Jay G.

He's referring to the sequence in ROTK where Smeagol transforms into Gollum over time. They used makeup effects on Andy Serkis to progressively make him look more like Gollum until they finally morph to the CGI version.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep0t0sK6MGw

I think the main problem with using an actor for Gollum would be getting an actor that skinny. It's telling that the final transformation in the above sequence just shows Andy's face (even then, his eyes are too small).

GatorDeb

Finally saw this today. Been following the discussion over whether this really needed to be two movies. Did it? No, the story can be covered in one movie, 2-3 hours. But Jackson is about letting you spend a few hours in a certain world, and I don't mind spending six more hours in Middle Earth. Loved it, pure eye candy.

hanshotfirst1138

“Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible, and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.”
J.R.R. Tolkien

Ah, I love it anyway. I still remember the sheer exhilaration of seeing Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring on the big screen, God help me, over a decade ago. Not since I'd first seen Star Wars on video as a child had I had such an exhilarating rush. Retrospectively, hindsight is 20-20, and having matured in many ways, I recognize many of the problems the films have, what aspects have already dated, but I don't care. To me, it's a reminder of the grandest possible kind of escapism, the best that money can buy, and more importantly, it remind me why I love going to the movies.

So more than ten years later, the prequel finally arrives, not as one film, as it should've, but as a new trilogy. Padded out or expanded upon, depending on who you ask, with bits from Tolkien's own appendices from The Lord of the Rings, (Evidently, the Tolkien estate is displeased with any film adaptations and retains the rights to The Silmarillion and all of Tolkien's other work.), the new film arrives at last. Initially planned, as a fascinating what-if, for director Guillermo del Toro, who left after the dragged out and much-publicized financial fallout of MGM and the film's troubled production, though he's still collaborated on the screenplay and done some creative consulting. Jackson himself eventually stepped back into the director's chair, splitting the film not into two, as it was originally rumored to be, but into a whole new trilogy. Was it worth the wait? Does it live up the astronomical expectations? That depends on how much you like Jackson's particular bombastic brand of blockbuster. Me personally? I love it.

As everyone no doubt knows from the previous trilogy, Bilbo Baggins of the Shire was a Hobbit, visited upon by the great wizard Gandalf, and whisked along with a band of gruff dwarves to reclaim their gold and their homeland from the evil Dragon Smaug. Well, this time, it's not just the dragon, but a huge band of Orcs as well, led by the Pale Orc Azog, the Defiler. Along the way, they encounter trolls, bands of goblins, glowing magical swords, tunnels, stone giants, the Elves who abandoned them the first time around, fellow wizard Rhadagast, vicious wargs, soaring eagles, a large menagerie of other mystical creatures, and a mysterious creature named Gollum, who's in possession of a rather special golden ring....

In addition, Jackson and co have added a veritable guest-list of cameos from previous LOTR alums, starting with a prologue to recall Fellowship in which Bilbo tells of the dwarves, their many magical inventions and treasures, and their displacement from their homeland by the great dragon. Add to this a subplot, presumably to be paid off in future installments, about the White Council preparing to battle a mysterious Necromancer who'll turn out to be Sauron, and the film is jam-packed with the special effects and battle that gave the first films their large following.

Jackson's post LOTR career has met with a rather mixed reception, and while he could be called many things, "subtle" has never been one of them. The Hobbit is a very tonally different book from The Lord of the Rings trilogy, with much less epic sweep. It's a children's novel, the greatest strength of which comes from its simple narrative and sense of swashbuckling fun. These two tones are at odds throughout the film, with sweeping battlefield shots recalling LOTR and comic interludes straight out of the novel. Jackson juggles these balls with much energy and skill, but they never quite cohere. Many sequences seems to go one for much longer than many an editor would perhaps deem necessary, and much of the adolescent humor does grow a bit tiresome in places. The real magic that infused LOTR isn't gone as many reviewers have said, but it is more scattershot. Still, once the film picks up after the trolls, the three hours fly by on my watch.

