The Lord Of The Rings : An Honest Assessment?

An Honest Assessment?

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-making-peter-jacksons-hobbit-trilogy-was-utte-228733

Well, this might be worthwhile. We all knew something went wrong. Was all that loathsome Mario Bros. fluff there because of lack of planning?

Look- it's trying to think!

Re: An Honest Assessment?

At 4:19 I don't think I've seen anyone look that tired yet still be awake.



Quick, play dead.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Well, it explains a lot.

The LOTR films were, in retrospect, carefully planned. You could see the arc play out.

What is it with Guillermo del Toro, anyways?He is best known for projects he starts but does not complete. If he had followed through, a "Pan's Labyrinth"-y Hobbit might have worked.

And I want anyone competent to do "At the Mountains of Madness." It has eldrich abominations and mountain climbing!

Look- it's trying to think!

Re: An Honest Assessment?

I saw the first Hobbit movie and wasn't interested enough to see the other two and I don't feel like I missed anything so I guess that tells my story.




Quick, play dead.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

The third was watchable, although I found the scene with Legolas fighting on the bridge that had been inspired by 100 video games to be painful.

The second film: hoo-boy. The barrel-riding scene is for Tolkien films, what the Hayden Christensen-Natalie Portman "It's only because I am so in love with you" scene was for "Star Wars" films.

Look- it's trying to think!

Re: An Honest Assessment?

I had to look up the scene you mentioned and - even considering I saw it out of context - that strikes me as the sort of thing an overly hormonal 13 year old might confess to her bedroom wall poster of the Beiber boy.

I don't think I'll ever be accused of following the inner workings of Hollywood too closely but I wonder if del Toro was out of his depth and Jackson was just plain out of oomph and givadams.

Call me an old codger but I found the nasal mucus scene in the first movie uncomfortable to watch and unnecessary, but then I've never been a fan of slapstick. All up there wasn't enough in the movie to get me going back for 2 and 3, but I had similar trouble forcing myself to read the book. Not his best work. Barked like a dog, in fact.



Quick, play dead.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Thanks for that, CTS. Well worth watching.

Yeah, Jackson was in a pretty tight spot. Between the refuse of GdT's departure, and the pressure that he had to start shooting by a certain date or lose the filming rights, he really was squeezed. Oh, plus the fact that the original book is pretty crap (imo), and far from a match for LotR.

Such a pity Jackson didn't get time to do it right.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

(I've reedited this to try to get my view on this complicated topic right.)

I read the article but didn't see this particular video. But I've seen multiple video extras for The Hobbit movies (which I own on Blu-ray) and can compare them with the DVD extras for the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition.

I don't think one assessment is more honest than another. We are all picking at facts which we think will explain why the Hobbit movies fell short in our opinions. I'll give my list.

*** Overall The Hobbit movies had these problems imo;
- The letting loose of Peter Jackson's tendency for excessive action and over the top design.
- This was coupled with a reduction of Philippa Boyens' influence with Fran Walsh (Peter's wife) who together on LOTR were a counter balance to Peter's excesses.
- And most important, the Hobbit films were made to get as much money out of the material as possible at the expense of imo good taste and keeping with Tolkien's mythology.

* I'll look at problems with The Hobbit movies if they had been made as 2 films and then add on the negatives of them being made as a trilogy.

** As two films the Hobbit movies still would have had these problems.
- Fran allied with Peter to design the two movies to make more money.
This reduced Boyens' influence to try to keep the movies closer to Tolkien's material.
For instance Peter and Fran decided to create a Twilight style romance between the dwarf Kili and the elf Tauriel to get more box office (which is completely outside of what happened in Tolkien's mythology).
- With Peter in a stronger position he was able to get into the Hobbit movie gross designs and over the top action which he likes (and which probably were considered better for box office).
Radagast has poop on his head. The barrel riding sequence descends into slap stick.
- This problem came up to a certain extent with the Lord of the Rings movies. In production for LOTR Jackson wanted more action; an Orc attacking Frodo and Sam at the end of FOTR in the lake, Sauron showing up at the Black Gate to fight Aragorn (which some footage survives), Arwen being a warrior maiden at Helms Deep.
Peter likes gross designs which led to the Mouth of Sauron character which is only in the ROTK Extended Edition.
What blocked a lot of this was that in the LOTR production Boyens was allied with Fran Walsh. Fran and Philippa argued with Peter and got him to eliminate these excessive action scenes in LOTR.
- But Boyens' influence in The Hobbit movies was mostly pushed to the side.
As a result Peter got to be more like Peter with the Hobbit films.
And Peter and Fran got to make the Hobbit films with more shlock.

