Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 17:51:17 GMT
Don't forget pointlessly giving more Bard more "character", and yet, so much less. I find his book interpretation where he's just the badass who kills a dragon and then takes over as king of Laketown so much more memorable than... whatever the hell they were trying to do with him in the films. Bard is a character that could've benefited from the two movie structure. He'd be introduced at the beginning of movie two and then his mini arc would play out in just one film. If he came in late in a single movie adaptation it might seem a little random and Deus ex Machina (although that's true of the source material as well). As it is now though WAY too much importance was placed on him in the third movie. But that speaks to the third movie's biggest problem: Bilbo. They completely forgot that this was HIS story. That's why the battle is so short in the book; its really just the backdrop for Bilbo stealing the Arkenstone and fulfilling his character arc. In the movie he's basically an after thought to the spectacle. There's nothing random about his presence in my opinion, given his heritage and the geography. He's in the right region to have inherited the black arrow and damn near everyone in Laketown were descendants of someone from the ruined kingdom of Dale. It all clicked fine for me. I also hated how they had him refusing to be the king of new kingdom they were forming. Fuck Jackson. It was annoying enough he had Aragorn trying to dodge becoming king of Gondor, but this was just insulting. Bilbo: this is why I was against including anything from Rings Appendex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 21:22:07 GMT
Bard is a character that could've benefited from the two movie structure. He'd be introduced at the beginning of movie two and then his mini arc would play out in just one film. If he came in late in a single movie adaptation it might seem a little random and Deus ex Machina (although that's true of the source material as well). As it is now though WAY too much importance was placed on him in the third movie. But that speaks to the third movie's biggest problem: Bilbo. They completely forgot that this was HIS story. That's why the battle is so short in the book; its really just the backdrop for Bilbo stealing the Arkenstone and fulfilling his character arc. In the movie he's basically an after thought to the spectacle. There's nothing random about his presence in my opinion, given his heritage and the geography. He's in the right region to have inherited the black arrow and damn near everyone in Laketown were descendants of someone from the ruined kingdom of Dale. It all clicked fine for me. I also hated how they had him refusing to be the king of new kingdom they were forming. Fuck Jackson. It was annoying enough he had Aragorn trying to dodge becoming king of Gondor, but this was just insulting. Bilbo: this is why I was against including anything from Rings Appendex. Well, what I mean is that the book is very episodic, so in one movie there would be many important characters introduced late in act two that then play a major part. Works fine in the book, but introducing major characters late in act two is usually not done. His slaying of the dragon wouldn't have much weight if we just met him ten minutes earlier. It would feel like Deus ex Machina. A little bit of fleshing out his character wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't handled all that well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 3:24:37 GMT
There's nothing random about his presence in my opinion, given his heritage and the geography. He's in the right region to have inherited the black arrow and damn near everyone in Laketown were descendants of someone from the ruined kingdom of Dale. It all clicked fine for me. I also hated how they had him refusing to be the king of new kingdom they were forming. Fuck Jackson. It was annoying enough he had Aragorn trying to dodge becoming king of Gondor, but this was just insulting. Bilbo: this is why I was against including anything from Rings Appendex. Well, what I mean is that the book is very episodic, so in one movie there would be many important characters introduced late in act two that then play a major part. Works fine in the book, but introducing major characters late in act two is usually not done. His slaying of the dragon wouldn't have much weight if we just met him ten minutes earlier. It would feel like Deus ex Machina. A little bit of fleshing out his character wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't handled all that well. He worked fine in the Rankin-Bass version, and he was identical to how he was in the book there. People have had issues with the Rankin-Bass version before, make no mistake, but I've never heard anyone (including total newcomers to Tolkien) ever whine about Bard and his black arrow. I would know. I used to frequent the 1977 Hobbit film on the original IMDb. It never once came up in the 14 years I was a member on the site. Honestly, the 2003 Sierra game based on The Hobbit also did a bit of fleshing out of Bard's character, and they did it much better. They took what we knew about him and just expanded on that. Unlike Jackson, who just completely rewrote the character from the ground up as... what the hell was he in the Jackson's trilogy?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 18:36:43 GMT
