|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 17 2016, 10:56pm
Post #26 of 52
(691 views)
Shortcut
|
"Easy - the atmosphere and tone are much better there than in AUJ. Riddles of the Dark was one of the only great scenes in AUJ anyway."
If it was so great, then how can anyone say that a few seconds in LoTR were "Much Better" - sorry, but there really wasn't enough of a scene in LoTR to hang on to. I can't help but think this is just complaining to hear oneself complain.
Because the LotR films aren't just great, they're phenomenal. 
And the atmosphere and feel of the world of Middle-Earth as it is depicted there is a part of that.
And with that, he simply stated that the bit in LOTR looked to be much better than AUJ... if only it had been like that, now we may never see the rest of it in that same style!
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Feb 17 2016, 10:57pm)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Feb 18 2016, 2:12am
Post #27 of 52
(666 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, just for arguments sake (and because I have nothing better to do on a Wednesday night), I compared the Ian Holm FoTR finding the ring scene with the Martin Freeman AUJ finding the ring scene, one right after the other. My observation is that the AUJ scene is a little brighter lit, but beyond that there is no discernable difference. Mood? Atmosphere? Really, I can't see any difference. I can't believe anyone out there loves FoTR more than me; although it's easy to believe I love AUJ alot more than some. Really, I love them both, so I feel there is absolutely no bias in my response - no discernable difference between the scenes beyond brighter lighting. Now that could be a product of the digital vs film production, I don't know, but that to me doesn't make one scene "better" or "worse" than the other. Brighter lighting in and of itself doesn't make enough difference to matter. If you or the OP truly prefer the Ian Holm scene, then there's some other reason for it beyond "atmosphere" or "mood." My guess is, you simply prefer the first trilogy to the second - nothing wrong with that, but it is a preference I don't share.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 18 2016, 3:30am
Post #28 of 52
(657 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think "LotR" is a better film than "The Hobbit"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I will champion this scene with Freeman in a higher regard because I cared a heckuva lot more about what is going on here, in the middle of a wonderful movie, than I do in a prologue setting up the things I'm going to care about later. The lighting and actor are different; I sense no other change (both scenes have incredible cave-ish atmosphere).
Bilbo: These are dark days.
Bofur: Dark days indeed.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 18 2016, 1:58pm
Post #29 of 52
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense and Kilidoescartwheels
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I will champion this scene with Freeman in a higher regard because I cared a heckuva lot more about what is going on here, in the middle of a wonderful movie, than I do in a prologue setting up the things I'm going to care about later. The lighting and actor are different; I sense no other change (both scenes have incredible cave-ish atmosphere).
FotR may be my favourite of the six movies. Ian Holm's Bilbo finding the Ring works perfectly in that film but seeing the scene with a character in whom I am already greatly invested makes it much more meaningful. Aside from the lighting it otherwise seems much the same to me.
But then while the LotR moves are my favourite films ever just as LotR is my most beloved book, I don't think they are the best movies ever made or perfect adaptations of the novel. I see the same flaws and have similar issues with both trilogies. I just happen to prefer LotR, book and movies, to The Hobbit, novel and films, much as I love TH movies. It amazes me that people think the LotR movies are beyond criticism.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 18 2016, 4:52pm
Post #30 of 52
(613 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And, and maybe that's just me, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It amazes me that people think they're even comparable.
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Feb 18 2016, 6:16pm
Post #31 of 52
(601 views)
Shortcut
|
Sympathetic characters: You do realize this applies to the book as well right?
Wonderful dialogue: Same as above, the dialogue was written by Tolkien in both cases. There´s also "added" dialogue in both cases.
Beautiful landscapes: Ok, now you lost me. I recall a lot of that in the Hobbit movies...unless you are saying that most of all those landscape shots are CGI or something, which seems to be considered a"bad" thing around these parts. But then again, you don´t seem to be referring to that. So I´m confused.
