Peter Jackson's Middle-earth Saga

[DigificWriter]

Hi, all.

Within the past few days, I decided to delve back into one of my all-time favorite film franchises, Peter Jackson's Middle-earth Saga, and wanted someplace to talk about it and why I love it as much as I do, so I'm starting this thread as a "catch-all".

I actually started my journey back into the Saga by watching the Appendices for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and it's honestly astounding - and positively so - how similar the film's production was to the production of the LotR films was in practically every aspect, at least initially, and how much the filmmakers were able to accomplish in about 7 or 8 months in terms of the practical production side of things.

After finishing the Appendices, I started on rewatching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey itself, and was struck, again, by just how many similarities there are, structurally, to other films in the Saga, particularly The Fellowship of the Ring, not only in terms of the locations in which the story takes place, but also in terms of the basic overall narrative structure and specific story beats. This is particularly evident during the scenes in and leading up to Goblin-town and its Aftermath, which is almost a beat-for-beat mirroring, structurally, of the Moria sequence in Fellowship, right down to the company's standoff with the Great Goblin-town, who takes the place of the Balrog. The only difference between the two sequences is, of course, the outcome and Gandalf's fate, but otherwise they're structurally identical, which, as someone who loves the process of storytelling, is really neat.

I know there's a perception out there that the Hobbit films weren't as successful as the Lord of the Rings films, but I've never agreed with that sentiment, largely because of my understanding of and familiarity with the process by which they were made and the care that the filmmakers put into making them not only work on their own, but in concert with the larger overall narrative of Tolkien's world relative both to the original source material and their own specific interpretation of it.

I also don't agree with the sentiment that the films left far too much out of the story of the Hobbit as told in the book, added/changed too many things, or stretched the story too far, largely because of what is documented in the Appendices for the second and third films in the sequence, which demonstrate that they actually had included far too much of the story of The Hobbit as it appears in both the original novel and Tolkien's own related ancillary materials relative to the original structural intent of the film project, as the vast majority of material contained within all 3 films was shot during Principal Photography in 2011 and 2012, with the additional material created for and during the secondary shooting only adding a handful of new sequences to the story (the Carrock, the confrontation wirh Smaug in Erebor, and, IIRC, some of the action sequences in Lake-town involving the Orcs and the Elves), which, to be perfectly honest, is and ought to be astounding and a testament to the filmmakers' storytelling abilities and instincts that they were able to put nearly 9 hours' worth of story material into two scripts without, on the whole, losing the integrity of the basic narrative they were looking to tell.

Going forward, I'll be using this thread to continue talking about each of the Middle-earth movies as I watch them, as well as other aspects of the franchise as a whole, and invite others to do the same, but before I close this introductory post, I want to talk about how much I love the music for the series, especially The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which gave us two of my favorite pieces of original music from anything: Howard Store's instrumental version of "Misty Mountains" and Neal Finns Song of the Lonely Mountain, which has supplanted Into the West as my all-time favorite "credits song" from anything. Above and beyond any other "legacy" left by the series, the music is, at least for me, one of its strongest suits and will last in the public consciousness long after the films themselves do, which is awesome.

And, now, onward to The Desolation of Smaug and, here's hoping, an ongoing and lively discussion about the ME Saga franchise.

 

[sojourner]

So you've just realized that LOTR is a darker retelling of The Hobbit? Welcome to the club. That being said, PJ's Hobbit trilogy is bloated, cartoony, and terrible.

 

[DigificWriter]

I hadn't realized just how much symmetry there is in terms of the two trilogies, no.

As for the rest of your post, I'd like to know why you think as you do, even though I'll likely not agree with you.

 

[sojourner]

Pretty much everything in the movies that were not in the book ruined it. the orc subplot, the love story with the elf, Radagast, the fight on the river, the cartoon physics of Legolas, Legolas himself, Peter's "Pirates of the Caribbean" version of Lake Town, the Elf King's motivation change. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[DigificWriter]

I disagree with you that the things you mention are bad, but thank you for explaining your viewpoint.

I would point out, though, that said things would've been present in the films even if they'd been directed by Guillermo Del Toro, so it's clear that you wouldn't have liked these filmmakers' particular take on The Hobbit one way or the other regardless of who was sitting in the director's chair.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree with you that the things you mention are bad, but thank you for explaining your viewpoint.

I would point out, though, that said things would've been present in the films even if they'd been directed by Guillermo Del Toro, so it's clear that you wouldn't have liked these filmmakers' particular take on The Hobbit one way or the other regardless of who was sitting in the director's chair.

Not necessarily, It only became a trilogy under Jackson, which implies that he added a lot of material after Del Toro left.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Which is an implication that, as I noted, the Appendices of both The Desolation of Smaug and The Battle of the Five Armies are quick to dispel.

Although the scripts for An Unexpected Journey and There and Back Again (the original second film) were revised by Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh after Jackson stepped into the director's chair, the actual narrative content of those scripts was not changed in any significant fashion from what it had been at the time that Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, and Del Toro wrote them. It was only after they had completely finished principal photography on the two films that it was discovered that there was enough material contained within the scripts as shot to comprise the majority of a third film, with only a handful of brand-new scenes/scene sequences needing to be scripted and shot in order to supplement what had already been shot (with the Carrock sequence that closes out An Unexpected Journey and the confrontation with Smaug in Erebor that closes out The Desolation of Smaug being the only major additions of things that were not shot at all during the initial principal photography shoot).

