The Hobbit has a director and a sequel

[innerSpaceman]

There are definitely elements of all three that I love. I just think the second two were put together craptastically. I've planned a fan re-edit, but haven't got the resources (much less the time.)

There were also so many elements that SUCKED my balls.





Most of all, however, were the structural changes that were only "cinematic" if you think chronologically linear storytelling is all modern audiences can comprehend, and that constant cross-cutting between locales/characters is the only way to sustain audience interest.

I disagree with both contentions.


I have no trouble with adapting books to film and making them more cinematic. I love some of Jackson's adaptations.

But a story is not simply the plot elements arranged in chronological order. It's HOW it's told. And if the story is specifically told out of chronology to build suspense or to portray greater interest in one element over another at particular points in the story ... that THAT is the story, and changing everying to chronological does great harm.


Yet that's what Jackson did. And also used the lazy starwarsian tactic of constant cross-cutting because he was too lame to figure out a way to keep the film interesting while staying with one set of characters for longer than 6 minutes.


He also did not have enough love for too many of the story elements, most of which piled up in the third film. One of the parts I teared up at during that movie was the Ride of the Rohirrim to break the seige of Minas Tirith. It was so stirring.

So many other elements were not. Ahem, listen to Jackson's commentary on the DVD. He describes how he was always fascinated with that part of the story, and so devoted tons of time and energy to its realization. Then he goes on to admit the many parts of the story that simply didn't interest him .. and lo and behold, those nonetheless important story points are handled craptacularly.



As an aside ... another part I teared up at during the third movie was the lighting of the beacons atop the mountain peaks of Gondor. Though that situation was a feature of the book, it did not "happen" in the novel, and it's one of Jackson's more brilliant adaptations.


I will give him props for the things he did well. Great elements in all three films, and the first movie was a masterwork.


The second two Sucked.


I'm glad he's not directing The Hobbit.



The Hobbit 2 must DIE.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

So if you're such a "purist" that if it didn't come from Tolkien's pen, it's crap, then I'm sorry.

I'm well aware of the alterations made by Jackson, Walsh, & Boyens. Other than a few trifling quibbles, I'm totally fine with their changes. My "from the pen" comment was meant to convey issue with a whole new story being created. If Tolkien had written a book that detailed the goings on in Middle Earth during the period between Hobbit and Fellowship and a well written script adapted that for the screen, I wouldn't be kvetching. Admittedly, I am not a Tolkien scholar, but other than perhaps a passing mention in The Silmarillion, I'm not aware of any story he wrote about that period.

[innerSpaceman]

There's no mention in the Silmarillion of that period.


The preface to The Lord of the Rings deals with that period in a glancing fashion. There's no "story" told of events or characters during that period.

[flippyshark]

As much as I admired The Orphanage (and I did), does it really count as a Del Toro film? He didn't write or direct it. He's one of three producers, but I presume his name was used in the US mostly for marketing reasons. (Unless this is one of those Tobe Hooper-Steven Spielberg controversies a la Poltergeist.)

On the other hand, I saw Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth for the first time a few months ago, and I'm still recovering. I thought it was better than anything in Jackson's ouvre, including Heavenly Creatures. So, I'm psyched for that reason, but I really hope they change their minds and just make one incredible movie, not two. (Would they be drawing story material for this sequel from The Silmarillon? Like many others I know, I was unable to slog through that book.)

Pans' Labyrinth and The Orphanage would be a great double feature, though an exhausting one.

[Alex]

So if you're such a "purist" that if it didn't come from Tolkien's pen, it's crap, then I'm sorry. A filmed version of exactly what I'm reading in LotR would be boring as sh*t.

I'm not a purist. My complaint with the last two movies is that they weren't far enough removed from the books for purposes of cinema. As standalone movies they were crap unless you were filling in the holes with knowledge available from reading the books.

