Any Lord of the Rings fans?

The Hobbit worked just fine as a trilogy, imo. I enjoyed the meaty length.

 

That's exactly what happened.

The 2 scripts that Peter, Fran, Phillipa, and Guillermo Del Toro wrote yielded nearly 9 hours' worth of filmed footage, which became apparent as Peter began the process of editing said footage shortly after the completion of Principal Photography on the project in July of 2012.

If the decision had not been made to reconfigure the Hobbit duology into a trilogy, a significant chunk of the work Peter and his cast and crew had accomplished during the project's 266 days of filming would have gone to waste.

 

To me that's more a matter of what their production dictated as opposed to what the story dictated. It's more of a question of whether or not all that footage was important to telling the story than how many films were needed to accommodate everything they shot. Directors usually film more footage than is needed and quite often the cut footage deserves to be on the cutting room floor as the film is better without it. In my opinion it would have been better if they had set out with a plan to shoot a leaner script. Once they had THAT much footage it would have been a huge waste to cut it all and just make a duology but that doesn't mean using those 9 hours was the best way to tell the story.

 

There was no way for Peter and Co. to know that their 2 scripts were going to yield the amount of footage that they did while Principal Photography was going on.

And the 9 hours' worth of filmed Principal Photography footage that was ultimately used to create 3/4 of the 3 films in the trilogy does not actually include everything that was in the 2 scripts as they were written and shot, as the editing process inevitably left things on the cutting room floor as the story of the then-planned duology began to coalesce.

People have this notion in their heads that Peter, Fran, and Phillipa had to write an entirely new script that then had to be shot in pickups, but the reality of the situation is that the only new scenes that were written following the completion of Principal Photography in July of 2012 were the An Unexpected Journey epilogue set on the Carrock, the Desolation of Smaug prologue set in the Prancing Pony, and the Desolation of Smaug climax set in the Forges of Erebor.

Everything else that ultimately appeared in both the Theatrical and Extended cuts of the 3 films originated from either the An Unexpected Journey/There and Back Again scripts written by Peter, Fran, Phillipa, and Guillermo in 2008 or the rewrites on said scripts by Peter, Fran, and Phillipa that happened in 2010 after Guillermo's departure and during the project's planned 266-day Principal Photography shoot.

Peter could have made due with the footage he had and shaped it to fit the originally-intended 2-film structure of the project, but what he decided to do first was present the amount of footage to New Line and pitch the idea that the footage he had constituted enough narrative material to expand the project into a trilogy.

Had New Line executives said no, he would have pared the footage he had down into a 2-film structure, but he ultimately didn't have to because they saw what he had: the better narrative option was to unexpectedly create a trilogy through the editing process and supplement the footage they already had with new material as necessary.

 

Part of why I was fine with The Hobbit being three movies is because I enjoyed the expansions to the original tale. I found it to be a refreshing contrast from many adaptations, such as the Harry Potter films (which I still love) that instead had to cut out so much content from the books.

 

But the point is that you're still talking about the reality that brought about the actual length of the trilogy and myself and the other poster were talking about whether or not the length of the trilogy best serves the story. Obviously it's a matter of opinion, some people like it the way it is. What production issues led to them having the amount of footage they had, either by accident or design, or just how much footage they had in general doesn't really bear on what was being said. The person you quoted was saying that the book would have been better served with a shorter and more focused treatment. While what you say is interesting you're just telling us why it ended up the way it did. It's like there are two different discussions going on.

 

^ I don't think you're understanding the point of my posts.

What I've been trying to demonstrate with my outlining of the behind-the-scenes process that led to the expansion of The Hobbit from a duology to a trilogy is that the decision to do so was entirely - and solely - driven by narrative (i.e. story) considerations.

IOW, the story they wanted to tell ended up being far too expansive to fit into the 2-film structure they had originally intended it to, and while they could've pressed forward and made it fit, they instead decided to try and see if New Line would let them give themselves more "room" to tell said story.

 

What was being discussed was the desire for the book to have gotten a more focused film treatment, what you're talking about is just the reason why it didn't. In other words we're wishing it were better and you're just telling us why it wasn't better. Jackson's judgement about what is important to the narrative is part of what's in question to people who find it bloated. It sounds like it was a pretty weird production and it shows in the finished product... and that's all that was being said. The behind the scenes stuff only sheds light on why they turned out the way they did, it doesn't excuse it for those that wished it had been better. The quote was "Make the number of films your story (i.e. the book) dictates" and you said that's exactly what they did then just explained how they sort of wound up with a trilogy.

