Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
LOTR was a tall order to begin with - there is no way to do the book justice, especially with the author long dead and gone. And then again, it allowed Peter Jackson to be as creative with changes as necessary. One step further and The Hobbit is not even trying to be a "copy" of the book, but losely based on it. Stand alone those 6 movies work great as movies. It is a bit unfair that LOTR got bashed by changing too much from the book.
|
I disagree with The Hobbit working as three great movies.
I had no problem with changes to LOTR. But The Hobbit felt like a victim of LOTR's success.
Jackson had trouble for years getting approval for LOTR. At the time, multi-part movies were a rarity and a risky gamble. Producers kept pressuring him to try to whittle the story down to a single movie.
By the time The Hobbit went on to production, the landscape had changed and I believe there was pressure to expand The Hobbit into a trilogy.
That book should have been a single movie, or maybe two short movies. To expand the book to a trilogy they had to add so much extraneous stuff that you wouldn't be blamed for forgetting who Bilbo was.
The Hobbit is a childhood favorite and I was a Peter Jackson fan well before LOTR. Those first three movies were amazing. But I've never managed to get through all three Hobbit movies.