peter jackson lost his touch

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:26 am

Dikey wrote:

The Dwarves
Oh boy. Do you realize that some of them don't even have lines? Nori doesn't say a word, Bombur has ONE WORD in three movies. I am a LOTR fan. But if I weren't I would have never cared about them. Why should anyone bother to learn their names?

Not going to bother with the rest, because that is your opinion, but Nori does in fact say a couple lines. In AUJ right before Bilbo got back after Goblin Town. Bombur mumbles a few things in Bag End, but he doesn't have a single word of dialogue.

Elladan & Elrohir · **Posted:** Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:22 am

Shadowandflame wrote:

It was all a mess for me, but I don't really blame PJ at all. We all have to remember one thing; he was never supposed to direct these movies in the first place. Del Toro was supposed to direct with PJ producing, and you can see Del Toro's influence in a lot of aspects, especially goblin town goblins. Right off the bat there's a contrast of styles between the two directors.

If anything I place the majority of my blame on Warner Brothers. With a studio at like WB at the helm no one can honestly expect that PJ had the same freedom he did with LOTR. They took on The Hobbit to make the most money possible. For example look at Tauriel. Too many people blame PJ for how her story went. But there is an interview with Evangeline Lilly where she explains that when she joined the movie PJ promised her that her character wouldn't be involved for the sake of a love story. When she returned for reshoots PJ then explained to her that she was indeed going to be apart of a love story. I honestly believe that whole plot line was cooked up by some WB exec who had that bright idea after watching PJ's initial footage because its a cliche hollywood knows will work. I personally would be really interested to hear what her original purpose was.

To continue on that thought, I feel like the overuse of CGI was because of too many changes having to be made after principal shooting occurred. This again I blame on WB possibly forcing PJ to change things

I feel like PJ is getting the brunt of the displeasure from fans, when most people don't see the Hollywood monolith that is WB working and influencing in the background to make the most amount of money possible. I also blame them for making 3 movies instead of 2. You can tell then end of DoS was rushed. The CGI gold looked like nacho cheese and all the Smaug chase sequences were video games-esque.

anyways thats my view at least. I feel better blaming WB than blaming PJ.

You have a good point. Agreed, it is rather unfair of us to blame all on Peter. WB is a big money driven company, so we cannot expect it to support a director who wants to make a good film. That said, we still feel PJ is responsible for a lot (but not all) of these film's shortcomings. A lot of the faults of the Hobbit films are the fulfilment and exaggeration of bad tendencies already apparent in PJ's directing in the Lord of the Rings. Its just ten times worse with the Hobbit. This might be our own bias though.

jdizzy001 wrote:

Actually, tolkein's son indicates that his father would most likely be displeased with the LOTR films as they cheapened the world of middle earth to that of an action movie. Though I strongly disagree (the films got me to read the books), it seems the tolkein's family is very disanamored by the films. To the point that they refused to meet PJ.

Christopher Tolkien did refuse to see Peter Jackson. Understandably. If your father wrote a book, and you felt that someone was messing it up, even slightly, you would be upset with him. The Lord of the Rings is a Tolkien family heritage, and Christopher must feel the responsibility of keeping his father's legacy up. We like the Lord of the Rings films, but we also support Christopher Tolkien's fight for the books. Its true that the films do sometimes show very poor reflections of the books.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:39 am

Christopher Tolkien was the OG LotR nerd. He was the first person to grow up in Middle-earth. Middle-earth was originally created TO HELP HIM SLEEP AS A CHILD. Any emotional attachment that we have (which I am personally VERY attached to it) pales in comparison to his. It goes beyond just upholding the legacy, he's upholding his own memory of his father. Tolkien himself didn't really care that much, he sold the rights about as soon as he could make a decent amount of money. I think Tolkien would have been ok with most of the changes, and overall would have thought them decent adaptations. C Tolkien is a overly zealous about the purity of his fathers works, and I'm grateful that he didn't have his way with the movies, because then they never would have gotten made.

