I disagree, it's VERY good business. However, you seem to be confused. The film fails from the standpoint of re-creating books which have captured the imaginations of millions across the world for decades. "Dumbing down is required for films like this," you say, I take this to mean you agree with me and that you think this was Jackson's conscious decision. But this just seems to be worshiping Jackson's financial success (and the money it's brought Hollywood), not a serious look at the films. The fact an artwork has made a lot of money does not imune it from criticism, nor does it immediately make it worthy of praise. Justin Beiber, Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey are hardly the best in their fields, but one can't deny they make money!

I don't mind films seriously working through books and making creative decisions on how best to depict that in the film format. You'll get all sorts of defence of the opening to the BBC Pride and Prejudice from me, which appears nowhere in the book. My issue with Jackson is that is not HIS motivation. His change to the plot of Azog, for example, only provides more opportunities for violent acts, chase sequences, and growly, biting wargs. Wargs are great for adding + attack to a charge but again, this is not a table top game, it needs to be judged as a film.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Violent acts are what people are looking for these days though. I know people who thought Fellowship was the most boring of the three LotR films because it was less action-intensive than the other two. Less changes were made to it than the next two.

There is very little action in The Hobbit until the Battle of Five Armies. Dwarves meet Trolls and get captured without a fight; Dwarves meet Goblins and get captured without a fight, then flee; Dwarves are cornered by Wargs and flee up trees. It's infinitely more interesting in print than it is in a film. A 100% true to the book adaptation would have been a lot more "inane dialogue" that you mentioned and would have many more inconsistencies.

In the book, Thorin tries to flatter the Great Goblin, going so far as to bow to him. When it was written, unconnected with Middle-earth, that could have made sense. In the appropriate context though, it was incredibly out of character for ANY Dwarf, let alone Durin's heir.

I think we're at an impasse though. I recognize the film's flaws but can forgive them and even understand some of them. If I want Tolkien purity, my books are always on the shelf.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

I see I'm not going to convince you but I don't see any reason to accept what you're saying. A great deal of "what people are looking for these days" is shaped by millions of dollars in marketing by media and distribution companies, not a sudden desire for blood on screen. That is not the point though. The point is to discuss the film, which is what I want to do. I'll leave it's business suces or failure to the money grubbers in Hollywood, whose only interest is to turn a profit. I'm not debating with them. As a fan of Tolkien and a lover of film I think they are tedious and unserious. I also think a lot of people agree with me but get stuck on this "dumbing down" diversion. Do onto the film:

You're wrong, I don't find Tolkien's dialogue "inane", just the opposite. He is a very talented writer and his wit is wonderful to read. Hardly any of it though makes it to the screen. In this film the good morning sequence with Gandalf, which someone reminded me of, and little else. There were a couple other instances but overall it was washed away in orc blood for me. The exception is of course the riddle scene, which was a welcome relief.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

I'm a die hard Tolkien fanboy, but I would never have sat through the Hobbit without some extra action. My personal favorite of the LotR movies was FotR because they left it so like the book. However, I loved the Hobbit because they added stuff in which didn't change the characters that I love (like PJ did with Aragorn, or Faramir or Theoden). While Thorin did change a little, it was in keeping with a dwarf of Durin's line.

Meltchn, you really are not getting anything that Hurin is saying. He's not saying that he likes that they dumbed it (or LotR) down, or that he doesn't like "inane dialogue", he's saying that the average movie goer needs it dumbed down to prevent inane dialogue. And seeing as it's the average movie goer who gives PJ, and thus the studio and even New Zealand, their money, he's going to cater it to them while still trying to remain true enough to the work that the average Tolkien fanboy will be satisfied.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Yes, but Meltchn is saying that regardless of how much money the film brings in or how widely it appeals to a greater audience, the film does a poor job of recreating both the Hobbit book and Middle-earth as a whole and is actually not a great film. In fact, because of how much money the film needed to bring in and how necessary it was to appeal to a large audience, it doesn't well reflect Middle-earth or Tolkien's Hobbit. Regardless of the money it brings in, regardless of the popularity--is this a good film, and does it reflect the source material well? Many of us say yes, Meltchn says no to both.

Did I get that right, Meltchn?

I understood his point, but to make it perfectly reflect the books would have been confusing for many people and thus would have made the films less successful. I really do think it's a compromise that had to be made, otherwise the film(s) wouldn't have been made at all. Now, some people would perhaps have preferred to have no films rather than to have ones they didn't like. I myself enjoyed all of the LotR films as well as the first Hobbit film, despite noting and disliking some of the changes. Hence why I basically said we should agree to disagree.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

Yes, I think a film must be judged for what it is, not the marketing decisions of Hollywood. If Hollywood is only going to fund inanity then down with Hollywood. If a filmmaker is only going to produce inanity then down with them. I don't see any reason to just accept the so called "laws of the market" wih regards to art. Such laws tell us 50 Shades is good, it's sold beter than Tolkien, why not include some inaccurate bondage in the next Hobbit in this Devils deal?

What I'm saying is, these decisions for more violence and action have everything to do with turning a profit and not re-creating a work. There is no "market reality", there is at present a handful of philistine billionaires who are able to decide what films get made and what don't. They are the ones who want film "dumbed down." This was not always the case, even for Hollywood. The fact Tolkiens works still inspire us decades after being published testifies to the need for serious art, not Faustian deals which only ensnare the soul of humans. And with Jackson our soul has been ensnared in a very bloody, monotonous place after the vast and rich atmosphere of Tolkien. I can agree to disagree, especially if it means we actually discuss the film in relation tothe book and not Warner Bros bottom line.

