If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pajiba)   Peter Jackson tries to defend splitting The Hobbit into 3 movies as anything other than a pure cash grab   (pajiba.com) divider line 149
    More: Fail, The Hobbit, road movie, love triangles, Smaug, grabs, hobbits, J. K. Rowling, Hermione Granger  
•       •       •

3256 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Dec 2013 at 2:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-16 01:06:20 PM  
As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.
 
2013-12-16 02:15:53 PM  
An article written by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
2013-12-16 02:19:56 PM  
I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.
 
2013-12-16 02:36:23 PM  
I read The Hobbit in seventh or eighth grade. I have fond memories of that particular escape. Actually, Bilbo's reflection at the mouth of Smaug's lair has been one of the navigation tools in my life: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades. Challenge yourself or life will be challenging and all that stuff.

No way in hell would I ruin that corner of my memory with the chunky, swirling cinematic slumgullion that is a Peter Jackson film.
 
2013-12-16 02:43:34 PM  
I have no problem with The Hobbit being split into three movies.  I wish the Lord of the Rings movies had been.  Cramming each book into just one movie left out too much.
 
2013-12-16 03:00:29 PM  

August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades.


Seems like if you need to say it more than once, it stops being true.
 
2013-12-16 03:03:24 PM  
Beorn's scene was too rushed.

The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix

When Gandalf is facing "the darkness"  And it forms into the eye of sauron, which then morphs into the armor shape, that then goes back to the eye.   Why do we need that to pulse at us 5-6 times?


This movie needs an editor, someone to make it about an hour long, and then it'd be perfect.  Basically get rid of anything that Bilbo isn't in.
 
2013-12-16 03:03:34 PM  
Isn't he in the business of making movies for profit?  Why should I complain?  No one's forcing me to pay money to see them
 
2013-12-16 03:04:34 PM  

Girion47: The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix


That was an incredibly fun and awesome sequence. Just perfectly well done by the filmmaking deal.
 
2013-12-16 03:05:33 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.


A lot of the CGI and such in this movie seems too long.  The river-barrels sequence is too long.  Erebor is too long.  And they cut out interesting parts of the book, even though its only one book stretched over 3 movies.

The movie is still good, and I like the added bits, but I don't know why they needed to cut where they did and add where they did.

/I'm referring to Beorn
 
2013-12-16 03:07:40 PM  
The LOTR should have been 6 movies (the extended Director's cut plus maybe a bit more). The Hobbit should have been 2 movies.
 
2013-12-16 03:08:53 PM  

Girion47: Beorn's scene was too rushed.

The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix

When Gandalf is facing "the darkness"  And it forms into the eye of sauron, which then morphs into the armor shape, that then goes back to the eye.   Why do we need that to pulse at us 5-6 times?


This movie needs an editor, someone to make it about an hour long, and then it'd be perfect.  Basically get rid of anything that Bilbo isn't in.


SPOILERS ****************


Beorn's scene could have been hilarious but instead it was a stepping stone.

The fight with the spiders could have been a moment for Bilbo to shine, but rather it was far too rushed.

The Elven love triangle was unnecessary.

I didn't mind Dol Guldur.

Erebor was ok... I guess?


END SPOILERS ********
 
2013-12-16 03:10:00 PM  

vonmatrices: The fight with the spiders could have been a moment for Bilbo to shine, but rather it was far too rushed.


Rushed? That scene lasted a while. And, to me at least, Bilbo did shine.
 
2013-12-16 03:10:20 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really


...matter in relation to the LOTR discussions.

What, was it too long? The material too difficult?

DamnYankees: I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.


"Inventive and fun" like "dwarves falling 100 feet onto rocks and then tumbling another 100 feet and hitting more rocks" kind? Or like, "that's somewhat plausible" fun?

Tolkien had the barrel scene as a clever and stealthy way to escape to Lake Town. There's no rapids. There's no real danger except for the dwarves drowning in the leaky barrels and Bilbo being detected. Jackson makes it into a super-action sequence, because Hollywood Execs love that shiat.
 
