Peter Jackson comes clean

[SuperPanda]

Wow, okay... there is a lot of interesting meat in this thread to bite into.

Original Topic: PJ has admitted that the Hobbit films weren't very well thought out. I'd been having the feeling of late that a lot of "Breaking News" like this was the work of the worlds most under appreciated super hero - Captain Obvious. Sadly, I think he is the hero our world needs right now. There was some utterly beautiful work in the Hobbit films and some needlessly awful stuff in them as well. They didn't quite know if they wanted to be LoTR prequels or a happy children's story. Oddly enough that was the one way I thought they were a good representation of what the book was in Tolkein's own canon - though for the opposite reason. Tolkein wrote this book first with no plans for a later, greater franchise. PJ filmed these second and felt a need to bend it until it fit into a later, greater franchise. The parts they clearly wanted to do were done well and the parts which were needed to get from A to C were generally very poor.

To the more fun discussions: Corporate Meddling never helps? This is an odd one for me, though Legato Endless offered a wonderful refutation of it earlier on. Technically no film anywhere would exist without this kind of Meddling in the form of "We have the money." Movies aren't typically made on whimsy in the modern day, they are very expensive investments and the people putting up the cash want to feel comfortable in that investment. When that comes as a cynical exploitation of the Hype machine we are quick to demonize the money people for wanting to cash in. When the money people have the vision to back something wonderful we give all the credit to the artists - even though the Money people were part of the endeavor from the beginning.

Sure there are famous examples of artists fighting the money people because they have a risk they feel needs taking which turns out to be "the thing" which makes a movie great. Mel Brooks supposedly had to fight tooth and nail to get Young Frankenstein shot in black and white against fierce protests - and color would have diminished the effect of that film. But on the other side we have all seen what happened to George Lucas when he no longer had anyone who could tell him "no."

Does a weak sequel diminish or destroy a legacy?

This conversation is fascinating because we're applying very different standards to very different things as though both the standards and the things are the same.

Example 1: M.Night Shamalayn (SP) and Harper Lee

Both of these artists created a very strong initial work which seemed to cement their legacy. M.Night came off that success rewarded with praise and opportunity and made another success. Depending on who you ask he didn't start reliably turning out flops until three or four movies in after which he became something of a joke. Lee wrote a book which her editor told her wasn't very good. Her editor told her to rewrite that book from a child's perspective, and so she went a wrote a prequel to the book she'd already written. Her editor worked with her on it and To Kill a Mockingbird became a classic known the world over. Many years later a copy of her original first draft of that "Not very good" book was found and published as Go Set a Watchman.

These look like two artists who "got lucky" early, and then had a massive drop in quality. Harper Lee is more like George Lucas than M.Night though. Star Wars had a strong "editor" helping Lucas to shape his vision into something that became a classic. When we saw the story Lucas wanted to tell without that filter we got Episode II. It was undeniably Lucas but it reads like an unpolished draft of what could have been a good story.

So do the prequels diminish A New Hope? I could see an argument being made for this because they do introduce plot-holes such as Obi Wan not recognizing the droids and thinking "Darth" is a name (Only in A New Hope does anyone use Darth alone). Still on a story level the film was never groundbreaking or even all that original. With the possible exception of having Leia be more than the damsel in distress, who never-the-less is stuck waiting of the heroes to save her, everything in the story is pretty standard by design. Star Wars stood out largely for its special effects. The ground breaking work Lucas and his team did with special effects to bring their world to life is a massive amount of why Star Wars exists at all in the public imagination. The prequels and sequels can't take that away from A New Hope any more than talking pictures take away from the accomplishment of early silent movies. They might be less popular now, less cool, but they are no less artistically valuable.

This is where I think the conversation splits. Bad follow ups feel like they damage a work because they are lost opportunities. Like a fun TV show ending on a cliffhanger and getting canceled. Season 1 of Firefly would be no less good if there had been 5 more seasons which had been bad. Heroes Season 1 is still very satisfying on its own.

Viewed on their own, the first half of season 1 of Agents of Shield are very dull. Rewatched with knowledge of what's coming you can see a new layer of fun and design. They were needed for the reveal later in the season to have the impact it had - much like most of Scout's childhood in To Kill a Mockingbird is needed to set up the confrontation at the end of the book.

So if later installments of a work of art can retroactively improve a weak start, then the inverse is clearly true as well. Understanding where the line between two complete but connected works and an ongoing work is can be tricky though.

Sir Terry Pratchett, one of my favorite authors, had some okay early works, followed by amazing works, followed by okay to meh final works. In the context of his Alzheimer's we could debate if his later books damaged the previous books' artistic integrity. I feel that would be a waste of time though because each book in his massive Discworld series can be picked up and read independent of any other with the exceptions of The Light Fantastic and Lords and Ladies. Both of those two, and only those two, are explicitly continuations of events in previous stories and of them the second can be read without reading the previous book and still be completely understandable.

