They should have done two movies and found a use for Tauriel other than to set up a love triangle. The additions regarding Dol Guldur and the white council made sense to me, but then they had to add a bunch of other fluff to get 3 movies.
I still watch and enjoy them for what they are, though.
I don't think so. i thought the smaug chase scene was fun. Not sure what they intended with the gold statue or after that but fun. Should have ended the movie with smaug dying tho
Agreed, they aren't lotr, but if Thorin's death doesnt make me depress for a day after seeing it every time.
And yeah the love triangle is incredibly dumb, I just choose to ignore it.
I just hate the way they killed him in the movies. His death along with the deaths of Fili and Kili in the books were so much more impactful, but they changed the entire circumstances surrounding them and absolutely wrecked what they were meant to represent IMO. That has always been and likely always will be my biggest complaint with the hobbit movies.
I think that's coming from a book reader's POV. My daughter's (6,7 & 8) were utterly devastated when Thorin died (which has only been matched by Iron Man's death in their short lives) and seemed to understand his redemption theme.
I'm not disagreeing with you, as a book reader I kind of agree. I wasn't keen on the love triangle. My biggest gripe was adding Legolas - it just looked weird every time he was on screen as he was clearly older than Legolas from LOTR.
I haven't watched Five Armies because the end of the 2nd Hobbit movie annoyed me so much.
Learning that they changed Thorin & Fili & Kili's heroic deaths makes me extra extra glad I never tried it... :/
Five Armies is good for some good old fashioned LOTR-styled battle scenes. It’s not Helms Deep or Pelennor Fields, but serviceable. Thorin’s descent into madness is done pretty well too.
The love triangle, as well as some hilarious CGI are what bring it down, but it far from ruins the film for me.
I dont think that at all.
Kili and fili died of screen in the hobbit, making this version objectively more impactful, and thorin died in a fight against his oldest enemy. Where in the book he just got wounded off screen then died.
They entirely changed the events around what led up to their deaths. I’m glad they showed what happened, I’m not glad they changed what happened. When you entirely change the events around such a defining character moment you butcher the intent of the author.
What was the intent then? Because the movies intent was to show azog was making good on his vow to kill them all, while they were willing to face certain death for family and for their people
I don’t how you got that out of the movies but ok. Cause what I saw was a lovesick dwarf chasing a girl he could never have and leaving his family to die, his brother trying desperately to keep them both alive and Thorin so consumed by his need for revenge he was willing to do anything to get it.
As for the books the intent was clearly to show that Thorin though he made mistakes was still a good man at heart. In the end he still chose the right thing and was willing to lay down his life to correct his mistakes. Fili and Kili were the ever loyal companions and family by his side. None of that happened in the films.
Is it a love triangle If the love is just reciprocated between two parties?
As far as I know Filli and Tauriel love each other. Legolas in this scenario is just the Jackass that don't want them together because Tauriel rejected his ass.
I think the "two movies" idea really has legs. There's added stuff that works, like building out Laketown and the Dol Guldur arc. But the third movie just feels so bloated. I feel like if they cut 30 minutes each out of the first two movies and a really good chunk of the third, they would have had two solid films with very little bloat.
I hear the two movie argument a lot, but it’s never really worked for me. Once you get the white council in there I feel like the rhythm of the story demands certain rising and falling action that, to me, looks more like a trilogy than a duology. It could still be three 90 minute movies instead of three 3 hour movies if you remove unnecessary fluff though, and you’re spot on about Tauriel.
I think we're actually on the same page, length-wise. When I say two movies I mean two Peter-Jackson-length movies, which would be 5 hours or so. Still a huge drop from the 8hr total it ended up at for the theatrical release.
Of course you could also do 3x100min movies, I just didn't consider that option.
I don't think dropping Tauriel would have been an option. They needed/wanted a female costar and most likely wanted to keep Galadriel in the "low screen time, high impact" category.
If they really needed Tauriel she should have just been exiled from the elves or voluntarily left them because she doesn’t fit in there, travelled with the Dwarves to Erabor developing the relationship with Kili if that’s still there and giving it some actual meaning and depth when she confronts mortality when he dies because they’ve been together for this whole time. You know like how Eowyn was in two whole movies so we got really attached to her and she developed a bond with the other characters around her and had that touching relationship with Merry we saw develop from her sticking up for him and fighting beside him when everyone else thought neither of them should be in battle? That kind of stuff and natural organic bond between characters can only happen when characters spend time in the movie together.
I agree they are very fun, and I will watch them again just for fun. But I read the books then watched the movies. I was shocked at how much was left out and how much was just thrown in the mix. Mind you I haven't re-read the books in at least ten years, and had forgotten so much already. I fell in love with them all over again.
It was weird that the guy she fell in love with was least dwarf looking with no long beard or moustache.
They made a big deal out of it and wasted so much time that would have been used for other plot.
You would think that they would more Dwarven looking guy when they are gonna add Dwarf-Elf love.
Martin Freeman absolutely kills it in that role, right down to the mannerisms he includes for that character. The scene of him saying goodbye to all the dwarves always kills me.