2013-12-16 03:11:30 PM  

August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades. Challenge yourself or life will be challenging and all that stuff.


But if you say that to yourself countless times, it is clearly a false statement.
 
2013-12-16 03:12:56 PM  
Are we at a full 24 hours in the worlds of Peter Jackson/J. R. R. Tolkien
 
2013-12-16 03:14:05 PM  
Watched the movie this last weekend.

It is better than the first but there is no reason for it to exist.  The entire sequence of events could have been told in about an hour. Trim a bit from the first movie & put some there and the rest in the final movie.

Probably would have been pushing 3 hours for the theatrical release for each of the resulting 2 movies, but do you honestly think the fans will care?
 
2013-12-16 03:15:22 PM  
Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:
 
2013-12-16 03:17:07 PM  

Null Pointer: The entire sequence of events could have been told in about an hour.


I obviously can't speak to what's in the books or not, but this is absurd to me. It never felt like they lagged in any places, other than at the very end in Erebor. How can you possible fit this in an hour? Here's what they needed to put in:

Beorn
Going through Mirkwood
Spiders
Thranduil
Gandalf and Dol Guldur
Lake Town
The Overlook
Erebor

You want to fit that into an hour? Are you insane? You can choose to cut some of these things entirely, I suppose, but if you want to keep the basic settings and beats of the plot, you can't just spend 7 minutes per place.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:17 PM  

DamnYankees: August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades.

Seems like if you need to say it more than once, it stops being true.


You are correct. I was oversimplifying my use of it. Bilbo's attitude at the mouth of the lair has, though, been a consistent influence.

I ride my bike six miles to work and when I arrive, I don't take the elevator to the fifth floor, I carry my bike up the stairs. And it is an heavy, old, Trek--about thirtyfive pounds. I cannot tell you the dread I feel some mornings in the last mile to work. I so do not want to shoulder that damn bike. But I do it because the rest of the day seems like a walk in the park. Everyone always wonders why I am so happy mid-morning. It's because I'm done with that damn climb. It is a little Smaug's lair every morning.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:21 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.


The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:35 PM  

Trail of Dead: Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:


If you honestly believe this, then you're pretty dim.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:57 PM  
At least we'll always have the animated adaptation to watch. Sure, it's not the big live-action adaptation I'd like, but it did a much better job at keeping to the tone of the book than the new films.

I have yet to see the newest film. I'm probably going to check it out later this weeks. I thought the first one was a good movie, but not a good adaptation of the book. One thing I always loved about The Hobbit was that it was a fun adventure, as opposed to the world-ending danger and big drama of Lord of the Rings.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:38 PM  
I'm conflicted on this one. One one hand, I despise the approach Jackson has taken with the Hobbit and consider it a great opportunity ruined (not to mention that it seems disrespectful to the source material). On the other hand, I'm a Wellingtonian with many friends and acquaintances who are indulging opportunities in the film business here, all thanks to Jackson.

It comes out as a win in that respect.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:38 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.


I don't agree with that - I think they've been consistently brilliant when it comes to size and scale. I was more referring to the interiors of Erebor and the molten gold. That looks fake to me.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:47 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades. Challenge yourself or life will be challenging and all that stuff.

But if you say that to yourself countless times, it is clearly a false statement.


My fault. I was being vague. See above retraction.
 
2013-12-16 03:19:57 PM  

NeoCortex42: One thing I always loved about The Hobbit was that it was a fun adventure, as opposed to the world-ending danger and big drama of Lord of the Rings.


I feel like Jackson is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand, he's already established the world and its general tone in the LOTR movies. It's hard to take that basic world and then change the. On the other hand, there are times in these movies where he has gone for a more fun tone - such as the barrel scene - and he gets flamed for it.
 
2013-12-16 03:21:03 PM  

Trail of Dead: Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:


The profit motive plays an important role in popular art.  The movie studios are businesses; we understand that.

The issue comes up when the integrity of the art (in this case, the integrity of the depiction) is compromised for financial considerations.

Tolkien wrote The Hobbit a certain and at a certain length to achieve a certain purpose.  I'm not idealizing Tolkien; he wrote for money just as much for pleasure (he squabbles with his publisher endlessly in his correspondence).

