|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hasuwandil
Lorien
Feb 15 2020, 9:40am
Post #51 of 78
(3136 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw all three films in the theater, but haven't seen them since. I wouldn't rate them among the best films of the previous decade, but then I wouldn't rate them so low, either. I find it suspect that an attempt to judge over 5000 movies places all three Hobbit films in consecutive spots.
I did have a prejudice going into the theater: I was skeptical that The Hobbit could be turned into three films without adding unnecessary filler. I don't think I was proven wrong.
Things I liked:
- Most of the beginning of An Unexpected Journey.
- The music: much better than The Hobbit (1977), in my opinion.
- It made sense to show the White Council expelling the Necromancer from Dol Guldur, given the length.
- It made sense to include Legolas in the films, although I don't think he needed more than a cameo or two.
- I liked the production design overall.
I was going to add that the fight scenes were more realistic than The Hobbit (1977), but then I remembered the Donkey Kong and Super Mario Bros. homages.
Things I didn't like:
- The character designs of the thirteen Dwarves.
- The pointless Frodo flash-forward.
- The character design and characterization of Radagast.
- The character designs of the prominent Orcs/Goblins.
- The Elf-Dwarf love story.
- The Alfred character.
- Too much Legolas.
- All in all, too many obvious references to LOTR.
I'm sure there's more I could add to both lists but, like I said, it's been a while since I saw the movies. Sometimes I wonder how things would have turned out if Peter Jackson had done The Hobbit first, and then gone on to do The Lord of the Rings. Presumably The Hobbit would have turned out better, but would The Lord of the Rings turned out worse?
Hêlâ Auriwandil, angilô berhtost,
oƀar Middangard mannum gisandid!
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 18 2020, 2:44pm
Post #52 of 78
(2890 views)
Shortcut
|
Sometimes I wonder how things would have turned out if Peter Jackson had done The Hobbit first, and then gone on to do The Lord of the Rings. Presumably The Hobbit would have turned out better, but would The Lord of the Rings turned out worse?
I have always felt that a Peter Jackson Hobbit movie, one movie, that had been made before LotR could have been very different without the expectations and constraints that being both a prequel and a follow-up to the hugely successful LotR trilogy engendered. Yet Jackson is still the same director who likes special effects, big action and juvenile humour, who made both Braindead and Heavenly Creatures before LotR. So what would that original Hobbit movie have been like? I wonder too.
The effects on the LotR films would have been profound as well, probably not in a good way, had the original plan come to fruition. . LotR would have been two films instead of three and a lot more would have been condensed or left out, affecting both plot and character. No doubt many beloved scenes would never have been filmed. I have read about the two-film treatment but can’t remember enough about it now to provide examples. Nor do I recall if a script for the Jackson/Walsh Hobbit had ever been written.
Since I love TH movies almost as much as the LotR trilogy, it all worked out for me.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 18 2020, 2:59pm
Post #53 of 78
(2889 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If Jackson had made 'The Hobbit' first.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have always felt that a Peter Jackson Hobbit movie, one movie, that had been made before LotR could have been very different without the expectations and constraints that being both a prequel and a follow-up to the hugely successful LotR trilogy engendered. Yet Jackson is still the same director who likes special effects, big action and juvenile humour, who made both Braindead and Heavenly Creatures before LotR. So what would that original Hobbit movie have been like? I wonder too.
The effects on the LotR films would have been profound as well, probably not in a good way, had the original plan come to fruition. . LotR would have been two films instead of three and a lot more would have been condensed or left out, affecting both plot and character. No doubt many beloved scenes would never have been filmed. I have read about the two-film treatment but can’t remember enough about it now to provide examples. Nor do I recall if a script for the Jackson/Walsh Hobbit had ever been written.
Since I love TH movies almost as much as the LotR trilogy, it all worked out for me.
Of course, Peter Jackson had proposed adapting The Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings films were made. It likely would have been a single film, maybe two. Elements from the appendices might have been included, but probably no Tauriel and no Alfrid, no Were-worms.