TL;DR: I think the discussion on profit is irrelevant. Discuss the film for what it is, not what Hollywood is prepared to produce.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

I don't think anybody's saying that, it's a straw man people keep throwing up to avoid criticism of the movie. Just because someone doesn't like the way the movie presented Tolkien's world doesn't mean they expected a 100% accurate visualization of what was presented in the book. It's about decisions made to present the story and move it along in a way that is at least true to the spirit.

Too many conscious decisions were made in both LotR and the Hobbit that were either gratuitous segues into action, or simply plot changes that made no sense (like Treebeard deciding not to get involved).

I completely disagree that action is required to move the story along or that movie goers demand it. There's a reason movies like, say, Pulp Fiction succeed. Yes, there's action, but there's not actually a lot. What there is a lot of is tense dialog, whether they're talking about foot massages or uncomfortable silences or how to give someone an adrenalin shot. And people don't watch and rewatch such movies because of the small bits of action, they watch for the character interactions. This is where PJ and his writing crew fall down terribly.

I think PJ succeeds visually, but he's terrible at character and plot, and frankly, timing. The only thing nailed (in both movies) is Gollum, and that must be Serkis. I think the Hobbit does a better job of character and plot than LotR, but he still relies heavily on action, almost like he knows he doesn't have the chops to keep the talking going. Watching the Hobbit, you could tell exactly when the action was going to resume, when the dialog felt like it was running out of steam.

That said, I have to give credit to a few scenes of dialog that kept my attention far more than the action: the Goblin King was great, I thought, because what he said, in addition to being amusing, suggested a bigger deeper history felt by the characters (which means we assume it); and the Council meeting, where the personalities and motives of the guardians of Middle Earth are a bit more on display.

It's a business though, and Hollywood will fund what sells. Sex and violence sell, that's fact. You don't have to (and clearly don't) like it but the fact is that The Hobbit wouldn't have been made "as is" into a big budget film. The discussion on profit is highly relevant, as Hollywood will only spend money to make and market profitable films.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

Saying 50 shades outsold Tolkien is a lie, the only books to outsell The Hobbit is LotR and A Tale of Two Cities.

For all your complaints about PJ, did you know that he was originally only given the green light for 1 two hour long LotR film? So what we have is MUCH better than what we were going to get. He thankfully convinced the studio to give him funding for 3 movies, but he of course had to make back the studios money by "catering" to the general audience. Then with the Hobbit, it actually has to fit in with his other movies.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

As I think I've said, a film which is not aimed at a serious re-imagining is not of worth. If all Jackson has given us is some good design then let no one keep him from Photoshop! As for filmmaking, I do not think he is all we can hope for.

Edit: This is what I was referring to with 50 Shades of Grey; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1y9SHlzQU

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Ah, so you really would rather have no movie at all I guess. Again, to each their own. I enjoyed these past four and no doubt will enjoy the next two.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

What do you mean by re-imagining?

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Well the content of a book has to be re-imagined to covert it into film. The material has already been conceived of by the author but now has to be brought to life by another in another medium. It's meant to imply a highly creative process that is based on a very serious grappling with the essence of each moment, scene, character and the work in it's entirety. It's the difference between taking dead flesh and creating a still dead but moving automaton and a living person.

Jackson, I believe, has created the former with all the unpleasant associations that brings.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Well, that's where we disagree. If you thought that TH was a poor film, I'm very interested in what movies you DO like. What are your top 5 movies of the past few years? If this is getting too off topic, you can PM me.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Very good post, I fully agree.

Not everyone likes the same films. I get asked this question like its unbelievable there could be other films out there. Thats not really people's fault, the best films tend to get limited releases and next to no promotion. So let me do a bit here! there have been LOADS of films I've enjoyed and thought were really good of the last few years but I've limited myself to the last 5 years:

Films:
A Separarion (2012)
The Hunger Games (2012)
Margin Call (2011)
Sampson and Delihla (2009)
Happy Go Lucky (2008)
Rachel Getting Married (2008)
-There haven't been any good war films in 5 years but Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) was brilliant! I like war films, Apocalypse Now is one of my favourites.

Documentaries:
The Queen of Versailles (2012)
Last Train Home (2010)
Waltz with Bashir (2008)

TV:
John Adams (2007)
Mad Men (2007-)
Big Bang Theory (2007-)
Flight of the Concords (2007-09)
The IT Crowd (2006-10)
The Wire (2002-08)

Also, I can't WAIT for Lincoln to come out here! It hasn't because I'm at the end of the Earth in Australia.

I'll leave it at that and I wont comment on them because any more discussion will be off topic so PM me. I'll talk your ear off about these films and shows though!

Edit: I should say, I think the last decade or so has been the worst for serious, intelligent filmmaking out of the ENTIRE history of film. My favourite of all time is Battleship Potempkin (1925), Eisenstine was a master of the silent film. Also, I forgot: The Fighter (2010). Really humane film.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

To be fair, a lot of the changes made in the Hobbit were not as bad as the changes made in LOTR. And I think we have to wait until all the films come out until we can see how Azog's role really is played out.

We've had over 2,000 hours of LotR and Hobbit including extended sequences over four films. I think it's safe to start drawing conclusions.

Edit: 2,000 minutes rather.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Wow, I now understand why you don't like the Hobbit just based on what movies you like. While I would normally say more, I'll leave it at that.

And we have not had 2,000 hours, we've had 12 hour of LotR and a measly 3 hours of The Hobbit. And that includes the credits, which are about an hour long in LotRs case.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.