The Hobbit 'Peter Jackson' - Reason For changes From The Hobbit Book
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2014
- Director Sir Peter Jackson talks with Tolkien-Fan Cirdan about his early doubts regarding The Hobbit-adaption, changes to the book by J.R.R. Tolkien and fan-expectations. In addition he reveals the reason to split two movies into three.
Please check out other videos at ........
/ diegeekshowshow
/ diegeekshowshow
/ silmarillion.sirpeterj... - Фільми й анімація
You did LOTR and the hobbit magnificently. Bless you Peter Jackson. Those movies will be forever etched in our hearts. Please make the silmarillion.
Agreed!
he's need 5 movies for that xD
I’d love a mostly narrated account of silmarillion like in the prologue of lotr
"Reason for changes" mostly because the movie execs fucked him over, gave him about 1/24th of the time he had to work on LOTR to work on the hobbit, changed things midway, vetoed all his good writing ideas (and Fran and Philippa's good ideas) and forced him to emphasize the love story, and Legolas, as opposed to who he wanted to emphasize: the dwarves, and Bilbo, and the lore.
Also people who say he wasn't faithful to the story obviously never read LOTR. Things that didn't happen in the hobbit book were mentioned in the LOTR book, and Jackson was able to put so many of these into the films. A lot of what people complain "were inaccurate" were, in fact, perfectly accurate, and the things people DIDN'T complain about (the dwarves' personalities, the good character development) were NOT part of the book.
So y'all haters need to direct your hate toward the movie execs, because as much as PJ wanted to go against their stupid fucking decisions, he couldn't, because they handle the money, and he wouldn't have been able to go against them without dire consequences.
+Billie4Mozzarella Well said!
Billie4Mozzarella I agree
Nonsense. Nothing about the prequels was as good as the LOTR. It does not matter who got it wrong. They're bad movies.
Dude, that's a bit harsh, it's just a movie. I'm happy of what Jackson did with LOTR and although I do not like the hobbit I am still glad I can just watch LOTR time and time again. As for the hobbit, I can read the book whenever I want :)
Only that PJ himself was a studio exec.
The main thing where the production went wrong is that they had so little time to prepare. About 6 months vs. 2 years in LotR. Also they Only realized at the end of the shoot that the material fit better into three films rather than two, which was very sudden and further put them behind schedule as they had to rewrite and restructure it all with much of the material already shot.
The Hobbit Trilogy was amazing. Fantastic music, beautiful cinematography, top notch acting from everyone. It's one of my favorite fantasy trilogies of all time (along with LOTR). Great work, Peter!
Yeah I enjoyed it to no were near the book but it was a good movie
I’m really happy that people are giving the Hobbit a second chance 🙂
Peter Jackson is an amazing director. He did an amazing job of The Hobbit and LOTR. Why can't people accept the fact that the film industry is run different than the book industry.
Because all he had to do was copy and paste, and not add characters or change the story. He has cut so many Key characters out of the movies, and then made other's out of thin air. In the Hobbit no Dwarf ever falls in love with a elf! In the Lord of the rings, its Tom Bombadil that save's Mary and Pippin from Old man willow, not Gandalf. And it happened after they left the shire, not way after Moria. Also he made it look like Thorin was starting to accept Bilbo, after the Eagles saved them, but in truth Thorin never gave Bilbo any respect at all until he was about to die. Azog was already dead during the Hobbit, so he brought him back to life for no reason, Bolg was killed by Beorn not Leogolas. So much was change and timelines moved around.
@@AdventuresAlberta none of what you have described would have translated well into the movies, either for story or pacing issues. Hence why it was cut or repurposed.
Tell me, when did Peter Jackson abandon reason for madness?
AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Elijah Simeth When the doctor opened the door with his head
One dark night when he was rubbing his penis looking at a picture of orlando bloom.
