1. THE PAGES
Let's do the math: The Lord of the Rings is about 1500 pages, broken naturally into three logical units, each one concluding a major part of the adventure. As a result, the movie trilogy has been a nine-hours epic, that easily sustained a 30% expansion. Now let's do the math again: The Hobbit is about 300 pages. These 300 pages will be blown up into three three-hours movies (because Jackson's ego couldn't possibly fit into 120 minutes), not to mention the extended editions. If Peter Jackson would have treated LOTR the same way, the end result would have been 30-hours movie version of these books.
2. THE EXCUSES
The excuse for splitting The Hobbit into three movies is that Jackson and his wife apparently used some appendices, additional notes and other rudimentary sprouts, that Tolkin himself found of insufficient quality to insert into the book. Of course, it's clear Warner, MGM and New Line will try to squeeze-out every cent out of Tolkin's legacy and will try to take our money at least 4 times per movie. Their approach however makes even less sense than the similar split of the last Harry Potter and Twilight chapters. I'm sure if LOTR has been made in the current market realities, it would have been a hexalogy at a minimum.
On the other hand Jackson is filthy rich and not terribly studio-dependent, so here we probably see some personal issues at play. Apparently he just can't let himself go off the Middle Earth. This was evident in the one-hour finale of ROTK. I think he was so enthusiastic to go back to this realm, that he forgot to ask himself if there is really something important to do there. Well, ok, there are people who spend more time than necessary in the toilet. The only difference is that we don't pay for watching.
3. THE SOURCE
The real trouble with The Hobbit is that it's just a rehearsal for LOTR. This may be sounds a bit like trashing a beloved book, but come on... The story is practically the same - a wise wizard asks a little hobbit to go on a mission. He is accompanied by some colorful characters and they all travel from one location to another. Few battles later the said hobbit accomplishes his mission and goes back to his hole. Forever changed. Now, when we already have Frodo's adventure, so thematically rich and enthralling, telling Bilbo's story in three movies would be like asking the audience to swallow a gallon of tripe soup just being done with the truffles. No matter how we turn it, The Hobbit is just a painfully linear fantasy action-adventure for kids. When put next to LOTR it has the value of a coloring book. Making even one movie out of it is a pointless enterprise, and what about this trilogy overkill?
4. THE FILLER
Remember Jackson's King Kong? A movie that was supposed to be concerned mainly by the love story between a giant gorilla and a horny blond, was actually filled with tons of mindless action. Our heroes were shoot by a local tribe, chased by dinosaurs, eaten by crazy swamp worms with sharp teeth, taken on the wings of giant bats etc. It's clear from the second trailer of The Hobbit that the movie will be full of that shit. Dwarfs running around and being buried under rocks and trolls? No thanks!
5. THE VFX
Remember the dinosaur chase from King Kong, and how unnatural it looked? Now I'm worried that The Hobbit will be yet another movie of Jackson that will numb the audience's perception for the quality of the visual spectacle, just by the sheer amount of its primitive power. In the first trailer there was a ridiculous miniature of a waterfall in Rivendell, which is embarrassing to see coming out of WETA for a giant movie by the company's founder. In the second trailer there were some wolves, as if they've jumped straight out of Twilight.
The trouble with Jackson is that he is just incapable of making a movie without heavily relying on special effects and he uses this cinematic tool with the refinement of a lumberjack. Even in Lovely Bones he was concerned mostly by evaporating your retina, exposing it to borderline insane amount visual bullshit, than by quietly telling the sad story of Susy Salmon. As a director of VFX he is far behind the real masters of this craft - Spielberg, Zemeckis, Fincher... Sure, Jackson's visuals are often spectacular and the wow-factor is sky high. However, this is the same wow-factor that belch out of crap like 2012 or Transformers. There is no subtlety whatsoever.
The trouble with Jackson is that he is just incapable of making a movie without heavily relying on special effects and he uses this cinematic tool with the refinement of a lumberjack. Even in Lovely Bones he was concerned mostly by evaporating your retina, exposing it to borderline insane amount visual bullshit, than by quietly telling the sad story of Susy Salmon. As a director of VFX he is far behind the real masters of this craft - Spielberg, Zemeckis, Fincher... Sure, Jackson's visuals are often spectacular and the wow-factor is sky high. However, this is the same wow-factor that belch out of crap like 2012 or Transformers. There is no subtlety whatsoever.
