3 ms·

A personal question to you: Why and in what particular ways do you consider Peter Jackson's renditions of the The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be so awfu

A personal question to you: Why and in what particular ways do you consider Peter Jackson's renditions of the The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be so awful, awful? I have enjoyed by stories since I first came across them 40 years ago. I thought that Peter Jackson did an excellent job on retelling the story. In point of fact, retelling it in a way that keeps the essence but is a new variation. When I first obtained my copy of Lord of the Rings (which I still have), I read it 11 times in 8 months. I still read it when I get the urge. I have found that Peter Jackson has quite a different imaging of the story of the story compared to my own imagining and no less entertaining. I have had people complain about the "licence" he took in the retelling, about not being true to the original writing. However, a good story teller will add to and change a story to make it more effective for his telling. That is the essence of good story telling - how you choose to emphasise various elements.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Why and in what particular ways do you consider Peter Jackson's renditions of the The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be so awful, awful? A question to you: when did I say anything about The Lord of the Rings?
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Because Lord of the Rings is no less one of the Hobbit movies.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    You're staking out some pretty strange territory, if you think it's wrong to refer to the movies based on The Hobbit as "the Hobbit movies". The Lord of the Rings movies are not the Hobbit movies at all, not being related to The Hobbit.
kmonsen 9y ago
I think the Peter Jackson of LOTR and the Peter Jackson from the hobbit must be two different directors. LOTR is a pretty good adaptation, a little bit too action oriented for my tastes but it is his adaption. The hobbit just feels stretched and with too many gimmicky scenes, IMHO of course. The strange part is that in some ways I like the hobbit better as a book.
- spondyl 9y ago
  If you watch the production diaries, you'll see exactly what went wrong. tl;dr Guillermo del Toro was the original director with proper prep time and then Peter had to take over, without the prep time. He was winging it most of the time and making things up on the spot. You can literally hear the above from his own mouth: https://youtu.be/SQkygZdZ_Vk https://youtu.be/SQkygZdZ_Vk
  - kmonsen 9y ago
    Thanks!! That is like the most honest take I have heard, it is almost like they are a bit ashamed and want to explain what happened.
BerislavLopac 9y ago
Don't get me started... Ah, too late! The Fellowship of the Ring is an excellent film, pretty consistently following the story while removing confusing elements like Tom Bombadil (some scenes, like the Moria stone troll fight, could have been a bit shorter, but overall it was really amazing). The Two Towers started showing the early signs os Jackson's "interventionist" approach (which later culminated in the Hobbit films) with adding numerous elements like Aragorn's side trek and Gimli's and Legolas' banter -- but again, it overall added to the story without removing too much of it. However, with The Return of the King he completely blew it, changing some important elements like Ents' motivations and, above all, the role of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. In the books, they're a formidable but reluctant force which has a strong but limited impact on the story -- they aid Aragorn's attack on the ships, scaring most of the Umbar's forces into drowning and allowing him to increase his army with the captives on the ships, but then he releases them and they never reach Pelennor. In the film, they are turned to a deus ex machina which sweeps the battlefield and the streets of Minas Tirith, killing all the enemies and not touching the "good guys" (the book shows that the Dead Men scare everyone equally; the "good guys" survive because they are captive and chained to the ships, which probably needed a lot of cleaning afterwards). That scene reminded me of those commercials where a green goo destroys all the toilet bacteria in one powerful sweep -- in my opinion, that change totally destroyed the premise of the book and turned it from "The Return of the King" to "The Return of some Guy with Toilet Cleaner". /rant
- naeemtee 9y ago
  The return of the King is one of the best movies of the last 20+ years. Whine about the Hobbit all you want, but LOTR is the greatest trilogy ever made and Peter Jackson is a legend.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> Why and in what particular ways do you consider Peter Jackson's renditions of the The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be so awful, awful? A question to you: when did I say anything about The Lord of the Rings?

oldandtired 9y ago
Because Lord of the Rings is no less one of the Hobbit movies.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  You're staking out some pretty strange territory, if you think it's wrong to refer to the movies based on The Hobbit as "the Hobbit movies". The Lord of the Rings movies are not the Hobbit movies at all, not being related to The Hobbit.

kmonsen 9y ago

I think the Peter Jackson of LOTR and the Peter Jackson from the hobbit must be two different directors. LOTR is a pretty good adaptation, a little bit too action oriented for my tastes but it is his adaption. The hobbit just feels stretched and with too many gimmicky scenes, IMHO of course. The strange part is that in some ways I like the hobbit better as a book.

spondyl 9y ago
If you watch the production diaries, you'll see exactly what went wrong. tl;dr Guillermo del Toro was the original director with proper prep time and then Peter had to take over, without the prep time. He was winging it most of the time and making things up on the spot. You can literally hear the above from his own mouth: https://youtu.be/SQkygZdZ_Vk https://youtu.be/SQkygZdZ_Vk
- kmonsen 9y ago
  Thanks!! That is like the most honest take I have heard, it is almost like they are a bit ashamed and want to explain what happened.

BerislavLopac 9y ago

Don't get me started... Ah, too late! The Fellowship of the Ring is an excellent film, pretty consistently following the story while removing confusing elements like Tom Bombadil (some scenes, like the Moria stone troll fight, could have been a bit shorter, but overall it was really amazing). The Two Towers started showing the early signs os Jackson's "interventionist" approach (which later culminated in the Hobbit films) with adding numerous elements like Aragorn's side trek and Gimli's and Legolas' banter -- but again, it overall added to the story without removing too much of it. However, with The Return of the King he completely blew it, changing some important elements like Ents' motivations and, above all, the role of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. In the books, they're a formidable but reluctant force which has a strong but limited impact on the story -- they aid Aragorn's attack on the ships, scaring most of the Umbar's forces into drowning and allowing him to increase his army with the captives on the ships, but then he releases them and they never reach Pelennor. In the film, they are turned to a deus ex machina which sweeps the battlefield and the streets of Minas Tirith, killing all the enemies and not touching the "good guys" (the book shows that the Dead Men scare everyone equally; the "good guys" survive because they are captive and chained to the ships, which probably needed a lot of cleaning afterwards). That scene reminded me of those commercials where a green goo destroys all the toilet bacteria in one powerful sweep -- in my opinion, that change totally destroyed the premise of the book and turned it from "The Return of the King" to "The Return of some Guy with Toilet Cleaner". /rant

naeemtee 9y ago
The return of the King is one of the best movies of the last 20+ years. Whine about the Hobbit all you want, but LOTR is the greatest trilogy ever made and Peter Jackson is a legend.