Image: 2013-01-30 21:55:00
Share
With this being Award Season, movie theaters are packed with high-quality movies that are sure to culture up even the most savage human.
It’s a nice change of pace, honestly. It comes after months of having close to nothing to watch in theaters during the fall, and precedes another lull in the box office until the summer blockbuster season.
I’d probably go see just about every movie out right now, if it weren’t for the fact that I don’t have that kind of money, but there is one movie that I’ve avoided at all costs.
Peter Jackson’s first installment of “The Hobbit” came out on Dec. 14, and although I loved his take on J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, I made the decision that I was going to go on strike against all Peter Jackson films.
I didn’t always feel this way; originally, I was all about the idea of seeing “The Hobbit” on the big screen. Yet, when opening night came, I sat at home, perfectly content that I wasn’t watching Bilbo Baggins' epic journey.
The deal breaker was the fact that the Hobbit is being broken into three films.
You see, despite the book only being 275 to 350 pages (depending upon whether you get it hardback or paperback), Jackson has broken “The Hobbit” into three separate movies — something that no one can justify.
By making it a trilogy, Jackson has essentially said that there is as much action in “The Hobbit” as the entire LOTR series, which is roughly four times as long.
It’s now so long that you could come close to reading the entire book in a shorter amount of time than it would take to watch the movies.
I know I sound like one of those nerds that says that “the book is so much better than the movie,” but such is the case this time.
Jackson can get away with this only because people have started to think that he is as great as he truly thinks he is. His ego is so large that he believes he is immune to the editing process.
I’m sorry Peter, but you aren’t on the same level as James Cameron; you’re famous because LOTR was too good to not be turned into a quality trilogy and you picked a beautiful place to film it.
That’s really all Jackson is good at: picking sets that look pretty.
The Hobbit isn’t the only great idea he’s ruined either. Remember King Kong? It was another movie that I couldn’t have been more excited to see was ruined by Jackson’s lack of an editing process.
I mean, for God’s sake, did we really need an hour before getting to the island? Granted, once the characters got to the island, the movie took a turn for the better, but there’s no reason to delay that for one-third of the movie.
I will never forgive him for that.
And it is because of these past indiscretions that I have gone on a Peter Jackson strike. I will not be seeing anything he does, and I certainly won’t be forking over $45 to see three movies that should have just been one.
Maybe if I get enough people to join me, he’ll begin to understand.
A version of this article appeared in the Jan 31 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 38 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
The first part was awesome, very true to the spirit of the book. The scene with gollum was just as I imagined it would be. I hope the next parts are just as good
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
you sound like a dick
Reply to this Top
Yup, he sire does. An ignorant one at that.
Reply to this Top
Why are You Writing an Article about a movie that you haven't even seen??. For one: The Hobbit was an Amazing Movie! That captured the Magic of the book while still adding some of the Epicness that was in LOTR, 90% of Tolkien fans Loved it. and Two: Peter Jackson is one of the biggest Tolkien Fans in the World, You think he's a terrible director because he wants to make more movies out of Book he and many many others Absolutely LOVE!!... And Dude! don't you dare say that anyone could have done what Peter Jackson did on LOTR, He worked his ASS OFF to make those Movies as Good as they were, NO Director EVER! has Worked as Hard as he Did to Make the LOTR Trilogy!..Pshh God and you're Little " I'll Never Forgive PJ for taking an hour to get to Skull Island in King Kong " lol You sir are a Total Joke!!
Reply to this Top
Nick,
Apparently some of your reading demographic includes C-level students at Gilbert Linkous Elementary School. I feel like while young Trevor typed this, his cat kept walking on the caps lock key. Criticism really isn't effective if you can't form complete thoughts.
-RJ Heider
Reply to this Top
Look Brother , firstly dont comment on something u have not seen.
Secondly i think u r not realizing the picture that is encircling the trilogy. Most of the events in the book are of little or no significance to the actual lore. Now you cannot do that in a movie. In other words the book if made into a movie would be extremely dull and kiddish.. There should be some substance and that can only happen when there is a big picture.. Plus you just cannot ignore Ring, or Sauron if u r making a movie of the middle earth.. I mean tolkien himself changed the "riddles in the dark" chapter Of The Hobbit to link it with the Lord of the Rings. He would have done with the other chapters too. if the author realized this thing why cant we? and besides the extra scenes are of significance which are not made up but present in the part "The Quest of Erebor".. I think u should realize this by now...
Thirdly- before making such statements about a franchise just look into it.. i mean Avatar may be the highest grosser but it has a rubbish of a story. and LASTLY jackson has maintained a similar theme to the entire franchise unlike many other franchises and the first installment of the hobbit is very true to the spirit of the book
Reply to this Top
The Hobbit Trilogy is more then just the Hobbit. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first and then wrote the LOTR Trilogy. But he left a lot out of the Hobbit so it could get it published easier. So when he finished Return of the King he added an appendices to add stuff he left out. Mostly what Gandalf was doing when he wasn't with the company of Dwarves. Spoil alert: He fight's a freaking necromancer. Peter Jackson had the sight of mind to add these into the movies thus making it a lot longer.
