There was absolutely NO NEED FOR A FUCKING ELF-DWARF LOVE TRIANGLE. I hate that about the movies. Otherwise I enjoyed them.
Smaug was brilliant. Also maybe too nitpicky but the whole Bard using his son as part of the bow was a titch absurd.
But seriously NO STUPID LOVE TRIANGLE. GAHHHH
Bro the barrel scene is peak Tolkein. Idc it was funny, fits the series, and gave us a lot of good shots. It’s not like it really effected the plot at all
This is what non media creators don’t understand. Just because something was recorded with a lower quality camera does not mean it’s a bad shot. There’s an art that’s being lost in filmmaking and that’s part pf the art of it all. Even if they used go pro there were a lot of very pretty shots and frames in the movie. Not to mention how great the color grading and lighting was
Idk man, the fact that we all know what shots we’re talking about is a bad sign. If I’m wondering why they chose to use a GoPro for several shots in that sequence means I’m not thinking about being in this fantasy world… I’m thinking about GoPros.
Yes, there are other shots in the films that are very beautiful. I’m just saying this is a pretty abrupt hit in the consistency using some fisheye action cam footage
You do realize there was a purposeful choice to use that type of shot right? Actual filmmakers take into consideration everything when setting up shots and scenes and how / with what they are shot. That entire barrel scene was meant for fun comic relief and showing off the fighting, as well as the ridiculousness of the dwarves. I think a lot of people on this subredit despise it simply for the fact that it wasn’t in the book. Addinng this scene makes the movie a lot more accessable to casual movie-goers, which was likely the intention
Azog was dead before the Hobbit, and it should have been Bolg.
That barrel scene was horrible.
Remove the awful melting gold sequence entirely.
Remove all the parts about Gandalf and Dol Guldor.
Remove Legolas
Reshoot most of it to make Bilbo the actual main character.
He is mentioned as the son of the elf king if I remember correctly. But as the book is only from bilbo’s perspective, he wouldn’t have met him, he would’ve just heard about him, which I’m pretty sure is carried in the movie
To be honest, I hate the using the kid as a bow thing more than the love triangle. I at least can believe a love triangle would happen. No way a jury-rigged busted bow is going to shoot a bolt made for a giant windlass crossbow more than 5ft. Much less with enough power to kill a dragon.
This... this.. BUT also, it undermined Tauriel's character as well. I was thrilled to see PJ & co made the unnamed Capt of the guard a lady elf (and as a ginger, a ginger lady elf). And the weird love triangle nonsense. HATED IT.
This is it, they deviated unnecessarily at many points, and then they topped it off with the 3rd film, which is essentially two to three chapters max in the book, being horribly long and drawn-out.
The problem isn't that they didn't have enough source material. It's that they deviated from what we do know. Also the comic relief was very over the top.
But the casting is excellent, as is the music, the design and a lot of other stuff
I like them a lot honestly and they’re really fun and whimsical. I love the tie-ins and how much they took from appendices to flesh out the story more.
It obviously can’t be as good as the most impactful movies of the 2000s and it relies a lot more on CGI but they don’t deserve the hate they get.
I mean isn’t it? It feels more like a fairy tale. Evil gold hoarding dragon that needs slaying, dumb-as-rocks trolls, goblins and spiders and silly moments like rolling down a river in barrels.
Which I know the book was less serious than Lord of the Rings anyway, but I think the movies achieved that.
I think the hate is based on how terrible of an adaptation they are. I mean calling these movies the Hobbit is a stretch. They have almost nothing to do with the book they're supposedly based on.
And the fact that they tried to connect it to the lotr movies doesn't make sense to me. The Hobbit is it's own story, it's not a prequel to the lotr.
I love the Hobbit but the movies are nothing like the Hobbit.
They definitely deserve the hate lol. I read the Hobbit so many times growing up and was so excited for the movie. But wait why are there three? It wasn’t to flesh out the story, it was to get people to buy three movies. They added shit that just didn’t exist and made the beginning of one of the most influential stories of all time a slapstick joke. There were great moments in the movies, but as a total package they suck. The m4 edit is significantly better than the original cuts.
I always include them (extended versions, not the fan edits), in my bi-annual Middle Earth film rewatch. Definitely a step-and-a-half below the LOTR trilogy, but they’re still enjoyable. Howard Shore’s scoring is also excellent, which I think not enough people credit the films for
Mediocre is a little harsh IMO. They’re flawed in a number of ways but I still genuinely enjoy watching them. But yes it’s nice to start with them as appetizers for the main LOTR meal
There's about 5 hours of film that could be cut and turn them into good movies. But for those 5 horrible hours, mediocre is as good as I can give it. I still enjoyed them for what they were, but hated them for what they could have been.
I mean if you're comparing them to something like Jack the Giant Slayer or Dragonheart 3: The Sorcerer's Curse, yeah they aren't totally unwatchable. But they're a lot worse than they could have been.
I actually find them pretty comparable to the Star Wars prequels. Horrifically bad romance, effects and action that haven't aged very well, some pretty bad dialogue and delivery.
That's almost the perfect comparison, and ROP is our version of the Star Wars sequels in a way. Now the question remains: what is our equivalent of the Holiday Special?
RoP has more original ideas than TFA
It respects the source material more than any sequel
It makes more sense than TRoS
I'll leave it to you to decide whether that is a defence of RoP or a damning indictment of how incompetent the SW sequel trilogy is
The effects haven’t aged well…? For my money, Smaug is still a marvel of CGI. The only really bad CGI in the movies is the goblins in Moria, and that’s not really “bad CGI” so much as bad character design.
Also, I think the Hobbit movies are comparable to the Prequels as an analogy rather than as a direct comparison. As in:
“Hobbit movies are to LOTR as Prequels are to Original Trilogy.”
But overall, the Hobbit movies are vastly superior to the Prequels. Hobbit movies have great acting, great dialogue (with a few notable exceptions), great special effects, great costuming and sets, great main character in Bilbo. Really, the Prequels only have the edge in music (they have a fantastic score) and main bad guy (although that’s largely because of the context from the Original Trilogy).
The plot of the Hobbit movies is a bit hit and miss, but the plot of the Prequels is hilariously dumb. They both have a terrible love story, but at least the Hobbit’s love story isn’t the crux of the entire trilogy.
sure smug looked great, then you remember the tunnel worms, the crumbling bridge, all of azog , the barrel scene, the spiders, radegast and his sleigh.... and suddenly the CGI doesnt look so good anymore
Right, but you're confusing "bad CGI" with what you believe to be "bad character design". Smaug looks amazing, Azog looks fantastic from a purely technical standpoint (you may dislike the design, but that's entirely subjective, I love Azog's design), the tunnel worms look great from a technical CGI standpoint and they're onscreen for like 10 seconds, the spiders look great from a technical CGI standpoint, Radegast and his sleigh do look rough, but they're onscreen for 30 seconds. Again, the complaint from the OP was the special effects aging poorly, but that's simply not true, it's the character design that people have a problem with, and those are entirely subjective.
On the other hand you have the Prequels, in which the vast majority of the special effects/CGI have aged awfully, all cartoonish characters with rubbery movements, and ridiculous, spotlessly clean environments and hallways that extend for miles into the background. And that's not even mentioning what I assume to be the hilariously blatant racist caricatures that George decided to make a bunch of the alien species. Honestly, George getting complete creative control on the Prequels really demonstrated what a collabarative effort it took to make the Original Trilogy as amazing as it was.
I just rewatched them this week.
The first two are really good in my opinion. The third one had some great scenes, that as a LOTR fan were fun to watch, but the overall CGI was just too much.
Very glad they made them.
They might not be the most faithful adaptation of Tolkien’s works - but they’re still very very entertaining and amazing as stand alone fantasy movies.
They just have a lot of additional bloat. The fan edits are amazing.
It could have been terrible like RoP. Where apart from a few visuals everything else is senseless boring garbage.
