Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - - - - Part 14

[terry78]

They're not knocking him out for the whole of that sequence. He'll be there in there somehow, either in the way and accidentally assisting or whatever.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Makes sense for it to be just as much Thorin's story as Bilbo's. I always think of it like Bilbo is just along for the ride with this band of dwarves and the story is mainly about them.

I don't see how anyone can read the book and remotely come close to thinking this. The Dwarves have no inviduality whatsoever. They are represented as an anonymous group. Any character flaws they have (greed, pride, lust for gold) is more racial than personal. They are just a means to spur Bilbo on his journey. They are completely useless. Laughably incompetent so Bilbo can grow as a character and bail them out of trouble. If it is the Dwarves' or Thorin's journey, it is a pretty terrible one.

Unless of course you haven't read the book and are only talking about Jackson's the Hobbit, then yes, it is Thorin's journey. And Bilbo feels like dead weight.

 

[jmc]

Bilbo has always played second fiddle in this series, it's the most disappointing aspect of The Hobbit films. I've got nothing wrong with elevating the dwarves roles but it's done here at the expense of Bilbo. The problem this series has had since the beginning is that it's tried to recapture Lord of the Rings instead of trying to be it's own thing. A trilogy was totally unnecessary, even two films was stretching it. One day when all is said and done some fan is going to re-edit the entire 3 films into one single 3 hours movie more inline with the book, and I dare say the results might be better.

 

[dark_b]

i give it 5 years . around 2019 when Jackson will admit in an interview that he made a mistake. that he didnt want to do ithe Hobbit trilogy.

there is no way that PJ thinks that this is the best he can do as a director. no way.

 

[jmc]

IMO he let LOTR get in the way of producing a proper Hobbit movie. LOTR was a once in a lifetime achievement, Hobbit should have been done and dusted within 2 movies a most, probably not even that, I'm convinced there's a 3 hours version of the story that would work far better.

 

[sueb1863]

Yeah, looking forward to the fan edit.

The Rankin/ Bass version isn't perfect but I think it did a much better job of centering on Bilbo and retaining the spirit of the original story, probably because they only had a very limited amount of time to work with and couldn't mess around much. Maybe that was the problem - nobody wanted to say no to PJ and he had all the control so he just kept heaping on plots and characters that had nothing to do with the story. And of course the studio was thinking LotR bucks and agreed to whatever he wanted to do.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

i give it 5 years . around 2019 when Jackson will admit in an interview that he made a mistake. that he didnt want to do ithe Hobbit trilogy.

there is no way that PJ thinks that this is the best he can do as a director. no way.

Has he said a word about King Kong or The Lovely Bones in the negative?

 

[jmc]

Yeah, looking forward to the fan edit.

The Rankin/ Bass version isn't perfect but I think it did a much better job of centering on Bilbo and retaining the spirit of the original story, probably because they only had a very limited amount of time to work with and couldn't mess around much. Maybe that was the problem - nobody wanted to say no to PJ and he had all the control so he just kept heaping on plots and characters that had nothing to do with the story. And of course the studio was thinking LotR bucks and agreed to whatever he wanted to do.

The problem now is in the wake of the Hobbit splitting itself so thinly other Hollywood films have been inspired and are doing the same with equally thin books. Storytelling is being compromised for the sake of extended a series for as long as possible, in the end all we get are watered down films that stretch far beyond what the story calls for.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This isn't the Hobbit's fault. It is Harry Potter's for getting it pretty close to right.

 

[regwec]

Has he said a word about King Kong or The Lovely Bones in the negative?

I have no idea but, given that Kong was apparently a labour of love, and one of the worst movies of recent times, I am not hopeful for any late repentance.

 

[jmc]

This isn't the Hobbit's fault. It is Harry Potter's for getting it pretty close to right.

Well, whoever's fault it is the point remains stories are being unnecessarily stretched out and The Hobbit is the perfect example of it. At the end of the day we've come to a stage where storytelling is being compromised on film.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well, whoever's fault it is the point remains stories are being unnecessarily stretched out and The Hobbit is the perfect example of it. At the end of the day we've come to a stage where storytelling is being compromised on film.

