I agree. Ditto for Hobbit. As an example: all those scenes where characters just walk and advertise New Zealand's landscape are important to understand just how much the road was taken, how much of an effort it was and how beautiful the world is, thus worth saving.
Yup. I still wished we lived in a universe where the 'Scouring of the Shire' was at least filmed as a deleted scene. It's an important book end to the Fellowship Hobbits' arcs.
When I hear that people complain on Hobbit's length and making it a trilogy, I like to joke, that it's not a problem. the problem is that Jackson didn't have budget, vision and time to make each part of LotR a trilogy. 😉
Particularly time. I recall a behind the scenes clip where the armorers state that they had something like two years of setup to make all of the gear for everyone for LOTR, and during that time Jackson and Co were refining the script.
For the Hobbit they had fit the same pre-filming prep into something like 6 Weeks because New Line forced them to.
In fairness, I’m a big fan of the movies and think they are a solid adaptation. I’m glad they exist as many adaptations never even get close to that level of quality.
Same here. People often complain on Jackson. As far as I'm concerned, the man did pretty good job given how massive the challenge of Tolkien's adaptation was.
I disagree. To put the scouring back in the movie many other scenes would have to be changed, plus it would shift the tone of the film at that point. I'm okay with having a literary version and a film version, as they presented their messages differently.
For one, I like how they come back to the Shire and find it the same as they left it, and yet they all have trouble fitting back in. The quiet looks at each other at the table as hobbits in the background happily go about life says so much without even a word, with the sadness only broken by Sam finding the will to go get Rosie like he said he'd do.
I understand your perspective and mostly share it. As I said in my post, I would have been happy to have had a deleted scene as I can appreciate how it might not fit the narrative arc of the final film. I also appreciate what was in the extended edition.
I think two of the critical points in favour of the hobbit movies being longer:
• The cutaway to what Gandalf and Co did, because as the legendary Sir Christopher Lee said: it shows Saruman when before he fell.
• The battle of the five armies is like a page in the book because its all from Bilbo's perspective and he gets knocked out basically at the start of it. You can't give movies(or TV) a fight like that and have them gloss over it. Well, excluding the last season of GOT which did that at least twice.
100% agree. The LOTR movies are quite good but Tolkein's writing is just from some other kind of world. I feel like some visionary studio could have started making a basically unlimited number of seasons of unhurried adaptations of the source material in serial format, maybe with rotating actors like James Bond / Dr. Who / etc to help reduce any kind of logistical pressure to make it happen at any pace but an easy and natural one. Most of the individual chapters could easily serve for a decent fraction of a season all on their own. Like Game of Thrones but with source material already all finished, with reams of ancillary supporting and bonus material, and at a substantial upgrade from even George RR Martin's already fantastic writing.
Amazon's film people choosing to write pure dogshit, when they had the option to do that and plenty of money to make it good, is testament to how shockingly stupid are the people in charge over there.
For all things Tolkien, Lord of The Rings (LotR), and The Hobbit across all media. Speak friend and enter.
Rules:
Please report any rule violations.