Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Five factors that hurt the Hobbit films
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Goldeneye
Lorien


May 26 2015, 5:53pm

Post #1 of 75 (2832 views)
Shortcut
Five factors that hurt the Hobbit films Can't Post

In the case of The Hobbit, it is very clear that Peter Jackson and his writing team were familiar with the book. They had already made the LOTR trilogy which was both faithful in content and spirit to Tolkien's novels. Technically you can argue that The Hobbit films were at least faithful in content to an extent, but a variety of factors hurt the ultimate translation to the big screen.

There are five main factors which I feel led to the disappointing final product of The Hobbit films (this is my opinion at least):

1. Peter Jackson's reluctance to helm The Hobbit at the onset. If he truly had the passion and desire to direct The Hobbit, Guillermo del Toro never would have been hired in the first place. I honestly just believe PJ didn't have his heart in it like he did with LOTR, but he didn't want to see the production fall apart either. To me, this affected the outcome of the films more than any other factor combined.

2. The decision to film in Digital 3D 48fps. This instantly killed much of the practical effects work that made LOTR's world come alive, since Weta's models/miniatures/bigatures would not have worked well with the new technology.

3. The decision to stretch the story across three films, thus requiring tons of new material to be created only five months before the release of the first film, which led to a rushed schedule for the remaining two films.

4. Working off the last point, the decision to add and focus on subplots/characters/sequences which were not in The Hobbit. And in many cases completely fabricated by the filmmakers with no basis in Tolkien's work. (Legolas, Tauriel, Alfrid, etc)

5. The over-reliance on CGI, which varied wildly in quality across the trilogy. Most likely due to last-minute changes like the three-film split. Specifically, the decision to make nearly all the orcs computerized instead of prosthetic-based actors like in LOTR. This was especially damaging to the characters of Azog, Bolg and Dain.


Thrain II
Lorien


May 26 2015, 6:34pm

Post #2 of 75 (2565 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not sure about number one, I think it has mostly to do with the fact that PJ is not as big fan of the Hobbit book as he was of LOTR.

As for the rest, I agree with most of it.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 26 2015, 6:41pm

Post #3 of 75 (2561 views)
Shortcut
Is that actually true? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I am not sure about number one, I think it has mostly to do with the fact that PJ is not as big fan of the Hobbit book as he was of LOTR.


It that really the case? The fact is that Peter Jackson wanted to direct an adaptation of The Hobbit before he made the Lord of the Rings films. Can we really say that he was less interested in the book?

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 26 2015, 6:57pm

Post #4 of 75 (2557 views)
Shortcut
Oh, I love a good debate! [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi there, well I must disagree with your assertion #1, in fact I feel quite the opposite. PJ has expressed many times his initial decision to use another director was because he worried (rightly, IMO) that he would be "competing against himself." In other words, he believed that a fresh set of eyes would give a new, fresh take on the movie. Now, we could debate forever whether GdT would have made a better movie or not, or even if PJ would have made a better movie if he'd signed up as director from Day 1. IMO, if he'd been director since Day 1 we would probably have gotten the same movie, because that's just the way PJ is. I definitely think his heart WAS in it, oh boy was it! I can just see him getting all wound up and enthusiastic about whatever idea he had (i.e., bird poo on Radagast, 48 FPS, etc.) and bouncing around with it no matter what anyone else tried to tell him. So I think factor #1 is wrong. Now, clearly his HEALTH wasn't in it, and what kind of effect THAT had on the film is also debatable, but I can't see it NOT having an effect.

Looking at the rest of your points, well I can't blame that much on the 3D/48 FPS, because to me a movie comes down to storytelling. We've all seen low-budget movies that were terrific, and high-tech blockbusters that completely failed. IMO about 3/4 of the movie is in the script, and yeah, it had some weak moments. To me the most annoying aspect was the constant references to the LoTR films, which is puzzling to me since he said he didn't want to "compete against himself." But with all those LoTR references you couldn't help but compare the movies, and the comparisons weren't always favorable. Now, about those additional characters. I think the mere fact that there were additional characters wasn't awful, in fact I quite liked some of them. But no, they shouldn't be there at the expense of canon characters, and again it comes down to the script. Just what was their part, exactly? I don't think you can argue that Galadriel or Radaghast harmed the script (or Azog, for that matter), since their inclusion had a logical basis for adding the Dol Goldur subplot. And to me, at least, the DG subplot enhanced the overall movie by explaining what Gandalf was doing, and yes it does tie in with the LoTR movies in a way that doesn't seem ridiculous. Tauriel & Alfrid are another subject (as is the bunny sled, but maybe they were thinking "it's a children's book, after all"). And it's not even the characters themselves, but what they did. I have no problem with a female kick-butt elf warrior, but then we devolved into a silly love triangle that's been done thousands of times. Same with Alfrid, he basically took over for the Master and there was just waaaaaay too much of him. And that goes down to the script.

