@@aitornavarro6597 well, there is actually a cartoon movie version of hobbit since 1980. It's literally the three movies in an two hours film. Please search it
At the end of the second movie when I saw their entire plan of capturing Smaug in vain, he shook off the gold dust, flew to the Dale saying "I am fire... I am death" it really gave me chills. Then he died in 15 minutes into next movie.
They should have dragged Smaug out more. Have the entry into the Mountain be the end. The movie ends as they walk into the dark tunnel on the side of the Mountain. They ruined the 3rd movie by dragging 5 pages of book into an entire movie. Movie 3- Act 1 - Smaug attacks Lake Town, is defeated. Act 2 - Lake Town refugees flood into Dale, ask Dwarves for help, elf army arrives with aid, and jointly set up camp outside the Mountain. Gandalf arrives. Bilbo gives Bard the Arkenstone. Orc army shows up. Act 3 - Battle. And then like LOTR, long, relaxing ending after the high stakes battle. Thorin's funeral, highlights of Gandalf and Bilbo's trip home (like the trolls turned to stone), and getting home to find his stuff being auctioned. Buys it all back with his ridiculous new wealth. Movie ends with him sitting down to start writing his book. Could easily make it 2 hours with all that.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human They teased the idea of Sauron recruiting Smaug to his side, and I think they should have gone all-in and used that idea in the third movie. Keep Smaug alive through to the final battle and have him team up with the Orc army. Make him a big enough threat to force the Dwarves and Elves to fight side by side. Find some way to incorporate Bard and the black arrow into the battle if necessary. It's like, Jackson and company fucked with the story enough to make huge changes, but didn't fuck *enough* to make those changes work.
@@episodenull I'm not gonna blame Jackson too much. The studio split it from 2 films to 3, after the 1st film had already come out, forcing Jackson to add more filler and make structural changes. He was writing script pages on the day they were being filmed. The studio had let him take his time with LOTR partly because they didn't think it would be successful, so they didn't pressure him. You can make something good and fast, but it won't be cheap. You can make something cheap and fast, but it won't be good, which is how they made The Hobbit. Or you can make something good and cheap, but it won't be fast, which is how they made LOTR. When they made The Hobbit, they were in financial trouble, so they wanted some quick money. Then Del Toro dropped out because he and the studio had "creative differences", and Jackson was brought on and given a few months to do all the prep, not the years he had for LOTR. While Jackson certainly isn't blameless, and could have done better within the constraints he had, the largest part of the blame falls on New Line Cinema. And also MGM. The fact New Line had to get MGM to co-fund the movie shows how poor New Line's finances were, and why they pushed Jackson into making it quickly (hence the CGI) and into making it more accessible for kids (hence the slapstick comedy).
Tbf the greatest dragon in middle earth lore is killed by a dude in a flying boat. It seems Tolkien dragons are destined to be written as great beings, only to die in fairly easy and underwhelming ways, in whatever media they apear in
It's honestly a huge testament to Peter Jackson's talent that the Hobbit movies weren't a thousand times worse. The studio screwed him over from the very beginning.
I get the feeling Peter Jackson aquiesced to make 3 films as he could give more business to his home country of New Zealand. He's the one who likes to over-extend sequences. Look at the dinosaur chase in the bloated 3hr King Kong film. Far too long, far too much. Lots of fake CG. He wanted to invite Legloas back. Add extra sequences. In the Hobbit trilogy each film is not "over 2" hours as the video says. It's 3 films over 2 and a half hours! That was ridiculous! The 2-3 hour fan edits are the best versions of these films!
