The Hobbit: The Battle of the Underwhelming Prequels

[Jay 37,281]

I dunno. Three films did result in an awful of of bloat. Two 3 hours film swould have been fine. I mean thats a 6 hour film for what is essentially a short book with a few add ons.

Oh, I agree 2 films would have been better than 3. IMO.

[Uni 306]

I dunno. Three films did result in an awful of of bloat. Two 3 hours film swould have been fine. I mean thats a 6 hour film for what is essentially a short book with a few add ons.

Not to say that I disagree with this either. I think they might've been able to pull off three, if they'd planned ahead and still exerted a little restraint. But two would've been plenty enough to get the job done.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

Here's the thing: I don't mind the idea of making a trilogy of films out of "The Hobbit" novel at all: I think the story told in that book - combined with the stuff Tolkien later wrote that happened at the same time (White Council subplot), plus the various backstories - can support a trilogy of films, no question. Even the stuff they pretty much invented (Tauriel and Alfrid, orcs chasing the company from the beginning, major Thrain and Dol Goldur events happening during the timeline of the Hobbit rather than before, larger roles for Bard and The Master) were inspired ideas that probably worked very well and did not overstay their welcome in the original screenplay and 2-film structure.

The problem lies with the fact that they spent 2 years writing and refining a 2-film screenplay, made all their pre-production planning based on that, went out and shot it, and then only transitioned to 3 films during post-production of the first movie. This led to pacing problems in the first film; a weak opening; huge amount of bloat, and weak ending of the second film; and a really disjointed opening not to mention not much story left to tell in the third film. And of course they now had to quickly write and film a quite large amount of new scenes that were never part of the original plan at all - basically as was said before inventions to cover prior inventions. All just to increase the runtime of the second film, adjust the Thorin/Bilbo relationship of the first film, and finally try to have some kind of payoff to these new ideas in the third film.

All of this would have been avoided if they spent the time in pre-production to purposely break down and write a 3 film structure that made sense and had then went out and filmed that.

Had they done so, there's no question the three films would have been stronger than what we got.

Yes. And with any other trilogy this would be instashite in the eyes of everyone from fans to casuals.

Except the LotR faithful (like Star Wars extremists) still see it as their life mission to pick at and collect the less rancid morsels from the carcass and pretend that there is dignity/quality yet to be appreciated in their blind-beloved salvage of the wreck.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are you talking about me?

[Quintus 5,399]

It's about passionate hobbit apologists.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I like the films, but a lot of it isnt defendable.

Kinda like Star Trek V!

[Quintus 5,399]

Exactly. You excuse heinous filmic genocide because of your cute affection for the source while other movies of equal quality die on their arse every day and fade into obscurity. As they should.

These are great shambling messes of movies on the scale of Battlefield Earth and Attack of the Clones. Except LotR fans force them into something less shite out of sheer will and determination.

Anyone who isn't a major fan can stand back and watch it happen. It's quite interesting.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

We shall see how you behave when the new Twin Peaks turns out to be a shocking travesty!

[Quintus 5,399]

There's every chance the Twin Peaks revival will die on its arse.

But there'll always be the untouchable originals.

LotR remains landmark fantasy cinema despite the expansive Hobbit waste.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And we will always have the books!

[Samuel Walters 0]

I can't get onboard with the Hobbit Hate (well, zest for criticism, at any rate).

Y'know . . . I think "hate" is probably too strong a word. For the most part, we're airing our frustration on how the movies played out as opposed to how they easily could've played out, had they followed more in the mold of LOTR. And it's a little galling to see what some money and success can do to people who've proven their talents as filmmakers in the past. We pine for what might've been, if it weren't for the indulgent excesses of big-time movie makers.

