Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy - Your thoughts now that it's over
- Thread starter thejboy88
- Start date
I didn't think it was as great as the LoTr triliogy for a few reasons-
It was far too long despite it was somewhat faithful to the book. Now I said somewhat cos I know they padding in fillers like the romance, the necromancer and making the final showdown longer and epic like. Even then they still removed some minor stuff from the book. At the most I think it should of been a two parter if they didn't want to cut stuff out from the book.
Far too much used of CGI. What I like LoTR was the makeup and props effect (they handcrafted all of those skulls seen when that ghost king dissapear in the tomb) Sure I know some parts they had to used CGI like the Goblin King but come on! The Orc were truly menacing when it was guys in makeup, not CGI!
Overally, I am fully reassure that it truly over since I do know there are few more books after LoTr and The Hobbit which won't suprised me if they choseto adapt those on the big or smaller screen (like a TV series).
It was far too long despite it was somewhat faithful to the book. Now I said somewhat cos I know they padding in fillers like the romance, the necromancer and making the final showdown longer and epic like. Even then they still removed some minor stuff from the book. At the most I think it should of been a two parter if they didn't want to cut stuff out from the book.
Far too much used of CGI. What I like LoTR was the makeup and props effect (they handcrafted all of those skulls seen when that ghost king dissapear in the tomb) Sure I know some parts they had to used CGI like the Goblin King but come on! The Orc were truly menacing when it was guys in makeup, not CGI!
Overally, I am fully reassure that it truly over since I do know there are few more books after LoTr and The Hobbit which won't suprised me if they choseto adapt those on the big or smaller screen (like a TV series).
Eh, it was... ok. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. It had some good moments but mostly it was just boring to me and in general it was not my cup of tea with the style of humour. The only thing about it that really annoys me are scene stealing elves (I like Legolas in lord of the rings but the hobbit isn't meant to be about him. We don't need to be reminded of how "badass" he is) and the stupid shoe-horned in romance with a character that seemed like they came out of bad fan fiction... scratch that she doesn't seem like a bad a fan fiction, she just is bad fan fiction.
It's more than that.Scarim Coral said:
It's easy to just blame it all on the CGI, which does add to the issue, but it's also just the bland designs of the main orc villians. You look at something like Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean and he looks fantastic, despite being all CGI. And that's because he has a great design as well as a charismatic actor driving the performance. Whereas the orcs in The Hobbit were bald white guys with metal strapped to them speaking orc gibberish. And while having characters speak their race specific language might seem more authentic, it also means you have actors trying to act and express themselves in a language they're totally not familiar with.
OT: I haven't seen the third film and I really don't care to even bother. It was them trying to recapture the magic in a bottle that was the original trilogy. 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. Let alone the importance of the source material, which up to that point was thought impossible to put to film. Now he's a big time director who can pretty much throw whatever he wants in his movies. You could already see this bubbling up in King Kong.
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.
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.
Because each movie having a majority of positive reviews, a cinemascore of A- or better, and making a HUGE profit is a failure. Right.Casual Shinji said:
People really need to stop bringing in positive review scores and profit to counter claims of a movie/game being bad. I'm not speaking for the whole world, just for myself, so this argument really isn't going to suddenly make me change my stance on the matter.Kolby Jack said:
I loved it. I have never read any of the Tolkien books but i still loved the whole LOTR and Hobbit saga. I loved all 3 Hobbit movies but loved the first two a bit more than the third one. I feel the third one could have been a bit better but am sure it will be fixed in the extended edition DVD later this year.
The first film was a blast, I had quite a bit of fun watching it. Granted it seemed to be trying to be all faithful and shit which... didn't work, no matter which way you put it.
The second film was a mixed bag. It was filled with padding, and they added in that bullshit love triangle plot (no, the actors didn't give me the impression that they liked each over), and they seemed to have forgotten complaints about The Lord of the Rings. Remember how Legolas sliding down a shield in Two Towers was shit? Well now we've got him corpse sliding down a hill doing more sick moves! Even the good parts tend to drag on for way too long. The only really good part was with Smaug, and not to spoil but that ending is bullshit. I don't care if it made the third film better, it cut the second film to pieces.
