The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) (1 Viewer)

[FamilyFunTime]

Peter Jackson: 'I didn’t know what the hell I was doing' when I made The Hobbit

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/19/peter-jackson-battle-of-the-five-armies-i-didnt-know-what-the-hell-i-was-doing-when-i-made-the-hobbit?CMP=twt_a-film_b-gdnfilm%3FCMP%3Dtwt_a-film_b-gdnfilm

Poor Peter. He was so sick. Still, I don't like the liberties that were taken to stretch the story. There was absolutely no need to do so. Anyone who has read the books is fully aware of that. Ejanss' post of July 28, 2014, on page 1, brought it to light very well early on.


The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was three books. The Hobbit was one. Two movies would have been optimal to tell that story. Stretch it enough to give studios more money and fans more story, while not totally ruining the series with 'bloat.' BOTFA was a 'train-wreck' for me. Sheer torture. It felt so...so... so overwhelmingly gratuitous.


For those who criticize members who compare the movies to the books, yet haven't read the books, you won't understand until you read the books. Sure, movies and books are two different animals, but the movie was supposed to be the 'real life' version of the book. That's the point in this case. You have to read the books to effectively comment on the unnecessary 'bloat' of the movies. I read them way back in seventh grade (couldn't put them down) and even I raised a brow at some of the movie scenes.


I wholeheartedly recommend you take the time to read the books as they are not to be missed (especially if you liked the movies). Prepare yourselves. With their strange language and detailed writing, they can be a 'heavy read' for some people. Try to keep everything straight. If you liked the movies, there's no way you won't LOVE the books!


Do yourselves a favor. Buy the books and read Ejanss' post just before you begin to read them. You will see, my friends, you will see...

 

[Keith Cobby]

The Hobbit is a great, short book;a classic of literature. I would have made it as a trilogy. First film The Hobbit, and the LOTR as a two parter. However there is always hope and I am sure it will not be too long before the studio decides on a remake. Still plenty of money to be wrung out of this property.

 

[SamT]

They were supposed to be 2 movies. It was after the first movie came out that they announced it would be three. With this current revelation that he didn't know what he was doing, it's baffling that he made the decision to make them 3 at the moment he knew he had a problem on hand.

 

[TravisR]

Since Peter Jackson initially wasn't going to direct the movies, I don't think it's that surprising that he "didn't know what the hell [he] was doing" because he was forced to just jump into directing a massive project without the normal preparation. That being said, I do think that on Jackson's end, three movies sounded like a good idea at least partially because a third movie was a way to get an extra year to keep working on the movies and get on top of things. If he had had sufficient time to get prepared at the beginning, he might not have felt like he needed that extra year and extra movie.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Since Peter Jackson initially wasn't going to direct the movies, I don't think it's that surprising that he "didn't know what the hell [he] was doing" because he was forced to just jump into directing a massive project without the normal preparation. That being said, I do think that on Jackson's end, three movies sounded like a good idea at least partially because a third movie was a way to get an extra year to keep working on the movies and get on top of things. If he had had sufficient time to get prepared at the beginning, he might not have felt like he needed that extra year and extra movie.

Good point.


i also think PJ came down with a serious case of George Lucas Disorder. At some point, he seems to have decided that he wasn't telling "The Hobbit" - instead, he was making a prequel trilogy that would eventually form one six-film saga.


I find the "Hobbit" flicks to be reasonably enjoyable - they're not great and they're nowhere near as good as "LOTR" but then again, the "Hobbit" novel is nowhere as good as "LOTR" the novel, so I guess that makes sense!

 

[Brandon Conway]

The media has really taken that one moment in the bonus and ran with it for its soundbityness the last day or so. Never mind that it's a statement used to set up the story of the Appendices, which ends with Jackson saying that despite these difficulties he had a great time making The Hobbit.

 

[Malcolm R]

I've read the book and had no issues with the movies. I love Middle Earth as created by PJ and Co. and would watch 10 movies if it let me spend more time there.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it was a mistake to split it to even two movies as originally planned. It's one short book - one movie would have been enough. I went in looking forward to these movies and hoping for the best, but I ended up being disappointed. I think the biggest problem was that there was really no interesting way, and no compelling artistic reason, to turn one very small book into three giant epic length movies. I don't know why Guillermo del Toro quit, but I wonder if del Toro didn't come to that conclusion sometime in preproduction. Even before this turned into a trilogy, the original plan of two epic length films was also absurd. I've seen all of them, and to me, the biggest problem is that there's very little story there. Things occasionally happen, but more often than not, those things don't propel the narrative forward. Everything felt padded, unnecessarily long. And Bilbo feels surprisingly absent from his own narrative. The moments that play the best, like Bilbo and Gollum in the cave and Bilbo and Smaug in the castle, actually feature Bilbo, are closer to the book and are actually interesting moments, so they still play well cinematically. But it's mostly just aimless wandering.


