This is a blatant falsehood that needs to die.
The expansion from two films to three was predicated solely - and organically - on the amount of filmed material that the two scripts that Pete, Fran, Phillipa, and Guillermo had written had generated.
Tauriel: great idea or big mistake?
- Thread starter GreenDragonKnight
- Start date
This is a blatant falsehood that needs to die.
The expansion from two films to three was predicated solely - and organically - on the amount of filmed material that the two scripts that Pete, Fran, Phillipa, and Guillermo had written had generated.
Personally, I think all 6 of Peter Jackson's Middle-earth films are of equal quality.... which is to say very good.
Last edited:
^ Midde = Midden or Middle?
All things considered, Tauriel was a great idea. Some new concepts are necessary when you pad out a 250 page book into three movies, and the story is light on female representation. The mistake wasn't the character, it was padding out the story to the point that the character became necessary in the first place.
Tauriel was one of the better things about a lackluster at its best and terrible at its worst (Five Armies) unnecessary Hobbit trilogy that should have been one, MAYBE two films at most.
Perhaps from the Norse?
Midgard: from Old Norse miðgarðr, from mið "mid" (from PIE root *medhyo- "middle") + Proto-Germanic *gardoz "enclosure, tract" (from PIE root *gher- (1) "to grasp, enclose"). The Old English cognate was middangeard, which later was folk-etymologized as middle earth (late 13c.).
Stupid typo; that was supposed to be "Middle-earth".
The sooner everyone forgets the Hobbit movies the better for anyone.. what they did with this after the awesome Rings movies was a travesty and unworthy of Tolkien and the brilliant universe he created.
There was nothing wrong with Lily's performance in itself but it was symptomatic with the marketing driven approach that the movies went to that completely disrespected the source material (as opposed to the Rings movies where they went out of the way to keep as close as possible to the source and only cut or add when absolutely necessary).
There was nothing wrong with Lily's performance in itself but it was symptomatic with the marketing driven approach that the movies went to that completely disrespected the source material (as opposed to the Rings movies where they went out of the way to keep as close as possible to the source and only cut or add when absolutely necessary).
Where in the books did Aragorn hesitate or fail to want to be king? Where did Gollum convince Frodo to separate from Sam? Where did Faramir start bringing Frodo to Gondor? Where was the elf army at Helm's Deep? Where was warrior elf princess Arwen? The LOTR films were fine but they went quite a ways away from changing only when necessary. The Hobbit films went full bloat but they didn't disrespect anything any worse than the LOTR films did.
I disagree. Jackson managed to do something with The Hobbit trilogy that Tolkien tried and failed to do -- to tell the story of The Hobbit in the style of The Lord of the Rings. After the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien began yet another rewrite of The Hobbit (which he had tinkered with ever since its original publication), this time in the narrative mode of The Lord of the Rings, and he completed two chapters. What stalled him was the moon phases; he wasn't as careful with the phases of the moon in The Hobbit as he was in The Lord of the Rings. Also, I think he realized that the charm of The Hobbit was getting lost. I've read the two chapters, and at best I can say, "they're okay."
Jackson, having established a visual style for Middle-Earth in his ]i]Lord of the Rings[/i] films, used that visual style with The Hobbit. If Jackson's Hobbit doesn't feel like the whimsical children's story of the book, it's because Jackson's Lord of the Rings films aren't a whimsical children's story.
Personally, I feel that Jackson succeeded in telling the story of The Hobbit in the style of The Lord of the Rings. The films are not perfect by any means; Bilbo's character arc is resolved at the end of the first film, The Battle of the Five Armies ends with an hour's worth of video game boss fights. I'm glad these films exist, and I enjoy them. (The Extended Editions, watched together, flow better.) Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is anything but a travesty.
The Lord of the Rings films took a story that seemed unfilmable and proved otherwise. The Hobbit films took a story that should have been perfectly filmable and bloated it out into something that seemed unfilmable.
I loved LOTR. I never got around to seeing The Battle of the Five Armies and don't have any desire to change that.
I loved LOTR. I never got around to seeing The Battle of the Five Armies and don't have any desire to change that.
Personally, I think the core problem is that 'The Hobbit' as a novel is unsuitable for the multi-film format. There just isn't enough space to have three separate, satisfying climaxes *and* at least the some kind of character arc for the core characters. Indeed I'd say it really shouldn't be a film at all but a (admittedly very expensive) miniseries.
You could do it all in one movie in a pinch, but you'd have to shave off/combine a *lot* of material and it'd kill the sense of adventure in a long, treacherous journey that is the backbone of the story.
A mini series on the other hand is perfect since the book's chapters are as written each fairly self contained stories in their own right. Damn near episodic in fact. Also as a bonus you can get away with *not* showing the Battle of the Five Armies and save some of that TV VFX budget to pay for Gollum instead, since it's portrayed that way in the book!
You could do it all in one movie in a pinch, but you'd have to shave off/combine a *lot* of material and it'd kill the sense of adventure in a long, treacherous journey that is the backbone of the story.
A mini series on the other hand is perfect since the book's chapters are as written each fairly self contained stories in their own right. Damn near episodic in fact. Also as a bonus you can get away with *not* showing the Battle of the Five Armies and save some of that TV VFX budget to pay for Gollum instead, since it's portrayed that way in the book!
As is typical when it comes to the property, people make the assumption that, in terms of pure narrative content, Jackson's Hobbit films were significantly different than the films that Del Toro had spent nearly two years prepping for, but that just isn't the case.
With the exception of the material that was added when footage excess prompted the expansion from two films to three and the visual redesign that happened in order to fit Jackson's style, there are zero differences between what Del Toro was planning on bringing to the screen and what Jackson did end up bringing to the screen.... which consequently makes accusations of 'bloat' hard to take seriously.
With the exception of the material that was added when footage excess prompted the expansion from two films to three and the visual redesign that happened in order to fit Jackson's style, there are zero differences between what Del Toro was planning on bringing to the screen and what Jackson did end up bringing to the screen.... which consequently makes accusations of 'bloat' hard to take seriously.
I don't give a rat's ass whether Jackson or Del Toro was responsible. It was a bloated mess either way.
If you thought the project was a "bloated mess", why did you bother watching the films in the first place?