On a technical level, it's a hard film to fault. Jackson's usual collaborators are almost all here. DP Andrew Lesnie gives the film a glowing sheen, WETA Workshop and WETA Digital's armor and weapons are impeccable and their menagerie of creatures given great personality and monstrosity. Jackson doesn't quite have del Toro's skill for finding dark fairy-tale beauty among some of his monsters, but they don't lack for personality or wonder. The Wargs still don't entirely look right, the Great Goblin's phallic chin is really disconcerting, and Azog is suitably scarred, frightening, and feral, but he looks a bit like and albino reject from Avatar. Shame he couldn't have been done with makeup like Fellowship's Lurtz. But with a rumored budget of nearly $300 million, this is a huge endeavor, and Jackson does his damnedest to get get every cent up on the screen, and it looks beautiful. Jackson has even buried the hat her with composer Howard Shore after their much publicized artistic feud, and it's lucky he has, because Shore's scores were as integral to Jackson's visions of Middle earth as John Williams was to Star Wars. A pox upon Warner Brother Records, incidentally, for dropping the Complete Recordings CD boxed sets out of print.

The biggest behind the scenes change-up comes from the myriad of second unit directors from the Rings trilogy being replaced by Andy Serkis, who's minimal screen time as Gollum frees him up. The action is as impressive as ever, though success does occasionally breed excess (A ridiculous multilayered crash through caves followed by surfing on broken wood after killing the Great Goblin and the dwarves hanging from the tree already bent over the cliff being the most egregious.). Still, on the battlefield, Jackson's eye is as strong as ever, and a number of sequences, if not innovative, are so exhilarating, it hardly matters. Jackson, as ever, gives every sword slash and metallic clang the force of cannons, and the mass chaos is expertly choreographed by an ace stunt team. The late, great Bob Anderson's sword choreography is much missed, but his able replacement and the rest of the stunt team clash swords and sorcery with much breathtaking virtuosity.

Likewise, as before, the film is cast to the hilt with master thespians, there're no Schwarzeneggers around to transform everything into one-liners. Freeman is a terrific lead for the audience to see things through, and counterpointed with Holm, the character development that transforms the timid Hobbit into what we know he'll become is a delight. Richard Armitage gives Thorin a nice regal bearing, McKellen's Gandalf is brilliant as ever, and the new cast almost all fill in Tolkien's magical world and inhabit their characters superbly. Tolkien himself gave them backstory to spare, and it gives the motley crew a great sense of personality which Jackson and crew amply exploit. The journey may be long, but I like these guys and they're fun to ride with. Gollum is back too, and the riddles in the dark sequence, colored by Jackson's horror film roots, is brilliant and spine-tingling. Azog is obviously an attempt to give the film's villain a face before the arrival of Smaug (Who's CG model, judging by the film's teasing final shot, is likely unfinished), and he's suitably menacing. Whether the film is simply overstuffed, or if Jackson is hinting at future riches to be explored in the rest of the new trilogy remains to be seen, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it's the latter.

Yeah, there're problems, but frankly, I don't care. This what entertaining filmmaking is all about. Jackson happily inhabits a world where Old Hollywood's straight-faced swashbuckling never died, and there's a refreshing lack of pretentious and post-modern crassness, irony, and pandering. The enterprise is straightforward and exhilarating, and dressed with the best and most elaborate SFX and set dressing that modern technology can buy. The film's flaws may stick out more strongly on repeat viewings, it may not have the staying power that the great storytelling of its source material and the films Jackson clearly loves and wants to emulate do. But it takes me back to being a kid again when I still believed in movie magic and was swept off into wondrous worlds when I turned on the TV rather than sitting and wondering about SFX, story structure, and all of the other technical things of which I'm aware now. It's just fun. It's Christmas, and I'm happy to unwrap my presents. I got just what I asked for. This is why I go to the movies.

Solid Snake

tl;dr

Jay G.

Jackson and team only had access to the LOTR appendices. Unfinished Tales, War of the Ring, and everything else was off-limits, as they didn't have the rights to it. It's not just Silmarillion, it's anything that's not The Hobbit or LOTR, as those were the only books J.R.R. Tolkien himself sold off the film rights too.

As for the other books, Christopher Tolkien has said they're not for sale, and he objects to the film adaptations of Tolkien's work. This isn't because of anything Jackson did, but just on basic principle, Christopher Tolkien was objecting to the LOTR adaptations before they were even released.

It wasn't just rumored to be two films, it was confirmed as two films, and production started with the end result in mind being two films. It wasn't until rather late into production that it got split into three films.

Otherwise, good review, if a bit long.

hanshotfirst1138

Well, his father did sell them...