But I don't hate the movies. I enjoyed them, a lot at times, and I would much rather have them than not have them, if that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, actually. And, in truth, I was being just a *wee* bit hyperbolic with my "hate" comment (as evidenced by my subsequent parenthetical statement). As much as I thoroughly enjoy all three Hobbit films, I have no problem acknowledging their flaws, particularly in comparison to LOTR. To wit:

Here's the thing: I don't mind the idea of making a trilogy of films out of "The Hobbit" novel at all: I think the story told in that book - combined with the stuff Tolkien later wrote that happened at the same time (White Council subplot), plus the various backstories - can support a trilogy of films, no question. Even the stuff they pretty much invented (Tauriel and Alfrid, orcs chasing the company from the beginning, major Thrain and Dol Goldur events happening during the timeline of the Hobbit rather than before, larger roles for Bard and The Master) were inspired ideas that probably worked very well and did not overstay their welcome in the original screenplay and 2-film structure.

The problem lies with the fact that they spent 2 years writing and refining a 2-film screenplay, made all their pre-production planning based on that, went out and shot it, and then only transitioned to 3 films during post-production of the first movie. This led to pacing problems in the first film; a weak opening; huge amount of bloat, and weak ending of the second film; and a really disjointed opening not to mention not much story left to tell in the third film. And of course they now had to quickly write and film a quite large amount of new scenes that were never part of the original plan at all - basically as was said before inventions to cover prior inventions. All just to increase the runtime of the second film, adjust the Thorin/Bilbo relationship of the first film, and finally try to have some kind of payoff to these new ideas in the third film.

All of this would have been avoided if they spent the time in pre-production to purposely break down and write a 3 film structure that made sense and had then went out and filmed that.

Had they done so, there's no question the three films would have been stronger than what we got.

I certainly agree with this premise: That starting off, conceptually, with two films, and then expanding to three films, is a major factor in the flaws we across all three films. PJ has always been at his best when adapting Tolkien's story, rather than improvising his own material (e.g. Aragorn's dive over a cliff in TTT). However ... given the 20/20 vision of hindsight, had I been in the meeting room to decide whether or not to expand to three films ... I'd *still* give my unequivocal support. Three flawed-yet-more-complete films, to me anyway, are preferable, to two tighter-yet-lacking-in-content films. Especially when the score is factored in.

Long story short: To me, the additional material - time spent in Middle Earth, character development, music from Howard Shore, etc. - far outweighs the (very real) drawbacks introduced by expanding from two, to three films.

[crumbs 14,300]

In a film sense, the trilogy decision basically ruined any illusion that PJ was trying to make a respecful, artful adaptation of this novel.

Conversely, inventing a dwarf/elf love story gave us one of the most beautiful themes of Middle Earth, and the sublime 'Beyond the Forest'.

In that sense, I'm glad we have more music that would otherwise never have seen the light of day, but I eagerly anticipate the fan edits of these films that cut out all the excess.

[Uni 306]

PJ has always been at his best when adapting Tolkien's story, rather than improvising his own material (e.g. Aragorn's dive over a cliff in TTT).

THANK YOU! Yes!

But maybe he's gotten a touch of "adaptation fatigue" after so many hours behind the camera. Maybe the reason we're seeing so much more improvised material is simply his natural compulsion to let his own voice and narrative thrust come to the fore. I can understand the creative need for that kind of thing, especially in a gifted storyteller like PJ. Except . . . if you've signed on to do an adaptation, you have to understand that you're doing the material far more justice if you repress that natural desire. He may be getting tired of telling someone else's story, but he's the one who agreed to do just that. Nobody forced him into it.

[Samuel Walters 0]

In a film sense, the trilogy decision basically ruined any illusion that PJ was trying to make a respecful, artful adaptation of this novel.

I disagree. As much as it is possible to infer such things, I do think PJ was trying his best to make an artful adaptation of The Hobbit - one that would be a part of his LOTR films. And I believe he genuinely felt that three films would, artistically, better represent the story he was (artistically) trying to tell. However:

But maybe he's gotten a touch of "adaptation fatigue" after so many hours behind the camera. Maybe the reason we're seeing so much more improvised material is simply his natural compulsion to let his own voice and narrative thrust come to the fore. I can understand the creative need for that kind of thing, especially in a gifted storyteller like PJ. Except . . . if you've signed on to do an adaptation, you have to understand that you're doing the material far more justice if you repress that natural desire. He may be getting tired of telling someone else's story, but he's the one who agreed to do just that. Nobody forced him into it.

