
Rohan
Dec 28 2014, 3:14am
Post #25 of 91
(1281 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkein did in fact foreshadow...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...e.g Bilbo pitying Gollum (and later Frodo pitying Gollum) and a few others, but my point is that PJ did the foreshadowing and that is a perfectly fine literary trope often adopted in cinema as well as theatre (c,f Chekov's gun), all to give more power to a later scene (see ranger reference and ref to Gimli) . Not sure what re-used scenes you are thinking of but the Athelas is certainly foreshadowing as it is scene that happens to a minor character that then later happens to a major character (this trope is as old as the hills - maybe silly to some but not all). Not sure what the reference to my knowledge of the litieraure (or presumably lack of) is about as that was not my point.
|
|
|
|
|
1