The third film was so much fun. Gone is the attempts to adapt the book, let's just have a big fuck-off battle! Thranduil sweeping through Orcs without a hair out of place is just ridiculous joy. That Dwarf from the love triangle gets his just punishment for the love triangle. On the whole I just couldn't help but enjoy myself. Sure it's no Lord of the Rings but the third film finally got the fanfiction wank fest right, and I couldn't be more grateful for it.
On the whole, highly enjoyable if greatly unnecessary, but I don't think I'll rewatch the second film besides the bits with Smaug.
The second film was a mixed bag. It was filled with padding, and they added in that bullshit love triangle plot (no, the actors didn't give me the impression that they liked each over), and they seemed to have forgotten complaints about The Lord of the Rings. Remember how Legolas sliding down a shield in Two Towers was shit? Well now we've got him corpse sliding down a hill doing more sick moves! Even the good parts tend to drag on for way too long. The only really good part was with Smaug, and not to spoil but that ending is bullshit. I don't care if it made the third film better, it cut the second film to pieces.
The third film was so much fun. Gone is the attempts to adapt the book, let's just have a big fuck-off battle! Thranduil sweeping through Orcs without a hair out of place is just ridiculous joy. That Dwarf from the love triangle gets his just punishment for the love triangle. On the whole I just couldn't help but enjoy myself. Sure it's no Lord of the Rings but the third film finally got the fanfiction wank fest right, and I couldn't be more grateful for it.
On the whole, highly enjoyable if greatly unnecessary, but I don't think I'll rewatch the second film besides the bits with Smaug.
IMHO, it would have been better without subtitles.Casual Shinji said:
There's that bit in the first one, before they get to Rivendell, when the orcs are looking for them, and something noisy gives away the dwarfs position. Cut to the orc leader who says something in orcish, and we have the subtitles "The dwarf scum are over there". Didn't need that at all, we know what he heard and that it's given the dwarfs away.
My main issue with the Hobbit is that it was made for an audience that had seen LotR, not as movies that LotR got added to afterwards.
Meh.
I remember hearing it described as a "victory lap". That remains the most succinct way to describe it for me.
I've found that the LotR movies have aged very poorly in my eyes, so these just completely fizzled.
Give me a year and I'll have forgotten that they ever existed.
I remember hearing it described as a "victory lap". That remains the most succinct way to describe it for me.
I've found that the LotR movies have aged very poorly in my eyes, so these just completely fizzled.
Give me a year and I'll have forgotten that they ever existed.
It should have been shorter, dragged on too long. They added in a lot of fluff that shouldn't have been there. The cheesy love story being the main offender, but also having Legolas in it for no reason and inventing the female elf character who's name I can't remember. Azog the orc was already dead before the story takes place, why they needed to change that is beyond me, there are loads more examples.
Most of the changes seemed to be there to make the story into a trilogy. Probably because they wanted to make as much money off of it as they could. At least that is how I see it.
The massive age difference between Bilbo in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings movies, even though he supposedly "has barely aged a day", was a little bit lore breaking, though not too important.
I thought the movies were cheesy, I thought the LotR movies were cheesy as well, but at least they were half decent.
Most of the changes seemed to be there to make the story into a trilogy. Probably because they wanted to make as much money off of it as they could. At least that is how I see it.
The massive age difference between Bilbo in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings movies, even though he supposedly "has barely aged a day", was a little bit lore breaking, though not too important.
I thought the movies were cheesy, I thought the LotR movies were cheesy as well, but at least they were half decent.
I considered them very good movies when I first saw them and I still consider them as such now. I feel like the Hobbit gets hit pretty badly with "it didn't come first, therefore it sucks" syndrome. LOTR had all the problems that the Hobbit movies do, while having far cheaper and unrealistic looking special effects including CGI than the Hobbit trilogy does, but since it came first it seems to get away with those things.