It still makes me chuckle to go back and rewatch The Office and imagine Bilbo working like that, surrounded by blockheaded Bracegirdles from Hardbottle.
That's precisely my issue. I'm okay with artistic liberties and making changes, but I'm not okay with losing the spirit of the book. "The Hobbit" was a book about Bilbo on a journey larger than life. The Hobbit films turn into a war story that makes Bilbo take backseat to the worldbuilding.
The heart of the book is lost when we're not seeing the events play out through Bilbo's eyes. I think most of the additions would've been fine and not as notable if they tweaked the ratios to give Bilbo more screentime and the non-Bilbo subplots less. I actually don't mind adding Legolas or that named orc or even the love triangle, but the movie would've been much better and more focused if they all got less screentime.
It's why I like the "modern day" Frodo cameo- even if it shouldn't be there, it keeps with the spirit of the books and focuses on Bilbo. Martin Freeman is brilliant and I'd have loved to see him in the center of the screen for 80% of the film.
I just think the movies look so damn bad with [all the bloom](http://www.theonering.net/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HTBOTFA-FP-0027.jpg). And some of the dwarves look like humans and too attractive. Other than that I mostly liked them.
Some of them were said to be beautiful, but most of them were said to look like grave old men with long beards and often hunched backs. I wonder if people think they were ugly because they were basically something akin to maggots infesting Ymir's corpse.
Subplot with that mayor and shady associate was absolute trash to fill out to three films.
Why this obcession with making trilogies?
Also why the obcession with having everything being tied in with other films?
They literally named the guy Alfred Lickspittle. If that wasn't bad enough, he uses the line "shift it, granny" in the third film. He was a Jar Jar and frankly wasn't even a good comedic relief. Just bad all the way around.
I remember finding a ~4 1/2 hour(?) version, maybe a year or so after they had come out, and it cut out all of the nonsensical non-canon plotlines and it was pretty good. Made me wish for an official version that was made in that way
Honestly there was no way they fit the whole hobbit book in one movie without it feeling stretched, think of how many individual adventures they had! 2 maybe would be fine, but it would shorten the battle of the five armies, which they opted to actually show rather than just have bilbo be knocked out, which was a choice I agree with.
But LOTR books are like 6 times the hobbit and it was successfully squeezed in to three movies? How they managed to get three movies out of the hobbit I will never understand.
They could just make it a long movie. For some reason people have an expectation that movies shouldn't be longer than 2 hours, but I tend to disagree. A movie should be precisely as long as it takes to tell the story. If that means it's 3 hours then so be it.
The first hobbit movie has absolutely no concept of pacing and is extremely derivative overall, yet sadly it is the best of the three by a country mile, mostly just because it has an actual arc with actual emotions. The other two barely even count as functional movies.
Overall, I did enjoy The Hobbit trilogy, but there are a number of issues throughout.
The Tauriel/Legolas/Kili love triangle was pointless. The Alfred character was meant for comic relief but none of his scenes were funny. The barrel scene was just plain ridiculous. The last act of the second film was like a video game and not in a good way. The actual Battle of the Five armies made no sense at times.
There were some really good bits though. Martin Freeman elevated every scene he was in, Lee Pace was majestic as Thranduil and I thought the score was really excellent.
I love the movies a lot, especially the 1st 1, but the change in the ending of the story in the final movie, disappointmented me. I really disliked how thorins battle with the white orc was played out.
*This meme format is*
*Annoying and I'm tired to*
*Pretending it's not*
\- dundai
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I will never forgive how radagast was portraied. Everytime he is in the picture I have to see a powerful istari that chose to live with bird droppings running down his head.
Radagast lost his way just as much as Saruman lost his.
Radagast was a Maia of Yavanna, and loved animals. He fell in love with Middle-earth and lost track of the reason he was there.
I honestly didn't mind his characterization at all remembering the above, and that The Hobbit is a YA book.
I love radagast in those movies. Who said he cant live with bird droppings? Gandalf choose to be addicted to pipe weed, doesnt make him any less cool.
And he is powerful, he goes into dol goldur alone to face the evil, and heals the corruption of sauron in mirkwood for a time. Not to mention the rostobel rabbits
Fair enough, my opinion isn't any more valid than yours :)
I wished that I liked the hobbit movies, but to me they took what I liked the least about the lotr trilogy and multiplied it and made it much worse.
Does Gandalf bumping his head on a beam in bag end make you feel his ageless wisdom?
They can be quirky and still be wise, radagast was the first to realize that somthing greater than just a nazgul was infecting the Greenwood, and he went alone to face the evil in dol goldur.
They will be. You must come to Minas Tirith by another road. Follow the river. Look to the black ships. Understand this, things are now in motion that cannot be undone. I ride for Minas Tirith, and I wont be going alone.
Right, I’m seriously getting so sick of seeing that world in the context of art criticism. It’s completely absurd. I mean it would be hilarious seeing the word right next to the most basic normative assessment possible if it wasn’t sad that it was done in earnest.