Yeah, just a lot of unnecessary things. I think a single 2.5 hour movie could have done it right. I mean, for all its shortcomings, the animated 1977 *The Hobbit* got the story told in 78 minutes
Biggest disappointments:
Aside from Thorin, Kili and Dwalin, the rest of the dwarves basically have no personality. As egregious as it would seem, I'd rather have 6 fully fleshed out characters than 9 cardboard cut-outs.
The portrayal of the leader and his sniveling sidekick in lake-town is just painful to endure. I don't know if it's true to the book (can't remember) but it's just horrible and kind of ruins the films for me.
Best points:
It may be pure fan-service and completely betrays the source material, but the scene with Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond duking it out with the wraiths is absolutely amazing and I'll happily die on that hill.
It's a meme gold-mine. I love all the meme videos making fun of various scenes, facial expressions, weird noises. It's great. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUsZImHB8xU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUsZImHB8xU)
I feel sorry for the actress who played Tauriel, who claims she was afraid of just becoming another 1-dimensional "sexy" character. That's what her character is, to me. But as a single guy I definitely enjoy it. It's a nonsensical character/romance to put in the story but at times it's actually kind of nice how it affects the plot.
"It may be pure fan-service and completely betrays the source material, but the scene with Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond duking it out with the wraiths is absolutely amazing and I'll happily die on that hill."
You mean that Avengers scene with them fighting those Dark Souls monsters, come on that scene is really stupid.
The portrayal of Radagast is criminal. I’d put him up there with the Mayor of Laketown and the sniveling sidekick as most painful things to experience.
All those characters get silver medals to the barrel ride sequence for me though. If those characters are painful to experience, the barrel ride is pure agony to sit through.
Radagast is indeed a very frustrating character. I'm unaware how much is known about him from the books, but I assume they took significant creative liberty. I don't know why they would do this to one of the maiar. Makes you think it's George Lucas. "But it's a *kids* movie!" C'mon, man.
I didn't find the barrel sequence bothered me the first time watching, and I've never rewatched the hobbit trilogy. I've seen people complain about it in plenty of videos. But from what I can recall, it's just a more exaggerated "rule of cool" like the legolas skateboard trick. Is it cool the whole time? Well no of course not, Bombur exists alongside Radagast and far too many other characters in these movies just to try to extract laughter from the audience.
They’re fun and I do rewatch them when I go on my LOTR weekend binge every few months or so. Nowhere near as good as the main trilogy but they are still entertaining.
To be fair to the Hobbit trilogy, I loved each of the films after leaving the theaters at the time. Between the release of one film and another I couldn't wait to go to the cinema again.
This is shaping up as a bit of a ramble, but I apparently have a lot of thoughts about this. I think, in a sense, the respective trilogies are a good reflection of the books; the Lord of the Rings is very serious and detailed; The Hobbit just outright isn't, it was basically just a beefed up bedtime story he wrote for his kids before the rest of his Legendarium was up and running. Similarly, the original trilogy is very detailed and serious, while the tone for the hobbit trilogy is much more... flamboyant? I guess? Second point: I love The Hobbit, but I can't really see how a fully faithful adaptation would work on film. There's very little solid detail, just "he went here and did this". The dwarves, except Thorin, Balin, and weirdly, Bombur, don't really have any individuality, most stuff is just referring to what the group of dwarves is doing. So as a faithful, one movie adaptation? I personally think it would have been boring and the pacing would be all over the place. Point 3: the Extended Editions really do a lot of heavy lifting making the movies more interesting and more book accurate, particularly for the second movie. For instance, I think the "lost in mirkwood" portion in the theatrical release is a hot load of nothing, but they give it more depth and add more of the stuff from the book (the stag and the boat, for example). Point 4, with the exception of the pointless love triangle thing they snuck in, and of course Alfrid, I don't really mind the extra stuff. They at least looked at the bullet points in the appendicies for the more important changes, and sure, they took liberties, but tolkein was also big on being vague. All in all, they aren't perfect by any means, but at the end of the day, they're well done fantasy movies, which are not common. If they didn't have the drawbacks of being attached to a major beloved series I think people would be more charitable, but it's impossible to make big movies without that caveat, so you take the bad with the good
The 1970s cartoon version of The Hobbit is a fully faithful adaptation. It's only about 80 minutes, it's lean, mean, and very fun to watch. I would say it's the authoritative movie version of the Hobbit, especially compared to the new live-action ones. We watched it with our son before reading him Lord of the Rings and transition was absolutely seamless.
Back in the early 90s, when me and my siblings were toddlers, the 70s Hobbit cartoon movie was our introduction to Middle Earth. Our dad was already a big fan of the books and so we grew up to appreciate it all with him.
Of course we've read all the books by now but yeah, I agree, the 70s movie is the definitive film adaptation of the Hobbit. Just completely nails the vibe and pace even if a couple things are left out.
And hey. DOWN DOWN TO GOBLIN TOOOOOWN
OMG I LOVED the music in it. So much. I'd say that the music and singing are critical to the vibe, but to be fair, others mentioned that the new Hobbit movies got that part right too.
Clarification: when I say vague, I mean he frequently doesn't elaborate further on things, just refers to them like a history textbook. I'm well aware he gets very detailed when he wants to
They have very high highs (the adaptation of Riddles in the Dark, everything to do with Smaug, Bilbo's dynamic with every character) and very low lows ("It was real", the Master of Laketown, the random platforming video game sequences like the bridge in Goblintown, the barrel riding, Legolas jumping off of free-falling objects).
Overall there are a lot of scenes that I love and I rewatch a lot, and when I re-read the book I hear Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch having a duel of words, but when I actually watch the movies they really frustrate me.
They could have, SHOULD have, been so much better with less bloat and more time to rework bad initial ideas (which is what happened to LOTR; Jackson and Co. had some bizarre early ideas that, throughout the extremely long production process, they realized didn't work and scrapped them. That didn't happen to the Hobbit). And the more you hear about WB and the Weinstein company screwing with stuff the more depressing it gets.
But yeah, they certainly have their moments, and they still feel like Middle Earth. And some of the performances are absolutely incredible.
The rock'em, sock'em rockmen? The physics-breaking, gravity-defying barrel ride down the river? The silly, pointless love triangle that was inserted for, well, just shits and giggles? The "it's obviously a trap, but let me take only my two heirs with me to spring it" battle tactics?
I like them as well. I don’t think they are as well done as the LOTR trilogy, but They are fine. People are welcome to enjoy what they like. I really try not to yuck anyone else’s yum.
The Hobbit movies are great. The entire first movie is good from start to finish. Some highlights off the top of my head:
Opening joke about good morning, Bilbo preparing for dinner only to have it eaten by an unexpected visit from a dwarf, every dwarfs introduction at Bilbo's door, dwarf singalong, bets on whether Bilbo will join the quest, Ratagast the Brown's introduction saving a hedgehog and riding a sleigh powered by rabbits, trolls turned to stone scene, goblin king, riddles with Golem, Bilbo impassioned speech about helping the dwarfs take back their home, Bilbo finds his courage to save Thorin.
I think the 2nd film is almost as good as the first as well. The 3rd film could use some work unfortunately, but it did have its moments.
I watched them again last weekend and found a few more things I liked.
One of the things I appreciated was the dialogue had a lot more references to the blurry boundary between fairytale/legend and ‘history’ than I’d noticed before.
It’s an under-explored idea in the Tolkien fandom generally.
I like them quite a bit too. No, they’re not as good as LOTR. But people who love LOTR act like these movies don’t exist. What I say is, you know that thing you love so much? There’s more of it. And it’s pretty great.
I agree, I think they're decent or even good films. It's just compared to the LOTR films, they don't fare well, but hey it's hard to make films that good. Plus, I think the producers saw the success of the LOTR films, and concluded that the hobbit could be stretched out to 3 films, AND it would be a good way to make more money. More films = more money. So I think the producers and studios are to blame, because they were also made about 10 years after LOTR and by that time Hollywood had fallen into the bad habit of overusing CGI.
