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

[Boromir88]

The Appendices to the Extended Editions of the LOTR trilogy are well worth viewing (at least for myself, I don't think they would be for Inzil ). It explains a lot of the decisions Jackson & Co. made. I disagree that some of the character alterations were necessary, but it does show the time and care that was put into the LOTR films. I see what The Sixth Wizard means with "the spirit" argument, you get to see how everyone involved in the making of the films was a part in their success...from Alan Lee's and John Howe's involvement, Tom Shippey and Christopher Lee, set design, the bigatures, costume design, just the years of planning and pre-production that went into it...etc.

I don't agree with Faramir's alteration, Théoden's, Frodo's and some others. But I do understand the reasons for Denethor's (I don't see the need to have a scene with him being a slob). There was going to be an EE scene revealing Denethor also having a palantir, but ultimately it was removed even from the Extended because there just wasn't sufficient time to establish why Denethor has a palantir as well. Jackson didn't want to give the impression he was in league with Saruman and Sauron, but that he was a noble man that has been beaten down with grief by the death of his son (sons) and hopeless situation. In the end, it's got to be about Aragorn's arc becoming the King and saving his people. So an over-the-top portrayal of Denethor makes sense given the limited screen time and where Aragorn's arc has to end. He's clearly caricatured as a mad man, but the reasons for his madness are the same as Denethor's decline in the books...grief, despair and hopelessness.

Boromir's scene with Aragorn in Lothlorien is one of my favorites..."My father is a noble man, but his rule is failing. He looks to me to make things right." (Then Boromir describes the White Tower of Ecthelion, which is a description lifted right from the books..."Glimmering like a spike of pearl and silver...etc). But it establishes Gondor's desperation and need for the King's return.

In the movies, Denethor's motivations for not lighting the beacons is stated as "Do you think the eyes of the White Tower are blind?" He knows Aragorn is with Théoden and he "will not bow to this ranger from the North; last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship."

Denethor sending Faramir off on a death mission to retake Osgiliath. Gandalf's call out "Your father loves you Faramir. He will remember it before the end." And in the Pyre scene, Denethor shouting "You will not take my son from me."

So, overall, Denethor's decline into madness, while being over-the-top is caused by the same reasons as the books. He becomes tainted by politics, grief and despair. I think the one mistake they made with him (besides his eating habits), is I sorely miss the exchange between Faramir and Denethor (in the books)...when Faramir reminds his father that it was he who gave Boromir leave to Rivendell, and Denethor's reply "stir not the bitterness in the cup that I mixed for myself." (The Siege of Gondor). Such a wonderful line from the books, that I think John Noble could have pulled off masterfully.

I've said enough about The Hobbit trilogy being bloated, rushed, slapped together with CGI, it doesn't come close to the time and care that was put into the LOTR films and it really shows.

[Boromir88]

the book is inviolate no matter what some filmmaker does with it on screen... that said, I think films can undermine book experiences in ways and measures, which is why I would advise folks read Tolkien's books before seeing Jackson's films.~Galin

I agree, in many ways the descriptions that are given in the books are tainted by the visuals of the movie. The "legacy" of the books aren't in danger, but it's hard to shake off the visuals of the movies after watching them, when reading the books. New Zealand really wasn't a good setting for Middle-earth.

Also, not that I'm complaining much, but the movies definitely portray a softer Boromir than Tolkien's Boromir.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I agree, in many ways the descriptions that are given in the books are tainted by the visuals of the movie. The "legacy" of the books aren't in danger, but it's hard to shake off the visuals of the movies after watching them, when reading the books. New Zealand really wasn't a good setting for Middle-earth.

I think the visuals are the last things to complain about, actually.

Also, not that I'm complaining much, but the movies definitely portray a softer Boromir than Tolkien's Boromir.

True, but for me that comes under the heading of "Logically and artistically justifiable changes".

