LogFAQs > #931788360

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The Extended versions of The Hobbit trilogy are not as good as Extended LotR
ParanoidObsessive 12/19/19 3:43:14 AM #24:	VincentVega posted... Except that The Hobbit is made for children Yes. Which is why you can't stretch that plot to 8+ hours long and not make it painfully obvious just how little substance you're working with. Or have to staple all sorts of things to it that don't actually belong and cause jarring tonal shifts. VincentVega posted... I love Tolkien but a straight adaptation of the book would have been terrible. Rankin-Bass did a pretty good job, on a phenomenally inferior budget, with 1970s technology, and still got the whole story in at under an hour and a half. Granted, it was compressed, but you could just as easily double the time and still come in under just one on the live-action movies. And arguably more coherent and better paced. VincentVega posted... but the argument that the book is short so the movie must be short too is very silly. To be fair, that's not even the real argument most people usually make. It's closer to "They took something short, and expanded it ineptly and unnecessarily, under the supervision of a producer/director who didn't really want to be there and who was sort of in the middle of a nervous breakdown because of it, out of a callous desire to exploit an audience, regardless of whether or not the material actually warranted the expansion." This isn't a case where they needed three movies to tell the story they wanted to tell, this is a case where they decided they wanted to make three more movies worth of money and then tried to figure out after the fact how they could do that. It was open knowledge at the time that they'd even originally started out planning to do two movies and the studio basically asked them to stretch it. The real shame is that they somehow spent three times the budget on a story that was about 1/4th as long, and a lot of the CGI still winds up looking worse than it did a decade earlier. And which manages to feel less epic, exciting, or interesting than the actual original story in spite of all the extra stuff they shoehorned in to make it feel more epic, exciting, and interesting to LotR fans. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:931788360] in The Extend... [t:78258476]...</cite> <quote><cite>VincentVega posted...</cite> <quote>Except that The Hobbit is made for children</quote> Yes. Which is why you can't stretch that plot to 8+ hours long and not make it painfully obvious just how little substance you're working with. Or have to staple all sorts of things to it that don't actually belong and cause jarring tonal shifts. <cite>VincentVega posted...</cite> <quote>I love Tolkien but a straight adaptation of the book would have been terrible.</quote> Rankin-Bass did a pretty good job, on a phenomenally inferior budget, with 1970s technology, and still got the whole story in at under an hour and a half. Granted, it was compressed, but you could just as easily double the time and still come in under just one on the live-action movies. And arguably more coherent and better paced. <cite>VincentVega posted...</cite> <quote>but the argument that the book is short so the movie must be short too is very silly.</quote> To be fair, that's not even the real argument most people usually make. It's closer to "They took something short, and expanded it ineptly and unnecessarily, under the supervision of a producer/director who didn't really want to be there and who was sort of in the middle of a nervous breakdown because of it, out of a callous desire to exploit an audience, regardless of whether or not the material actually warranted the expansion." This isn't a case where they needed three movies to tell the story they wanted to tell, this is a case where they decided they wanted to make three more movies worth of money and then tried to figure out after the fact how they could do that. It was open knowledge at the time that they'd even originally started out planning to do two movies and the studio basically asked them to stretch it. The real shame is that they somehow spent three times the budget on a story that was about 1/4th as long, and a lot of the CGI still winds up looking worse than it did a decade earlier. And which manages to feel less epic, exciting, or interesting than the actual original story in spite of all the extra stuff they shoehorned in to make it feel more epic, exciting, and interesting to LotR fans. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1