Take a look at his post explaining his view.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558
In the end I think your argument not to see it is a little childish and you are missing out an a great adventure.
Reply to this Top
Also I can't imagine how the Hobbit could be any better then what I saw in the theater last month.
Reply to this Top
I know that this article is trolling for hits, but at least the critics who have not liked the film watched it first. If you don't want to watch a movie, that's fine...but don't then presume to know enough to write an article trashing said movie. I see no problem with what Peter Jackson has done, and this "cash grab" line is getting old...it's been (successfully) refuted time and time again. In my opinion, the movie works very well, and I can easily see how Jackson's new storyline will fit into three movies. Some do not share my opinion, but again: at least they saw the movie first. I see that you're an editor...that means you should know what real journalism constitutes- researching your subject without jumping to conclusions; however, if you feel that your opinion really needs to be out there, post it to your blog or facebook page, because that is where this "article" truly belongs.
Reply to this Top
This article is one of the laziest, most ignorant pieces of writing I've ever come across. "Something no one can justify"? Clearly, you haven't done even the smallest amount of research on the issue. Yes, splitting the book into three movies is controversial... but there have been many compelling arguments and justifications for this decision. You just haven't bothered to read them. Your article reeks of ignorance and a pre-determined bias against the films. Also, your criticisms of Jackson (not on the level of James Cameron?) are so laughable I don't know where to begin.
You're also nearly two months late to this debate, and are saying nothing new. Worst of all are your tired, old criticisms of King Kong. There is a ton of tension and development in the first 40 minutes of that film, but apparently the only thing you want is action and special effects.
Anyways, enjoy your strike. The rest of us will be enjoying an amazing trilogy.
Reply to this Top
Agreed (w/ Brandi, amongst other posters).
FTA: "I know I sound like one of those nerds that says that 'the book is so much better than the movie,' but such is the case this time."
Actually, no you don't sound like one of them, because they would have watched the movie before they made such a claim.
Reply to this Top
Troll reviewing sucks.
Reply to this Top
The aurthor of this article needs to get his head out of his ass and stop pretending to be like he is better than everything. Just because the book was being split into three parts you automaticaly decide I am going to go on strike for all of Jackson's movies!? You could not be more of a self absorbed dick. The ammount of detail that Jackson put into the first film is vastly appreciated on my part, instead of being rushed through at a break neck pace. The movie captured many of the small details of the book and I for one am glad that Jackson included alot of them in the movie.
Reply to this Top
The aurthor of this article so such a lazy dick. Who in their right mind would write a review of a movie that they have not even seen?!
Jackson did an excelent job on the hobbit and his attention to detail and inclusion of alot of the small details in the book, made me appreciate the movie that much more.
As a true tolkein fan, one must include details of the ring and of sauron returning to middle earth in the hobbit, since it is a prelude to lotr after all.
Reply to this Top
"Jackson has broken “The Hobbit” into three separate movies — something that no one can justify."
How shamelessly biased, you completely ignore everything that doesn't suit your warped viewpoint. Jackson himself has justified it and it made perfect sense. Here I was thinking that only immature children make up their minds on things before they've tried it (e.g. food) but here you are.
"By making it a trilogy, Jackson has essentially said that there is as much action in “The Hobbit” as the entire LOTR series, which is roughly four times as long."
What a ridiculous assumption, based on NOTHING. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT. How can you judge anything?
"I know I sound like one of those nerds that says that “the book is so much better than the movie,” but such is the case this time."
Once again you can't say that, you haven't seen the film.
"I’m sorry Peter, but you aren’t on the same level as James Cameron; you’re famous because LOTR was too good to not be turned into a quality trilogy and you picked a beautiful place to film it."
No, he turned a book that is incredibly difficult to get through and made the greatest trilogy of all time from it. The score, actors, visuals and action were unique to PJ's perspective; anyone else would've done differently and almost definitely worse.
Reply to this Top
"Jackson has broken “The Hobbit” into three separate movies — something that no one can justify."
How shamelessly biased, you completely ignore everything that doesn't suit your warped viewpoint. Jackson himself has justified it and it made perfect sense. Here I was thinking that only immature children make up their minds on things before they've tried it (e.g. food) but here you are.
"By making it a trilogy, Jackson has essentially said that there is as much action in “The Hobbit” as the entire LOTR series, which is roughly four times as long."
What a ridiculous assumption, based on NOTHING. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT. How can you judge anything?
"I know I sound like one of those nerds that says that “the book is so much better than the movie,” but such is the case this time."
