I was about to like this until you defended the indefensible. The Hobbit films are atrocious. Culling them down to a single film, completely eliminating the romance subplot and reshooting the Battle of Five Armies would be the only way to salvage those films. I admit I did like the inclusion of Sylvester McCoy as Radagast.
Yes. I still like the stuff I liked before. I still find some of the dubious things dubious. For me the only real "downside" is the length of each film. They come on TV from time to time and I don't even bother because they are 4.5 - 5 hours long with commercials. Because of the length I have to plan for a viewing, otherwise I just run out of time and that breaks the mood and adventure a bit.
No idea if I previously posted about it here but I already have a green tint fixed version of each film. Huge difference!
The Hobbit films are much better than are given credit for (despite their evident flaws); I stand by that all the way... I was entertained by them throughout, they are supremely well-made films overall, the world-building in them is extraordinary, and Jackson is the best in business at these large-scale fantasy epics, second only to James Cameron. Considering that Jackson was dropped into the deep-end with these films when he (reluctantly) agreed to direct them, with only five months of prep (and an almighty tussle with the actor's union, no wonder the poor guy was hospitalised with a perforated ulcer just prior to filming!) and a hard release date, they're even better when you look at in that light. Are they up there with the Rings trilogy? No. Are they good movies in their own right? Heck yeah. And again, I stand by that... these films will get a reappraisal in the not-too-distant future, mark my words. It's just a pity with all the hard work done to bring them to the screen, Jackson nearly blows the whole deal with that utterly ghastly HFR nonsense... bah humbug! If that exact same trilogy as is had been shot on good ol' 35mm film, it would have been a much more pleasing experience... for everyone, I think. Was three films a tad excessive (?)... the way Jackson wanted to tell them, evidently not... but yeah, I still think two three-hour+ films would have been the better option, but we have what we have, and apart from the aforementioned HFR, I have no inherent problem with them at all... although I do think that novel will get a new adaptation sooner rather than later, and it will be an interesting thing to see... P.S. The insipid elf-dwarf romance was (aside from being utterly ludicrous in the context of that world) foisted on Jackson by the studio, even after he promised Evangeline Lily it wouldn't happen, and that was a deal-breaker in her agreeing to sign up for it in the first place!!! Then again, Tauriel didn't serve much of a narrative or thematic purpose to begin with, she should have died at the climax of the Battle of Five Armies, at least that way, she could have served some use to the overall narrative, alas...
Are you defending the movies or Peter Jackson? Of course they're well made but I was bored nonetheless. Just too much of everything.
The unenviable circumstance that Jackson found himself in (namely; having to reluctantly take on directing duties for that project with an insane schedule, or risk WB dropping the project altogether, as they allegedly threatened to do, and writing off the costs already incurred, costing hundreds their livelihoods that were dependant on that project starting production imminently) after Guillermo del Toro was forced to leave after nearly two years prepping it because of MGM's then-financial woes is not an insignificant factor in how those films turned out... As to being bored with them, I feel the extended editions are the better versions overall... there is some minor filler throughout, but not nearly as much as the LOTR extended versions (imho), and they somehow feel more 'complete' in their longer iterations... and in the case of The Battle of the Five Armies, the extended version is the only version, to be frank. I do agree that things seemed unilaterally turned up to 11 in the action stakes... which wasn't always necessary... but hey, I have a soft spot for The Hobbit trilogy, so it's always a fun watch for me... and, dare I say it, films considerably more well-crafted than are given credit for; any assertions that they're equal to the Star Wars prequels - as is often posited by some - in overall quality are ludicrous at best and ignorant at worst; despite their evident flaws, the Hobbit films display exceptional craft and skill at every technical and creative level.
It's too bad del Toro couldn't direct. I would have liked to see what he could do with it. I had the standard BD theatrical release versions, but Apple TV upgraded each of the Hobbit films to 4K extended versions and they look absolutely fantastic. I know you say a lot of work needs to be done, but apparently more for LotR than Hobbit. Anyway, I don't think bored is the right word. These films are virtually nonstop mindless action and that is much of the reason for my criticism of Jackson. One of my favorite passages of the book was after the company had escaped the woodland elves and was floating down the river in barrels. It was serene, well-written, peaceful. WTF happened? Why turn this into a video game with Legolas jumping on the dwarves' heads across the river as he killed innumerable orcs at close range with arrows and at a distance with blades he threw? Possibly the most idiotic, ridiculous thing I've seen in any Peter Jackson movie, and that's a tall order. Someone mentioned they didn't like Radagast. That was probably because Jackson turned him into a cartoon with smoke coming out of his ears. The dialog was sloppy and labored. The key parts, e.g., where Thoren is struggling with his inner demons, have mind-numbing audio and video effects to try to clue you in to what emotions to feel. The humor was crass and obnoxious. When given an opportunity for character development such as the relationship between Thoren and Bilbo, Jackson always went for the cheap way out. For example, after the whole frying pan and fire scene with the usual action Jackson dramatic flares where he's unable to stick exactly to the story, Thoren confronts Bilbo in an angry way challenging his inclusion in the adventure only to change his entire demeanor and say, "I have never been so wrong." Why manipulate the audience in such a formulaic way? Don't get me started on how Thoren dies. Ridiculous. I can respect that you and many others love it, but I hope a filmmaker with greater skill in directing human beings comes along and adheres more closely with the books to remake these someday. I certainly wouldn't mind if it's del Toro. Jackson should be making video games. He missed his true calling.