You are correct about the CGI being so uneven. It blows my mind that Smaug's attack on Laketown looked SO GOOD, yet the dwarves charging up Ravenhill on the battle rams looked so - I don't know, Grey? And it would have been nice if the Orcs were wearing black armor instead of the same color as the Iron Hills dwarves, it would have made it so much easier to keep up with the battle. Overall, though, I really liked the trilogy, and BOT5A did win me over, largely due to Smaug's attack, the ice fight between Thorin & Azog, and the incredible acting of Martin and Richard. I applaud PJ for pushing the film technology and taking a chance, even if it has caused some problems with set design/miniatures/prosthetics. I think these things can be overcome, and I think his idea of filming two sets at the same time and overlaying them on the spot was brilliant. Most of those scenes looked very good - Bag End, Bard's House, etc. I think he'll have alot of those issues worked out by the time "Skull Island" is filmed. Something to look forward to!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


dormouse
Half-elven


May 26 2015, 8:03pm

Post #5 of 75 (2501 views)
Shortcut
Well...... [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Peter Jackson was worried about competing against himself - I think that's understandable. Lord of the Rings was such a success it was inevitable that a return to that world would invite comparison and criticism. It's very hard to succeed a second time with a similar work. He has also said that he was worried at first about the thirteen dwarves and I think that's also understandable. LotR had a smaller company of mixed races at the heart of the story and that made for a visually interesting mix of physical types and appearances. Differentiating the dwarves and making them look interesting was a huge challenge - one which he has also said he really enjoyed once he got stuck into it. His enjoyment of the filming process once it had started is obvious in the EE documentaries.

2. I hated the idea of 3D to start with. But I have to admit that the HFR 3D really worked for me as the ordinary kind never has, and I thought it was spellbinding. As for the practical effects, the models they used in the original films were breathtaking and I'm still in awe of their makers' skill. But I'm not sure that it was the models that made the films come to life so much as the very skilful way they were used: the lighting and camera and other tricks they employed to fool the eye into thinking that it was looking at a life-sized object. And all of those skills - the lighting, the camera adaptations were still very much in play. The artists - including many of the same artists - were there to create the digital environments and the model makers were also there building sets, and some models. I would have been happy if they'd stuck to 2D and film but I can understand why they adopted the new technology - and it might be worth remembering that LotR was cutting edge in its day using the newest technologies available and sometimes inventing techniques to achoeve the effects they needed.

3. I agree that it would have been better if they had opted for a trilogy at the outset but sometimes things happen the way they happen. Peter Jackson took over very late in pre-production with a lot work already done along someone else's lines. Then he was ill. I don't think he would have gone for the three-film split at the time he did unless he felt he really had to. It did make things very rushed and seems to have put him under a lot of extra pressure but you have to ask yourself what kind of film we would have ended up with if he hadn't been brave enough to make that change. Do you honestly believe that a two-film adaptation which even the director wasn't happy with would have satisfied anyone? I doubt very much if it would.

4. You think Legolas has no basis in Tolkien's work? Even Tauriel is built on the presence of an existing character and there are many echoes of Tolkien about her. If the films were to be part of a continuous suite of films - which was always the expectation - then some invention and embellishment of certain parts of the story was always going to be necessary. It was planned long before the three-film split - though the plans clearly evolved during film-making. But I'd say that's patly because they had so little time, partily because it's the way Peter Jackson seems to operate.

5. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how they would film Middle Earth without using computer generated images - and to remember that the first trilogy also made extensive use of what was then cutting-edge computer technology. In the intervening years computers have become much more sophisticated - why would they not use them? But now as then there are also real actors in prosthetics taking part in the battle scenes. As for Azog and Bolg, they were motion-captured - why is that unacceptable for them but fine for Gollum? No one ever complains about him.

Now, may I offer another point you haven't mentioned? I don't find The Hobbit at all disappointing, I love it, and appreciate it all the more became it seems to me that it was a project beset with problems from the outset - probably more than we'll ever know about. No one who was on the forum in the early days of the production is likely to forget all the upheavals - the legal wrangling, the green light that never came, the union dispute and talk of moving the production elsewhere in the world, Guillermo del Toro leaving, actors who were cast and then left, or looked unlikely to be cast because as time went by they had taken other parts. Watching from the outside it was almost unbearable at times; for those involved it must have been a nightmare. It seemed at times that because this was a very big film attracting a lot of attention everyone with a grudge wanted to target it to get their case heard. Then there was Peter Jackson's illness at the last moment, which set them back again. I honestly believe that this is where all the trouble lay. If only Peter Jackson and his team had been directing from the outset and had been able to shape the story in their own way I think things would have been different. If they had decided on a trilogy and had the green light to go ahead quickly, with all the time that they needed and no looming uncertainty. It may be that the end product wouldn't have been very different - I don't have the problems with it that you seem to - but it would have escaped the perception of being a ship constantly lurching towards the rocks that has dogged it from the start. In this world image is everything, and from the early days these films had the image of impending disaster - people even talked about them being cursed. In the curcumstances I'm amazed that they pulled it off so well, and I suspect that in time people will see that and have the same affection for The Hobbit, warts and all, as they do for LotR.


