Peter Jackson Explains Why the ‘Hobbit’ Movies Are Such a Huge Mess

[Kuruharan]

I lay most of the blame for things on Jackson and not the studio. No doubt the studio was a baleful influence, but I've seen too much about how the execrable deviations in the LOTR trilogy were mostly Jackson's doing to cut him any kind of slack when it comes to the mess that was The Hobbit.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I suspect the reason is probably that either they were more stubborn or he simply didn't care as much. It might be a combination of the two, of course. Hadn't he said in the past that he wasn't as interested in The Hobbit as he was in The Lord of the Rings?

It's also probably the fact that, to my knowledge, he never wanted to direct the film(s) in the first place. These things seem to combine to form a director who simply isn't going to go to the trouble of putting up much of a fight with the studio.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I lay most of the blame for things on Jackson and not the studio. No doubt the studio was a baleful influence, but I've seen too much about how the execrable deviations in the LOTR trilogy were mostly Jackson's doing to cut him any kind of slack when it comes to the mess that was The Hobbit.

l've been thinking about this a bit more. The thing is, when you look at blockbusters of the modern era, they're generally a lot slicker, a lot tidier... and, arguably, considerably more sterile than the "Hobbit" trilogy. So perhaps the final product is more of a three-way fight between what the studio wanted, what Jackson wanted, and the source material. While I don't find the result very satisfactory, I've come think what happened might be more complicated than just Jackson caving to the "suits". In that case I think we would have got something closer to a straight remake of "Lord of the Rings", only with the names changed.

Edit: Make that a four-way fight with Del Toro's left-over work as another enemy (as it were). And if we allow the rushed schedule as a fifth, maybe that's why "The Battle of the Five Armies" seemed like such a perfect title to those involved.

[Faramir Jones]

I came across this on YouTube, and think that it's relevant to this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q51QDWz50g

How many of us here are convinced by his explanation?

[Marwhini]

I could not even watch that last video.

I refuse to even acknowledge that any of the Peter Jackson movies exist (even for the first trilogy).

I am hoping that eventually someone will be able to re-do the whole thing from beginning to end. And in doing so remain faithful to Tolkien's works.

It is one thing to place exposition into the lines of a character, thus essentially remaining true to the elements Tolkien wrote.

But it is an entirely different thing to make up, whole-cloth, elements that are not only no part of Tolkien's creation, but which utterly contradict that which he did create.

It would be another thing entirely if a movie-maker conceived novel elements for the movies, yet those inventions did not contradict established canon.

It is the re-writing of the canon that bothers me.

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

I could not even watch that last video.

I refuse to even acknowledge that any of the Peter Jackson movies exist (even for the first trilogy).

I am hoping that eventually someone will be able to re-do the whole thing from beginning to end. And in doing so remain faithful to Tolkien's works.

It is one thing to place exposition into the lines of a character, thus essentially remaining true to the elements Tolkien wrote.

But it is an entirely different thing to make up, whole-cloth, elements that are not only no part of Tolkien's creation, but which utterly contradict that which he did create.

It would be another thing entirely if a movie-maker conceived novel elements for the movies, yet those inventions did not contradict established canon.

It is the re-writing of the canon that bothers me.

MB

Out of curiosity, what would you cite as an example of an element in the first trilogy that "utterly contradicts" Tolkien's work? I'd say many of the changes were dictated by the needs of an adaptation, but I agree there were some questionable ones.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Out of curiosity, what would you cite as an example of an element in the first trilogy that "utterly contradicts" Tolkien's work? I'd say many of the changes were dictated by the needs of an adaptation, but I agree there were some questionable ones.

Let's see....