Probably the only problem I personally had with the Trilogy was how the second movie dragged the final fight with Smaug into the third, making his death feel significantly more anticlimactic than it would have otherwise. That was probably done just as a cheap trick to get everybody's butts in the seats anyway.
In the end, they took one book and split it into 3 movies and managed to do so while making all 3 movies very entertaining, what padding there was enjoyable and added to the story and characters well, and improving on what LOTR did as a successor should, which is what matters. One thing I know for sure is the feeling I get after watching them was a profound sense of loss that there won't be any further movies after this point or much official LOTR content for that matter, and if they did they'd probably butcher it. Shadow of Mordor was pretty good though so maybe I can hope for more along those lines.
Probably the only problem I personally had with the Trilogy was how the second movie dragged the final fight with Smaug into the third, making his death feel significantly more anticlimactic than it would have otherwise. That was probably done just as a cheap trick to get everybody's butts in the seats anyway.
In the end, they took one book and split it into 3 movies and managed to do so while making all 3 movies very entertaining, what padding there was enjoyable and added to the story and characters well, and improving on what LOTR did as a successor should, which is what matters. One thing I know for sure is the feeling I get after watching them was a profound sense of loss that there won't be any further movies after this point or much official LOTR content for that matter, and if they did they'd probably butcher it. Shadow of Mordor was pretty good though so maybe I can hope for more along those lines.
I've probably missed the "in before" chance but; for the people who complain about Legolas being in the movies: He would have been there, everything we know about Legolas and his timeline points to him being in Mirkwood with his father, Thranduil, at the time of the events of the Hobbit.
Tolkien knew very well later in life that the original story he wrote (the Hobbit) no longer fit into his expanded universe, he made a lot of revisions and rewrote large sections over the years but what a lot of people don't realise is that at one point he began re-writing the entire book from scratch, you can read the 2 and a half unfinished chapters in the histories of middle-earth which are by themselves the same length as the entire first edition the Hobbit; JRR did eventually decide to let the Hobbit stand on it's own merit.
Tolkien did the Hobbit first and didn't really create or flesh out his universe until he was well into the LotR - Jackson on the other hand adapted LotR first, if Jackson stayed totally faithful to the Hobbit book it just would have been un-watchable as a complete set of movies, you could not call it a lord of the rings prequel.
I enjoyed the Hobbit movies a lot, there were some not-so-great bits and some so-so bits but overall I really enjoyed them. I think Jackson did a really good job considering the challenge that was in front of him.
To have the movies make sense and tie in with the pre-established cinematic universe he had to use information from books he did not have the rights to, he did this in an extremely clever way as to not make it obvious for the most part, for instance:
The white gems of lasgalen - The gems that Thranduil wanted from the mountain, some would say that this is a totally made up artifact and a totally made up story, people who are a little more familiar with the universe know that this whole storyline is an adaption of King Thingol's story and that the White gems of lasgalen are a silmaril.
Long story short King Thingol acquired a Silmaril (white gem/s), he then took them to the dwarves to be set in a necklace and they had agreed on a price for the service, when King Thingol returned to collect his Necklace the dwarves had been corrupted by the Silmaril (amplifying their greed) and they did not give it back to Thingol. Thingol then killed all the Dwarves who made the necklace (and many others) before being killed by the rest of the Dwarves in the fortress which ended up starting a war.
The story of King Thingol is widely regarded as what Tolkien later intended to be Thranduil's story in the Hobbit, or rather, the story of King Thingol would have been the story of King Thranduil but it would have meant re-writing the Hobbit which he had already decided not to do.
Jackson adapted this story and it is quite brilliant, the official story of the movie trilogy is the white gems were Elvish heirlooms that were sent to Erebor to be set in a necklace, Thranduil agreed to the hefty sum for the service but when Thranduil went to Erebor to retrieve the necklace and gems Thror had become too greedy, claimed the white gems for himself and refused to return them to Thranduil.
