Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[Marvolo]

Well that's just poor planning on jackson's part then. I fail to see how the man who was able to condense the 3 epic LOTR novels into 3 concise and fulfilling films couldn't manage the scope of the 1 hobbit even with appendices added.

It really feels like extravagance for the sake of it on his part, not dissimilar to lucas with the prequels. To me the only way a film warrants being near 3 hours in length is if all parts of it hold up. From beginning to end. Otherwise there's nothing wrong with short and sweet, which is probably how most would describe the Hobbit book.

And reviews indicate the Hobbit narrative in this film is very true to the source. There is just other stuff going on besides that narrative. Stuff that relates to the Hobbit narrative that didnt make the book and things that relate to the larger story covered in LOTR. And you are right letting it get that big is poor planning on Jackson's part, but that is only if it fails. For all we know when this trilogy is said and done it may be stronger than the LOTR trilogy. If it is then Jackson's decisions will be called genius. It is just too early to tell right now.

I can say this though, without Frodo and Sam this trilogy is already better in my book. I like frodo and sams jouney in the book but in the film with the casting and the bone dry pace I didnt care for it.

 

[redhawk23]

 

[redhawk23]

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/12/this-is-how-you-paint-150-foot-tall-hobbit-dwarves How to paint a 150 foot tall Hobbit poster. I always thought these giant building posters were pasted in sections like billboards. I had no idea some of them were actually paintings!

 

[Iceman]

And reviews indicate the Hobbit narrative in this film is very true to the source. There is just other stuff going on besides that narrative. Stuff that relates to the Hobbit narrative that didnt make the book and things that relate to the larger story covered in LOTR. And you are right letting it get that big is poor planning on Jackson's part, but that is only if it fails. For all we know when this trilogy is said and done it may be stronger than the LOTR trilogy. If it is then Jackson's decisions will be called genius. It is just too early to tell right now.

I can say this though, without Frodo and Sam this trilogy is already better in my book. I like frodo and sams jouney in the book but in the film with the casting and the bone dry pace I didnt care for it.

Agreed. The primary purpose of the film is not to create a perfect representation of the book. Rather to make a great film or series of films (that makes a tonne of money) while using the book as an inspiration. ie ignore the crap parts, exaggerate the good parts to whatever extent and length you want & add in anything new & awesome as long as it seems relevant. You can make a good or terrible film or series of films out of most respected existing works depending on execution, vision & skill.

 

[JAK®]

Well that's just poor planning on jackson's part then. I fail to see how the man who was able to condense the 3 epic LOTR novels into 3 concise and fulfilling films couldn't manage the scope of the 1 hobbit even with appendices added.

Because he had to fight for it.

He had to convince the studio that he could do it. And ever since LOTR was a big hit, he hasn't needed to convince them. He could do anything he wanted when he made King Kong, and that ended up being a 3 hour exercise in indulgence.

And now he's doing The Hobbit and it is three times longer than it needs to be, and he's going crazy over frame rates and effects. It seems to me that he likes filming movies more than telling stories.

He reminds me of George Lucas A LOT.

 

[Marvolo]

Because he had to fight for it.

He had to convince the studio that he could do it. And ever since LOTR was a big hit, he hasn't needed to convince them. He could do anything he wanted when he made King Kong, and that ended up being a 3 hour exercise in indulgence.

And now he's doing The Hobbit and it is three times longer than it needs to be, and he's going crazy over frame rates and effects. It seems to me that he likes filming movies more than telling stories.

He reminds me of George Lucas A LOT.

Even Del Toro agreed that the Hobbit had too many beats to be a single film. People have got to stop thinking that page count is an indication of a story's depth. The hobbit has a a lot going on, on the scene and behind the scene. It also dedicates very few pages to any one thing. Translating The Hobbit's beats to film was always going to require some filling out, because the way tolkien wrote that book would not translate well to a good film. You cant have a film where every single beat gets only a couple pages and were characters are caricatures. Also lets consider a single 2 to 2 1/2 hour film, Id like to see someone introduce 15+ new characters, set up the story, and hit all the required story and character beats in a three act single film structure without making it a rushed underdeveloped mess. The Hobbit may be small in page count but like eveything Tolkien ever wrote it is dense and packed with things going on in and off the page. Yes, if you view the Hobbit book in a vacuum one could say that the Hobbit is just what is on the page, but having read Tolkien's notes, books, and universe its impossible to say that the Hobbit narrative is a lite affair. It has a lot going on, on the page, in the lines, and in-between the lines.

