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

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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
the "gods" were behind the execution of these six films!
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Elarie
Gondor

Apr 27 2014, 1:29pm

Post #26 of 43 (332 views)
Shortcut
Nice post - thank you [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Hop to it, Radagast, we've got dark powers to sleigh.


Kendalf
Rohan


Apr 27 2014, 1:38pm

Post #27 of 43 (316 views)
Shortcut
I suspect WB's influence was minimal... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I would have to disagree


Nothing wrong with that! Smile


In Reply To
I feel like the bigger problem is the studio influence on these films...we know they made the supposed 'love triangle'


True. What little we know of their influence doesn't seem to cast it in the best of lights Unsure But I suspect that a lot of the stuff that people have problems with (eg Radagast's facial excrement, the bunny sled, the Great Goblin, the rollercoaster bridge, surfing molten gold, outlandish set-pieces, over-dependence on CGI etc etc etc) can all fairly and squarely be laid at Jackson's feet, not those of the WB executives...

"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."


Kendalf
Rohan


Apr 27 2014, 1:44pm

Post #28 of 43 (327 views)
Shortcut
Nice summary [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
This made me think about why despite wanting some things different I am captivated by these films.

I can talk troped action sequences/ wrong choices ... until the Mundo's come home but in the end this second sequence is even better at portraying the characters and developing their sense of journey


I'd say I'm probably with you on this. I often find myself falling into the role of criticising many of the aspects of these two films but, in truth, I think their good aspects probably outweigh their bad.

I just wish Jackson had reigned himself in a bit here and there Crazy

"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."


Salmacis81
Grey Havens


Apr 27 2014, 3:59pm

Post #29 of 43 (295 views)
Shortcut
Wait though... [In reply to] Can't Post

Didn't Philippa Boyens admit in an interview that the "love-triangle" came from her, Fran Walsh and PJ?


Salmacis81
Grey Havens


Apr 27 2014, 4:03pm

Post #30 of 43 (293 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the decision to make three movies was a huge mistake, and is at the root of almost all of the problems I have with this adaptation.


glor
Rohan

Apr 27 2014, 4:34pm

Post #31 of 43 (297 views)
Shortcut
Yes. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I give you just one example, when the prim and proper bachelor sits down to eat his supper of fresh fish in his neat orderly home it echoes so many whom live on there own now in their neat orderly controlled lives. But that fatal knock on the door changes everything. These types of moments emerge over and over again right up to and including Bilbo's final line as he sees Smaug in the distance, that in the end is what makes this treatment of the Hobbit right for me


These are the moments, the element of Tolkien that PJ and co 'get', ones that in the hands of most Hollywood blockbuster directors would be lost or not even understood as the heart of the story and therefore left off the screen.

I might not agree with some of PJ's excesses but they are no greater in quantity in The Hobbit than they were in LOTR, time and the ability of the DVD medium to fast forward has somewhat tempered my, and I suspect others' memories of them and thus, it becomes easy to rose tint when one can skip one's viewing of Legolas surfing that Mumakil with the simple press of a remote control button. Although to me, PJ's indulgences whether that's in Brain Dead, King Kong, or his Middle-earth films always have a certain joy to them, a sense of a film maker enjoying themselves, a more old fashioned idea of film as escape and entertainment from a more innocent age, a la Ray Harryhausen rather than, the cynical lowest common denominator dumbing down action sequences a la Michael Bay.



(This post was edited by glor on Apr 27 2014, 4:35pm)


Noria
Rohan

Apr 27 2014, 7:42pm

Post #32 of 43 (272 views)
Shortcut
Well said, Michelle and Glor [In reply to] Can't Post

As always, Michelle.

Glor said...

"Although to me, PJ's indulgences whether that's in
Brain Dead, King Kong, or his Middle-earth films always have a certain joy to them, a sense of a film maker enjoying themselves, a more old fashioned idea of film as escape and entertainment from a more innocent age, a la Ray Harryhausen rather than, the cynical lowest common denominator dumbing down action sequences a la Michael Bay."