There was almost nothing in the way of major new material added to the script for The Battle of the Five Armies (which retained its original title of There and Back Again until quite long into the post-production process on the project as a whole), as far as I remember, other than what things were necessary to 'tighten up' the storyline of the film in relation to its companions and the overall narrative that Peter, Fran, and Phillipa were looking to tell.

 

[sojourner]

So you're admitting that Jackson just basically threw every thing he filmed into the final product, where as Del Toro may have had the sense to edit himself and keep it at two movies? Just because it was "in the final script" does not mean the director should include it in the final product, and in this case we can see why.

 

[DigificWriter]

I can't tell you what would've had to have been deleted if the films had remained a duology, but I CAN tell you that most of the stuff you're complaining about would have remained regardless because it's integral to the way that the filmmakers had originally envisioned telling the Hobbit storyline going back to the very beginning of the creative process, long before the film had even been officially greenlit, and getting rid of it would've meant completely rewriting/reworking the scripts in their entirety.

 

[sojourner]

Nope, I complain about that romance being added, period. And from what I understand, there are fan edits of The Hobbit that cut out most of the stuff I mentioned quite easily. Most of that stuff wasn't "integral" at all.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Which is taking exception to the way that the filmmakers chose to tell the story, and indicates that the people making said edits believe that "their" vision is somehow superior to what we received.

There's actually nothing wrong with the way that Peter and Co. chose to tell the story of The Hobbit other than that it's THEIR version of the story.

 

[sojourner]

There are bad ways to tell a story. Hence, "editing". Which Jackson obviously failed at.

 

[mos6507]

There are bad ways to tell a story. Hence, "editing". Which Jackson obviously failed at.

Yes, unfortunately PJ is losing whatever luster he once had as a filmmaker. LOTR, for the most part, benefitted from his excesses, even in the extended cuts, but both his King Kong and Hobbit did not.

 

[FPAlpha]

Being a huge fan of the LotR movies i was equally disappointed by The Hobbit. It is a bloated mess of a story that could have fitted into 2 movies, with a little creative editiing it could have also been a good paced 3 hour single movie but being a cynic i think the studio wanted 3 movies because more box office capitalizing on the good reputation that LotR and Peter Jackson have built (and apart from movie fans i don't think the general audience knew about the behind the curtains shuffling and last minute changes before production began).

The Hobbit is a children's book for the most part and so is considerably lighter than Lord of the Rings, it a basic adventure story of a Hobbit following a group of Dwarves who set out to reclaim their home from a Dragon and on their way they run into some side adventures, so far so good.

What Jackson did was pump this up full of unecessary tertiary characzers and storylines, huge and sprawling, heavy CGI action sequences and and even goofier humor than at parts in LotR where many people were angry that Gimli had to play the comic relief sidekick which he never was in the books (one of the few criticims i agree with). The whole movie felt so market tested through and through that it diluted the entire story and made it into something it simply wasn't.

So while i occasionally pop in the Extended Edition of LotR i haven't watched The Hobbit completely since i saw the movies, basically only a few scenes here and there that i really liked (the meeting of Bilbo and the Dwarves for example). I don't know if Jackson was pressured too much by the studio or if he honestly believed all the added stuff was necessary but it's a far cry from the brilliance of LotR and it's tarnished his reputation (at least for me).

 

[DigificWriter]

I don't know what people think constitutes "added stuff", but aside from the sequences I've noted previously, everything that is in the Hobbit films was built into them from their inception going back to the moment that serious talks began about potentially adapting that book onto film. This includes, but is not limited to, the White Council, Radagast the Brown, Legolas, Thranduil being an obstacle, and Tauriel, so I honestly don't know what people wanted outside of a 1-to-1 translation of the novel, which is never what we were going to get with this particular group of filmmakers.

 

[sojourner]

"Added stuff" as in NOT IN THE BOOK. Is that really so hard to understand? There is a significant difference between translating a book to film and adding whole sale portions that weren't in it to begin with.

LOTR is a good example of translating a written work to the screen, changes were made, yes, but restraint was shown to only doing so where what was written wouldn't work on film.

The Hobbit just adds subplots to inflate the running time and it hurt the original material.

 

[DigificWriter]

The material that was added to The Hobbit adaptation, aside from a very small handful of things, was taken directly from Tolkien's own works and is related to the story of The Hobbit as Tolkien originally wrote it, and, again, was always going to be a part of the filmmakers' approach to telling the story, so I don't know what people were expecting.

 

[sojourner]

You seem to be under the misconception that when it was added is what matters. The problem is the fact that it was added. Period.

Even Tolkien, by your own admission, didn't include it in the published version of The Hobbit. There is a reason he felt those things didn't belong in the original book and relegated them to other works.

 

[Set Harth]

with a little creative editiing it could have also been a good paced 3 hour single movie

A single movie would not have been enough.

There is a significant difference between translating a book to film and adding whole sale portions that weren't in it to begin with.

This was never destined to be a straight adaptation of "children's book The Hobbit". Grading it by that standard is meaningless. Coming from Jackson & Co., it is The Hobbit as seen through the lens of LOTR, which is a different animal, especially given the addition of the material from the LOTR Appendices which flesh out the context of the other important things going on in Middle-earth around that time. When you're looking at a continuity inclusive of LOTR, the Necromancer is no longer just some dude; the Necromancer is Sauron. The children's book version of the story is no longer relevant.

 

[sojourner]

Funny, I don't recall saying it should be a straight adaptation of a "children's book". I'm saying that the majority of the added subplots were unneeded and hurt the story. It was heavy handed in it's addition of things not in the book when a much more subtle approach could have used relevant information from Tolkien's other works without turning it into the 3 movie "saga" that had more material from other sources than it did the original book.