6. GOLLUM
The last trailer left me wondering why the animation of this creature hasn't moved one bit further from the 2003 level. The answer could be that we have seen an unfinished footage... But that's not so important actually. Gollum's treatment in LOTR was more than adequate and more than enough. We saw him crawling in the shadows in FOTR, we saw him as a hobbit killing his best friend, we saw him as the schizophrenic freak that lead Frodo to his demise, and we finally saw him smile in his last moment on this Earth. On the other hand, in The Hobbit we'll get that retarded game of riddles. Are they fucking joking? Do we really need more background info on this character after everything we saw? Or on any other character?
7. THE OTHERS
There was a dozen of really cool and fleshed-out characters in LOTR your heart breaks for, or you hate in the guts. In The Hobbit we have a bunch of dwarves, seemingly accomplishing the impossible - to be even more boring than the those from the various Snow White movies we had the misery to watch earlier this year. Besides, Gandalf is old and tired; Frodo, Legolas and Galadriel will return not for some profound narrative reasons, but just for the sake of flashing famous faces that boost ticket sales.
8. THE PREDICTABILITY
It is true that every adaptation suffers the inevitable - the fans of the source-material know (more or less) what's gonna happen. LOTR fantastically overcame this problem, thanks to the thematically rich material, its mindblowing cinematic potential and the great performances. In addition, the liberties Jackson, Walsh and Boyens took with the books were perfectly appropriate. In The Hobbit however, there are no interesting characters whose faiths Jackson hasn't concluded 10 years ago. Bilbo: "Can you promise me I will come back?" Gandalf: "Um... no. But if you somehow come back, you'll never be the same..." Oh, the LOL.
9. THE IMITATIONS
At the time LOTR came out we were all children, witnessing for the first time an epic of such proportions. Now we aren't. And what is worse - since 2001 we are being overflown with cheap LOTR rip-offs. Even the Twilight saga tried to imitate it, not to mention the likes of Eragon and the Titans... We also had The Golden Compass - a movie with such a great potential, turned into a horrific mess by New Line, just for the sake of being as much LOTR-lke as possible. The Hobbit most likely will fall into the same awkward position as John Carter - the beginning of something truly great will arrive too late for its own party. And all this because of stupid genre exploitations.
10. 48 FPS
The Hobbit was the last movie that deserved to be cursed by the 48fps-soon-to-be-a-plague. The higher framerate may be good for football games or for promoting LED TVs to tasteless morons at Best Buy. The Hobbit however is not a documentary, it is a fantasy. And the last thing a fantasy needs is this cheap soap opera look, that completely destroys the cinematic feeling. Jackson surely will have to go with the consequences of his stupid decision. This comes entirely from his total inability to understand that the technical superiority of certain cinematic tool doesn't necessarily mean it should be applied to just about anything. Yet another bullshit decision in a series of bullshit decisions. It's not clear how much of the potential movie going crowd will have the "pleasure" to witness the movie in 48fps presentation, but Warner and Co. better throw some money to shut critics' yaps, because otherwise, mark my words, every single review will be based entirely on how badly artificial the look of the movie is. I really hope the audience will boycott the 48fps presentation and we'll be spared this "innovation" that does nothing but killing the movie-watching experience.
__________________________
Every single one of those 10 points is completely selfsufficient to sink The Hobbit. Together they mean one thing and one thing only - this movie will stink even more than the overhyped bullshit Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan served cold earlier this year. Noone can do anything about it (well, ok, probably only Howard Shore). We can either say "Whatever" and move on, either to bury a head in the sand, exposing an ass that will bleed severely in two months time.
Actually, I don't care so much - I don't wear The One Ring on my finger, nor do I sleep with a stuffed Gollum. I also firmly reject the common notion that when Gandalf farts it all smells of roses. The way I can buy The Indiana Jones Collection and play a Frisbee with the fourth bluray disc, the same way I can ignore the existence of The Hobbit. We've got extremely lucky already - LOTR happened before The Hobbit. And
P.J. is just not this great talent I would watch with aching heart wasting
his time for yet another movie (actually three movies) made with a
single purpose - to burn the synapses of my optic nerves. Just like his
previous two crap fests.
There is no doubt - on 14th of December Jackson will suck little hobbit weeners. The revelation from 10 years ago just can't happen again. Now everything is different - we are, they are, the industry is... Get over it.