Elladan & Elrohir · **Posted:** Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:02 am

Draugluin wrote:

Christopher Tolkien was the OG LotR nerd. He was the first person to grow up in Middle-earth. Middle-earth was originally created TO HELP HIM SLEEP AS A CHILD. Any emotional attachment that we have (which I am personally VERY attached to it) pales in comparison to his. It goes beyond just upholding the legacy, he's upholding his own memory of his father. Tolkien himself didn't really care that much, he sold the rights about as soon as he could make a decent amount of money. I think Tolkien would have been ok with most of the changes, and overall would have thought them decent adaptations. C Tolkien is a overly zealous about the purity of his fathers works, and I'm grateful that he didn't have his way with the movies, because then they never would have gotten made.

There is disagreement in the Tolkien family itself about these films. We feel though that Christopher is perfectly justified in all his dislike for the film adaptations. In our opinion the Lord of the Rings films are above the Hobbit films, and the books are above both. In our eyes the films are what they are because of their relationship to the books (we do love some of PJ’s bits though).

Its a bit unfair to say that about Christopher Tolkien making the films. He's no director, and would probably be unable to make the necessary sacrifices for the book to work as a film. He probably would however have made some changes for the better. You cannot compare an author with a film director. Also Tolkien never lived to see these films, so its more or less impossible to know how he would have felt. As it is though, you need to understand both Peter and Christopher on their own grounds. Both of them appreciate Tolkien and Middle-earth, and both express this in different ways, and we all appreciate their work differently.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:11 pm

My point about CT is that he wouldn't have made those sacrifices, so he would have been all or nothing. And all would have been 6 3 hour movies that are word for word like the books. Which no studio would have ever greenlit. So my point is that if he had been involved, we would have gotten nothing. JRRT never saw his movies, but he did see the scripts for the Stanley Kubrick version that would have starred the Beatles, and he was OK with many of the changes. If I remember correctly, he only wasn't ok with name changes and the fact that eagles would basically have taken them to Mount Doom. With that in mind, I think he would have been overall quite fine with how they turned out.

Moj · **Joined:** Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:58 am **Posts:** 93

Uh... dain wasn't speaking to orcs. He was telling the men and elves to sod off for daring to block their way into erebor.

Elladan & Elrohir · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:10 pm

Draugluin wrote:

My point about CT is that he wouldn't have made those sacrifices, so he would have been all or nothing. And all would have been 6 3 hour movies that are word for word like the books. Which no studio would have ever greenlit. So my point is that if he had been involved, we would have gotten nothing. JRRT never saw his movies, but he did see the scripts for the Stanley Kubrick version that would have starred the Beatles, and he was OK with many of the changes. If I remember correctly, he only wasn't ok with name changes and the fact that eagles would basically have taken them to Mount Doom. With that in mind, I think he would have been overall quite fine with how they turned out.

Agreed about Christopher. He probably would never have made any films because they would all fall short of his demands, but if he had had more say about how these films were made by Peter, they would probably have been even better. :wink:

Never new that bit about the Beatles! The things that might have been! That would have been interesting...

Elladan & Elrohir

Harfoot · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:28 pm

Moj wrote:

Uh... dain wasn't speaking to orcs. He was telling the men and elves to sod off for daring to block their way into erebor.

My point is Tolkien would never have been so "basic" in his use of the English Language, so PJ should have kept more to the spirit of the Books like i think he did with the LOTR films

Goldman25 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:59 pm

My problems with the films are pretty similar in general: lack of attachment to the dwarves because they don't get screentime (minus Thorin, Kili, Bofur, Dwalin and Balin), overuse of Alfrid, lack of Beorn (although, the guy did get arrested for drugs, so I wonder if some of his scenes were cut after that was revealed), cartoonisation of Radagast, Legolas' alter ego as Clark Kent, Azog.
Also, there are a few more things that bother me. One is the tone of AUJ compared to the other two. AUJ had burping and bogey jokes, and DOS and BOFA were much more in tone with LOTR. Either go for a kiddy-aimed film (which would work, Hobbit is a children's story), or go for a more serious tone. Just don't switch it halfway through the trilogy.
The side-story with the White Council doesn't really have an ending - Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman show up, Sauron runs away, and Saruman tells them to leave Sauron to him. There needed to be one more scene, showing Saruman catching Sauron, and being corrupted. Maybe have him finding the palantir and it corrupting him?
The other issue I have is Dain Ironfoot swearing. I'm not opposed to swearing in films, I think it can make quite the impression, add effect/emphasis, etc. But, this is Tolkien. Tolkien was a gentleman - his characters do not swear. While it's in keeping with how Dain was portrayed by Billy Connolly, it's NOT in keeping with Tolkien at all. Tolkien's characters should not swear.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:51 am

Well, Gandalf did call Barliman an @$$ in the book. I'm more ok with what Dain said than the sexual references in DOS, as calling someone an illegitimate son is much more in line with Tolkien's writings than lewd jokes.

