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

[Galin]

(...) And before CT collated the Silmarillion, there was no set backstory to Middle Earth outside of what's written in LOTR. He said he was trying to create a sort of English national myth, a story which was more like history than fiction. Why wouldn't he be in favour of its realisation on the big screen?

I believe Tolkien was open to the idea at one point, until he saw a film treatment filled with (in his opinion) unnecessary alterations and large scale point-missings, illustrated by his comments in the "Zimmerman letter". After that, I think he closed the door, and only later gave way due to cash fears, plus feeling that he had "once" made a sorta-agreement with his publisher (cash or kudos), concerning which he was later reminded of more than once, by his publisher.

(...) But JRRT's seminal work is forever complete and self-contained - no movie trilogy, however terrible, can undermine it as an experience. Luckily, Jackson's first effort was pretty good.

I think the first three were mediocre, and bad in plenty of places. Add three later awfuls. And I wonder what the author of The Wizard of Oz would have to say about media colonization. In theory your first statement might be true. Even one of the Unwins tried something similar with Tolkien: the book is inviolate no matter what some filmmaker does with it on screen... that said, I think films can undermine book experiences in ways and measures, which is why I would advise folks read Tolkien's books before seeing Jackson's films.

[giving Glorfindel's role to Arwen] Definitely have to agree with that, especially given the modern world's gender politics. If the films were totally faithful, Eowyn's cameo in ROTK would be just about the only female appearance in the entire series. Remember that she gets hitched to a stranger almost immediately afterwards! There's Galadriel too, but she isn't exactly a relatable character for women.

What I wouldn't agree with is Arwen needing to take Glorfindel's role to have a larger role in the films, nor did her entrance need to be altered in the way it was altered, once that decision was made.

In any case, Jackson's stated reason here was basically that there were too many introductions at this point, including a character that would drop out of the story. An arguable film concern, which again, does not lead only to his specific choice of how to address that concern.


And so on and so forth, mediums are different. Lather, rinse, repeat

[The Sixth Wizard]

Even one of the Unwins tried something similar with Tolkien: the book is inviolate no matter what some filmmaker does with it on screen... that said, I think films can undermine book experiences in ways and measures, which is why I would advise folks read Tolkien's books before seeing Jackson's films.

Yes, I agree with that strongly as well. That's why I fear for George RR Martin's tale. Almost nobody will have experienced the ending in its unadulterated form once it is finished. People had forty years to enjoy LOTR as a novel standing alone, but ASOIAF isn't going to be given that grace. Ah well.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galin

What I wouldn't agree with is Arwen needing to take Glorfindel's role to have a larger role in the films, nor did her entrance need to be altered in the way it was altered, once that decision was made.

In any case, Jackson's stated reason here was basically that there were too many introductions at this point, including a character that would drop out of the story. An arguable film concern, which again, does not lead only to his specific choice of how to address that concern.

Ah, I didn't know that was his stated reason- but as you see it occurred to me anyway. So there must be something in it.

Originally Posted by Galin

But all it takes is one goblin going to the well once too often.

Also one can never go to the goblin versus orc argument (orc/goblin same exact thing) too often! Beware of thread hijack. It can happen.

Is that a threat?