Using film examples: Pirates of the Carribean 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 tell four different stories. 1 is a self contained film. 2 and 3 are parts of the same story and need each other to be completed. They continue the story of 1 but could be viewed without viewing 1 and be considered complete (Why you'd do that is beyond me since 1 is the best of the films). 4 could be viewed without seeing any of the other films and still be as understandable as it is if you'd already viewed the other films. I haven't seen 5 yet, but knowing that it continues some of the story from 3 does not in my mind change the assessment I have above because 3 ends all the loose plot lines before pivoting to a new story in the resolution (which points to 4).

PotC 2 being unsatisfying might make us take a harder look at PotC 1 to see if it really was as good as we though (In my case I realized it was not, but it was still pretty fun). So in this case where our judgement of a film came largely from it surpassing very low expectations, the lack of sequels would have preserved an unfairly high judgement of the work for a longer time (but not forever).

The Martix is in a similar situation to Star Wars. The story wasn't what really set it apart, artistically, but the special effects. The weak writing in the sequels made that far more obvious and burst the "cool" bubble long before it would have burst on its own. I'd be willing to bet that film students will still be studying the Matrix years from now for its effect on cinematography in a similar way to how the study Citizen Kain, Star Wars, and Avatar.


TL:DR

Original Topic: Not surprised to learn Hobbit films weren't well thought out - not the end of the world either as there were parts of them I liked and I can forgive the many parts I didn't for the parts I did.

To Meddle or Not?: Pure freedom seems to end badly about as often as pure cynical calculation - a healthy balance where both sides respect each other seems to produce great results though.

Can sequels poison art?: Sure, so long as the thing being poisoned wasn't really all that good to begin with. Shakespeare wrote some complete and utter tripe. Pratchett had bad books. Lucas made Indian Jones 4. I'm convinced that the artistry of King Lear, Small Gods, and Star Wars will still be respected fifty years from now despite their lesser works which would have been forgotten.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, my argument was that the idea that the films had something substantial to lose was wrong.

Then your "argument" has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is whether Jackson may have been roped into making the Hobbit when threatened with giving it to a director he wouldn't approve of; whether such a threat would be effective. Your position that "it wouldn't make a difference" - which I disagree with, but whatever - is irrelevant. What is important is whether Jackson would believe his legacy would be affected. And as we see from Cervantes - and heck, my own personal experience - that could very well be the case.

Grey Wolf

[Legato Endless]

To the more fun discussions:

Thank you.

Lee wrote a book which her editor told her wasn't very good. Her editor told her to rewrite that book from a child's perspective, and so she went a wrote a prequel to the book she'd already written. Her editor worked with her on it and To Kill a Mockingbird became a classic known the world over. Many years later a copy of her original first draft of that "Not very good" book was found and published as Go Set a Watchman.

Lee is an interesting example here with Jackson because she's someone where the matter of her willingness to the whole enterprise has been called into question and is now part and parcel to any discussion of the book along with the new perspective on Atticus Finch. Regardless, I'd definitely say the decision to market Go Set a Watchman as an actual sequel rather than the unedited first draft we clearly saw it as was quite problematic.

To Meddle or Not?: Pure freedom seems to end badly about as often as pure cynical calculation - a healthy balance where both sides respect each other seems to produce great results though.

Can sequels poison art?: Sure, so long as the thing being poisoned wasn't really all that good to begin with. Shakespeare wrote some complete and utter tripe. Pratchett had bad books. Lucas made Indian Jones 4. I'm convinced that the artistry of King Lear, Small Gods, and Star Wars will still be respected fifty years from now despite their lesser works which would have been forgotten

Absolutely agree.

What is important is whether Jackson would believe his legacy would be affected. And as we see from Cervantes - and heck, my own personal experience - that could very well be the case.

Yes, that's the tragedy to me, having seen this lead to all sorts of trouble for people in creative ventures in my own personal experience. In any event, I see and acknowledge your desire to drop this tangent.

[Wulfnor]

Some very insightful comments, I've enjoyed reading them.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I enjoyed the Hobbit movies mofe than the LotR movies. Flat out, I still watch the three Hobbit moviesbut I'll probably never watch the LorD movies again.

[Aedilred]

I ... actually liked the three Hobbit movies?

You should know by now that this is not allowed. They are terrible, anyone who likes them is objectively wrong, and it is illegal to be wrong on the internet.



I do think the films attract an unfair and unhealthy degree of criticism. Next to LotR, they were (somewhat inevitably) a disappointment, but they're ok. But then, I've long since learned that on the internet in general and this forum in particular, nuanced or moderate opinion isn't really allowed to be a thing.