I am not prepared to say that the LotR movies would not have been a trilogy in this case (if they were made at all). There are too many variables, too many unknowns.
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 19 2020, 3:18am
Post #54 of 78
(2849 views)
Shortcut
|
As I recall, Jackson and Walsh went to Miramax with a proposal to make three films: one Hobbit and two LotR. The rights to film TH were too hard to acquire so that movie was eliminated, But there were still supposed to be two LotR films and I think the scripts were written and pre-production had started. Then it all famously fell apart when the Weinsteins insisted on a single LotR movie.
So the two-movie LotR project was well underway before it died. The subsequent three movie deal with New Line necessitated a complete rewrite, so we don't know what the original concept would have been like unless somebody has read that treatment.
Thus it seems to me that both TH and LotR would have been very different if the original plan had worked out. By the time LotR became three movies, The Hobbit film had been abandoned.
It's funny that the difficulties in getting the rights to film The Hobbit were suddenly worth working through post-LotR, once they all knew how much money there was to be made.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 19 2020, 3:42am
Post #55 of 78
(2846 views)
Shortcut
|
Your post lines up with my distant memories concerning the abandoned project. If there are any corrections to be made, I'm sure someone will chime in with the information. If the Hobbit movie had been made under Miramax, though, and been successful, I could see the idea of the LotR as a film trilogy being revisited at that time. As was said later, by a New Line exec: There are three books, aren't there?
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 19 2020, 1:50pm
Post #56 of 78
(2806 views)
Shortcut
|
Your post lines up with my distant memories concerning the abandoned project. If there are any corrections to be made, I'm sure someone will chime in with the information. If the Hobbit movie had been made under Miramax, though, and been successful, I could see the idea of the LotR as a film trilogy being revisited at that time. As was said later, by a New Line exec: There are three books, aren't there?
But in my opinion three films from Miramax were unlikely given that that Weinsteins were balking at (and maybe couldn't afford) two, unless the single Hobbit film made a fortune. I hope that Hobbit movie would have been successful but I can't think that it would have had the impact that the epic LotR had, like three cannon shots across the world of film, three years in a row.
But we'll never know, though it's entertaining to speculate.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 19 2020, 2:31pm
Post #57 of 78
(2809 views)
Shortcut
|
...but we are, after all, playing a game of 'what if'. Alternately, we could ask: What if New Line had agreed to Peter Jackson directing an adaptation of The Hobbit before making The Lord of the Rings? Again, I think we would most likely have seen a single movie made of TH, without most of the embellishments that we actually got. It could have been expanded into two films, especially if additional material from the LotR appendices were incorporated into the narrative. Again, I could see Legolas being included, but likely in a much smaller role--perhaps little more than a cameo. We might have even seen Aragorn in such a movie, but as the young boy 'Estel' in Rivendell as opposed to the reference to a Ranger as mentioned by the Elvenking.
#FidelityToTolkien
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 19 2020, 2:35pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Feb 20 2020, 3:12pm
Post #58 of 78
(2727 views)
Shortcut
|
IMO the movies needed to set up a reason for the animosity between the Wood Elves and the Dwarves of Erebor, not rely on ancient history known only to book fans. That's a fair point, though Thorin's attitude was a bit extreme, extending to all Elves including Elrond's folk, who--when they lived in Eregion--had had a good relationship with the Dwarves of Khazad-dum (Thorin's ancestors). Thorin in the book had none of the animosity toward Elrond (or even Elves in general) that movie Thorin displayed. Thorin was your basic proud old man/dwarf fallen on harder times than he’d like to admit. He took offense to Thranduil’s questioning (and compounded that with innate dwarves greed). Movie Thorin hated Elves to the point of unreasoning racism. Just one more reason my joy at the start of AUJ with the “Good Morning” scene quickly turned to dismay and revulsion as the movies progressed.