- Still, if The Hobbit movies had been allowed to be just 2 films, that would have been better imo than with 3 movies.

** The chaos of making a Hobbit trilogy;
The Hobbit movies were designed as two films. That is how they were scripted, story boarded, and in the beginning shot.
Then in the middle of production the studios wanted 3 films. This is why there was chaos on the set and with post production.
- Why 3 films? Because that meant about another one billion dollars of box office.
What did that mean in terms of film making?
- There had been no "Desolation of Smaug" as shooting first progressed. "An Unexpected Journey" was supposed to end after the barrel riding sequence. Instead at the last minute, the change was made for AUJ to end on a mountain looking at Lonely Mountain.
- And then an ending for DOS had to be created in the middle of shooting. There was no script for this or special effects yet.
Jackson had actors just do reaction shots as he figured out on the fly how to create a climax in the Dwarf kingdom which could end DOS. It was maddening of course.
- This change then forced Jackson to create "Battle of the Five Armies" with just the material which was left of half of the originally planned second movie. Of course this resulted in a stretched out story in BOTFA.

- With the stretching of the material into 3 movies, time was needed to be filled and over the top action was what was chosen to do that since there was not enough original source material.
Peter's over the top action in two movies was a problem. More over the top action with 3 films made this worse.

** It must be said that The Hobbit novel is not in the same league as the LOTR book. It's not even close.
Sometimes for brief moments the Hobbit films even improved on Tolkien's original story.
No Hobbit film(s) was going to be as good as the LOTR trilogy of movies.
But as I've written, the Hobbit movies were worse than they could have been due to the priority to make the maximum amount of money, the inability to control Peter's over the top taste and there not being enough good material in the books to do 3 films.

** Finally, the Hobbit movies have good moments when the story stays closer to Tolkien's books (The Hobbit, the LOTR and the Silmarillion).
There are many stretches in this film trilogy which I enjoy.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

I remember being disappointed after hearing the original plan for two films — one in December and the concluding film the next summer — was changed to three movies over three years.

I didn't realize what a disaster this would cause behind the scenes. LotR was so carefully crafted, while The Hobbit seemed thrown together and a bit lame. The worst thing for me was that weird climax to DOS. It didn't seem like Tolkien at all ... more like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Which I didn't like either ...



Never laugh at live dragons.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Hi PV;

"The worst thing for me was that weird climax to DOS. It didn't seem like Tolkien at all ... more like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom."

I can only watch a few minutes of "Temple of Doom". I can't stand it.
So, a ToD ending comparison with DOS is definitely not good.

I saw "The Descendants" BTW on your recommendation.
Loved the scenary in Kauai.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

[Was all that loathsome Mario Bros. fluff there because of lack of planning? ]

No, sorry , I don't buy that at all- for multiple reasons. The Hobbit was the original film that Jackson wanted to make back in 1998. It was only because of the rights issues that he went with the LOTR- so it's not like he didn't have time to think about the project. Also, he was Producer while GDT was making plans as the director- so he had plenty of input into that process. No, he might not have had a chance to do previz on every storyboard but that would only be an excuse for technical failings- not the artistic failures.

