Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy - Your thoughts now that it's over

[Nicha11]

I found them painfully mediocre. I wasn't particularly concerned with any liberties taken with the plot, (after all this is a three movie cash cow, changes have to be made) but the bizarre tonal shifts, complete removal of suspense (why should I be concerned for the safety of any of these characters when they decimate armies of orcs for fun?) and the horrific pacing just killed it for me.

Honestly IMO if they wanted to make a bloated Hobbit trilogy then I would have appreciated 30-45 more minutes of that bloating going into the white council story arc. At least that way I get two storylines for the price of three (and maybe we get to avoid that utterly pointless Smaug chase scene?).

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

It was really jarring to see them swing from the much lighter tone of the Hobbit book to grim LOTR style incoming doom stuff.

 

[Silvanus]

Liked the first two films a lot. Don't mind the fact that it was made into a trilogy, either; it still gave me more of what I wanted, and it wasn't as if it was limited to the Hobbit book alone.

The third film fell a bit flat for me, though, because it was essentially a giant battle scene from start to finish. Middle Earth battle-scenes are epic, but they can't carry the entire movie.

 

[Summerstorm]

Hm, didn't watch it. Maybe some time later - Heard mediocre things about it. (Somethings about nonsensical and unnecessary action sequences so highly choreographed that it's devoid of any meaning, sense of danger. Somebody told me the movies are pretty much "eye candy for the children".

So, no hurry. maybe if somebody lends me the discs someday and i've got nothing better to do.

 

[C_sector]

IMO, the first hobbit movie went off on a very promising start. Though I would have preffered if the dwarf introductions followed the book more closelly.Such as Bombur following on top of thorin and a few others but that was only a very minor let down for me.

The second movie was when the trilogy started to stumble about stupidlly but it got by. The cliff hanger ending kinda sucked.

Finally, the third movie just tripped over and fell in the mud. As mentioned before, the romance between Taurel and Fili(or was it kili) seemed very unnecessary. Also, I would have liked to see Saruman's transition to evil. Finally, I believe that Peter Jackson made a serious error in judgement with regard tot he woodland elven king. He was just depicted as a massive douche for no reason other then being a douche, in other words... I am because I can. There was no strong motive. At least Thorin had a reason..... being driven half mad by goldlust. In the end of the hobbit book, the elven king makes his peace with thorin by placing an elven blade ontop of his tomb.. which would always glow blue when orcs are appoaching to signal as a warning from a sneak attack. In thge book, the elven king had a redeeming factor....in the movie it was left out and his character had no form of 'redemption'. Also, another problem in the 3rd movie was with respect to the 'world eaters'. It was a quick scene showing 2 giant worms coming out of the earth. After that scene, they werent mentioned again. I honestlly think that they were a relic from Guillermo del Toro's time as director, they didnt seem to have much of a purpose.

I do have the most problem with the third movie out of the trillogy. First was a great set up, second film was kinda a let down and the third one was just..... bad (i hate to admit that).

miscellaneous issues:
I noticed in the first movie.. during the intro, they showed the dragon attack.... Did they inadvertintlly show un-beared dwarven females running for their lives aswell? or where they just human females running aswell?

I think the 3rd movie also had extra's from asian backgrounds but I'm not too sure if they were mentioned in the lord of the books. From memory only dark skinned and light skinned people are mentioned. I just thought that the movie deviated quite a bit from the actual lore..... but hey, if im wrong.. someone correct me plz.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I thought most of the action scenes were complete rubbish and unnecesary, it was waay too over the top. I would have prefered something a bit more lowkey with a focus on suspense and adventure instead of big boring action set pieces. And the story was nearly non-existent, so can´t say i enjoyed it. I would have liked something in the vein of the first Lotr movie or maybe something in the style of The Neverending story. I´m not really sure why it turned out the way it did, but it really does seem like Peter Jackson has lost whatever it was he had when he made the Lotr trilogy and Heavenly Creatures. The Hobbit fails for the exact same reasons that King Kong failed, too much annoying cartoony spectacle and too little substance.

 

[zumbledum]

i thought they were good and a lot of the negativity aimed at them seems a little unfair to me, the Hobbit was a kids book a heroic story of dragons treasure elfs and dwarfs! and we got exactly that an adaption of the source. Bu its kinda funny , i mean Toliens publishers were asking for a second hobbit book for a decade or mor then he dropped LOTR on them out of the blue, now a decaed ish after LOTR we got the hobbit to similar reception

 

[J Tyran]

Mixed bag for me really, the first one is probably the best. Smeagol, Thorin earning his deed name etc. Smaug saved the second film but little else was that entertaining, the final one is probably the worst.

Dain was funny as hell, the argument Thorin had in the Throne room (the "you were always my king" part) was good drama and I couldn't help but laugh at the aftermath scene when Gandalf plonked himself down next to Bilbo and started to light his pipe. The way it tied the very end into the beginning of The Fellowship was a nice touch too, other than that it was pretty boring. Legolas was just stupid, it had more in common with a slapstick superhero movie and while that happened in LOTR it wasn't as bad as it was here.

 

[T8B95]

I liked them. Certainly not as much as Lord of the Rings, but that's a tough comparison because LotR was a masterpiece. The Hobbit trilogy may have dragged on a bit too long and added some bits that didn't make sense, but they were still enjoyable to me. Even Tauriel, who I was against at first, won me over because she was played very well and the romance wasn't just a tumor in the middle of the story, but an actual worthwhile element that served to add more characterization to the characters involved. It also helped that all of the acting was phenomenal.

So yes, it's a flawed product, but I vehemently disagree with people comparing it to the Star Wars prequel trilogy. It's a good show, if just not a great one.

I think a major part as to why it failed is that with the original trilogy Peter Jackson was a no-name who really had to work at it and prove himself as a director who could handle a movie of this size.

Because each movie having a majority of positive reviews, a cinemascore of A- or better, and making a HUGE profit is a failure. Right.

Basically what this guy said.

I liked the fact that they tied it closer to the Lord of the Rings too. It may have been pandering to the fans, but at least it was well-done pandering that helped build the world a little bit.

 

[K12]

He needed to have someone pull on his reins when it came to the action scenes, both in terms of length and the silliness of it. I get that "The Hobbit" is a less serious story than "The Lord of the Rings" but I just found a lot of that stuff boring.

And it should have been more about Bilbo. Seriously, the scene where he speaks with Gollum and the scene where he talks with Smaug are by far the best scenes in the whole trilogy!

There are several parts in the book that felt deliberately unsatisfying from a story perspective. Smaug is taken down by Bard (who is really just some bloke) rather than any of the main characters and the battle at the end is more a cynical clusterfuck than a climactic showdown. I think that changing these individual segments somehow made the overarching story less satisfying.

One more thing: I was really annoyed that they cut out the meeting with the Eagles. It would have been a really good opportunity to show Gandalf's relationship with them and make the "...and then the Eagles save them" thing significantly less annoying.