I thought The Hobbit worked as a Trilogy, yes vastly stretched and it is different to the book in terms of tone, but I love Peter Jackson's attention to detail with The Hobbit, he is able to use the appendicies to enhance wat Tolkien had scribed for the novel of The Hobbit :) Yes Lord of the Rings was certainly epic and more bigger but The Hobbit as a 3 part telling of the story works and we get to really spend time with the characters and deal with the issues related to them over the course of a longer journey, you couldn't tell The Hobbit in 1 film. If it remained as two films it would have been interesting to see how the story's structure would have been different to the 3 film structure :)
I liked the way Jackson did it and i have watch them all often
There is no way he could've given all 13 dwarves and a hobbit and gollum any real screen time if it had been 1 movie. Events of the journey would've been rushed and the whole movie a disappointment compared to the LotR movies, with their loving eye for detail and better pacing. Why don't people realize this? Then everyone would have b*tched and moaned about that. Could he have condensed it into 2 movies? Yeah, maybe. But it's been said PJ wanted to reach into the appendixes of the books in order to provide more detail, b/c he was not going to be able to get the rights to Silmarillion so he better show all the detail he can about the much-loved characters, their backstories, and their eventual fates with his last visit to M-E. It's not a direct copy of the book, but if JRRT was going to go back and rewrite the book anyway to include his expanded mythology (all the world-building ideas from his later-written trilogy), surely this isn't an unforgivable sin. It's just more movie to love, and I can appreciate the time and effort that went into them all.
Oh, I'd definitely be down for that! I think most fans would. : )
Amusement73 i'd love to have a silmarillion film only if it's taken with the respect for the source material that lotr did
tv series would be interesting if it had the budget
Silmarillion is so involved a tv series might be a better choice than a movie (as said, with a proper budget). Give us time to absorb all the details (and there are a lot of them) about what's going on. And gives fans something to look forward to on a regular basis. Okay, someone needs to get on this! PJ, if you don't want to do a series, get someone you trust to direct it and petition JRRT's children to release the rights! The fans are behind you 100%!
Maybe someone should start a petition to get PJ to take this on? I don't know how to do that. Though, haha, the poor guy - he will never be able to get away from M-E. So many of us, who did not know him before, will forever associated him with it.
“There and Back Again” sounds like a better trilogy title than The Hobbit, in terms of the films.
When it was still two movies the second one was called The Hobbit: There and Back Again wich is how the book is called
Nope. The Hobbit sounds more convincing
Love the Hobbit movies. So glad PJ directed and wrote for the continuity. Wonderful visually.
I am glad Peter Jackson included more changes from Tolkien's books in "The Hobbit Trilogy" then in "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy". If it was the other way around, I would be very disappointed in his film adaptations of Tolkien's Middle Earth novels! JRR Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" is my all time favorite novel trilogy. Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" is my all time favorite film trilogy. They are both equally compelling and amazing in my opinion!
I do think certain aspects of Tolkien's trilogy are better then Jackson's trilogy. I also think certain aspects of Jackson's trilogy are better then Tolkien's trilogy. I enjoyed reading "The Hobbit". I thought, however, it was nothing compared to the Tolkien's sequel trilogy, in regards to emotional depth, historical detail and expanded mythology! I think Jackson's "Hobbit Trilogy" has more of these qualities then Tolkien's short "Hobbit" novel.
Peter, we want to see those deleted scenes, unused for the Extended edition of the Lord of the Rings :
- Fellowship of the Ring : additional footage from the Battle of the Last Alliance (and maybe add Lee Pace’s Thranduil into it), an extended Council of Elrond (dialogue from the Council of Elrond, such as Gandalf explaining how Sauron forged the One Ring)
- The Two Towers : Arwen and Elrond visiting Galadriel at Lothlórien, Conversation between Elrond and Arwen in a library in Rivendell, after Arwen decides to wait for Aragorn. Elrond leaves saying “You gave away your life’s grace. I cannot protect you anymore”
- Return of the King : further epilogue footage, with endings for Legolas and Gimli, Éowyn and Faramir's wedding and Aragorn's death and funeral. Also, to give context for Wormtongue killing Saruman, and Legolas in turn killing Wormtongue, it was to be revealed Wormtongue poisoned Théodred. The final scene cut was Aragorn having his armour fitted for the Battle of the Black Gate by the trilogy's armourers, which was the final scene filmed during principal photography, and others.