I like this. Though I have only seen PJ's Middle Earth movies, this is how I see him and these films.

I also agree that PJ' s excesses in The Hobbit are no worse than those of his LotR and can't really understand why LotR gets a pass on that.


patrickk
Rohan

Apr 28 2014, 7:22am

Post #33 of 43 (226 views)
Shortcut
There was an estimate on the pay... [In reply to] Can't Post

..of the crew on some budget figures and it was $90m. Now who gets what is the interesting bit but I expect PJ will get half ($45m). The the other seniour actors a quarter (~$25m), and the last quarter (~$20m) to the rest, which runs ito hundreds.


Arannir
Valinor


Apr 28 2014, 7:31am

Post #34 of 43 (220 views)
Shortcut
This is very well said, glor. [In reply to] Can't Post

I can understand criticism regarding this adaptions.

But I feel strongely whenever people call them pure cash-grabs and speak about Peter Lucas and the loss of any kind of art about the movie-making.

A cash-crap and pure blockbuster would look quite differently, imho. As you stated.


ďAll good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at."


RandomSilvanElf
The Shire


Apr 28 2014, 8:52am

Post #35 of 43 (222 views)
Shortcut
Best thing about movies. [In reply to] Can't Post

The best thing about movies is well, quite obviously ... that we get to SEE the Middle Earth. With the work of so many people LOTR movies practically established how Middle Earth looks like. And this was done with so much dedication and hard work, and with so much attention to the details. I love watching appendixes for LOTR movies- so many great and like-minded people behind the scenes! It makes me wonder what I was doing with my life not being there, but then I was still in high school and in a completely different part of the world ^_^

As for the order I think it would be really hard to film Hobbit before LOTR, because LOTR books are more popular. Even after those movies I didn't believe they would film Hobbit and I was very happy when I heard they are going to do it.

Of course I have some issues with all the movies, especially with particular things that I loved in the books, which got altered in the movie ( like Faramir), but I accept that I wasn't the one to pull the enormous effort to make them and that the creators have right to show their own vision.

I seem to have more issues with DOS though ( I didn't really had any with AUJ) but after pondering about it, I can see why the filmmakers did what they did.

I don't like that they try to connect Hobbit so much to LOTR movies, I'd rather would see it as a detached story in the same visual universe. (though I like that they added Frodo scenes and the characters that reappeared in White Council- that was probably the most suitable addition to extend the original story). Maybe if the Hobbit movies were first, they would be more faithful to the book, but I wonder if the universe would be created in such great detail then - so I still prefer the way it is.

Wow, I wrote a lot and lost track what exactly I was writing about... Anyway, I agree with Bomby that we will all look back at those movies as something great that happened to us :)

"At this time therefore the Sindar were well-armed, and they drove off an creatures of evil, and had peace again; but Thingolí's armouries were stored with axes and with spears and swords, and tall helms, and long coats of bright mail (...) And that proved well for Thingol in the time that was to come…"

More of my opinionated scribbles [url=http://betweenfictionandreality.wordpress.com]Between fiction and reality

[url=https://twitter.com/Elisabetta8i8]Follow me as I re-read my way through Silmarillion, Unfinished tales, Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and everything else that was written on Middle Earth.


Imladris18
Lorien


Apr 28 2014, 1:09pm

Post #36 of 43 (191 views)
Shortcut
Eh, I don't know. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that if PJ were going to an even more serious source material than LotR (if such a thing were even possible) as opposed to the relatively lighthearted Hobbit, his films would steer in that direction as well. The change to a "children's story" I think gives him the "excuse" to be blasť, flippant, and self-indulgent. For me, he hasn't really even hit that mark, as I've quite enjoyed the Hobbit films, and I think any over-indulgence has been mostly fitting.

I think BoFA will have enough content to mostly satisfy both camps with the events that are yet to unfold.



(This post was edited by Imladris18 on Apr 28 2014, 1:09pm)


Salmacis81
Grey Havens


Apr 28 2014, 1:17pm

Post #37 of 43 (193 views)
Shortcut
I disagree with this statement... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
PJ' s excesses in The Hobbit are no worse than those of his LotR


Yes, there were some deviations within Jackson's LotR films that I didn't like so much. But LotR warranted three 3-hour films. At the end of the day, much, much more was cut from LotR than was added in.

