Movies gotta make money! Everybody knows this, but the financial decisions made
during The Hobbit just constantly remind you that this is a commercial product
trying to wring as much money out of you as possible.
Jackson defends the three movie decision by saying it allows the characters to
drive the story. But, actually I think it's the other way around.
Having an extra climax in the middle means that it's actually the story that drives
the characters. For example, the two pointless action scenes at the end of
Desolation wouldn't be there if there were only two films. And then there's
Bard and Gandalf, both of whom are in prison at the end of the movie, adding
two additional cliffhangers to the big cliffhanger. But their captures are
immediately resolved in the very next scenes in the third movie. The story's
need to have a dramatic ending in that second film forces contrivance upon
contrivance to have all of the characters in such dire straits that you just have to
come back to buy that all-important third ticket. Now, there's some people out
there that say The Hobbit shouldn't even be two movies, but I can at least see
what Jackson was thinking with that because the book has a very episodic
structure. In just about every chapter the hero's journey somewhere, are
captured, and escape. There's just so many action beats along the way that
rushing through them in one 3-hour picture will be like watching a whole
movie on fast-forward. But the two movie structure actually fits perfectly.
According to Jackson, the original plan was to have the first movie cover most
of the journey to the mountain, ending when they meet bard,
while the second movie would cover the events around the mountain itself.
Makes sense. Not for nothing, that would vastly improve the Bilbo and Thorin
plotline. Okay, now their relationship is one of
the strongest parts of the series. But because the movie is a trilogy, Thorin is
forced to accept Bilbo as an equal member of the company far too early.
So in Journey, Thorin thinks Bilbo is just like a total dweeb, up until the
point when he saves him from an orc in the forest. That's fine and the following
scene is actually the best part of the whole series.
But even though Bilbo shows courage here it's sort of contrived that
the other dwarves wouldn't immediately come to Thorin's aid as well. And in the
end, it's not through Bilbo's actions but through Gandalf calling the Eagles that
they're all saved. The REAL time Bilbo proves his worth is in the barrel escape
scene (now a major attraction at Universal Orlando Resort).
Bilbo shows how clever and how brave he is in this scene. The result of splitting
it into three movies means that they end up rushing Thorin's character change and
that the relationship has to just sit in stasis for the entirety of Desolation.
The two of them don't have anything to do until five armies where their friendship
is tested by Thorin being a greedy asshole.
Speaking of which, having three movies means that Thorin's affliction with
Dragons sickness comes as a complete surprise at the beginning of the third
movie. So the scene is the dwarves that remained in Lake Town finally make it to
Erebor, and Bilbo jumps out saying that Thorin's been going crazy over the gold
for days. The most important scene of the movie, where Thorin enters Erebor and
becomes a greedy asshole, isn't in the movie, because with three parts we've got
to get straight into the Dragon Sickness plotline. With just two movies,
Thorin becoming greedy could have been growing throughout the entire second
film. Here, it's just thrust upon us without any foreshadowing of it at the
end of Desolation. So remind me again why three movies was a good idea?
Jackson: More opportunity to actually develop some of these storylines further
than what we were otherwise. Interviewer: Can you give an example? Jackson: There's things
you'll see in the next movie, particularly to do with Gandalf and
Dogoldur that we wouldn't have otherwise been able to do." Um that's bullshit.
It's only one scene. Jackson: "Things with Tauriel, Legolas." Paging dr. gundabad.
Jackson: "Bard." Alright, so let's look at bards story. He kills Smaug. This is essential to the
plot and could not have been cut. He saves Alfred from being mauled by the
mob. This could have been cut. He leads the negotiations with Thorin. That's
essential to the plot. He fights in the battle. Essential to the plot. He keeps
running into Alfred. That could have been cut. Where I'm sitting, the only stuff of
Bard's that could have possibly added to make it three films, was the stuff with
Alfred. So as far as I'm concerned, make it two movies and tell Ryan Gage to take a hike.
It's not your fault, Ryan. I'm sorry. But by the way that's exactly what bard should
have done at the beginning of the movie. Why do people keep giving this obviously
self-interested, slimy character any responsibility. Bard: Alfrid, take the night watch.