We know you stated that you would like to include some of these unused scenes in a future "Ultimate Edition" home video release, also including out-takes.
It would be great if you would be able to revisit the cut of all 6 movies in the near future, do an "ultimate cut" of the 6 movies and integrate those scenes I mentioned back in the movies (instead of deleted scenes). You would also be able to reshoot the "Bilbo finding the Ring" scene from Fellowship of the ring, replace gollum from the shadowy scene in the Mines of Moria (from Fellowship), add more Balrog vs Gandalf fight (as you wished in the first place when you thought about the sequence but you didn't have the means and budget for it at the time), integrate Thranduil in the Battle of the Last Alliance, etc. (as did George Lucas with Star Wars afterwards).
Cheers! :D
it would be nice if he add and the Dwarves who are in the Last Alliance too,there 50 000 Dwarves led be Durin IV which arent even mentioned and I think they deserved 50 000 its a considareble force especially consist of Dwarves!!!And I always wanted to know if it is possible to make somethink like an Extended Edition to the Movie where it is shown the war in the North,the Battle of Dale between the Dwarves of Erebor and Men of Dale against the Eastrelings of Sauron,and the Elves of Lothorien and MIrkwood fightning against the 3 Orc Attacks from Dol Guldur and etc!>? :)
sakor88 lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Last_Alliance
From here! :)
Christopher Tolkien mentioned in an interview regarding the lotr trilogy movies that if anything peter Jackson was too strict in trying to keep to as much detail with the books as possible. He stated that why cant the book be what it is and the movie be what it is .
It begs us to ask why cant we appreciate each thing independantly as something unique in its own right .
Why for some people does the film based on the book have to be exactly like the book like there both one work ??
Food for thought
Because then what the hell is the point of bringing the story to the screen?! If you're going to change it so much that it's unrecognizable, you might as well have just created your own original IP instead!
@@Optimegatrongodzilla The point is a movie cant capture all and every detail of a book , yet a movie can still tell the primary story. You have the choice to read and watch the movie or do both and appreciate each as there hardly going to be the same.
@@atroutflycrazy8057 If a book is too long to be properly brought to the screen via a movie that is 3 hours long or less, then, it should be done as multiple movies or a miniseries instead.
@@Optimegatrongodzilla yes your right totally but filmakers and artistic license rarely allow for acurate book to film storytelling. I just keep the 2 separate and dont expect the film to be as detailed or most of the time as good .
The Hobbit films were too childish...or the Hobbit films weren't childish enough for the children's book it was based on...or something from the book was left out...or something from the book was included that a random nerd didn't like. Then of course there's the material from the appendices - or even from the main text of the book itself - that some random nerd only THINKS, incorrectly, was invented for the films (my personal favourite). This trilogy was beautiful, and it faithfully brought to life Tolkien's stories. In fact it was remarkably successful at weaving the central, child-friendly narrative of The Hobbit together with the appended material, showing the viewer the horrific things Gandalf was going up against during his frequent side trips away from Thorin's company. It shows that in a world as vast and richly detailed as Tolkien's Arda, no single narrative can tell the whole story.
Jacob Hoss It can if you try.
+edward18517 not really.
why not?
Peter Jackson is currently working on a film called "The never ending adventures of Radagast the brown". It will star Sylvester McCoy as old Radagast. And Bradley Cooper as young Radagast. Christopher Lee, Ian Mckellen and Ian Holm will appear in supporting roles.
Where did you get this information?
TheIncredibleMrBear ....I have seen it....
all things said and done, we should all remember that this is a business, it involves actors who get paid and the movie execs who would insist on things be done their way... also, PJ just 'inherited' this from Del Torro who was supposed to direct this so PJ was really at a loss and in too much pressure due to the time constraint, obviously he lost a lot of weight doing the first hobbit film... he didn't have the luxury of years of preparation he did on LOTR, no storyboard, nothing to go on... it was really hard to connect the Hobbit book to LOTR because the tone of the Hobbit book was very comical, so childlike... hats off still to PJ and his crew!
