New Theory Blames Bilbo for Bad Hobbit Movies

[Michael Murry]

I just stumbled upon this little piece of -- I hardly know what to call it -- "explanation" as to why the Hobbit movies stank "like the Volga River at low tide," to quote Count Dracula in the movie Love at First Bite. From The Huffington Post:

"This Theory Perfectly Explains Why 'The Hobbit' Movies Were So Bad."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ef=mostpopular

Yeah. Blame Bilbo.

[Inziladun]

Huffpo makes semi-sense at times; they also put up stuff like this.

Is it really that hard to fathom that some people want Hollywood to at least show some respect for the source material they're adapting?

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Huffpo makes semi-sense at times; they also put up stuff like this.

Is it really that hard to fathom that some people want Hollywood to at least show some respect for the source material they're adapting?

What are we supposed to think? Are we to question Tolkien's storytelling or that of Bilbo's? Blame the writers, blame the others but not blame Bilbo!!

[Zigûr]

I'm fairly sure if you think about this too hard you end up in a spiral staircase of logic.

At first I thought "You could see it that way - the exaggerated version of Bilbo in the films might dream up the events of the films."

But then... film Bilbo is a character in film Bilbo's narrative (which he apparently dreamed up).

Therefore the exaggerated Bilbo of the film's narrative dreams up the film's exaggerated narrative, because he is the exaggerated character of an exaggerated narrative.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I'm fairly sure if you think about this too hard you end up in a spiral staircase of logic.

At first I thought "You could see it that way - the exaggerated version of Bilbo in the films might dream up the events of the films."

But then... film Bilbo is a character in film Bilbo's narrative (which he apparently dreamed up).

Therefore the exaggerated Bilbo of the film's narrative dreams up the film's exaggerated narrative, because he is the exaggerated character of an exaggerated narrative.

If someone, like Bilbo, for instance, were to offer an exaggerated version of their exploits, shouldn't their exploits be then exaggerated and not minimized, as they are in the film? When someone writes something autobiographical in nature, how often does the writer conflate other's roles and eliminate their own?

[alatar]

The article (and pro-Jackson fan theory) make absolutely no sense. Assume that Bilbo exaggerated his exploits in his book. Peter Jackson used little of the story in this book when making his ill-named movies.

So did Peter Jackson film what really happened (discounting Bilbo writings, who assumedly exaggerated his adventures), or did he exaggerate Bilbo's exaggerated account?

Me head is spinning.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

If someone, like Bilbo, for instance, were to offer an exaggerated version of their exploits, shouldn't their exploits be then exaggerated and not minimized, as they are in the film? When someone writes something autobiographical in nature, how often does the writer conflate other's roles and eliminate their own?

Yes the original comment includes this:

Originally Posted by Some person on Reddit

After seeing nearly all his belongings sold after returning home in the last movie, Bilbo probably felt disappointed that his life now meant nothing more to the residents of the Shire than it did when he left. To justify his long absence and appear more amazing to his fellow Hobbits, he sought to make the recording of his trip as fantastic as he could, turning each small detail into ordeals far larger and drawn out than they actually were, thus events which only filled a small book turned into three separate movies.

Which does leave one wondering... if he wanted to justify his long absence, why would he, as the films present, show himself doing virtually nothing while all the major events involved various Dwarves, Elves, one hundred and fifty year dead Orcs and so on?

Really what this fan theory achieves is to actually make the films' problems with tone and focus more apparent rather than offering a solution to them, in my view at least.

[Nerwen]

The "Huffington Post" article ends thus:

"Jackson said he doesn't have regrets when it comes to the films, so we're thinking he either completely missed that Legolas scene [the collapsing tower], or perhaps there's a bigger plan at work.

Please let there be a bigger plan at work."

This is followed by a gif of Bilbo saying "What have we done?"

Pretty sure it's not serious.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm reasonably certain the piece is tongue-in-cheek.

(And some Brits think Americans don't do irony....)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I'm reasonably certain the piece is tongue-in-cheek.

(And some Brits think Americans don't do irony....)

Meh, perhaps. But it's a plausible thing for someone to argue! For the humor to show through they need to make their next effort less believable.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Meh, perhaps. But it's a plausible thing for someone to argue! For the humor to show through they need to make their next effort less believable.

Some humor is best delivered deadpan. And there were, after all, both funny lines and jabs at Jackson, the latter rather undermining the purported thesis.

[Andsigil]

New Theory Blames Bilbo for Bad Hobbit Movies

I can't help but see this notion as some form of victim-blaming.