Once again you can't say that, you haven't seen the film.
"I’m sorry Peter, but you aren’t on the same level as James Cameron; you’re famous because LOTR was too good to not be turned into a quality trilogy and you picked a beautiful place to film it."
No, he turned a book that is incredibly difficult to get through and made the greatest trilogy of all time from it. The score, actors, visuals and action were unique to PJ's perspective; anyone else would've done differently and almost definitely worse.
Reply to this Top
It could've been a lot better (editing, getting to know the other half of dwarves etc.) but it was still a very good film.
Reply to this Top
lol you are such a cheapskate you wont pay like 18 bucks to see a movie?
I thought the movie was great for it had to work on, while the hobbit is nowhere near as epic as LOTR (HINT ITS NOT MEANT TO BE) it was still a movie that held its own.
Reply to this Top
The reason he split the movies into three parts was: The hobbit may be a long story but it is filled with so much detail thta making it into one movie would be terrible, each scene would be like two minuets long. The lord of the rings was longer but not a lot happened in each book and that's why it was three movies. Also in the hobbit Gandalf disapears for AGES! and if they did that in the movie it wouldn't be very good, so they added the parts which tolkein wrote in the apendixes saying where Gandalf went. In LOTR Gandalf disapears affter the first scene in the movie and they explain where he goes, but in the book it is a very, very short explantion and if they just did a short one it would also be very bad. So there you go!
Reply to this Top
i think we found atleast 15 people who can justify it and it's not just the hobbit there is loads of material from the appendices and the unfinished tales and some of tolkiens notes when he was going to re-write it.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
I strongly disagree with this.
The hobbit was spread out into 3 movies because Peter Jackson intertwined the Simirillian and The Hobbit together. The simirillian is the LOTR and every other tolkien book out into one big history book. he also took tolkiens footnotes as well. it can easily be expanded into 3 parts.
PLUS: The more movies = the more satisfied Tolkien fans.
Also, if you know nothing of what Peter Jackson has done other than LOTR, you should really get your facts straight.
I could easily say that James Cameron is a mediocre director because all his movies are special effects and pretty CGI animation. But I am completely aware that is not the case. Same goes for Peter Jackson. NO. The LOTR movies were NOT just pretty sets - he has taken Tolkien's magical world and making it into a visual phenomenon and sharing it with hard core Tolkien fans such as himself.
Next time when your writing a bias review, to know your facts first.
Reply to this Top
Let's be realistic, for just a single moment: 100 pages of any good book is enough to shot one good movie. So, maths is a simple: 300 pages of Hobbit = 3 movies. Live long and prosper!
Reply to this Top
I was pissed by a lot of the changes and chronology jackson used in LOTR but like nick cafferky says I think more people should strike against this ridiculous idea that the hobbit can be split into three movies ???? what a dickhead
Reply to this Top
What you fail to understand, is this movie is not JUST The Hobbit. It contains more story than in the book. And on top of that, if he would have made a single movie based on the 275 page book. It would suck. Anyone would agree. The book is so hollow and most the characters don't even speak throughout it. The movie needed to be fleshed out.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
Useful information. Lucky me I discovered your website by accident, and I am shocked why this twist of fate did not took place earlier! I bookmarked it.The Incredible Magic bullet Of The places to buy dresses women s party dresses http://www.squidoo.com/uk-dresses#module161811086
Reply to this Top
We are a gaggle of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your site offered us with useful info to paintings on. Охрана труда http://ohrana-truda.kiev.ua/razreshenie.html
Reply to this Top
I was beginning to doubt that it was possible to find good content for once, I was getting tired of the never ending drivel I come across daily, thanks. Concetta Ahlquist http://estebanbuch.urbanblog.dk
Reply to this Top
I'd prefer to uslysht somewhat more on this subject Groomes http://news2000.com.ua/2000/derzhava/rynok/75575
Reply to this Top
Studying by way of one's good content, will help me to complete so at times. Danas http://kiddunot.com/blog/2010/09/10/janet-jacksons-promo-artwork-for-for-colored-girls/
Reply to this Top
Can you please send by e-mail me the code for this script or please inform me in detail concerning this script? cheap defiance gold http://www.mmogm.com/defiance/
Reply to this Top
The theme of your blog is totally fresh, I am positive that the readers that encounter your blogs will definitely take a lot from your content and advice. Liam http://julia955.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/these-wedge-heels-are-perfect-finishing-touches-to-your-spring-and-summer-wardrobe.html
Reply to this Top
I really do hope that you will be elaborating further on this topic. I like a tad more information. Logan http://semuru979.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/new-foot-in-the-sand-technology-can-solve-many-health-problems.html
Reply to this Top
You should take part in a contest for the most effective blogs on the web. I will advocate this web site! <a href="http://www.deelsonheels.com" title="men shoe lifts">men shoe lifts</a>
Reply to this Top