 

[redhawk23]

Even Del Toro agreed that the Hobbit had too many beats to be a single film. People have got to stop thinking that page count is an indication of a story's depth. The hobbit has a a lot going on, on the scene and behind the scene. It also dedicates very few pages to any one thing. Translating The Hobbit's beats to film was always going to require some filling out, because the way tolkien wrote that book would not translate well to a good film. You cant have a film where every single beat gets only a couple pages and were characters are caricatures. Also lets consider a single 2 to 2 1/2 hour film, Id like to see someone introduce 15+ new characters, set up the story, and hit all the required story and character beats in a three act single film structure without making it a rushed underdeveloped mess. The Hobbit may be small in page count but like eveything Tolkien ever wrote it is dense and packed with things going on in and off the page. Yes, if you view the Hobbit book in a vacuum one could say that the Hobbit is just what is on the page, but having read Tolkien's notes, books, and universe its impossible to say that the Hobbit narrative is a lite affair. It has a lot going on, on the page, in the lines, and in-between the lines.

Yeah that doesn't mean it needs to be THREE independently long movies though.

 

[JAK®]

Yeah that doesn't mean it needs to be THREE independently long movies though.

Especially when the reason a third movie exists is because they accidentally shot too much footage.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah the book is dense, but is all of it necessary? Lets not act as if some of the best films based on earlier properties didn't leave plenty on the cutting room floor.

There may have been a whole world of extra significance placed on the Hobbit's events and further context in Tolkien's notes and such, but Jackson is the one that is choosing to bring that in and make it an overt part of these films. It may be great, it may be an overburdened mess, but let's not act as if this was the only or necessarily the best way to make these films.

 

[Marvolo]

Yeah that doesn't mean it needs to be THREE independently long movies though.

I didnt say it needed three films, but it couldnt be one and do any justice to the narrative. And honestly not one person here knows three films was a bad idea because none of us have seen all three films. Right now it is speculation and pessimism leading us to the conclusion that this going to be one massive failure. Let's try for a little optimism. Its much more fun.

 

[redhawk23]

I didnt say it needed three films, but it couldnt be one and do any justice to the narrative. And honestly not one person here knows three films was a bad idea because none of us have seen all three films. Right now it is speculation and pessimism leading us to the conclusion that this going to be one massive failure. Let's try for a little optimism. Its much more fun.

While live action films obviously have certain requirements, the Rankin/Bass film did the hobbit in 70minutes.

 

[Marvolo]

While live action films obviously have certain requirements, the Rankin/Bass film did the hobbit in 70minutes.

It is hardly something I would call a quality take on the narrative let alone a good film.

 

[Iceman]

Yeah the book is dense, but is all of it necessary? Lets not act as if some of the best films based on earlier properties didn't leave plenty on the cutting room floor.

No it's not.

There may have been a whole world of extra significance placed on the Hobbit's events and further context in Tolkien's notes and such, but Jackson is the one that is choosing to bring that in and make it an overt part of these films. It may be great, it may be an overburdened mess, but let's not act as if this was the only or necessarily the best way to make these films.

Is anyone saying that though?

If you're saying "it may be great, it may be an overburdened mess" then I think everyone is on the same page.

 

[redhawk23]

It's well loved and hits most of the story beats. Obviously a live action film is a different beast, but not a huge amount would actually have to be cut out in a 3 hour film. Also, whoever said anything about sticking to a 3 act structure?

 

[redhawk23]

No it's not.

Is anyone saying that though?

If you're saying "it may be great, it may be an overburdened mess" then I think everyone is on the same page.

Peter Jackson certainly believes so.

Not really, many of us are far more suspect of this choice. I was merely being charitable.

 

[Marvolo]

Peter Jackson certainly believes so.

Not really, many of us are far more suspect of this choice. I was merely being charitable.

Suspect based on little tangible evidence. At this point it is pessimistic speculation at best.

 

[Iceman]

Peter Jackson certainly believes so.

Not really, many of us are far more suspect of this choice. I was merely being charitable.

Haha, ok. The war is back on! t:

To me 2 films would be ideal, 3 has more of a chance of some KK style excess indulgence than not, but that doesn't mean it will happen. And I would be fine if the excess indulgences are more LOTR extended edition style rather than King Kong.

 

[redhawk23]

What's interesting is that I've read several interviews where Jackson speaks about preferring the theatrical cuts of the LotR films and how he feels each added scene, no matter how great and how appreciated by the fans simply dilutes the emotional core of each film.