Avandel
Half-elven


May 26 2015, 8:35pm

Post #6 of 75 (2453 views)
Shortcut
Ditto, ditto, ditto [In reply to] Can't Post

Especially:


Quote
To me the most annoying aspect was the constant references to the LoTR films, which is puzzling to me since he said he didn't want to "compete against himself." But with all those LoTR references you couldn't help but compare the movies, and the comparisons weren't always favorable. Now, about those additional characters. I think the mere fact that there were additional characters wasn't awful, in fact I quite liked some of them. But no, they shouldn't be there at the expense of canon characters, and again it comes down to the script. Just what was their part, exactly? I don't think you can argue that Galadriel or Radaghast harmed the script (or Azog, for that matter), since their inclusion had a logical basis for adding the Dol Goldur subplot. And to me, at least, the DG subplot enhanced the overall movie by explaining what Gandalf was doing, and yes it does tie in with the LoTR movies in a way that doesn't seem ridiculous. Tauriel & Alfrid are another subject (as is the bunny sled, but maybe they were thinking "it's a children's book, after all"). And it's not even the characters themselves, but what they did. I have no problem with a female kick-butt elf warrior, but then we devolved into a silly love triangle that's been done thousands of times. Same with Alfrid, he basically took over for the Master and there was just waaaaaay too much of him. And that goes down to the script.


*Gasp* my thoughts more or less being quoted my someone else *grins*.Cool

Re the annoying aspect of tying the Hobbit to LOTR, but - tho have posted this before - as a rantMad:

Well, watching the SDCC footage, I was just sick if itMad - e.g., I remember being so hyped for "Prometheus" and thinking that movie wasn't what it could have been, by cheeseily trying to tie Prometheus to Alien, and with the Hobbit....

For me, personally, seeing as there is a 60-year separation in time periods and LOTR has its own issues IMO, it's a "fatal mistake" for any director to not pay a LOT of attention to the here-and-now - ESPECIALLY - and this is one of the things that PJ did so very right IMO -

the caliber of actors he had on hand for the Hobbit. E.g., in general - while I won't say the casting was "better" except that Richard Armitage can actually sing and give a speech IMO there was a charisma about this castHeartHeartHeart.

I would have preferred it if PJ had taken a hard look at what he had in front of him, in the here and now, and realized that much of all that casting and design work he actually did for the Hobbit, was something so goodHeart that he should focus the greatest part of his attention on making the Hobbit films as best as they possibly could be - as though LOTR had never existed.

That didn't happen...but I often wince at thinking what the Hobbit actors may have thought, when by DOS/BOFA and SDCC there were all these incessant tie-ins to LOTR. SDCC looked like old home week for LOTRUnimpressed

Less can be more.Unimpressed And I wish PJ & co. had taken the attitude that "any tie-ins to LOTR are there by default in the Hobbit films, like Bilbo carrying the ring or Gloin carrying the axe that would pass to Gimli, and that's plenty...."

Or like, for me, doing a prologue of Thranduil's back story would have been a lot more interesting than another LOTR tie-in scene IMO - and even then, it would have been fascinating to see that the "faces in the water" re LOTR came from a battle that traumatized Thranduil, and shapes his thinking...



And re BOFA - I still remember another poster quote "the pace just kills it for me" e.g. the decision to make BOFA "short and snappy" re the pace - OMG, why, why???

Material that screams for epicness IMO, or just a few more seconds, minutes, and I can never "sink into" BOFA unless I physically pause the screen and replay or step through frames.Frown

Someone posted re BOFA - so much good, and so much badUnsure. But oh, the material was there, the actors were THERE - and now the EE is only supposed to be 30 minutes longer....if I were PJ I'd just re-edit the whole thing, start to finish. Make the movie six hours long if it needs to be...and please stop with the LOTR stuff, I personally "get it" and not only do I prefer the Hobbit films (and the Faramir thing still gets on my nervesFrown) I seriously doubt I am ever going to sit down and watch six movies back to back.

Unless there are three more Hobbit films, with RA's Thorin, and the dwarf company, and Beorn, and MF's Bilbo, and Thranduil - the stuff that PJ at times - evidently - didn't think was a priority.Unimpressed

Re:


Quote
You are correct about the CGI being so uneven. It blows my mind that Smaug's attack on Laketown looked SO GOOD, yet the dwarves charging up Ravenhill on the battle rams looked so - I don't know, Grey?


I'll just say it - the battle rams charging up the mountain looked cheap. Cheap CGI. Which is one thing for a few seconds when the dwarves arrive at Mirkwood. and the long shot of that is an obvious digital shot - it's another when there are many seconds, like with the rams, or even Thranduil in battle with the elk, and there's plenty of time to observe poor CGI.

Tho I try to take a charitable tact, and think that the trolls, and Smaug, and the spiders are as good as they are, and the long shots of Laketown, because there was a budget, and PJ was selecting where to spend the money. But keeping the rams on screen so long with cheap CGI was not a good idea, IMO.