The truth is that Jackson made exactly the films that he wanted to make. And, honestly, it shouldn't have been a surprise if one was really paying attention to the LOT film series. The FOTR is a great film, it is tight, exciting, and dramatic- it should have won the Oscar for Best Picture. TTT is a bit more bloated and indulgent- but still a fine film. With the ROTK, Jackson really is feeling that he can do whatever he wants. He misunderstands what made the first films good, (or doesn't care) satisfies his own whims and robs the climax of some of its power. Now, because of the good will built up in the first two films there is enough to carry ROTK through, but it is definitely the weakest and didn't deserve its awards.

With The Hobbit films I naively hoped that he would see the error of his ways, but nothing could be further from the truth. He started right where he left in the ROTK and went full bore down the path to a cold, inane video-game spectacle. The project didn't need more time; it needed a different director. With more time Jackson simply would have simply been a more polished version of that soulless drek. Because even now what fans think went wrong the film and what he thinks went wrong are wildly different.

It's a common theme in Jackson's work -the things that he gets excited about filming are the things that are less important or even counterproductive to the story. Look at Heavenly Creatures, how much of that budget went into creating the girls's imaginary kingdom? Scenes that could easily have been deleted and likely would not have been included by other directors- perhaps to the film's benefit. Or look at his King Kong: How long is the dinosaur chase scene? It goes, on and on in a film with an inflated run time of three hours. Those types of scenes are the equivalent of cinematic spice- they're meant to be used sparingly to enhance the meal. Jackson makes them the main course.

The best thing for a Jackson Hobbit film would have been if the LOTR films had been relatively unsuccessful. He needed some contradictory voice of authority to balance him out. But with the financial success of the LOTR films the studios gave him a free hand.


Edit:

Just an observation on how Jackson's head was never in the right place for these films. It's easily forgotten now, but one of the main foci of his energies at the beginning of the Hobbit project was on High-Frame-Rate and 3D, (which, incidentally, was a spectacular failure- I don't think anyone has used HFR since). If Jackson really needed more time then why was he mucking around with that nonsense? Certainly not the actions of someone on an impossible deadline.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

I pretty much agree setanta (though I emphasize a few things differently).

Jackson is a brilliant technical director but he needs to be controlled so he doesn't get carried away.
The success of the LOTR movies imo involved the balance of power with each member of the writing team (Jackson, Walsh, Boyens) so that Jackson's excesses were more controlled.
Imo it was a perfect storm which created a remarkable set of big budget fantasy adventure films.

With The Hobbit movies however Walsh and the studio pushed the films in the direction of allowing Jackson's over the top taste to run wild.
If The Hobbit movies were going to be an artistic success, Jackson needed to be more controlled.
But Walsh wanted more money and so artistry was secondary. It was a payday.
With two carefully planned Hobbit films there would still be the video game action in the river, a dwarf/elf romance and poop on Radagast's head.

Then the studio jumped in and at the last minute stretched the project to three movies.
Did that make things worse? Certainly. The production became chaos and a lot more over the top action was added.

"inane video-game spectacle"

Unfortunately this is the direction that the Hollywood studios are moving with big budget adventure / action movies.
(See the Transformer / Marvel films and "Jurassic World" for examples.)
And this is why I don't think that a different director would have mattered with this Hobbit production.

Considering what the big studios routinely produce, I am just grateful that the LOTR movies were as good as they were.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

[The success of the LOTR movies imo involved the balance of power with each member of the writing team (Jackson, Walsh, Boyens) so that Jackson's excesses were more controlled.]

I think you are correct, and it becomes apparent when one listen's to the director's commentary track for the LOTR films. Plot points that you or I might take as basic knowledge are muddled by Jackson until one of the ladies pipes in to put him back on track. But he gets quite animated about a scene like the "Paths of the Dead", exaggerating what most people would say is its overall importance.

It's funny, the conclusion of the ROTK often gets criticized for being overlong, or having "multiple" endings. And, while it's a topic for another discussion, I wonder if a little bit of that confusion might not have been Jackson's own difficulty in "feeling" the material.


[And this is why I don't think that a different director would have mattered with this Hobbit production.]