Moj · **Joined:** Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:58 am **Posts:** 93

Not keeping with Tolkien?

Hardly anything in the trilogy has anything to do with Tolkien other than some vague semblance of a story.

Pj added unnecessary characters and just sidelined most of the dwarves. That's what I dislike the most from the hobbit.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:25 pm

The overall story is exactly the same as Tolkien, and the fact that very few of the dwarves had any personality is VERY in keeping with Tolkien. The only ones in the book who had personalities were Thorin, Balin and MAYBE Dori and Bombur, but the latter 2 were only because they were given specific physical characteristics, namely strength and fatness.

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

I very much agree with Paradigm and Draugluin and am going to throw in another voice of support for the movies. It's very easy to have a crack at them and they're by no means perfect but I think that PJ did far more good than bad; he reframed the story of the Hobbit that we all know and love through a lens far more akin to LOTR.

There's a lot I disagree with in the thread and a lot I agree with but I'm going to pick up on some of, IMO, the more important points,

Moj wrote:

We could have used some more character development for the dwarves. Some of them don't even have any lines, for crying out loud.

Dikey wrote:

The Dwarves
Oh boy. Do you realize that some of them don't even have lines? Nori doesn't say a word, Bombur has ONE WORD in three movies. I am a LOTR fan. But if I weren't I would have never cared about them. Why should anyone bother to learn their names?

Draugluin wrote:

The overall story is exactly the same as Tolkien, and the fact that very few of the dwarves had any personality is VERY in keeping with Tolkien. The only ones in the book who had personalities were Thorin, Balin and MAYBE Dori and Bombur, but the latter 2 were only because they were given specific physical characteristics, namely strength and fatness.

I completely agree with Draugluin on this, people are very quick to complain about the lack of characterisation in the films but the simple fact is the characterisation in the films is vastly, VASTLY, better than in the books. The dwarves in the books are a bunch of indentikit cowards, constantly getting captured and sending Bilbo into danger rather than going themselves. PJ transforms them into a Heroic Company right from the off (look at the difference in how the Troll-shaws scene plays out in the films compared to the book), allowing you to get behind them and making them far more likeable. I would defy most people to say anything distinctive about any of the dwarves in the book beyond Thorin. I think most people would say Fili and Kili are the young ones, Balin the old one and Bombur the fat one. That's it. Hardly great character development. There is literally nothing to distinguish the others in the book, in the films I would say that Thorin, Fili, Kili, Balin, Dwlain and Bofur all get pretty well drawn and the rest of them can at least be distinguished by their appearance. As for the comment about them not having lines, it's only Bombur that doesn't speak in the films (although just wait for the extend edition!) and I'm pretty sure that there are several of the company that don't have a single line in the book. Could some of the dwarves use a bit more screen time instead of Leggy, Tauriel, Alfrid etc.? Yes, of course, but they are still much better developed than the books.

Elladan & Elrohir wrote:

With the Hobbit films though, PJ openly mocks the books (and Tolkien) Elladan & Elrohir

Respectfully I have to disagree with this, I think all the behind-the-scenes docs show that these films were made with the same kind of love and enthusiasm that the LOTR ones were and I certainly don't don't see a single point where you could say that the books or Tolkien were mocked. Could you give some examples? I'd be curious to know which parts you mean.

Elladan & Elrohir wrote:

When the Return of the King finished, people just sat in their seats in the cinema and where dumbfounded. With the Battle of the Five Armies, people just got up or sat on texting on their phones.Elladan & Elrohir

Again, I have to disagree, I saw BOTFA 5 times at the cinema and each time it ended I sat through the credits with a deeply melancholy but deeply satisfied smile on my face. That was also my experience of of the people I went with and much of the crowd, I certainly didn't notice any particularly negative reactions. Billy Boyd's The Last Goodbye was absolutely perfect and I thought TBOTFA brought the trilogy to a wonderful close as well as immediately making me want to go and watch Fellowship again.