Realism: But...the Hobbit book, unlike LOTR, wouldn´t work with a completely realistic or historic or "gritty" approach, unless you remove the essence of it, which I don´t think PJ did. In fact, many people complain that the Hobbit movies should have been more down to earth and LOTR style...yet many others complain that they are not the Hobbit, but rather LOTR 2.0 In the end, I think PJ took the best approach, which was to retain the fairy tale qualities of the book, plus an added coat of realism that becomes more prominent as the movies go by. For what is worth, the movies are to me much more grounded in realism than the book. But they obviously don´t have as much "earthy sense of realism" as LOTR. I mean, were you really expecting the Battle of Five Armies to be filmed in the same style as Helm´s Deep?
Practical and digital: I´m curious as to what would you define as "balance". Do you mean that movies should use practical effects until the year 4500 AD, when the Virtual Reality stuff gets perfected? What does balance means to you when it comes to movie effects? Should the trolls be made of wood and plastic? Or maybe the orcs should be LOTR style, with masks and costumes? But even LOTR has the "despicable" CGI,,,so, why not make all movies like the original Star Wars? Would you like that? In fact, the Hobbit has used new and perfected CGI effects, just like LOTR back in the day. If PJ had followed your rules from day 1, LOTR would not have those CGI effects that people loved so much. And honestly, I can´t see the difference between many digital effects in both trilogies (trolls are trolls, gollum is gollum, eagles are eagles...)
Middle Earth, in film, should not be JUST "LOTR or LOTR style". IMO, there should be room for much more. LOTR were movie masterpieces, but I would like for people to stop thinking of them as the only possible interpretations of Middle Earth, because they aren´t.
(This post was edited by Anubis on Feb 18 2016, 6:17pm)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 18 2016, 9:18pm
Post #32 of 52
(575 views)
Shortcut
|
But there's applause going down over here.
Bilbo: These are dark days.
Bofur: Dark days indeed.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 19 2016, 7:22pm
Post #33 of 52
(528 views)
Shortcut
|
I think a lot of the differences of opinion come from the the possibility that many of the movie fans were not fans the book beforehand. Judging the Hobbit movies on their own, and not comparing it the book, I would say it holds up to other fantasy type movies released these days. However, a faithful adaptation of the book it is not. Not even close. Sorry movie fans.
(This post was edited by wizzardly on Feb 19 2016, 7:30pm)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 19 2016, 9:22pm
Post #34 of 52
(513 views)
Shortcut
|
|
'Faithful' is not a prerequisite for 'good'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, no apologies necessary.  (This is from someone who read the novel first).
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 19 2016, 10:11pm
Post #35 of 52
(501 views)
Shortcut
|
And of course "good" is a matter of personal opinion and taste. I'm pretty sure if I had never read the book or heard of Tolkien and just enjoyed fantasy action movies like harry potter and pirates of the carribean type stuff, my opinion of PJs hobbit would be far more favorable.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 19 2016, 10:41pm
Post #36 of 52
(493 views)
Shortcut
|
Anything I post is my opinion based on my own taste. This is a given.
On that note, some have better taste than others.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 19 2016, 10:59pm
Post #37 of 52
(485 views)
Shortcut
|
However, a faithful adaptation of the book it is not. Not even close. Sorry movie fans. It is very faithful to the book in many ways, like the Good morning scene, Riddles in the dark, the songs, Smaug vs Bilbo, the trolls, the trollcave, the first half of the spider scene, on the doorstep, the return journey, the auction, first half of the barrels scene, a thief in the night, Thorin and Bard talking at the gate, dealing with the arkenstone at the gate, Thorin's death scene, Rivendel and the moon runes, Introduction to Beorn, the prologue, the mithril scene, the stone giants, fire and water, the funeral and many more. So in my opinion it is very close to the book.
(This post was edited by Smaug the iron on Feb 19 2016, 11:01pm)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 19 2016, 11:41pm
Post #38 of 52
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
I didn't hate everything about the movies...there's probably a good 10% I thought was good.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 20 2016, 8:31am
Post #39 of 52
(461 views)
Shortcut
|
Wonderful dialogue: Same as above, the dialogue was written by Tolkien in both cases. There´s also "added" dialogue in both cases.