I don't see such discipline this time around. PJ's stretched this story as thin as humanly possible (except he of course cuts out the Eagle's eyrie), plus added in his own extensive subplots in order to get 3 films out of this slim volume. The Hobbit and 10 pages of supplemental material did not warrant three 3-hour films.

We are getting quantity at the expense of quality, IMO.


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Apr 28 2014, 2:53pm

Post #38 of 43 (168 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit book is a bit less detailed than the LOTR - [In reply to] Can't Post

 One thing I like about the FOTR movie was the revelation of the gate of Moria. It was straight out of the pages of the book.

Perhaps if the Hobbit was written more in the style of the later books, we might have had a different movie. As it is PJ and Co had to add a bit of detail and character development themselves.

If the LOTR had been written in the style of the Hobbit, it would have focused completely on Frodo and Sam's journey with the later events concerning the other members of the Fellowship becoming 'stories for another day' much the same as Gandalf and the White Council's dealings with the Necromancer. Even Gandalf's betrayal by Saruman might not have been mentioned. Actually, we might not even have met Saruman until Frodo's return to the Shire.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



Salmacis81
Grey Havens


Apr 29 2014, 1:08pm

Post #39 of 43 (114 views)
Shortcut
I think they went a little beyond just adding "a bit of detail and character development" though... [In reply to] Can't Post

They've introduced into the narrative characters that were from Tolkien but had no roles in this story (Legolas, Radagast), a character who's been dead for hundreds of years (Azog), and even a character who existed nowhere in Tolkien's lore (Tauriel), and given them all major character arcs (with the possible exception of Radagast, who doesn't really have his own subplot like the others do). This goes beyond mere "detail and character development", into the realm of full-blown fan-fiction, IMO. Not to mention the fact that he's invented quite a few battle/chase scenes that were nowhere in the book or the appendices.

I watched the LotR appendices a few months ago, and it struck me how often someone would mention how laser-focused the writers were with making sure that Frodo's journey didn't get lost amid all of the extra detail, and this is why they made many of the omissions that they did. The way they are adapting The Hobbit is the complete opposite - with this trilogy, they are taking every little minor detail and blowing it up to epic proportions, taking things from other Tolkien stories and adding them to this one to pad it out, and things that detract from Bilbo's journey are being invented wholesale and presented as integral parts of the narrative.

This is not to say that I hate all of the additions - I like that Gandalf's Necromancer sub-plot is being included (even though I think it could have been handled so as to fit more in-line with the text). And I think Bard needed some extra development.

On the other hand, things like the Tauriel/Legolas/Kili complete and utter nonsense, Azog, bunny chases, barrel escape turned into an OTT battle scene, rock 'em sock 'em Stone Giants, and exploding golden statues are all just overkill IMO and are the things that are marring this trilogy for me.


Noria
Rohan

Apr 29 2014, 2:40pm

Post #40 of 43 (103 views)
Shortcut
Of course they went beyond adding a little detail here and there. For their purposes, they had to. [In reply to] Can't Post

Itís true that there is much more detail in the LotR book than there is in the Hobbit and surely if the latter had been written in the same style as the former, The Hobbit would be a much longer book. That brevity is entirely suitable in the book. A movie requires more and, for better or worse, the lack of detail in the book left the movie-makers lots of scope to do as they wished.

I also think that our individual reactions to all these movies, but especially The Hobbit films, depend in part on what we like about the books. For instance I have always enjoyed alternate worlds and alternate histories as reflections of our own world and societies, so Middle Earth itself is almost as important to me as the characters, plot and themes. (Some of Tolkienís themes, like death and immortality or fate, are in fact of little interest to me.) Other people are more focused on the plot or themes.

So I love these movies in part because they take me to Middle Earth and I get to see with my own eyes the various places and peoples and creatures. I think that the movies excel in that area, in every way.