•*Elves with Crooked Swords (people might think here "What???" But this is actually a pretty important thing).
•*The Narrative of the Last Alliance and the "Destruction" of Sauron.
•*The Episode at Crickhollow and Bree.
• The fight on the SIDE of Amon Sul, NOT on its summit at the watchtower.
•*Arwen riding to save Frodo (i.e. no Glorfindel).
•*The Council of Elrond.
•*Reforging of Narsil ⇒ Anduril.
•*Anduril gives of no Light (when it should).
•*The trapping of Gandalf by Saruman.
• The narrative in trip through Moria (that in itself is a substantial sub-list).
•*Glamdring doesn't glow in the presence of Orcs (it should).
• The Balrog, while VERY impressive, was all wrong.
• The amount of Plate Armor on everyone and everything, but especially the Orcs in Moria....
• The Arrival in Lórien.
•*The Gifts of Galadriel.
• The trip down Anduin.
• The attack on Amon Hen.
•*The departure of Frodo, and the dissolution of the Fellowship.
• The "Three Hunters" episode.
•*The escape of Merry and Pippin, and the meeting of Fangorn.
•*Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas' encounter with the Rohirrim, and their meeting of Gandalf the White.
• Nearly everything in Rohan (again, huge sub-list)
•*Aragorn falling off the Cliff.
•*Helm's Deep (another sub-list).
•*ESPECIALLY the Elves at Helm's Deep.
•*Huorns at Helm's Deep (they were there but not explained - which was in the book).
•*Traveling to Orthanc after Helm's Deep.
•*Staying with Fangorn at one of his homes in the forest w/ Merry & Pippin.
•*Entmoot.
•*Merry & Pippin at Orthanc.
•*Meeting of Saruman at Orthanc.
• Palintír Discovery/Attack
•*Death of Saruman at Orthanc.
•*Arrival of the Grey Company.
•*Winged Nazgûl in Rohan.
•*Lighting of Beacons.
•*Arrival of the Red Arrow.
•*Everything about Éowyn and Éomer.
•*WT F... Arwen dying??? What the freaking freak???
•*Trip of Pippin/Gandalf to Minas Tirith.
•*The Paths of the Dead.
•*The Walls of the Rammas Echor.
•*Minas Tirith being smaller than Bree.
•*The Travel of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum from the Emyn Muil to Ithilien.
•*Meeting of Faramir and Frodo/Sam.
•*Hennuth Anun.
•*Gollum at Hennuth Anun.
•*Faramir and Frodo talking about the One Ring.
•*Frodo being taken to Osgiliath.
• Osgiliath.
•*Travel to Shelob's Lair, and events within.
•*Denethor....
•*No Beregond.
•*Ok... Let's just say everything that happens at Minas Tirith. It is one of those "based upon the events of...."
•*Army of the Dead showing up at Minas Tirith.
• No Standard of the King from Arwen to Aragorn flown on the captured ships.
•*No Swan Knights.
• Everthing about the Witch King of Angmar at the Pelennor.
•*The Death of Denethor.
•*Cirith Ungol Scenes all wrong.
•*Frodo and Sam's trip through Mordor.
.
.
. (getting tired, cutting to the end)

•*No Scouring of the Shire

I am sure that there are many, many more. I used to have a scene-by-scene list, but after what they called The Hobbit came out... I decided it was easier to just pretend that nothing Tolkien has written has been made into a Live-Action movies.

And having had a brief exchange with the Tolkien Estate, that whole episode has really put them off ever allowing anyone else to attempt to put any of the remaining works of Tolkien on film.

Having taken a Film Class (or two), and having worked in the Film Industry in the 1980s... I know that it is completely possible to film a book, as written, and have it be just as enjoyable as the hack-jobs that often occur in Hollywood.

That was one of the things that was in one of the classes we had, where we were shown two short-films - roughly 30min each - of a short story - I can't recall the author. One of the films was basically 99% accurate to the original short story, and the other had been "greatly altered." We would not be told which one was the original until after we had seen both, and then we were handed the Short Story (it was about twenty pages long) to read.

After watching each film, we were to rate it on several categories (script, timing, cinematography, sets, costumes, etc.).

And, strangely, the film that adhered closest to the story did no worse than the greatly altered one.

After we had read the Short Story, we were asked to rate them again.

At that point, the one that adhered closest scored vastly greater than the altered one.

The professor teaching the class did this to show:

Most alteration of books when being made into movies is to satisfy the ego of the script writer and directors, who often have their own pet-peeves they wish to insert into everything they do, because they are not allowed to produce some pet-project they have which contains these elements.

In other words: The changes are Egregious. Movies of Books introduce the changes simply for the sake of change, nothing else.

And... In Peter Jackson's case.... When he produced The Lord of the Rings, he knew absolutely nothing about Tolkien's works beyond The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, nor did he know anything about Tolkien himself.