[2D8HP]

....nuanced or moderate opinion isn't really allowed to be a thing.

Nuance?

MODERATION?!!!

Nay, you give way and allow nuance and moderation, and pretty soon you're waist deep amidst toleration and courtesy!

Never!

NEVER, DO YOU HEAR ME!

ON THIS HILL I'LL DIE!!!!!

(hmm, maybe needs more exclamation points!!!!!)

[dps]

Want more proof? Let's take a cinematic only approach.

Lawrence of Arabia
The French Connection
Chinatown
Dirty Dancing
The Mask
*The Wizard of Oz
American Psycho
Rosemary's Baby
The Sting
Saturday Night Dance Fever
The Poseidon Adventure
The Birds
Grease
Patton

All of these films have sequels. Said sequels are ignored, but the originals remain quite famous and beloved. (I'm not fond of them all myself, but that's irrelevant

I didn't know that Lawrence of Arabia or Rosemary's Baby had sequels, or I had forgotten them. And I don't think Last Days of Patton is exactly a sequel to Patton (kind of tricky when we're dealing with real people and real-world events).

[Reddish Mage]

On the contrary. A hobbit as virile and important as Samwise Gamgee needs a sturdy hobbit lass. Those elves are nice to look at, but what do they really offer, aside from ominous speeches and forests? The Shire has plenty of scenery already, ominous speeches are for storybooks. Besides, elves are always doing something important in far-off lands, and Samwise has mayoral duties to think about. Furthermore, Rosie's no slouch, herself. She and Sam had thirteen children, and let's see an elf keep tabs on a baker's dozen of rowdy hobbit young'uns. Let's face it - Sam's a humble fellow, and he don't need all the fuss that comes with elves.

I thought Samwise finds a beautiful blond hobbittes and marries her during the fantastic spring he unleashes with dust from the elf forest (in the books). He's clearly the one, in the books, that gets the real happy ending.

Incidentally, the post-War of the Ring arc where the hobbits return to the Shire and deal with the domestic problems is still my favorite.

Spoiler: The best of book is not in the movies

Show

Even if it lopsided, its "high-level adventurers return home and clean up mid-to-low level thugs showing everyone just how badass they are."

[Lacuna Caster]

Incidentally, the post-War of the Ring arc where the hobbits return to the Shire and deal with the domestic problems is still my favorite.

Spoiler: The best of book is not in the movies

Show

Even if it lopsided, its "high-level adventurers return home and clean up mid-to-low level thugs showing everyone just how badass they are."

I'm sure it's nice that the foursome get to strut their stuff, but I'm also sure they'd prefer not to have their homeland ravaged by a petty fallen wizard in the first place. ...Also, it seems really low, even for Saruman.

But yeah, in various ways Sam is the victor to whom goeth the spoils.

[Manga Shoggoth]

But yeah, in various ways Sam is the victor to whom goeth the spoils.

Oh, I don't know... Merry and Pippin do quite well for themselves. It seems that Frodo is the one who gets the booby prize.

[Traab]

Oh, I don't know... Merry and Pippin do quite well for themselves. It seems that Frodo is the one who gets the booby prize.

They do well, but its sam who gets the storybook ending. He gets married to the beautiful lady, has a large family full of joy, gets to rule over his people as their king mayor, and lives a long and happy life. Not bad for a gardener employed as a landscaper by the baggins family. Merry and Pippin get to be their generations Bullroarer Took. Legendary warriors with fancy weaponry, and (albeit minor) titles out in the land of the big people.

[2D8HP]

They do well, but its Sam who gets the storybook ending...

That a good steadfast working-class man Hobbit like Samwise Gamgee does well (instead of that posh ponce grandee Frodo!) is a reason I like LotR!

[factotum]

They do well, but its sam who gets the storybook ending. He gets married to the beautiful lady, has a large family full of joy, gets to rule over his people as their king mayor, and lives a long and happy life.

*And* he gets to travel to the Undying Lands near the end of his days, as the last Ring-bearer still in Middle-earth at the time.

[pendell]

Well, here's some red meat

Something that should not have been forgotten has been lost: the simple truth that The Hobbit Trilogy is worse than the Star Wars prequels.

It’s nothing short of astounding that, in an online discussion pit where every new release is held up against any vaguely applicable past example, these two immensely similar projects aren’t contrasted more often; both were belated prequel returns to a classic franchise by a director once lauded as a visionary that ostensibly told one plot thread hinted at in the originals but were really expanding the whole fabric of the world.