Oh, I'm sure Tolkien wrote "there could be anything down my trousers" or "not every man is brave enough to wear a corset"!
Beautiful landscapes: Ok, now you lost me. I recall a lot of that in the Hobbit movies...unless you are saying that most of all those landscape shots are CGI or something, which seems to be considered a"bad" thing around these parts. But then again, you don´t seem to be referring to that. So I´m confused. But most of those ARE CGI, and it simply doesn't look or feel real at often times. There's good CGI and bad CGI and also mediocre CGI. They went to New Zealand, and then for the last two Hobbit films they decided to mostly film things in front of green screens, and the outcome looked too obviously like CGI. I think PJ took the best approach, which was to retain the fairy tale qualities of the book, plus an added coat of realism that becomes more prominent as the movies go by. There is no added coat of realism that becomes more prominent as the movies go by. If anything, the lack of realism gets worse with every film. And I don't understand how you could possibly say PJ took "the best approach", the entire trilogy keeps juggling between what to be, it has an identity crisis and hops from comedic scenes to dark scenes to over-the-top action scenes to serious scenes and it just doesn't work. Practical and digital: I´m curious as to what would you define as "balance". Do you mean that movies should use practical effects until the year 4500 AD, when the Virtual Reality stuff gets perfected? What does balance means to you when it comes to movie effects? Should the trolls be made of wood and plastic? Or maybe the orcs should be LOTR style, with masks and costumes? But even LOTR has the "despicable" CGI,,,so, why not make all movies like the original Star Wars? Would you like that? In fact, the Hobbit has used new and perfected CGI effects, just like LOTR back in the day. If PJ had followed your rules from day 1, LOTR would not have those CGI effects that people loved so much. And honestly, I can´t see the difference between many digital effects in both trilogies (trolls are trolls, gollum is gollum, eagles are eagles...) You don't really understand the issues with CGI, do you? The problem isn't necessarily the CGI, the problem is bad CGI. No matter how well done something CGI is, it can still be bad by standing out as being obviously CGI. Over the years, there have been many CGI things in movies and TV shows, also in The Lord of the Rings, but it either blended in with the rest of a scene very well or it looked so real, you didn't know it was CGI, and in The Hobbit, too many things just stand out and don't blend in with the rest of a scene very well. And, to be fair, they've really exdeeded the balance of CGI and practical effects. Isn't it strange that there's not even any consistency within the ranks of orcs? There's a group of CGI orcs here, a smaller group of costume orcs there, and some more CGI over there... it doesn't make much sense, especially when the practical orcs look more like LOTR orcs but the CGI orcs, of which you see many more, look much different, far more deformed with not many human-like (or elvish-like, from whence they came) features left. Middle Earth, in film, should not be JUST "LOTR or LOTR style". IMO, there should be room for much more. LOTR were movie masterpieces, but I would like for people to stop thinking of them as the only possible interpretations of Middle Earth, because they aren´t. No, obviously there's not just one way to depict Middle-Earth, but - again, obviously - if a movie trilogy, which is The Hobbit, serves as a PREQUEL to the LOTR trilogy, with lots of references to said trilogy added into it, and so many attempts to tie it to the LOTR trilogy, thenn people are absolutely right and just to expect a similar tone and look as the LOTR films. What The Hobbit did was, add a fairytale tone and try to make it as grandiose as the LOTR films. That simply doesn't work. Making it realistic and cutting out the attempts to make it grander would've worked fine. But The Hobbit doesn't look or even feel like the LOTR films, meaning the world it takes place in just seems very different. It's similar to the lack of visual consistency between the two Star Wars trilogies. One trilogy makes the world (galaxy) it takes place in look ancient, and historic, and the other trilogy largely makes said world (galaxy) look overly polished and shiny.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Feb 20 2016, 8:32am)
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 20 2016, 8:56am
Post #40 of 52
(457 views)
Shortcut
|
But most of those ARE CGI, and it simply doesn't look or feel real at often times. There's good CGI and bad CGI and also mediocre CGI. They went to New Zealand, and then for the last two Hobbit films they decided to mostly film things in front of green screens, and the outcome looked too obviously like CGI.
