Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
I too, love the Lord of the Rings movies, and Peter Jackson (and WETA!) in general. I thought the LotR trilogy was brilliant. Yes, there were some things he screwed up and changed. Some were good, like using Arwen instead of Glorfindel to build Arwen's character in the short time they had. Or not showing the Hobbits meeting with Tom Bombadil. I think stuff like that can be excused, at least, if not viewed as absolutely necessary. Some of it made no sense, like Haldir's elves fighting at Helm's Deep. I just don't get that at all. But for the most part, I feel like Peter Jackson really truly captured the spirit of the Lord of the Rings. He got the heart of the story absolutely right, and I think he stuck to the important details, and even most of the little ones. Little things that showed he really did care about getting things right, like giving some of Bombadil's lines to Treebeard, etc.
Which is why I'm blown away by how poorly he seems to be handling the Hobbit. I think two movies who have sufficed to cover the Hobbit. I can see how one wouldn't have really worked. Yes, the Hobbit is a short book, but there really is a lot that happens. I think it would be hard to do in one three hour movie. But we certainly don't need three.
Part of what turned me off to the first one was the tone. Like I said, it needn't be some huge epic like LotR, even though he's turned it into one. But at the same time, it seems like he tried to maintain that light heartedness from the book. The orc chase comes to mind. It's just silly and ridiculous. It doesn't come off like they're seriously running for their lives. It's too goofy. It doesn't work with the tone of the rest of the film. It can't be epic and light hearted at the same time.
From what I've heard from a lot of folks, the barrel scene in the second film comes of much the same way. I can't answer to that, as I haven't seen it. Nor can I answer to the Legolas stuff, only insofar as I've read the book and know it's not there.
I don't know how I feel about the whole love story of the Hobbit films. I can forgive Legolas being present. It's fanservice. And while he's not mentioned in the book, well, he must certainly be present in some capacity in Mirkwood. It is his home afterall.
It does seem like he's taking too many liberties with the source work, but I guess I'll have to wait until I see the second film to really judge that. My first impression isn't good, though.