Well, what I mean is that the book is very episodic, so in one movie there would be many important characters introduced late in act two that then play a major part. Works fine in the book, but introducing major characters late in act two is usually not done. His slaying of the dragon wouldn't have much weight if we just met him ten minutes earlier. It would feel like Deus ex Machina. A little bit of fleshing out his character wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't handled all that well. He worked fine in the Rankin-Bass version, and he was identical to how he was in the book there. People have had issues with the Rankin-Bass version before, make no mistake, but I've never heard anyone (including total newcomers to Tolkien) ever whine about Bard and his black arrow. I would know. I used to frequent the 1977 Hobbit film on the original IMDb. It never once came up in the 14 years I was a member on the site. Honestly, the 2003 Sierra game based on The Hobbit also did a bit of fleshing out of Bard's character, and they did it much better. They took what we knew about him and just expanded on that. Unlike Jackson, who just completely rewrote the character from the ground up as... what the hell was he in the Jackson's trilogy?! Come on, dude. I'm not "whining" about anything. What is it with people online and that word anyway? Opinion doesn't equal whining. I'm simply saying that, in theory, expanding on Bard's character is a decent idea. Characters that play a major role generally have a bit more development than Bard does in the book. Jackson didn't do a great job with it, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to flesh the character out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 18:57:32 GMT
He worked fine in the Rankin-Bass version, and he was identical to how he was in the book there. People have had issues with the Rankin-Bass version before, make no mistake, but I've never heard anyone (including total newcomers to Tolkien) ever whine about Bard and his black arrow. I would know. I used to frequent the 1977 Hobbit film on the original IMDb. It never once came up in the 14 years I was a member on the site. Honestly, the 2003 Sierra game based on The Hobbit also did a bit of fleshing out of Bard's character, and they did it much better. They took what we knew about him and just expanded on that. Unlike Jackson, who just completely rewrote the character from the ground up as... what the hell was he in the Jackson's trilogy?! Come on, dude. I'm not "whining" about anything. What is it with people online and that word anyway? Opinion doesn't equal whining. I'm simply saying that, in theory, expanding on Bard's character is a decent idea. Characters that play a major role generally have a bit more development than Bard does in the book. Jackson didn't do a great job with it, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to flesh the character out. What? No! I wasn't saying you were whining! That was a dig at the over-reactors over at old IMDb. Sorry, it never once dawned on me that the way I worded that sentence could be taken to be meant as an insult against you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 19:02:30 GMT
Come on, dude. I'm not "whining" about anything. What is it with people online and that word anyway? Opinion doesn't equal whining. I'm simply saying that, in theory, expanding on Bard's character is a decent idea. Characters that play a major role generally have a bit more development than Bard does in the book. Jackson didn't do a great job with it, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to flesh the character out. What? No! I wasn't saying you were whining! That was a dig at the over-reactors over at old IMDb. Sorry, it never once dawned on me that the way I worded that sentence could be taken to be meant as an insult against you. Oh ok. No worries then. Sometimes text is easy to misinterpret.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 19:05:09 GMT
What? No! I wasn't saying you were whining! That was a dig at the over-reactors over at old IMDb. Sorry, it never once dawned on me that the way I worded that sentence could be taken to be meant as an insult against you. Oh ok. No worries then. Sometimes text is easy to misinterpret. Yeah, this is one of the downsides to not having my facial expressions and tone of voice present. At the end of the day, though, the biggest shame of all is... no one is going to want to redo The Hobbit anytime soon, and even if they did, they won't want to settle for just one film when the precious effort was a trilogy. We'll never see a faithful big budget live-action adaptation in our lifetimes. That right there is what finally killed any fondness I used to have for Peter Jackson. I used to think he was just the coolest director ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 19:12:25 GMT
Oh ok. No worries then. Sometimes text is easy to misinterpret. Yeah, this is one of the downsides to not having my facial expressions and tone of voice present. At the end of the day, though, the biggest shame of all is... no one is going to want to redo The Hobbit anytime soon, and even if they did, they won't want to settle for just one film when the precious effort was a trilogy. We'll never see a faithful big budget live-action adaptation in our lifetimes. That right there is what finally killed any fondness I used to have for Peter Jackson. I used to think he was just the coolest director ever. Yeah, and what makes it even worse is that they wasted some amazing cast members. McKellen as Gandalf, Freeman as Bilbo, SERKIS as Golllum. No one could ever hope for better. They had the chance to deliver something truly special and they threw it away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 19:18:27 GMT
Yeah, this is one of the downsides to not having my facial expressions and tone of voice present. At the end of the day, though, the biggest shame of all is... no one is going to want to redo The Hobbit anytime soon, and even if they did, they won't want to settle for just one film when the precious effort was a trilogy. We'll never see a faithful big budget live-action adaptation in our lifetimes. That right there is what finally killed any fondness I used to have for Peter Jackson. I used to think he was just the coolest director ever. Yeah, and what makes it even worse is that they wasted some amazing cast members. McKellen as Gandalf, Freeman as Bilbo, SERKIS as Golllum. No one could ever hope for better. They had the chance to deliver something truly special and they threw it away. And the world rewarded them with billions of dollars, so the people who should feel terrible about it (Warner Bros executives) will never know a single second of consequence from it... until they enter the hereafter to find a very angry Tolkien waiting for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 19:27:46 GMT