"It's honestly a huge testament to Peter Jackson's talent that the Hobbit movies weren't a thousand times worse." I'm pretty sure Del-Toro's version would have been a thousand times better though. "The studio screwed him over from the very beginning" Peter mostly screwed himself over. People expected him to outperform LOTR, which is a nearly impossible task becuase LOTR has reached a legendary status, it's beyond criticism at this point. The books did not have enough material for three movies but he(!) agreed to it anyway (because money), requiring him to write even more material that he had no time for. And finally he stupidly stupidly stupidly agreed to making the movie without preptime. He was in a very strong position at the time, he could have just told the studio he needed more time and the studio would have to choose between giving him more time or risking the movie not getting made at all, and they'd miss out on billions of dollars in profit. Badsically, the cost of time Jackson needed woukld be eraned back in ticketsales in the first half-hour, so what are we talking about here? Ofcourse the studio did not give him time and Jackson thought he was a superman who would simply make this movie, and they all learned valuable lessons about greed, limit's to abilities, that none of them actualyl were the gods they thought they were, and the world had gotten thre movies that only a handfull of people can actually enjoy. And I hope people do learn to enjoy the hobbit. I can't, becuase my brain doesn't let me suspend my disbelief during the action scenes, it refuses to accept the premise ofthe story as something a sane person would do, basically my brain picks up on all the flaws. And no, it did that long before they were pointed out to me.
@@vinny142 oh i don't think anyone expected him to outperform LOTR (except dumbass studio executives). everyone knew when they saw that the hobbit was being made into multiple movies that it wasn't going to beat LOTR no matter who the director was. the problem the studio executives had here is just that, though. they WANTED a children's book to outperform a massive three-book-long epic. almost everything wrong with the hobbit movies stems from them trying to make them something they aren't: a LOTR 2.0. of course, the source material is fundamentally not trying to be LOTR, so the result is a half-baked children's book with odd whimsical moments and jokes drizzled on top of a half-baked grimdark epic. and the studio executives probably learned nothing and blamed it all on jackson. (and i do think you're right that while most of the blame is on the execs, jackson has some of it too. those legolas scenes looked exactly like the ones from the trilogy, but with less time to finish the CGI, and the result is comical.
What kills me is that some parts of The Hobbit were still genuinely fantastic. The dwarves at Bilbo's are fantastic, Riddles in the Dark is superb, and... well actually that's about it, but still. Those two scenes were fantastically well done.
I also like the music and the character design of the dragon. But I dislike that they turned Bilbo from a "thief" to a generic protagonist who has to save the day in battles. I also dislike the illogical behavior of all people involved in the battles (for example archers jumping between two clashing armies) or the things which don't make sense as a prequal for the Lotr and so on. But luckily I forgot most of what was bothering me. I watched the trilogy when it was in the cinema and I watched a fancut around 4 years ago.
Every every single dwarf was shit, imo. They failed casting, design and writing. They lazily went with snow white characterisations and sprinkled in one pretty boy for a half baked romance. The dwarves are what I disliked the most, really.
I also liked the "three trolls scene", Bilbos interaction with Smaug, the extended cut version of Beorns place and of them wandering through the forest, how the dwarves had to be forced to go to Rivendell and how hostile they behave towards elves in general. And that they made them less "cowardly". As that fits better with how they are portayed in the Silmarillion and the LotR. I also thought that Lake city was done well enough and if I'm honest, I also liked the "fight" with Smaug at the end of the second movie, and thought the Gandalf side story was at least allright (in ther way that it makes sense to tell that story as in the overall picture it is actually way more important). Concerning Legolas beeing inserted into it: It at least makes sense that he would be there. Apart from how the cgi on the orcs looked, I didn't even hate most of the combat ...I guess I think that the first two movies are mostly fine or even good and actually great in parts, considering that the book "the Hobbit" itself, beeing a children's book, is also very much inferior to the book "Lord of the Rings". The third one though...
@@blurgle9185 Among the 12 Dwarves or however many there were, they had enough combined character development for one person. The fact that they made it to the end of the movie against INFINITE goblins without a scratch (except for the leader guy with an injured nose) means that there was never a point in the movie with real tension. No life or death urgency. It was like a live action Teen Titans Go.