 

Peter, Fran, Phillipa, and Guillermo looked at the Hobbit book and determined that telling its story required two films.

This later changed when it became clear that their adaptation of the novel into two scripts had actually physically generated the narrative equivalent of three films.

The story only feels "bloated" to fans who turned on Jackson in between the completion of the LotR films and the beginning of production on the Hobbit films and therefore would not have been happy with the finished product even if Guillermo hadn't left the project.

 

Once again, that may be enlightening as to how it turned out the way it did but doesn't really refute the opinion you were responding to. The only point I've been trying to make is that somebody stated their opinion on the film and you tried to refute it by listing a bunch of production details that don't really address that opinion. If they miscalculated how many films it would take then maybe that's part of the problem. If they set out to shoot 2 films and wound up with 9 hours of footage then maybe they should have been more organized. But once again none of that has anything to do with the opinion you were responding to, you're responding to a quote about the quality of the adaptation by just telling us the events that led to the finished product as if that dispels any concerns about the quality. I mean there is a debate to be had there, though likely pointless because neither side is probably going to agree with the other, over whether or not it is a quality film series and they did a good or bad job of adapting the novel. But you're just trying to put down the opposing opinion with unrelated facts. If anything all this behind the scenes stuff you're talking about just makes me go "That sounds about right" because the films reflect that mess in my opinion.

Your last comment (like much of what you've said) just sounds an over-simplified dismissal of somebody else's opinion. I really have no opinion on Peter Jackson (if anything I kind of like him though I think he's overrated), at no point did I ever "turn" on him. Unless it was maybe AFTER I saw the Hobbit films. Though I wouldn't call it turning, I just didn't think it was a very good job of adapting the book. Adapting books is hard, it doesn't always work, I don't think he's a tool because of it. I know nothing and have no opinion on whatever behind the scenes nonsense has created pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson camps. Nor was I such a huge fan of the LotR movies (or even the Legendarium in general) to have any knee-jerk reactions. I sat down with an open mind and while there were things I liked (I don't hate the Hobbit films) ultimately it felt like a huge bloated mess that was more interested being sword porn than telling the story that's in the book. I don't even really care that it was 3 films, if they were 3 better films. I realize not everybody agrees, and that's fine but I'm not going to dismiss their opinion by saying they're just Jackson fanboys. Maybe they just liked it, and they're not wrong for liking it. Just like we're not wrong for thinking it wasn't that great.

 

I disagree and have been trying to articulate and illustrate why I disagree by outlining the process that led us to the Hobbit films that we have.

I've spent a fair amount of time interacting online with dyed-in-the-wool Middle-earth "purists" who don't like the fact that we have a trilogy of Hobbit films but would have been perfectly fine with a Hobbit duology, despite the fact that 3/4ths of the content we have in the Hobbit Trilogy would have been present - in exactly the same form - in a Hobbit Duology.

Or, to put it another way, "less ingredients would still lead to the same recipe".

 

It seemed pretty obvious to me that this was a continuation of an argument you'd had with somebody else... it's just that the argument doesn't really apply here. You sound like you're talking to people who are accusing them of pre-planning a trilogy just to make the most money or something. Or some other argument that's not really being made.

You're just going to have to learn to agree to disagree on such things. You're doing something that's becoming increasingly common in fandom as people try to cement their opinion as fact: trying to attack objective opinions with subjective facts that have nothing to do with the opinion. If somebody says, "I don't like Star Wars, I think it's stupid" you can't really draw on any facts to tell them why they're wrong, it's their opinion and taste. There's no graph that shows how un-stupid Star Wars is. No production note you can call up that will show that person the fault in their thinking. Similarly if somebody thinks The Hobbit trilogy is a bloated mess you can't really debate that by telling them a bunch of production history that just sort of illustrates how things were a mess.

Personally I wasn't a middle-Earth purist when I saw these movies. At the time I saw them I had read The Hobbit 20 years before, had seen the LotR movies but never read the books. Although I recently read the biggest chunk of the Legendarium my opinion when I first saw them was just that of very casual fan. It didn't really change from reading the Legendarium. I didn't even have a good enough memory of the book at the time to be able to tell what they added and what was in the text... though the former usually ended up being the things I didn't care for.

