The Hobbit Trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2012-2014)

[mfunk9786]

It's sad to see a director who has so much talent go so far off the rails.

[Brian C]

It's sad to see a director who has so much talent go so far off the rails.

I know, right? And yet he somehow got even worse after The Lovely Bones.

[MichaelB]

I rewatched Forgotten Silver the other week as research for an upcoming Sight & Sound feature about major directors' television work, and it was a hugely nostalgic reminder of how much fun Jackson's films were before they got ridiculously bloated.

[mfunk9786]

What bothers me: He hasn't gotten bored with this pattern yet? Of releasing a really long film about hobbits and wizards, putting it out on home video, then putting the extended cut out on home video, then releasing another really long film about hobbits and wizards, putting it out on home video, then putting out the extended cut on home video...

You'd think someone would feel artistically exhausted at some point, shooting and then cutting together what's essentially the same film over and over and over.

[domino harvey]

Well, to be fair, the decision to have two different releases of the film, theatrical and extended, is almost certainly a studio call. I don't see why Jackson would be any more "bored" than any other director who made films in the same genre over and over. "Boy, didn't Robert Siodmak get tired of making all those noirs?" "Jesus Stanley Donen, enough with the musicals!" &c

[jindianajonz]

What bothers me: He hasn't gotten bored with this pattern yet? Of releasing a really long film about hobbits and wizards, making a ton of money on home video, then making another ton of money on home video, then releasing another really long film about hobbits and wizards, then making a ton of money on home video, then making another ton of money on home video...

Fixed that for you.

[MoonlitKnight]

I'm sorry all you 'non-nerds' can't appreciate these movies as an all-immersive experience, as opposed to just another 'been there, done that' experience just like any other belated sequel/prequel. I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about running times; I can only say that Jackson and his team have created such a deeply affecting, realistic world I which I want to spend as much time as possible. And, considering the material added from the LOTR appendices, it would be more accurate to label this trilogy as The Hobbit PLUS.

On a side note, it's interesting so many people rag on George Lucas for going back and tweaking STAR WARS Episodes IV-VI, yet virtually no one rags on Tolkien for going back and tweaking The Hobbit after finishing The Lord of the Rings. :-k

[Arrow]

I'm sorry all you 'non-nerds' can't appreciate these movies as an all-immersive experience, as opposed to just another 'been there, done that' experience just like any other belated sequel/prequel. I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about running times; I can only say that Jackson and his team have created such a deeply affecting, realistic world I which I want to spend as much time as possible. And, considering the material added from the LOTR appendices, it would be more accurate to label this trilogy as The Hobbit PLUS.

On a side note, it's interesting so many people rag on George Lucas for going back and tweaking STAR WARS Episodes IV-VI, yet virtually no one rags on Tolkien for going back and tweaking The Hobbit after finishing The Lord of the Rings.

People might rag on him if the changes were as negatively received.

[MoonlitKnight]

People might rag on him if the changes were as negatively received.

I always thought the negativity was grounded more in the principle of it than the actual alterations. The only truly questionable alterations were Han no longer shooting Greedo first, the musical number in Jabba's palace, and replacing Anakin's spirit with his pre-Sith image, IMO (well, OK, and Vader's 'NOOO!' when he defies Palpatine on the Blu-ray). And there's no denying it genuinely improved the end of "Return of the Jedi." It's no secret that Lucas always regarded the original theatrical versions of Episodes IV-VI as slightly compromised visions. If today's technology existed 35-40 years ago, the point would be totally moot; the dewbacks and Jabba scenes would've been in "A New Hope" from the get-go and it wouldn't be considered any less of a classic than what ultimately came out was/is. I don't agree with Lucas withholding the original theatrical cuts, but my inner perfectionist appreciates his efforts... even if he lost his ability to know when to draw the line.

[Arrow]

People might rag on him if the changes were as negatively received.

I always thought the negativity was grounded more in the principle of it than the actual alterations. The only truly questionable alterations were Han no longer shooting Greedo first, the musical number in Jabba's palace, and replacing Anakin's spirit with his pre-Sith image, IMO (well, OK, and Vader's 'NOOO!' when he defies Palpatine on the Blu-ray). And there's no denying it genuinely improved the end of "Return of the Jedi." It's no secret that Lucas always regarded the original theatrical versions of Episodes IV-VI as slightly compromised visions. If today's technology existed 35-40 years ago, the point would be totally moot; the dewbacks and Jabba scenes would've been in "A New Hope" from the get-go and it wouldn't be considered any less of a classic than what ultimately came out was/is. I don't agree with Lucas withholding the original theatrical cuts, but my inner perfectionist appreciates his efforts... even if he lost his ability to know when to draw the line.