There's other shots too, where I swear that in the elf army, it's the same face over and over again - CGI elf face. Too much repetition in the armies - everyone in the SAME position - even the best dancers in the world can't manage that degree of accuracy.Unimpressed

But, still, since WETA and PJ are capable of astounding CGI *shrug*. I'm guessing the glitches are budget/time issues.Unsure


(This post was edited by Avandel on May 26 2015, 8:37pm)


Avandel
Half-elven


May 26 2015, 9:01pm

Post #7 of 75 (2435 views)
Shortcut
LOL Dormouse - well said and thanks for this (: [In reply to] Can't Post

Seeing as I just put up a *sulky post*

But - magnificently said, IMO. Because I forget (and I wasn't on TORn, for this....)


Quote
Now, may I offer another point you haven't mentioned? I don't find The Hobbit at all disappointing, I love it, and appreciate it all the more became it seems to me that it was a project beset with problems from the outset - probably more than we'll ever know about. No one who was on the forum in the early days of the production is likely to forget all the upheavals - the legal wrangling, the green light that never came, the union dispute and talk of moving the production elsewhere in the world, Guillermo del Toro leaving, actors who were cast and then left, or looked unlikely to be cast because as time went by they had taken other parts. Watching from the outside it was almost unbearable at times; for those involved it must have been a nightmare. It seemed at times that because this was a very big film attracting a lot of attention everyone with a grudge wanted to target it to get their case heard. Then there was Peter Jackson's illness at the last moment, which set them back again. I honestly believe that this is where all the trouble lay. If only Peter Jackson and his team had been directing from the outset and had been able to shape the story in their own way I think things would have been different. If they had decided on a trilogy and had the green light to go ahead quickly, with all the time that they needed and no looming uncertainty. It may be that the end product wouldn't have been very different - I don't have the problems with it that you seem to - but it would have escaped the perception of being a ship constantly lurching towards the rocks that has dogged it from the start. In this world image is everything, and from the early days these films had the image of impending disaster - people even talked about them being cursed. In the curcumstances I'm amazed that they pulled it off so well, and I suspect that in time people will see that and have the same affection for The Hobbit, warts and all, as they do for LotR.



This. How many movies have actually failed, and later on, "bad buzz" is actually credited as being part of that failure, even if on set issues are actually solved?

And anyway, I at least ended up with my favorite films ever - even if in the end it left me longing for more Hobbitness....

And at the end of the day, for me, I got:



and



and



and



AND:





My cup runneth over, sometimes, when I think about it. CoolCoolCool


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 26 2015, 9:34pm

Post #8 of 75 (2418 views)
Shortcut
Bomby Agrees with Everyone here EXCEPT the OP.. [In reply to] Can't Post

but again
that is to be
expected..

NO further comment needed.
Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


May 26 2015, 10:02pm

Post #9 of 75 (2398 views)
Shortcut
For Me [In reply to] Can't Post

What hurt these films for my personal viewing was the general focus of the film. These films were magnificently done, but I feel the focus was a little off. I would have liked a little more dwarves, Gandalf, Beorn, and especially Bilbo, and a little less Alfrid, Legolas, and Tauriel. Not that I had anything against these characters, but I wish they would have been restricted to smaller roles. I would have rather got to know the characters I grew up reading about through this movie. Not to say they didn't do that, as they made sure to give each dwarf a unique appearance and back story, and they expanded on Bard, and Thranduil, but it would have been nice to get a little more character development from some of the dwarves especially. That's why I don't mind watching a good fan edit here or there, just to get a different look at the focus of the film, and get it a little closer to the book I remember reading as a kid.

All in all, I agree with most of your (Goldeneye) comments moderately. I don't think Jackson didn't have the passion, just not the same kind of passion (he was sort of walking paths already tread), and the same amount of time as he did in LoTR, if you know what I mean. He was sort of starting to steer a ship that had already been set out to sea by another captain. The points others made about him not wanting to compete with himself, and him actually originally wanting to do the Hobbit before LOTR are valid.

As far as digital affects go, I don't mind them, but I do agree that the more gritty, realistic looking deaths and fighting scenes in LoTR are a little more enjoyable. However, the digital affects allow for some pretty special and memorable creatures and sequences.

Like dormouse said, it would have been better if they had set out to do a trilogy from the beginning, but Jackson still did well with the limited amount of time he had.


shadowdog
Rohan

May 26 2015, 10:03pm

Post #10 of 75 (2389 views)
Shortcut
Not sure I agree completely [In reply to] Can't Post

The original concept was one film based on the Hobbit and one transition film. So references to LoTRs was part of the concept from the beginning. When they scrapped the transition film a lot of the scenes envisioned slipped back into the Hobbit films. Don't think a lot of it was invented when they went to 3 films.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 26 2015, 11:55pm

Post #11 of 75 (2326 views)
Shortcut
'Buzz' [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
How many movies have actually failed, and later on, "bad buzz" is actually credited as being part of that failure, even if on set issues are actually solved?


In my experience bad word-of-mouth is more often a sign of failure for a film rather than a cause.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Avandel
Half-elven


May 27 2015, 12:48am

Post #12 of 75 (2300 views)
Shortcut
It's the way articles are written in the press [In reply to] Can't Post

Sloppy, to me - e.g. I guess I am thinking of the write-ups for the Lone Ranger among others.