I understand your point, and it is a good one- but I don't think the landscape is quite that bleak. For example, Doug Liman directed a film called Edge of Tomorrow last year that on the surface was as "video-game" as one could imagine, but it had real heart, wit, and laughs. A few years ago Chris Nolan directed Inception which, again, was a big spectacle film- but it was intelligent and thought-provoking. And then there is the original director slated for this film, Guillermo del Toro, whose Pan's Labyrinth is a luminous and literate masterstroke.

The warrior poet may be a rare breed but there are some out there.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

With two carefully planned Hobbit films there would still be the video game action in the river, a dwarf/elf romance and poop on Radagast's head.

Think I just lost my appetite with that thought.

Look- it's trying to think!

Re: An Honest Assessment?

I'm fairly impressed by the amount of insights and knowledge you and setanta both have regarding Jackson's and his colleagues' inner workings, BB. I hardly knew anything regarding most of the things you have mentioned (other than Del Toro having left the project and the expansion of two films to three for lucrative purposes).

Where or how did you read or hear about Philippa Boyen's reduced roll in The Hobbit, or Fran Walsh's profit-motivated choices, as well as the former's helping balance Jackson from going over the top? All these explanations to the above-mentioned "Mario Bros." decisions and other Jackson-lore are very interesting.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Hi kjnics;

"Where or how did you read or hear about Philippa Boyen's reduced roll in The Hobbit, or Fran Walsh's profit-motivated choices, as well as the former's helping balance Jackson from going over the top? All these explanations to the above-mentioned "Mario Bros." decisions and other Jackson-lore are very interesting."

I have some theories based on the DVD/Blu-ray extras for the LOTR movies (I own a copy of all the theatrical & extended editions/EEs) and the extras in Blu-rays for the Hobbit films (I own a copy of all the theatrical versions and a copy of the Extended Edition of The Desolation of Smaug").
Add to that some interviews which are online.

** "Mario Bros." decisions and other Jackson-lore"

- In the EE extras about the production for the LOTR movies Jackson said that he wanted more action scenes.
In the DVD/Blu-ray extras, others said that Fran Walsh and Boyens kept hammering Jackson to change the script to move it closer to Tolkien's writings.
- In the LOTR EE extras Jackson fondly talks about action movie gags.

- In an interview about The Hobbit movies Jackson goes over some gags in the LOTR films and how that style was a part in the Hobbit trilogy.

Interviewer: At the very least, I feel like you upped the cool factor with this battle. Particularly with Legolas and the scene where he climbs up a crumbling tower. He’s always getting the flashiest action sequences.

Jackson: Legolas is fun. It’s good to have the challenge. When we did The Lord of the Rings, we shot some cool stuff in the first one where he pulls arrows out and fires them fast, and I thought that was incredibly clever. And then The Two Towers came along and we came up with that thing where he slides down the stairs on the shield, which was just a throwaway gag. [We thought] that would be cool. But also in The Two Towers, we had the scene where he was jumping on a horse...

What’s the next cool thing that the elf is going to do? So when he shows up in these films, we were like, “Oh we’re going to have to do [something cool] again.” That fight on the tower is just brutal.


Interviewer: It is. In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, I feel like there are way more beheadings in this trilogy than Lord of the Rings, many of which come at the hands of Legolas.

There probably are. See, the trick too, as a filmmaker, you’ve got guys fighting with blades... One of the weird things with these films, which I must confess I actually quite enjoy, we sit around thinking how we are going to kill an Orc. You actually turn into a psychopath. And actually I can think of a hell of a great way to kill Orcs...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/no-regrets-peter-jackson-says-goodbye-to-middle-earth.html

These action movie "gags" are clearly a major part of Jackson's passion with all of these Tolkien films.
- This is why in The Hobbit films there are the Mario Brothers kinds of stunts. Jackson likes this kind of thing.

