so why does Peter Jackson think he knows more about storytelling than the guy who actually wrote the book?

For the same reason I AM LEGEND – which if filmed pretty much exactly as it exists WOULD work – won’t ever be filmed: low information audiences and greedy, bottom line oriented execs.

Think about how many complaints there were that Jackson’s RETURN OF THE KING had “too many endings.”

Now think about how much louder they would be if you put in that extra subplot for an extra 15-20 minutes of screen time AFTER Frodo has destroyed the Ring – on top of all the other things you have to show (Frodo’s saving and healing, the crowning and wedding, Frodo leaving Bag End to Sam, the departure from the Grey Havens, etc.).

Even Tolkien, in one of his letters, conceded that the Scouring might have to be cut in an adaptation. I think that the Scouring, along with Bombadil, are defensible excisions, because they really take away from the main narrative. They’re perfect examples of diversions that can work on the printed page, but not on the screen. And I say that affirming that both are two of may favorite parts of the novels.

Now, there were OTHER departures by Jackson that I thought were terrible ideas. Not least what was done to Aragorn’s and Faramir’s characters. But that’s in part because the changes actually worked less on the screen, not just because they departed from the book.

The_Jacobite on December 23, 2012 at 1:18 AM

My answer is that The Return of the King should have been two movies. It’s the most complicated of the books, with a wonderful sense of crescendo. I think that most of the “too many endings” complaints stemmed more form the fact that the movie was long and people were getting a little tired at the end. There was plenty of great material omitted, especially the scouring of the Shire and the death of Saruman, that two very well-paced movies could have been made.

It seems to me that 3D was done for 3D sake and was annoying, at best. The only partially enjoyable 3D effect was the sparks floating out of the chimney.

A lot of the added events appear to be done as filler so they can make The Hobbit a trilogy. I don’t really mind that movies add filler, as long as it doesn’t detract from the story line.

A lot of the fight scenes came out of Indiana Jones, or UA/MGM theme parks. I guess we know what the theme is for summer vacation.

Had this been the first attempt 20 years ago, and done without 3D it probably would have been a good movie.

LL

I’m a huge fan of the Hobbit and LOTR books, and I expected more. There were too many things missing and out of order. The movie just sort of plodded along, and never really got there. Hope the others are better.

Side note: 007 was sold out and Hobbit was nearly empty. Wonder what that means?

Better yet, why the heck didn’t Jackson START with the Hobbit, anyway? eh.

Bee on December 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Because New Line DID have the rights to LORD OF THE RINGS, but did not have undisputed rights to film THE HOBBIT. New Line had the production rights to THE HOBBIT, but not the distribution rights. United Artists owned that. So New Line gave a green light to the work it DID have an undisputed right to produce and distribute, once Jackson made the pitch to them.

They actually needed a long and ugly legal battle with UA/MGM to get control of that in order to get the film rolling – and then another with Christopher Tolkien over unpaid royalties. That’s why the HOBBIT films were delayed a few years.

Peter Jackson showed me his inner Lucas when he absolutely ruined “The Return of the King”… and, by extension, the entire trilogy… by omitting the “scouring of the Shire.”

cane_loader on December 22, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Think about how many complaints there were that Jackson’s RETURN OF THE KING had “too many endings.”

Now think about how much louder they would be if you put in that extra subplot for an extra 15-20 minutes of screen time AFTER Frodo has destroyed the Ring – on top of all the other things you have to show (Frodo’s saving and healing, the crowning and wedding, Frodo leaving Bag End to Sam, the departure from the Grey Havens, etc.).

Even Tolkien, in one of his letters, conceded that the Scouring might have to be cut in an adaptation. I think that the Scouring, along with Bombadil, are defensible excisions, because they really take away from the main narrative. They’re perfect examples of diversions that can work on the printed page, but not on the screen. And I say that affirming that both are two of may favorite parts of the novels.

Now, there were OTHER departures by Jackson that I thought were terrible ideas. Not least what was done to Aragorn’s and Faramir’s characters. But that’s in part because the changes actually worked less on the screen, not just because they departed from the book.

I do have to admit that I get a chuckle remembering when I saw the first movie of LOTR when the last scene was Sam and Frodo heading off then the credits began to roll and I could hear someone speak out, “Is that it”?

I am probably not a purist so leaving out parts would probably not bother me much. But that’s just me.

I still intend to see the movie and make my own judgement.

I actually read The Hobbit later, and always found it a bit slight, as it was written for children, and had a bit of a patronizing tone thereby. So to see this director stretching it out to three movies seems odd, quixotic. I think I’ll avoid them all, as I’ve avoided The Lord of the Rings movies; I’ll let the author’s words continue to ring in my head, and my own visions of the world he conjured up remain unsullied by some movie man’s idea.

