*THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE HOBBIT WAS MADE TO STOP THIS GREAT FILM'S NEGATIVE OUTLOOK BY MANY*
I loved LOTR and equally I love the Hobbit films thus far. I am writing this to help people see the idea and thinking behind the Hobbit films, so people can have more of an appreciation than a negative view. Firstly the thing behind the LOTR was their was three books, three long detailed books, so almost everything required for script writing was already there and could be interpreted into script and into of course, 3 films. On the other hand the Hobbit was written as a children's book, so, if you have read the book you realise things go by at a very fast pace (like really fast). So when Jackson was writing the film he didn't have much to work with, and yes, there are a lot of events in this short book that people are forgetting about, lots of events but only summarised by Tolkien, too summarised for a comprehensive film. People say he needed one film, but when you think about how fast, the film would go by, you would hardly see anything, and you could miss out on some key scenes and characters. So Jackson had to expand the sequences by using information he brought in from Tolkien's other related texts. My next big issue is pacing... seriously, what a stupid argument, where movie "critics" have to find something to be critical about. For instance in the first film in the Shire, where people said it took to long, for god's sake, the movie is called 'THE HOBBIT', and Hobbit's live in The Shire, I enjoyed this scene immensely as it provides more than adequate characterisation, which for a quality film is important, it provided us with Bilbo's character flaws and habits, the dwarfs mannerisms, beliefs, ambitions, quirkiness, and importantly, individual character points and differentiation. Also showing us Gandalf and Thorins power of presence and importance. The movie breezes along at a steady pace for a first film of a trilogy, which is expected. Also people say that the LOTR is more important, or interesting, thing about it... one is to save the whole world, the other to kill a dragon and take back a kingdom, so please stop comparing the two films, they have their similarities but also have profound differences, pros and cons. People have been saying he (Peter Jackson and his associates) verged too far from the books but what he did was really quite clever, he allowed us to see more of Middle Earth than ever before, and in an entertaining, clever way. Thank you Sir.
So please before you go and say something negative about these great films (which I highly recommend above all other films at this point), just think about what has gone into these films and why and also show a certain appreciation for these magnificent films.
And once I again I would like to re-iterate that you go see The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug, filled with awesome characters, mind blowing scenery, fantastic acting and direction for Peter Jackson. This film,is great fun for all ages and I urge you to see it.
Thankyou
I loved LOTR and equally I love the Hobbit films thus far. I am writing this to help people see the idea and thinking behind the Hobbit films, so people can have more of an appreciation than a negative view. Firstly the thing behind the LOTR was their was three books, three long detailed books, so almost everything required for script writing was already there and could be interpreted into script and into of course, 3 films. On the other hand the Hobbit was written as a children's book, so, if you have read the book you realise things go by at a very fast pace (like really fast). So when Jackson was writing the film he didn't have much to work with, and yes, there are a lot of events in this short book that people are forgetting about, lots of events but only summarised by Tolkien, too summarised for a comprehensive film. People say he needed one film, but when you think about how fast, the film would go by, you would hardly see anything, and you could miss out on some key scenes and characters. So Jackson had to expand the sequences by using information he brought in from Tolkien's other related texts. My next big issue is pacing... seriously, what a stupid argument, where movie "critics" have to find something to be critical about. For instance in the first film in the Shire, where people said it took to long, for god's sake, the movie is called 'THE HOBBIT', and Hobbit's live in The Shire, I enjoyed this scene immensely as it provides more than adequate characterisation, which for a quality film is important, it provided us with Bilbo's character flaws and habits, the dwarfs mannerisms, beliefs, ambitions, quirkiness, and importantly, individual character points and differentiation. Also showing us Gandalf and Thorins power of presence and importance. The movie breezes along at a steady pace for a first film of a trilogy, which is expected. Also people say that the LOTR is more important, or interesting, thing about it... one is to save the whole world, the other to kill a dragon and take back a kingdom, so please stop comparing the two films, they have their similarities but also have profound differences, pros and cons. People have been saying he (Peter Jackson and his associates) verged too far from the books but what he did was really quite clever, he allowed us to see more of Middle Earth than ever before, and in an entertaining, clever way. Thank you Sir.
So please before you go and say something negative about these great films (which I highly recommend above all other films at this point), just think about what has gone into these films and why and also show a certain appreciation for these magnificent films.
And once I again I would like to re-iterate that you go see The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug, filled with awesome characters, mind blowing scenery, fantastic acting and direction for Peter Jackson. This film,is great fun for all ages and I urge you to see it.
Thankyou