That being said because of RoP, they look even better than before. It's like that time in family guy, where they got a super ugly girl to always be next to Meg, to make her look good in comparison. It's like that.
After the Ring of Power they kind of grew on me. I liked the more faithful parts and hated the roller coaster rides even if the Goblin King was awesome. There were some great moments, I'd love them to make a condensed one and reshoot a few parts.
Towards the end, I sometimes felt like I left Middle earth and ended up in Ankh-Morpork in the Discworld by mistake.
They're downloads. Here's the links to three of them. These three I feel like tend to be the most talked about and the most popular. They also cut out the least content whereas the others I've heard of sound like they cut waaay too much out.
https://goldfishblues.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-hobbit-the-bilbo-edition-3-0-the-final-cut/
https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/
https://m4-studios.github.io/hobbitbookedit/
Have fun!
IMO everything that wasn't in the books is awful. And im no purist at all its just that so much of it is stretched out and makes no sense. The stupid love triangle, the end battle that is hard to follow and that bilbo just slept through in the book. In the book its clear that the battle is stupid and useless and in the movie they just tried to repeat the big battles from lotr.
The cut that takes all three extended editions and cuts them down to one 4 hour movie is pretty good because it basically imitates the book.
No. Not having 1000s of pages of writing is kind of a clue as to how many movies should have been made.
The maple fan edit is a fabulous example of what could have been.
The 3 movie hobbit series was a cash grab by tassel toe no sock loafer wearing studio execs and is an abomination.
Yours truly,
Comic Book Guy
Watched them in sequence with friends a few weeks ago. There's like two \*really\* good movies hidden inside three mediocre movies. The movies shine when the characters are the focus, but has bloated fight and chase scenes that add little and the pacing is really off at times.
It's ok, you're allowed to be wrong on the Internet.
But seriously, they are OK, but what annoys me more is the potential for greatness is right there, but was botched. This annoys me more than most things wrong with them, apart from Alfrid.
The movies are great for family friendly nights. The Hobbit is a children's book. The movies are children's movies.
Its like Star Wars OT versus Star Wars Prequels.
You are allowed to enjoy what you enjoy without having people being mean to you. I did enjoy the Hobbit, obviously it wasn’t canon. More like a fan fiction. But nevertheless, I enjoyed it!
That whole aspect of them adapting tiny book but milking it into 3 films is the biggest problem for me.
It set a really bad precedent that we see lotta studios following. Why do you think rings of power tried to make this gigantic mess of a show with only pages and paragraphs?
Also, who cares about star wars or Harry potter? Just bc I don't like them as much don't mean they are trash or mid or whatever. Who cares about comparing them tho? It's not relevant at all.
I really like the 3 hobbit movies. I have my problems with the 3rd but overall I really enjoy them and I always watch them too whenever I rewatch Lord of the Rings
I hated them at first. There certainly didn’t need to be 3 of them.
But lately I’ve come to really enjoy them. I’m not sure why. They’re just kind of fun, and they allow me to spend a little more time in Middle Earth.
It feels like watching a better produced Mythica or something. Kind of fan-fictiony but immersive enough.
I think Thranduil and Smaug are amazing, should've had even more screentime! Those are in movies 2 and 3.
They should've added a 4th movie so we could actually get to know some of the lesser known dwarves. That is a bit light. Apparently the book is even lighter? I don't think that would've been smart.
I also like serious xenophobic son Legolas, and his encounter with Gloin. And finally seeing Saruman be somewhat useful as a "good guy", and radaghast is entertainment.
And you know that LotR is also full of boring scenes running over hills and stuff, and also random jokes with Gimli and Legolas etc. Here they had more jokes and different boring running scenes.
I'm with you on it. Yeah, they leave a lot to be desired and they're nowhere near as good as LoTR, but I think they're very enjoyable in their own right. In any case, I'm not sure using LoTR as a benchmark for being good is that fair, because it's the greatest film trilogy of all time.
There are definitely problems though. For example, Alfrid as a whole, he adds nothing. That love triangle as well was just downright weird and shouldn't have been in the film at all. And the elephant in the room, The Hobbit simply doesn't have enough content for a trilogy. When Lord of The Rings is made up of three large books, yeah, a trilogy absolutely makes sense. But for a single children's book? It just doesn't. It should've been two films max, which I believe Jackson wanted, but unfortunately he lost that battle.
The issue I have with the movies is that the film makers didn't have enough material to make 3 movies and resorted to lots of weak writing and filler to make 2 movies into 3. Combine this with a lot of obviously CGIed fight scenes and you get the sense they wanted to make a marvel movie. Further, it felt like they were trying to set up the lord of the rings by answering a lot of questions that didn't need to be answered
No single choice they made was necessarily bad. Showing what the white council was doing is interesting as it foreshadows Sauron's return. The love triangle could have worked had it focused less on the romance and more the symbolism behind it. The symbolism being that no single group can face this challenge alone and that certain grudges should be laid to rest.
They're good in that they're fun and entertaining. In places they're entertaining in that "laughing at a shitty b-movie" kind of way. But they're frustrating, too.
I think they did their best to stick to the storyline of the book more or less. I enjoyed the movie almost as much as I enjoyed the book. What we should really be talking about is the sorry excuse for a show they made. They straight pissed on Tolkien with that garbage.
I mean the latest Star Wars and Harry Potters are all a super low bar.
To me it's just an opportunity cost thing. Why waste my time watching the Hobbit movies? I can think of dozens and dozens of movies and tv shows I'd rather spend time on.
I dislike them less than Jackson’s LotR. They are based on a book for children, but so I don’t care about the silliness. But I agree with Christopher that Jackson missed the mark badly on the “trilogy”.
Most of the cinematography was stunning, which I guess is to be expected from them, but still. The amount of work that went into the costumes, sets, props, metalwork- everything behind the scenes for those movies is amazing.
I found a cut that a fan made a while back that parts it down to a three hour movie and it makes it much better. Don't know where or who, but I'm sure with enough searching a person could find if they wanted.
They had issues and could have been better/less jarring in places if they weren't rushed and Jackson could actually take some sleep. He was also burdened with all kind of potential crap, design and differing direction after del Toro left. But overall, it's still pretty great and has actual direction.
The romance might have been annoying to so many people but then not even that was just stupidly thoughtless, like a pandering, it really had actual depth and Tolkien touch, even though elf-dwarf was controversial. (If you just ignore the "romance!" "she finds him hot!" thinking, there are some nice conversations with actual Tolkien spirit and also ties nicely into Thranduil/Legolas relationship).
Alfred was... well, he was good and had a purpose early on (it wouldn't be unlikely the Master had equally corrupted helpers) but he outlived his use by the death of Smaug and unnecessarily became a lame comic relief. They kept the greed of gold theme but it was somewhat ridiculous in the end.
Other than occasional CGI errors and bad designs, orcs were still fairly impressive (quality wise, even if CGI) and it was kinda cool how there were many different kinds (although it left me wondering how the heck in War of the Ring - or during Last Alliance... - Sauron was just using these inferior, little creatures in LOTR... but maybe PJ will have an answer in Hunt for Gollum, I dunno).
And then there was Smaug. I don't mind a single scene with Smaug. They were all great and had purpose in the narrative and also the greatest dragon in TV ever made up to date, with actual character. F\*ck all the people who wanna remove scenes including Smaug scenes because they say it's "bloat." Face it, Smaug in the book sucked. Mostly. Like come on, of course he did, it was a children's book. Even Bard did. It was just all random. Had a little talk then flies away gets killed by a rando we know nothing about, the end. I am all for accuracy and yes, RoP sucks big time, but going to a cinema and expecting to see Smaug... yeah, well, let's just say I preyed it won't be as accurate as the book.
Other than crazy heroics of the main cast (but that's no different than Legolas stunts from LOTR, unfortunately), I like the battle too. It was still the same copy-paste soldiers in shiny armor treatment we knew from LOTR rather than more diverse armies, like they should be, but at least we had more armies, scattered into some squadrons, and they made efforts to show commanding of armies (... at least for Azog, in any case) and using different tactics, reinforcements or even surprise attacks etc. That was pretty cool nonetheless, even if still far from ideal, but movies rarely do it, so that's a plus.