Yet here we are three years on from The Battle of the Five Armies, the limp finale of the Middle-earth Legendarium (unless The Silmarillion is plundered in a bid for brand extension), and The Hobbit still manages to avoid the really intense criticism that met its space opera cousin; few would claim it comes close to The Lord of the Rings trilogy, nor that it’s a great work without such a lofty predecessor, yet to negatively pit it against Episodes I-III is often taken with a sense of shock.

...

What’s so striking about The Hobbit is how every single one of those oft-cited prequel complaints can be directly leveled against Jackson’s films with equal-if-not-greater intensity. As writer-producer-director, he too had such a stranglehold on production that saw so much padding added; The Hobbit is so dominated by needless computer effects that Ian McKellen broke down filming his first scene and complex practical orc costumes were overdone with CGI in post; despite the expansion to take in the wider Middle-earth story, no time is actually invested in expanding any of the thirteen dwarves we’re stuck with; that wider story is so flippant Gandalf has to keep reminding what’s going on, while the list of clashes with canon in The Battle of the Five Armies alone is a separate article; and the entire series only exists because Jackson had invested too much money in a fruitless pre-production period with Guillermo del Toro that the movies simply had to be made – it’s not toys, but it’s still a highly cynical jumping board for something that needs a filmmaker working at the top of their A-game.

None of this is to say Star Wars doesn’t have these problems, but that The Hobbit has them to an equal if not more severe degree; we’re dealing with two movie series coming from very similar areas displaying ballpark systemic problems.

...

The Hobbit is everything people say the Star Wars Prequels were.

In terms of sheer watchability, I have to agree. I do sometimes still tune in to Ep. III from Star Wars, but I have no interest whatsover in seeing any part of the Hobbit Trilogy again. If I want to see the Hobbit, I'll watch the 1978 version.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Traab]

Keep in mind that star wars had DECADES to enshrine itself as an unimpeachable masterpiece of cinematic wonder. It was basically cultural to declare the movies amazing and ignore everything wrong with them. So when the prequels came out and sucked, it was a travesty beyond compare. Like someone had made a prequel to the wizard of oz, cast it with high school drama students on a grade school drama department budget, and tried to pretend it would be the greatest thing ever to learn the history of oz. In comparison, the lotr trilogy was AMAZING, but it was also fairly recent. It didnt have the cultural inertia behind its acknowledgement of being incredible. So the hobbit movies sucking didnt have as much of an impact on us and the comparisons didnt get made.

Its also not the only time hobbit movies have been made. Star wars is star wars. Aside from lucas doing his special editions, there were no remakes of it, nor was it a remake of an earlier version. It stood alone. So much like not being shocked if say, a spiderman movie flops, because despite some being great, some have flopped, so a new flop wouldnt shatter the franchise or anything, a bad hobbit series wasnt a new thing to experience. I LIKED the bashki version of it, dont get me wrong, but it was far from perfect. I think it also helped that we went into it thinking it would suck to an extent. We learned way before release just how strained and stressed and sub par things were on the hobbit set. We didnt go into the theater with sky high expectations like we did with the prequels. So the disappointment wasnt so shockingly huge.

[FreddyNoNose]

... about the Hobbit movies.



Ah, well . I'll always have the 1970's Rankin Bass version of the book , which still has a special place in my childhood memories.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

So what?..................

[factotum]

Well, here's some red meat

The reason I think Jackson is given an easier ride over the Hobbit than Lucas was over Star Wars comes down to a couple of things:

a) He was adapting an already-existing work, rather than creating one whole cloth as George Lucas did. Some of the scenes and the sillier plot twists in the movies can be laid at the door of the source material--the entire thing with the Great Goblin or the dwarves' meal at Bilbo's house, for example. This is because the book (unlike LOTR) was primarily written for children and so you don't expect the same depth of plot--which leads me on to my second point:

b) A lot of people assume (rightly or wrongly, I don't know enough to be sure myself) that it was studio meddling rather than Jackson who caused the biggest issues. The largest problem among these was trying to extract three movies from a children's book less than half the length of the LOTR trilogy, meaning a lot of unnecessary filler material had to be added. If the book had been adapted to two movies, as I believe was the original intention, then I think it would have worked far better.

[Vinyadan]

I think that the most important reason why people care less about Hobbit than the SW Prequels is that there already was a prequel story to the Lord of the Rings, that it's a good story, and that it still is there, and PJ's blunders are thus simply forgettable: you want a good prequel? Go read the book, the true prequel, which has been around for 80 years! The fact that it's a different medium is irrelevant: it's just the story and characters that really matter.

Fan rage about the SW Prequels is due to the fact that there is nothing else. They cannot say, "ah, that's just a bad adaptation". They have to accept that the trainwreck is the real thing, the only story they will get, and that it's a subpar story with cardboard characters and nothing of the otherwordly afflatus that made the originals the legend they are.