"Boyen's reduced roll in The Hobbit"

First; there is the simple reduction of the role of Walsh and Boyens because two Hobbit films became three Hobbit movies.
I don't want to go into the detail of my calculations (unless asked) but my conclusion is that Jackson added over 1 hour of action sequences to make this a Hobbit trilogy.
- That additional hour + of Peter Jackson over the top action alone reduced the importance of the role of Walsh and Boyens who focus on the non action part of the story.

Second; Boyens is the hardcore Tolkien fan on the team.
The more subtle things from Tolkien's writings in these movies almost certainly come from Boyens.
An example of her style known to be written only by her is in the first draft of the Prologue to Fellowship of the Ring. It has many references to The Silmarillion and the LOTR Appendices.

Third; Jackson and Fran Walsh are not Tolkien experts and so they are probably not going to be writing dialogue which goes into the depths of Tolkien's myth.
Peter and Fran's lack of knowledge about Tolkien's writings is shown in a commentary from one of the LOTR Extended Editions where they laughed about how the entire Tolkien story was a joke because the Eagles could have just taken the Ring to Mount Doom.
Boyens angrily shot back to both of them that this was a complete misunderstanding of Tolkien's story.
- Boyens's passion (clearly shown at that moment) is to be true to the Tolkien material.

Fourth; Jackson opposes the hardcore Tolkien fans.
And recall that Boyens is that kind of a fan.

Back to the interview I linked to before from Jackson;

Oh yes. But look, let’s forget hardcore Tolkien fans...


Fifth; Boyens also is hired by Peter and Fran who own the production company. Peter and Fran make the final decisions and Boyens has to follow that.
- At the same time part of Boyens's job is to speak for Fran Walsh (who almost never does interviews or DVD/Blu-ray extras.

** When watching these movies I try and figure out what would be primarily a Walsh idea and what would be mostly a Boyens idea.
I think at the extremes it can be done.

Sixth; The creation of Tauriel; what did Peter, Fran and Boyens do?
Again from the Jackson interview;

You have to be aware of your audience or otherwise you’re just not doing your job. I just think of all those eight-year-old, nine-year-old, 10-year-old girls who come to see these films. Who are they going to actually empathize with? At least they have Tauriel.

Notice the emphasis here. It isn't what did Tolkien write about? Or what would be consistent with Tolkien's stories?
No. Peter's emphasis was; create a new storyline that would appeal to young girls and forget those hardcore fans.
The result; a Twilight style romance between a dwarf Kili and an elf Tauriel which could not happen in Tolkien's world.

What did Boyens say about this? In one of the Desolation of Smaug extras she talked about how Fran and her tried to have Kili be as tall as Tauriel!
Where does such an idea come from (which is ridiculous in Tolkien's world)?
Adult Elves are tall, with even the shortest being close to 6 feet.
Dwarves are at least a foot shorter.
- Imagine if Boyens had complete control over this script. Would she ever come up with this Dwarf / Elf love affair and have a 6 foot tall Dwarf?
That would not make sense.
Imo with the Tauriel character Boyens played along with Peter and Fran because she had to.

Seventh; I keep in mind that Walsh is the swing vote. She may agree to defend being true to the Tolkien books but she may also go against concepts in the Tolkien myth.
With the Hobbit movies Fran agreed with Peter that a romance for 10 year old girls was the priority which became the homage to Twilight with Kili and Tauriel.
And against Peter and Fran, Boyens has to go along.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Hey BB, thanks for those detailed insights and sorry I didn't get back sooner; it's been a busy last couple of days.

I'm glad these topics have come up; it's helped me make sense of not only the Hobbit movies (and aspects of Lord of the Rings), but made me reflect on several things. The first is how important crew members other than the director are (such as writers, etc.) and the second how focusing on money instead of quality can bring a film series down (or even a TV show).

Speaking of entirely different franchises and genres, I was recalling the 1985 Canadian TV movie Anne of Green Gables last week, and how fine the first film and a few other late 80s and early 90s films and TV spin-offs (Road to Avonlea) based on the first four books were compared to "sequels" the same director (Kevin Sullivan) came out with in 1999 and 2008 (which reportedly had nothing to do with the four later books out of a total of eight). Sullivan apparently didn't have rights to the later novels, after a lawsuit with the author's (Lucy Maud Montgomery's) heirs. The latter films were truly bad, I've heard, had a vastly different set of writers, crew, etc., disregarded continuity and didn't keep close to the spirit of the books at all.

