In defense of the Hobbit trilogy

[thejboy88]

I have, ober the last couple of years, seen a number of people criticising Peter Jackson's recent adaptations of Tolkien's Hobbit book, saying that it's "too big compared to the story of the book", or that "Jackson is wrong to make it more like Lord of the Rings", and a slew of other points they have against the film.

While they have every right to dislike it for those reasons, I feel that, as a fan of the movies myself, I should bring up a counter-argument for it.

I think I can understand why Jackson and Co were trying to make this story more like LOTR than the Hobbit in tone, and all if it is because of being, in many ways, trapped by the fact that they made LOTR first.

Think about it. If they'd gone and made the Hobbit film first, then they probably would have been fine with having it be a small and quaint story like it is in the books. But that's not what they did.

They made the LOTR trilogy first. A big, sprawling and epic war story with dozens of supporting characters, dangerous enemies and branching storylines. And because of the success of those films, that kind of tone and image probably became the vision of Middle-Earth that most movie-going audiences were used to.

So, when it came time to make the Hobbit, there was probably a concern that, if they stayed true to the books and kept it small in it's story, that would be too different from what those audiences were used to, regardless of whether they'd read the books or not.

So Jackson and the rest probably felt that they had no choice but to beef up the story with all these LOTR-esque elements, lest audiences consider it a "lesser" kind of story.

As such, even though I adore Jackson's LOTR movies, I think having them be the first films he made created a severe handicap for these Hobbit movies. It's like being given the main course BEFORE you're given the starter at a restaurant. Sure, you may like the starter, but if you're given the main meal beforehand, it's just going to seem like a downgrade regardless of how good it was.

At least, that's how I see the matter. Feel free to disagree if you want.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Sure, they are stuck with LotRing them, but they haven't done too bad. And there's some annoying rewriting involved, but it's tolerable.

What gets me is the pointless CGI. The river chase scene, or the running round with Smaug for ages in the second.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Let's be honest, they made it into 3 movies for the same reason the final books in the Harry Potter/Twilight series were split into 2 movies: studios need to milk and serialize their franchises as much as they can. Your argument about how the epicness of LotR somehow cornered Jackson into making something even more epic is understandable, but I don't buy it.

What gets me is the pointless CGI. The river chase scene, or the running round with Smaug for ages in the second.

Did you watch the trailer for the new movie already? There's an awful chase scene with a completely CGI wagon, it looks even more terrible than that river scene from the 2nd movie.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Did you watch the trailer for the new movie already? There's an awful chase scene with a completely CGI wagon, it looks even more terrible than that river scene from the 2nd movie.

Eh, saw a leaked version, I'm more annoyed that they revealed that one of the otherwise forgettable dwarves was a women in disguise. What was the point of that? Ok, some beard related humour, have to give them that, but otherwise, felt like it came out of nowhere for no reason.

[small]Now to see if anyone believes me[/small]

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Here is the thing: in no way does the Hobbit NEED to be epic, but they made it that way because they felt obligated to 'cause of the LotR. Had they taken a step back, told a story that was by itself a travel journey of a Hobbit rising to the occasion, the movie(s) would be so much more compact, fluid, and consistent. But so much of the movie is just looking back at LotR, afraid that if they don't include some epic fights, some out of place callbacks (or is it callforward), some way to appeal to what made the LotR great they will risk alienating fans of those movies. And as a result the movies are utterly failing to live up their predecessors, choosing to be mediocre LotR prequels and not great movies in their own right.

Just to show what wavelength I am on, the best scene in entire endeavor so far is by a long shot Gollum's game of riddles. A simple character interaction between two well-liked and well-acted characters will be better than any bloated CGI scrotum-chinned monster. On a side note, how is it that a decade into the future, LotR effects hold up with the best movies and the Hobbit could barely be considered passable in many areas? Fucking CGI...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just to show what wavelength I am on, the best scene in entire endeavor so far is by a long shot Gollum's game of riddles. A simple character interaction between two well-liked and well-acted characters will be better than any bloated CGI scrotum-chinned monster. On a side note, how is it that a decade into the future, LotR effects hold up with the best movies and the Hobbit could barely be considered passable in many areas? Fucking CGI...

Cause when you've got CGI, you don't need it to look good. It's a rule.

(Personally, not fussed on the riddle section, preferred the bit at the end when Bilbo says he misses his home, but the dwarves don't have one)

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

There's been a lot of these "in defense of" topic lately. Why do people feel the need to make these? Can't we all just have our irrelevant opinions on irrelevant subjects without some crusader coming in to defend his irrelevant opinion of the irrelevant subject and essentially telling us how we should think and feel about something irrelevant that we just so happen to dislike for whatever irrelevant reason? Because it is fuckin' irrelevant. All of it. It's just a movie.

 

[fezgod]

On a side note, how is it that a decade into the future, LotR effects hold up with the best movies and the Hobbit could barely be considered passable in many areas? Fucking CGI...

I think it has something do to with the fact that the LOTR trilogy had a lot of practical effects. The armies are already made of couple hundred extras who are then multiplied in post-production. The major exterior shots (like Minas Tirth or Helm's Deep) were highly-detailed miniatures and so on.

The only explanation I can think of for the Hobbit's cgi looking terrible is that Peter Jackson doesn't give a shit about the Hobbit movies. It's definitely not a money issue - the first Hobbit movie alone has roughly the same budget as the entire LOTR trilogy.