Whatever happened to that attitude?

 

[redhawk23]

Suspect based on little tangible evidence. At this point it is pessimistic speculation at best.

As if your views have any more credibility.

I'm speaking from a purely story telling point of view, sometimes crap just needs to left behind when making an adaptation.

We've moved into an era of attempted translation where we get films of fractions of children's novels. These films are simply the latest in an aggravating trend.

 

[Iceman]

What's interesting is that I've read several interviews where Jackson speaks about preferring the theatrical cuts of the LotR films and how he feels each added scene, no matter how great and how appreciated by the fans simply dilutes the emotional core of each film.

Whatever happened to that attitude?

That is strange.

I always thought the Extended Editions were great for fans and the theatricals great for the general audience (especially for those who can't sit still for too long). And I thought Peter Jackson was one of the biggest fans around.

 

[redhawk23]

That is strange.

I always thought the Extended Editions were great for fans and the theatricals great for the general audience (especially for those who can't sit still for too long). And I thought Peter Jackson was one of the biggest fans around.

He is a fan, which is the only reason those scenes ever were filmed, but he understood what it is to watch a film in a theater.

See this interview from 03.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/12/08/interview-peter-jackson-2?page=4

The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material.

 

[Iceman]

He is a fan, which is the only reason those scenes ever were filmed, but he understood what it is to watch a film in a theater.

See this interview from 03.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/12/08/interview-peter-jackson-2?page=4

Oh well in that way I agree. The theatricals might be better films to many in terms of pacing & focusing on the core issues but as a fan I just want more content & depth.

It is strange from what he's said here that The Hobbit would jump to 3 films but on the other hand it shows that he is aware of the risk of bloating (unlike Lucas who was blind to the issues that impacted his later films) and so the decision would appear more considered.

 

[Marvolo]

As if your views have any more credibility.

I'm speaking from a purely story telling point of view, sometimes crap just needs to left behind when making an adaptation.

We've moved into an era of attempted translation where we get films of fractions of children's novels. These films are simply the latest in an aggravating trend.

This isnt about credibility. It is about being realistic. This pessimism is on the level of Private Hudson's breakdown. Actually his was understandable because he was being hunted by xenomorphs. And lets not even get into good storytelling because anyone could tear the LOTR theatrical and extended editions a new one over that. None of those films would have what I would call a good pace and much could be cut and altered for a more concise effective cinematic experience.

 

[redhawk23]

This isnt about credibility. It is about being realistic. This pessimism is on the level of Private Hudson's breakdown. Actually his was understandable because he was being hunted by xenomorphs. And lets not even get into good storytelling because anyone could tear the LOTR theatrical and extended editions a new one over that. None of those films would have what I would call a good pace and much could be cut and altered for a more concise effective cinematic experience.

And yet you think pessimism is unwarrented?

I personally have felt that his past few films have been pretty much a mess, and most of what I've seen and heard about this film points towards the same.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The beginning of this movie was shot back when it was two films so I highly doubt the beginning was effected by the decision to make three films. And can I just say that I am getting tired of the reason for everything being that it is three films. Many decisions were made and a lot of details were decided upon when it was two films long before it was three. Not everything is a result of them adding to what they had and making three.

Food for thought, can yall imagine how long this film and the second one would have been without the third film. Jackson said when they assembled this film they realized they had way too much for two films but not enough for three so they would need to leave a lot on the cutting room floor or to shoot a bit more to allow them to release a third. Now think about it, if Jackson says they have way too much for a film it must have been A LOT. This man isnt shy of three hour films. Part 1 even with a third film is near 3 hours. It must have been pushing 4 hours before they added the third film for Jackson to say it was too much. And had they chopped off that hour and put it in Part 2 it would have been monsterous. Obviously better planning from the beginning would have negated this, but Id like to know just how long the original Part 1 was before they added a third film. Must have been a monster. In any case Im glad they were allowed to make a third. Without it and not being able to fit what they had into two parts a lot would have ended up cut.

Editing changes when you suddenly have extra hours to speed. Suddenly stuff you could have and probably should have cut is no longer cut.

Also it isn't as if Jackson's version of too much is the same as many others. Look at Kong, Bones and RoTK. Jackson has shown he is far from the best in the editing room these days.

He is a fan, which is the only reason those scenes ever were filmed, but he understood what it is to watch a film in a theater.

See this interview from 03.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/12/08/interview-peter-jackson-2?page=4

Like I said.