Do you have adblock enabled?
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   ( divider line
    More: Fail, The Hobbit, road movie, love triangles, Smaug, grabs, hobbits, J. K. Rowling, Hermione Granger  
•       •       •

3277 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Dec 2013 at 2:58 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-16 04:01:21 PM  
2 votes:

the opposite of charity is justice: 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. admit to being an idiot.

That "bloated scene" is in the book jackass
2013-12-16 03:50:27 PM  
2 votes:
I never read the books.
I never saw the LOTR movies

I rented the first Hobbit movie Friday night, and then went to see Smaug Sunday afternoon.

End result?  My kids and I enjoyed the Hobbit, REALLY enjoyed Smaug (3Dhfr is excellent), and am now mildly interested in the LOTR story line.  Might even read the books.

/It sounds to me like all this bickering over details is a bunch of Comic Book Guy nerds biatching a bunch of "normies" are invading their turf.
2013-12-16 03:07:40 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:43:34 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-12-17 12:38:03 PM  
1 vote:

DamnYankees: Lando Lincoln: And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.

Oh no! Not action scenes!

Action scenes do not equal plot or good story telling, Mr. Bay.
2013-12-17 01:15:44 AM  
1 vote:
Meh, more power to him.  The guy's a person, and if I were a person, and I loved doing something, with people I loved doing it with, then yeah - I'd stretch that out.

And try to make a product that was high-quality.

People are people, and their motivations are peopley.

The dude likes being the director of LOTR movies.  And he's pretty good at it.

Stretching The Hobbit out into 3 isn't 'necessary.'
But he's not committing some kind of crime.  He's having fun telling stories.

So he goes on a little too long.
2013-12-17 12:55:44 AM  
1 vote:
1937 "The Hobbit" first edition hardcover was 310 pages. 3 movies.

"The Fellowship of the Ring" = 531
"The Two Towers" = 416
"The Return of the King" =624

1571 pages. Three movies.
2013-12-16 05:24:04 PM  
1 vote:
Still missing appearances from Robert Plant and Jimmy Page.
2013-12-16 05:04:48 PM  
1 vote:

doczoidberg: Yeah, I realized as I was watching it that it was totally impossible that something like that could happen, but then I switched into Kids Movie Mode, and simply accepted it. See, that's the point where all reason backs off, and suspension of disbelieve reigns supreme for enjoyment's sake.

The scene was well shot, as you could at least tell what was happening. Many action film directors these days could learn a thing or two from Peter Jackson. At least he doesn't shake the friggin camera all over the place (too much).

Exactly right. They did the exact right thing in saying "ok, we have our basic scenario of barrels going down a river, what can we do with this", and then they hit all the rights note. Barrel bounces around? Check. Barrel turns into armor? Check. Weapons are passed around from barrel to barrel? Check. Awesome sequence where each barrel takes a single hack at a fallen tree, until the tree breaks? Awesome.

It felt like a theme park ride, and it was awesome.
2013-12-16 04:35:08 PM  
1 vote:
I am very disappointed with  Desolation.The narrative flow just seemed really off.  More like a string of connected events than a real story.  They could've cut Beorn out entirely and I wouldn't have missed him.
2013-12-16 03:58:11 PM  
1 vote:

mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.
2013-12-16 03:38:38 PM  
1 vote:

The_Gallant_Gallstone: 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.

This might actually be a fair way to see what Jackson is doing - and I'm fine with it. I think he's great at it.
2013-12-16 03:35:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:31:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:30:53 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:26:02 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:24:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:17:57 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:14:05 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:04:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:03:24 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:15:53 PM  
1 vote:
An article written by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
2013-12-16 01:06:20 PM  
1 vote:
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.
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.