Corey Olsen and the Hobbit movies

Looking rather yellow moons there, Dave. Or should I say golden?

Having thought about this a bit more, I think that Olsen's main line of argument sort of runs through all his other arguments, particularly his argument that Tolkien was tending toward 'adulifying' the Hobbit. That is, he seems to think that audiences will only respond to films that are blatantly and constantly reminding the audience that they belong to the same universe as the Lord of the Rings. He fetishizes continuity and in my mind it is this that propels his apologetics style of argumentation. Frequently, (for example in the DOS review) he will go to great lengths to justify particular scenes (e.g. golden Smaug) and his excuses always seem to come back to some alteration on "this just can't be done on screen" or "audiences would never understand, you just can't translate it".

I've always thought this is a highly convenient argument, and furthermore unfalsifiable. Surely cinema as more versatile than Olsen suggests however, and surely audiences are intelligent enough to consume a different story with a different tone set in the same universe?

Ah, the old 'you can't do that on film' argument. Really, I think free copies of David Bratman's essay (Summa Jacksonica: A Reply to Defenses of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Films, after St. Thomas Aquinas) should be given to every person who goes to see a Jackson film based on a Tolkien book. Not that all will even read it if so, in any case.

A component of the 'we had to do this because of film needs' is that -- even if the film need in question is really 'all agreed' upon in theory -- the 'this' is only what Jackson did do in response to his perceived problem (again if problem it really was), not what he had to do specifically.

I like Tolkien's own quote about book adaptation and films, although the responses to it in Jackson fan circles can easily be guessed.

'You can't do that on film' is an argument that has been raised from Venus to the yellow moons of Planet Tolkien, and everywhere in between...

... and so far I've saved a hoard of gold not buying it!

There is nothing that cant be done on film. Or can be, depends on which side of the coin you flip.Which ever suits your abilities. or none.

Also I'm interested in what you guys might think about Olsen's notion of 'crit-fic', which he argues consists in criticizing the film producers based on a speculative analysis of their motivations. For example, many people ascribe the triune split of the hobbit movies to corporate interests. In Olsen's view, one mustn't engage in this kind of analysis. Instead, all you can do is ask, 'what kind of effect does this have on your reception of the story?', or 'what effect does this have on the story in the film?'. In effect, I think the crit-fic argument seeks to silence any kind of normative statements about the film - for example that they are bad adaptations or examples of poor film making.

Has anyone else here come across this concept in Olsen's podcasts?

I havent heard that bit. But from what you say I would be inclined to agree with him to a certain extent.

I think some things can be deducted to a certain degree from available material.
In the case of PJ only reading LotR's once when young and not again combined with his shift, as he got more acclaim and more control, into his own fabrications and less plot and more spectacle, can lead to a conclusion that love of LotR's as a piece of literature was and is not PJ's main motivating factor in making the films.
But I would agree that without actual confirmation issues such as who made the decision to split to three, who introduced the love triangle concept are purely speculations and cannot be used to complain about the film, but the effect they had on the films certainly can be.

I think CritFic is an entertaining exercise, but should not be used to judge the merits of a movie. Knowing that the making of Casablanca was somewhat equivalent to running on top of an avalanche adds nothing to the interpretation of the movie as art. But it's a hell of a lot of fun knowing the backstory.

Yeah, I'd largely agree with Olsen on that one.

Also, I've never understood why so many people believe that Warner Bros forced the three film split on PJ. The decision to make it a trilogy was the natural culimination of his compounding Peter Jacksonisms on the project, IMO. And we know that PJ was having a hard time saying goodbye to Middle-earth (quite understandably).

Hmmm I can see that. Speculating about studio execs probably isn't the best way to critique film, and I agree the triune split seems to be a result of Jackson himself more than anything.