The moment when I thought the interviewer is Daniel Radcliffe.
This gentleman has been working so hard to achieve just what he set out too achieve everything that his raised many heart s over the years .and been so successful too support everyone with his team members all the best too this gentleman and his legendary friend's well I would never forgotten about this gentleman that people who love s this gentleman all the best too you best take care of your self well always remember those ones who share the same support over the world thank you xxxxxx 🐦🐦🐦🐦🐦🐦🐦🐦🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🤲👄👄👄🤲🤲🌹🌹🍀🍀👄👄🙌👐🍀xxxxxx hello my friend 💜?private priocy
Saw BOFA on Monday and loved it! Peter Jackson is definitely a RUSH fan because there is a scene in the movie that is exactly like the last verse from 'The Necromancer' song from the Caress of Steel album.
Have to give this to him: seeing the "big" picture of the story is his ONLY saving grace of these films. The films were definitely different, but it makes it a pretty good story...a different story...They did their best, and it wasn't half-bad.
I think the Hobbit trilogy was done well (not as good as the books or LotR movies of course) except for the Kili and Tauriel love story and the portrayal of Thrandiul. Of they had to have a love story than one between Legolas and Tauriel would have been better and maybe having Tauriel die in the Battle of the Five Armies. Because the Necromancer stuff did happen in the appendices and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age in the Silmarillion. And Azog was also in the appendices, an unnecessary inclusion, but it doesn't really harm the story. I'm glad that the Hobbit movies were made.
But why dip the dragon in gold?
Evan Owen it looked cool in his head
Evan Owen One of too many inane additions.
+Evan Owen Because the executives forced them to do it. Jackson's good writing was fucked up by lack of time (because of the execs) and because what good decisions he made were vetoed by the same execs.
Loven Tidus Yes let's watch PJ go up against the multi billion Warner Bros. company and see how well that goes
PJ didn't even own the film rights to LOTR or the Hobbit, you absolute moron.
Warner Bros did, from disputes with MGM. So if PJ had refused they would have pulled the project and made somebody else direct it, somebody who cared about it much less than he did. He would have no career at all if he risked getting fucked over by the kind of lawyers Warner Bros. could pay for.
"PJ should have looked toward the future, saved most of what was earned from LOTR and went into his next project alone, with his own money."
YOU FUCKING IDIOT HOLY SHIT I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING MORE HILARIOUSLY STUPID
First of all PJ never intended to make the Hobbit films because 1) he didn't have the film rights--Warner Bros and MGM did. He wouldn't have been able to sell it because then he'd be sued.
2) He didn't know he'd end up making the Hobbit films anyway, because that decision was made by Warner Bros. He was paid by Warner Bros. to do it. Otherwise he just would have gone on to other projects, like Tintin.
Second of all, do you really expect him to shell out billions of dollars on a film that he could NEVER sell? How about you go sell all your belongings and die for your absolute love of art and see how well that goes for you, when you're not allowed to earn a single cent for your trouble?
Go ahead and sell your kidneys and your spleen to make a better hobbit movie--just remember, nobody's allowed to pay you for it! Because you don't own the rights to it--and neither does Peter Jackson.
Warner Bros. had the money, and therefore the power to make PJ do whatever they wanted, and the power to throw him out if he didn't do what they said.
LOTR didn't belong to Peter Jackson. The Hobbit didn't belong to Peter Jackson. He can't do anything with either without the consent of the studios.
If you have no idea how executive politics in Hollywood works then shut your gob about it, because you are a fucking idiot if you think directors can't be tossed out as easily as any actor that displeases the guys shelling out money and rights--aka the studio, Warner Bros.
@@Billie4Mozzarella jesus calm down buddy
The movies are quite good. There are a few things that would make them better in my opinion:
- I would take Radagast out.
- Tauriel and Kili relation out (I'm ok with Tauriel being in the movie)
- Dwarves to look like Dwarves and not like men
- Remove the Goblin cave chase scene , it looks too cartoonish.