As for what a Hobbit duology would have looked like, I'm not necessarily saying they should have taken what Jackson shot and trimmed it down to a duology (it may have been better but I don't know) I'm saying I wish the whole project had worked out differently from the beginning. Jackson himself wishes that, he has been honest about how much of a mess that production was and said he didn't know what he was doing at times and winging it. He also expressed doubts about the script. That's all fine, that's honest. I sympathize with him and don't demonize him because I didn't think it worked out very well. Like I said before, it explains a lot but the excuses don't make them good movies all of the sudden. It would have been nice if one director had worked on it from star to finish, Jackson or whoever, and there not been all this confusion and trouble in the production. It may have led to a very different and better overall product (though maybe not) which is all I really wish for. I don't have a fan edit of Jackson's trilogy in mind, I wish the whole script and everything had been different from the get-go and it just so happens I think it could have easily been done in 2 films. Maybe not with the scripts they were working with but apparently their scripts were part of the problem so I wish that reality had been different as well.

 

My my... It has been far too long since I visited this thread.

Though I agree with much of what you're saying, there are a few things you should consider.

Where The Hobbit was first pitched as a duology and was later adapted into a trilogy... The Lord of the Rings was originally going to be just 1 (yes that is ONE ) movie!!! New Line Cinema was a tiny production company at the time, but they were the only ones who had the 'cojones' to even attempt that project! It took some real verbal magic and some compelling initial artwork by Alan Lee, John Howe and Weta ( both digital and practical) to convince them it really needed to be a trilogy.

But even with TLotR now being a trilogy, they still had a massive task ahead of them!
You must understand that TLotR was long considered to be 'unfilmable'. Ralph Bakshi tried and utterly failed!
Then PJ came along, who dared to dream. Though he did not have the most impressive repsheet (with Bad Taste, Braindead and such, being little more than ambitious amateur filmprojects [however entertaining], but also an often forgotten little gem called 'The Frighteners'), he and his wife had concockted an epic plan.

It was immediately clear that they coulden't include everything in the books, it would have taken an ennealogy to cover everything.
So that was out of the question. Therefor certain characters and places were to fall by the wayside... Tom Bombadil and his wife Goldberrie, the barrow-downs, Glorfindel and many more!

Also they had to change certain characters and re-assign certain quotes (I also wasn't happy with what they did to Faramir, of all!)
But the the omission of certain characters and happenstances, meant that motivations of some characters became unclear and the progress of some was becoming too easy (so they had to add obstacles to keep a certain tension in their journey) and some were originally quite underused in the books [Arwen] (so they gave her a more central role in all of it)

So in the grand scheme of things and under the circumstances imho PJ did an amazing job.

Well... artistic freedom for the sake of selfserving ego-polishing is unwanted imho, in some cases evn borderline reprehensible.
Artistic freedom for the sake of improving the flow of the story is often warranted and one of the most difficult things to do.
PJ and co always had the books close at hand to keep all their changes "in the spirit of the story" and often when they would find themselves moving to far off, they would revert to something much closer to the books.

But don't just take my word for it in all of this, everything I wrote here is in the special features of the extended box-set!

Well it doesn't work that way. The Ring can't move out of itself! It would have also made for a very short and boring book...
It can seduce creatures in an effort to take it closer to it's master, but it can't really controle its victim, mainly because of the powerlust it invokes in them. When the bearer proved to be unwilling to do its bidding, it would leave him (yes I said him, cause men are easier to seduce and more often have the opportunity to act according to its wishes), but only at the most opportune moment.

Also remember, Sauron was brought back to a mere shadow of his former self (in the last war of the ring) and the Ring itself was lost and no longer able to sense the feeble remains of its masters power. It was only nearing time when Bilbo started his part in Thorin's quest, that Sauron had regained some of his power, posing as 'the Necromancer' that the Ring felt its masters return was nigh.
It was then that it abandoned Gollum and Bilbo found it by 'chance'.

They (the Ring and its master) can feel each others presence and proximity, but not each others location! When worn by it's bearer, Sauron could see them, but not their surroundings.

And thus the Noldorin fell for the oldest of seductresses, greed and pride!

Yeah, not too sure about reboot either... I hope for a Silmarillion based series.

Well don't be too quick to dismiss the potential of a series. The Format would suit the story (especially the Silmarillion) much better and after big-budgetted series like GoT, The Mandalorian and the like, I'm pretty sure a Tolkien-based series would get the funds needed to make it worthy of the source materials, at least visually.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more!

