Adaptation by Vague Recollection

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Well, this might be true. However, I have a feeling that this decisions were not, so much, caused by sheer incompetency ("vague memory", "out of ideas") but were deliberate attempts to improve the marketabilty of these movies, by adjusting them (in scope and style) to fit into a. their previous LotR trilogy and b. other stuff a general audience already knows and likes. I can't, of course, prove this but I wanted to offer another perspective besides the usual "PJ-Is-A-Dummy" argument.

If you don't mind my saying so, I think that's a bit of a strawman,Leaf. Many, many people have argued that the "Hollywoodification" was a commercial decision- often this is expressed in terms of "selling out". If anything, I'd say that's the most common view. However, these movies were practically guaranteed a large audience- they could have afforded to take a few risks. There's every reason, however to think PJ & Co weren't all that enthusiastic this time around; what I'm saying is, that's also a situation in writers turn in hackwork.

Not that it's entirely one thing or the other, of course- Tauriel is pretty blatantly there for commercial appeal.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

If you don't mind my saying so, I think that's a bit of a strawman,Leaf. [...]

I don't mind at all. But I hope you believe me, when I tell you, that my goal wasn't winning the argument by asserting false statements. I merely chose this wording for the sake of shortness and clarity (and to be a little bit polemic about it, I must confess).

Many, many people have argued that the "Hollywoodification" was a commercial decision- often this is expressed in terms of "selling out". If anything, I'd say that's the most common view.

Yes, many people have argued that. However, those people mostly applied this notion to the most obvious excesses, like Tauriel, or the fact that the Hobbit was split into three movies. My original concern was to argue, that this problem roots deeper and affects more plot points, than just those obvious characteristics. Take the examples I gave a few posts ago. Those aren't things that PJ or the Screenwriters simply overlooked, misjudged or misunderstood. I find it hard to believe that the problem was the lack of ideas or a 'vague memory' (even though the result may feel this way). I'm thinking this way, because those things are relatively easy to spot and even easier to implement in the movie. If they wanted to only have a short appearance by Smaug, they could have done that. If they wanted to make Bilbo the real protagonist of this story, they could have done that. And if they wanted to have the dragonslayer appear, without a convoluted backstory, they could have done that as well. But, clearly, they didn't want to write the movies in that way. Instead, they chose to strip the story of those unconventional motifs.

However, these movies were practically guaranteed a large audience- they could have afforded to take a few risks.

Guaranteed by whom? Common sense? Personally, I think you are right, but one might want to have a little more assurance if you're handling a budget that size. The Hobbit trilogy's budget was more than twice as big as the one for all LotR movies. And even if one would accept that a large audience is practically guaranteed, you can always earn more money.

There's every reason, however to think PJ & Co weren't all that enthusiastic this time around; what I'm saying is, that's also a situation in writers turn in hackwork.

Not that it's entirely one thing or the other, of course- Tauriel is pretty blatantly there for commercial appeal.

You are right. It most certainly is a mixture of both elements. And as I said before, we can't prove or check the motivation behind those decisions anyways, which makes this discussion moot.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Guaranteed by whom? Common sense? Personally, I think you are right, but one might want to have a little more assurance if you're handling a budget that size. The Hobbit trilogy's budget was more than twice as big as the one for all LotR movies. And even if one would accept that a large audiance is practically guaranteed, you can always earn more money.

I think you're right here, and I think it's interesting as an example of Warner Bros.' approach as opposed to that of New Line, who distributed the earlier films. (New Line was involved in the production of the "The Hobbit" films, but not the distribution) Oddly enough, "The Lord of the Rings" was almost certainly the more ambitious and risky project - Peter Jackson was not an established director at the time to nearly the extent he is now, and a complete film adaptation of the notoriously "unfilmable" text had never been really tried before - and yet the story in many respects and in terms of details arguably survived "intact" to a greater extent than in the case of "The Hobbit".

That, of course, may just be Warner Bros.' way, as opposed to New Line, even with a director who by the time of "The Hobbit" was a big deal and a fairly guaranteed product: hands-on and with a focus on making the story more marketable.

It's a bit startling that the budget for "The Hobbit trilogy" was so much greater. Surely inflation alone can't have accounted for that. But I suppose the returning actors are pricier now, in many cases as a result of the earlier films, and they were using more advanced effects technology.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It's a bit startling that the budget for "The Hobbit trilogy" was so much greater. Surely inflation alone can't have accounted for that. But I suppose the returning actors are pricier now, in many cases as a result of the earlier films, and they were using more advanced effects technology.

The cost of were-worm wrangling is outrageous.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Oddly enough, "The Lord of the Rings" was almost certainly the more ambitious and risky project - Peter Jackson was not an established director at the time to nearly the extent he is now, and a complete film adaptation of the notoriously "unfilmable" text had never been really tried before - and yet the story in many respects and in terms of details arguably survived "intact" to a greater extent than in the case of "The Hobbit".

That's an interesting point. Yes, the initial risk was most certainly higher. New Line Cinema had no real evidence that a story like The Lord the the Rings was a financial viable film project. They couldn't know, for a fact, that these movies would be successful with a current general audience. However, they took this leap of faith, if you want to call it like that, based on the (reasonable) assumption that one of the most popular modern novels has created a lasting public demand for such films, which would thusly create a good profit.

