View Single Post

Thread: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

  1. - Top - End - #63
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karoht View Post
    *deep breath*
    Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
    I feel that way -- too much hobbit -- and let me explain why.

    Up until Peter Jackson took it on , there had never been a creditable attempt at the Lord of the Rings. The only one I was aware of was Bakshi's , which even at the tender age of 8 years old I knew was terrible. They cut it off halfway through the story.

    I thought then that it would take 6 hours of theater time to do justice to the books.

    Peter Jackson did 9. 12, in the extended edition.

    I think he did a fantastic job! Yes, he cut things out of the book and moved things around, but I forgive those things. Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire simply didn't fit the pacing of a movie. And I think he did wonders with Arwen's and Aragorn's relationship which Tolkien did not.

    So I'm happy with his length of Lord of the Rings. It was an epic, and required epic-length movies.

    The Hobbit does not.

    The Hobbit is a short, self-contained fairy tale. When I look at PJ's work, I compare it to what came before. No one had ever done Lord of the Rings as he had and I don't think anyone ever will again.

    But the Hobbit has already been done as an animated movie lasting 90 minutes. It was short. It was self-contained. It was excellent. It was one of my favorite movies in grade school.

    Turning a good 90 minute movie into 3 two hour movies does not bode well.

    Of course, I intend to see the movies before I judge them. But prima facie expanding a good movie to something else many times its length does not necessarily scream "good story telling". It does, however, scream "we want to sell more movies".

    I don't blame him for that. He's gotta eat, same as we do. But there's a very good chance that expanding the story to such a degree will hurt the story. That's a different monster entirely than LOTR, where PJ filmed the unfilmable epic, and deserves nothing but praise for doing so.


    ETA: On the other hand, if he covers the War of the Dwarves And Orcs , in which Thorin got his name "Oakenshield" and in which both Thror and Thrain are shown,I will squee like a fanboy. That's a story worth telling on screen.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    Last edited by pendell; 2012-08-02 at 08:19 AM.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

    "As for the rest, I'd like to take a moment to compliment your dedication to rational discussion. You are a gentleperson and a scholar, and I salute you."
    -- DaedalusMkV