The message you selected is no longer available for viewing.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Movies: At the Theater
  3. Peter Jackson responds to the criticism over making The Hobbit into a trilogy.

User Info: LethalAffinity

LethalAffinity
6 years ago#1
In The Hobbit Collectors Edition of Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone: The Hobbit is a very thin book. Why did you decide to make it into three films"

Peter Jackson: The Hobbit is almost like an optical illusion. You look at the book, and it is a really thin book, and you could make a relatively thin film as well. What I mean by that is you could race through the story at the speed that Tolkien does-if you really study the Hobbit, you'll be surprised at some of the memorable scenes, they're so short. They're written in such a brisk pace, breathless style, with not a pause for dialogue and character, that they're very quick. That's not the type of film we'd ever want to make. We wouldn't want to make a film where we rush from action with some comedy along the way.

RS: So are you changing the story?

PJ: We want to make a film that tells a story and has a little bit more depth to it than what Tolkien was after when he wrote the book. I was surprised when I reread the book because I remembered this huge sequence in lake-town but in the book it's only two pages. In a movie, if you're literally shooting the script at that pace, you've got no room for character development. So it's a deceptive book is what I'm saying. We haven't been indulgent in the way that we've made these movies. We've simply used the narrative that Tolkien laid out. We've written it at a very brisk pace, but once really develop these scenes from the novel as movie scenes, they tend to take up some time.

RS: But there's also a lot of stuff from outside the book, too, right?

PJ: Yes, the other thing we've done is we haven't just stuck to the pages of the Hobbit, either. We've got the rights to adapt what would be the appendices from Return of the King, about 125 pages of material. In them, Tolkien was writing about what was happening outside the pages of the Hobbit, in Middle Earth, at the exact same time. So we're doing sort of the Hobbit super-sized, with all the extra material.

RS: There's been criticism that making this children story into a three movie epic is naked commercialism. How do you respond?

PJ: No. Look, it would be nakedly commercial if the studio had come to us-the filmmakers-and said, "Why don't you turn this into three films because we can. And we can market and sell three films, blah, blah, blah." But they didn't. We approached them. We felt that we had the story we wanted to tell. We had the characters we wanted to develop. We wanted to use all this fantastic material from the appendices that we otherwise couldn't have used because of the structure of two movies and the running time. So we approached the studio and pitched the idea of why it would make sense to do it as three films. It certainly wasn't commercially driven-it was a creative choice from us.
http://i.imgur.com/o22hh.gif
Seminiferous Tubloidial Buttnoids

User Info: __Darujhistan__

__Darujhistan__
6 years ago#2
Very standard interview really. He didn't say anything I wouldn't expect him to say.

It's actually kind of an annoying attitude. Many, many, many 300 page books have been turned into single films, most much shorter than even the first Hobbit film, but nono! Tolkien is so wonderful that in order to do him justice, you need three films.
A trench named Bingo Crepuscule? Why not Youppie Tralala?
-A Very Long Engagement

User Info: Monopoman

Monopoman
6 years ago#3
__Darujhistan__ posted...
Very standard interview really. He didn't say anything I wouldn't expect him to say.

It's actually kind of an annoying attitude. Many, many, many 300 page books have been turned into single films, most much shorter than even the first Hobbit film, but nono! Tolkien is so wonderful that in order to do him justice, you need three films.


I think you have to wait till all 3 films are out to claim this.

I mean at this point coming out against his choice of using 3 films is akin to claiming that you know what the best video game of 2013 is at this point.

I also still remember people raging over changes or scenes missing in the original LotR trilogy due to mostly time constraints. The full editions of those movies contain quite a bit more content then the theatrical releases.

User Info: __Darujhistan__

__Darujhistan__
6 years ago#4
I'm not coming out against his choice, I'm coming out against the logic he uses to justify that choice.
A trench named Bingo Crepuscule? Why not Youppie Tralala?
-A Very Long Engagement

User Info: fire810

fire810
6 years ago#5
PJ: No. Look, it would be nakedly commercial if the studio had come to us-the filmmakers-and said, "Why don't you turn this into three films because we can. And we can market and sell three films, blah, blah, blah." But they didn't. We approached them. We felt that we had the story we wanted to tell. We had the characters we wanted to develop.

yeah ok

User Info: wallmasterz

wallmasterz
6 years ago#6
So is it wrong to assume that the theatrical Hobbits are the equivalent of the LotR Extended Editions?
I'm no Star Child.

User Info: Saturius2000

Saturius2000
6 years ago#7
You know, I've read all the arguments for and against the 3 films for the Hobbit, and at the end of the day I still go with my gut instinct. There's just no way that The Hobbit needed 3 films to do it justice imo. It seems beyond obvious to me that it was done for the extra money. However, what's done is done and I don't dwell on stuff that's already over and done with. We're getting 3 films. I just hope the movies are good and the pacing doesn't suffer.

User Info: Kalk

Kalk
6 years ago#8
Because money. lol
f(O_o)f

User Info: RevoIverOshawot

RevoIverOshawot
6 years ago#9
"We want to make a film that tells a story and has a little bit more depth to it than what Tolkien was after when he wrote the book."

Did he just say that he thinks his Hobbit films are deeper than the book itself?

User Info: __Darujhistan__

__Darujhistan__
6 years ago#10
Depth can be measured in many ways. In terms of plot, the films will have material more relevant to the general fate of Middle-earth than the book did, and will in this sense have more depth than the book. I think this is what Jakcson meant, though his choice of words could be more fortunate.
A trench named Bingo Crepuscule? Why not Youppie Tralala?
-A Very Long Engagement
  1. Boards
  2. Movies: At the Theater
  3. Peter Jackson responds to the criticism over making The Hobbit into a trilogy.
  • Topic Archived