Even as a Jackson ''apologist'' (for a lack of a better term), I don't get why he made certain choices in the scripting processes. Why alter Thorin's personality in such an extreme way?
Does he give any reason anywhere (say, the EE's Appendices)?
It just seems STUPID to change the book gratuitously like that. If the change has a cinematic/narrative purpose, then maybe it can be excused. But for NO REASON?
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Feb 20 2020, 3:26pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 20 2020, 8:18pm
Post #59 of 78
(2700 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Otaku-sempai, I pretty much agree with you.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I discounted the feasibility of New Line making The Hobbit back then because presumably they would have had the same problems in obtaining the film rights. But if we are imagining…….
Whether it was one or two movies, I think that The Hobbit could only be completely faithful to the book if it stood alone, unconnected to any LotR films. Otherwise, there would be a need for continuity between the two stories; the world of the Hobbit would have to be the same world as the larger, more expansive LotR.
Since Jackson et al were planning to film LotR as well as The Hobbit, presumably they would have had the larger, more complex book in mind as they wrote their treatment of TH and it would have been a big influence on TH.
As part of a trilogy (or even a tetralogy if we’re dreaming big) with LotR, it would only make sense to bring in the White Council, Galadriel, Saruman etc. into TH and have the whole Necromancer subplot. The Ring would be more significant.
Since Legolas is important in LotR, he should appear in TH when the Company visits his home. But maybe Legolas’ role would have been smaller because neither he nor Bloom were fan favourites later used to attract existing LotR movie fans to the prequel movies.
In the same vein, the Dwarves of The Hobbit novel are not those of LotR, either book or movies, and I suspect that the Dwarves of any Hobbit adaptation would have to be closer to Gimli in character than to his relatives in the TH book. Until they suddenly changed into warriors at the Lonely Mountain, the Dwarves of The Hobbit were helpless and cowardly; the Dwarves of LotR were neither. I wonder if back then Jackson would have had the IMO very clever idea of making all the Dwarves visually distinctive but featuring only a few of them as main characters.
I expect that they still might have introduced at least one female character.
Also in order to better match up with LotR, some of the characters would have to be more developed, be more than a name and/or title and a couples of line like Bard the Bowman or the King of the Elves or the Master of Laketown.
There is still the issue of what Thorin and company thought they were doing on this quest anyway.
I have no issues with the book as it is and I imagine that a faithful adaptation of the little children’s story could be made. But if The Hobbit was being filmed as part of a series with LotR, it would have to be looked at differently and I imagine that any director would at least consider the things mentioned above.
And all that is before we consider the characteristics of Jackson himself as a director.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 20 2020, 9:14pm
Post #60 of 78
(2697 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it was for "no reason".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Even as a Jackson ''apologist'' (for a lack of a better term), I don't get why he made certain choices in the scripting processes. Why alter Thorin's personality in such an extreme way?
Does he give any reason anywhere (say, the EE's Appendices)?
It just seems STUPID to change the book gratuitously like that. If the change has a cinematic/narrative purpose, then maybe it can be excused. But for NO REASON?
I think it was done to up the dramatic tension and make it much less likely that Thranduil and Thorin could ever cooperate either in the Woodland Realm or at Erebor. It increased the likelihood of war between Elves and Dwarves. The animosity of the two kings was personal.
Whether that reason was good or not is a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 23 2020, 3:34am
Post #61 of 78
(2522 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree, they had reasons for what they did. I just happen to think a lot of the scripting decisions for the Hobbit trilogy -- especially Thorin's general attitude toward Elves -- were ridiculous and stupid. I understood most of the decisions for deviating from the books in the LOTR movies but there really was no need for the "White Orc" or love triangle much less the changes in Thorin's personality or background.
They could have covered the differences in mood between the Hobbit and LOTR books simply by doing what Tolkien did and explain the text of The Hobbit (or start the tone more like the book) as Bilbo's contemporaneous view of events -- or what he was willing to admit to -- and then show the LOTR backstory from the Appendices by having Gandalf fill in the rest of the story.