I really believe in the one movie per book rule. After all the goal is to adapt the original piece in the best way possible. Still wish the Hobbit was one movie, more similar to LOTR. Oh well
I agree. If it was one movie following the spirit of the book, I’d have appreciated it more. Yeah it might have been a little bit more child fantasy orientated but that’s how The Hobbit was intended.
It wouldn't have worked as one movie. Maybe if it was six hours long?
If the hobbit was made into 2 movies with del T as director and peter as producer, that would of been magic.
I want you now filming The Silmarillion!. make more films of J.R.R Tolkien !!!
That doesn't mean that he had to bring characters back from the dead. (Azog) or throw the elves through the whole fricking movie.
he seems reluctant.
The resemblance between the two men is uncanny
Oh for fuck's sake. He didn't change the book. The book exists and you can still read it. If you want to read the book, read the book. Don't watch the movie and complain it's not the book. That's fecking crazy.
Hey.. we know that Video. I link back to our Channel would have been nice.
I did not liked the limitation of Bilbo's role in 2 and 3 movie its truely sad becous Freeman was great in this, but I liked the addition of Dol Guldur, and White Counsil etc. I didnt liked too few dialogues between Thranduil and Bilbo, I liked the scene with Tauiel and Kili in elven dungeons. I liked expanded roles and characters of Bard, Thranduil, Radagast. I didnt liked that Sauron was chased away by Galadriel single handedly without the help of other 2 rings of Gandalf and Elrond. I liked the chase of Azog after Thorins company but I dont like too many unreal stunts and too big trolls. I didnt like the dwarves bathing in the fountain but I liked the expanding and developing the charachter of most of them. I liked the meeting with Gollum but I didnt like too long battle scenes. I liked the Shire and most of other locations but I didnt like the image of Thranduil's palace - too dark and stony. I liked adding some women role (Galadriel and Tauriel) but I didnt liked the romance of Kili and Tauriel - for me it should have ended as the friendship between warriors like Gimli and Legolas. I liked all the foreshadowing of the Ring and Nazgul and all the topics of LOTR but I didnt like that Gandalf can forget the names of his fellow wizards :) This list can be long so I finish here :) The movies were not as bad as we think, they were not as fine as LOTR but for Pete's sake :) there are hundreds of movies not as good as LOTR and still they are great movies :D
5:38 Gandalf and dumbledore?
+Team Black I was wondering the same and the only explanation I can find is the the dummy shaped after gandalf in dol guldor is called dumbledore by the filming crew
peter jackson in great shap talking about hobbit ?
I am sure that when Peter halted production. It came with a price - make it three.
4:25 lol could not have been worse.
hahaa quest: go kill dragon :D
They should skip all the Elf-Dwarf love shit, and focused more, f example in Sauron or any other stuff part of Midle earth in that period.
One word money
I wish he hadn't changed it. This should have been two movies. They're already on the final pges.
Currently 146 pages in the Hobbit and I've got to say that the book is no child's story. And in general, the book is by far better. I watched the movie before I read the book and thought it was good but then when I read the book I realized all the things that were skipped over. I was seriously disappointed.
I find it ironic, that the overall theme of the last movie is how power, and more to the point Gold corrupts, which is exactly what happened to the filmmakers here. Peter Jackson could have replaced "Thorin" with himself and the whole movie would have made a lot more sense! A perfect example of what happens when the "Smaugs" of Hollywood get there claws into beloved works. I've read several statements in these reply's that convey how great the movies are and how "overrated" the 1930's children's book was, well this comment is for all of that ilk.....without the overrated children's book Jackson would have had nothing to rape!! Pitiful, I say as I ride off on a Giant saddled Aardvark, because we all know how important crazy animal mounts are necessary!!!!
They really are three great movies but... why are they called "The hobbit" ?
This is why the movies failed. The entire thinking of connecting it with Lord of the Rings is why it failed.