Thus he was not aware of the significance of even the smallest word(s) used by Tolkien for pretty much everything (such as why it is a perversion of Tolkien's works to have Elves with Swords Tolkien went out of the way to label "Crooked").

MB

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

IIt would be another thing entirely if a movie-maker conceived novel elements for the movies, yet those inventions did not contradict established canon.

It is the re-writing of the canon that bothers me.

MB

I would have been unbothered (not happy, but unbothered) if either of his trilogies were internally consistent. It's especially jarring when much hay was made of the fact that all 3 LotR movies were filmed by the same 'team' over 18 or so months.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I was going to post that video as I just came across it on Youtube. It's definitely sad what became of the Hobbit as a film.

Honestly, I think the idea that the original LOTR movies need to be remade because of the long list of nitpicks above is pretty bunk. We simply cannot expect a film series to be meticulously faithful to a book series. I get that this is a Tolkien fan forum but we can't have our cake and eat it too. Most fantasy films, and films in general to be honest, are rubbish. There has never before or since been a fantasy epic which received LOTR's level of care, love, financial input, polish and still managed to be largely faithful to the source material while becoming a cultural phenomenon.

Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series, for example, had the Mulefa, a fantastical race of elephant-like creatures, cut out in the stage version and characters accordingly deleted. It still received good reviews, as far as I'm aware. Imagine how bad the LOTR films could have been with half the budget, half the run time and nobody who really understood the source material?

I think adaptations have to be faithful to the spirit of the source material, not the detail. This video, which includes a discussion of the LOTR movies, has shaped my opinion here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek2O6bVAIQQ

What is the spirit of the LOTR series? Basically, it's about small, brave, humble people triumphing over large, important, arrogant, powerful people. It's about pity and mercy, with violence as a last resort. And it's about having an adventure in a world which feels enormous.

This is why I feel the extended cuts of the LOTR trilogy are detrimental to the trilogy's experience. There are several moments in the extended edition which justify violence and fetishise it, much more than in the theatrical release. Think of Aragorn decapitating the Mouth of Sauron, who hadn't lifted a hand to attack him. Think of how Saruman dies like a comic book character, falling on to a spike. There is also an exchange between Gimli and Legolas where they talk about their kill counts after Helm's Deep. Rightly, these scenes were cut.

This sort of stuff is still there in the release (Legolas's exploits at surfing and Muma-killing particularly annoy me) but overall I think the spirit I mentioned above is pretty well preserved. The lines which stick with us from LOTR are Gandalf's "pity is what stayed Bilbo's hand", Sam's "I can carry you", and Theoden's sacrificial speech at Pelennor. We have the Hobbits, who, although they have to be sidelined sometimes by the epic stuff for the sake of cinema, are still central to the plot. We have quiet, serious moments and an ending emphasis on homecoming (I have come to terms with the fact that the Scouring of the Shire had to be cut - you can't have a second sub-climax in a nine hour epic). Basically, the spirit is retained.

The Hobbit movies, needless to say, were trash, because they didn't have any of the spirit of either book. Strangely, despite their long running time, the world of The Hobbit felt smaller after watching those movies. Once you see too much of a world, it starts having to repeat itself and the magic is broken. And the tone of the series is completely off. It doesn't know if it wants to be an epic, an adventure tale, a light-hearted comedy, or musing on greed. It doesn't know which characters are important. It's a mish-mash of rubbish. Let's just forget it happened.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

I was going to post that video as I just came across it on Youtube. It's definitely sad what became of the Hobbit as a film.

Honestly, I think the idea that the original LOTR movies need to be remade because of the long list of nitpicks above is pretty bunk. We simply cannot expect a film series to be meticulously faithful to a book series. I get that this is a Tolkien fan forum but we can't have our cake and eat it too.

I believe this may well be the most anti-film Tolkien fan forum on the internet... and I've still never seen anything like that list before. It's... amazing.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

I get that this is a Tolkien fan forum but we can't have our cake and eat it too.

I think we should be allowed to want a different kind of cake.

Perhaps in this instance a cake that doesn't have so much stupid trash in it like elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir trying to take the Ring back to Minas Tirith until a Nazgul suddenly shows up, Théoden being reluctant to go aid Gondor, Denethor being a cowardly lunatic, the list goes on and on.

I have yet to see a sound justification as to why changes like these were needed to successfully adapt the novels to film.