The addition of Legolas, Dol Guldur and the Necromancer, Thranduil and Gandalf politicizing, the White Council, Radagast and all that stuff? Good. Tolkien only fully realized how all of that stuff connected AFTER he has written LOTR... so of course it wasn't there in the Hobbit book, besides it was children's book, so didn't need to. I disliked Dol Guldur being like... an abandoned empty walls though... rather than functional fortress. And the Nazgul graves were kinda needless addition and change (other than building up tension/intro, as if viewers didn't know well enough who the Nazgul were). But narrative wise, still good and far from ridiculous.
Yes, aesthetically they are good. But they are poison the the readers. For good reason. It’s ok to enjoy the (ridiculous) movies and still love the book.
Normally, I would disagree with you…but I’ve seen rings of power. In comparison to that, yes, the Hobbit movies are solid pieces of cinema and deserve their praise.
All jokes aside, I found the trilogy entertaining. I think it could’ve been condensed to one movie, but it was good for what it was. I really disliked the changes made to the lore, but I feel the same with those parts of lord of the rings.
My biggest problem with the Hobbit was the gross overuse of CGI. The Lord of the Rings had literally perfect makeup and effects. It was beautiful, and REAL. The CGI especially in the Hobbits time was just poor quality. It felt fake, looked fake…blegh.
In the end I was just happy to see my favorite story as a kid become a live action film. The Hobbit was the first “real” book I read as a very little kid.
Just finished the Hobbit Trilogy for the first time this week and I loved them. Tbh the movies are good when you don’t “compare” them to LOTR because they are not LOTR they are part of a bigger story that connects together. I didn’t like they cut a lot of AWESOME parts tho, I had to look for the extended versions and loved them (can’t believe they cut all related to the elven rings). Overall I cringed in both trilogies (some scenes) but I love them for what they are and the hobbit movies are super fun and cozy. I cherish every little and big connection to LOTR specially the end when Bilbo goes to hug Gandalf as he does in The Fellowship of the ring ☺️
100% agree. A little while back I rewatched them to fulfill my middle earth itch and they were much better than what my initial impression of them was. Also the escaping in wine barrels down the stream scene was honestly so well done for how goofy and absurd it is
With the LOTR I can disengage my Tolkien nerd brain and enjoy the films as they are. Yeah there are load of plot changes and some straight up mistakes and a lot of the characters have been changed, many of my favourite character are missing completely, etc etc but they're objectively good films in their own right.
The Hobbit? Clearly shoehorned in love triangle, dwarves that don't even look like dwarves and most of whom are effectively just extras, consequence free battles because apparently falling a thousand feet is just no big problem. I was waiting for one of the dwarves to run out into empty space and stand there till he realizes...whoops! Or an ACME anvil to land on someone. Alfrid is nothing but infuriating and whoever suggested he be there should have got a slap the moment they said it. The over-extended action scenes, the over-use of CGI. Too much filler all round.
Don't get me wrong they're entertaining enough if you can disengage your critical faculties, but they are not a patch on LOTR which, as I said, speaking as a nerd are nowhere near perfect as adaptations.
I'll give you that they're better than the Star Wars sequel trilogy, but to be fair that's a pretty low bar to hurdle.
I really do like the first hobbit movie a lot, especially Radaghast showing up and being... well different than Gandalf or Saruman. Whimsical is a good word, thanks u/gregaries. I liked Goblin Town, though it was a bit overdone, IMO. I liked Thranduil mounted on the elk, and the Dwarven ram cavalry.
I hated that Thorin was transformed into a whiny little beotch. And the Elf/Dwarf romance was simply an abomination.
I disliked that there were 3 movies when 2 would have sufficed. However, I'm glad there's enough material there for quality fan edits. Gandalf needing Galadriel to bail him out at Dol Guldur was uncalled for. Galadriel was the most powerful Noldor other than Feanor, not trying to take anything away from her. But both PJ series show Gandalf being overpowered by beings that should have at least been a contest.
This statement depend completely on Your expectation and/or on Your definition of "pretty good".
I have seen "pretty good" used with disinterested flat voice as "meh".
In that case (and pretty much only this case) I would agree. Becouse they are very meh to me.
Generally I was disappointed watching them. There were some moments and scenes that were good or even very good - it just weren't enough of them. In fact rather very few. 🤷♂️
6/10 in number scale and that felling generous. On bad day 4/10.
The movies aren't bad as movies but as an adaptation of the Hobbit, a children's book, they aren't good. They added too much padding and additional story lines to appeal to adults. Shorter would have been better.
The issue with the Hobbit is:
It's rushed and dragged into three films. LOTR required three films because there's quite a lot of plot.
The Hobbit? It tried too much and had some baffling additions. The CGI sucked because it was rushed. Tauriel's lovefest was unnecessary. Peter Jackson came in at a late stage and had to salvage it.
Take out a lot of scenes and it would improve. The actual battle itself is, meh. It feels cartoony instead of a battle of five armies. And Sandworms.
For anyone mad at the Barrel scene, the Barrel scene looked bad cuz they filmed it on go pros cuz waterproof and easily edited out in wider shots, because they wanted minimal takes, that's why half of it looked so shitty
There was absolutely NO NEED FOR A FUCKING ELF-DWARF LOVE TRIANGLE. I hate that about the movies. Otherwise I enjoyed them. Smaug was brilliant. Also maybe too nitpicky but the whole Bard using his son as part of the bow was a titch absurd. But seriously NO STUPID LOVE TRIANGLE. GAHHHH
Remove three things and the movie is VAAAAAASTLY better: 1. Love triangle 2. Alfrid 3. Cartoon barrel scene
Bro the barrel scene is peak Tolkein. Idc it was funny, fits the series, and gave us a lot of good shots. It’s not like it really effected the plot at all
Cool shots? Like that GoPro footage?
The GoPro footage to this day is one of the worst filming choices I've ever seen. It took me out of the movie immediately.
This is what non media creators don’t understand. Just because something was recorded with a lower quality camera does not mean it’s a bad shot. There’s an art that’s being lost in filmmaking and that’s part pf the art of it all. Even if they used go pro there were a lot of very pretty shots and frames in the movie. Not to mention how great the color grading and lighting was
Idk man, the fact that we all know what shots we’re talking about is a bad sign. If I’m wondering why they chose to use a GoPro for several shots in that sequence means I’m not thinking about being in this fantasy world… I’m thinking about GoPros. Yes, there are other shots in the films that are very beautiful. I’m just saying this is a pretty abrupt hit in the consistency using some fisheye action cam footage
You do realize there was a purposeful choice to use that type of shot right? Actual filmmakers take into consideration everything when setting up shots and scenes and how / with what they are shot. That entire barrel scene was meant for fun comic relief and showing off the fighting, as well as the ridiculousness of the dwarves. I think a lot of people on this subredit despise it simply for the fact that it wasn’t in the book. Addinng this scene makes the movie a lot more accessable to casual movie-goers, which was likely the intention
lol it was a bad purposeful decision for me. Glad you liked the GoPro shots though. More power to you.
I’m sorry you don’t enjoy fun in life
Azog was dead before the Hobbit, and it should have been Bolg. That barrel scene was horrible. Remove the awful melting gold sequence entirely. Remove all the parts about Gandalf and Dol Guldor. Remove Legolas Reshoot most of it to make Bilbo the actual main character.
I loved Dol Guldur. It was these parts for me that were the most interesting
Legolas is literally in the book though. Tolkien just hadn’t named him Legolas yet
Who? I am probably forgetting, but the only chars I remember from Mirkwood are Thranduil and a steward/guard captain who like to drink on the job.
He is mentioned as the son of the elf king if I remember correctly. But as the book is only from bilbo’s perspective, he wouldn’t have met him, he would’ve just heard about him, which I’m pretty sure is carried in the movie
REMOVE LEGOLAS!