They shot a lot at location in the films, like Dale, Beorn's house, Shores on the long lake,some parts of the barrels scene and more, plus they had more then 150 sets on the hobbit, so they mostly filmed things on real locations and sets then just green screens.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Feb 20 2016, 9:12am
Post #41 of 52
(452 views)
Shortcut
|
Obviously, they should've found a real "lonely" mountain that looked just like the needed erebor to look like, including a river running from it, and a waterfall and hill for Dale to be on. Then blast out the front of said mountain to put the erebor front door on it. Then film actors in a heavy chariot on that real frozen river... Oh and for the interior of erebor (and Thranduil's realm), they should've actually built an entire enormous mulyi-layered city-sized set instead of only the pieces they physically needed and could actually fit inside the studios... 
Really though, they did the same thing with LOTR, went to location where a normal environment would work, built sets when they couldn't and then digitally extend those sets with cgi. And there are some "bad" spots in those movies too in terms of cgi... But yeah, a lot more was real on hobbit than people might think.
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Feb 20 2016, 11:50am
Post #42 of 52
(442 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Or, perhaps, "...consistency of squirrel droppings"? It´s a mixture of PJ and Tolkien in both cases, only the Hobbit has more added dialogue than LOTR, because the book counterpart doesn´t have that much dialogue complexity as the LOTR books.
2. Let´s settle with "My eyes are special, so I can enjoy the Hobbit CGI while you can´t." I honestly don´t know what else to say, because I didn´t spot any mediocre CGI in any of my viewings. But of course, it could be just me.
3. The movies get progressively darker, and more serious, just like the book, but still not as dark as LOTR, in fact much more light-hearted than it. It is very hard to balance the two styles in a movie, but, when it comes to me at least, PJ succeeded in doing it. There are some crucial factors in play here:
-This is not LOTR but with a different story, it is an entirely different thing, the only exception being that this tale is set in the same universe so to speak, and therefore some old characters and locations will be present. Yes, it is, in a way, a prequel to LOTR (which I agree with, I prefer that to a "reboot"), but not a LOTR +. Expectations, I think, played a heavy role in the movies´ reception by critics and audiences alike, (which wasn´t all bad by the way, yet it wasn´t as well received as LOTR).
-This is a Hollywood movie, which means, it needs some Hollywood "elements" in it, so as to appeal to the broadest audience possible.
Considering these, it´s difficult to fit the Hobbit book, which seems like the typical Dungeons & Dragons adventure, into the LOTR epicness, movie style, and make it sink into people. Because we have, on one side, 13 dwarves (not two or three) named Bifur, Bofur...etc going on a quest, not even armed with some swords or shields, and being captured one by one by three gigantic trolls, and on the other side there´s epicness incarnated. In the end, PJ decided to make it more serious where he could, making stuff like Thorin´s personality more in line with his previous LOTR movies, while adding some "comedic scenes", as you put it, in between. There is no identity crisis here. It´s just PJ´s interpretation, which you may like or not. I didn´t find any over-the-top action sequences that didn´t seem to fit in with the rest of the movie. I deemed some stuff as silly, but, isn´t the whole premise of 13 unarmed dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard who sometimes disappears going on a quest to reclaim their homeland from the claws of a monstrous dragon, a bit silly?
4. Well, as I said, I don´t have a problem with CGI in these movies. For example, I didn´t notice a lack of consistency among the orcs.
5. Already expressed my opinion on that. (I kind of mixed this with point 3, sorry about that)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 20 2016, 12:22pm
Post #43 of 52
(438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Want to add one more to your #1
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Ooo! That was close!"