With Lord of the Rings this worked because the story is more focused. Plus, they weren't sure how it would go so they were more firm with editing decisions. With the later movies I felt they were just saying "well, we have to keep it under three hours, so put a lot in that just hints at what they'll eventually be able to see in the 9 hour extended DVD and damn coherence for the theater experience."

The same complaint I have about most of the Harry Potter movies, really.

It is a movie, not a video book on tape. And definitely not a severely abridged video book on tape.


As for the sequel. I have no doubt that many writers could produce reasonable extensions of the novels but the reason I see it as "difficult" is that I just don't really have any curiosity about that world beyond what was already covered so it'll have to work hard to catch my interest and if they fail (at the general audience level) it will be viewed as a blow to the whole franchise (which is not something I agree with but is the general result of failed sequels).

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, I'm looking forward to The Hobbit. I hope it will be good. If it isn't, I still have the three movies Jackson already made to enjoy.


And I was thinking about the beacons. What if it was a false alarm? How much would it suck to have to reset all of those beacons...

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

As much as I admired The Orphanage (and I did), does it really count as a Del Toro film?

Not in the sense that he directed it. I had said "Del Toro keeps growing in my esteem, both as a director and as a producer," with a nudge to others about a potential viewing of a film of the latter.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

My "from the pen" comment was meant to convey issue with a whole new story being created.

I understand your point, I just wanted to point out that good stories about things not mentioned in the books have been written by people other than Tolkien, so I'm curious what Del Toro will do. That doesn't mean that The Hobbit 2 has to be/will become "canon". I just think an entertaining and/or compelling story has the potential to be told.

I mean sure, it may be crap in the end, but I don't think the idea is DOA.

I'm not sure why The Simarillion is being brought up though, since I'm pretty sure the only events brought up in that were pre-Hobbit to begin with.

And iSm, doing the books by "cross-cutting" through the stories was not "lazy". (if anything is lazy, doing it exactly the book's way would have been lazy) I don't think that doing it the book's way in a movie would be inherently better or worse than the way PJ did it. This is Peter Jackson's vision of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, after all. There was plenty that was changed or altered to make a better cinematic experience in PJ's estimation anyway... the only thing that was "mucked up" by doing that was the Mouth of Sauron sequence, which was a reason it was cut from the original film.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I say give awesome Del Toro a shot, and I love Peter Jackson. If King Kong had been an hour shorter, I may have even liked that film quite a lot.

But I am in the minority, I think, when I say I'm not the biggest fan of The Hobbit. There are parts of that book I love, and parts I cared for less. I think this may be the rare exception where I walk away preferring the film.

I love The Lord of the Rings books. And I love the movies. I think he, for the most part, didn't include the parts which would have been lost on film, and I think what he added benefited the telling of this particular tale for the screen. He nailed the parts that were almost identical to the book.

One thing that had a die-hard LotR's book fan FUMING to the point of disgust were the elves showing up at the Helms Deep battle in the Twin Towers. I disagreed. I think Jackson corrected one of Tolkien's mistakes; those friggin' elves should have been there, dammit.

[Alex]

I haven't read The Hobbit since I last successfully read The Lord of the Rings series (sometime around 1988) so I can't comment on value of the book. My general recollection is I preferred the series. But I don't know how much my memory of the book is being skewed by my memory of the animated movie we had to watch in some English class in high school.

But based on Pan's Labyrinth and the trailer for Hellboy 2 I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that there will be at least one creature with misplaced (creepily) eyeballs. Can't remember if there is already one in the book or if he'll have to add it himself.


If King Kong had been an hour shorter it would have been a fantastic movie (assuming it were edited well of course). There was much to love about it, but the very excesses destroyed the whole. And like Stephen King an no longer facing any real editing of his novels, I don't think that after the success of LotR there is anybody out there that can force Jackson to reign in his worst tendencies so that his very good aspects can shine.

So, he needs to experience a downfall so that he can rediscover those things for himself and come out the other side a better filmmaker for it.