This is certainly a reasonable explanation for why, at times (perhaps moreso for others than myself), the Hobbit films feel so discordant with the LOTR films. Some of the additions (Tauriel) work very well. But others (Azog) they don't mesh particularly well with the source material. And perhaps PJ was trying to do too much here: adapt (the main Hobbit story) and expand (the White Council) and improvise (Tauriel & Azog).

But (generally speaking), I don't think the intention here was anything other than making these movies the best that they could be. I do think, however, the production process was flawed - starting with the legal wrangling between PJ and New Line, then continuing to how long it took to greenlight the films, to the abrupt transition from GDT to PJ, to PJ's illness delaying the start of filming, to the decision to expand from two films to three (after principle photography had completed). Adding all of this to an already-established, ill-advised propensity to overly embellish Tolkien's tale, is the most likely reason why these films don't quite reach their potential.

And yet, given all of these factors, I think the results are pretty damned good - even if they aren't at the same stratospheric level as LOTR. And I, for one, would hesitate to assign nefarious motivations (i.e. greed) to PJ, particularly in the absence of any explicit evidence to that effect. Additionally, I'd say (admittedly based purely on my own speculation and biases) that the final result of three films is better than what we would have received with just two films.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I like Samuel Walters' avatar. That's quality stuff.

[Uni 306]

And yet, given all of these factors, I think the results are pretty damned good - even if they aren't at the same stratospheric level as LOTR.

They are—pretty damned good, I mean. We were hoping for more "great," and didn't get it, and that sucks 'n' all. But I'll take this trilogy over any bloated Michael Bay/George Lucas-style "epic" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And I, for one, would hesitate to assign nefarious motivations (i.e. greed) to PJ, particularly in the absence of any explicit evidence to that effect.

If you're responding to what I said earlier about what "money and success can do to people"—and I think you may be—I feel compelled to clarify. I wasn't talking about what earning money does to folks like PJ; I was referring to what having it does, i.e. being given what amounts to a blank check to fund cinematic overindulgence. It's the budgets, not the potential for income, that too often spoil franchises like this. I've never believed anyone involved in the Middle Earth movie projects was after money for the sake of money (well, the studios, maybe, but no one would expect any different from them). But the success of the LOTR films led them to believe they could invest great gobs of cash with the (very correct) assumption that they would earn many times their input back in revenues, to the point where a good, tight, two-film story was expanded to a Jabba-esque trilogy—simply because they could, without stopping to think whether they should.

[gkgyver 1,645]

You know, there are also Walsh and Boyens who wrote these scripts. I've actually not read a single line of suggested criticism towards them, everything is just burdened on Jackson's back.

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

Well, I said

The swathes of The Hobbit in which Jackson, Walsh and Boyens are either inventing new material or fleshing out ideas that were only sketched in the books generally turn out to be (to my tastes, at least) not very interesting or compelling, and their dialogue often wooden or pantomime-like.

back near the start of the thread.

[KK 3,307]

Yeah, Walsh and Boyens are very much to blame too for some of the God-awful dialogue and writing in these films. Surprising considering they were some of the best assets to LOTR.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

SEXISM!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Linda Hamilton apparently has a twin who was in that needlessly complicated and inevitably pointless cut scene from Terminator II with the mirror. And the chick who played Ishara Yar looks and sounds exactly like Linda Hamilton. So there's like 3 Linda Hamiltons in the world.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

I do also blame the two women on the director's flank for these turgid extravagances, but I blame Jacko himself the most. For being an egotistical Sir who believed his own hype. The man has lot the plot.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is your own assumption.

I love how people who hate these films prescribe deliberately nefarious motives to PJ. "He set out to butcher Tolkien's legacy" etc etc...

Misjudged as some of the changes certainly are. I never got the impression he did them because he was out to ruin either our evening, or Tolkien's vision.

[Quintus 5,399]

Apologist.