New characters are added, and they're hard to care about because they serve no function in the story. So much time is wasted in the second and third films with the character of "Alfrid" who is Stephen Fry's character's assistant - he's a dumb character that doesn't drive the story forward, isn't fleshed out in an interesting and compelling fashion, and yet during pivotal moments in the climaxes to both films, Peter Jackson keeps cutting back to him. Look, here's Alfrid being smarmy! Look, here's Alfrid trying to escape town! Look, here's Alfrid dressing as a woman to avoid being drafted! Each time he's got a scene, it's the wrong moment, wrong mood, wrong tone, wrong beat, the feeling is just totally wrong. (If you have a character that doesn't add to the plot or story, doesn't tonally fit with the material, and is obnoxious to watch onscreen, the solution isn't to keep adding more and more of that character hoping the audience will eventually like it. The solution is to reevaluate why that character is there in the first place and adjust as necessary.)


The individual films lack narrative structure, don't really feel like they have solid beginnings, middles and especially endings, so it's almost impossible to walk away not feeling unfulfilled on some level - even if you enjoyed what came before, these play as movies where someone just pressed "pause" at the end, not as movies that have thoughtful conclusions. That in and of itself is a huge difference from Jackson's LOTR films, where even though they were part of a larger trilogy, each film told a story of its own that had a beginning, middle and end. To me, "The Hobbit" films frequently feel amateurish. "The Hobbit" movies are to "Lord of the Rings" what those fanmade Star Trek shows are to the original series. The effects in "The Hobbit" films are surprisingly cheesy in many areas. The effects in the original LOTR movies didn't always look great at the time and don't always hold up, so it's shocking to see that ten years later, things are looking more cartoony instead of less.


And yet, I'm still collecting these movies anyway.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

New characters are added, and they're hard to care about because they serve no function in the story. So much time is wasted in the second and third films with the character of "Alfrid" who is Stephen Fry's character's assistant - he's a dumb character that doesn't drive the story forward, isn't fleshed out in an interesting and compelling fashion, and yet during pivotal moments in the climaxes to both films, Peter Jackson keeps cutting back to him. Look, here's Alfrid being smarmy! Look, here's Alfrid trying to escape town! Look, here's Alfrid dressing as a woman to avoid being drafted! Each time he's got a scene, it's the wrong moment, wrong mood, wrong tone, wrong beat, the feeling is just totally wrong. (If you have a character that doesn't add to the plot or story, doesn't tonally fit with the material, and is obnoxious to watch onscreen, the solution isn't to keep adding more and more of that character hoping the audience will eventually like it. The solution is to reevaluate why that character is there in the first place and adjust as necessary.)

Not only is he dumb, and obnoxious, he doesn't even die as he is supposed to, for being that annoying character. So many chances, but yet, he survives.


I own all three movies, but only the theatrical cuts, and I haven't rewatched them yet, while the LOTR trilogy, in its extended form, I have rewatched many times.


Two films out of such a small book would have been a stretch, but three ...?

 

[David Weicker]

I'm not sure why people keep saying a SMALL book.

My copy - 286 pages
ROTK - 384 pages

 

[Josh Steinberg]

To me, anything under 300 pages is a "small book". 400 seems average, over 600 and it's getting into "long" territory. I read "The Hobbit" in either middle or high school and it was smaller than most of the other books I was reading at the time.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Not only is he dumb, and obnoxious, he doesn't even die as he is supposed to, for being that annoying character. So many chances, but yet, he survives.

Spoiler

Not in the extended cut!

 

[SamT]

I was going to say that!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

In this case I don't mind at all that I clicked the spoiler button. I've now got a compelling reason to watch the extended.

 

[SamT]

I did not notice it before. It was after seeing the EE that I realized in the Theatrical Cut, there are characters that disappear, things that happen with no reason. That's why The Extended Edition is way more satisfying.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

It looks as if I may have to check out the extended version then. I had hoped I would not have to buy all three movies again, as I bought the theatrical versions when they came out. In the case of LOTR, the extended versions were superior, IMHO, but I was not convinced the same applied to the Hobbit movies. Are they all better, or is it just the last one?

 

[SamT]

The last one is definitely the best extended edition of the three movies and it improves the original cut.


As for the extended edition of the first 2 movies, I do not have a definite opinion. I have seen both. At the moment I don't feel they hurt or improve that much. But if I want to watch them I always watch the extended editions.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It looks as if I may have to check out the extended version then. I had hoped I would not have to buy all three movies again, as I bought the theatrical versions when they came out. In the case of LOTR, the extended versions were superior, IMHO, but I was not convinced the same applied to the Hobbit movies. Are they all better, or is it just the last one?

Of the three, I thought the extended "Unexpected Journey" was the best EE. I thought the other 2 were fine but I didn't feel they improved the theatrical cuts.


All of my reviews specify the changes in decent detail. Here's the review for "Armies" - it includes links to the first two as well, so if you're curious about the exact alterations, go nuts!


http://www.dvdmg.com/hobbitbattleofthefivearmiesee.shtml

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Thanks Colin, I'll knock myself out

 

[Tino]

Let's be clear. Read the linked article. "I didn't know what the hell I was doing" does not represent accurately what he meant. He knew what he was doing. It was just difficult stepping in when DelToro was out.