Jackson was in a no-win situation - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Discussion

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 7 years ago

The sad thing is, if told right it could of been an awesome single movie as good as the three Lord of the Rings films, instead we just got a bloated mess of three movies with characters and side stories we didnt want.

reply

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

I think two movies could have worked well.

reply

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 7 years ago

Without the fan fiction, yeah.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

One fast-paced movie could have been terrific, or two well-edited ones could have been fabulous as well. Either format could be made to work!

But really, I don't share your view that the studio is at fault, because the fact is that PJ gets overly enthusiastic about something, he doesn't know when to stop and the editing process goes to hell. That's why his ROTK dragged more than the earlier films, and why "King Kong" and the stupid "Hobbit" films are interminable messes.

reply

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spurtle467 (1558) 6 years ago

Agree. PJ went all George Lucas. Developed an unhealthy obsession with CGI which you could tell from his films in between the LOTR and these Hobbit movies, as well as over the top action set pieces that just sort of take the piss in terms of defying logic. When you look back at his earlier movies it's kind of sad because they were rich with practical effects.

I would have preferred seeing another director's take on The Hobbit trilogy (or not) in retrospect.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

Thank you! One movie would have been perfect. Two or more? The Hunger Games, or even worse. What a disaster and travesty this morass was.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11338) 7 years ago

The behind the scenes drama and history of these movies is pretty interesting. I'd love a documentary to come out one day. Jackson was indeed in a no-win situation, mostly because of studio mandates and sticking to production schedules. This project was a juggled hot potato shit show from the get go.

reply

[–] billbrown7071 (3195) 7 years ago

do you guys really actually Hate these movies?

I mean can you really find no enjoyment from them...

I am new to The LOTR and Hobbit Trilogies...I havent read any books or have no a clue about this franchise....but 2 years ago I watched The LOTR trilogy and it was the single greatest Movie experience of My Life....

of course I couldnt wait to watch The Hobbit Trilogy and from the get go, I knew it wants going to be as Good as The LOTR Trilogy...But I still Absolutely enjoyed the hell out of them...

for Me they are just Fun, Good movies that I can enjoy watching and rewatching....The LOTR Trilogy is IMO the greatest trilogy ever made, and 3 of the greatest individual films ever made....The story in LOTR just feel so such more important, Dire and Meaningful and The HObbit just feels a like good adventure....

I'm also thinking I may feel differently the most because as I said, I know nothing of the books....So I dont know whats wrong with the Hobbit movies...but for me just as Movies...I enjoy them a lot(even though I feel they are a HUGE set down from LOTR)and Watch them every single time I watch the LOTR Trilogy

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Read the books, at least once. You can't claim to speak from knowledge if you've never read the source material.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

But he can give an objective assessment of what the movies are like *as movies* , as seen by someone who hasnt read the books.
You are supposed to be able to watch a movie without having read the "source material" first you know.

In fact some might say , If you've read the book , whats the point watching the film? you know the ending.
and the start
and the middle

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 4 years ago

I know this is an old thread but I agree with billbrown7071 and am glad they got to experience the movies without the books in his mind and enjoyed them as a separate piece. I have read the books and still enjoyed them. Sure, I would prefer some different choices such as no made up Tauriel character and making the battle of 5 armies so big and epic it matches the size of the battles in the original thereby making them seem less important. But over all, I enjoyed the films.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

There is neither a Hobbit trilogy NOR
a Lord of the Rings trlogy. The Hobbit, to repeat myself several times over, was pubished as The Enchanting Prelude To The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit runs about 200 printed pages. The LOTR
runs over 1,000 pages. It it NOT a trilogy. It is a long story sliced into three parts by a cheap and cowardly publisher. There is no way, save for greed and director avarice, that The Hobbit deserved the same screen
time as The Lord of the Rings.

reply

[–] billbrown7071 (3195) 7 years ago

well you can claim The story is one giant story...

But by Definition The MOvies are in fact a trilogy...

a Trilogy is defined as 3 films in a series....

Both The Hobbit and LOTR are 3 films that tell and complete a story over 3 films....

They are in fact both Movie trilogies...