Another big miss is Bilbo's bravery in the passage on Erebor. The mighty dwarves, for good reason, are hesitant to go through and therefore call on Bilbo to fulfill his duties as burglar. Inside the passage, in my opinion, is Bilbo's greatest moment of internal struggle and personal courage. He knows that if he goes any further he'll come face to face with an actual carnivorous fire breathing dragon. The terror of that realization paralyzes him. But only for a moment. In that moment Bilbo strengthens his resolve and presses on. In fact this is what Tolkein himself wrote "It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterward were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait." When I read this as an 11 year old this passage had a profound effect on me. The film seems to have just glossed over this.
I remember that passage as well! A lot of people don't think about it, but in the book the DWARVES were too scared, the ones who were actual warriors, to go and enter Smaug's domain. People always seem to act like they would be the bravest one in the story, but from Bilbo's perspective, he was in a dark tunnel about to enter a room that had an ACTUAL dragon, one that had killed many men and dwarves, AND he was going to do it BY HIMSELF because his friends were too nervous to. That takes a ton of courage, and in the book Smaug is basically the biggest bad to have bad, so I wouldn't have blamed him if he couldn't do it, BUT HE DID. And a lot of people don't seem to recognize that, even though it was supposed to be his bravest moment, despite the passage being rather short compared to everything else.
My favorite scene from the book is the one where he kills a spider in Mirkwood, and I love it for the same reasons. Tolkien writes “Somehow the killing of the giant spider, all alone by himself in the dark without the help of the wizard or the dwarves, or anyone else, made a great difference to mr Baggins. He felt a different person, and much fiercer and bolder in spite of an empty stomach.” I love that scene and the first movie ruined it without even reaching Mirkwood when they had Bilbo jump in front of and kill a warg by himself.
@@mrbill4206 I mean, most of them were probably there when Smaug attacked, so I think it makes sense that they wouldn't want to face him unless absolutely necessary
@@sndragonfan7257 Yes, the whole point of Bilbo going in was a stealth reconnaissance mission. Even in the end Smaug still didn't know who or what Bilbo was.
The run of the mill love triangle killed it for me. And I had to turn of the third movie because it was unbearable. I have only turned of the D&D Movie with Jason Statham in all the years I watched even the strangest stuff.. and the third part of this nightmare of a movie, ruined by idiots from outside. I have to thank Peter Jackson for somehow making the first movie good and the second somewhat watchable.
@@TwojaStaraIFrytki first, the snow was packed enough for someone to walk lightly and carefully, like an elf who naturally walks that way. And second, to use a freely falling object as a surface to step up with, you have to push it downward with enough force to bring it at least to its terminal velocity, which isn't possible in any universe with similar physics to ours.
Lord of the Rings also had some bad Legolas scenes too😅... Today's standards? What that even mean? Legolas climbing the "Olyphant", the 3 running out of the tombs in Return of the King, Legolas sliding on the stairs with a shield
I find it kind of sad how obvious it was that the Hobbit movies COULD have been great. Smaug and Gollum were fantastic in appearance and writing, but they were overshadowed by bad plots and writing.
they needed to cut out the entire Dale plotline. i've never seen a movie where little kids scream DAH (or anything) every single opening scene they appear in. it was the most doofy, obnoxious thing i've ever seen in a movie. god that Dale stuff was so stupid, holy crap.
Well, and it was just so MUCH. It has a lot of good ideas, but it constantly goes so far over the top that it just becomes ridiculous, over and over. Every single major action scene feels like it would have been better at half the length, with more care to choose the *best* moments rather than throwing everything imaginable at the screen.
The sadest part for me is that Martin freeman made the acting performance of a life time. Had it been done properly with one or two films and a single tone and style it could have been in league with LOTR
Two films tops and it could’ve been amazing, following closer to the book-plot without all the distractions and less human dwarves and it would definitely be a lot better. The young dwarves don’t even have proper beards, and no big noses or any odd features, they look more like hobbits than dwarves.
