Peter Jackson Explains Why the ‘Hobbit’ Movies Are Such a Huge Mess

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

However, ten Oscars later, PJ was a different sort of director. Whether or not he forced out Guillermo del Toro (and the conspiracy theorist in me thinks he did, and GdT was simply too much of a gentleman to say what really happened), PJ decided that he alone should direct the films.

Again, hubris overpowered common sense: he ignored all the genuine humor and quaintness of Tolkien's tale, and in its place threw in troll snot, a diva operatic GoblinKing, unendurably long chutes 'n' ladders chases, sophomoric elf/dwarf sexual jokes, and bird-droppings on the hat of a psychedelicized wizard; admitting he had little time, he ignored the bigatures and extensive modeling and rendering that lent a sense of realism to the films, and instead opted for overbearing CGI that basically sucked the life out of Middle-earth; and worst of all, he absconded with the original plot and dialogue and threw it in the garbage, choosing in his pomposity and appalling effrontery to create characters and write the script with merely a nod to the original.

I've read other sources which blame executive interference rather than Peter Jackson, claiming that he didn't want to add many of these things in and was forced to do so by Warner Bros. This wouldn't surprise me if it was true, but who knows who to believe in these situations.

I find it odd that it seems like the narrative adaptation involved far less focus-tested corporate box-ticking mandated into it for The Lord of the Rings than for The Hobbit considering that it was on the former that Jackson was the much less tested director. Perhaps it already ticked enough boxes on its own so less needed to be added/exaggerated. For whatever reason New Line on its own seems to have been far less controlling than WB.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I've read other sources which blame executive interference rather than Peter Jackson, claiming that he didn't want to add many of these things in and was forced to do so by Warner Bros. This wouldn't surprise me if it was true, but who knows who to believe in these situations.

I find it odd that it seems like the narrative adaptation involved far less focus-tested corporate box-ticking mandated into it for The Lord of the Rings than for The Hobbit considering that it was on the former that Jackson was the much less tested director. Perhaps it already ticked enough boxes on its own so less needed to be added/exaggerated. For whatever reason New Line on its own seems to have been far less controlling than WB.

I heard New Line also pushed the "Hollywood" treatment, but Jackson stood up to them. I'm sure he could have done so this time, had he wanted to.

[Faramir Jones]

To what you mentioned earlier about Jackson's LotR films, Morthoron, I would add: reducing Sauron to a disembodied eye on top of a tower; making Saruman turn evil and produce urks at very short notice; making Gandalf's removing evil influences from Theoden resemble something from The Exorcist; sending Elves to Helm's Deep; using the Dead to win the Battle of the Pelennor Fields; and having Gollum succeed in turning Frodo against Sam.

I read with interest what you had to say, Zigûr and Nerwen. The problem is that only later will we know the truth about whether 'pressure' or 'interference' from the studio, whatever one calls it, was a factor in what appeared as Jackson's Hobbit films.

I agree with you, Nerwen, if it was true that Jackson stood up to New Line regarding the first set of films, but did not to Warner for the second. It stands to reason that a director with a commercially successful set of films under his belt would have been better able to stand up to the relevant studio when filming another set.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I heard New Line also pushed the "Hollywood" treatment, but Jackson stood up to them. I'm sure he could have done so this time, had he wanted to.

I suspect the reason is probably that either they were more stubborn or he simply didn't care as much. It might be a combination of the two, of course. Hadn't he said in the past that he wasn't as interested in The Hobbit as he was in The Lord of the Rings?

It's also probably the fact that, to my knowledge, he never wanted to direct the film(s) in the first place. These things seem to combine to form a director who simply isn't going to go to the trouble of putting up much of a fight with the studio.

[Kuruharan]

I lay most of the blame for things on Jackson and not the studio. No doubt the studio was a baleful influence, but I've seen too much about how the execrable deviations in the LOTR trilogy were mostly Jackson's doing to cut him any kind of slack when it comes to the mess that was The Hobbit.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I suspect the reason is probably that either they were more stubborn or he simply didn't care as much. It might be a combination of the two, of course. Hadn't he said in the past that he wasn't as interested in The Hobbit as he was in The Lord of the Rings?

It's also probably the fact that, to my knowledge, he never wanted to direct the film(s) in the first place. These things seem to combine to form a director who simply isn't going to go to the trouble of putting up much of a fight with the studio.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I lay most of the blame for things on Jackson and not the studio. No doubt the studio was a baleful influence, but I've seen too much about how the execrable deviations in the LOTR trilogy were mostly Jackson's doing to cut him any kind of slack when it comes to the mess that was The Hobbit.

l've been thinking about this a bit more. The thing is, when you look at blockbusters of the modern era, they're generally a lot slicker, a lot tidier... and, arguably, considerably more sterile than the "Hobbit" trilogy. So perhaps the final product is more of a three-way fight between what the studio wanted, what Jackson wanted, and the source material. While I don't find the result very satisfactory, I've come think what happened might be more complicated than just Jackson caving to the "suits". In that case I think we would have got something closer to a straight remake of "Lord of the Rings", only with the names changed.

Edit: Make that a four-way fight with Del Toro's left-over work as another enemy (as it were). And if we allow the rushed schedule as a fifth, maybe that's why "The Battle of the Five Armies" seemed like such a perfect title to those involved.

[Faramir Jones]

I came across this on YouTube, and think that it's relevant to this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q51QDWz50g

How many of us here are convinced by his explanation?

[Marwhini]

I could not even watch that last video.

I refuse to even acknowledge that any of the Peter Jackson movies exist (even for the first trilogy).

I am hoping that eventually someone will be able to re-do the whole thing from beginning to end. And in doing so remain faithful to Tolkien's works.

It is one thing to place exposition into the lines of a character, thus essentially remaining true to the elements Tolkien wrote.

But it is an entirely different thing to make up, whole-cloth, elements that are not only no part of Tolkien's creation, but which utterly contradict that which he did create.

It would be another thing entirely if a movie-maker conceived novel elements for the movies, yet those inventions did not contradict established canon.

It is the re-writing of the canon that bothers me.

MB