In any event, the movies are what they are. I do still love how they did the Good Morning scene, enjoyed Riddles in the Dark, and appreciated Elrond's invitation to Bilbo. I laughed at Dain's arrival and the insults he hurled at Thranduil. Thorin's funeral was magnificent (although I still maintain he should have had a full beard worthy of a Longbeard).
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 25 2020, 2:13pm
Post #62 of 78
(2418 views)
Shortcut
|
You didn’t like many of the choices the writers and director made in filming The Hobbit, and though I don’t agree, it’s a legitimate point of view.
I had forgotten about Tolkien's notion of presenting The Hobbit as Bilbo’s subjective recollections rather than historical “reality”. Would it have worked, either as the first film of a trilogy with LOtR as originally planned or as the prequel-sequel that actually happened? Possibly, and I get why such an approach would have been more to the liking of purists.
Would the slaying of Smaug and other things that Bilbo didn’t witness would have to be described to him, just like the BoFA was in the book? I liked how the BoFA was shown in real time instead of as a flashback. Although I didn’t care much for the denouement of the White Council subplot in TBOFTA, I again preferred that it was shown in real time rather than have Gandalf describe it. And that story needed to be in TH, not LotR. Placing it in the latter as a flashback would entail even more exposition of long ago events in movies that were already struggling with an overabundance of source material. LotR had more story than could be told as it was, and more than enough flashbacks. The Hobbit is a much thinner story which has more room for events that happened within its time frame and involved one of its major characters.
If anything, before I saw AUJ I was hoping The Hobbit movies would be more like LotR. PJ explicitly stated that he wanted LotR to feel real, like history rather than fantasy. I loved that about those movies and it was what I wanted for TH - a more adult version, like the rewrite that Tolkien started and then abandoned. Once I saw AUJ, I realized that PJ was going in a different direction tonally and was fine with it.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Mar 1 2020, 11:36pm
Post #63 of 78
(2316 views)
Shortcut
|
but I think Azog is never actually reffered in the movies as ''the WHITE Orc'', but rather as the ''the PALE orc in a white Warg'', or something to that effect. Just a correction. 
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Mar 1 2020, 11:38pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Mar 1 2020, 11:48pm
Post #64 of 78
(2311 views)
Shortcut
|
Once I saw AUJ, I realized that PJ was going in a different direction tonally and was fine with it.
But that ''different tonal direction'' matched your vision/expectation of what those movies should be like?
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 2 2020, 2:01pm
Post #65 of 78
(2246 views)
Shortcut
|
I love The Hobbit book, but not nearly as much as I love LotR (or The Silmarillion). I also love the LotR movies and what I had hoped for from TH movies was more of the same – a Middle-earth that was treated as if it was real and an epic story full of gravitas leavened by occasional humour. I suspect that many LotR movie fans felt the same, especially if they had never read any of the books. But I was wrong.
Once I saw AUJ I realized that the LotR treatment was not necessarily the best one for TH, though it might have worked for the epic story it became. But I remember PJ saying that he didn’t want to repeat himself with TH and I imagine that was part of why he chose a very different tone for those movies. What he attempted to do was bring the lightness, absurdity, and sheer fun of TH into the wider and deeper Middle-earth of LotR. The marriage is somewhat uneasy at times and I understand why some Hobbit book lovers detest the result. I am fine with TH movies as they are.
I might have loved that LotR-like Hobbit as much as I do the version that we got, but I’ll never know. As with LotR, I don’t think the Hobbit movies are perfect and I disagree with some of the choices PJ made. None-the-less, I love all six movies.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Mar 6 2020, 6:06pm
Post #66 of 78
(2138 views)
Shortcut
|
That certainly did clarify things.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Mar 6 2020, 6:40pm
Post #67 of 78
(2135 views)
Shortcut
|
What he attempted to do was bring the lightness, absurdity, and sheer fun of TH into the wider and deeper Middle-earth of LotR
he didn't; if that was his intent, he failed. The lightness and humor of Tolkien's Hobbit were dry, droll and donnish. What PJ gave us instead was Looney Tunes slapstick.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 11 2020, 2:20pm
Post #68 of 78
(1960 views)
Shortcut
|
But really –the foolish and fainting Bilbo, the yammering Dwarves, the Trolls and their talking purse, the singing orcs and the talking spiders may be droll but are hardly intellectual. Dry and donnish humour is not the only kind in the book. It wouldn't appeal to kids if that was the case.