He foolishly and arrogantly believed he was a good enough writer to effectively build on Tolkien's original in meaningful ways but his King Kong had already demonstrated quite aptly that he was very much capable of failing to expand the narrative in any sort of satisfying form. LotR itself suffers from subplot excess in parts.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I hate the extended edition of King Kong. There are actually people who love it for some reason. These are the folks who automatically think more=better in all cases.

[Quintus 5,399]

Which is why I immediately reject the idea of "better" expanded Hobbit movies. It's a paradox.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Would you be open to an edited down version removing much of the bloat and staying closer to the book?

I abhor the concept of fan edits though.

[Quintus 5,399]

A fine twosome of films are buried in there somewhere. That's the frustrating thing about it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's like sex. Two is a company, three is a crowd!

[Quintus 5,399]

It's like being on a night out with your girl and your single mate at the same time.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why would you bring your girlfriend out to a night on the lash with your mate?

[Quintus 5,399]

To piss my mate off.

[Uni 306]

I love how people who hate these films prescribe deliberately nefarious motives to PJ. "He set out to butcher Tolkien's legacy" etc etc...

Misjudged as some of the changes certainly are. I never got the impression he did them because he was out to ruin either our evening, or Tolkien's vision.

No. He wasn't out to "ruin" anything. That he might have done so (at least in some people's eyes) shows that he's gone off the rails with his excesses, but I don't believe for an instant that he ever lost his passion for the original works of Tolkien.

A fine twosome of films are buried in there somewhere. That's the frustrating thing about it.

Which is what we've been saying all along.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yeah I've said it myself a few times over the years. Said last week after seeing the last movie.

[gkgyver 1,645]

You know, there are also Walsh and Boyens who wrote these scripts. I've actually not read a single line of suggested criticism towards them, everything is just burdened on Jackson's back.

Because we know that these two were at the origin of some of the best stuff in LOTR and that generally, the unfunny humor (Dwarves burping, naked Dwarves, etc.) and excessive action scenes are to blame on PJ.

Yes, of course, there are behind some of the shitty stuff (we know they wrote most (all?) of the corny Tauriel dialogue, for example), but I think we can confidently say that there are responsible for more good stuff than bad stuff.

And you know this how exactly?

You're making this far too easy, saying the two chicks were behind the best material on LotR, and Jackson behind the worst. Not easy, preposterous, actually. Jackson gave us films people will talk about for decades. You should be glad that he has shared his perils - that has been more than any Boal deserves.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

What does gender have to do with who fucked this up?

This is a shared responsibility, from director down to the guy who made the cheeky gold CGI.

But the buck stops with Jackson. He was at the helm, he was in charge, he had final say, and he dropped the ball. The bulk of the blame is with him. Producer and director.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Hobbit only needed one movie.

[Quintus 5,399]

I agree. A great 2-3 hour movie would have been more that sufficient. It would have felt brisk, as it ought to have done.

Oh and gender doesn't matter one iota.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Gender or sex?

[KK 3,307]

What does gender have to do with who fucked this up?

This is a shared responsibility, from director down to the guy who made the cheeky gold CGI.

But the buck stops with Jackson. He was at the helm, he was in charge, he had final say, and he dropped the ball. The bulk of the blame is with him. Producer and director.

Bingo.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

And you know this how exactly?

By watching the EE documentaries and listening to the commentaries?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But are those canon?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

They are PJ canon.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Not if they aren't featured in the film!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

It says so in the documentaries' end credits!

[gkgyver 1,645]

And you know this how exactly?

By watching the EE documentaries and listening to the commentaries?

The documentaries that don't even feature Walsh because of privacy, and that don't even talk much about the screenplay in the Hobbit EEs?

Yeah, these tell really everything.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The documentaries that don't even feature Walsh because of privacy, and that don't even talk much about the screenplay in the Hobbit EEs?

Just listen to the commentaries: generally, whenever they're something over-the-top onscreen, you'll hear Boyens say: "PJ came up with that".

[gkgyver 1,645]

Um, yeah, that explains the creative process.