Anybody seen the Desolation of Smaug (Hobbit 2) yet?

mzzz

Well Known GateFan
Viggo had some interesting comments:

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.”

“Anybody who says they knew it was going to be the success it was, I don’t think it’s really true,” he says. “They didn’t have an inkling until they showed 20 minutes in Cannes, in May of 2001. They were in a lot of trouble, and Peter had spent a lot. Officially, he could say that he was finished in December 2000 – he’d shot all three films in the trilogy – but really the second and third ones were a mess. It was very sloppy – it just wasn’t done at all. It needed massive reshoots, which we did, year after year. But he would have never been given the extra money to do those if the first one hadn’t been a huge success. The second and third ones would have been straight to video.”

“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…”

Link: http://collider.com/viggo-mortensen-peter-jackson-cgi/
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
Viggo had some interesting comments:

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.”

“Anybody who says they knew it was going to be the success it was, I don’t think it’s really true,” he says. “They didn’t have an inkling until they showed 20 minutes in Cannes, in May of 2001. They were in a lot of trouble, and Peter had spent a lot. Officially, he could say that he was finished in December 2000 – he’d shot all three films in the trilogy – but really the second and third ones were a mess. It was very sloppy – it just wasn’t done at all. It needed massive reshoots, which we did, year after year. But he would have never been given the extra money to do those if the first one hadn’t been a huge success. The second and third ones would have been straight to video.”

“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…”

Link: http://collider.com/viggo-mortensen-peter-jackson-cgi/


I would say that,in general, many of these directors and other TPTB's have a serious case of the 'god complex'. I suppose that to a certain extent it is a natural thing to feel after you have created a show or movie

But---Jackson has def. gotten out of proportions in the manner in which he did depart from the books

in LOTR's, it wasn't that bad. most of what he changed was still shown in a (no other good way to say it) "tolkienesqe" manner. I am just now almost finished re-reading LOTR's. It is funny how a movie can make you misremember or forget items from the book. The biggest departures from the books there was the age of Frodo, the timelines involved (Jackson makes it appear that the quest took them about a month) and many of the battle scenes. For Minas Tirith they left the whole townlands of the Pellenor out of the movie. The "ghost army" wasn't a bunch of glowing ghoulies but were desribed as more like "shadow men"-- JACKSON def. made a big departure with them. And they--the ghost army--did not go to minas tirith but only to defeat the enemy fleet

And Denethor was shown in the films as being little more than a madman-the books explain his situation much better

Jackson also overuses Orcs. While there were a lot in the books, Sauron used a lot of men. His most trusted servants were living men. His dark tower was "staffed" mainly by men. The movie barely showed any men in his service. And the depiction of the Mouth of Sauron was totally wrong.

----------

Like I said before--Jackson did a reasonably good job making a good movie out of a complicated book, but with Hobbit, he has made a complicated movie out of a relatively simple book

I wouldn't say the two are equal in their level of "corruption" of the original stories, but Jackson is a lot like JJ Abrams with his version of Trek
 

Atlantis

Well Known GateFan
I just came back from watching the 3rd one dragged on way too much again, god I got bored with slow pace and dragged out soapy stuff :mallozzicry: I prefer LOTR instead and this one for some reason was a lot darker compared to the book. The graphics were really good but they needed to cut out some of the soapy stuff and there was far too much action as well.
 

heisenberg

Earl Grey
I just came back from watching the 3rd one dragged on way too much again, god I got bored with slow pace and dragged out soapy stuff :mallozzicry: I prefer LOTR instead and this one for some reason was a lot darker compared to the book. The graphics were really good but they needed to cut out some of the soapy stuff and there was far too much action as well.
If you are after a "story" "character development", you aren't going to get anything here. This is pretty much the last lord of the rings trilogy but the battle scene is stretched for 70% of the movie. The dialogue is almost non-existence, the character development doesn't exist and was long. If you like movies that are pure special effects/action, then this is the movie for you.


I
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
I just came back from watching the 3rd one dragged on way too much again, god I got bored with slow pace and dragged out soapy stuff :mallozzicry: I prefer LOTR instead and this one for some reason was a lot darker compared to the book. The graphics were really good but they needed to cut out some of the soapy stuff and there was far too much action as well.