Goldman25 wrote:

The side-story with the White Council doesn't really have an ending - Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman show up, Sauron runs away, and Saruman tells them to leave Sauron to him. There needed to be one more scene, showing Saruman catching Sauron, and being corrupted. Maybe have him finding the palantir and it corrupting him?

I liked that they didn't show his corruption, they've made no secret of the fact that they were positioning the Hobbit so that, in years to come, new viewers will watch the films in chronological order rather than the order they were filmed. Not showing Saruman's corruption will make Fellowship all the more powerful; when Gandalf goes to see Saruman you will now know who he is and know that he's a good guy, his betrayal should have more weight. If you knew that he had been corrupted then all of the tension and surprise of that scene would be lost. That said, I do think he'll find the Palantir in the extended edition, there have been various clues dropped about and I'm 99% certain that the statue in the middle of the courtyard is holding a petrified Palantir. I think in an extended Dol Guldur sequence we'll see Saruman find it and that will set up him having a Palantir without giving away that he's going to be a traitor.

So yeah, all in all I think there's a lot to love in these films and people are far too quick to criticise the bad instead of praising the good.They're obviously not perfect, I loved AUJ because it felt like Fellowship to me, it felt very real, very physical and tonally spot-on, in contrast, BOTFA felt too dependent on CGI. I loved the scenes in Dale with the laketowners against the orcs because everything was real, there was a real set, you could see that the orcs were guys in suits and there was a very visceral, Amon-Hen feel to the whole thing. it's far easier to accept the odd shot of a CGI troll when everything else around it is real and it this sequence felt very similar to the battles in TTT and ROTK.

By contrast, the battle on the plain in front of Erebor just doesn't look real, there are multiple close-up shots that just seem to be ranks upon ranks of CGI elves, dwarves and orcs fighting each other. Everything looks a little too shiny and it doesn't feel real, those sequences really didn't work for me and I found it particularly hard to differenciate between the shiny silver dwarves and the shiny silver orcs. I just watched the behind the scenes features on the BOTFA DVD and there's a great little sequence where a whole bunch of dwarves are scrapping with a whole bunch or suited up orcs with severed heads on their backs. I haven't seen the film since the DVD release but I don't recall these guys appearing anywhere in the battle and it would be a shame if they were dropped in favour of all CGI versions, maybe they were deemed to gruesome and will make a reappearance in the extended edition.

Ultimately, I think there's tons to love in the trilogy and I'm thoroughly glad they made it, we've had another 3 years of SBG development with a new ruleset, a huge, gorgeous range of new models and we've had another 3 Christmases in Middle-Earth. I will be very sad next Christmas when there's no new movie and am very grateful to PJ and all the cast and crew for making another 3 Middle-Earth films that I love, that just aren't quite as good as the first 3 Middle-Earht films I love :-)

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:06 pm

^^ This

On the subject of the severed heads, I'm pretty sure in the chronicles book it mentions the fact they were pretty gruesome and that is why they changed it, but only for the main battle. When Azog is marching to Erebor with the host of Gundabads behind him, if you look closely you can see loads of orcs with severed heads on their armour. Apparently the more heads you had on your spike, the higher rank you were.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:29 pm

I think that the spikes were remove digitally, because I know that they had a video of that scene being filmed and then the final scene in the movie. They added in the stuff behind, but the stuff in the foreground was real people. I would have to disagree that there was as much love as in LotR, because Jackson didn't want to make the movies, at least at first. There was a lot of CG because he didn't want to spend 5 years making 3 movies all at once. Several of the interviews that weren't in the DVDs for obvious reasons show the actors saying that Jackson was just trying to get the movies done, whereas with LotR, they literally filmed the very last scene 30 times because he didn't want the experience to end. I still enjoy these movies, and they definitely fit with LotR, but LotR is just on such a different level. Although considering the source material, that is to be expected.