Peter Jackson showed me his inner Lucas when he absolutely ruined “The Return of the King”… and, by extension, the entire trilogy… by omitting the “scouring of the Shire.”

cane_loader on December 22, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I don’t think it ruined it all, but that utterly disgusted me. STILL bothers me. STILL. SARUMAN DIDN’T DIE THAT WAY, FFS.

I just got back from seeing the Hobbit this evening. I have only recently began rereading it since my childhood, so, I missed a lot. I didn’t dislike the tone, really…I don’t see a problem with tying in the LOTR, and a lot of the movie was quite good. That said, the beginning with elder Bilbo/Frodo was superfluous, and I agree there was a lot of unnecessary dead space. They very easily could have made a single, solid four hour movie and done it complete justice. Better yet, why the heck didn’t Jackson START with the Hobbit, anyway? eh.

I don’t have a problem with “fleshing out” or stretching existing material (from appendixes or the Sil) but creating characters and rewriting entire scenes whole cloth/switching who does what is, frankly, audacious and insulting. To think they could have written it better…

The ending of Return of the King was a sorry disgrace, akin to the dancing whatevers at the end of Return of the Jedi.

I was sad and upset with the cheesy, corrupted, crappy Hollywood ending.

Tolkien’s wistful, beautiful ending ot the trilogy was thrown in the scrapheap.

Peter Jackson showed me his inner Lucas when he absolutely ruined “The Return of the King”… and, by extension, the entire trilogy… by omitting the “scouring of the Shire.”

That was an inexcusable travesty, almost as bad as stretching “The Hobbit” into three films, that did disrespectful violence to Tolkien’s vision.

I will see The Hobbit, I’m sure, but I’m prepared to be let down and disgusted.

I don’t think Jackson’s intelligence is in question.
His love of money is the root of this evil.

Three films can make more money than one, so he added a lot of stuff.
It’s as easy as that.

itsnotaboutme on December 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I like to think Jackson is more grounded than, say, Lucas…who was certainly thinking of deeper pockets.

I was actually pleasantly surprised with The Hobbit. I had stated earlier that, from the trailer, it looked almost too light-hearted, or comedic as Ed put it…and for me there was actually much less of it than I expected.

True, some twisting of the storyline was done…but that’s happened to every movie on many different levels that was taken from a book. One of the worst I saw was Jurassic Park…the ending was completely different when Hammond lives in the movie and it changed a big part of the whole feel of the story.

All in all, The Hobbit was worth the watch.

I’m more hyped for Les Mis anyway. I’ll wait for the Hobbit on dvd.

mythicknight on December 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Well you obviously don’t have a Y chromosome.

Sorry about that

Certainly not a post about Hobbit

I was in the unpleasant thread. See you and Merry Christmas!

“The hard-core anti-tax conservatives in the GOP seem to believe that Barack Obama will be blamed if there is no agreement reached to avoid sequestration and the tax increases that are coming,” said Sheldon D. Pollack

The spin is getting tedious

repeat after me there is no crisis. It is made up crap by the elites to spook the people into accepting tax hikes and giving their voters the other party to blame. the fact of the matter is this was set in motion months ago.

..this is the some crap they do with free trade and open borders. The elites get what they want open borders and free trade and blame the “otherside” for outsourcing and illgeal immigrants.
wake the hell up people.
unseen on December 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

A lot of truth in what you say. This is a setup. Exactly who is involved is debatable

Rush was correct. Obama wanted Boehner to offer a no strings tax hike, which he could use as a signed confession that the upper GOP finally admits undertaxation is the only problem. Obama ran all over TV proclaiming just that

Obama did not need the bill to pass. He just needed the signature

1. The Senate was going home. Obviously they did not want a bill to pass. Question: Did Boehner not know this (LOL) or did he push a bill in the House which was guaranteed to fail – in the House, so he could blame Tea Party? With no Senate, the onus is on the House

2. I watched Boehner react to how his own party ‘failed’ to help him avoid the fiscal cliff Question: is Boehner a naive fool, or does he want the public to turn on the ones in his own party who did not go along with Boehner. Whether he wanted to stage a purge or not, Boehner pulled a Christie, he set up a play which made his own group look like they were the ones who did not care, by isolating the players and siding with the opposition (the WH). For this, I can call him a fool

Boehner had no hope to produce a bill the Senate would approve. If you think you are outvoted, you have no gain in compromising your base. Write legislation to the base, and let the other party own the outcome.

Clue: when Boehner demoted Tea Party as ‘untrusted’ he signaled the Tea Party was his problem. Then if the vote failed, he could finger this group

One gets a leadership position either by smarts, or by being a useable stooge. Takes your pick. Congress has both