But regardless, PJ’s task was to make a set of movies that would attract a large and wide ranging international audience of the 21st century, not a subset of people harkening back to the 1930’s.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Mar 11 2020, 6:22pm
Post #69 of 78
(1948 views)
Shortcut
|
But regardless, PJ’s task was to make a set of movies that would attract a large and wide ranging international audience of the 21st century, not a subset of people harkening back to the 1930’s.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Mar 11 2020, 11:45pm
Post #70 of 78
(1935 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ’s task was to make a set of movies that would attract a large and wide ranging international audience of the 21st century, not a subset of people harkening back to the 1930’s.
That is summarized by a common ten-letter phrase beginning with SEL and ending in OUT.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 13 2020, 8:41pm
Post #71 of 78
(1800 views)
Shortcut
|
It’s the movie-making business. It’s only a sellout if the director makes a movie they don’t want to make. There is no evidence of that with The Hobbit. If you watch the video logs and Appendices and listen to the commentaries, PJ appears to be right into it all. It was his idea to make two movies into three, because for him TH novel seems to have become a springboard into a larger story set in a wider and more complex Middle-earth.
Whatever their artistic aspirations, the producers and director of a movie have an obligation to those investing in their project to do their best to create something that will make money. In the case of inevitably expensive movies like LotR and TH, that means attracting and appealing to a large audience by making movie(s) that that large audience would enjoy watching. Like TH trilogy. Something that is popular is not always bad any more than it is necessarily good.
After all, Tolkien himself sold the film rights to TH and LotR for money, and the Tolkien Estate recently sold the television rights to LotR for money.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Mar 14 2020, 7:08pm
Post #72 of 78
(1705 views)
Shortcut
|
It’s the movie-making business.
Under contemporary Hollywood constraints, both LOTR and Hobbit trilogies are as good as one could expect-- perhaps not just perfect, but then, perfection is utopia.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Mar 14 2020, 8:06pm
Post #73 of 78
(1697 views)
Shortcut
|
pere sold them with the Inland Revenue's gun to his head, confronted with a tax bill he had not the cash to pay; the Estate, yes, Sold Out with a capital S O once the inconveniently honorable Christopher with his oh-so-out-of-date sense of integrity had retired (or was defenestrated.)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Mar 15 2020, 12:12am
Post #74 of 78
(1668 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm surprised to see you say that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My understanding is that the oft-repeated statement that Tolkien sold the film rights to pay an overdue tax bill was not at all true. But you certainly are in a better position to know that I am, so perhaps it is true after all.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 15 2020, 1:47pm
Post #75 of 78
(1609 views)
Shortcut
|
I had heard the story about the tax bill before and also that it was untrue. I’ll take your word for it. If it was income from book sales that caused the tax problem, it’s kind of fitting that selling the film rights should remedy it. In any event, it was fortunate for Tolkien that he had something to sell.
There is nothing inherently dishonourable about a business deal between the Estate and Amazon Studios. Granted, I wouldn’t have thought that the Estate needed the money – no doubt it was one of those dreaded “business decisions”. But the rights are the Estate’s to sell. And it’s Amazon’s right to make a television series that they believe will appeal to their audience, subject to whatever oversight the terms of the deal stipulate.
I’m sorry to hear the suggestion that Christopher Tolkien was removed from the board of directors of the Estate against his will. I had assumed it was the result of age-related physical or cognitive issues.
|
|
|
|
|