Then there was one of my favorite TV shows as a child and teenager, Beverly Hills 90210, not the deepest material, but still fine for what it was. It wasn't based on any book or book series, but had a solid story of its own, which declined through its last three seasons (out of 10, from 1990-2000). Even those were still decent though compared to the 2008-2013 spin-off (which I haven't watched, but I've read interviews by the original creators), whose writers apparently didn't look at the original material or pay attention to fine continuity details, understanding the characters, etc. The magic and mystique of the original show was lost on them.

Sullivan's case though especially reminded me of Jackson and this discussion (though Jackson did have rights to the Hobbit). In any case, it's apparent one can thank Phillipa Boyens for many of the fine things about the first film series (and draw parallels as far as other issues - such as making art simply for money - are concerned).

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Hi kjnics;

"The first is how important crew members other than the director are (such as writers, etc.) and the second how focusing on money instead of quality can bring a film series down (or even a TV show)."

I also remember watching Anne of Green Gables with my wife. We have seen several TV series from outside the US go down hill in our opinions including; Monarch of the Glen and Last Tango in Halifax.
- A complex art like film / TV can be pulled apart in very many ways.

"it's apparent one can thank Phillipa Boyens for many of the fine things about the first film series (and draw parallels as far as other issues - such as making art simply for money - are concerned)."

Phillipa is one of the heroes in the LOTR films imo along with the artists Alan Lee and John Howe for their guidance that was true to Tolkien. And Richard Taylor's army of staff at Weta Workshop who tirelessly did the detail work which made Middle-earth come alive.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Well, Boyens must have been involved in the decision to import so much from "Unfinished Tales" into the Hobbit films. Unless Walsh and Jackson started going into the secondary material...

Look- it's trying to think!

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Sure CTS; Boyens was still involved in the Hobbit trilogy. I can see moments where her hand is clear; such as with Tauriel and Kili talking about Elves under starlight (from the Silmarillion) or the White Council sequences (which require melding passages from The Hobbit, LOTR and other writings).
- The bit about the Blue Wizards probably came from Boyens (maybe with the help of Fran?). I doubt that Jackson would care about that.
As he said, he was much too busy figuring out how to kill Orcs.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?


Boyens must have been involved in the decision to import so much from "Unfinished Tales" into the Hobbit films


They did not, and could not, import material from Unfinished Tales into the Hobbit films (they didn't have the rights and would have been sued to kingdom come).

That's why Gandalf, when he mentions the Blue Wizards, says he "forgot" their names, becaus their names come from an essay in Unfinished Tales, not from the material to which the filmmakers have rights. But, the Blue Wizards are mentioned elsewhere in LOTR. There are many references to unauthorized material that appear in LOTR and are not developed. The tale of Beren and Luthien, for example, is recounted only in abbreviated form in bLOTR, but that was enough to permit the film to use it (in the EE of FOTR), so long as they didn't go beyond what was in the licensed text. They can use material that is in LOTR (or TH) and Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales so long as they do not use material that is unique to the unlicensed sources. Thus, Aragorn in FOTR can sing a ballad of Beren and Luthien but not mention the role of Huan, Luthien's hound or the role of Finrod in Beren's escape.