I think it's mostly the changes themselves. I hate more than anything the scene where they're running through Bespin in V that windows were added. It completely compromises the shot and takes the focus away from the action.

Although the added scene with Jabba is equally infuriating as it is essentially redundant.

[solaris72]

I think it's mostly the changes themselves. I hate more than anything the scene where they're running through Bespin in V that windows were added. It completely compromises the shot and takes the focus away from the action.

Plus the windows disappear between shots.

[zedz]

People might rag on him if the changes were as negatively received.

I always thought the negativity was grounded more in the principle of it than the actual alterations. The only truly questionable alterations were Han no longer shooting Greedo first, the musical number in Jabba's palace, and replacing Anakin's spirit with his pre-Sith image, IMO (well, OK, and Vader's 'NOOO!' when he defies Palpatine on the Blu-ray). And there's no denying it genuinely improved the end of "Return of the Jedi." It's no secret that Lucas always regarded the original theatrical versions of Episodes IV-VI as slightly compromised visions. If today's technology existed 35-40 years ago, the point would be totally moot; the dewbacks and Jabba scenes would've been in "A New Hope" from the get-go and it wouldn't be considered any less of a classic than what ultimately came out was/is. I don't agree with Lucas withholding the original theatrical cuts, but my inner perfectionist appreciates his efforts... even if he lost his ability to know when to draw the line.

I think it's mostly the changes themselves. I hate more than anything the scene where they're running through Bespin in V that windows were added. It completely compromises the shot and takes the focus away from the action.

Although the added scene with Jabba is equally infuriating as it is essentially redundant.

Oh yes, let's have this fresh and exciting discussion all over again in a completely irrelevant thread.

[Clodius]

I'm sorry all you 'non-nerds' can't appreciate these movies as an all-immersive experience, as opposed to just another 'been there, done that' experience just like any other belated sequel/prequel. I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about running times; I can only say that Jackson and his team have created such a deeply affecting, realistic world I which I want to spend as much time as possible. And, considering the material added from the LOTR appendices, it would be more accurate to label this trilogy as The Hobbit PLUS.

Normally I'd agree with you, and I enjoyed much of the stuff from An Unexpected Journey (Misty Mountains Cold was cool), but there was so much unnecessary filler and added stuff in Desolation that it began to frustrate me. Do we really need that shoehorned in elf/dwarf love triangle? Or a 30 minute dwarves v Smaug action scene that was entirely invented? From the actual book, this film covered Beorn, Spiders, escape from the Wood Eleves, and Bilbo's talk with Smaug. That's it. Even if Jackson really wanted to cram in this stuff about Sauron in Dol Gulder, your telling me he couldn't fit all that plus Smaug's death and Battle of the Five Armies to finish this thing off in 2 movies? Drop the Laketown politics and Dwarf v Smaug scene and you've got enough time to wrap this whole thing up in 6 total hours rather than 9.

Especially after seeing Desolation, I have no earthly idea how they're going to pad out like 2 scenes from the book into another 3 hour movie. I'll end up seeing it though, cause PJ has got me and won't let go. How long till New Line parks a dumptruck full of money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e81B738SHC0 to Christopher Tolkiens house to get the Silmarillion rights so PJ can make these films until he dies of old age (or goes to the Grey Havens)

[captveg]

It's pretty obvious that the Smaug v. Dwarves action scenes were added after they reconfigured the stories from two to three films in order to have a more action heavy climax, with the original playing out of this section of the film simply being Bilbo & Smaug with Smaug flying off towards Laketown.

Which is fine. These are spectacle adventure films, and as such I've enjoyed them both immensely (though AUJ more so than DOS). It's a lot of filler indulgence in the world of Middle-Earth, but I'm enjoying said indulgences. Plus I think the Tauriel/Legolas will play better along with the third film, where we see how they are the bridge characters between dwarves/elves in order to get Thrandiul's support for the Battle of the Five Armies. Tauriel & Kili's subplot should bring a bit of invidualism to a rather matter-of-fact occurrence in the book, hence their heavy-handed bonding in DOS.