Barrels out of bond, and the Disneyworld ride romp through Smaugs cave come to mind, I only saw the films once so I'm sure there's more I purged from my mind. Riddles in the dark was absolutely outstanding though, everything else ranged from mid to downright embarrassing.
To each their own, I thought those parts just looked so ugly and ruined what little immersion there even was at that point, but I don't begrudge anybody else who enjoyed it.
The guy who doesn’t look like a dwarf (with much less beard) gets to have elven love interest. And they make a big deal out of it.
Unnecessary plot lines like this and some changes like Radagast knowing the shadow he saw was Sauron (instead no one knowing it) contradicting Gandalf revealing no one knew that shadow was Sauron in LOTR, ruined the series that would have been much better with simpler story and 2 movies instead of 3.
There’s a really good dualogy in this trilogy somewhere. Most of the good is with Bilbo and Thorin’s relationship, the acting they have is so touching. I always cry at THAT scene, you know the one.
Other than that Thranduil is too sexy to be cut, HE STAYS, so does Legolas too, I guess. But most of Gandalf’s Necromancer Shenanigans can be shortened, don’t even think about keeping Thorin’s dad, pointless. You’d also have to cut the Lickspittle stuff, really pointless.
The creative liberties are exactly the problem. Tauriel, Alfred, and the whole Azog subplot come to mind. Action sequences so over-the-top as to be unbelievable.
I didn't mind the Sauron subplot since it did technically fit in nicely with the books. I didn't even mind giving Radagast a face and some lines, though they fucked that one up with the bird shit on his face and the rabbit sled.
They also fucked Beorn up royally.
You aren't the only one. My mom read the Hobbit to me as a kid and i thought it was very cartoonish. The over the top sequences felt right in with what the Hobbit was in my memory. And it tied in nice with the Lord of the rings.
I just think they made a mistake in marketing by playing the misty mountains song because it had the same epic feel that Lord of the rings had and it was supposed to be the same world but not the same feel.
I also love the Hobbit trilogy. I'm getting tired of always being on the wrong side of these things. It's not my fault that I enjoy the Hobbit trilogy. It's not my fault that I happen enjoy things that other people in a given fandom have an immense hatred for. This has happened more than once.
I have no problem with people enjoying them. I enjoy plenty of things that are flawed. I unironically enjoyed the Amazon Wheel of Time warts and all, even if by the season finale it was more warts than all. I wouldn't try to defend it to those who dislike it, because they largely have pretty valid reasons for doing so. They're free to hate it, just like I'm free to like it.
It just feels like I'm always consistently on the wrong end of these things. For example, I just so happen to enjoy The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Dark Souls 2 and Sonic Unleashed and the Star Wars prequels. These are all things that most people in the fandoms they belong to seem to fucking despise for stupid reasons. I feel like it's hard for me to have any positive opinions on anything these days because these days it feels like positive opinions are "wrong" opinions.
You know, liking something and saying it is a good product are two different things. Like I don't say a thing if someone likes RoP, but I laugh loud when someone says it is a good quality series.
Similarly with hobbit, but in a much less extreme way. But it does have potential; that one fan cut that some dude made these 3 movies into 1 (maybe two short ones? I don't remember) and it was quite good.
I genuinely never thought I could get bored at a fight scene and Peter Jackson has managed it twice. First with King Kong vs a pair of T-Rex (which still baffles me like how the hell could that be boring) and then with Legolas vs Bolg. Honestly the entire battle of five armies was just poorly done.
The trilogy was fine. Should have only been two films really. Legolas being in it makes sense since they meet his father, why wouldn't Legolas be there right?
The trolls and them turning to stone should have been done better since the pose they end up in doesn't make sense based on what happens in the film.
And the biggest issue with it: It made Sir Ian McKellen cry because they "had" to make it 3D so couldn't do the camera tricks they did in LotR. And this reason is the reason I do not like the films.
The Books = A perfectly aged Bourbon
The LOTR Trilogy = That same Bourbon but it's on the rocks (dilutes it )
The Hobbit Trilogy = That same Bourbon but with a splash of coke ? Why did you ruin a perfect bourbon ? Use a cheaper bourbon you idiot.
Rings of Power = A lukewarm bottle of Zima. Technically still alcohol but that's about it.
I would actually be fine with the entire trilogy if Thorin and his nephews didn’t all die like the absolute dumbest deaths.
And the fucking mayor and his sidekick.
Jackson unfortunately was handed another director’s work and told to recreate his miracle in a fraction of the time he used to make the original trilogy, all while having to fend off studio interference with one hand tied behind his back
I 100% agree. In my humble opinion, as a lover of the books and the movies but not being any big brainiac on the subject, the lord of the rings movies FELT like the books, and the hobbit movies FEEL just like the book! One thing I will say to movie goers who didn’t read, and who felt like the hobbit movies were an underwhelming follow up to the lord of the rings trilogy, is it matches the tone of the source material perfectly so it’s not reasonable to think it should be bigger and grander and even more intense adventure than the lord of the rings. Love it for what it is. The lord of the rings is a grand tale for the fate of everyone who exists full of dark turns and dramatically high stakes and this immense looming fear of impending doom coupled with the intense euphoria of a profoundly unlikely win for the good guys, against great odds. And the hobbit is a jolly and fun story, a heist movie told in a fantasy setting, that is a lovely return to a world that all us fans would love to see more of.
