[ SECRET POST #3451 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3451 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Sherlock Holmes]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 20 secrets from Secret Submission Post #493.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. http://i.imgur.com/Ows3nXH.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, the whole thing was just kind of a disaster. Under the circumstances, I think the films turned out about as okay as they were going to get. At least most of the acting was good

[elaminator]

Agreed, except I actually feel the whole cast did a stellar job; the problem was the writing. Even Tauriel (who I know a lot of people loathe because of the awkward romance she was shoehorned into) had potential, and I don't think Evangeline did a bad job with what she was given. Things could have been a lot better, but the cast was one of the things they got right.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I mean I can sympathize to a point but I've listened to his commentaries and read the stuff he's said in interviews, and a lot of the bad decisions were still his. I can see those bad decisions in the LOTR movies. In that case, there was someone else to rein him in. I don't see that happening in this case. It was the Star Wars prequels all over again. He was the one who made it 3 movies after all. Whether he had all the time in the world and was totally healthy or not, I don't see the outcome being any different.

I feel worse for the actors and production crew that put so much work into it.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, but honestly? A lot of the things that were wrong with the Hobbit movies were things that were also wrong with the LOTR movies, only without all the things that were awesome about the LOTR movies to balance them out.

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, I think that's kind of OP's point. If the Hobbit movies had the luxury of years of pre-production and planning, it's more likely they would've been able to balance out the bad parts with more awesome parts. And maybe they would've been able to find better solutions or write a better script for the bad parts, too.

[(Anonymous)]

DA
Except that it wasn't just the timing that was different between Hobbit and LOTR. LOTR was a huge gamble and there were suits breathing down PJ's neck. He had to answer to other people. This time, he was the producer and had almost unlimited control. There was no one to tell him no, so there was no reason he wouldn't keep going down the bad routes he avoided in LOTR.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't doubt that played a factor, but I'm not convinced it was the only factor, because lack of time and poor health are pretty major issues you simply cannot discount. I'm also not necessarily convinced he had unlimited control. He's not funding the movie out of pocket, you know. He probably had less studio interference this time around, but no big blockbuster movie has ZERO studio interference or oversight.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying it was the only factor either. However, from everything I've seen, I'm really convinced that the more time PJ had, the worse it would be. All the BTS stuff shows how he kept tinkering and tinkering, and it didn't make it better. He just couldn't stop himself. He actually works best with a deadline. Maybe having some time to work out Azog would've helped but PJ was firmly set on fight gags for the battles. You're only going to get more gags with more time, not a coherent fight.

Also, from what I've read, PJ had much more clout this time. Obviously, it wasn't 100%, but it was significant. People trusted him because of his success with LOTR. They gave him a lot of leeway, and he used it for that HDR and 3 movies, etc. Those were his decisions and they didn't need to happen. They caused a lot of his problems.

[(Anonymous)]

Possibly, but those bad parts are still PJ's bad parts, so pointing that out isn't exactly blaming him for things that weren't his fault. Honestly, the Hobbit movies were at a disadvantage all along in that regard. The clunkiest parts of LOTR were where they took creative license with the source material to pad it out. Luckily, that was a pretty small portion of those movies. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of the Hobbit movies were clunky padding.

[(Anonymous)]

But the problem is that they had years of pre-production and planning - with Del Toro. And PJ made the decision to throw out most of the script and the design work so the films would be "his vision". It's a completely understandable desire, but when we're looking at how short a time PJ had to put together "his vision", I can't help but see it as a rod he made for his own back, especially when he must have at least approved of the Del Toro script.

And actually, what we know of earlier iterations of the script actually gave us a better story. The love triangle didn't exist, Alfrid died early on. Beorn was developed quite heavily, pretty clearly with the intent of giving him a major role in the battle before the decision was made to push Legolas to the forefront.

[(Anonymous)]

i honestly don't think these movies are that bad! i think they are fun! Maybe not timeless cinematic classics but I think its fine to just make a pretty enjoyable film. I hope he's at least a LITTLE proud.

[(Anonymous)]

I blame whoever decided to split it into three movies.

[(Anonymous)]

If they absolutely had to split it into three movies, they should have made three much shorter movies, for starters. Under two hours apiece, definitely.

Also, there are natural breaks in the story and they should have used them. Movie one should have ended with Bilbo escaping Gollum and the goblins. That gets you through the character establishment and basic world building and gives you a decent balance of humor and action. It sets up the initial conflict between Bilbo and Thorin, and keeps the focus on Bilbo for the climax, who's the damn title character. Movie two is the should have ended with the party figuring out how to open the door to Erebor. That gets the bulk of the traveling and team building, since the plot is basically a bunch of mini-adventures in those chapters. And you still get to end on a cliffie if you end once they've unlocked the door. Then movie three takes you into Erebor through the end of the movie. You still get your big special effects battle, only with enough plot left to keep it from feeling hollow.

Reduce Legolas's part to a cameo, cut out 90% of the White Council crap and use the extra time to flesh out the main characters instead of trying to set up a Silmarillion prequel trilogy, and you've got yourself three serviceable, if still a bit indulgent, Hobbit movies.

[(Anonymous)]

Peter Jackson openly admitted it was his idea but some fans believe it was the ~evil studio~