[MoonlitKnight]

From the actual book, this film covered Beorn, Spiders, escape from the Wood Eleves, and Bilbo's talk with Smaug. That's it. Even if Jackson really wanted to cram in this stuff about Sauron in Dol Gulder, your telling me he couldn't fit all that plus Smaug's death and Battle of the Five Armies to finish this thing off in 2 movies? Drop the Laketown politics and Dwarf v Smaug scene and you've got enough time to wrap this whole thing up in 6 total hours rather than 9.

"An Unexpected Journey" covered the first 6 chapters of The Hobbit; this one covers the next 6 chapters, leaving the final 7 chapters for ''There and Back Again"... so from that aspect they're all more or less evenly distributed (even when taking the supplemental material from the LOTR appendices and invented material from Jackson & Co. into consideration). But, again, if you read the book, there's not nearly as much detail in it as in LOTR; it basically hits its marks and then moves on as briskly as possible. There's not much character development for anyone besides Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin; the book is almost entirely plot-driven. If you want a tight, concise version of the story, you're probably better off sticking with the '77 animated version from Rankin/Bass.

[rohming]

I enjoyed the crap out of Desolation of Smaug. Yes, it is longer than it needs to be. I would like to point out that the movie hasn't actually been "negatively received" by the critical community in general, it's gotten a lot more positive reviews than negative ones, it seems to be receiving more criticism from those fans or film buffs who seem deadset on comparing it to the book or to the LotR movie trilogy--which it was never going to match, the narrative just isn't there for that, despite all of PJ's efforts (sometimes misguided, sometimes not) to beef it up. But aside from the length and editing issues (which, yes, can be big deals, especially if you're not enjoying the material, though i like most of it) and some wonky CGI here and there, I thought it was pretty great genre filmmaking. Certainly the best action/adventure I've seen in a long time. I thought the spiders scene, the barrels, and Smaug (though there IS too much of the dragon) were all fantastic setpieces, and I'm still really enjoying the narrative and characters, despite some unwarranted padding.

[MoonlitKnight]

Agreed. I loved every minute of it. I also thought all the additions Jackson & Co. made all made sense within the context of Middle-Earth lore. Yes, there were some over-the-top moments, but nothing that took the smile off my face the whole movie. December 17, 2014 can't come soon enough. 8-[

[matrixschmatrix]

I didn't see the first of these, but I'd account myself a reasonable though not a diehard fan of Jackson's- I like his early work, and I quite liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I was even fairly on board with his King Kong. This...

I mean, it's not terrible, insofar as nearly all of the parts work ok in of themselves. But it seems like the definition of bloat- in part, because it's a three hour movie that doesn't manage to fit in hardly any of the moments of humor or depths of performance that Jackson found in the other trilogy, just plot plot plot chase chase chase brief love scene, fight fight fight. The attempts at humor all feel shoehorned in- I love Stephen Fry, but there's no reason for him to be in this moment- and we don't get any beats that seem to come from the characters we're dealing with, as we did so often with Merry and Pippen. Ian McKellan is isolated for a lot of it, and his Gandalf no longer seems to have the warmth or wisdom that the role offered in the other trilogy. There are something like three giant setpieces without ever having much in the way of stakes established- I remember Jackson discussing how the battle of Helm's Deep was inspired by Zulu, and the endless preparation for the battle that created a sense of dread and an investment in the characters. Here, even the moral points inherent to the book, mostly questions of avarice and greed, seem incidental, and had I not read the book I don't know that I could have told you what much of anyone thought about anyone else, apart from the scenes with the Elf King. Who, incidentally, seems to be played as a madman, but whose demand of Thorin is eminently reasonable, and something Thorin is happy enough to promise to the Laketown.

The ending is absurd, though. We've got a giant fight scene between the dwarves and Smaug, which ends after Smaug has been attacked constantly and taken everything thrown at him without much consequence (apart from making him look silly in his inability to catch a single dwarf.) And Smaug... goes and attacks Laketown instead? On the basis of he got the idea that it would bug Bilbo if he did so? Ridiculous.

[rohming]

I guess it's absurd but no more absurd than the common action/adventure villain convention of "I'm gonna make you watch as I torture/kill people that you care about, then I'll kill you." And I don't see how it's fundamentally different than what happens in the book.