Yes, it sure does look like you have indeed a soft spot for the Hobbit movies. In spite of my appreciation for the technological innovations and the pressure cooker PJ was under, in the end, I judge art for what it is. In this case, it's a bloated artificial-looking boring cry for attention. The production values are so tilted towards what I despise about most modern movies that it has no chance of appealing to me. The only redeemable quality about it was the beginning when we got to see Frodo again. The rest was a green screen mess. Songs, the dwarves were all interchangeable with the exception of Dwalin and only because he got more screen time. Factor in the pointless and terrible-looking 48fps fiasco and it's clear the effort wasn't to produce anything with which to emotionally connect. The actor who plays Radagast was terrific, though. And although it wasn't meant to be funny, I laughed sooooo hard when Dwalin was shown as being a bad-ass with the camera looking up to him in slow-motion with ferocious-sounding music as he crawled from the tree hanging on the cliff only to be immediately decimated by whatever the name of that creature was. One of the loudest laughs I had in a movie theater. Definitely movies to forget about. The trilogy has been edited down by some fans to one or two movies which cut the fat and change the tone and look a bit but it's like trying to polish a turd. I'll never take away any of the credit PJ deserves for how well the LOTR trilogy turned out as he was undoubtedly the biggest reason for it. With that out of the way, I'll forever deny the existence of this horrendous waste of film.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I watched all three Hobbit movies in the theater but I haven't seen them since. I tried to watch one of the fanmade cuts(3-4h) last year but I fell asleeep two times for different reasons There is no rescue to what Jackson did with these movies. Would one movie have worked? That's a big maybe. I'm not so sure there even is a good movie to be made based on the book, and certainly not after LotR.
The Fellowship of the Ring is nearly perfect. The last two are great movies, but Jackson strayed too far from the books for my liking. I still prefer these three to the awful Hobbit movies which I don't care for at all. I only bought the first Hobbit on BD. The original LOTR trilogy I bought the original DVD's, the original DVD box sets, the original DVD extended box set and the BD box set.
So would I. It's one of recent cinema's great 'what if' scenarios... we know that, prior to his departure, del Toro's Hobbit production team was "very, very prepared" for production to officially commence once greenlit; everything was designed, the big action setpiece sequences were planned out and pre-viz'd, casting choices were being drawn up and actors tentatively approached, locations had been scouted and chosen, and the scripts were as good as done (save for final revisions)... it was ready to go literally at a moment's notice. Alas, MGM's financial woes stopped it in it's tracks (although I suspect the latter were never that enthusiastic about del Toro and always wanted Peter Jackson back, deliberately hindering until del Toro had to leave, it's interesting to note that once P.J. initially made noises about helming that project in summer 2010, things started moving very fast thereafter!), but alas, I'd love to have seen what del Toro would have delivered... we know for a fact that it would have been two three-hour movies, shot on 35mm film, using as much practical and physical elements as possible, and would have had an extended shoot that lasted over 300 days!!! Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a documentary on that project, a la Jodorowsky's Dune... Still though, the films we got were the films we got, and I absolutely agree with others here that the action was unnecessarily dialled up to 11 in those films and some of the changes from the novel were questionable... but one thing about P.J. is that he both owns those changes and takes the time to explain why they made them in the audio commentaries... highly recommended. I readily admit to the flaws in the Hobbit trilogy, I do, but I just find them an entertaining and very likeable saga overall... at the very least, they're a hell of a lot better than either the Star Wars prequel or sequel trilogies... at least in my own humble, fallible, and entirely subjective opinion.
I very much prefer the Star Wars prequels to the Hobbit. And I don't even like them much to begin with.
Guillermo del Toro's initial plan was to adapt The Hobbit novel as a single movie but soon realised during the writing sessions that it's a deceptively simple book that once you start breaking apart into story and character beats onscreen - and the needed changes in order adapt it to screen - it was actually a much, much larger story in scope and two films were needed... with the Barrels Out Of Bond sequence being the narrative break-point. And btw; it was del Toro who agreed to the inclusion of Azog, Tauriel, and Radagast when he was still onboard that project. I think had he stayed though, he and Peter Jackson working in collaboration might have tempered both of their worst tendencies... guess we'll never know now. One wonders just how Peter Jackson would have made The Hobbit when he initially planned to back in 1996...
