Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D
Hmmm. While I won't argue with your main points overall, that sense of "more is more" did actually work in LOTR's favour at certain junctures, e.g. in my copy of the book the battle of Helm's Deep rated a mere seventeen pages (I counted them  ) out of a thousand or so, while it became a major third-act set-piece in Jackson's Two Towers. People didn't b*tch about that being action for action's sake because when you're digging the story that's being told then it's easier to look more kindly upon such transgressions.
I dunno if anyone's read Ian Nathan's excellent book on PJ and the making of Middle-earth but for me it shed a lot of light on what they were trying to achieve with the films and the thinking of why they went about it the way that they did. For all the grief that the trimvirate got for creating Tauriel in the Hobbit films to increase female representation in the story they basically did the same thing with Arwen, turning her into an action woman and giving her story beats from other characters to make it a bit less of a sausage fest.
But I never really heard the reasons why they removed Arwen from Helm's Deep, literally having to digitally erase her from several key moments, and they make it quite plain in the book, that as terrific Liv Tyler was she just didn't convince with the heavier action stuff, despite all the training and whatnot. Who knows, if they'd got to have Arwen kick ass at Helm's Deep (and maybe even extend that to other battles in the series, rather than ultimately turning her into a wet blanket) would they have felt the need to exorcise that demon so readily by creating another warrior woman elf for The Hobbit? It's interesting how these things pan out. |
Good points, as there were many unexplored possibilities that could have been pursued with the huge amount of time available. I believe Helm's Deep worked well in the Two Towers because it was the first big battle shown in the trilogy (not counting the brief exposure to the battle at Dagorlad at the very beginning of "Fellowship"). So, it was worthy of the extensive involvement despite the actual battle occupying 10 of the 17 pages of the Helm's Deep chapter (pages 546 to 555 in my UK 60th anniversary edition). I did not mind the inclusion of the Elvish army at Helm's Deep, despite the fact it did not occur in the book and was illogical from a logistics standpoint. Having Arwen present at Helm's Deep would not have been advisable, as that would have negated the longing that she and Aragorn suffered as a result of their separation. Likewise, the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in Return of the King was worth the time investment given in the film, and I was not against the Army of the Dead being involved despite that difference from the book.
There were other non-trivial issues that should not have been included, such as the absurd scene of Frodo showing the Ring to the winged Nazgul at the end of The Two Towers. Had that actually happened, Sauron would have immediately emptied Minas Morgul and had all his forces from Mordor converge on Osgiliath, where Frodo and the Ring would quickly have been captured and Middle-earth would have been enslaved, negating the need for the third movie. There were other ludicrous moments, but the overall balance of the three LotR movies swayed in favor the books, therefore ensuring a satisfactory presentation.
The Hobbit movies were completely different. My guess is that Jackson psychologically gained such a great degree of confidence from the reception and box office of the LotR movies that he decided to incorporate more of his and Boyen's "vision" into the product. After all, the Hobbit was not as serious, so that allowed more of a fudge factor to deviate from Tolkien's plot. Had he incorporated more advice from a few of the many thousands of people available throughout the world who know Tolkien and his intentions well through research into his letters and other scholarly work, I believe the Hobbit movies could have been among the greatest movies ever made, given the huge budget and incredibly skilled workforce available to make it happen. Although Jackson is a great filmmaker and understands action, horror and special effects better than anyone, he and Boyens do not have anything close to the story telling capacity of Tolkien (nor do many others). The extended battle scenes became an action for action's sake, been there done that, and not having the same impact as the battles seen in LotR. Much of the "wasted" time in the movies could have utilized in a much wiser fashion if he had actually used material in the story or the much talked about Appendices, which in fact were almost ignored except for the scene of Gandalf meeting Thorin at Bree and a few other scraps. Scenes of young Aragorn at Rivendell (who was 10 years old at the time of the Hobbit story) could have been included, or Arwen staying with her grandmother Galadriel in Lothlorien (some of these scenes were actually shot and not used in the LotR movies), or any number of scenes from the LotR Appendices or the book itself that were ignored. Ignored in favor of longer battles, Alfrid, seemingly endless dwelling on Laketown, overdevelopment of the orcs (Azog was actually dead in the story), etc., etc.
Sure, the Hobbit movies made tons of money - how could they not? But such wasted potential. One wonders (at least I do) what might have been if Jackson and Boyens had allowed viewpoints of people closer to the story and who were familiar with Tolkien's intentions and inclinations.
Sorry for the lengthy reply.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