Sithious · **Posted:** Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:44 pm

I am a huge Peter Jackson fan, still am. If Hollywood says that he will never work there again and he will be luck to get a job directing puppets in a violent sexual explicit musical...well he has experience.

I have no doubt that these films would be completely different if 1. MGM had not stalled on the green light allowing Del Toro to direct these movies as was prepared for. 2. if Peter had been originally set to direct so he would have had his three years of prep time for the way he envisioned the film. He would already have solved all his visual and would not have had to CGI over as much or change as many things in post.

So I really regret that Peter and us all had a slightly rushed set of films.

The things I don't like for Hobbit reasons I do appreciate as a Fantasy fan, and vice versa. There is a lot of stuff in this trilogy that is awesome. I am not sure even an extended version will fill every hope we have.
I actually think the rams were removed due to back lash when the trailer was shown. Everyone knows that Dain and the Iron Hills dwarves traveled by foot. it was a big deal in the book. So I doubt it will be shoved back into the film. I also think that the violence between the 'good' races was removed from the story on film to not allow either dwarves or elves to have a tarnished rep as 'bad guys' and that will most likely stay that way too. But I am just guessing. I will watch either way and see what there is to see.

Elladan & Elrohir · **Posted:** Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:15 pm

Dr Grant wrote:

I completely agree with Draugluin on this, people are very quick to complain about the lack of characterisation in the films but the simple fact is the characterisation in the films is vastly, VASTLY, better than in the books.

This is certainly true, and we were personally very pleased with the characterisation in An Unexpected Journey. Giving each dwarf a different character and appearance was a masterstroke on Peter's part and one of those things which is a great improvement on the book. After having said that, we feel Peter lost the plot with the DoS and BotFA. In the book, the dwarves and Bilbo are the main characters and focus of the story, despite the fact not every dwarf says anything. In the AUJ film, they are also the main focus of the film. We feel however that the dwarves were dropped in the DoS and BotFA for Alfrid and Legolas and other character which Jackson seems to prefer. We missed the idea of the dwarves going on an adventure to reclaim the Mountain and find a home. We miss our favourite dwarf characters taking a bigger role in the story. We loved the party at Bag End, and the Song of the Lonely Mountain. (The DoS and BotFA are the first two Middle-earth films with no singing in them. Music and songs really build a story, and are great character moments in the other films.) We might see more of the dwarves in the EE of the BotFA, but a few more scenes of them doesn't help the fact they were marginalized for other characters. This is what we think most people are complaining about when they talk about the dwarves in these films.

Dr Grant wrote:

Respectfully I have to disagree with this, I think all the behind-the-scenes docs show that these films were made with the same kind of love and enthusiasm that the LOTR ones were and I certainly don't don't see a single point where you could say that the books or Tolkien were mocked. Could you give some examples? I'd be curious to know which parts you mean.

No problem. What we meant was that PJ sometimes makes a joke of the book and ignores Tolkien to change the story. PJ makes changes and adds things without any good reason. Tolkien new what he was talking about when he wrote these books, and PJ believes that he is smarter and can make changes when he feels like it. There is not as much love in these movies for Tolkien and the books, not to mention the fans. PJ willingly re-filmed the whole of Helm's Deep when fans complained about the addition of Arwen to the battle. In a recent interview over the Hobbit, PJ said he no longer cares what fans or Tolkienites think. Examples of this are when the dwarves are marginalized, or Radagast depicted as a crazy old guy who eats mushrooms, or Kili falling in love with Tauriel.

Dr Grant wrote:

Again, I have to disagree, I saw BOTFA 5 times at the cinema and each time it ended I sat through the credits with a deeply melancholy but deeply satisfied smile on my face. That was also my experience of of the people I went with and much of the crowd, I certainly didn't notice any particularly negative reactions. Billy Boyd's The Last Goodbye was absolutely perfect and I thought TBOTFA brought the trilogy to a wonderful close as well as immediately making me want to go and watch Fellowship again.

It depends a lot on the crowd we guess. Our's weren't negative, just disinterested. For ourselves, we sat right till The Last Goodbye was over and beyond (we were the last guys to leave!). We feel though that The Hobbit films just don't have the same power of captivating any audience as the Lord of the Rings films had.