As a last word on the subject, just want to address this; that scene was not in either the initial script or principle photography but shot during additional filming in late July 2012 once the decision to make it a trilogy was agreed by the studio (which incidentally was Jackson/Walsh/Boyens' decision, not the studio's!)... they needed some kind of emotional beat to finish the first movie on, and thus you have what you have. Was it a little contrived and clumsy? Perhaps, but I also found it touching and it worked for me... It's also why you have the whole climactic 'molten gold' extended action sequence in The Desolation of Smaug...once they turned a duology into a trilogy, they had to re-adapt the whole narrative structure to accommodate that new strategy... for better or worse.
I don't quite understand why the focus should be on what rings mean in our society, when even in our own time not all rings mean the same. Rather, I think the point is what rings were in early Germanic and Anglo-Saxon society.
Actually my interest in del Toro is more due to his sense of suspense and horror, his sense of humor and his ability to direct actors in a way that makes them relate to each other evocatively. Jackson seems sophomoric in comparison. I don't know if he just lacks that ability as a director or prefers to focus on the action and effects at the expense of the rest, but Del Toro is a more mature filmmaker. In some ways I am happy that del Toro abandoned the project because Jackson had decision making power on nearly every aspect of it, ultimately. Reading between the lines in the stories of del Toro's departure, I have to wonder if he just had a different artistic vision than Jackson, and was too constrained. He may have been unable to make his own decisions and decided it wasn't working. I agree they're better than the Star Wars prequels, but that's an awfully low bar for bringing one of the most beloved fantasy books to screen. The Hobbit is about camaraderie and relationships more than adventure. I just don't think Jackson has the director chops to do justice to the relationships. Yes, they're complex. But in the hands of a gifted director, the subtleties can be enjoyed in character interaction. It is even more tiresome than all the action to be constantly hit over the head with Jackson's ham-handed techniques to make the audience know what is Thoren's mind. Just exhausting, in every sense of the word. Well those kinds of nonsensical decisions are bound to happen when you try to milk a book that can practically be read in its entirety in three hours into 9 hours worth of screen time. It's not a focus at all, but it should be. We have a society right now where rings are supposed to have meaning. Going back to older societies and exploring their symbolism is fine, academically. But I'm not sure why Tolken gets a free pass on any sort of analysis in terms of his primary obsession with the "evil" ring that translates into the doom of mankind. Sure, he's an extremely gifted writer and story-teller. But that shouldn't absolve him of literary analysis in the underlying thesis that only by destroying the ring can there by a future.
I still don't get why the focus should be on what rings may or may not mean to people today. And why are you saying Tolkien 'gets a free pass' like he did something wrong? I really don't follow.
It's not at all the focus. Maybe it occasionally should be. Most writers are subject to literary analysis where their books are picked apart and they're judged on the underlying themes and merits of what they're writing. Sure, you can enjoy a tale about hobbits, humans, dwarves, elves, orcs, nazguls, etc. but you can also analyze the statement these books are making about the real world. And that statement is rather creepy.
Was re-watching Fellowship Of The Ring this morning after not having seen it in some time, and have two questions. 1. What draws the Nazgul to the Shire? Was it Bilbo using the ring at his party, or was it that they tortured Smeagol/Golum and he said "Baggins! Shire!"? I guess it could be both. But I was puzzled how Gandalf seemed to be aware of the torture of Golum and what happened there. After Bilbo's party and departure, Gandalf goes to do research and they show him looking over scrolls in some archive. It makes sense that he reads about Isuldur and "the one ring" there, but how in the world does he have any knowledge of the torture of Gollum and what transpired there? Was there a stenographer in Mordor that then put this record in some archive Gandalf would have access to? That doesn't seem to make sense. It's presented as if it were some real time event, so I don't know how Gandalf would know about it. And if it had happened well in the past, how does Gandalf get back to the Shire before the Nazgul start arrive and get Frodo & Sam on their way? I've read The Hobbit several times, but never the LOTR trilogy. So I imagine this may be just a way to get information to the viewing audience, but I'm curious how in the original book this is spelled out. 2. What about where Sam and Frodo see the wood elves early in the film? It seems odd to me that they would encounter them just outside The Shire. Did this occur farther away in the book?
Gandolf is in the city of Minis Tirith looking at the scrolls. Gollum either escapes or is let go from Mordor after under torture revealing that Bilbo Baggins lived in the Shire.
In the book, I believe that is in chapter 3 entitled, Three is Company. It occurs before they see the Nazgul at the ferry crossing. They are still in the Shire although they are on it’s far eastern edge when they see the elves.
Yeah, I get all that. What I don't get is why the scrolls in Minis Tirith would have an account of the torture of Gollum. Does Mordor keep notes and publish this stuff? The movie shows the events as if they are concurrent (or close to it). Did the torture of Gollum that revealed the clues "Shire! Baggins!" happen much earlier? And if so, why does it take the Nazgul so long to get to The Shire? You would think if they knew where to go, they would be there pretty quick (matter of days the way they are shown to be riding).