This is why Thranduil turned his back on the dwarves after Smaug attacked and gives Thranduil a real reason, a real purpose, for wanting to go to war with the Dwarves; it also explains why Dwarves and Elves dislike each other (which is never explained in either the hobbit or LotR books, the story of King Thingol which does explain this can only be read in unfinished tales).
Legolas' inclusion is smart from a movie maker's standpoint, it does fit in the lore, in fact it would be far stranger is Legolas wasn't there in some capacity, he was perhaps overplayed a bit as the super hero but the whole idea of these movies is to bring the Tolkien universe to a wide audience - the data Jackson had in front of him was:
A. Legolas is one of (if not the) most popular character from the movie universe.
B. According to the tolkien lore, Legolas was in Mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit.
It would take most people about 5 seconds to decide to make a call to Orlando Bloom at that point.
I didn't like the Tauriel/Kili love story, while I didn't mind Tauriel's character, the Elf/Dwarf love just isn't right by any amount of lore, extended or not, most decisions made by Jackson were pretty sound to the Tolkien universe but this one just wasn't.
Tauriel herself I thought was fine, there would have been a captain (several, actually), and there is no reason it couldn't have been a female Elf, and her character was very true to lore in that she was a Silvan elf (the traditional Elves of the woodland realm) while both Thranduil and Legolas were already established to be Sindarin elves - this is why Thranduil would not agree to a union between Legolas and Tauriel, in his eyes, she is a lowly Silvan elf.
There are many other things I could comment on (both good and bad) but I think this is plenty to give people who don't have the time to read the insane amount of lore out there a good reason why the Hobbit trilogy was not 100% faithful the book, and just how well Jackson did considering that all the lore he adapted he technically couldn't use (without changing/adapting them enough to satisfy Chris Tolkien's lawyers); He didn't have Gandalf name the 2 blue wizards because their names could only be found in extended works.
Tolkien knew very well later in life that the original story he wrote (the Hobbit) no longer fit into his expanded universe, he made a lot of revisions and rewrote large sections over the years but what a lot of people don't realise is that at one point he began re-writing the entire book from scratch, you can read the 2 and a half unfinished chapters in the histories of middle-earth which are by themselves the same length as the entire first edition the Hobbit; JRR did eventually decide to let the Hobbit stand on it's own merit.
Tolkien did the Hobbit first and didn't really create or flesh out his universe until he was well into the LotR - Jackson on the other hand adapted LotR first, if Jackson stayed totally faithful to the Hobbit book it just would have been un-watchable as a complete set of movies, you could not call it a lord of the rings prequel.
I enjoyed the Hobbit movies a lot, there were some not-so-great bits and some so-so bits but overall I really enjoyed them. I think Jackson did a really good job considering the challenge that was in front of him.
To have the movies make sense and tie in with the pre-established cinematic universe he had to use information from books he did not have the rights to, he did this in an extremely clever way as to not make it obvious for the most part, for instance:
The white gems of lasgalen - The gems that Thranduil wanted from the mountain, some would say that this is a totally made up artifact and a totally made up story, people who are a little more familiar with the universe know that this whole storyline is an adaption of King Thingol's story and that the White gems of lasgalen are a silmaril.
Long story short King Thingol acquired a Silmaril (white gem/s), he then took them to the dwarves to be set in a necklace and they had agreed on a price for the service, when King Thingol returned to collect his Necklace the dwarves had been corrupted by the Silmaril (amplifying their greed) and they did not give it back to Thingol. Thingol then killed all the Dwarves who made the necklace (and many others) before being killed by the rest of the Dwarves in the fortress which ended up starting a war.
The story of King Thingol is widely regarded as what Tolkien later intended to be Thranduil's story in the Hobbit, or rather, the story of King Thingol would have been the story of King Thranduil but it would have meant re-writing the Hobbit which he had already decided not to do.