Opinion on that film is debatable, but is it fair, if a production goes over budget, to start writing about that as a "fail" rather than "great, more funding was found to cover costs, so the the studio thinks enough of the film to work for it?"

But that's not what happens in the press - solutions aren't written about as far as I can tell, but phrases like the "production was beset by problems" - e.g. all the varying accounts I've read about, and what was done to rectify, the issues that happened with the animals on the Hobbit set being one.

Just seems to me that once the negativity gets rolling in the press, phrases true or not are hauled out as evidence as to why a film failed, and yet IMO a film can fail because of a lot of reasons, and negative press about a production doesn't help. Then it seems like it's all rolled into a ball and the film is getting negative reviews across the board, attendance is low partly as a result of the reviews, and so on.

Sometimes, of course. Other times the public could care less, and the film is a success with the audience and not critics. At any rate, I can't blame directors for having a wall of secrecy around their productions, until the final product is released


AshNazg
Gondor


May 27 2015, 1:12am

Post #13 of 75 (2296 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure splitting into 3 was such a bad thing... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think The Hobbit could have been best as three relatively short (90 minute) movies. The book is certainly substantial enough for that, and 90 minutes is a great length for a kids film. Most animations are about that length. It would have felt like Lord of the Rings for kids. A light, simple, easy-going watch to ease you into Middle-earth when you're not in the mood for the bulk, length and heft of Lord of the Rings.


(This post was edited by AshNazg on May 27 2015, 1:14am)


DanielLB
Immortal


May 27 2015, 6:51am

Post #14 of 75 (2209 views)
Shortcut
Five factors that help and hinder The Hobbit trilogy. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't much agree on your five factors, so I thought I'd post my own instead.

Five factors that hinder The Hobbit trilogy:

1. Superfluous and nonsensical scenes and characters, which by the end of The Battle of the Five Armies have not added or contributed to the story line. This includes Beorn, Radagast, Legolas, Alfrid, the Master and Dain. As well as the kamikaze trolls and were-worms.

- Beorn -> he is very briefly introduced in The Desolation of Smaug, hands over a couple of horses, turns up at the Battle for all of 5 seconds. In Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit, Beorn should have been removed altogether.
- Radagast -> I feel like they added this character because the team thought they ought to. Radagast pads out the story, but isn't necessary. His characterisation doesn't work for me.
- Legolas -> Legolas should have been restricted to a (background) cameo. His pointless gallivanting journey to Gundabad just so we could learn about his Mother is absurd. Why this got priority over concluding all the plot threads at the end of the trilogy I will never know. This links in with #4.
- Alfrid & The Master - an utter embarrassment to the franchise. End of.
- Dain - "Wait a minute, where's he come from? Didn't they say he wasn't interested in the Quest? Stop moving the camera, I can't see his face. Why is he swearing? Who knew Orcs were so fragile. Oh, wait he's CGI. Where's he gone? Who becomes King Under the Mountain?" etc.
- Unfortunately, I would also include Tauriel under this sub-heading. The character became everything that Evangeline Lilly didn't want Tauriel to become. While I do not mind Tauriel's inclusion (I like her!), she wasn't really needed. Why does it hurt, Tauriel? Because your story line is a pretty rubbish alteration from the book.

2. The decision to turn two movies into The Hobbit trilogy is a major hindrance to this franchise. There should never have been 3 movies. An Unexpected Journey should have ended at the Forest River, and There and Back Again should have concluded the story. The Desolation of Smaug cliffhanger does not work in a movie, and Smaug being killed in the first 5 minutes of the movie is a massive anti-climax. The focus of the three films is all wrong. Hidden within these three films is a spectacular adaptation of Tolkien's The Hobbit. If you strip away at these three films, there is potential for a breathtaking adaption. A little nip here, a little tuck there, and from the existing material, I can see a much better and focused duology. I am all for fan edits of this trilogy.

3. The "who should be the main Orc antagonist?" Azog-Bolg-Yazneg fiasco - sticking to the book would have been far less confusing. The film makers tried too hard to make the story something it wasn't. There was no need to keep Azog alive and fabricate a whole arc for him. It's a nonsensical change and is detrimental to the movie.

4. They tried too hard to connect the two trilogies together, and it just doesn't work. As above, they tried too hard to make the story something it wasn't.

5. This is a re-hash of many arguments in the past, but the design of the Dwarves never really made any sense. They were given outlandish designs to make them stick out, so that you could recognise the character from their silhouette. But their appearance doesn't make up for the lack of characterisation. They glossed over any characterisation and scenes with Bilbo, yet included Alfrid and the testicle-eating Master of Lake-town. It doesn't wash with me. Bombur's "physical comedy" was a terrible idea.

Five factors that help The Hobbit trilogy:

I wish I could give these five factors equal weight, but I spent longer typing the above than I planned.

1. Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is exceptional casting. I still prefer Ian Holm as Bilbo, but Freeman's characterisation is perfect. Some of my favourite scenes in the trilogy his scenes.
2. Scenes which remain faithful to the book, and this is most notably obvious during An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug.
3. Excellent CGI. The CGI does falter at times and is sometimes questionable, but on the hole, it is outstanding. Smaug and Gollum are design masterpieces.
4. Brilliant supporting cast members, including Richard Armitage, Ken Stott and Ian McKellen. I don't think any of the other cast stand out.
5. The clear heart, love, and dedication that ooze out of these movies. We all have things to complain about, yet a whole shedload of blood, sweat and tears went into making this trilogy. Everyone involved deserves an applause.



(This post was edited by DanielLB on May 27 2015, 6:53am)


Glorfindela
Valinor


May 27 2015, 8:00am

Post #15 of 75 (2158 views)
Shortcut
I agree with much of what you say, DanielB [In reply to] Can't Post

1. I agree 100 per cent with what you say about Legolas, Alfrid, the Master and Tauriel. These aspects of the film were a complete and cringeworthy fail for me, and major hinderances to the films.

2. When it comes to Beorn, Radagast and Dain, I think the following. I liked Beorn's characterisation, and because for me he is a major, iconic character in the Hobbit story, I think he should have been given a real, important role in the film, as one of the major characters. I didn't mind Radagast, but since they decided to include him they should have given him more of a role and somewhat more gravitas. The facial make-up should not have been included. I agree with what you say about Dain, but the character isn't all that important for me, since I never remembered him from the book.

3. I don't think that turning the story into three films per se was a major hinderance. I think that the way the story was told, with the omissions/exclusions of important events, explanations and character development of what should have been key protagonists, and with the inclusion of all the elements mentioned in point one and the exaggeration of their presence, was what did it for the films. The latter was done at the expense of providing explanations and conclusions to the film story, and was a major hinderance to the franchise. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, I am astonished that no one on the film team appeared to be able to stand back and notice the glaring plot-holes and deficiencies (all this could have been quite easy to fix). I think it should have been all the more easy to complete the story and not leave plot-holes because there were three films, rather than two.

4. Personally, the business of the main Orc antagonist didn't bother me in the least, since one Orc is much the same as any other to me.

5. I completely agree that there was absolutely no need to try and tie the two trilogies together. It was done in a clumsy and forced way, again at the expense of the story. There were enough 'natural' references to LotR in the Hobbit without indulging in this inanity.

6. I agree with what you say about the terrible 'humour' in the films, which was misplaced and stupid as far as I'm concerned.

7. I agree with your positives, especially when it comes to the acting of the main characters, the (on the whole) superb CGI and other visuals, and the dedication shown to the project (however misplaced it was in places).


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


May 27 2015, 1:00pm

Post #16 of 75 (2080 views)
Shortcut
Word!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Totally and absolutely agree, Daniel, well said!


As much as I want(ed) to see Beorn given his due in this adaptation, to all sense and purposes PJ might as well have omitted him...


Yes, the CGI is brilliant where the time and money was concentrated on it, such as Smaug and Gollum, but all too often the overuse/reliance on it meant it seems there weren't enough man-hours to get it all to the same quality. And before someone wades in with the stock response, no one is saying the films should have been made without CGI, just that too much was used, not only for OTT action sequences but also pretty much as a shortcut in places, where PJ decided to play with his latest toys and film new ideas for scenes at the last minute on his roving hand-cam-thingy!.


Which leads me to what probably did for the cohesiveness of the script in the long term...the writing team had said in interviews regarding GDT's input since BotFA was released that PJ wanted the script rewritten to suit him - he said he couldn't direct a script not written for him. The whole debacle of changing director, then reworking and stretching an existing 2-film script into three, re-filming new scenes to add back into what had already been shot was probably asking for trouble this time. It may have worked for LotR but they had less room to play with there. The oft-quoted remark from back then about finding the closer they kept to Tolkien the better it worked was seemingly deliberately thrown out the window this time, and PJ admits he revelled in upsetting the purists/book fans.




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


dormouse
Half-elven


May 27 2015, 1:37pm

Post #17 of 75 (2061 views)
Shortcut
So far as I can see no one is wading anywhere.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... and the question about CGI is hardly a 'stock response' as I'm the only one asking it. We hear the phrase 'over-use of CGI' repeated in here several times every day as though everyone knows what is being referred to. I don't. So all I'm asking, all I've ever asked of the people who repeat it, is how much is too much? Where would you not have used computer images and what would you have done instead? I'm crediting the people who make the point with knowing what they mean, and I'd say it's a straight, reasonable question. But no one ever attempts an answer.

And for what it's worth, Peter Jackson didn't say that he couldn't direct a script not written for him. He said he couldn't direct someone else's film. To me that also sounds very reasonable. I couldn't write someone else's book or paint someone else's painting. Once he was directing he had to make the film his way - I don't think any sensible person would expect otherwise.


Bofur01
Lorien


May 27 2015, 1:48pm

Post #18 of 75 (2030 views)
Shortcut
I think [In reply to] Can't Post

The two main things affecting the CGI were:

Time/48fps 3D. If they hadn't chosen to do both of these, WETA would've had much time saved on rendering, and far more tim to complete the shots.