Wow, this article is so negative, and it lists many WRONG reasons for the ''sucking'' of The Hobbit. It seems that you haven't even read the book. Okay, so I will try to ''debunk'' your reasons (and it ain't gonna be hard either):
ОтговорИзтриване2. THE EXCUSES
>>The excuse for splitting The Hobbit into three movies is that Jackson and his wife apparently used some appendices, additional notes and other rudimentary sprouts, that Tolkin himself found of insufficient quality to put into the book.<<
Umm... Insufficient quality? Dude, those additional stories are from the Lord of the Rings, and other Tolkien's works - all of which were published. He DID put them in the book. You don't have an idea what you are talking about. ’’Some appenndices’’? Pff... you speak of them like they are just some random footnotes, when in fact, they are big, and found at the end of The Return of the King.
3. THE SOURCE
>>The Hobbit is just a painfully linear fantasy action-adventure for kids.<<
Yes, the Hobbit is mainly a children's book, but there are A LOT of grown up people who like Hobbit more than LotR. And who said that The Hobbit films must have the same ''seriousness'' as the LotR ones?
5. THE VFX
You can't say anything about the effects, based on the two trailers. Wait for the movie, and then bash or praise the effects.
6. GOLLUM
>>On the other hand, in The Hobbit we'll get a retarded game of riddles. Are they fucking joking?<<
Wait, wait - are you actually saying that they should have cut the Gollum scenes from the Hobbit films?! A retarded game of riddle, you say... A game of riddles which helped Bilbo get THE ONE RING, which was a MAIN plot device for the Lord of the Rings. Do you really think scene that it is not important enough?
7. THE OTHERS
Again, wait for the film, and THEN say that the Dwarves are more boring than the LotR characters. The Dwarves are VERY underdeveloped in the book, but it seems that they are more fleshed out in the film.
8. THE PREDICTABILITY
It's the ''problem'' with all the prequels, but WHO CARES! The viewers know that Bilbo will live, but they don't know what he will live through, on his journey to the film's end. Yes, those who have read the book already know, but those who didn't have a right to enjoy not knowing what will happen next - even if they know that BIlbo is alive in LotR.
Godfather 2 show sthe rise of Vito Corleone. We KNOW that he is alive in Godfather 1, but does that mean that we can’t enjoy seeing him in his younger years?
9. THE IMITATIONS
You say that we already had a ''superior sequel'', even if you didn't see this trilogy yet. How do you know it’s gonna be superior? Don't judge a book by its covers.
10. 48 FPS
That frame-rate will only be in a small number of selected 3D theaters, so the majority of the people will see it in either 2D 24 FPS, and 3D 24 FPS. If you don’t want to experint with 48 FPS – NO ONE IS PUSHING YOU.
*
Out of your ''every single one of those 10 points is completely self sufficient to sink The Hobbit'', I only agree (but little) with 1 and 4.
All others are pure crap. I don't like many of the things that are announced for The Hobbit films, but you FAILED to mention any of the important ones. Why have you even written this article when it's not well researched at all?
2. So why they are not put into the story itself then?
Изтриване3. It's clear Jackson will try to channel LOTR. He did that with King Kong and even with Lovely Bones. I don't mind movies for children. I just don't like when they pretend to be something else. The trailer clearly leaves the impression that we will get something very similar in scope and style to LOTR. Coupled with the nature of the source material, however, the end result may be hilarious, and not intentionally so.
5. The important part in my statement about the VFX concerns the way PJ directs the effects. I am well aware that what we see in the trailer is unfinished material.
6. I have never said this scene shouldn't be included in the movie - this is ridiculous. What I am saying is that Gollum is already a complete character.
7. I really have no idea how the director/writer of Lovely Bones who managed to screw-up quite nicely developed characters, will manage to flesh out a bunch of Dwarves that are VERY undeveloped in the book.
8. So, tell me then - who is Pacino's Michael in The Hobbit? Thorin? LOL.
9. The material in LOTR is far superior than The Hobbit. And essentially they are the same story, told twice. So, when we already have the more complex and engaging one turned into a great, almost flawless trilogy, it is safe to assume that only a miracle can help The Hobbit to work as well as LOTR.
10. I know most people will see the standard 3D 24 fps version. You are right - this is a valid reason only for the minority that will watch the movie in 48 fps. That doesn't change the fact that introducing this format with a fantasy movie is stupid beyond comprehension.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
>>2. So why they are not put into the story itself then?<<
ОтговорИзтриванеBecause Tolkien didn't invent many of that stuff yet!
The Hobbit was his first published work - he wrote it before LotR.
An interesting fact is that The Hobbit wasn't even set in the Middle-earth! (Middle-earth only existed in Tolkien's sketches and notes for the book Silmarillion)
In Hobbit, there is not one mention of the Shire, Bree and Sauron, let alone all of the other Middle-earth stuff.