[Morthoron]

Perhaps I am being picky, but as someone who has ridden a fair number of horses over the years, it seems that the lumpy New Zealand terrain they chose to represent Rohan would be the last place in Middle-earth to have a thriving horse culture.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Perhaps I am being picky, but as someone who has ridden a fair number of horses over the years, it seems that the lumpy New Zealand terrain they chose to represent Rohan would be the last place in Middle-earth to have a thriving horse culture.

All right, I concede you have a point there. But in general the New Zealand locations look "right" to me. It's subjective, of course.

[Boromir88]

I think the visuals are the last things to complain about, actually.~Nerwen

I should clarify that most of the set designs, bigatures, costume and make-up department looked more real and had a feeling of being in a different world. I think part of it because Jackson didn't use the super high frames per second, relied less on CGI, and had a lot more time for set building/planning in the LOTR films.

I get a creepier feel about Minas Morgul than I do with Dol Guldur. There's a darker feeling around Pippin and Merry being in Fangorn, than the dwarves being lost in Mirkwood.

The biggest settings I didn't feel right about were Rohan and Bree. Rohan, not so much the rocky terrain (I'm pretty sure there's a description that says parts are flat and rolling plains and parts that are broken and rocky...although didn't seem like there was much flatness except around Edoras). But Rohan just wasn't green...like at all. Their flag is a white horse on a green field, and there's no green. Jackson in the EE says he wanted it to reflect "war time" in Rohan, and so wanted a bleaker/dead atmosphere, so no green fields.

And I should say it's the Prancing Pony that was wrong to me, not Bree entirely. The Pony was far too dark and created a feeling of the hobbits being misplaced/away from home. In the books there are other hobbits around and the Pony feels homely enough to lull them off their guard and feeling like they were back in the Green Dragon. Movies they look and feel so misplaced inside the Pony. I would guess the reason is since the Old Forest was cut from the movie, this is really the first "residence" outside the Shire we see the hobbits in and Jackson wanted to create that "not at home anymore" feeling that readers get in the Old Forest chapters.

But by visuals, it's really hard to shake off the image of Sean Bean's strawberry-blonde hair when reading Boromir's parts in the books. As just one example. So, I think, at least in my experience, the images from the movies seep into my brain while I'm reading the books, and it becomes hard not to picture John Rhys-davies' Gimli. (Edit: where actually The Hobbit it's fairly easy to shake off any of the dwarves and images because of how absolutely silly, wrong, or fake everything looks or feels)

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I think much of the hostility to the "different mediums" argument from book fans comes from the way it has often been used as a supposedly irrefutable blanket defence of, well, everything. Also, perhaps, the fact that some of its proponents want to have their cake and eat it- some people who don't think the films should be like the books ("different mediums, guys") will happily bash the books for not being more like the films ("all those boring descriptions"). This was particularly noticeable in "The Hobbit" honeymoon period, when one heard quite a lot about how Jackson had "treated the material with more respect than Tolkien ever did"- because apparently JRRT wrote the book as a children's story by mistake.

There is much merit in what you say.

I also object to the implication that seems to underlie the assertions made by various people in this vein over the years that the way Jackson chose to adapt the novels is the only way the novels could be adapted and are therefore immune to criticism because, "It is an adaptation across different mediums, you ignorant toad! Changes must be made!"

I understand that changes must be made but I do not believe that the changes themselves are beyond criticism, especially if they are ineffective, implausible, distort the original story, or remove artistically effective or essential material in favor of stuffing in ill-conceived or tasteless bloat.

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

Narrative tension must be driven by characters. The book's excitement comes from material constraints - can they muster enough of the Rohirrim and travel to the Pelennor in time? There is less sense of geography in a film, where characters can travel hundreds of kilometres between scenes, without page-turning establishing a feeling of time passing, so we need something else to establish the same narrative roadblocks. That's why we need Denethor refusing aid, Theoden refusing to help, Faramir's rout, and Gondor's military failure all building towards the final triumph. The long list of failures makes final success more vivid - Theoden's initial reluctance ramps up his change of heart and bravery in the battle as well.

I wholly disagree with this. These are ham-fisted solutions to problems of the director's own making. In addition to agreeing with Nerwen's point that this sort of strawman problem-solution scenarios renders the repetition of them tedious, it also strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point (or past) while more serving the purpose of bloating the film rather than compressing.