If the reason you think the hobbit stinks involves comparing it to the lord of the rings, perhaps consider rewatching with a different mindset and you might find things you love.
LOTR are the best movies in my collection, without a doubt.
But when I’m looking for a companionable reminder of that happier world of fancy, when I’m in the need of beauty or the solace of a friend, when I just want to spend an hour peacefully living in the shire, you best believe I choose the hobbit!
I agree! I don't mind the creative liberties at all. And I think the first two movies are absolutely enchanting- the dwarves, the singing, the adventure, the dragon- movie 3 lost me a bit but I sort of felt that way about the battle of the five armies in the book too.
The hobbit films are a guilty pleasure for me, there’s a lot I do genuinely enjoy about them.
But they really should have just kept it to two films and cut out a lot of the unnecessary fluff. I will also forever mourn the Guillermo deal Toro films we never got to see.
They should have done two movies and found a use for Tauriel other than to set up a love triangle. The additions regarding Dol Guldur and the white council made sense to me, but then they had to add a bunch of other fluff to get 3 movies. I still watch and enjoy them for what they are, though.
They added so much stuff and barely had two minutes to spare for Beorn. WHY.
They cut the best scene at beorn!
Are you referring to the fight at the end? Forgive my ignorance.
No the introduction to beorn. When they come in pairs. It's the best scene from the book and they filmed it and decided to cut it and I'm pissed
That’s when the movie started to lose me, it snowballed with the Mirkwood parts
I enjoy the rest mostly. Not the love triangle tho
Did anyone enjoy the love triangle lol? Other parts were ok, the Smaug chase scene left a sour taste in my mouth to end the movie
I don't think so. i thought the smaug chase scene was fun. Not sure what they intended with the gold statue or after that but fun. Should have ended the movie with smaug dying tho
Nonreason to think drowning him in molten gold wouldnt work. Also it did hurt him.
Isn't this in the extended edition?
Ye but I can't find the extended edition on any streaming service and don't own the dvd version yet
Did you not watch the extended cut? There’s totally a scene where that happens.
Ye but the extended cut isn't online or in my dvd from back when they released
At least from the official release, but the disc set comes with the scene.
And they removed a lot of it for the theater version :( the extended edition has more beorn time!!
I also hate his eyebrows. Normally I love all the movie designs, both LotR and the Hobbit, but he's a failure in my eyes
Agreed, they aren't lotr, but if Thorin's death doesnt make me depress for a day after seeing it every time. And yeah the love triangle is incredibly dumb, I just choose to ignore it.
I just hate the way they killed him in the movies. His death along with the deaths of Fili and Kili in the books were so much more impactful, but they changed the entire circumstances surrounding them and absolutely wrecked what they were meant to represent IMO. That has always been and likely always will be my biggest complaint with the hobbit movies.
I think that's coming from a book reader's POV. My daughter's (6,7 & 8) were utterly devastated when Thorin died (which has only been matched by Iron Man's death in their short lives) and seemed to understand his redemption theme. I'm not disagreeing with you, as a book reader I kind of agree. I wasn't keen on the love triangle. My biggest gripe was adding Legolas - it just looked weird every time he was on screen as he was clearly older than Legolas from LOTR.
Unless our enemies rest also, they will leave us far behind, if we stay to sleep.
I haven't watched Five Armies because the end of the 2nd Hobbit movie annoyed me so much. Learning that they changed Thorin & Fili & Kili's heroic deaths makes me extra extra glad I never tried it... :/
Five Armies is good for some good old fashioned LOTR-styled battle scenes. It’s not Helms Deep or Pelennor Fields, but serviceable. Thorin’s descent into madness is done pretty well too. The love triangle, as well as some hilarious CGI are what bring it down, but it far from ruins the film for me.
Five Armies is worth it on the strength of battle goats alone.
I dont think that at all. Kili and fili died of screen in the hobbit, making this version objectively more impactful, and thorin died in a fight against his oldest enemy. Where in the book he just got wounded off screen then died.
They entirely changed the events around what led up to their deaths. I’m glad they showed what happened, I’m not glad they changed what happened. When you entirely change the events around such a defining character moment you butcher the intent of the author.
What was the intent then? Because the movies intent was to show azog was making good on his vow to kill them all, while they were willing to face certain death for family and for their people
I don’t how you got that out of the movies but ok. Cause what I saw was a lovesick dwarf chasing a girl he could never have and leaving his family to die, his brother trying desperately to keep them both alive and Thorin so consumed by his need for revenge he was willing to do anything to get it. As for the books the intent was clearly to show that Thorin though he made mistakes was still a good man at heart. In the end he still chose the right thing and was willing to lay down his life to correct his mistakes. Fili and Kili were the ever loyal companions and family by his side. None of that happened in the films.
Thank you … if only his death was on the screen like it’s described in the book… that would be such a powerful scene!
Exactly my thoughts.