How about this? How about the minute they get to jail, Bart says, "hey
Percy, or whoever, keep an eye on Alfrid, and report back to me if he does
anything suspicious." And then the moment he does something suspicious, put him in
prison. Don't give him the Nights Watch. And then even Gandalf randomly tells him
to watch Bilbo, which is a pretty important task, seeing as he knows Bilbo
has a magic ring, and because he thinks Thorin will kill Bilbo on sight. So why
give that job to this schmuck. Sorry, Ryan it's not you. It's just your character.
It just makes gandalf look like a worse judge of character than Ned Stark.
So what then? Is Jackson just straight-up lying?
Well here's the thing. I believe Jackson when he says that it was himself, not
the studio, who pushed for the three movie idea. But I believe that the reason he
did so has a lot less to do with story than it does with math. You see the
Hobbit is the most expensive trilogy ever filmed. It costs seven hundred and
fifty million dollars to make, mostly because it used expensive 3D technology,
expensive 5k technology, and expensive Batsuit technology. But even far into
production, Jackson was operating under the two film idea,
meaning that three films or two the Hobbit would have cost about the same,
seven hundred and fifty million. Of all the Hollywood splits of recent years,
this one from two to three was probably the cheapest, relative to the other
movies in the franchise. But that $750 million doesn't take into
account the elaborate marketing campaigns for each movie. Commercial: "Try the all new
Hobbit inspired menu. Only at Denny's."
"Lego The Hobbit." Jackson: "That's a wrap everyone." It's estimated that the marketing for the
first film alone cost a $155 million. If the second
movie had a similar marketing budget, then the two movie idea would have cost
at least one billion dollars. When all is said and done, now in hindsight that
doesn't seem so bad. Each of the three Hobbit movies made
about a billion at the box office, so even if they only make two, they double
their money, but back in 2012 that was no guarantee. Peter Jackson's previous film
King Kong made just $550 million. What if the first Hobbit movie underperformed?
With only two movies, they ran the risk of only just making their money back.
He's got a reputation to protect. Seeing as most of the cost can be
attributed to expensive technology that Jackson pushed for, would Jackson be able
to use it for future films if the Hobbit was a failure? And seeing as he kinda
wants the industry to move in the direction of these new technologies, The
Hobbit failing could have had industry-wide ramifications. Or you know,
maybe it just all comes out of ego. The desire to make whatever you're working
on in the present seem as important as anything you did in the past. Perhaps you
just wanted to make it into three movies so that it would be as big as the Lord
the Rings. I don't know, but whatever the reason is, I think that Jackson had a
motivation outside of story purposes, and then found a way to sell it as a story
decision afterwards. But you know who isn't greedy? Thorin Oakenshield what do
you mean he's not greedy. He's totally hoarding all the gold to
himself, and he like broke his word to the men. No. No he didn't. His proposal is
that if the men release him he'll reclaim his birthright, which will be
good for everyone as it will increase trade in the area. Thorin: "This was the centre
all trade in the north. I would see those days return. I would relight the
great forges of the dwarves, and send wealth and riches flowing once more."
Laketown being located right next to Erebor will have a wealthy neighbor that
they can sell things to, as opposed to being completely isolated. He doesn't
promise them a specific amount that he would need to pay later, but more of a
vague idea that life would get better eventually. "But he released the dragon
that destroyed their homes!" True, but that's sort of their fault for building
a city next to a dragon. It's like going on a date with Bill Cosby, and not...
expecting him to tell a long-winded story. What? What did you think I was going to
say? And besides even if he did promise a specific amount, he shouldn't be
obligated to pay it because the men of Laketown had imprisoned him and his
friends. You can't expect him to keep his word when the consequence of not giving
his word was prison. Which brings me to Thranduil who has no business here
whatsoever. Thorin isn't being greedy by holding on to the white gems. Thranduil has
done far worse things to Thorin than that. He totally abandoned the dwarves
when Smaug showed up. And then later, held Thorin prisoner and threatened to do
so for centuries. And even then Thorin says that he's willing to sell them back
to Thranduil. He isn't being vengeful and holding on to them indefinitely.