I much prefer to see things handled with subtlety and finesse, qualities that Jackson and Friends do not seem to possess.

To break this down a bit further, let us look at the events surrounding Faramir, specifically during The Two Towers.

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

The enjoyment of meeting Faramir in the novel comes from learning about his people and history, and we don't need him to desire the ring to keep us entertained. But it would undermine the dread surrounding the Ring to see him resist it in the film. We've already seen Galadriel, Gandalf and Aragorn bypass the temptation of the Ring at that point - how can we fear its corruption if some guy we just met resists it as well? It gives our heroes another challenge beyond "pit-stop at the Forbidden Pool" for TTT.

In the books, while the unveiling of a bit of the history and lore of Gondor is certainly a high point, Faramir's discovery of what Frodo carried and his reaction to that are a critical part of the scene. Instead of dealing with the scene with any kind of subtlety, Jackson has Faramir do exactly what Boromir tried to do and seized Frodo.

Faramir's actions take Frodo significantly out of the way, and expose him to various extra dangers, the most "serious" of which being a Nazgul.

You want to talk about the dread of something being undermined, how about how that sequence serves to undermine the dread of the Nazgul?

This also breaks suspension of disbelief because Frodo has now been carried out of his way and exposed to extreme danger...just to provide another eye-roll inducing scene of faux-drama. This scene took me completely out of the film when I first saw it...not that there was much of me invested in it by that point I was so irritated by how badly most of the rest of it had been done.

The treatment of Faramir in that sequence was a terrible, terrible way of adapting the scene and there are better ways of doing it. Pretty much anything would have been an improvement. The only way Jackson could have screwed it up worse was if he had Faramir take Frodo right to the threshold of Barad-dur.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I should clarify that most of the set designs, bigatures, costume and make-up department looked more real and had a feeling of being in a different world. I think part of it because Jackson didn't use the super high frames per second, relied less on CGI, and had a lot more time for set building/planning in the LOTR films.

I get a creepier feel about Minas Morgul than I do with Dol Guldur. There's a darker feeling around Pippin and Merry being in Fangorn, than the dwarves being lost in Mirkwood.

The biggest settings I didn't feel right about were Rohan and Bree. Rohan, not so much the rocky terrain (I'm pretty sure there's a description that says parts are flat and rolling plains and parts that are broken and rocky...although didn't seem like there was much flatness except around Edoras). But Rohan just wasn't green...like at all. Their flag is a white horse on a green field, and there's no green. Jackson in the EE says he wanted it to reflect "war time" in Rohan, and so wanted a bleaker/dead atmosphere, so no green fields.

Isn't that part of the story supposed to be taking place in winter?

And I should say it's the Prancing Pony that was wrong to me, not Bree entirely. The Pony was far too dark and created a feeling of the hobbits being misplaced/away from home. In the books there are other hobbits around and the Pony feels homely enough to lull them off their guard and feeling like they were back in the Green Dragon. Movies they look and feel so misplaced inside the Pony. I would guess the reason is since the Old Forest was cut from the movie, this is really the first "residence" outside the Shire we see the hobbits in and Jackson wanted to create that "not at home anymore" feeling that readers get in the Old Forest chapters.

But by visuals, it's really hard to shake off the image of Sean Bean's strawberry-blonde hair when reading Boromir's parts in the books. As just one example. So, I think, at least in my experience, the images from the movies seep into my brain while I'm reading the books, and it becomes hard not to picture John Rhys-davies' Gimli. (Edit: where actually The Hobbit it's fairly easy to shake off any of the dwarves and images because of how absolutely silly, wrong, or fake everything looks or feels)

I don't picture Rhys-Davies as Gimli, because he's largely playing a different character, and also because I found his performance so teeth-grittingly annoying that I do my best not to remember it. Sean Bean's Boromir is a different matter, but that's perhaps largely because his portrayal did succeed. The other thing is that the book makes a point of Numenoreans all looking alike- which would perhaps be unwise to try and translate to screen.