Right next to a pile of crap.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 20 2016, 1:56pm
Post #44 of 52
(429 views)
Shortcut
|
|
wizzardly, I first read The Hobbit almost fifty years ago
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think a lot of the differences of opinion come from the the possibility that many of the movie fans were not fans the book beforehand. Judging the Hobbit movies on their own, and not comparing it the book, I would say it holds up to other fantasy type movies released these days. However, a faithful adaptation of the book it is not. Not even close. Sorry movie fans.
Or at least this year it will be fifty years since I first read LotR and a little later The Hobbit. I have reread the books more times than I can count since then and LotR remains my most beloved book. I love the Silmarillion almost as much as LotR, as well as Unfinished Tales etc. Years ago I read some of Christopher Tolkien’s History of Middle-earth series.
At first, at the age of thirteen or so, I didn’t like The Hobbit novel much, because it was so different from LotR. It was childish, goofy, with no feeling of realism. Sound familiar? Later as I grew up a little and reread The Hobbit, I came to appreciate and love it for what it is.
In 1998 or so when I heard that a movie was being made, I was more apprehensive than happy. I heard good things about FotR, saw it and while I loved it on many levels, there were elements I disliked or was unsure about, mostly the differences in characterization and the action orientation. That’s when I first went online to seek out discussion about it (on another site). I soon came to embrace many of the changes but I still see bits of bad dialogue, cheesy scenes and so on. Most of those things just don’t bother me anymore but as much as I love these movies, I don’t think they are perfect.
I believe that TH is essentially a faithful adaptation of the book: Bilbo’s journey from silly everyman to hero is still there and that is the heart of the story. That is what matters. Many of the other characterizations didn’t exist in the book and had to be created to enrich the movies and some of these characters were given stories of their own. It had to be. A small, completely faithful adaptation of the book was never going to happen after the mega success of the epic LotR and any movie version of TH was always going to be big.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 20 2016, 2:15pm
Post #45 of 52
(426 views)
Shortcut
|
|
OK Gandalf the Green, now I get you.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It seems that you wanted LotR: The Prequel, basically a continuation of the LotR trilogy that comes before it chronologically. More LotR. That’s what I wanted too, especially after the RotK EE was released and LotR was over.
I wanted that right up until I saw AUJ. Then I realized that PJ was trying to be faithful to the fairy tale spirit of The Hobbit whilst keeping in mind his LotR movies. I realized that The Hobbit was not LotR and even if it could be, maybe it shouldn’t. I embraced these movies as PJ’s vision of The Hobbit, not LotR wannabes. I don't disagree that the marriage that PJ made in TH films between the novel and his LotR films is not always an easy one but for me it works overall. You know, PJ’s movies made me appreciate the fairy tale aspects of the novel more, not because I don’t love the movies but because I do.
Jackson said that he didn’t want to repeat himself and made an artistic choice to do something different when adapting a rather different novel. There were always people who were going to be disappointed whatever he did.
Maybe you don’t get that a lot of us aren’t bothered by what you perceive as bad CGI. I am more interested in story, character, theme. However the movies look and sound beautiful too and how that was achieved doesn't matter to me. The issues I do have with these movies and the LotR trilogy are not technical.
But I didn’t realize that there was a specific figure for the appropriate balance between CGI and practical effects. What is the number?
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 20 2016, 3:03pm
Post #46 of 52
(421 views)
Shortcut
|
There's no specific number. It just has to work, and in The Hobbit, it sometimes did, but mostly didn't. The CGI affected the story to the point that the director seemed to be more focused on getting cool, flashy scenes out there than having good action scenes that don't feel like tons of events stacking up on top of one another without a real climax. (The LOTR films did this very well) If you want to see a more direct result of the CGI - it takes away the vast majority of all suspense when you have cartoony looking creatures that are seemingly weightless fighting the protagonists. The Uruk-hai were a real threat in the LOTR films, they looked like a threat and felt like a threat. There isn't much of that in The Hobbit. LOTR-esque suspense may have been inappropriate, but for me, there was hardly any.