The avarice/greed stuff is actually MORE present here than it was in the part of the book that covers the same part of the story. It's only after Smaug "desolates" Laketown that those themes come into full effect in the book, and I expect TABA to follow suit, as DoS does a lot to set all of that up (loved the scene where Thorin stops Bilbo at sword-point).

Gandalf has every bit the level of warmth and wisdom in AUJ as he did in LotR. DoS is certainly a different beast, though, as for much of the movie he is not in a position to be sharing warmth and wisdom. Isolated, as you say...and as it is alluded to in the book. You may then wish the Dol Guldur sub-plot had been cut entirely, but I ate it up. It was basically a Middle Earth take on exploring an old haunted house, with its conclusion being the key LotR tie-in. I also loved the absurd vanishing horizon of Sauron is his Eye is Sauron ad infinitum. Reminded me of the sci-fi flash in LotR's own middle chapter, with the 2001-ish space travel effect given to Gandalf's consciousness returning to Middle Earth from a different reality.

[jindianajonz]

Peter Jackson is apparently very candid about the messy production process in the special features for the recent box set.

[captveg]

If all one did was dig into the first 10 mins of the 10+ hours of Appendices of BotFA (not including the commentary) then, yes, the impression would be that Jackson was regretting ever taking the films on. But that's not exactly what they reveal, IMO, having watched the commentary and around 8 of those 10 hours so far.

This article is a very slanted view of just one aspect of the production revealed in the Appendices of BotFA. Most film shoots on large productions are like this to some degree. A lot of directors feel under the gun, and racing to the last minute to finish the post-production mere weeks (or days, or hours) before they premiere. It's the M.O. for tentpole pictures these days.

The difference here is that Jackson is actually open about it, instead of having only the fluff pieces of most modern bonus content (see: Jurassic World's featurettes). In the narrative of those other productions via their bonus features everyone has a perfect time making it. Um... no. That's not reality. That's what the marketing wants you to buy into, though. Here, the narrative of the bonus is that these were the challenges faced and ultimately overcome - which is why they are presented as the teaser to the 10+ hour bonus content story.

So yes, Jackson does lament the reduced prep time and the lack of clarity he has in certain elements relative to the time he had on LOTR. But there are also other times where he is clearly enjoying the process, or feeling that he got something right when the solution finally presents itself, etc. And often much of what people dislike with the film (the role of Alfrid, the gags) are some of the elements he clearly likes the most, so how does one reconcile that?

I feel this a case where the world has decided the narrative of these films is one of failure, so that's where the juicy stories are. The ebb and flow of the production as revealed in the special features are far less black/white than that. Certainly he's exhausted by the ~5 years dedicated to the films - who wouldn't be? But he states clearly at the end of the commentary that he felt the same after Return of the King, so it's all six of one, half a dozen of the other when one really steps back from these comments and looks at them in context of the whole.

[AK]

David Fincher put it well: "The fact is, you don't know what directing is until the sun is setting and you've got to get five shots and you're only going to get two."

Making movies is certainly hard work, sometimes made even harder by lack of planning and time, and I think it's good to have a major director be honest about it. If this news is somehow sensational, I think it only goes to show how distorted the general idea about filmmaking is, which I think only undermines the respect the people involved in the making of the films deserve.

[captveg]

David Fincher put it well: "The fact is, you don't know what directing is until the sun is setting and you've got to get five shots and you're only going to get two."

Exactly. And there's even that moment for BotFA, where the last day of shooting that McKellen was available was running late, and they needed to get his final scene with Freeman done.

So they discuss it and decide to cut all the dialogue and just play the scene in silence, trusting the actors to make it work because they are up against the clock. And this is often cited as the best scene in the film.

[hanshotfirst1138]

I just think it's a pretty sobering look at being behind-the-scenes. 21 hour days? This kind of stuff should be known to all wannabe filmmakers, the "fun" of making a film. It's like Coppola said, it's like doing pottery in a sandstorm.

[Trees]

These films were a disaster, just as the OP predicted. zedz and others did a great job explaining why. I would love to see Mr. Plinkett tear into this "trilogy".

Points:

1. This should have been one film.
2. Jackson should not have been involved.

The 1977 animated "Hobbit" is ten times better than all Jackson's three films put together.