Jackson adapted this story and it is quite brilliant, the official story of the movie trilogy is the white gems were Elvish heirlooms that were sent to Erebor to be set in a necklace, Thranduil agreed to the hefty sum for the service but when Thranduil went to Erebor to retrieve the necklace and gems Thror had become too greedy, claimed the white gems for himself and refused to return them to Thranduil.
This is why Thranduil turned his back on the dwarves after Smaug attacked and gives Thranduil a real reason, a real purpose, for wanting to go to war with the Dwarves; it also explains why Dwarves and Elves dislike each other (which is never explained in either the hobbit or LotR books, the story of King Thingol which does explain this can only be read in unfinished tales).
Legolas' inclusion is smart from a movie maker's standpoint, it does fit in the lore, in fact it would be far stranger is Legolas wasn't there in some capacity, he was perhaps overplayed a bit as the super hero but the whole idea of these movies is to bring the Tolkien universe to a wide audience - the data Jackson had in front of him was:
A. Legolas is one of (if not the) most popular character from the movie universe.
B. According to the tolkien lore, Legolas was in Mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit.
It would take most people about 5 seconds to decide to make a call to Orlando Bloom at that point.
I didn't like the Tauriel/Kili love story, while I didn't mind Tauriel's character, the Elf/Dwarf love just isn't right by any amount of lore, extended or not, most decisions made by Jackson were pretty sound to the Tolkien universe but this one just wasn't.
Tauriel herself I thought was fine, there would have been a captain (several, actually), and there is no reason it couldn't have been a female Elf, and her character was very true to lore in that she was a Silvan elf (the traditional Elves of the woodland realm) while both Thranduil and Legolas were already established to be Sindarin elves - this is why Thranduil would not agree to a union between Legolas and Tauriel, in his eyes, she is a lowly Silvan elf.
There are many other things I could comment on (both good and bad) but I think this is plenty to give people who don't have the time to read the insane amount of lore out there a good reason why the Hobbit trilogy was not 100% faithful the book, and just how well Jackson did considering that all the lore he adapted he technically couldn't use (without changing/adapting them enough to satisfy Chris Tolkien's lawyers); He didn't have Gandalf name the 2 blue wizards because their names could only be found in extended works.
It's another case of Lucas Syndrome all over again. You deliver an outstanding trilogy of movies, become drunk with power, surround yourself with Yes Men, try to relive the glory days and end up with a subpar second trilogy.
The first movie was okay. The second movie felt like it was halfway to being Pirates of the Caribbean. The third movie was a mess.
1) What the fuck do I care about Bard's kids?
2) What's the point with the Alfrid character, and why do you do the fuck-up/scold routine with Bard five times and don't pay off?
3) How do Tauriel and Legolas affect the plot, at all?
4) Could you have come up with a less convoluted, less silly way for Thorin and That Guy to meet their end?
5) Thorin's pre-battle dream sequence is as desperate as the script has ever gotten in these movies.
6) Dol Guldur added nothing to the plot, except a way for Gandalf to tell everybody that the Battle they were about to fight was super important.
I could go on. The biggest criticism I guess is how poorly the script holds together. You introduce a plethora of characters with subplot hints and never quite fully integrate them into the plot, because the plot is about Stuff rather than a single Main Thread. The first movie was more or less focused and kinda worked out that way (all CGI considering, and that awful bit with the Goblin King as well, and that other part at the end that looked like a death metal cover with Thorin walking through fire in slow-mo).
The first movie was okay. The second movie felt like it was halfway to being Pirates of the Caribbean. The third movie was a mess.
1) What the fuck do I care about Bard's kids?
2) What's the point with the Alfrid character, and why do you do the fuck-up/scold routine with Bard five times and don't pay off?
3) How do Tauriel and Legolas affect the plot, at all?
4) Could you have come up with a less convoluted, less silly way for Thorin and That Guy to meet their end?