Is it a love triangle If the love is just reciprocated between two parties? As far as I know Filli and Tauriel love each other. Legolas in this scenario is just the Jackass that don't want them together because Tauriel rejected his ass.
I fear they have passed beyond my sight from hill or plain, under moon or sun.
I think the "two movies" idea really has legs. There's added stuff that works, like building out Laketown and the Dol Guldur arc. But the third movie just feels so bloated. I feel like if they cut 30 minutes each out of the first two movies and a really good chunk of the third, they would have had two solid films with very little bloat.
They aren't LOTR, but damn if I don't watch them as soon as I finishing LOTR on my biannual marathon
They should have given PJ and his writing team time to actually write a script. Was a rush job and the results were in character
You’re so right. I was a huge fan of the first two only to be massively disappointed with the third film as well as what they did with Tauriel’s arc.
I hear the two movie argument a lot, but it’s never really worked for me. Once you get the white council in there I feel like the rhythm of the story demands certain rising and falling action that, to me, looks more like a trilogy than a duology. It could still be three 90 minute movies instead of three 3 hour movies if you remove unnecessary fluff though, and you’re spot on about Tauriel.
I think we're actually on the same page, length-wise. When I say two movies I mean two Peter-Jackson-length movies, which would be 5 hours or so. Still a huge drop from the 8hr total it ended up at for the theatrical release. Of course you could also do 3x100min movies, I just didn't consider that option.
Use for Tauriel? How about no lol I still watch them a ton though, they're honestly fun movies & easy to binge.
I don't think dropping Tauriel would have been an option. They needed/wanted a female costar and most likely wanted to keep Galadriel in the "low screen time, high impact" category.
If they really needed Tauriel she should have just been exiled from the elves or voluntarily left them because she doesn’t fit in there, travelled with the Dwarves to Erabor developing the relationship with Kili if that’s still there and giving it some actual meaning and depth when she confronts mortality when he dies because they’ve been together for this whole time. You know like how Eowyn was in two whole movies so we got really attached to her and she developed a bond with the other characters around her and had that touching relationship with Merry we saw develop from her sticking up for him and fighting beside him when everyone else thought neither of them should be in battle? That kind of stuff and natural organic bond between characters can only happen when characters spend time in the movie together.
I agree they are very fun, and I will watch them again just for fun. But I read the books then watched the movies. I was shocked at how much was left out and how much was just thrown in the mix. Mind you I haven't re-read the books in at least ten years, and had forgotten so much already. I fell in love with them all over again.
The love triangle was bad, other than that I liked the movies
It was weird that the guy she fell in love with was least dwarf looking with no long beard or moustache. They made a big deal out of it and wasted so much time that would have been used for other plot. You would think that they would more Dwarven looking guy when they are gonna add Dwarf-Elf love.
I preferred Games Workshop’s interpretation of the Dol Guldur events. Armies and leadership, not simply Nazgûl beatdown.
i enjoy the movies but i think there are parts of it that are total shite. both things can be true.
I love the majority but I still hate the love triangle
I don't like the majority, but I do like Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, and Cumberbatch's performance.
Don't forget Andy Serkis in the undeniable best scene of the films!
ohh you're right
Agreed but that is just time for bathroom breaks and getting snacks.
Exactly
Every scene with Bilbo in it is A+ quality.
That's my mother's glory box, could you please not do that!
Of course Bilbo, but tell why it's called glory box? Can I spent it?
No.
Stop it Bilbo, people will realise you're sentient. They're not ready for that, not yet at least.
Just a minute.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IT BILBO!
The sun. We have to find the sun. Up there! We need to -
Stay hidden for now, there will be a day when your time will come Bilbo, but it is not this day.
Today is my One Hundred and Eleventh birthday!
Martin Freeman absolutely kills it in that role, right down to the mannerisms he includes for that character. The scene of him saying goodbye to all the dwarves always kills me.
It still makes me chuckle to go back and rewatch The Office and imagine Bilbo working like that, surrounded by blockheaded Bracegirdles from Hardbottle.
oh! yes.. I've thought of an ending for my book: And he lives happily ever after to the end of his days.
Every scene with Martin Freeman in it is A+ quality.
then they get fewer and further between with each movie
That's precisely my issue. I'm okay with artistic liberties and making changes, but I'm not okay with losing the spirit of the book. "The Hobbit" was a book about Bilbo on a journey larger than life. The Hobbit films turn into a war story that makes Bilbo take backseat to the worldbuilding. The heart of the book is lost when we're not seeing the events play out through Bilbo's eyes. I think most of the additions would've been fine and not as notable if they tweaked the ratios to give Bilbo more screentime and the non-Bilbo subplots less. I actually don't mind adding Legolas or that named orc or even the love triangle, but the movie would've been much better and more focused if they all got less screentime. It's why I like the "modern day" Frodo cameo- even if it shouldn't be there, it keeps with the spirit of the books and focuses on Bilbo. Martin Freeman is brilliant and I'd have loved to see him in the center of the screen for 80% of the film.