Though most of what they added to the story of The Hobbit is straight from the appendices (TLotR).
A Herculean task, practically doomed to fail from the get-go. As such, the end-result is still pretty dang good!

I fortunately am unaware of this game and by the sound of it, I think I'll keep it that way! Shelob a shapeshifter... humbug!

The thought alone... BRRRR!

Well said!

Although I'm saddened by his passing , I'm glad this could open up the possibilities for a Silmarillion-series.

I partially agree, but putting Arwen in the place of Glorfindel and giving her the power to command the river instead of her father, was a logical thing to do. To get to Rivendell quickly, it was easier to use a character that we already knew (that they also wanted to give a bigger role, to underline her importance), than to introduce a brandnew one that was going to be in the story for what... 10 to 15 minutes?

Well.. though Norway is stunningly beautiful and would have been perfect, in order to get most of their budget on screen, it was most opportune to have everything in a relatively small area.
New Zealand being a stunning country where you can find just about every type of surroundings you can find anywhere in the world, from green hills, rivers, large woodlands and golden grasslands to majestic mountain-ranges, incidentally also being home to PJ himself and his very own practical and digital effects-company Weta! So that saved them a sh!ttonnne of money in travelling-expences!

Yup! Exactly!

Uhmm.. both Rivendell and Laketown in The Hobbit are part full setts, part 'bigatures and only enhanced with CGI.

I largely agree, though I must kindly disagree with the "overrated" part. As you point out, adapting books into movies is hard enough as it is.
But adapting such a beloved book, that rivals the Bible in overall sales and readership... that is something of... whell... "Biblical" proportians!
(pardon the pun)
I do agree however, that there was too much emphasis on the swordfighting and battles. But that is also very understandable, as the productioncompany (New Line) wanted to make as sure as possible that the movie would appeal to a broad audience (not realizing just how popular TLotR was on it's own merits!), in the hopes of making their money back. (of which they weren't too sure of anyway)

 

My opinion is one movie would almost work so two is understandable rather than hack and slash your vision to almost a remake of the cartoon.

The source material just doesn't demand 9 hours at all. I could read the whole thing out loud and be under 9 hours.

9 hours requires cobbling together and inferring a good 5 hours or maybe more of some lesser stories to fluff up and dilute the quality tale you already had.
This isn't adapting Dune or something.
We have a children's story that is comfortably under 300 pages here.

There is no "turning on" Jackson for me, Im just saying I do not believe the content wasn't there and what was put in was mostly of lesser quality than what Tolkien provided.

To be fair there was never a time when I agreed with all of Jackson's choices especially the typically hamfisted deviations but I generally understood them from a filmmaking standpoint.

When presented with what I always felt was the far easier to translate story there will be a natural tendency to be less tolerant of pointless meandering and flogging themes like the audience all had a lobotomy.

Incredibly talented but he is like a one man torch and pitchfork mob against nuance at times.

I don't hate the movies at all though the theatrical Smaug pushes it the most. It was a mix of the best dragon ever and screw the rest of it. So fairly disappointed for sure.
If there was a turn it was then not between the sets of films.

I think Unexpected Journey's time is pretty well earned but just do not feel the same way about the other two.

Smaug which to me needs the extended to properly refocus the story that feels like it covers 20 or 30 pages from the book either way due to the effects of the bloat elected by Jackson and company and then the action fest of Five Armies don't dictate the screen time and results in a lesser outcome for me than tightening them into one more balanced movie even if it was a longish one.

Good but not the greatness that was there for the taking, in my opinion.

You love them all you want, one person's take does not diminish your joy. Things all hit us differently.
What I consider undesirable or lackluster filler may be your favorite part of the dish and vice versa. I have less than no interest in rice and can generally take or leave bread but will clean out the potatoes and pasta. Movies and storytelling of all sorts is not all that different.

I'm glad they are moderately rotation worthy so it is just a matter of "what could have been" than actual hate.

 

Oh yes.

 

So did the Second Age series on Amazon get shelved due to COVID? Oh man I was so waiting for that.

Depends on how much of the Second Age you want to cover but there are so many epic stories and characters....and of course BATTLES.

 

So this was on a FB group I am in....what would LOTR character morphs look like? who is your favorite?

 

Frodolas it is......kind of scary looking!!!