I know people love Peter Jackson‘s Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I just don’t always know why. A good series, derived from a few of the best fantasy novels of all time. Is that enough? Maybe, since there’s no basis for comparison…
Now that we’ve seen Game Of Thrones, we’ve learned that fantasy can be done without cheesy special effects and dialogue.
It can be gritty and unrated, taking itself seriously enough to keep us on the edge of our seats without a total lack of humor (see Peter Dinklage and Maisie Williams).
Jackson just confirmed that he will be splitting The Hobbit into not two but three parts, but will that make it any better? The length will give him a larger canvas to paint the source material, but what kind of overly epic paintbrush will he be holding?
And what is the purpose of this, besides a bigger paycheck for the studio, actors, and director?
The book is lengthy, but is it worthy of three 190 minute-long films? Not really. Would its original director, Guillermo del Toro (MGM’s debt issues were magically resolved shortly after he dropped out) have done this? I don’t know.
I do know that I would have been more thrilled to hear news of that many del Toro movies arriving three Christmases in a row, as opposed to completely watery but acceptable ones from Jackson. Two large dudes with unruly hair, one major difference…
Del Toro HATES CGI, and I love him for it. He would have made The Hobbit as memorable as Pan’s Labyrinth, [David Bowie’s] Labyrinth, Legend and The Dark Crystal.
So maybe I’m pulling a “Hillary would done a better job” and am not thrilled with Guillermo’s fourth-string writing credit. Deep in my nerdy bones, I know I’m not completely wrong.
I don’t care how much praise Andy Serkis gets for his motion-capture acting, it doesn’t change the fact that Gollum looks like Steven Tyler on a good day.