So, in other words......MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tolkien is proud of you
I like the bedtime story much better than the way Peter Jackson did it. The Hobbit is not the LOTR and was supposed to be more gentle adventure. We didn't need all the orcs, or the stupid rock monsters fighting each other, and the escape in the barrels was supposed to have been more stealthy without all the fighting. Not every moment has to be high drama to be entertaining and that is where he lost me. I loved the look of the dwarves and the song they sang. The costumes were great and as always the creatures looked wonderful. The environment was stunning, but I think it would have been much better movie to have shown the subtle fear and eeriness that the full on running, fighting and all out frantic pace that the movies took. The CGI fight scenes looked a bit fake, the falls seemed a bit too unbelievable and trying to cram all the action into almost every moment seemed too much.
underdawg47 Yes! He totally missed the tone of the book in his attempt to make it a prequel. Instead of adventure we got action-comedy.
Too many changes. It should not be called the hobbit. !!
Then the LOTR films don't deserve to be called LOTR due to the colossal amount of changes in those films as well yet no one complains about them! It you want middle earth to be like a 1930s children's novel then stick to the book, however some of us want middle earth to be for all ages and I think the changes are great, adds a new dimension, we get to see characters in more detail, we get a strong female character (Tauriel) and get a great prequel to LOTR. Don't say any of this "Not in the book, Its not the Hobbit" bullshit. Also many of the added scenes are from what Tolkien wrote in the appendices and extra notes towards the end of his life in order to make it match up to LOTR better. I love these films as much as LOTR. Don't get me wrong LOTR books are my favourite books of all time and the films top that despite the changes, I never liked the Hobbit as a book, and only got into middle earth after reading LOTR, thats why I think the Hobbit films are a massive improvement on the book , Tolkien himself wasn't a fan of the Hobbit and tried to re-write it loads of times through his life.
Will James
There were a lot of crys about the changes in LOTR.
Bratzbeerkuchen There have been very few and I remember when LOTR first came out and only the harshest Tolkien purist was worried. Most of them now love LOTR even though its really different to the books and yet they are giving the Hobbit shit because of similar changes they made to the films.
Will James
Maybe they will also love the hobbit after a few years when they can hate on the next movie^^.
Bratzbeerkuchen Now that would be funny :D
5:36 Such bullshit... the Dol Guldur thing in the third film was one scene that lasted literally seven minutes, surely you could've trimmed down the Alfrid bullshit and almost all of Tauriel's scenes to show that? Things with Tauriel and Legolas? Like what, the forced love story and the Legolas stunts that were shoehorned into these films? None of that was even relevant to the actual plot! What happened to Peter Jackson?
I understand how he had to make changes but he screwed it up no matter what the reason he or anyone else gives he screwed it up simple as that.
+Dawn Reaper I hated the Hobbit. But, in defense of Jackson and Co., they didn't have a lot of time to work on this.
+Patrick John True. But how do you go about fixing that? Certainly not by making a third damn film and trying to shove as much bits of story into it as possible! They should've condensed it all into something of a much smaller scope...
Nathan H. Got to bow down to the studio...
Very flawed films in my opinion, still enjoyable but problems with the tone and pacing. I like the LOTR films, except for the New Zealand setting which just looks too new and pristine in comparison to Britain or N.Ireland (or even Northern Europe) but The Hobbit films seem rushed. Some of the scenes such as Saruman kicking ass' kung fu style are just terrible and too video gamey. I would really have liked to see what Del Toro would have done. I think the best parts of The Hobbit films are when Jackson is not trying to make them prequels as such and just focuses on Bilbo's story.
"The Hobbit" movie isn't about changes from a poorly written bedtime story book for 3-year-old children complete with talking animals, no characterization, and never a hint of interpersonal conflict; it's the tale of Bilbo Baggins as Tolkien wrote it in his notes, told for grown-ups. My own personal whine: 3 films isn't enough. I want more. Lots more. Life in The Shire is revealed mostly through voice-over narrative; now, make the movies that show it. You don't need monsters and world-saving great deeds to make a good story; intriguing characters and their small problems would be quite sufficient. Outside the Shire, there's the whole world to be revealed in the tale of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gandalf; only briefly hinted at in the films but a story that begs to be told.
Moon Sims That isn't the Hobbit though. The Hobbit is only a portion of the three movies they, for some reason, made of it.