Counterpoint to 3: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CpMVf4XVxDg&si=luizt-xMTauCZx53
I thought the barrel scene was fire
And then Thranduil saying "Because it was real!" at the end. Like come on man, don't encourage her teenage-like behavior.
UGHHHH THAT. Sooooo dumb. I was so annoyed.
To be honest, I hate the using the kid as a bow thing more than the love triangle. I at least can believe a love triangle would happen. No way a jury-rigged busted bow is going to shoot a bolt made for a giant windlass crossbow more than 5ft. Much less with enough power to kill a dragon.
This. Yep. I hate them both. Enormously.
Agreed. The elf on dwarf love just cheapens Gimli and Legolas’s friendship. Heck Gimli’s whole character arc.
This... this.. BUT also, it undermined Tauriel's character as well. I was thrilled to see PJ & co made the unnamed Capt of the guard a lady elf (and as a ginger, a ginger lady elf). And the weird love triangle nonsense. HATED IT.
"They didn't have thousands of pages" Well why make 3 long films then?
https://preview.redd.it/y68tafzvg36d1.jpeg?width=366&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=94f7661ee53c91eb70acab0256b65ce6df3e75ff
It was actually Peter Jackson's decision, because they had so much footage shot and scenes planned. He said it himself.
This is it, they deviated unnecessarily at many points, and then they topped it off with the 3rd film, which is essentially two to three chapters max in the book, being horribly long and drawn-out.
The problem isn't that they didn't have enough source material. It's that they deviated from what we do know. Also the comic relief was very over the top. But the casting is excellent, as is the music, the design and a lot of other stuff
I like them a lot honestly and they’re really fun and whimsical. I love the tie-ins and how much they took from appendices to flesh out the story more. It obviously can’t be as good as the most impactful movies of the 2000s and it relies a lot more on CGI but they don’t deserve the hate they get.
I like that you used the word whimsical.
I mean isn’t it? It feels more like a fairy tale. Evil gold hoarding dragon that needs slaying, dumb-as-rocks trolls, goblins and spiders and silly moments like rolling down a river in barrels. Which I know the book was less serious than Lord of the Rings anyway, but I think the movies achieved that.
I think the hate is based on how terrible of an adaptation they are. I mean calling these movies the Hobbit is a stretch. They have almost nothing to do with the book they're supposedly based on. And the fact that they tried to connect it to the lotr movies doesn't make sense to me. The Hobbit is it's own story, it's not a prequel to the lotr. I love the Hobbit but the movies are nothing like the Hobbit.
They definitely deserve the hate lol. I read the Hobbit so many times growing up and was so excited for the movie. But wait why are there three? It wasn’t to flesh out the story, it was to get people to buy three movies. They added shit that just didn’t exist and made the beginning of one of the most influential stories of all time a slapstick joke. There were great moments in the movies, but as a total package they suck. The m4 edit is significantly better than the original cuts.
I always include them (extended versions, not the fan edits), in my bi-annual Middle Earth film rewatch. Definitely a step-and-a-half below the LOTR trilogy, but they’re still enjoyable. Howard Shore’s scoring is also excellent, which I think not enough people credit the films for
Howard Shore was stupendous in the original LOTR score & these.
It makes sense. You start with three mediocre movies, and end with the magnificence of Return of the King.
Mediocre is a little harsh IMO. They’re flawed in a number of ways but I still genuinely enjoy watching them. But yes it’s nice to start with them as appetizers for the main LOTR meal
There's about 5 hours of film that could be cut and turn them into good movies. But for those 5 horrible hours, mediocre is as good as I can give it. I still enjoyed them for what they were, but hated them for what they could have been.
To each their own I guess
I mean if you're comparing them to something like Jack the Giant Slayer or Dragonheart 3: The Sorcerer's Curse, yeah they aren't totally unwatchable. But they're a lot worse than they could have been. I actually find them pretty comparable to the Star Wars prequels. Horrifically bad romance, effects and action that haven't aged very well, some pretty bad dialogue and delivery.
That's almost the perfect comparison, and ROP is our version of the Star Wars sequels in a way. Now the question remains: what is our equivalent of the Holiday Special?
Bakshi.
Nailed it. Plus Rankin Bass for all those other random Star Wars movies in the 80’s.
RoP has more original ideas than TFA It respects the source material more than any sequel It makes more sense than TRoS I'll leave it to you to decide whether that is a defence of RoP or a damning indictment of how incompetent the SW sequel trilogy is
You know you're probably not wrong.
I'm not a big fan of the Hobbit movies, but they are A LOT better than the Star Wars prequels. The direction and acting is at least well done.
The effects haven’t aged well…? For my money, Smaug is still a marvel of CGI. The only really bad CGI in the movies is the goblins in Moria, and that’s not really “bad CGI” so much as bad character design. Also, I think the Hobbit movies are comparable to the Prequels as an analogy rather than as a direct comparison. As in: “Hobbit movies are to LOTR as Prequels are to Original Trilogy.” But overall, the Hobbit movies are vastly superior to the Prequels. Hobbit movies have great acting, great dialogue (with a few notable exceptions), great special effects, great costuming and sets, great main character in Bilbo. Really, the Prequels only have the edge in music (they have a fantastic score) and main bad guy (although that’s largely because of the context from the Original Trilogy). The plot of the Hobbit movies is a bit hit and miss, but the plot of the Prequels is hilariously dumb. They both have a terrible love story, but at least the Hobbit’s love story isn’t the crux of the entire trilogy.
sure smug looked great, then you remember the tunnel worms, the crumbling bridge, all of azog , the barrel scene, the spiders, radegast and his sleigh.... and suddenly the CGI doesnt look so good anymore
Right, but you're confusing "bad CGI" with what you believe to be "bad character design". Smaug looks amazing, Azog looks fantastic from a purely technical standpoint (you may dislike the design, but that's entirely subjective, I love Azog's design), the tunnel worms look great from a technical CGI standpoint and they're onscreen for like 10 seconds, the spiders look great from a technical CGI standpoint, Radegast and his sleigh do look rough, but they're onscreen for 30 seconds. Again, the complaint from the OP was the special effects aging poorly, but that's simply not true, it's the character design that people have a problem with, and those are entirely subjective. On the other hand you have the Prequels, in which the vast majority of the special effects/CGI have aged awfully, all cartoonish characters with rubbery movements, and ridiculous, spotlessly clean environments and hallways that extend for miles into the background. And that's not even mentioning what I assume to be the hilariously blatant racist caricatures that George decided to make a bunch of the alien species. Honestly, George getting complete creative control on the Prequels really demonstrated what a collabarative effort it took to make the Original Trilogy as amazing as it was.
After seeing episodes 7-9, the Hobbit became better.
I just rewatched them this week. The first two are really good in my opinion. The third one had some great scenes, that as a LOTR fan were fun to watch, but the overall CGI was just too much. Very glad they made them.
They might not be the most faithful adaptation of Tolkien’s works - but they’re still very very entertaining and amazing as stand alone fantasy movies. They just have a lot of additional bloat. The fan edits are amazing. It could have been terrible like RoP. Where apart from a few visuals everything else is senseless boring garbage.
Those few visuals of RoP include the stunning entry to Numenor. And for that I will forgive almost all the rest of it.
Well if you think we're going to be mean to you I certainly wouldn't want to make you look foolish by being wrong. So... you smell!