Brightness/Bloom. Bloom is used a lot in games, and it brought up the feel of them a bit. I don't mind it in AUJ, as it's more controlled there, and in some of DoS, but it went really overboard in BotFA. Also, they clearly cranked the brightness up loads to help make the 3D brighter than normal films, but the added brightness really doesn't help the CG. Check WETA's first VFX video (the WIRED one) to see some of the pre colour grading version of smaug's attack, and compare it with the final film.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

May 27 2015, 2:05pm

Post #19 of 75 (2022 views)
Shortcut
Responding to the thread in general, my own factors would be entirely different. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't personally buy issues about the number of films or hasty decisions (neither is causal in any way, in my view). I am uninterested in both CGI and how literal the product is. I am deeply unmoved by concerns over hurt feelings of fictional characters.

I would argue two factors play to the gap between a 7/10 adaptation (TH) and a 10/10 product (LOTR).

The first is simply failing to entirely put the needs of the films first. Jackson, doesn't, in my view, get to grips with the story in the same way as with LOTR and wrestle it into a proper cinematic form (and if that is three films, then it should be three satisfying films, in their own right).

Secondly, though this is partially a subset of the first, is the issue of tone. This is tricky and is certainly something Tolkien came up against in the texts. The films ought, however, to have decided upon a better strategy as to what they were doing when it came to tone.


sycorax82
Rohan

May 27 2015, 2:27pm

Post #20 of 75 (2001 views)
Shortcut
The only factors that matter are... [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Warner Bros

2. The 3 movie split (brought about by Warner Bros)

Plenty of the movies' 'failings' can be brought to their door IMO. The original plans for characters like Tauriel and Beorn, all affected by WB's interference, I totally believe.

The studio wanted Tauriel to be more of the love interest so they had to make it so with the reshoots making her the soppy character she became, and more pointless Legolas involvement.

Beorn will have been cut due to the studio not wanting the Dol Guldur 'torturer' storyline.

WB also blatantly didn't give Peter the money needed to finish the movies successfully or on time. This is most evident with the reshoot/pickups footage from Bo5A where we've got really weak CGI shots, actually darn woeful considering the standard WETA have already set over the past 15 years.

Years down the line we will learn the whole story of The Hobbit's production, woes, triumphs and all.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 27 2015, 2:51pm

Post #21 of 75 (1994 views)
Shortcut
Will try to answer the CGI question [In reply to] Can't Post

The best example I can give is comparing Smaug's attack on Laketown with the Elves jumping over the Dwarves in the battle scene. As some have pointed out, in that scene it looked like the same Elves, maybe 2 dozen or so, endlessly looped just to give us a "really cool scene." Granted, part of the reason I hated it is because it seems to be another case of where PJ favored the "cool Elves" over the Dwarves (maybe I'm biased, darn those Durins!), but part of the reason is because it is just a dumb, unrealistic stunt - not too far from Legolas running up falling stones, just DUMB! Especially compared to the Dwarves stacking their shields, which is historically based. Yeah, I know it's a fantasy but come on! Compare either of those to the incredibly well choreographed ice fight scene, where Richard/stunt double/scale double were fighting against actual people doing mo-cap work. Even if the colors were too gray for my taste (and that may have been deliberate on PJ's part to create a certain mood) the scene worked really well for me. Now I KNOW they had maybe 100 guys/girls playing Elves, and at least a few dozen playing Iron Hills Dwarves, and some of those "background fighting" shots were of actual people. And clearly they are not going to get 5,000 for this battle scene, in fact the Rohirrim from TTT were about 150 - 300 horsemen, so I understand using CGI to morph a few hundred into a few thousand. But stretching a good idea will not alway give you a great idea; sometimes more is just too much.

And SURELY no one cared for Legolas being flown up to Ravenhill by a giant bat, as if that were the bats only purpose. Come to think of it, what exactly was their purpose?

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


May 27 2015, 3:20pm

Post #22 of 75 (1979 views)
Shortcut
I beg to differ... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

And for what it's worth, Peter Jackson didn't say that he couldn't direct a script not written for him. He said he couldn't direct someone else's film. To me that also sounds very reasonable. I couldn't write someone else's book or paint someone else's painting. Once he was directing he had to make the film his way - I don't think any sensible person would expect otherwise.




http://news.moviefone.com/...he-hobbit-interview/




Quote
PJ: I certainly had to change it. When I direct a movie, never once in my career have I ever picked up anybody else's script. Just somewhere in my DNA, my brain just doesn't work that way. If you gave me a script that you'd written, you could pay me all the money in the world and I couldn't direct. I'd be thinking through your head, wondering what you were thinking when you wrote these words, I'd be thinking through you rather than have direct contact with the script. For me to direct a movie I have to be there, creating these scenes and actually write them.





"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 27 2015, 3:22pm

Post #23 of 75 (1972 views)
Shortcut
Allegedly Superfluous Characters [In reply to] Can't Post

I can partially agree with you, Daniel, but not entirely by any means.