I think he talks a bit of crap here tbh. They added so much that wasn’t even in the book. That’s why it was 3 films. Certainly a cash grab. I think the first Hobbit was great but the following 2?... nah. Let himself down. Shouldn’t have bothered if he couldn’t do the SMALLEST book justice. Hollywood nonsense
LOL he dispensed with about 90% of the book!!
Lies
it should of been a stand alone movie a part from the lotr movies.
simple just read the hobbit book, then you have the LOTR trilogy
Thanks J.R.R. Jackson
It seems that Jackson & Co. were VERY interested in all that GOLD.
Please stay away from The Silmarillion
it's a good thing you didn't make the movies otherwise we would have ended up with a cheap piece of trash.
Susan Exler You're probably right!
I much prefer the mostly made-up, self-indulgent, vulgar, convoluted, bloated, expensive piece of trash that JRR Jackson made instead.
I'm sure Tolkien would have as well.
+KrashmanVonStinkputn
Vulgar? Made-up? Better read the appendices in the back of "Lord of the Rings" before condemning P Jackson of making stuff up off the top of his head. And while you're at it, look up the definition of the word Vulgar.
Please cite the pages in the Hobbit or LOTR appendices that tells of the heroic deeds of Tauriel or her forbidden love affair with Kili.
Especially the part about how big Kili's "sword" is.
Thanks in advance!
That was one of the few elements of the story that was completely made up. With zero female characters in The Hobbit, the movies needed a strong feminine presence, especially since LOTR had strong female characters like Arwen and Eowyn. If there was no Tauriel you know people would be saying "the movies lack the female presence that LOTR had."
As far as the romance, I personally felt that was the movies' weakest point. I understand what they were going for - a similar statement of multicultural admiration that was a theme with Legolas and Gimli, but it just felt unnecessary. Although, Aragorn and Arwen's romance was greatly exaggerated in LOTR, but I've never heard anyone complaining about that.
First movie: Ok... it wasn't terrible, people are overreacting, it was a fairly above average to good movie
2nd movie: Well now... this just feels wrong and disrespectful. I'm gonna wait for movie reviews for the last part before I watch it.
3rd movie: Didn't watch it
Fat Peter Jackson was a legend.
This is NOT Fat Peter Jackson.
And why he ruined Dains caharacter not only he made him some fodder Character but he also used such a bad design with that Hammer and that small fat pig which is smaller than Dain himself and looks ridicilous!!?When in the Art Book we see they had much better design for him the a Bog War Boar and a Mighty Red Axe!
The Hobbot was adapted from 1 fucking book...!
The next 3 Middle Earth spin-off movies will be adapted from a one-paged short story by Tolkien. Total sell-out.
The reason is money and an inflated ego
NOT Peter Jackson's fault. He was rushed by the studio, forced to make a third movie. He had no time to sit down, have a cup of tea and make up a well-developed story because of greedy executives
he could have done it in two movies. don'g get me wrong, i'm all for action, but the hobbit isn't told like an action novel.
I'm reading it now and completely disagree. There is wolves getting burned to death, spiders almost killing the whole crew , etc
I loved LOTR, but The Hobbit movies were utter shit. I understand SOME things had to change and kinda expected that, but he changed so much around it was like he was raping my childhood. It didn't even feel like the same story imo.
I loved the Hobbit films, if you want Peter Jackosn to make a children's film in the stile of the 1930s then your out of luck. They're an improvement on the book. No one seems to complain about the changes PJ made to LOTR books.
That excuse needs to die. "It was a children's book." Really? In the book, the dangers are far more threatening and menacing: the Trolls aren't silly and stupid; the goblins are terrifying monsters that drag the heroes underground through pitch darkness whipping and pinching them and singing songs about torture; the Great Golbin tries to eat Thorin whole headfirst; Mirkwood was dark - literally dark - with pitch black nights full of eyes all around, starvation, desperation, and fear. The book was written for children, but it was also well-written and the scary parts were actually scary. The movie did EVERY scene an injustice; not one alteration made was an improvement and not ONE scene is identical to the source material.