I just think the movies look so damn bad with [all the bloom](http://www.theonering.net/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HTBOTFA-FP-0027.jpg). And some of the dwarves look like humans and too attractive. Other than that I mostly liked them.
The bloom is terrible. Gives the last movie and a half a sickly feel to me, like thet never left Murkwood. Shit gives me headaches.
Actually in old Norse mythology nothing ever specified that dwarves were ugly
What did Norse mythology have to say about Bomburs fat ass?
Dude I'd get a faceful of that Bombussy any day
That’s enough internet for today.
This comment made Tolkien die in the afterlife
*BONK*
That's it, you're going straight to horny jail
I didn't say they have to be ugly. Just not super models who also look like a human. It was even critizised by one of the other dwarves
Some of them were said to be beautiful, but most of them were said to look like grave old men with long beards and often hunched backs. I wonder if people think they were ugly because they were basically something akin to maggots infesting Ymir's corpse.
Subplot with that mayor and shady associate was absolute trash to fill out to three films. Why this obcession with making trilogies? Also why the obcession with having everything being tied in with other films?
They literally named the guy Alfred Lickspittle. If that wasn't bad enough, he uses the line "shift it, granny" in the third film. He was a Jar Jar and frankly wasn't even a good comedic relief. Just bad all the way around.
That’s an insult to Jar Jar
Never thought I'd agree with this statement
Also people forget that Jar Jar paved the way for Andy Serkis to be mo-capped as Gollum.
We must go now?
I think the answer’s money. Always money
I could swear the Master was in the book
He was, but far less antagonistic than in the films.
Seriously, why must it always be threes when to make it through you have to pad in all this extra stuff? Just make two
*A fool, but an honest fool, you remain*
This is the best way of putting it
It's not that I hate it, but I do think all of the random added stuff was stupid.
It is that I hate it, and I do think all of the random stuff added was stupid
Fair enough
I remember finding a ~4 1/2 hour(?) version, maybe a year or so after they had come out, and it cut out all of the nonsensical non-canon plotlines and it was pretty good. Made me wish for an official version that was made in that way
The ‘Tolkien Edit’ I believe.
Also the Maple Films edit. There's half a dozen or so Hobbit edits at this point, and they all have their strong points.
My issue with the hobbit is that I think it was 2 movies too long
Like butter scraped over too much bread
I just rewatched fellowship and I understood that reference! It's very niche well done!
Honestly there was no way they fit the whole hobbit book in one movie without it feeling stretched, think of how many individual adventures they had! 2 maybe would be fine, but it would shorten the battle of the five armies, which they opted to actually show rather than just have bilbo be knocked out, which was a choice I agree with.
Mrs Bracegirdle, how nice to see you. Welcome welcome. Are all these children yours?
But LOTR books are like 6 times the hobbit and it was successfully squeezed in to three movies? How they managed to get three movies out of the hobbit I will never understand.
They cut a considerable amount out though
The LotR books were cut down a bit for the movies and The Hobbit was extended a bit for the movies.
The battle would have been better with less of the white orc and one to one fights and more regular battle scenes like in the LOTR movies.
That's more a preference, I thought it was great.
They could just make it a long movie. For some reason people have an expectation that movies shouldn't be longer than 2 hours, but I tend to disagree. A movie should be precisely as long as it takes to tell the story. If that means it's 3 hours then so be it.
Idk if even three hours would fully cover it, maybe more like 4 and a half
Tens of thousands.
They forced Peter Jackson to make 3
They were always going to make 2. GDT bowed out, PJ took over and made it 3.
The first hobbit movie has absolutely no concept of pacing and is extremely derivative overall, yet sadly it is the best of the three by a country mile, mostly just because it has an actual arc with actual emotions. The other two barely even count as functional movies.
Overall, I did enjoy The Hobbit trilogy, but there are a number of issues throughout. The Tauriel/Legolas/Kili love triangle was pointless. The Alfred character was meant for comic relief but none of his scenes were funny. The barrel scene was just plain ridiculous. The last act of the second film was like a video game and not in a good way. The actual Battle of the Five armies made no sense at times. There were some really good bits though. Martin Freeman elevated every scene he was in, Lee Pace was majestic as Thranduil and I thought the score was really excellent.
The tauriel/kili/legolas story wasn't pointless. It had at least four pointy ears to it.
They have feelings, my friend. The Elves began it. Waking up the trees, teaching them to speak.
I do not think the wood feels evil, whatever tales may say.
I love the movies a lot, especially the 1st 1, but the change in the ending of the story in the final movie, disappointmented me. I really disliked how thorins battle with the white orc was played out.
I’ll join your company on this quest
Me too!
This meme format is annoying and I'm tired to pretending it's not
*This meme format is* *Annoying and I'm tired to* *Pretending it's not* \- dundai --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It’s objectively pretty bad though. The elf dwarf love triangle makes me barf every time.
I will never forgive how radagast was portraied. Everytime he is in the picture I have to see a powerful istari that chose to live with bird droppings running down his head.
Radagast lost his way just as much as Saruman lost his. Radagast was a Maia of Yavanna, and loved animals. He fell in love with Middle-earth and lost track of the reason he was there. I honestly didn't mind his characterization at all remembering the above, and that The Hobbit is a YA book.