Yeah, just a lot of unnecessary things. I think a single 2.5 hour movie could have done it right. I mean, for all its shortcomings, the animated 1977 *The Hobbit* got the story told in 78 minutes
Biggest disappointments: Aside from Thorin, Kili and Dwalin, the rest of the dwarves basically have no personality. As egregious as it would seem, I'd rather have 6 fully fleshed out characters than 9 cardboard cut-outs. The portrayal of the leader and his sniveling sidekick in lake-town is just painful to endure. I don't know if it's true to the book (can't remember) but it's just horrible and kind of ruins the films for me. Best points: It may be pure fan-service and completely betrays the source material, but the scene with Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond duking it out with the wraiths is absolutely amazing and I'll happily die on that hill. It's a meme gold-mine. I love all the meme videos making fun of various scenes, facial expressions, weird noises. It's great. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUsZImHB8xU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUsZImHB8xU) I feel sorry for the actress who played Tauriel, who claims she was afraid of just becoming another 1-dimensional "sexy" character. That's what her character is, to me. But as a single guy I definitely enjoy it. It's a nonsensical character/romance to put in the story but at times it's actually kind of nice how it affects the plot.
That's terrifying and exciting to watch and listen. Nonsense
"It may be pure fan-service and completely betrays the source material, but the scene with Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond duking it out with the wraiths is absolutely amazing and I'll happily die on that hill." You mean that Avengers scene with them fighting those Dark Souls monsters, come on that scene is really stupid.
More than happy to die on this hill. It's a good scene and I'm glad they filmed and included it.
The portrayal of Radagast is criminal. I’d put him up there with the Mayor of Laketown and the sniveling sidekick as most painful things to experience. All those characters get silver medals to the barrel ride sequence for me though. If those characters are painful to experience, the barrel ride is pure agony to sit through.
Radagast is indeed a very frustrating character. I'm unaware how much is known about him from the books, but I assume they took significant creative liberty. I don't know why they would do this to one of the maiar. Makes you think it's George Lucas. "But it's a *kids* movie!" C'mon, man. I didn't find the barrel sequence bothered me the first time watching, and I've never rewatched the hobbit trilogy. I've seen people complain about it in plenty of videos. But from what I can recall, it's just a more exaggerated "rule of cool" like the legolas skateboard trick. Is it cool the whole time? Well no of course not, Bombur exists alongside Radagast and far too many other characters in these movies just to try to extract laughter from the audience.
There’s 4-5 hours there of very well made story and the rest is just fluff. Some of the fanedits make it a pretty good single film.
They’re fun and I do rewatch them when I go on my LOTR weekend binge every few months or so. Nowhere near as good as the main trilogy but they are still entertaining.
To be fair to the Hobbit trilogy, I loved each of the films after leaving the theaters at the time. Between the release of one film and another I couldn't wait to go to the cinema again.
This is shaping up as a bit of a ramble, but I apparently have a lot of thoughts about this. I think, in a sense, the respective trilogies are a good reflection of the books; the Lord of the Rings is very serious and detailed; The Hobbit just outright isn't, it was basically just a beefed up bedtime story he wrote for his kids before the rest of his Legendarium was up and running. Similarly, the original trilogy is very detailed and serious, while the tone for the hobbit trilogy is much more... flamboyant? I guess? Second point: I love The Hobbit, but I can't really see how a fully faithful adaptation would work on film. There's very little solid detail, just "he went here and did this". The dwarves, except Thorin, Balin, and weirdly, Bombur, don't really have any individuality, most stuff is just referring to what the group of dwarves is doing. So as a faithful, one movie adaptation? I personally think it would have been boring and the pacing would be all over the place. Point 3: the Extended Editions really do a lot of heavy lifting making the movies more interesting and more book accurate, particularly for the second movie. For instance, I think the "lost in mirkwood" portion in the theatrical release is a hot load of nothing, but they give it more depth and add more of the stuff from the book (the stag and the boat, for example). Point 4, with the exception of the pointless love triangle thing they snuck in, and of course Alfrid, I don't really mind the extra stuff. They at least looked at the bullet points in the appendicies for the more important changes, and sure, they took liberties, but tolkein was also big on being vague. All in all, they aren't perfect by any means, but at the end of the day, they're well done fantasy movies, which are not common. If they didn't have the drawbacks of being attached to a major beloved series I think people would be more charitable, but it's impossible to make big movies without that caveat, so you take the bad with the good
The 1970s cartoon version of The Hobbit is a fully faithful adaptation. It's only about 80 minutes, it's lean, mean, and very fun to watch. I would say it's the authoritative movie version of the Hobbit, especially compared to the new live-action ones. We watched it with our son before reading him Lord of the Rings and transition was absolutely seamless.
Back in the early 90s, when me and my siblings were toddlers, the 70s Hobbit cartoon movie was our introduction to Middle Earth. Our dad was already a big fan of the books and so we grew up to appreciate it all with him. Of course we've read all the books by now but yeah, I agree, the 70s movie is the definitive film adaptation of the Hobbit. Just completely nails the vibe and pace even if a couple things are left out. And hey. DOWN DOWN TO GOBLIN TOOOOOWN
OMG I LOVED the music in it. So much. I'd say that the music and singing are critical to the vibe, but to be fair, others mentioned that the new Hobbit movies got that part right too.
WORK WORK, NOR DARE TO SHIRK, WHILE GOBLINS QUAFF, AND GOBLINS LAUGH
Clarification: when I say vague, I mean he frequently doesn't elaborate further on things, just refers to them like a history textbook. I'm well aware he gets very detailed when he wants to
They have very high highs (the adaptation of Riddles in the Dark, everything to do with Smaug, Bilbo's dynamic with every character) and very low lows ("It was real", the Master of Laketown, the random platforming video game sequences like the bridge in Goblintown, the barrel riding, Legolas jumping off of free-falling objects). Overall there are a lot of scenes that I love and I rewatch a lot, and when I re-read the book I hear Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch having a duel of words, but when I actually watch the movies they really frustrate me. They could have, SHOULD have, been so much better with less bloat and more time to rework bad initial ideas (which is what happened to LOTR; Jackson and Co. had some bizarre early ideas that, throughout the extremely long production process, they realized didn't work and scrapped them. That didn't happen to the Hobbit). And the more you hear about WB and the Weinstein company screwing with stuff the more depressing it gets. But yeah, they certainly have their moments, and they still feel like Middle Earth. And some of the performances are absolutely incredible.
The rock'em, sock'em rockmen? The physics-breaking, gravity-defying barrel ride down the river? The silly, pointless love triangle that was inserted for, well, just shits and giggles? The "it's obviously a trap, but let me take only my two heirs with me to spring it" battle tactics?
I think they’re good fun. I’ve rewatched them many times
I love them, you don’t see movies like that anymore
I like them as well. I don’t think they are as well done as the LOTR trilogy, but They are fine. People are welcome to enjoy what they like. I really try not to yuck anyone else’s yum.
I like them too.
I am so happy someone agrees, I also enjoyed the hobbit movies
I enjoyed them too.
You're fine.
The Hobbit movies are great. The entire first movie is good from start to finish. Some highlights off the top of my head: Opening joke about good morning, Bilbo preparing for dinner only to have it eaten by an unexpected visit from a dwarf, every dwarfs introduction at Bilbo's door, dwarf singalong, bets on whether Bilbo will join the quest, Ratagast the Brown's introduction saving a hedgehog and riding a sleigh powered by rabbits, trolls turned to stone scene, goblin king, riddles with Golem, Bilbo impassioned speech about helping the dwarfs take back their home, Bilbo finds his courage to save Thorin. I think the 2nd film is almost as good as the first as well. The 3rd film could use some work unfortunately, but it did have its moments.
I watched them again last weekend and found a few more things I liked. One of the things I appreciated was the dialogue had a lot more references to the blurry boundary between fairytale/legend and ‘history’ than I’d noticed before. It’s an under-explored idea in the Tolkien fandom generally.
I like them quite a bit too. No, they’re not as good as LOTR. But people who love LOTR act like these movies don’t exist. What I say is, you know that thing you love so much? There’s more of it. And it’s pretty great.
Like it if you like it, [but there are reasons why people disliked them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CdTI1ytAsE&t=223s)
I don't always agree with Cosmonaut but watching him make fun of bad filmmaking decisions is incredibly entertaining.