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=wReRe...%3DwReRe8Si2aU

Del Toro was a bit more ambivalent about that a few years ago. Given that the first two films will come out a year apart and the third will come out in July of the following year, I'm assuming the third film will be significantly shorter.


Brevity is not my strongest suit .


Fa Q then .

Jay G.

It's not a legal objection, although the estate did eventually sue for their share of the profits for the films. It was more that Christopher Tolkien felt that LOTR was unfilmable.

From before the first film was released:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,187739,00.html
The was some ambivalence initially, but Del Toro confirmed that The Hobbit would span two films back in 2009:
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24610
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. The three films were shot at the same time, same as the LOTR films, and ROTK was the longest of those films despite being released last.

That said, in this interview, Philippa Boyens says that the 2nd film is likely going to be shorter:
http://collider.com/philippa-boyens-...bit-interview/

RoboDad

But that is the key. The remainder of the works (Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, The History of Middle-earth, etc.) were published posthumously, so J.R.R. could not have sold the rights to them. They were all completed and published by Christopher, who has always been opposed to any film adaptation of his father's work.

RoboDad

Exactly. I can't recall the original source, but I read an article many years ago, even before Jackson's films were made, that Christopher had fought to regain control of the rights to the four books as early as the 1970s, not long after his father's death, because of the "unfilmable" belief he held then, and still holds today.

There is a more interesting (and recent) article at Worldcrunch that paints a somewhat harsher picture of Christopher's opinion. Here are some of the more interesting quotes:

RocShemp

I get Christopher Tolkien feeling that the movies emphasize the action of the books above all else but, although nowhere near as evocative of the linguistic artistry and depth in the books, the movies were actually a rather good adaptation of the books, despite their shortcomings in even cinematographic terms.

But I guess Christopher Tolkien was even more pissed by the silly comic relief (mainly Gimli) that irked many vocal fans of the books (despite most still enjoying the films).

RoboDad

I think, in his view, the action wasn't just emphasized above all else, but in place of all else that is meaningful from the books (not that I completely agree with him).

hanshotfirst1138

My reasoning was that it might have had a less-extensive post-production period the first two came out a year apart, but the last only six months (And during the summer rush, which will be interesting, hopefully it will hold its own.).

That's right almost all of the post-Rings stuff was published posthumously by Christopher, wasn't it?

Well, he's certainly entitled to his opinion. I watched John Carter today, and I must say, thing could've gone much worse.

Yeah, it also depends on how highly you esteem the books, I don't know if Tolkien's aims were highbrow or not, but he's certainly cast a massive shadow over literature and culture in general. I love The Hobbit, but I still haven't read the trilogy proper. What's interesting about them expanding The Hobbit is that it's actually his leanest, most accessible work, with a lot less of linguistic experimentation and such that colored his other work.

He's hardly the first person I've heard say that.

Arpeggi

What is this I don't even

Why So Blu?

^ he writes reviews of films.

JumpCutz

whoopdido

Huh?

andy434343

He's saying, "Why the fuck is that so long?" and "I can't even begin to consider reading this." and "I wasn't expecting this conversation to lead into someone posting that."

All said at the same time; with a frustrated, slightly confused tone.

hanshotfirst1138

Um, a review of the film? I did post in what is called "The Reviews Thread," I was under the assumption that was the purpose of the thread.

milo bloom

It was a great review hanshotfirst.

andy434343

I think Arpegi's response is because the thread went from a conversation, directly into a "too long, didn't read" post, which was probably written beforehand and not solely for post #378.

whoopdido

Yeah I don't understand what he didn't understand. It was a review of a movie.

covenant

at first I thought Lexmark3200 aka TLADINY aka Scott Aruti aka DJ Scotty aka Onkyo Fanatic was back....

resinrats

So other then riding daddy's coat tails, what original works has Christopher Tolkien done himself? And no, releasing J.R.R. Tolkien's unfinished work isn't his work.


So if he thinks LOTR was turned into an action movie and thinks it is unfilmable, is that him admiting the stories should be boring as hell & no audience would sit through such boring films.

whoopdido

Well, to my knowledge, he didn't just release the unfinished work. He had to interpret the unfinished gibberish and put it into a readable format. I believe most of Tolkien's unfinished stuff was just notes, ideas and bits and pieces of stories. It must have been a massive undertaking to compile all that stuff.

andy434343

Sure it must have been a massive undertaking. But when you are already wealthy, a massive undertaking such as this is easier to accomplish.