- Beorn: After Thorin and Company escapes from the goblins to be rescued by the eagles, they need to replenish their supplies and provisions before they can hope to tackle Mirkwood. They also need to know to take the Elf-path; even Gandalf (at least in the films; although this seems to be the case in the book as well) should not know that the old Forest Road is no longer usable. We can argue that Beorn's presence at the Battle of the Five Armies was superfluous in the theatrical cut of the film; but it was also extremely brief and I don't think that it qualifies as a distraction.

- Radagast: You would be right if not for the inclusion of the Necromancer subplot where Radagast is put to some use.

- Legolas: I almost completely agree. It was logical to include Legolas in connection to his father and the Wood-elves in general. However his role was expanded far beyond what it needed to be.

- The Master of Lake-town and Alfrid: The Master provides the same role in regards to the company when it is in Esgaroth that Beorn serves before Thorin and the others reach Mirkwood. The company requires food, supplies and equipment as well as a place to rest and recover (not that they did much of the latter in The Desolation of Smaug). Alfrid gives the Master someone to talk to (for the benefit of the audience) and also serves as his eyes and ears on the street. It is only after the Master's (arguably premature) death that Alfrid becomes dead weight.

- Dain: Really, Daniel? Dain? We need a dwarven army. Dain leads a dwarven army. And he is (relatively) nearby. What? Is Thorin supposed to mold an army out of clay and ask Aule and Iluvatar to bring it to life? Case closed.

- Tauriel: I would argue that Tauriel does serve a useful purpose when she (and Legolas) provides a contrasting perspective from that of the Elvenking. Her apparent interest in Legolas and Thranduil's opposition to it was even a bit interesting. I could have done without the tragic romance involving her and Kili.

I can't argue with you about ridiculously over-the-top and cartoonish action sequences and over-done toilet humor (excluding the company's entrance into Bard's house; that was okay).

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 27 2015, 3:26pm)


Goldeneye
Lorien


May 27 2015, 3:29pm

Post #24 of 75 (1952 views)
Shortcut
Studio issues [In reply to] Can't Post

I would not be so quick to dump all the blame on Warner Bros. Almost all accounts seem to conclude that it was Jackson and his team that wanted to make a third film. Whether this is the truth or not, we may not know for a while. WB certainly wouldn't have argued with that idea though, knowing full well that fans would line up for however many Hobbit films were made.

Many of the other issues you listed were under Jackson's doings, not the studio. I believe part of his agreement when he signed on as director was full creative control and final cut of each film. He and Phillipa/Fran created Tauriel, not WB.

I find it ridiculous to believe that Peter Jackson had an $800 million budget for these films, and yet you say WB didn't give him enough. LOL.


Noria
Gondor

May 27 2015, 3:41pm

Post #25 of 75 (1948 views)
Shortcut
I’m a Hobbit movie lover so of course I disagree. [In reply to] Can't Post

1) PJ has said several times that his original plan was to film The Hobbit first but as it turned out, the rights were so tied up that it took the potential billions to be made from a LotR prequel/sequel to shake them loose. Who can blame PJ if, after the grueling marathon that was LotR, he wanted to hand over the direction to somebody else? Even so, he was still heavily involved with writing the script and producing. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after they got into it, he became more invested and less reluctant to direct but we’ll never know. However, I never saw the least sign in any video logs, documentaries or interviews that he wasn’t giving it everything.

2) As someone who really liked the HFR, I disagree. I loved the clarity, the feeling of almost being there, and I especially liked how the HFR made the 3D better. AUJ was the first time that I really enjoyed 3D in a movie. For the most part the special effects of LotR were great, but I don’t care how the effects of TH were achieved as long as they looked good to me on the screen, which they did.

3) The Hobbit novel is only so slender because it covers a lot of ground with, in many places, very few words and doesn’t develop most of its characters. That works fine in the book but is very different from LotR. So I think that just filming The Hobbit at the same level of detail as LotR would take more than one movie. As well, a movie that would match LotR in breadth and scope had to expand, had to bring in the White Council story, give us more story about Thorin and Bard and Thranduil and develop more of the characters than the book did. There were a myriad of ways the film makers could have done all this and what we see on the screen in how they chose to go. Some of us like their choices, some don’t.

4) Yes they brought in characters, some invented, for specific story purposes or to provide insight into the characters of Thranduil, Legolas, Bard, the Master etc. Fo me thatwas necesary. IMO Legolas needed to be there since he is Thranduil’s son and again IMO, a cameo would not really have worked once we started getting into the politics and society of the Elven realm.

5) Whether or not there was over reliance on CGI is entirely subjective. I suppose over reliance means digital Orcs and digital hero doubles, green screen sets instead of locations and so on. The LotR movies were made using newly developed technologies and so were TH movies. As I said above it matters not a whit to me how effects are achieved in a movie as long as they work for me. Some of those of LotR still look fake to my eyes: as well done as the makeup was in LotR, the Orcs always seemed like people in masks and suits and occasionally the miniatures, beautiful as they were, just looked like miniatures. The forced perspective often didn't work for me and neither did some of the combined images of little and big people. I didn’t care then and I don’t care now. I agree some things in TH, like Smaug and Gollum, looked fantastic while others were less impressive and maybe time was a factor in that. But overall I think all three Hobbit movies are beautiful, convincing and engaging.

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.