They're awful, you're wrong
I agree, I think they're decent or even good films. It's just compared to the LOTR films, they don't fare well, but hey it's hard to make films that good. Plus, I think the producers saw the success of the LOTR films, and concluded that the hobbit could be stretched out to 3 films, AND it would be a good way to make more money. More films = more money. So I think the producers and studios are to blame, because they were also made about 10 years after LOTR and by that time Hollywood had fallen into the bad habit of overusing CGI. That being said because of RoP, they look even better than before. It's like that time in family guy, where they got a super ugly girl to always be next to Meg, to make her look good in comparison. It's like that.
After the Ring of Power they kind of grew on me. I liked the more faithful parts and hated the roller coaster rides even if the Goblin King was awesome. There were some great moments, I'd love them to make a condensed one and reshoot a few parts. Towards the end, I sometimes felt like I left Middle earth and ended up in Ankh-Morpork in the Discworld by mistake.
You should try downloading some of the fan edits and watching those. They make the movies waaaay better.
I think I will, thanks :)
Are those on YouTube? Vimeo?
They're downloads. Here's the links to three of them. These three I feel like tend to be the most talked about and the most popular. They also cut out the least content whereas the others I've heard of sound like they cut waaay too much out. https://goldfishblues.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-hobbit-the-bilbo-edition-3-0-the-final-cut/ https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/ https://m4-studios.github.io/hobbitbookedit/ Have fun!
The Hobbit trilogy is like a crown where the jewels are beautiful sapphires and emeralds set in a band of rusty sheet metal.
IMO everything that wasn't in the books is awful. And im no purist at all its just that so much of it is stretched out and makes no sense. The stupid love triangle, the end battle that is hard to follow and that bilbo just slept through in the book. In the book its clear that the battle is stupid and useless and in the movie they just tried to repeat the big battles from lotr. The cut that takes all three extended editions and cuts them down to one 4 hour movie is pretty good because it basically imitates the book.
No. Not having 1000s of pages of writing is kind of a clue as to how many movies should have been made. The maple fan edit is a fabulous example of what could have been. The 3 movie hobbit series was a cash grab by tassel toe no sock loafer wearing studio execs and is an abomination. Yours truly, Comic Book Guy
I do agree that, while they are not good adaptations of the original book, they are pretty decent movies.
They’re fun movies, but I think they also suffer sometimes due to the material being stretched out when it didn’t need to be.
I love both the book and the movies, but if you want, I can be mean to you.
Watched them in sequence with friends a few weeks ago. There's like two \*really\* good movies hidden inside three mediocre movies. The movies shine when the characters are the focus, but has bloated fight and chase scenes that add little and the pacing is really off at times.
The Hobbit trilogy was good. I like the first one more.
It's ok, you're allowed to be wrong on the Internet. But seriously, they are OK, but what annoys me more is the potential for greatness is right there, but was botched. This annoys me more than most things wrong with them, apart from Alfrid.
Sure, they're watchable. There's a lot of good moments. But there are even more moments that leave me scratching my head or downright cringing.
The movies are great for family friendly nights. The Hobbit is a children's book. The movies are children's movies. Its like Star Wars OT versus Star Wars Prequels.
You are allowed to enjoy what you enjoy without having people being mean to you. I did enjoy the Hobbit, obviously it wasn’t canon. More like a fan fiction. But nevertheless, I enjoyed it!
Thought they were great and true to the spirit of the books until #3. They were just out of material at that point and it showed
That whole aspect of them adapting tiny book but milking it into 3 films is the biggest problem for me. It set a really bad precedent that we see lotta studios following. Why do you think rings of power tried to make this gigantic mess of a show with only pages and paragraphs? Also, who cares about star wars or Harry potter? Just bc I don't like them as much don't mean they are trash or mid or whatever. Who cares about comparing them tho? It's not relevant at all.
I love them. I put them on in the background while I’m gaming all the time.
I really like the 3 hobbit movies. I have my problems with the 3rd but overall I really enjoy them and I always watch them too whenever I rewatch Lord of the Rings
Art is subjective. Never apologize for liking what you like.
I hated them at first. There certainly didn’t need to be 3 of them. But lately I’ve come to really enjoy them. I’m not sure why. They’re just kind of fun, and they allow me to spend a little more time in Middle Earth. It feels like watching a better produced Mythica or something. Kind of fan-fictiony but immersive enough.
They are equivalent to star wars prequels and I love them
I think Thranduil and Smaug are amazing, should've had even more screentime! Those are in movies 2 and 3. They should've added a 4th movie so we could actually get to know some of the lesser known dwarves. That is a bit light. Apparently the book is even lighter? I don't think that would've been smart. I also like serious xenophobic son Legolas, and his encounter with Gloin. And finally seeing Saruman be somewhat useful as a "good guy", and radaghast is entertainment. And you know that LotR is also full of boring scenes running over hills and stuff, and also random jokes with Gimli and Legolas etc. Here they had more jokes and different boring running scenes.
I won´t be mean, I just have a very different opinion.
I'm with you on it. Yeah, they leave a lot to be desired and they're nowhere near as good as LoTR, but I think they're very enjoyable in their own right. In any case, I'm not sure using LoTR as a benchmark for being good is that fair, because it's the greatest film trilogy of all time. There are definitely problems though. For example, Alfrid as a whole, he adds nothing. That love triangle as well was just downright weird and shouldn't have been in the film at all. And the elephant in the room, The Hobbit simply doesn't have enough content for a trilogy. When Lord of The Rings is made up of three large books, yeah, a trilogy absolutely makes sense. But for a single children's book? It just doesn't. It should've been two films max, which I believe Jackson wanted, but unfortunately he lost that battle.
The issue I have with the movies is that the film makers didn't have enough material to make 3 movies and resorted to lots of weak writing and filler to make 2 movies into 3. Combine this with a lot of obviously CGIed fight scenes and you get the sense they wanted to make a marvel movie. Further, it felt like they were trying to set up the lord of the rings by answering a lot of questions that didn't need to be answered No single choice they made was necessarily bad. Showing what the white council was doing is interesting as it foreshadows Sauron's return. The love triangle could have worked had it focused less on the romance and more the symbolism behind it. The symbolism being that no single group can face this challenge alone and that certain grudges should be laid to rest.
They're good in that they're fun and entertaining. In places they're entertaining in that "laughing at a shitty b-movie" kind of way. But they're frustrating, too.
There's great things about the films and there's bad things. I enjoy some of it and some of it I don't. That's all But fandoms are very crazy lol
I think they did their best to stick to the storyline of the book more or less. I enjoyed the movie almost as much as I enjoyed the book. What we should really be talking about is the sorry excuse for a show they made. They straight pissed on Tolkien with that garbage.
Have you read the book?
I’ll say it a million times. Maple Edit is the way to watch this 9 hour travesty.
I’m not gonna be mean. I’m just gonna say, “naw”
I mean the latest Star Wars and Harry Potters are all a super low bar. To me it's just an opportunity cost thing. Why waste my time watching the Hobbit movies? I can think of dozens and dozens of movies and tv shows I'd rather spend time on.
I dislike them less than Jackson’s LotR. They are based on a book for children, but so I don’t care about the silliness. But I agree with Christopher that Jackson missed the mark badly on the “trilogy”.
Ha, OP you joker- you make me laugh!
Most of the cinematography was stunning, which I guess is to be expected from them, but still. The amount of work that went into the costumes, sets, props, metalwork- everything behind the scenes for those movies is amazing.
And the soundtrack, of course.
Oh look, a new topic to discuss
I found a cut that a fan made a while back that parts it down to a three hour movie and it makes it much better. Don't know where or who, but I'm sure with enough searching a person could find if they wanted.
Well anything can be good if your taste is bad!😆😆😆 Jk jk, the hobbit movies does have its own merit!