The Hobbit is Jackson being Jackson at this point. People need to realize this. Just pop in his last five films. This excess is not new.

I have no idea but, given that Kong was apparently a labour of love, and one of the worst movies of recent times, I am not hopeful for any late repentance.

That was sort of my point. He isn't going to hate on his own work, and well I don't think he should.

 

[AnneFan]

IMO he let LOTR get in the way of producing a proper Hobbit movie. LOTR was a once in a lifetime achievement, Hobbit should have been done and dusted within 2 movies a most, probably not even that, I'm convinced there's a 3 hours version of the story that would work far better.

I would have done one, well paced, tight quality movie and simply called it The Hobbit. It's not going to drag out the money like three releases, but I think it would've been better remembered.

 

[Boom]

I remember their initial plan was to have one Hobbit film and one "bridge" film.

Kinda wishing they would have stuck with that route, seeing as how I could have always ignored the wholly unnecessary bridge film while getting a more faithful Hobbit adaptation.

 

[Lord]

I have no idea but, given that Kong was apparently a labour of love, and one of the worst movies of recent times, I am not hopeful for any late repentance.

Lol, WHAT? I can see people having a problem with the runtime on King Kong and Lovely Bones, but some people seems to exagerate, they were not bad movies, let alone the worst of recent times.

 

[sueb1863]

Two two-and-a-half hour movies would have worked. That way they could get in everything they wanted to but avoided the bloated, overlong effect.

 

[titansupes]

The Hobbit is Jackson being Jackson at this point. People need to realize this. Just pop in his last five films. This excess is not new.

Yes. Finally a likeminded person when it comes to Jackson.

Lol, WHAT? I can see people having a problem with the runtime on King Kong and Lovely Bones, but some people seems to exagerate, they were not bad movies, let alone the worst of recent times.

I haven't seen The Lovely Bones, but I think King Kong was horrendous. Out of a three hour movie, there's one okay (not even "good") hour in it (when they're on the island). The first hour was boring fluff, and the less said about the laughable (yet painful) third act the better. The CG for Kong himself was staggeringly good though.

 

[Lord]

I really don't see some of those criticisms or how it made it horrendous, i was some 12 years old when i first watched it and i didn't find it boring at all, and that's the time when i should get bored more easily by the lack of action. The stuff in the island was great, with some good development with Kong and it felts like a real adventure. Act 3 was emotional, and had some really tender moments even though we knew what was gonna happen.

 

[regwec]

I remember their initial plan was to have one Hobbit film and one "bridge" film.

Kinda wishing they would have stuck with that route, seeing as how I could have always ignored the wholly unnecessary bridge film while getting a more faithful Hobbit adaptation.

I agree, and I wouldn't really have minded a "bridge film", if it was not spliced with material from the book, and was not therefore able to pollute it.

Lol, WHAT? I can see people having a problem with the runtime on King Kong and Lovely Bones, but some people seems to exagerate, they were not bad movies, let alone the worst of recent times.

Kong most certainly was a bad movie.

 

[jmc]

Kong's main problem is its length. An hour of that film needed to be cut out.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I like a lot of King Kong. But that is a big part of the problem. There is a pretty good 90-105min film in there.

 

[jf300]

I love King Kong as a film. People saying it certainly is a bad film are wrong. The word 'certainly' implies objectivity, when liking films is subjective.

I like both of The Hobbit films so far, as long as I pretend that they aren't part of the original trilogy, which is a masterpiece.

 

[regwec]

I love King Kong as a film. People saying it certainly is a bad film are wrong. The word 'certainly' implies objectivity, when liking films is subjective.

No it doesn't, it implies my certainty in the opinion I hold- that it is a bad film.

I deliberately couched my statement in exactly the same declarative language used by the other poster in stating that they were not bad movies, and used by you now.

We can do this all day.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And Zod knows regwec wants to.

 

[dark_b]

Has he said a word about King Kong or The Lovely Bones in the negative?

King Kong was his dream since he was a kid. Lovely Bones is a small movie.

IMO