And yes, I did want more of an actual LOTR prequel with consistency in style, visuals and the way the story was told. Just on a smaller scale, as long as it could very seamlessly be viewed before FOTR. Just one, maybe two movies.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Feb 20 2016, 3:04pm)
|
|
|
KW
Rivendell
Feb 20 2016, 3:46pm
Post #47 of 52
(409 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the Hobbit book, which seems like the typical Dungeons & Dragons adventure
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I disagree with this characterization. One of the things that makes the book so enjoyable to me is how subversively atypical it feels when put into the context of popular fantasy like the D&D novels thanks to the narrative and composition choices Tolkien makes. In fact at times I do think that Jackson should have just gotten the rights to D&D because that seems more in line with the type of crowd pleasing action fantasy he wished to create. Meanwhile he and others seem to regard the atypical nature that gives the Hobbit its character to be liabilities rather than assets.
|
|
|
KW
Rivendell
Feb 20 2016, 4:01pm
Post #48 of 52
(408 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe not so much a matter of "realism"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..but another pleasurable and characteristic aspect of the Hobbit to me is how much it essentially seems to be an artistic expression of nature experienced on a very human scale and much of that expression comes from understated observational touches heavily grounded in the natural world. And I don't think one can talk about the "essential" whimsy or sillyness of the book without also recognizing what a significant counter-balancing element this naturalism effects and how that fits in to the essential character of the composition as well.
(This post was edited by KW on Feb 20 2016, 4:10pm)
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Feb 20 2016, 5:09pm
Post #49 of 52
(398 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As mentioned above, there are many valid and important reasons for
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit universe to be that of the LOTR. In hindsight, JRRT did link the two books and he understood the tonal differences and I think would have liked to have another version of The Hobbit that would have been more of a prelude to The LOTR. But, what was done was done and so he did what he could with LOTR to incorporate The Hobbit world...as reflected in the opening chapters. Both books take a darker turn as their stories move along. Other than the much debated details of The Hobbit films, I was happy to see the tone in line with the Middle Earth we have come to know and many of us visualize.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 21 2016, 1:18pm
Post #50 of 52
(362 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It’s sad that the balance didn’t satisfy you
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but that is only your opinion, not a truth. I disagree with you because it did work for me, maybe because I don’t care which special effects are practical and which are CGI, which locations are real and which are computer generated. I just enjoy them.
While some of the Orcs in LotR are quite menacing, like Lurtz and the Uruk Hai, to me they always look like human beings in rubber suits. I find Azog and Bolg at least as realistic and threatening; they may not be as real but at least they don’t look like men in disguise.
As for TH movies in general, Peter Jackson was always going to disappoint some of their potential audience, whatever he did.
Some people wanted a direct adaptation of the beloved children’s book, with all its whimsy and humour. They didn’t get it.
Others, mostly fans of the LotR movies I suspect, wanted what I have taken to calling LOTR: The Prequel. You, Gandalf the Green are one of those, as I was until I saw AUJ and changed my mind. Those movies would have told the story of The Hobbit, expanded or not, in a style and tone similar to that of LotR. That didn’t happen.
PJ didn’t want to repeat himself so he took a different course: a bigger, more expansive Hobbit with a more whimsical, less realistic feel than LotR, gradually darkening until the final tragedies. But the director was still Peter Jackson and when he goes big, he goes very big. For me this approach to The Hobbit works very well but naturally it didn’t please all of the audience. However the movies were still hugely successful, albeit not as successful as LotR, but lightning doesn’t often strike twice.
Jackson was also operating under certain constraints. I have said many times that the huge success of the LotR trilogy ensured that the film version of The Hobbit would not be small like the book. The time for a small Hobbit movie from this director and these studios ended in 2001. The studios putting up the money would have wanted big movies, epic crowd pleasers, to maximize their profits. They got that.
|
|
|
|
|