I also like that the writers of TH movies have expanded them by bringing in characters like Radagast and Legolas from LotR, and given greater complexity to characters like Thranduil and Bard. Besides her function as ďfemale energyĒ, Tauriel plays a major role in the politics of the Mirkwood elves which may be important in the third movie. All this enriches the world of ME for me.

IMO Bilboís story is still very much there in the movie, almost intact, though sometimes the beats of his development have been moved a bit. But he is sharing the stage with Gandalf and the Necromancer, Thorin, Bard and the Elves of Mirkwood and those stories are important in these movies too. The writers made certain choices as to how to develop all these strands and those choices will be pleasing to some and abhorrent to others. So it goes.

A post of Glorís recently reminded me that Peter Jackson regards himself as an entertainer, making movies for his and other peoplesí enjoyment. It reminded me that PJ enjoys using the tools of his trade to their utmost and ultimate extent, with results that are great to some and poor to others. The scenes that some regard as over the top are expressions of that joy. That is who the man is.

I love The Hobbit book primarily as a companion piece to LotR. It is charming and sweet and fun and for me also somewhat tame. So Iím not sorry to see the book enlarged in every way, even if the results may vary in quality. For me, generally the movies are great.


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Apr 29 2014, 2:41pm

Post #41 of 43 (98 views)
Shortcut
I would imagine - [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
On the other hand, things like the Tauriel/Legolas/Kili complete and utter nonsense, Azog, bunny chases, barrel escape turned into an OTT battle scene, rock 'em sock 'em Stone Giants, and exploding golden statues are all just overkill IMO and are the things that are marring this trilogy for me.


- that certain things were added for the other members of the audience.

I'm starting to wonder if we should lay the blame at the Professor's feet for not completing his 'The Hobbit: Expanded Edition' and leaving it to the movie-makers to fill in the details to the best of their abilities, decades later.

I can understand the inclusion of Legolas and Radagast, and even Azog (though that took some effort after years of thinking of him as a long-dead villain) though I am dubious about the Tauriel/Kili business.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



elostirion74
Rohan

Apr 29 2014, 4:06pm

Post #42 of 43 (86 views)
Shortcut
very interesting post [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you for a very interesting and nuanced post and explaining what you love about these films. It's interesting to hear about your assigning Middle Earth itself almost as much importance as the character and the themes.

You're right that Bilbo's story is still there in the movie, but in DoS (not so in AUJ) I felt that his story gets so mixed up with preparations for the major storylines in LoTR that the essence of his story in the Hobbit risk being sidelined. In DoS themes which have more or less nothing to do with the Hobbit - whether you look at appendices and UT or not - are given such prominent positions that it sometimes feels like the Hobbit is just a repetition of the plot and especially the themes of its sequel in a slightly different tone. Clearly lots of people find this enriching, while I see only lack of imagination on the part of the film makers.

I suppose I feel that the pressure to discipline himself that the scope and detail of LoTR imposed on PJ's line of adaptation was very healthy, in artistic terms, for a director like Jackson. Whether a director wants to entertain or not, discipline is still a key factor for ensuring the highest quality in terms of film making and adapting the story. If you don't feel the need to discipline yourself and use the opportunity to expand on different story strands to indulge yourself, added expansions to a story can be a very mixed blessing.

I felt PJ succeeded very well with the fleshing out of the characters of the dwarves and of Bard. They were much less successful IMO with the Master and how they approached the portrayal of his politics within Lake Town; it actually often felt much more simplistic than the original story. Thranduil is more emotional and slighly more complex than the original character, but not really very much IMO, although I love Lee Pace's acting and his interaction with Thorin. I didn't really feel that the attempt to portray him as an isolationist really contributed anything important to the films; we've had other character who take the same or slightly similar roles already.





















HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell


Apr 29 2014, 4:46pm

Post #43 of 43 (83 views)
Shortcut
Rock 'em sock 'em Stone Giants [In reply to] Can't Post

I actually liked the Stone Giants... they were done perfectly....

First page Previous page 1 2 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.