5) Thorin's pre-battle dream sequence is as desperate as the script has ever gotten in these movies.
6) Dol Guldur added nothing to the plot, except a way for Gandalf to tell everybody that the Battle they were about to fight was super important.
I could go on. The biggest criticism I guess is how poorly the script holds together. You introduce a plethora of characters with subplot hints and never quite fully integrate them into the plot, because the plot is about Stuff rather than a single Main Thread. The first movie was more or less focused and kinda worked out that way (all CGI considering, and that awful bit with the Goblin King as well, and that other part at the end that looked like a death metal cover with Thorin walking through fire in slow-mo).
Each film burnt up a few hours of my time on a Friday night before going the pub. Nowhere near as good as LotR, butt hey had their moments.
Not great films, not shite films, just entertaining fantasy flicks in a movie schedule thats too crammed full of hard men with guns.
Not great films, not shite films, just entertaining fantasy flicks in a movie schedule thats too crammed full of hard men with guns.
Overall, yes I did like it. How could I not enjoy another romp around middle earth with Sir Ian et all?
But it wasn't great and had many parts I thought were poor. The 3D and HFR for starters...I didn't like the look of them and the whole time I was watching the films, I was wondering what compromises were made to the film in the name of 3D spetacle. I think the year between films was a massive detriment...not just that what could have been 1-2 films was made into 3, but that the year long gap between each was itself, detrimental. A year later any sense of tension, caring, excitement was gone. Between 2-3 more than between 1-2...they left off 2 and begun 3 at the stupidest point. They should've wrapped the whole dragon arc before 3, coming back to it partway thru at the start of 3 and having it over in 15-20mins was a terrible idea.
I think a lot of scenes were terribly drawn out and/or over-acted. After a while, every one being saved *just* in the nick of time, the key to the mountain *almost* falling, this or that person *nearly* dying...it got tiresome and harder and harder to swallow.
My favourite scene was the Goblin Kingdom in the first film. I did enjoy that, thought it looked sumptuous, played out wonderfully (even if a little over-elaborately and too choreographed) and was quite a thrill, similar to Moria from Fellowship.
But it wasn't great and had many parts I thought were poor. The 3D and HFR for starters...I didn't like the look of them and the whole time I was watching the films, I was wondering what compromises were made to the film in the name of 3D spetacle. I think the year between films was a massive detriment...not just that what could have been 1-2 films was made into 3, but that the year long gap between each was itself, detrimental. A year later any sense of tension, caring, excitement was gone. Between 2-3 more than between 1-2...they left off 2 and begun 3 at the stupidest point. They should've wrapped the whole dragon arc before 3, coming back to it partway thru at the start of 3 and having it over in 15-20mins was a terrible idea.
I think a lot of scenes were terribly drawn out and/or over-acted. After a while, every one being saved *just* in the nick of time, the key to the mountain *almost* falling, this or that person *nearly* dying...it got tiresome and harder and harder to swallow.
My favourite scene was the Goblin Kingdom in the first film. I did enjoy that, thought it looked sumptuous, played out wonderfully (even if a little over-elaborately and too choreographed) and was quite a thrill, similar to Moria from Fellowship.
Not a fan.
The first film was a whole lot of nothing.
The second film was a whole lot of nothing and didn't have an ending.
And the third film was a whole lot of nothing but had a lot more action and held the second film's ending hostage.
Pointless love triangle
CGI Orcs that look worse than the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings
Far too much time dawdling around to stretch the plot out
Jar Jar Radagast
Eh. Just wasn't needed to be honest.
The first film was a whole lot of nothing.
The second film was a whole lot of nothing and didn't have an ending.
And the third film was a whole lot of nothing but had a lot more action and held the second film's ending hostage.
Pointless love triangle
CGI Orcs that look worse than the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings
Far too much time dawdling around to stretch the plot out
Jar Jar Radagast
Eh. Just wasn't needed to be honest.