The lengthening of the story into a co-eval of the Lord of the Rings accomplishes no legitimate artistic purpose.  In the sense that it distorts the artistic intent of the original work in order to maximize revenue, The Hobbit films are more pernicious than most.
 
2013-12-16 03:22:01 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Tolkien wrote The Hobbit a certain and at a certain length to achieve a certain purpose.  I'm not idealizing Tolkien; he wrote for money just as much for pleasure (he squabbles with his publisher endlessly in his correspondence).

The lengthening of the story into a co-eval of the Lord of the Rings accomplishes no legitimate artistic purpose.  In the sense that it distorts the artistic intent of the original work in order to maximize revenue, The Hobbit films are more pernicious than most.


To me, they seem to serve the purpose of telling the story at a proper pace. The Hobbit may be a small book, but it sure seems to have a lot of episodes and plot in it, from what I can tell.
 
2013-12-16 03:22:05 PM  
But on the plus side.   Girion made an appearance.
 
2013-12-16 03:23:16 PM  
I really think two would have been just right.

While Desolation wasn't bad, you could have split half of it between the other two films, and then included the remaining half in the inevitable blu-ray director cut versions.
 
2013-12-16 03:24:10 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: While Desolation wasn't bad, you could have split half of it between the other two films, and then included the remaining half in the inevitable blu-ray director cut versions.


The other films are already going to be 2.5 hours each. You want 2 four-hour movies?
 
2013-12-16 03:26:02 PM  
You have to treat the audience like children, especially the book-clingers. They don't know what they really want even though they think they do. They want the book, but in the book Bard come out of nowhere. No one wants that. They think they want stealth barrels but actions barrels is what they need.

I applaud Jackson. This is his second child and he knows what needs to be done. Give these book whiners what they need. Make them eat their cinematic vegetables and take away the movie rotting candy like you did last time. (Bombadil, Shire scouring nonsense)
 
2013-12-16 03:26:07 PM  

Girion47: When Gandalf is facing "the darkness" And it forms into the eye of sauron, which then morphs into the armor shape, that then goes back to the eye. Why do we need that to pulse at us 5-6 times?


I actually laughed in the theater during that moment. Reminded me of this.
coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-16 03:26:29 PM  

DamnYankees: vonmatrices: The fight with the spiders could have been a moment for Bilbo to shine, but rather it was far too rushed.

Rushed? That scene lasted a while. And, to me at least, Bilbo did shine.


I didn't feel like that - sure Bilbo showed some martial prowess and we got an interesting moment where we see Bilbo being influenced by the Ring, but I think we missed out on him taunting the spiders and being brash, and generally saving the Dwarfs butts - instead he basically just frees them and the Dwarfs fight it out, and the Elves show up what seems like entirely too soon.

They should have just ditched Legolas and Thranduil and used the extra time to flesh out stuff that was actually in the book.

I did like their intrepretation of Mirkwood, and I liked the extra stuff involving Gandalf.

I thought Laketown was done well.

I'm not saying the movie was bad, but I just don't understand some of the choices they made.
 
2013-12-16 03:27:08 PM  
I kept expecting an epic battle between Bilbo, Legolas and Poochie versus Smaug and Danny Trejo.
 
2013-12-16 03:27:21 PM  

vonmatrices: They should have just ditched Legolas and Thranduil and used the extra time to flesh out stuff that was actually in the book.


I thought Thranduil is in the book.
 
2013-12-16 03:27:38 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.


Awesome. ^This is why they make three movies instead of one.

Making one would have ruined the story as it would be far too short and you would miss a ton of stuff from the book or waayyy too long. As in a 5 hour movie. Making 3 may be overdoing it, but THIS IS WHAT MOVIES ARE ABOUT!

"Oh I think we should only make a limited amount of content. We don't need to make money. No one wants three movies anyway"
 
2013-12-16 03:29:38 PM  

Null Pointer: Probably would have been pushing 3 hours for the theatrical release for each of the resulting 2 movies, but do you honestly think the fans will care?