The necessary threshold for the success of those movies would be, in this constellation, the story of the novels itself, since that's what The Lord of the Rings (as a brand, if you will) is, so far, publicly known and loved for. So it is only consecutive to tie these movies as closely as possible to the novel, while still keeping the films as attractive as possible for a person who hasn't read the books. They had to balance these things out.


The situation of "the Hobbit Trilogy" was entirely different. This time, the threshold for the success of the films was not the novel "The Hobbit", written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but the mind-blowing success of the previous Lord of the Rings films. They knew, for a fact, that there's a huge demand for movies like this (!). And, I think, that's what leaves the admirer of the original Hobbit novel necessarily unsatisfied. We, ironically, had the misfortune to not be in the main target group, so to speak.




* To be clear: This is, of course, my assumption and interpretation. I don't have any insider knowledge about the motivation of the producers to picturize The Lord of the Rings, or The Hobbit.
** I didn't consider previous adaptations (Bakshi etc.) in this train of thought to reduce complexity, to a certain extend.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It's a bit startling that the budget for "The Hobbit trilogy" was so much greater. Surely inflation alone can't have accounted for that. But I suppose the returning actors are pricier now, in many cases as a result of the earlier films, and they were using more advanced effects technology.

And yet the effects in many cases look noticeably worse... it's really hard to see where that huge budget went, a lot of the time. I guess implementing the HFR took up a lot.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And yet the effects in many cases look noticeably worse... it's really hard to see where that huge budget went, a lot of the time. I guess implementing the HFR took up a lot.

Yes I hear conflicting things about whether practical effects work or CGI is more expensive these days.

Originally Posted by Leaf

The situation of "the Hobbit Trilogy" was entirely different. This time, the threshold for the success of the films was not the novel "The Hobbit", written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but the mind-blowing success of the previous Lord of the Rings films. They knew, for a fact, that there's a huge demand for movies like this (!). And, I think, that's what leaves the admirer of the original Hobbit novel necessarily unsatisfied. We, ironically, had the misfortune to not be in the main target group, so to speak.

Leaf, I think you've made some very interesting points here, which tie in to the idea of the "Hobbit" films as a prequel to the other films as well as being an adaptation of an existing text. What that leaves me with, of course, is the feeling that in my opinion they're not terribly successful as prequels to the earlier films.

[Faramir Jones]

Zigûr, I agree with what you said here to Leaf:

Leaf, I think you've made some very interesting points here, which tie in to the idea of the "Hobbit" films as a prequel to the other films as well as being an adaptation of an existing text. What that leaves me with, of course, is the feeling that in my opinion they're not terribly successful as prequels to the earlier films.

One particular problem I had with the Hobbit films, which made them worse than the Lord of the Rings films, was that the first group didn't even attempt to give an idea of the size of Middle-earth. The second category of films, for all (in my opinion) their many faults, gave the audience the fact that Middle-earth was big; and if there was a long distance between points A and B, it was going to take a long time to travel between the two, even if you were in a hurry.

I didn't see any attempt to deal with this in the Hobbit films, particularly regarding Mirkwood. It wouldn't have been too difficult (and there was certainly the time to spare!) to show how big, dark, and mysterious the wood was, and how few safe things there were to eat and drink, not to mention the enchanted river.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

I didn't see any attempt to deal with this in the Hobbit films, particularly regarding Mirkwood. It wouldn't have been too difficult (and there was certainly the time to spare!) to show how big, dark, and mysterious the wood was, and how few safe things there were to eat and drink, not to mention the enchanted river.

I wonder if an issue with this kind of thing was that they needed everything to look "right" on a 3D HFR camera, which affected what they could do with sets and constructed environments that needed to look real, as well as with makeup and practical effects.

I think perhaps my biggest issue with the Hobbit films as prequels to the Lord of the Rings films is that the visuals in the Hobbit films are much more stylised and/or exaggerated. Things like:

-the Dwarves' hairdos (especially Nori)

-Azog (especially compared to the soldier orcs of the earlier films) and other CGI creations, particularly the trolls used in the final film. They tried far too hard to make those trolls look weird and visually distinctive

-locations like Dol Guldur, Rhosgobel and Lake Town, which to me look very affectedly hodge-podge or ramshackle; they look designed to look chaotic rather than looking like they've organically come to look that way. By contrast, Edoras and Minas Tirith in the films look like places that could actually exist

I think this last part is especially noticeable when comparing the elements which returned from the other films, like Hobbiton and Rivendell, to those which were designed for these ones.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Those aren't things that PJ or the Screenwriters simply overlooked, misjudged or misunderstood. I find it hard to believe that the problem was the lack of ideas or a 'vague memory' (even though the result may feel this way). I'm thinking this way, because those things are relatively easy to spot and even easier to implement in the movie. If they wanted to only have a short appearance by Smaug, they could have done that. If they wanted to make Bilbo the real protagonist of this story, they could have done that. And if they wanted to have the dragonslayer appear, without a convoluted backstory, they could have done that as well. But, clearly, they didn't want to write the movies in that way. Instead, they chose to strip the story of those unconventional motifs.

Well, that's in part what I was trying to say, that they *chose* to- i.e. didn't *have* to.

It's said that Jackson was put under great pressure by the studio to give LotR the standard "Hollywood Treatment" (i.e. complete butchery) but dug in his heels and refused to do so; I'm sure he could have won such a battle this time around too.