The Hobbit films include much material about Dol Guldur, but the material from Unfinished Tales has not been added. If it had been, you would have seen Khamûl there. The filmmakers changed significant aspects of the Dol Guldur subplot, and added inventions of their own, of necessity. They did not use any material unique to Unfinished Tales or other non-authorized texts. Warner Brothers has a fleet of lawyers who go over every line of the script to avoid copyright infringements.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

While generally what you have written is true, there may be little nuances in the dialogue in the Tolkien movies where little bits from Tolkien's writings are brought in from outside The Hobbit and LOTR novels.
For instance (correct me if I'm wrong) but I can't find a mention of Blue Wizards in LOTR. Five Wizards are mentioned in the LOTR book but not that two of them were referred to as Blue.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

I think the Blue Wizard reference is in "Unfinsihed Tales".
I think it was a number of things that caused the Hobbit films to be, on the whole a huge misfire. One reason why Del Toro left was because of the constant dealays in starting production..some of which Jackson was responsible for.
I also think Jackson huge ego was a major factor. King Kong suffered badly from bloat and from Jackson's tendacy to indulge his appetite for CGI Effects,and as a result a fun two hour adventure film got lost in three hours of bloat. It took them just 15 minutes to get from New York to Skull Island in the original film,took a whole often boring hour to do it in Jackson's Kong.
And this case of bloat got even worse...much worse..with the Hobbit.
Interesting that the two best scenes in the Hobbit movies..the riddle game with Gollum and the scenes between Bilbo and Smaug..are the scenes where Jackson stuck to the book very closely, and did not have the chance to indulgs his CGI mania.

Re: An Honest Assessment?

by dalbrech;

"One reason why Del Toro left was because of the constant dealays in starting production..some of which Jackson was responsible for...
And this case of bloat got even worse...much worse..with the Hobbit."

The Hobbit film bloat cannot be blamed completely on Jackson if the facts of the situation are considerd.
A major cause of story / action scene bloat with the Hobbit trilogy was due to the studio wanting to change two planned movies into 3 unplanned films.
That added at least an hour to the trilogy which was not scripted/story boarded.
And of course that resulted in bloat.

It wouldn't matter whether Del Toro had been the director in that situation. (He probably would have quit due to those demands.)

What the studio wanted in terms of the art of film making was ridiculous.
But in terms of making money, the studio got about another billion in box office. And that's all the studio cared about.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

True. Actually, Unfinished Tales was mined pretty heavily for additional source material. And, personally, when the films stuck closely to collateral sources, I thought they did alright. It was when the production team decided to channel their collective urges to do a video game that things failed.

Doing a film sequence as a video game isn't necessarily doomed to fail: the original, cool, version of Oldboy pulled it off very well. However, since that film was about turning an ordinary man into a psychotic Street Fighter- type assassin, it fit well. Doing Tolkien, not so much.

Legolas walking on top of snow and acting like it is no big deal: nice. Legolas in a fight on a physics-defying slow collapsing bridge that makes the similar scenes in the LOTR films seem restrained: not so nice.

Look- it's trying to think!

Re: An Honest Assessment?

Hi CTS;

"Legolas walking on top of snow and acting like it is no big deal: nice. Legolas in a fight on a physics-defying slow collapsing bridge that makes the similar scenes in the LOTR films seem restrained: not so nice."

The Tolkien films crossing the line (US slang: 'jumping the shark') to that which was "not so nice" to a viewer has been discussed by the Ringnuts since 2001.
Even with "Fellowship of the Ring" there were those who believed that Jackson had gone too far.
It mostly came down to a purist argument.
If a person knows nothing about Tolkien but likes The Avengers, then physics defying Legolas will not be a problem.

I admit that with the Hobbit movies I am playing the purist card. The "not so nice" line was crossed for me many times in those films. And that seems to be true for of the Ringnuts who have been disappointed.
It could be due to the Tauriel character;
Or the extended Lonely Mountain / dragon fight;

For you it was over the top action like the barrel riding sequence or Legolas on the collapsing bridge.
With me it was the Tauriel / Kili romance.

We have both played the purist card.
Which is just how we feel.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

Re: An Honest Assessment?

No this article is definitely not an honest assessment. It's someone taking 5 minutes, out of context, from the 30 hours plus of behind-the-scenes material available with the Hobbit trilogy extended editions, then typing up some quick click-bait.

Also, it's quite sad to see so many people jumping on the band-wagon of bad-mouthing the Hobbit films.
Top