It's incredible the load of lies that he was feeding us... expanding Dol Guldur? Expanding Bard???? Whaaaat?
In the third movie there's no little of both things.... such a massive CASH GRAB
I love the Hobbit films and its great seeing what happens at Dol Guldur which Tolkien wrote later on, and its great learing about Bard rather than just him popping up and killing Smaug she we barely know who he is. The Hobbit is a book for children, the films are for all ages and expand much more into middle earth, they're great. If you get the chance watch the Hobbit films again without comparing them to that overrated children's book, judge them as films and then make your decision.
***** I know but comparing two stories, the ills are slightly better in my opinion
Peter Jackson = The most Mediocre Director of these times.
on the contrary, Peter Jackson is brilliant.
+Mexlycan Filmico That would be George Lucas. Jackson is a terrific director.
lol you know nothing of peter jackson
Probably just seen LoTR and The Hobbit and nothing else. Also LoTR was great!
I did not enjoy these Hobbit movies. Slapstick action scenes are not my cup of tea.
3 movies from the Hobbit book? Do not make me laugh Jackson. The 3 movies were all about cashing in on the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Money ! How many Oscars did the hobbit trilogy earn? anyone ? For a fan who loves the books, these movies are terrible!! Peter Jackson please do not make any more Tolkien book adaptions.
+davy j.y. Your an idiot. The Hobbit movies is a hundred times better than that waste of time cartoon version and is ten times better than the book itself. The Hobbit book by itself was consider as one one J.R.R. Tolkien's worst work of all time even by himself. Tolkien had to re-write the Hobbit the first time after it was published because he realized he screwed the character Gollum when Bilbo meets him in the riddles in the dark. He also planned to do a another re-write to address other issues, to tie in with the Lord of the Rings. but it was too late as the published very began rolling out. Much of what Tolkien had planned to put the Hobbit were put into the appendices in the LOTR Return of the King. That is where PJ got most of source material to make the movie. No other director would do that. Be thankful that Peter Jackson made these movies and not Guillermo Del Toro.
saintly007 Sorry, i can not be bothered to read your comment. Have a nice day.
+saintly007 You mentioned "Be thankful that Peter Jackson made these movies and not Guillermo Del Toro." To be completely honest, I would have preferred to see how The Hobbits would have looked under his direction. Hobbit + Pan's Labyrinth=mind blown
The whole fan community has a problem with you jackson. do you even care about us ? You broke our hearts.. Tonal inconsistency . you should have kept the hobbit like it was.. why does people hate diversity ? Bad move and it scarred the whole franchise
Looking back, it does seem like PJ has become more embittered and exhausted by the whole experience, furthering the gap between fans and filmmakers.
My biggest issue has always been the inclusion of the love triangle, and that wasn't even his decision! If I could change just one thing about DOS, that would be the thing to alter.
I had no problems had the 2 hobbit movies felt consistent relative to each other
Amusement73 The problem I have with the romance is that it doesn't seem to further the plot of 'Desolation', and just ends up being a distraction. To me, it doesn't make much sense for them to be in love; they could be friends and it would make the relationship much stronger because it wouldn't seem like such a hasty move. With that said, the rest of the story is actually completely unaffected.
The two characters are likeable and there is a certain charm between them, because Kili is a nice, laddish dwarf and Tauriel is a young, inquisitive elf. There is potential for it to make the characters' fates in Part III all the more compelling, but until we actually see it, I'm still very ambiguous towards it.
Oscar Stainton
And, do you think it worked out in the third movie or not? I think it did.
Some what yes but I would have preferred the Hobbit as a separate trilogy which I still like to think it is as the ending was beautiful. But the approach could have been like that
Lots of rationalizing in this interview. The Hobbit movies are pretty bad. Jackson missed making a LOTR prequal because the Hobbit movies are overblown. Worse - he missed making a great film version of the Hobbit book.
Mediocre director plus brilliant source material equals an okish film! Shame they didn't get a good director for TLOTR and The Hobbit as they could of and should have been much better films, maybe sometime in the future they'll remake them properly!
You trash my favorite book, ill never forgive you.
Just delete the hobbit from movie history