I dont argue anything you say about the books or Publisher...If you feel the Books arent 3 stories and should have been 1 long one....thats fine...I know nothing of this manner...

But you can not factual you say the Movies arent trilogy...because They are the very definition of A Trilogy....and IMO The LOTR is the best Trilogy ever made...keywords Being "IMO"....as I know I do not speak for everyone...

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

So is Police Academy 1,2 & 3 a trilogy?

I think you are missing the point - the point being the movies are stuffed with stuff that wasnt in the short Hobbit book , in order to make a 9 hour film. You could probably actually read the original book int that time.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

It doesn't matter of the films are stuffed with unnecessary stuff, if they are composed of 3 films then it's a trilogy.

PA if composed of 3 films only and is in a continuum, then yes, that's also a trilogy. I haven't seen those since I was 7/8.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

No. “Trilogy” is a precise literary term and, you’re right that you don’t know anything about it. You could have looked it up. A trilogy is a series of three stand-alone stories, each one of them complete in itself with a beginning and an ending that, when combined together, tell a gigantic story. Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy is an excellent example. It comprises three volumes: Foundation, Foundation And Empire and Second Foundation. Each is a COMPLETE story. Tolkien write LOTR as one book. The publisher wasn’t sure the story would sell, so cut it into three parts so, if The Fellowship didn’t sell, he could cut his losses and
print the two other parts. Now you know why The Two Towers felt so odd. It had no real start, no real finish. In scholarship, a world of fact, opinions don’t matter. Facts do.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

"There is no way, save for greed and director avarice, that The Hobbit deserved the same screen
time as The Lord of the Rings"

well said

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

Thank you, mark. You get it.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Actually, it seems that five different studios owned a slice of the income from the first hobbit film and the first film only... so the studio insisted on three films rather than two.

That way they'd get a big chunk of money from two films rather than one, or none.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

ok, lets rephrase: The hobbit did not deserve to be stretched out into a 9 hour parody of itself in order to line the pockets of one studio over another.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Dear God, no!

Normally I'm horrified by Hollywoods recent fervor for remakes, but in this case I'm hoping theyll announce a new " The Hobbit" film this year. They couldn't make a worse version!

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

"do you guys really actually Hate these movies? I mean can you really find no enjoyment from them..."

Very little enjoyment, really. They're like the Star Wars prequels in that they're not actually good movies by any definition, but there are a few worthwhile things in there for a fan to enjoy. Lee Pace as the Elvenking, Laketown, some awesome Smaug effects, Martin Freeman, etc. But in order to get to the good bits, one has to put up with hours and hours and hours of terrible miscalculated bad ideas that should never have been included in the finished cut! On one of the Star Wars threads I liked watching the things to digging through buckets of muck to find a few gold nuggets; not entirely unrewarding - but nothing like watching a movie that's actually good.

And I have to say that the Star Wars Prequels are a better movies than the Hobbit films. It's so sad.

reply

[–] mobocracy (902) 4 years ago

I tried watching the first Hobbit movie when it came out after loving the LOTR books and the Hobbit (which I haven't read since the 1970s), and I was really disappointed.

That being said, now that all 3 movies are on HBO Max I decided to give the Hobbit another go and to my surprise, it was more entertaining than I remembered.

It's not great, really, it has kind of a Monty Python silly flavor that takes away from the "gravity" of the quest, but it wasn't awful Sunday afternoon entertainment.

reply

[–] MichelleDessler (424) 6 years ago

I have read all the 'Lord of the Rings' books and watched LOTRs trilogy (EXTENDED EDITION) :-) so many times I have lost count. They are simply masterpieces.

I have never read The Hobbit, but have watched the films and even I felt that the films stretched on for far too long. It should have been a 2 part film with 1&2 being one movie and Battle of the Five Armies being the 2nd. I didn't enjoy 1&2 due to them feeling like fillers. The 3rd film was the best out of the 3, but still didn't save the trilogy for me. I also don't feel like watching them again.

To me LOTRs felt like it was made with so much love, soul, thought and attention to detail, whereas The Hobbit was made just for the pound and dollar signs. It was also soulless.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 6 years ago

Looks like a win to me.

reply