Thorin: "I know an elf Lord who will pay a pretty price for these." He's willing to trade them, but
he isn't going to give them away when you put an army on his doorstep and try
to bully him into it. What I'm saying is that the men and the elves are being far
less reasonable, and far more greedy than Thorin is. Thorin just earned the
mountain back after braving about a million dangers. We earned it.
It's also ridiculous that the whole thing is explained as dragon-sickness. The whole
concept is as stupid and unnecessary as an hour-long review of a movie. I mean,
wouldn't it make for a better movie if Thorin's character change had more to do
with his own decisions than just some vague disease he's afflicted by?
Gandalf: "Dragon sickness seeps into the hearts of all who come near this mountain."
Right, so what about the 12 other dwarves
there. Shouldn't they also all be having slow-motion monologues about how awesome gold is.
And another thing what's actually happening in these scenes? Like is he
actually talking like that in reality? Are we seeing him just from other
people's perspective? Or is this Thorin's perspective? Because surely it's not just
some cheap editing trick to make the audience think Thorin is being less
rational than he actually is. And maybe I shouldn't complain because
the three-way negotiation is some of the best stuff of part three, but it relies
completely on contrived conflicts and audience manipulation. You know, just like
making three movies in the first place did. Now you might think that after
nearly an hour of complaining about these movies that I hate everything
about them. But that's not true. There's plenty to like here. And actually, what
frustrates me most is that the good stuff is constantly upstaged by the bad.
For example, Martin Freeman as Bilbo is perfect casting. His characterization is
excellent. His mannerisms are hilariously unique. His entire relationship with
Thorin is a highlight. But then again, there are huge sections of film where
Bilbo isn't in the movie at all. Gollum and Smaug both make for excellent
villains in the series, but then there's Azog and Bolg who couldn't be less
interesting. I mean, I'd love to get a sense of why orcs follow Sauron. Like
what could he possibly be promising them that would make a race solely composed
of alpha males loyal to him to the death. Or even if I just got a sense of Azog
and Bolgs relationship as father and son, instead of Azog just sending his son on
two missions and then never speaking with him again. I'm also quite fond of
the soundtrack. I like how the song the dwarves sing at the beginning is
repurposed into their own action theme.
And while I clearly wasn't a fan of Legolas, the theme he and the rest of the
elves get whenever they're on screen is wonderful. For me, all the problems of the
film really come back to a flawed industry-wide philosophy when it comes
to adaptations. You see, even though we finally have the tools to make anything
we want happen in a movie, the cost of doing so makes producing blockbuster
movies an extremely risky business. Sure, they usually make a kazillion dollars,
but when even one fails, it can absolutely cripple a studio. That's why
they're focusing more and more resources on safe bets, movies with pre-established
fan bases, or a successful director. Audience member: "You guys I came all the way from Brazil just
because of you. I spend all my money on this trip but it was worth it."
By Hollywood standards, The Hobbit directed by Peter Jackson is about as surefire a
success as you can get, but when you're dealing with an enormously popular
franchise like Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings, they're too big for their
own good. Producers and directors become terrified of doing anything that might
piss off the ultra loyal fanbase, which is why book adaptations almost always
abide by a philosophy of absolute fidelity. That means trying to make the
movie exactly like the book, so I think I'm in the minority when I say I don't
care if they follow the book. Mob: We have found a witch may we burn her. I know, I know, I know.
Settle down. But here's why, I'm right and you're wrong.
Number one, it's impossible. Movies remove the ambiguity of books. 10 different
people can have 11 different interpretations of any written phrase.