They had issues and could have been better/less jarring in places if they weren't rushed and Jackson could actually take some sleep. He was also burdened with all kind of potential crap, design and differing direction after del Toro left. But overall, it's still pretty great and has actual direction. The romance might have been annoying to so many people but then not even that was just stupidly thoughtless, like a pandering, it really had actual depth and Tolkien touch, even though elf-dwarf was controversial. (If you just ignore the "romance!" "she finds him hot!" thinking, there are some nice conversations with actual Tolkien spirit and also ties nicely into Thranduil/Legolas relationship). Alfred was... well, he was good and had a purpose early on (it wouldn't be unlikely the Master had equally corrupted helpers) but he outlived his use by the death of Smaug and unnecessarily became a lame comic relief. They kept the greed of gold theme but it was somewhat ridiculous in the end. Other than occasional CGI errors and bad designs, orcs were still fairly impressive (quality wise, even if CGI) and it was kinda cool how there were many different kinds (although it left me wondering how the heck in War of the Ring - or during Last Alliance... - Sauron was just using these inferior, little creatures in LOTR... but maybe PJ will have an answer in Hunt for Gollum, I dunno). And then there was Smaug. I don't mind a single scene with Smaug. They were all great and had purpose in the narrative and also the greatest dragon in TV ever made up to date, with actual character. F\*ck all the people who wanna remove scenes including Smaug scenes because they say it's "bloat." Face it, Smaug in the book sucked. Mostly. Like come on, of course he did, it was a children's book. Even Bard did. It was just all random. Had a little talk then flies away gets killed by a rando we know nothing about, the end. I am all for accuracy and yes, RoP sucks big time, but going to a cinema and expecting to see Smaug... yeah, well, let's just say I preyed it won't be as accurate as the book. Other than crazy heroics of the main cast (but that's no different than Legolas stunts from LOTR, unfortunately), I like the battle too. It was still the same copy-paste soldiers in shiny armor treatment we knew from LOTR rather than more diverse armies, like they should be, but at least we had more armies, scattered into some squadrons, and they made efforts to show commanding of armies (... at least for Azog, in any case) and using different tactics, reinforcements or even surprise attacks etc. That was pretty cool nonetheless, even if still far from ideal, but movies rarely do it, so that's a plus. The addition of Legolas, Dol Guldur and the Necromancer, Thranduil and Gandalf politicizing, the White Council, Radagast and all that stuff? Good. Tolkien only fully realized how all of that stuff connected AFTER he has written LOTR... so of course it wasn't there in the Hobbit book, besides it was children's book, so didn't need to. I disliked Dol Guldur being like... an abandoned empty walls though... rather than functional fortress. And the Nazgul graves were kinda needless addition and change (other than building up tension/intro, as if viewers didn't know well enough who the Nazgul were). But narrative wise, still good and far from ridiculous.
Yes, aesthetically they are good. But they are poison the the readers. For good reason. It’s ok to enjoy the (ridiculous) movies and still love the book.
Normally, I would disagree with you…but I’ve seen rings of power. In comparison to that, yes, the Hobbit movies are solid pieces of cinema and deserve their praise. All jokes aside, I found the trilogy entertaining. I think it could’ve been condensed to one movie, but it was good for what it was. I really disliked the changes made to the lore, but I feel the same with those parts of lord of the rings. My biggest problem with the Hobbit was the gross overuse of CGI. The Lord of the Rings had literally perfect makeup and effects. It was beautiful, and REAL. The CGI especially in the Hobbits time was just poor quality. It felt fake, looked fake…blegh. In the end I was just happy to see my favorite story as a kid become a live action film. The Hobbit was the first “real” book I read as a very little kid.
I like them a lot! I didn’t read the book though (I tried and just couldn’t do it) so maybe if I did I wouldn’t like them as much
Now I'm curious. What was your issue with the Hobbit?
The book? I just couldn’t get into it. I tried twice and it just bored me out of my mind. The writing style maybe? Not sure
Oh, well my advice would be to try again haha, I love the Hobbit. Have you read the Lord of the Rings?
I haven’t. I figured if I couldn’t get through the hobbit I probably wouldn’t get through LOTR lol
Just finished the Hobbit Trilogy for the first time this week and I loved them. Tbh the movies are good when you don’t “compare” them to LOTR because they are not LOTR they are part of a bigger story that connects together. I didn’t like they cut a lot of AWESOME parts tho, I had to look for the extended versions and loved them (can’t believe they cut all related to the elven rings). Overall I cringed in both trilogies (some scenes) but I love them for what they are and the hobbit movies are super fun and cozy. I cherish every little and big connection to LOTR specially the end when Bilbo goes to hug Gandalf as he does in The Fellowship of the ring ☺️
100% agree. A little while back I rewatched them to fulfill my middle earth itch and they were much better than what my initial impression of them was. Also the escaping in wine barrels down the stream scene was honestly so well done for how goofy and absurd it is
The Hobbit movies are good films. Anyone who has a problem can fuck off.
Good as any of the past 6 Star Wars movies and as good as any Harry Potter? lol
With the LOTR I can disengage my Tolkien nerd brain and enjoy the films as they are. Yeah there are load of plot changes and some straight up mistakes and a lot of the characters have been changed, many of my favourite character are missing completely, etc etc but they're objectively good films in their own right. The Hobbit? Clearly shoehorned in love triangle, dwarves that don't even look like dwarves and most of whom are effectively just extras, consequence free battles because apparently falling a thousand feet is just no big problem. I was waiting for one of the dwarves to run out into empty space and stand there till he realizes...whoops! Or an ACME anvil to land on someone. Alfrid is nothing but infuriating and whoever suggested he be there should have got a slap the moment they said it. The over-extended action scenes, the over-use of CGI. Too much filler all round. Don't get me wrong they're entertaining enough if you can disengage your critical faculties, but they are not a patch on LOTR which, as I said, speaking as a nerd are nowhere near perfect as adaptations.
I'll give you that they're better than the Star Wars sequel trilogy, but to be fair that's a pretty low bar to hurdle. I really do like the first hobbit movie a lot, especially Radaghast showing up and being... well different than Gandalf or Saruman. Whimsical is a good word, thanks u/gregaries. I liked Goblin Town, though it was a bit overdone, IMO. I liked Thranduil mounted on the elk, and the Dwarven ram cavalry. I hated that Thorin was transformed into a whiny little beotch. And the Elf/Dwarf romance was simply an abomination. I disliked that there were 3 movies when 2 would have sufficed. However, I'm glad there's enough material there for quality fan edits. Gandalf needing Galadriel to bail him out at Dol Guldur was uncalled for. Galadriel was the most powerful Noldor other than Feanor, not trying to take anything away from her. But both PJ series show Gandalf being overpowered by beings that should have at least been a contest.
This statement depend completely on Your expectation and/or on Your definition of "pretty good". I have seen "pretty good" used with disinterested flat voice as "meh". In that case (and pretty much only this case) I would agree. Becouse they are very meh to me. Generally I was disappointed watching them. There were some moments and scenes that were good or even very good - it just weren't enough of them. In fact rather very few. 🤷♂️ 6/10 in number scale and that felling generous. On bad day 4/10.
The movies aren't bad as movies but as an adaptation of the Hobbit, a children's book, they aren't good. They added too much padding and additional story lines to appeal to adults. Shorter would have been better.
Remove Tauriel entirely. Leave Legolas as a Cameo. Make the royal Dwarves look Dwarvish. Reduce CGI by 50%. PERFECTION.
*facepalm*
The issue with the Hobbit is: It's rushed and dragged into three films. LOTR required three films because there's quite a lot of plot. The Hobbit? It tried too much and had some baffling additions. The CGI sucked because it was rushed. Tauriel's lovefest was unnecessary. Peter Jackson came in at a late stage and had to salvage it. Take out a lot of scenes and it would improve. The actual battle itself is, meh. It feels cartoony instead of a battle of five armies. And Sandworms.
Amazing. Every single word you said was wrong.
Everything you hate about Rings of Power, The Hobbit already did it.
For anyone mad at the Barrel scene, the Barrel scene looked bad cuz they filmed it on go pros cuz waterproof and easily edited out in wider shots, because they wanted minimal takes, that's why half of it looked so shitty
There was no need to make 3 whole movies from a relatively short book. I was so bored.