We aren't saying we entirely dislike these films. We like lots of parts, we are just pointing out what we dislike. On another thread we could point out all the stuff we do like.

Elladan & Elrohir

Draugluin · **Posted:** Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:33 pm

Elladan & Elrohir wrote:

Dr Grant wrote:

I completely agree with Draugluin on this, people are very quick to complain about the lack of characterisation in the films but the simple fact is the characterisation in the films is vastly, VASTLY, better than in the books.

This is certainly true, and we were personally very pleased with the characterisation in An Unexpected Journey. Giving each dwarf a different character and appearance was a masterstroke on Peter's part and one of those things which is a great improvement on the book. After having said that, we feel Peter lost the plot with the DoS and BotFA. In the book, the dwarves and Bilbo are the main characters and focus of the story, despite the fact not every dwarf says anything. In the AUJ film, they are also the main focus of the film. We feel however that the dwarves were dropped in the DoS and BotFA for Alfrid and Legolas and other character which Jackson seems to prefer. We missed the idea of the dwarves going on an adventure to reclaim the Mountain and find a home. We miss our favourite dwarf characters taking a bigger role in the story. We loved the party at Bag End, and the Song of the Lonely Mountain. (The DoS and BotFA are the first two Middle-earth films with no singing in them. Music and songs really build a story, and are great character moments in the other films.) We might see more of the dwarves in the EE of the BotFA, but a few more scenes of them doesn't help the fact they were marginalized for other characters. This is what we think most people are complaining about when they talk about the dwarves in these films.

Dr Grant wrote:

Respectfully I have to disagree with this, I think all the behind-the-scenes docs show that these films were made with the same kind of love and enthusiasm that the LOTR ones were and I certainly don't don't see a single point where you could say that the books or Tolkien were mocked. Could you give some examples? I'd be curious to know which parts you mean.

No problem. What we meant was that PJ sometimes makes a joke of the book and ignores Tolkien to change the story. PJ makes changes and adds things without any good reason. Tolkien new what he was talking about when he wrote these books, and PJ believes that he is smarter and can make changes when he feels like it. There is not as much love in these movies for Tolkien and the books, not to mention the fans. PJ willingly re-filmed the whole of Helm's Deep when fans complained about the addition of Arwen to the battle. In a recent interview over the Hobbit, PJ said he no longer cares what fans or Tolkienites think. Examples of this are when the dwarves are marginalized, or Radagast depicted as a crazy old guy who eats mushrooms, or Kili falling in love with Tauriel.

Elladan & Elrohir

The dwarves were never the main characters, Bilbo was the main character, with Thorin and Balin potentially counting as well. I can't stress enough how little the majority of the Company actually did. The movie left Nori, Dori, Ori, Bombur and Bofur as completely 3rd-4th tier characters, but the rest of the company got SO much more screen-time than their book selves got page-space. The book was written only from Bilbo's perspective, while LotR was written from various members of the Fellowship's perspective. That works for the narrative of a book, but if the movies had stuck solely to Bilbo, we wouldn't know what happened to Gandalf. Having Gandalf disappear and reappear at random works in a children's bedtime story, but it does not work at all in a movie. With the exception of Azog's scene, what was added fits in relatively well with the books. The discovery of the Necromancer was changed to fit the narrative of the movies better, but the White Council scenes are still fairly accurate. Radagast nevers actually is shown to consume mushrooms, that's just something that Saruman says about him. Remember, Saruman held Radagast the Treehugger in disdain. Kili falling in love with Tauriel isn't that bad, it's only when Tauriel falls in love with Kili that it becomes blasphemous.

Paradigm · **Joined:** Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:56 am **Posts:** 264

Draugluin wrote:

The dwarves were never the main characters, Bilbo was the main character, with Thorin and Balin potentially counting as well. I can't stress enough how little the majority of the Company actually did. The movie left Nori, Dori, Ori, Bombur and Bofur as completely 3rd-4th tier characters, but the rest of the company got SO much more screen-time than their book selves got page-space. The book was written only from Bilbo's perspective, while LotR was written from various members of the Fellowship's perspective. That works for the narrative of a book, but if the movies had stuck solely to Bilbo, we wouldn't know what happened to Gandalf. Having Gandalf disappear and reappear at random works in a children's bedtime story, but it does not work at all in a movie.

