“It all began when I was reading exam papers to earn a bit of extra money. That was agony. One of the tragedies of the underpaid professor is that he has to do menial jobs. He is expected to maintain a certain position and to send his children to good schools. Well, one day I came to a blank page in an exam book and I scribbled on it. ‘In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.’”
I dream about what might have resulted if studio politics hadn't driven Guillermo del Toro away from directing the Hobbit...
Whether or not it would have worked, who knows, but it almost certainly would have been something far, far, better than the thinly-veiled amusement-park ride that the Hobbit movie ended up turning into under Jackson's tutelage.
[Yeah there are lots of "what ifs" in the world, but for a while, a GdT Hobbit actually seemed like it was going to happen...]
> thinly-veiled amusement-park ride that the Hobbit movie ended up turning into under Jackson's tutelage.
If it were only that... let's not forget the major changes in the story and the reintroduction of LOTR characters who had nothing to do with the story in the first place. It does not make any sense at all if you have ever read the book.
At least the LOTR movies kind of followed the story, but the Hobbit is just something else altogether.
I'd argue that a lot of The Hobbit's issues were in the writing rather than direction, sure, a better director may have made it "less bad" but overall given the same script you'll get a similarly flawed set of films.
I will say I actually enjoyed the LOTR's prequel content in The hobbit movies (e.g. meeting at Riverdale, battle at Dol Guldur, etc). It was the terrible love subplot, family issues (Legolas daddy issues), newly constructed bad guys that made no sense (Azog, et al), the final battle's numerous plot holes, and the movie's overall pace (LOTRs left a lot of "breathing room" in the plot, it had a good set of beats between high pace and low pace content, The Hobbit was high octane all of the time, it was exhausting).
The prequel content was equally bad. I was actually looking forward to the first time Bilbo and Gollum meet, since this is such a central event in the whole story. PJ botched it. It lost all of the magic that it had in the book.
> a lot of The Hobbit's issues were in the writing rather than direction, sure, a better director may have made it "less bad" but overall given the same script you'll get a similarly flawed set of films.
I don't disagree with this, but I think if GdT had directed, he would also have had a lot of influence over the script and general direction the movie went in. He's not just a hired gun.
I don't think he'd have hated them. I think he'd have loved the visualisations of all of his places and creatures (even if they didn't match his own imaginations) and been thrilled with the amount of story telling we could do with film now... and then been more than a little disappointed that Jackson put in so many sword fights and told so little story.
Too bad they feel the need to soil the article with depictions from the LOTR movies, which are awful adaptations of the original books ("Hey, let's make an Happy Ending since we are working for Hollywood" - worst idea ever).
What part of LOTR's ending wasn't happy? They get a king back, Gandalf and Galadriel bless everyone's crops, the hobbits get eternal life.
I actually remember the movie trying so hard to fit all the original endings in that it just faded to black at least four times, seemed like it was over, then started right back up again.
Of course, Pellenor Fields did get replaced with a spooky ghost army and the best part of the book (Scouring of the Shire) was left out entirely. Not that it could ever have fit in there.
Uh, The Shire being completely destroyed despite Frodo's successful quest? Frodo having to depart Middle Earth ? Are those all super duper happy endings for you ?
And of course the Sourging of the Shire could have fit in the movies, it was shown as a vision when they met Galadriel in the first movie. They had it set up and they changed their minds later on.
The ending in the movie is problematic because it follows some of the ends of the book without understanding why they are necessary -> they make Frodo leave Middle Earth but they never bother to explain WHY he has to leave. PJ clearly did not understand the books.
Well, The hobbits did not get eternal life, quite the contrary. While is super duper to get to see the blessed realm, most scholars agree that for mortals getting to see so much beauty is bad and actually shorten one's life.
15 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 42.1 ms ] thread“It all began when I was reading exam papers to earn a bit of extra money. That was agony. One of the tragedies of the underpaid professor is that he has to do menial jobs. He is expected to maintain a certain position and to send his children to good schools. Well, one day I came to a blank page in an exam book and I scribbled on it. ‘In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.’”
Whether or not it would have worked, who knows, but it almost certainly would have been something far, far, better than the thinly-veiled amusement-park ride that the Hobbit movie ended up turning into under Jackson's tutelage.
[Yeah there are lots of "what ifs" in the world, but for a while, a GdT Hobbit actually seemed like it was going to happen...]
If it were only that... let's not forget the major changes in the story and the reintroduction of LOTR characters who had nothing to do with the story in the first place. It does not make any sense at all if you have ever read the book.
At least the LOTR movies kind of followed the story, but the Hobbit is just something else altogether.
I will say I actually enjoyed the LOTR's prequel content in The hobbit movies (e.g. meeting at Riverdale, battle at Dol Guldur, etc). It was the terrible love subplot, family issues (Legolas daddy issues), newly constructed bad guys that made no sense (Azog, et al), the final battle's numerous plot holes, and the movie's overall pace (LOTRs left a lot of "breathing room" in the plot, it had a good set of beats between high pace and low pace content, The Hobbit was high octane all of the time, it was exhausting).
I don't disagree with this, but I think if GdT had directed, he would also have had a lot of influence over the script and general direction the movie went in. He's not just a hired gun.
Sadly, we'll never know for sure... TT
Personally I did watch the first part of the Jackson's Lotr and oh the horror. I wish I could erase my memories :/
I actually remember the movie trying so hard to fit all the original endings in that it just faded to black at least four times, seemed like it was over, then started right back up again.
Of course, Pellenor Fields did get replaced with a spooky ghost army and the best part of the book (Scouring of the Shire) was left out entirely. Not that it could ever have fit in there.
And of course the Sourging of the Shire could have fit in the movies, it was shown as a vision when they met Galadriel in the first movie. They had it set up and they changed their minds later on.
The ending in the movie is problematic because it follows some of the ends of the book without understanding why they are necessary -> they make Frodo leave Middle Earth but they never bother to explain WHY he has to leave. PJ clearly did not understand the books.
Beautifully put.