Yeah, and what makes it even worse is that they wasted some amazing cast members. McKellen as Gandalf, Freeman as Bilbo, SERKIS as Golllum. No one could ever hope for better. They had the chance to deliver something truly special and they threw it away. And the world rewarded them with billions of dollars, so the people who should feel terrible about it (Warner Bros executives) will never know a single second of consequence from it... until they enter the hereafter to find a very angry Tolkien waiting for them. That's the never ending story of studio execs: dopes that make stupid decisions get rewarded for their ignorance and never pay for their crimes against art.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 21:11:55 GMT
And the world rewarded them with billions of dollars, so the people who should feel terrible about it (Warner Bros executives) will never know a single second of consequence from it... until they enter the hereafter to find a very angry Tolkien waiting for them. That's the never ending story of studio execs: dopes that make stupid decisions get rewarded for their ignorance and never pay for their crimes against art. Yep. New Line should never have partnered up with Warner Bros and they should have never waited so long for the Hobbit prequel.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Aug 31, 2017 2:04:06 GMT
Well, what I mean is that the book is very episodic, so in one movie there would be many important characters introduced late in act two that then play a major part. Works fine in the book, but introducing major characters late in act two is usually not done. His slaying of the dragon wouldn't have much weight if we just met him ten minutes earlier. It would feel like Deus ex Machina. A little bit of fleshing out his character wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't handled all that well. He worked fine in the Rankin-Bass version, and he was identical to how he was in the book there. People have had issues with the Rankin-Bass version before, make no mistake, but I've never heard anyone (including total newcomers to Tolkien) ever whine about Bard and his black arrow. I would know. I used to frequent the 1977 Hobbit film on the original IMDb. It never once came up in the 14 years I was a member on the site. Honestly, the 2003 Sierra game based on The Hobbit also did a bit of fleshing out of Bard's character, and they did it much better. They took what we knew about him and just expanded on that. Unlike Jackson, who just completely rewrote the character from the ground up as... what the hell was he in the Jackson's trilogy?! In the Rankin Bass version, Bard actually appears to be the Master of Laketown right from the start.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Aug 31, 2017 2:04:50 GMT
That's the never ending story of studio execs: dopes that make stupid decisions get rewarded for their ignorance and never pay for their crimes against art. Yep. New Line should never have partnered up with Warner Bros and they should have never waited so long for the Hobbit prequel. They should have made The Hobbit first, then we probably wouldn't have the whole problem in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 2:53:03 GMT
Yep. New Line should never have partnered up with Warner Bros and they should have never waited so long for the Hobbit prequel. They should have made The Hobbit first, then we probably wouldn't have the whole problem in the first place. That wasn't possible at the time. Basically, the rights were tied up between many people. One company owned the rights to make the film while another owned the rights to distribute the film, but there were other issues, too.
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Nov 6, 2017 15:44:15 GMT
One movie would have been enough
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 15, 2017 13:49:34 GMT
I enjoyed the Hobbit Trilogy, it's bloated and a poor adaptation of the novel but in its own rights I like it. I think though it had three problems before it even got off the ground: 1. The source material is quite episodic (which is fine for a book where you may read say a chapter a night but can feel choppy if you're watching as a movie) 2. It came after the LOTR movies and so there was pressure to imitate them despite the book being very different from LOTR in terms of tone and scope 3. The book lacked any female characters, love story, loved ones etc
Jackson got round the first problem by creating the Azog the Pale Orc story (which is taken from a passing line by Tolkien about Azog the Goblin who killed Thror - ironically Tolkien says he plays no part in this story!). He got round the second by making the characters more serious and LOTR-like (the goblins don't sing cute songs in the films!) and given the story more of an epic scope as well as tying it more to Sauron, having Legolas etc. For the third he introduced Tauriel and gave Bard a family he cares about.
I'm not sure these were the best solutions to these problems, but I highly doubt the studio would have greenlit any movie concepts that didn't try to address them in some ways. FWIW, I liked much of Jackson's additional material - seeing the white council take on Sauron was great, Azog serves fine as a long-running villain, Tauriel was likeable, it was nice to see Radagast who was cut from the LOTR adaptation. I could have done without all the scenes with the Master and his assistant and some of the action scenes for the sake of action scenes (like the dwarves fighting Smaug) were tedious.
All that aside, I think if one were to make a fairly faithful adaptation of the Hobbit and ignore the baggage of the LOTR films, two films probably would work best though you could do it in one.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 7, 2018 8:15:52 GMT
I'll throw "3 movies" a bone.
I actually really liked the first two. The third was weak and could have been better, but for awhile I thought PJ was actually gonna pull it off. So while just two movies would have been fine for a straightforward telling of the book, as an adaption I warmed up to three.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 21, 2019 22:47:37 GMT
Rewatching them all...
This could have been one great 3.5 hour movie.
It’s actually pretty irritating.
|
|