Exactly. I can see why people dislike departure from the source material, but really, I can't see the argument that sticking to the book version of Gandalf (who leaves so the Dwarves get into trouble and returns to bail them out, and whose repeated disappearances are only ever covered by throwaway lines until Unfinished Tales/The Appendices) would have been better than what we got in the films; more depth to one of the setting's best characters/actors, a sub plot that made the climatic battle a lot less arbitrary (Sauron wanting a stronghold in the north is a far better motive than just having an army of Orcs show up because they want revenge- a factor that was not dismissed, just worked in to the greater plot), and a more coherent narrative for all that.

Quote:

With the exception of Azog's scene, what was added fits in relatively well with the books. The discovery of the Necromancer was changed to fit the narrative of the movies better, but the White Council scenes are still fairly accurate. Radagast nevers actually is shown to consume mushrooms, that's just something that Saruman says about him. Remember, Saruman held Radagast the Treehugger in disdain. Kili falling in love with Tauriel isn't that bad, it's only when Tauriel falls in love with Kili that it becomes blasphemous.

Again, I agree entirely; most of the additions draw at least inspiration if not detail from the Appendices or Unfinished Tales, and those that don't rarely directly contradict the established material. I'd add that most of them made it a better series if films.

Azog's survival and subsequent vendetta against Thorin takes him fromfaceless villain (as Bolt is in the book) to a deeper and fascinating antagonist, and his relentless pursuit of the Company over the first two films adds a similar sense of menace as the Nazgul in LotR, tying together what are, in the books, a rather meaningless set of scrapes. Faceless baddies and random fights/escapes work fine for a bedtime story, but would be just a waste in a multi-million-dollar film series.

I'll also say something else: as a narrative, a setting and a story, and especially compared to the excellence of LotR, The Hobbit is not that good. It is great as a self-contained children's story, and a myth or fairytale for the 20th century, but as a part of the grandeur of Middle Earth, it is by far the weakest. Simply by virtue of being the first book written, there are gaps in the story that Tolkien himself later conceded and amended, and a lot of those end up in PJ films, which is no bad thing.

The Hobbit as written would never have worked as a film with any connection to LotR, and would have been an absolute waste of an opportunity if that was all they tried to make it.

Elladan & Elrohir · **Posted:** Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:19 pm

Draugluin wrote:

The dwarves were never the main characters, Bilbo was the main character, with Thorin and Balin potentially counting as well. I can't stress enough how little the majority of the Company actually did. The movie left Nori, Dori, Ori, Bombur and Bofur as completely 3rd-4th tier characters, but the rest of the company got SO much more screen-time than their book selves got page-space. The book was written only from Bilbo's perspective, while LotR was written from various members of the Fellowship's perspective. That works for the narrative of a book, but if the movies had stuck solely to Bilbo, we wouldn't know what happened to Gandalf. Having Gandalf disappear and reappear at random works in a children's bedtime story, but it does not work at all in a movie. With the exception of Azog's scene, what was added fits in relatively well with the books. The discovery of the Necromancer was changed to fit the narrative of the movies better, but the White Council scenes are still fairly accurate.
Radagast nevers actually is shown to consume mushrooms, that's just something that Saruman says about him. Remember, Saruman held Radagast the Treehugger in disdain. Kili falling in love with Tauriel isn't that bad, it's only when Tauriel falls in love with Kili that it becomes blasphemous.

We meant the company as a whole is the focus of the story, beside Bilbo who is the main character. You follow the journey of the company through Bilbo's eyes. We are not saying there should be no subplots, (subplots are a great thing, don't misunderstand us) like Gandalf and the Master of Lake Town, we just disagree with some of the PJ added subplots that push the main plot out of the way.

We mentioned nothing about the Gandalf part, we agree with that, and with other things draw from the Appendices. Again, you can get overly technical over the fact you don't actually see Radagast eating mushrooms, but that doesn't change the way he is depicted. Also, we meant the whole Tauriel - Kili releationship.

Elladan & Elrohir

peter jackson lost his touch

Who is online