I can imagine this same line was uttered in the discussion over whether they could stretch this into 2 movies, or go gung-ho for a 3 movie cash-grab.

"We can probably stretch this into 3 movies if we add a bunch of this stuff not from the book.  But, do you honestly think the fans will care?"
 
2013-12-16 03:29:58 PM  
Two movies, I could understand. 3 is crazy. The pacing is sloooowwwww. But I did like the second one a lot more than the first.
 
2013-12-16 03:30:49 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really

...matter in relation to the LOTR discussions.

What, was it too long? The material too difficult?

DamnYankees: I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.

"Inventive and fun" like "dwarves falling 100 feet onto rocks and then tumbling another 100 feet and hitting more rocks" kind? Or like, "that's somewhat plausible" fun?

Tolkien had the barrel scene as a clever and stealthy way to escape to Lake Town. There's no rapids. There's no real danger except for the dwarves drowning in the leaky barrels and Bilbo being detected. Jackson makes it into a super-action sequence, because Hollywood Execs love that shiat.


For me? The material was boring as shiat and I don't force myself to slog through things I don't enjoy just to obtain some imaginary punch card membership.

And I read a lot, in high school. Couple books a week usually. Even high fantasy. One of my favorites was the wheel of time books. So it wasn't length or complexity. Or even age really, I could read Scifi or fantasy from the 70s without blinking.

The books just didn't remotely interest me.
 
kab
2013-12-16 03:30:53 PM  
There is no defense for it, because that's all it really is.

And it becomes even more clear when you had to omit quite a bit just to get LotR into 3 flicks.   You aren't telling the Hobbit story here, you're shoveling your "vision" on top of it to clear 3 box office weekends, then dvd sales, then blu-ray sales, then uncut footage collector sets bla bla bla.
 
2013-12-16 03:31:26 PM  
I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.
 
2013-12-16 03:31:40 PM  

OSULugan: "We can probably stretch this into 3 movies if we add a bunch of this stuff not from the book.  But, do you honestly think the fans will care?"


Honest question - do you really think Jackson thought "this is 2 movies, but we should make it three and add stuff to pad out the time"? Or do you think he thought "there's so much I want to put in here, and two movies just isn't enough, so I'd rather make three movies than hack out parts I love?"

You can criticize him for making the wrong decision, but it just seems incredibly unlikely to me he did it in bad faith. Dude already has enough money for a lifetime.
 
2013-12-16 03:32:31 PM  
I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.
 
2013-12-16 03:33:03 PM  
My father and I are going to see this for his birthday. I'm waiting until then, because I don't want to hate it and have to sit through it twice.

I'm not optimistic.
 
2013-12-16 03:34:33 PM  

DamnYankees: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.

I don't agree with that - I think they've been consistently brilliant when it comes to size and scale. I was more referring to the interiors of Erebor and the molten gold. That looks fake to me.


No, you can see it in any interior.  Gandalf will be massive compared to a Hobbit, then suddenly the Hobbit will be half his size.  They did a lousy job with it across the movies.
 
2013-12-16 03:34:49 PM  

DamnYankees: You can criticize him for making the wrong decision, but it just seems incredibly unlikely to me he did it in bad faith. Dude already has enough money for a lifetime.


As far as the "enough money for a lifetime" bit, the same thing could be said for George Lucas.  Maybe Lucas and Jackson are operating on good faith but have lost all sense of that artistic proportion that helped them achieve fame in the first place.

In Jackson's case, I suspect that (given the success of the Lord of the Rings movie) he began to see himself as Tolkien's collaborator across the generations, with his revisions constituting a "modernization" like you see in those inferior "contemporary" Bibles.
 
2013-12-16 03:35:28 PM  

RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.


A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'
 
2013-12-16 03:36:42 PM  

Trail of Dead: Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:


What you say is true as far as it goes, but there are degrees: some cash grabs are more crass than others. Splitting a single-volume work into two is a particularly crass type, and to split it into three is beyond the pale, especially when you then go and add filler subplots to pad it out to a three-film length.
 
Displayed 50 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report