Peter Jackson had nothing to do with the film being 3 movies long. New Line were the ones doing the crash grab. The original Jackson/Del Toro idea was for a long, single movie. New Line wanted it expanded into another trilogy which is why the film is so heavy on shit that never actually happened in the books.
The Hobbit films have problems, but Peter Jackson did a very solid, admirable job in wrangling together the problematic script and filming issues into something that was, in my opinion, at least decent without being a kind of cynical, shitty, Hollywood "film-product."
Yeah, can't pin the trilogy thing on Jackson - as soon as the first movie opened and all the different studio names/license-holders came up on-screen one after the other you know why it was a trilogy. Everybody crowding around the corpse, ripping out the entrails for a piece of the profit. I think the movies were pretty dreadful though, with a handful of decent scenes.
Shit, it was clear from the start that Jackson didn't even want to direct The Hobbit when it was going to be one or two films - he sure as shit didn't want to do three.
Sanest Man Alive
Jackson could've walked away from it if he hated even the initial pitch that much; nobody chained him to his chair. Or was his nerdboner at the prospect of getting to direct The Hobbit so blood-drainingly turgid that he thought the monkey's paw was worth it?
I would assume he felt he was one of the better people to make the movie, which is true. However, not enough credit goes to Andy Serkis who Jackson basically made his first Assistant Director and who made, like, half the movie.
Yeah there's really no excusing the Hobbit movies, especially the third one. Hooooly shit that third one.
|Monkey Napoleon |
Some people really are joyless contrarians. The flaws in these movies are MOSTLY due to the important details getting lost and forgotten in the superfluous padding (like 30 minute actions scenes).
He has a point with Balin/Dwalin thing and that the dwarves in general don't really get enough attention, I'll give him that, but the rest of it is setup just fine. It only seems like it's not because because a small piece of characterization will happen (like a scene showing goofy hat dwarf to be both perceptive and understanding), and then you'll forget it happened because you're forced to watch 30 minutes of 14 stooges vs the goblins.
I think where Jackson actually shines in both trilogies is in showing what ultimately resolves these conflicts are the characters love for and faith in one another. Bilbo understands and wants to help the dwarves because he is a naturally sympathetic being who cares without reservation. The dwarves come to respect and admire him when they realize this. For someone complaining about lack of character development, this guy sure does miss the one thing they hammer you with throughout the trilogy.
The Hobbit movies aren't great, but they're not the Prequels. The acting is solid, there are some moments of sincerity, and they do succeed at telling a coherent story. I watch them when they're on.
The elements of sincerity make up for it. Everybody does seem to be having a good time, and they seem to like each other. Nobody in the Prequels appears to want to be there.
Plus, as you know, I"m a sucker for dwarves, and I'll watch wallpaper if it has dwarves on it.
I enjoyed the Hobbit movies, even with the extraneous appendices padding scenes. The tone of the Hobbit is far less serious than that of Lord of the Rings, and rightly so - it was made for his children, originally. Keeping an air of whimsy is what made me ultimately accept all the silly things the movies did - it was a whimsical book in comparison to the trilogy.
If anything, it lost a lot of whimsy by changing the Mirkwood spider scene where bilbo runs around taunting the spiders while invisible, yelling "Adder-cot adder-cot!", which I'm assuming is a horrible insult if you're from the land of middle-earth.
I would say the movies would have been even better received if it hadn't tried to match the "epic" tones of the LotR trilogy - which becomes more and more prevalent in movies 2 and 3. Ultimately the end of 3 felt like you're back into Serious Territory again. I look at it like this: The Hobbit was a wacky luge-ride of adventures for a Hobbit out of his comfort zone. One group of characters, no separate storylines to follow, a pretty self-contained adventure. LOTR was a sprawling, exhaustive and complicated dance in comparison.
I'd settle for 2 Hobbits and a Silmarillion.
I think Ridley Scott would be the perfect director for a Silmarillion movie. All ambiance, no character development.
Him or Aronofsky. Or Panos Cosmatos.
Silmarillion would be kinda boring, though, without a shit-ton of alterations to it. It basically just reads like someone telling you the entire history of Middle Earth and the content is so vast you'd need, like, 10 hours just to do it justice. Maybe a TV mini-series or something would work.
Yes, the Silmarillion would be boring. A Kubrickian stoner trance movie is the only acceptable format.
The only interesting thing about The Hobbit was the failed 48 fps gimmick. I thought it looked kind of neat, and I expected it to catch on for these junky kind of special effects movies. No one else liked it and we'll probably have to wait a decade or two for it to be revived.
I love watching movies in HFR, even interpolated HFR on movies that were shot in standard FPS. But 3D is totally unnecessary. My brain already translates the image on screen into 3D. The CGI in The Hobbit trilogy was integrated into the movie much worse than it was in LOTR which didn't help.
Can't wait for the next Tintin movie, though! The first Tintin movie was the best use of 3D I've ever seen.
It's a shame Maya Angelou never got into online reviews, she could have done "I Know Why 'The Hobbit' Sucks" or "I Know Why 'Frozen' Is a Delightful Romp for the Whole Family".
| Register or login To Post a Comment|