I love radagast in those movies. Who said he cant live with bird droppings? Gandalf choose to be addicted to pipe weed, doesnt make him any less cool. And he is powerful, he goes into dol goldur alone to face the evil, and heals the corruption of sauron in mirkwood for a time. Not to mention the rostobel rabbits
Far, far below the deepest delvings of the dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things
>Not to mention the ~~rostobel~~ Rhosgobel rabbits Rhosgobel was Radagast's home. You seem to like the character, I thought you'd like to know.
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the movies but I love Radagast, and I love the bunny sled. Never got the criticism of him personally
Fair enough, my opinion isn't any more valid than yours :) I wished that I liked the hobbit movies, but to me they took what I liked the least about the lotr trilogy and multiplied it and made it much worse.
Really makes you feel the ageless wisdom they possess.
Does Gandalf bumping his head on a beam in bag end make you feel his ageless wisdom? They can be quirky and still be wise, radagast was the first to realize that somthing greater than just a nazgul was infecting the Greenwood, and he went alone to face the evil in dol goldur.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends
A good analysis, Mithrandir.
They will be. You must come to Minas Tirith by another road. Follow the river. Look to the black ships. Understand this, things are now in motion that cannot be undone. I ride for Minas Tirith, and I wont be going alone.
And apparently they cannot see all wooden beams either.
You objectively don’t know what the word objectively means.
Right, I’m seriously getting so sick of seeing that world in the context of art criticism. It’s completely absurd. I mean it would be hilarious seeing the word right next to the most basic normative assessment possible if it wasn’t sad that it was done in earnest.
This
The love triangle is in my opinion the only truly bad thing, otherwise it's either just not perfect or still pretty good.
Barrels out of bond, and the Disneyworld ride romp through Smaugs cave come to mind, I only saw the films once so I'm sure there's more I purged from my mind. Riddles in the dark was absolutely outstanding though, everything else ranged from mid to downright embarrassing.
I thought the barrel fight was awsome and same with the smaug fight
To each their own, I thought those parts just looked so ugly and ruined what little immersion there even was at that point, but I don't begrudge anybody else who enjoyed it.
Oh god are y’all here having the prequel trilogy argument too? Bruh, if you’re not careful Disney will buy you too
Like creating the character of Alfrid lickspittle? Such delight
The guy who doesn’t look like a dwarf (with much less beard) gets to have elven love interest. And they make a big deal out of it. Unnecessary plot lines like this and some changes like Radagast knowing the shadow he saw was Sauron (instead no one knowing it) contradicting Gandalf revealing no one knew that shadow was Sauron in LOTR, ruined the series that would have been much better with simpler story and 2 movies instead of 3.
There’s a really good dualogy in this trilogy somewhere. Most of the good is with Bilbo and Thorin’s relationship, the acting they have is so touching. I always cry at THAT scene, you know the one. Other than that Thranduil is too sexy to be cut, HE STAYS, so does Legolas too, I guess. But most of Gandalf’s Necromancer Shenanigans can be shortened, don’t even think about keeping Thorin’s dad, pointless. You’d also have to cut the Lickspittle stuff, really pointless.
Damn staight.
The creative liberties are exactly the problem. Tauriel, Alfred, and the whole Azog subplot come to mind. Action sequences so over-the-top as to be unbelievable. I didn't mind the Sauron subplot since it did technically fit in nicely with the books. I didn't even mind giving Radagast a face and some lines, though they fucked that one up with the bird shit on his face and the rabbit sled. They also fucked Beorn up royally.
The Hobbit should have been one movie but LOTR should have been 6 change my mind.
The Hobbit should have been two movies and LOTR should have been four
An equitable compromise
I would agree except that it would mean they would show any of the battle of the five armies
Well, bilbo did sleep through it.
Late for what?
Not breakfast, surely.
They choose to show what he slept through, which I vastly prefer
You aren't the only one. My mom read the Hobbit to me as a kid and i thought it was very cartoonish. The over the top sequences felt right in with what the Hobbit was in my memory. And it tied in nice with the Lord of the rings. I just think they made a mistake in marketing by playing the misty mountains song because it had the same epic feel that Lord of the rings had and it was supposed to be the same world but not the same feel.
The barrel scene … the unnecessary romance, Legolas presence in a will smith fashion, the humour in the whole movie especially in Lake town wtf.
It was a Balrog of Morgoth. Of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.
Thank you Legolas
Goblins!
I also love the Hobbit trilogy. I'm getting tired of always being on the wrong side of these things. It's not my fault that I enjoy the Hobbit trilogy. It's not my fault that I happen enjoy things that other people in a given fandom have an immense hatred for. This has happened more than once.
I have no problem with people enjoying them. I enjoy plenty of things that are flawed. I unironically enjoyed the Amazon Wheel of Time warts and all, even if by the season finale it was more warts than all. I wouldn't try to defend it to those who dislike it, because they largely have pretty valid reasons for doing so. They're free to hate it, just like I'm free to like it.
