Slashdot Mirror


Now We Know Why the Hobbit Movies Were So Awful (theguardian.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Everyone seems to agree that the key to the success of Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings trilogy was years of careful planning before production ever began. Now Bryan Bishop writes at The Verge that in what can only be described as the most honest promotional video of all time, we find out why the Hobbit trilogy turned out to be such a boring mess. In the clip, Peter Jackson, Andy Serkis, and other production personnel confess that due to the director changeover — del Toro left the project after nearly two years of pre-production — Jackson hit the ground running, but was never able to hit the reset button to get time to establish his own vision. Once the new director was hired, the harried crew members had to scramble to redesign everything to suit Jackson's vision, but they could barely even keep up with the production schedule, let alone prepare anything in advance.

At some junctures in the process, Jackson found himself essentially having to improvise on set because there was nothing really prepared for his actors to do. "You're going on to a set and you're winging it, you've got these massively complicated scenes, no storyboards and you're making it up there and then on the spot," said Jackson. "I spent most of The Hobbit feeling like I was not on top of it."

But wait: "Peter has never made a secret of the fact that he took over the Hobbit directing job with very little preparation time remaining before shooting had to begin. It was a challenge he willingly took on. His comments are an honest reflection of his own personal feelings at times during the movie's production," says a spokesman for Jackson. "Somebody has decided to create this cut-down, using only the sections of The Gathering Clouds that discuss the difficulties faced, not the positive ways they were addressed and overcome – which are also covered in this and other featurettes."

4 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. it was just too long by prasadsurve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    3 movies for such a short story was what killed it. I mean did it have to take 1 whole movie just reach the damn mountain?

    1. Re:it was just too long by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed. Before I even saw the first movie, I said, "I'd rather have a 9-movie series doing The Lord of the Rings rather than 3 long movies about The Hobbit."

      I had a couple issues with LOTR - one being Aragorn's "reluctant hero" portrayal in the movie. In the books he knew his lineage and his destiny. He took 5 minutes just saying his name and rolling off his bloodline and claim to the throne. He carried around Narsil for pete's sake.

      However, my biggest gripe is totally cutting out the moral lesson LOTR teaches. That was in the form of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. Both teach the same lesson (especially the Scouring of the Shire), which is that we are responsible for making the world a better place. It is up to us as individuals to play that role.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  2. Re:Clerks II nailed this a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I understand correctly....

    The Lord of the Rings trilogy was made using a waterfall process, whereas the Hobbit movies were made using an agile process.

    The quality of the Lord of the Rings was higher. The Hobbit project was able to turn on a dime and be salvaged rather than die, and the result made money, but it was only barely what the clients wanted.

    Sounds about right.

  3. Re:a better cut available? anybody remix this thin by java_dev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes! Look for The Hobbit: The Tolkein Edit. Cuts all the crap out, trims the three to a single movie, and makes it a much better film.