But for a movie, you have to pick one because it's a visual medium, not an
imaginative one. So by the sheer nature of adaptation, it's impossible to create
movies that are 100% faithful. Some kind of liberties must be taken. Number two,
why do we need to see the same thing twice. It's boring to sit through the
same thing twice. In fact, I'm actually more excited by adaptations that are
wildly different than their source material. I enjoy the differences between
the stories as opposed to policing the movie for not adhering to the almighty
book. Just take a look at Stanley Kubrick's
films. He's one of the greatest directors ever, and a bunch of his movies are based
on books. But he never put any stock in following the source material just for
the sake of it. In a Clockwork Orange the movie, Alex relapses back into crime and
sex. At the very end in the book, he's rehabilitated. Since the entire movie was
about whether or not people can be rehabilitated, this is a pretty big
difference. Stephen King has even said he doesn't like Kubrick's adaptation of The
Shining, but the film is one of the classics of modern cinema. Would it
really be even better if it followed the themes of the book more? These aren't
just little changes by the way. These are major thematic shifts. So if you want to
adapt a book, as far as I'm concerned, change whatever you want. Major plot
lines, a character's personality, or even the theme. If it's in the interest of making
a better movie, go for it. Why? Number three, creative people are
motivated by being creative. When you go to see an adaptation of something,
chances are that the people behind it have been working on it for more than
two years. That's a long time for a creative person to spend in someone
else's sandbox. Peter Jackson has now spent 18 years making middle-earth
movies, and I think a lot of the problems with these movie stems back to the fact
that Jackson was just fatigued with the source material. I mean, who wouldn't be.
Most marriages don't even last eighteen years. When he made the Lord of the Rings,
his passion for the material just bleeds through every frame of the film. The
artistry behind all the sets and costumes, the attention to detail, the
reverence for the story and it's characters. But by the time you reach the
Hobbit, I think you can just feel the absence of passion in the over-reliance
of CG effects, and in the failure to create meaningful emotional moments.
That's why I still think it's a travesty the world never got to see Guillermo del
Toro's version of The Hobbit. We'll never know if his Hobbit would have been
better, but it definitely would have been different. What I'm saying is, is that if
a director is more passionate about a project by being disloyal to the source
material, all the better. So let me amend my statement here. I don't care if they
follow the book, so long as they make something good. Really, the problem is
that as fans of a book, we tend to treat directors as somehow lesser creators than
authors. That directors should just be the silent middleman who delivers the
book we like to the big screen in exactly the way we like it.
But instead, we should see every adaptation as the directors version of
the book, and not "The Book" directed by what's-his-name. Books are not sacred.
They can have flaws and a good adapter should
recognize what these flaws are, and work to change them. When it comes to the
Hobbit, I feel like Jackson did recognize what some of the flaws of the book were.
But instead of changing it, or improving upon it, he simply adds more material to it.
Blanchett: "They make it the book AND something else." So I have a question: why
is it okay to add extra elements to the story, but it isn't okay to take elements
away. Tauriel was added to the story because The Hobbit lacked female
characters, and as I said before, having her there was a good idea, in theory, even
though it didn't really pan out. But the biggest problem the film has is too many
dwarves. I think 13 dwarves could have worked if there were less emphasis on
action, and more emphasis on characterization. But even still, it would
have been much easier to tell the story if there were only six or seven of them.
Like if the entire company was the leader, the mentor, the angry one, the
comedic relief, and the gay guy. Each of their personalities would have been that
much easier to identify, and make the group dynamics easier to portray. So
what's the problem with cutting a few of the dwarves out of the story? Well the
answer is us. We're the problem. I think the only reason Jackson didn't get rid
of the one part of the book he dreaded was because he knew the fans wouldn't
stand for it. And that's sort of a shame, because personally I'd rather have a
better movie, than a more faithful adaptation. So with the cast of
characters we never truly get to know, action scenes that are more disorienting
than exciting, a love story that is never fully developed, references that
distract from the emotional payoffs of the story, plotlines that lack
resolution, and an act structure that has stretched beyond the breaking point,
The Hobbit collapses under its own bloated weight. Hunter: Don't beat around the bush.
Thank you so much for watching all the way through this extremely long rant.
I've got so much more content planned and I can't wait to share it with all of
you. That includes the sage rants podcast where I'll be analyzing every single
blockbuster that comes out this year. I'll also have more movie rants like
this one and I'm going to start up a series called the Best Pictures where
I'll be taking a look at every movie to ever win the Academy Award for Best
Picture. So if you're interested in any of that please subscribe to this channel
and if you know anyone who complains about The Hobbit or talks about movies a
lot, make sure to share this video with them, because I've got at least one more
movie in mind in need of an epic Sage Rant.