That's a shame, but it's not surprising based on the previous two movies.
 

heisenberg

Earl Grey
That's a shame, but it's not surprising based on the previous two movies.
Chevron Atlantis and I have the same opinion as this as you can see. We were both sitting there waiting for the thing to end but 3 hours went by. The first hobbit was better IMO. I know I said I wouldn't watch it, but we were forced to watch it because of our high school friends we hadn't seen for ages!
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Chevron Atlantis and I have the same opinion as this as you can see. We were both sitting there waiting for the thing to end but 3 hours went by. The first hobbit was better IMO. I know I said I wouldn't watch it, but we were forced to watch it because of our high school friends we hadn't seen for ages!

Isn't it sad how something can be so visually stunning yet completely boring at the same time?
 

Gatefan1976

Well Known GateFan
Have you been watching more Chris Pine stuff ape?
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Have you been watching more Chris Pine stuff ape?

Actually I did just see that Jack Ryan movie he made and while he's nice to look at the movie itself was kinda boring for an action flick.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
as i have said before--this whole HOBBIT debacle is way out of hand

the creators took a book that should have been very difficult to turn into a film and did a pretty good job-LOTR's

and then took a relatively simple story-the hobbit-and turned it into a mish mash of THE HOBBIT, the LOTR appendices and the out of control, love sick imaginations of Peter Jackson

HOBBIT should have been no more then a 2 parter at most a just stuck to the book with a bit of backstory from the appendices

---------------------------------------

there is plenty of material left from which to draw on for more films

the only thing in the way is the Tolkien's family refusal to sell the rights to any other material not in HOBBIT or LOTR's books

If Jackson can get the rights to this stuff, I am sure he will make more films--the franchise is a huge cash cow for all involved and I am sure that no one wants to put up their elven ears just yet (btw another creation of Jackson-pointy elf ears)
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
so i recently watched part 3 on HBO

part 1 was OK, part 2-started to get 'wonky'

part 3? totally off the rails

the HOBBIT portion of it was so redone in a bad way, so far off of the book, sad

ironic how the part he added in from the LOTR's appendices is pretty much spot on to the book though

----------------------

So now I am re-reading THE HOBBIT to get this Jackson crap flushed from my system

its always fun to re-read, you often read what you missed before,though I find, I find things more interesting the 2nd round that I only "read" the first time.

-----------------------------

If Tolkien would have been around to watch this abomination, he would have slashed the screen ,burned the theatre and then pissed on the ashes

I am now very hopeful that the Tolkien family WILL NOT sell the movie rights for SILMARILLION or any other of his writings
 

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
Oh, boy! I can't wait to see how much more dry juice they can squeeze out of the LOTR rock!

Maybe a 3 part movie series on the people of middle earth! Or maybe a 3-movie, 6 hours waste of storytelling on Gollum! They can call them "Precious", "Precious: Journey to A Filler Story", "Precious: Mo' Money, Mo' Money!"
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
Oh, boy! I can't wait to see how much more dry juice they can squeeze out of the LOTR rock!

Maybe a 3 part movie series on the people of middle earth! Or maybe a 3-movie, 6 hours waste of storytelling on Gollum! They can call them "Precious", "Precious: Journey to A Filler Story", "Precious: Mo' Money, Mo' Money!"

It makes you wonder...the beancounters are using metrics to determine what is selling and what is not, and they just stay with their "properties" until they are sucked dry like a human carcass after it has been fed off of by a Wraith. The bad thing is that it ruins what came before it.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
Oh, boy! I can't wait to see how much more dry juice they can squeeze out of the LOTR rock!

Maybe a 3 part movie series on the people of middle earth! Or maybe a 3-movie, 6 hours waste of storytelling on Gollum! They can call them "Precious", "Precious: Journey to A Filler Story", "Precious: Mo' Money, Mo' Money!"

Like I have said-there IS material there that Jackson,et al already own the rights to for a reasonable 2 movie gig

anything else and they need to get it from the Tolkien family--after The hobbit, I don't think they'll sell

in fact, if I were them ,I'd try to get an injunction to keep the HOBBIT from playing anywhere any longer!
 
Top