The Hobbit

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

This is the last one, right?

The LOTR trilogy was a hell of a lot better, and IMO at least partly because they didn't rely SO MUCH on digital effects.

Viggo agrees



Mortensen thinks – rightly – that The Fellowship of the Ring turned out the best of the three, perhaps largely because it was shot in one go. “It was very confusing, we were going at such a pace, and they had so many units shooting, it was really insane. But it’s true that the first script was better organised,” he says. “Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.


“I guess Peter became like Ridley Scott – this one-man industry now, with all these people depending on him,” Mortensen adds. “But you can make a choice, I think. I asked Ridley when I worked with him (on 1997’s GI Jane), 'Why don’t you do another film like The Duellists [Scott’s 1977 debut, from a Joseph Conrad short story]?’ And Peter, I was sure he would do another intimately scaled film like Heavenly Creatures, maybe with this project about New Zealanders in the First World War he wanted to make. But then he did King Kong. And then he did The Lovely Bones – and I thought that would be his smaller movie. But the problem is, he did it on a $90 million budget. That should have been a $15 million movie. The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...y-for-CGI.html

[Gravedigger]

If Peter Jackson would've done the Hobbit first, then maybe you'd all be saying this about the six LOTR movies. Just enjoy it, Jackson stretches out his movies, always has and always will.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

If Peter Jackson would've done the Hobbit first, then maybe you'd all be saying this about the six LOTR movies. Just enjoy it, Jackson stretches out his movies, always has and always will.

Actually no. His early movies were not bloated at all


Dead alive, heavenly creatures , frighteners, etc...,

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

If Peter Jackson would've done the Hobbit first, then maybe you'd all be saying this about the six LOTR movies. Just enjoy it, Jackson stretches out his movies, always has and always will.

6?

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by Lzen

6?

Must be thinking of Star Wars...

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

If Peter Jackson would've done the Hobbit first, then maybe you'd all be saying this about the six LOTR movies. Just enjoy it, Jackson stretches out his movies, always has and always will.

Disagree. If he had done the Hobbit first, he probably would not have stretched it ridiculously into a 3 movie epic...you'd have had one really good movie, and then 3 good movies for the LOTR series. He just went apeshit on the Hobbit because of the technology and the fact that nowadays, you have to have a 3 movie epic thing rather than just tell a good story.

Bleh.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Disagree. If he had done the Hobbit first, he probably would not have stretched it ridiculously into a 3 movie epic...you'd have had one really good movie, and then 3 good movies for the LOTR series. He just went apeshit on the Hobbit because of the technology and the fact that nowadays, you have to have a 3 movie epic thing rather than just tell a good story.

Bleh.

At Comic Con, Jackson revealed the original pitch was a stand alone Hobbit, and if it did well, a two movie Lord of the Rings. It was actually the producers that told Jackson he has a three part movie in LotR, he originally was going with the two movies.

I could care less. I love the movies. I prefer the extended editions on disc. I can understand why some don't, but I love seeing the interpretation of the works come to life and I'm glad they decided to open up the appendices. Did the first movie drag in parts? Yes. But, not so much that it really irks me.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

At Comic Con, Jackson revealed the original pitch was a stand alone Hobbit, and if it did well, a two movie Lord of the Rings. It was actually the producers that told Jackson he has a three part movie in LotR, he originally was going with the two movies.

I could care less. I love the movies. I prefer the extended editions on disc. I can understand why some don't, but I love seeing the interpretation of the works come to life and I'm glad they decided to open up the appendices. Did the first movie drag in parts? Yes. But, not so much that it really irks me.

So yesterday was a movie day for me and the wife, and we watched the Hobbit (1 and 2). I've decided that it's fine that that they go so far afly from the book. The purpose of these movies is to give background to the LOTR as well as tell the Hobbit story. So, I guess I can get on board. It's not as fun as LOTR, but these types of things rarely are. See Star Wars Prequels.

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

If Peter Jackson would've done the Hobbit first, then maybe you'd all be saying this about the six LOTR movies. Just enjoy it, Jackson stretches out his movies, always has and always will.

Originally, Jackson wanted to do a 2-part film but WB wanted a trilogy to milk that cash cow.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

Originally, Jackson wanted to do a 2-part film but WB wanted a trilogy to milk that cash cow.

Ironic since it's 3 books, so a trilogy makes more sense anyway...

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Ironic since it's 3 books, so a trilogy makes more sense anyway...

He was referring to the hobbit, not lotr.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

He was referring to the hobbit, not lotr.

Oh, gotcha. Carry on...