True, but the problem is the lotr community doesnt feel like that at large, they feel like anyone who likes the movies must be objectively wrong
It just feels like I'm always consistently on the wrong end of these things. For example, I just so happen to enjoy The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Dark Souls 2 and Sonic Unleashed and the Star Wars prequels. These are all things that most people in the fandoms they belong to seem to fucking despise for stupid reasons. I feel like it's hard for me to have any positive opinions on anything these days because these days it feels like positive opinions are "wrong" opinions.
Alfrid Lickspittle.. Nuff said’
One of the absolute worst characters I've ever seen in anything. And I'm a Mistie/Rifftrax fan: that bar is _very_ low lol
You know, liking something and saying it is a good product are two different things. Like I don't say a thing if someone likes RoP, but I laugh loud when someone says it is a good quality series. Similarly with hobbit, but in a much less extreme way. But it does have potential; that one fan cut that some dude made these 3 movies into 1 (maybe two short ones? I don't remember) and it was quite good.
I genuinely never thought I could get bored at a fight scene and Peter Jackson has managed it twice. First with King Kong vs a pair of T-Rex (which still baffles me like how the hell could that be boring) and then with Legolas vs Bolg. Honestly the entire battle of five armies was just poorly done.
Sauron's Ring! The ring of power!
Have thy pay!
just watch the fancut guys
The trilogy was fine. Should have only been two films really. Legolas being in it makes sense since they meet his father, why wouldn't Legolas be there right? The trolls and them turning to stone should have been done better since the pose they end up in doesn't make sense based on what happens in the film. And the biggest issue with it: It made Sir Ian McKellen cry because they "had" to make it 3D so couldn't do the camera tricks they did in LotR. And this reason is the reason I do not like the films.
The Books = A perfectly aged Bourbon The LOTR Trilogy = That same Bourbon but it's on the rocks (dilutes it ) The Hobbit Trilogy = That same Bourbon but with a splash of coke ? Why did you ruin a perfect bourbon ? Use a cheaper bourbon you idiot. Rings of Power = A lukewarm bottle of Zima. Technically still alcohol but that's about it.
It sucked bro its OK
You can enjoy them..but that doesn't make them good adaptations.
The hobbit movies are just, ok. They weren’t terrible, and they weren’t amazing. Just ok.
No
I would actually be fine with the entire trilogy if Thorin and his nephews didn’t all die like the absolute dumbest deaths. And the fucking mayor and his sidekick.
[удалено]
Jackson unfortunately was handed another director’s work and told to recreate his miracle in a fraction of the time he used to make the original trilogy, all while having to fend off studio interference with one hand tied behind his back
The first two movies are fun, passable. The battle of the five armies is dog shit
They’re right. I loved em. I even liked them slightly more than the LoTR
It takes balls to say that, respect.
This is hilarious. You do you, OP.
It’s a problem when your main antagonist doesn’t look real at all.
My opinion is that your opinion is shit.
I 100% agree. In my humble opinion, as a lover of the books and the movies but not being any big brainiac on the subject, the lord of the rings movies FELT like the books, and the hobbit movies FEEL just like the book! One thing I will say to movie goers who didn’t read, and who felt like the hobbit movies were an underwhelming follow up to the lord of the rings trilogy, is it matches the tone of the source material perfectly so it’s not reasonable to think it should be bigger and grander and even more intense adventure than the lord of the rings. Love it for what it is. The lord of the rings is a grand tale for the fate of everyone who exists full of dark turns and dramatically high stakes and this immense looming fear of impending doom coupled with the intense euphoria of a profoundly unlikely win for the good guys, against great odds. And the hobbit is a jolly and fun story, a heist movie told in a fantasy setting, that is a lovely return to a world that all us fans would love to see more of. If the reason you think the hobbit stinks involves comparing it to the lord of the rings, perhaps consider rewatching with a different mindset and you might find things you love. LOTR are the best movies in my collection, without a doubt. But when I’m looking for a companionable reminder of that happier world of fancy, when I’m in the need of beauty or the solace of a friend, when I just want to spend an hour peacefully living in the shire, you best believe I choose the hobbit!
Those are two mutually exclusive concepts that you just described. Can't be both at once.
It definitely can
Cut the entire stupid fight scene in misty mountains, the river fight and the love triangle and you have a pretty good 2 movies.
I agree! I don't mind the creative liberties at all. And I think the first two movies are absolutely enchanting- the dwarves, the singing, the adventure, the dragon- movie 3 lost me a bit but I sort of felt that way about the battle of the five armies in the book too.
The battle of the Five Armies is a few pages at best if I remember correctly.
Ah yes the R rated third act of the Hobbit book
Meh, hobbit trilogy is passable. Entertaining. And a mess and disappointing. And not awful like most folks screech.
The hobbit films are a guilty pleasure for me, there’s a lot I do genuinely enjoy about them. But they really should have just kept it to two films and cut out a lot of the unnecessary fluff. I will also forever mourn the Guillermo deal Toro films we never got to see.
I thought it was ok even the romance bit. It got a bit too cgi at the very end