In Hobbit, we have mentions of football, golf, elephants and faeries, along with many, many other things that make no sense in the Middle-earth world.
But when the publishers asked for a sequel to The Hobbit, Tolkien wrote LotR, and mate it and The Hobbit a part of the Middle-earth. Then, rather than rewriting the entire 'Hobbit', he wrote a lot of stories in the Appendices at the end of LotR: Return of the King (and Unfinished Tales) to bring the Hobbit closer to the Middle-earth canon.
Therefore, we will have more stories from those appendices, in Hobbit films:
- Battle of Azanulbizar (set many years before The Hobbit, it involves a great Battle between Goblins and Orcs, in which Thorin and Dain were involved)
- The White Council (Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond...) set to expel Sauron from the fortress of Dol Guldur (Sauron was mentioned only as a Necromancer in The Hobbit)
- The Battle of Dol Guldur
- The meeting of Gandalf and Thorin, when they coined a plan to retake Erebor
- Many scenes that were only mentioned ''in passing'' in The Hobbit, like Gandalf getting the keys from Thorin's captive father Train, and similar things.
So, to sum it up, Tolkien didn't write these stories in The Hobbit only because he didn't set The Hobbit in the Middle-earth, and didn't invent any of that stuff yet.
>>3. It's clear Jackson will try to channel LOTR. He did that with King Kong and even with Lovely Bones.<<
>>5. The important part in my statement about the VFX concerns the way PJ directs the effects. I am well aware that what we see in the trailer is unfinished material.<<
Again, it is hard to say only from the trailer - we shall see the final product.
>>6. I have never said this scene shouldn't be included in the movie - this is ridiculous. What I am saying is that Gollum is already a complete character.<<
Yes, he is. But, in The Hobbit book, he was pretty scary, and a lot different than in LotR. Maybe they will try to channel that part of him in the film?
>>7. I really have no idea how the director/writer of Lovely Bones who managed to screw-up quite nicely developed characters, will manage to flesh out a bunch of Dwarves that are VERY undeveloped in the book.<<
ИзтриванеWell, it is easy to screw up well developed characters (like in Lovely Bones), but if you have characters with no personalities (most of book-Dwarves) than you can't really screw that up. Besides - we already know the basic things about the Dwarves' personalities from the trailers and other things:
1. Thorin: a proud, strong and arrogant noble Dwarf (a sad deviation from the book, I'm afraid)
2. Balin - old, wise and kindhearted
3. Dwalin - mighty badass warrior
4. Dori - strongest of the bunch, and a big-brother type
5. Ori - a bookworm (a wonderful notion to his fate in LotR book, he was the one who wrote that book that Gandalf reads in Balin's Tomb in Moria)
6. Nori - a shady thieving character?
7. Kili - a handsome, young Dwarf (bullshit, that makes me sick)
8. Fili - his brother, both of them are loyal nephews of Thorin
9. Bombur - a fatboy, and a comedy relief
10. Bofur - the joker
11. Bifur - mute, and a comedy relief
12. Oin - an old healer of the group
13. Gloin - father of Gimli, and probably has a Gimli-personality
So, yeah, most of them are only sterotypes, but it's better than nothing.
>>8. So, tell me then - who is Pacino's Michael in The Hobbit? Thorin? LOL.<<
X-Men: First Class is a prequel, and we are led to care to either Xavier or Magneto, even if we know their fates from the X-Men 3 film.
It's the same with any other prequel (Star Wars: PT, Puss in Boots, Paranormal Activity 3) - the prequel may suck, or it can be good, but most of the people like to see the prequels, even if they know the characters' fates.
>>9. The material in LOTR is far superior than The Hobbit. And essentially they are the same story, told twice. So, when we already have the more complex and engaging one turned into a great, almost flawless trilogy, it is safe to assume that only a miracle can help The Hobbit to work as well as LOTR.<>10. That doesn't change the fact that introducing this format with a fantasy movie is stupid beyond comprehension.<<
I agree on that. Though I have nothing against 48 FPS (because I don't know how it looks like yet), I think it is a gamble to have it promoted with a major blockbuster film. They should have tried it with a lesser film first.
2. Ah, I see - this is exactly how Lucas "invented" the sequels and the prequels of Star Wars... Quite reassuring.
Изтриване6. Gollum was already scary enough in LOTR. We know everything about this character. In this case less is more.
7. Better than nothing? Better to have something MORE besides all this nothing. Unfortunately I can't see it.
8. Giving me all those shitty prequels as an example was not a very good idea.