Three Times The Hobbit?

[Inziladun]

That does not surprise me at all, Mith.

I wonder whether PJ put up any resistance. Judging from LOTR and his obvious propensity to insert "extra" material there, I rather doubt the idea of padding out TH got him much flustered.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

That does not surprise me at all, Mith.

I wonder whether PJ put up any resistance. Judging from LOTR and his obvious propensity to insert "extra" material there, I rather doubt the idea of padding out TH got him much flustered.

It doesn't sound like he did reading the the end of the article:

The first two Hobbit films are estimated to have cost $500 million. A third Hobbit film thus provides a safety net, especially since it would cost next to nothing to produce: "Hobbit" director Peter Jackson admitted he already had enough source material and left over footage from the first two films to expand into a third, cutting production costs.

[Mithalwen]

He may have suggested it but no doubt it was grasped with both hands. After all if the stuff is largely shot and most of the actors no doubt on percentages then they aren't going to have to cough up so much upfront. I suspect it isn't a question of telling more of the story but indulging his fondness for special effects and battle sequences even when they don't progress the story. Think of how in the Lord of the rings the Faramir, Eowyn love story was reduced pretty much to a single glance while the paragraph long cave troll battle was expanded to fill about ten minutes.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Someone at The One Ring site chipped in an opinion on all this:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...bbit-too-much/

I hope the link works. If not, those interested can surely find the article with little effort.

[Nerwen]

MT, the link works– and thank you, as that is a very interesting article. And, perhaps, a rather courageous thing to publish on TORN.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

MT, the link works– and thank you, as that is a very interesting article. And, perhaps, a rather courageous thing to publish on TORN.

Courageous indeed, considering the abundance of vacant fanbois cluttering up that site. I decided to congratulate Ostadan on a well-written and researched article, and add a few curmudgeonly paragraphs of my own, found in discussion of the article here:

The revisionism and muddle-headed thinking of Jackson, Boyens, et al, was evident in the LotR movies to anyone who a) had no interest in pandering to get their name in the screen credits, b) knew the story and didn't require Wiki to get their facts, and c) were more interested in dialogue and plot than special effects and explodey things.

Tolkien quickly realized that a rewrite of The Hobbit would remove the essential nature of a classic children's story. This is what made The Hobbit great. That adults of all ages cherished the story as well as they read it to their children (or read it for themselves for their own delight), is indicative of the generational reach of the tale -- as is, without embellishment, superfluous storylines, character denigration and dumbing down the story with perceived but spurious Hollywood demographics.

It is quite obvious that things have gotten out of hand with Jackson's production of the story. Del Toro leaving early on was disquieting enough, now Jackson is stretching the proceedings into three films, and I think if any of the well-read posters on TORn were honest about The Hobbit movie(s), they would come to the conclusion that three movies is not necessary to tell the story. Not at all. Not in the least.

If Jackson could fit The Lord of the Rings into three movies, what the hell is he putting into filming The Hobbit, a book less than a third of the size? A 'convoluted mess' comes to mind as a definor, an amalgam of poached appendical permutations rendered with fan-fictional flourishes, as the screenwriters sit around Jackson's office with half-eaten bags of Doritos, stale donuts and lukewarm cups of coffee making up ludicrous subplots quicker than you can say "milking the franchise dry".

I may be wrong, but I don't think so. There is a history of depridations already available for anyone's perusal. Squeezing every last penny out of the fanbase requires flights of fancy, revisionism and half-baked plots that could possibly render The Hobbit unrecognizable. One may watch the movies, get a fleeting glimpse of Bilbo Baggins (ostensibly the hero of the story, remember?) and yearn for a few brief seconds more before they are whisked away to some absurd fan-fic about Nazgul in suspended animation, scimitar-waving elfesses and photogenic model dwarves (hawt dorfs!) riding about on bristling piggies (perhaps the pigs will have violet eyes and ribbons on their snouts as a sop for the more sophomoric fan-fictioners in the audience).

[Nerwen]

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson– but the TORN readership seems to be the mirror-image of that. So many of the comments are basically variants on, "how dare you suggest PJ could be wrong about anything..."

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson...

Define "excessive".

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Define "excessive".

syn.: "Morthoron".

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson– but the TORN readership seems to be the mirror-image of that. So many of the comments are basically variants on, "how dare you suggest PJ could be wrong about anything..."

It's part of the 'culture' on this forum, though I know that not everyone is a vocal critic, so it might just be a part of the culture that it's OK to be highly critical here while others haven't much to say about it. On some other Tolkien sites, the other extreme prevails. I don't feel part of either extreme though. I'm excited/nervous about the films (just as I was with the Lord of the Rings films) and I will make my judgement once I have seen them. Seems fair to me!

[Kath]

My cinema (it's weeny) is starting to get posters and merchandise in. As a loyal customer I have already demanded a share in the spoils! And now I get them three years running.

On another note, did we ever do a poll? Members who had joined as a result of reading the books vs members who had joined as a result of watching the films. Might be interesting!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It's part of the 'culture' on this forum, though I know that not everyone is a vocal critic, so it might just be a part of the culture that it's OK to be highly critical here while others haven't much to say about it. On some other Tolkien sites, the other extreme prevails. I don't feel part of either extreme though. I'm excited/nervous about the films (just as I was with the Lord of the Rings films) and I will make my judgement once I have seen them. Seems fair to me!

I was perusing the TORn forum and a comment on this thread caught my eye. Betwixt all the wallowing fanboy blather, a perceptive poster named JWPLatt brought up an interesting idea:

Jackson could provide a seamless branching option on The Hobbit disks, when released, that allows viewers to see only the "substory" of The Hobbit which entirely omits The White Council story that follows Gandalf when he is away from the company of the dwarves. We would see Gandalf go away for a while and come back, just like in The Hobbit.

A "seamless branch" would prove most interesting don't you think? Rather than sit there with your remote and self-edit PJ's tedious fan-fiction, one merely chooses a "purist" version of the film from the DVD menu that eliminates all the extraneous material.

As I mentioned in a post there, I have nothing against PJ's cinematography, the set and costume designs by Lee, Howe and Weta, nor the parts of the films when PJ actually adhered to Tolkien's story, rather than having Aragorn french his horse. When PJ used Tolkien's original dialogue, there were actually quite a few moving sequences in the films, and it didn't matter if a different character than the one in the book spoke the words.

If there were a way to eliminate all the spurious flights of fancy and PJ's penchant for B-grade horror flick devolutions (like the Nazgul in "Alien"-like suspended animation, as we have heard), then it may be worthwhile to watch.