I'll never stop reminding people that Jackson took over DelToro's groundwork. Had it been prepped the same way as LOTR, I'm certain it would've been more coherent. Still would've had issues, butter being spread over too much bread and all, but it would've been slightly better...
Just Jessee, well said! Look at the state of the director's health while shooting. Yes he consciously lost weight to improve his health, but this movie didn't help. He looks haggard. Had he began this like he did LOTR, he would have planned out Battle of Five Armies before the first set was built. As it was he took over, and was rushed, and kept putting things off. Opposite attitude to what he did with the first trilogy. Loved the buttery way you said this in your comment!
Jackson gets unnecessary flack. Jackson's King Kong and Lord of the Rings are some of my all-time favorite films, and an adamantine proof that he's a very talented director.
Actually, he didn't. He hardly used anything of del toros. So he had months to plan the movie instead of 10 years. I highly recommend watching the behind the scenes documentaries. It is even mentioned during this vid.
The Hobbit trilogy isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's a fine series of movies, but because of who directed it and the fact that the LotR trilogy was adapted first, it will always be compared to one of the best film adaptations of a book of all time, and no matter what Peter Jackson did to try make it work, it would never measure up. I think if people were to ignore all context and just watch the trilogy as a series of movies, I think many who call the trilogy crap would actually think it's a good trilogy. Entertaining, though not groundbreaking or legendary in any way. Worth a single watch through the set.
The hobbit movies aren't bad as a whole. They do have bad elements definitely. They also have some very good moments. The backstory of the Dwarves, the Riddles in the dark part, Beorn and the Mirkwood sequence, Bilbo's interaction with Smaug and making Bard an actual charachter instead of a guy who just randomly shows up and kills the dragon and some more stuff.
Agreed. Wasn't the production development phase only 12 weeks instead of the couple of years on LOTR? Jackson has said he had so little time to put the trilogy together due to studio pressures.
Completely agree. It's a very frustrating trilogy, considering how much I love the book and the good performances that feel overshadowed by incomprehensible decisions. Definitely Martin Freeman is among the best of the film. Seeing behind the scenes and understanding that a lot of his performance was inside a green room, with very little to interact with, is admirable.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo They played dirty with Tauriel. She might have been a decent character on his own, but intertwining her with Legolas and Kili was embarrassing to see.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo Shoehorn. There is no better word. It was the most out of place element in the entire trilogy. At first I thought it was going to be a platonic proto-Gimli and Leoglas moment, where Tauriel's respect for Kili and his sacrifice also has an effect on Legolas, however small. Then the Hollywood-imposed romance starts to trickle in, and I knew we were in for a massive narrative fuckup.
The Barrel Scene just reminded me of a video game level. The CGI is shockingly obvious, particularly in relation to Legolas - he just looked like a videogame avatar bouncing around. If they'd replaced the soundtrack with the Mario theme tune the effect would've been complete.
@@Phillibetrus Also a great edit. I really liked that the Cardinal Cut removed so much of the final movie, so I'll probably still prefer it. But I really appreciate the efforts to make the scene transitions flow a lot better in the Ravenomics one
There’s certain aspects left out in the barrel scene that, I feel, take something away from Bilbo’s character before the fighting even starts. The barrel scene is one of the scenes that highlights Bilbo’s compassion. In the novel, he makes sure he puts the cell keys back on the guard so the guard doesn’t get in too much trouble, and when helping the dwarves into the barrels, Bilbo tries to make them more comfortable by shoving hay in the barrels to cushion the dwarves. These were just such vital moments that showed Bilbo’s character, and I have a hard time watching the barrel scene in the movie because of those missing aspects.
So they cut those out to save time, and then added ten minutes of nothingness mindless action with no purpose.. Thanks for sharing, I haven't read the book but these dropped character moments are emblematic of what's wrong with these movies.
@@danm5911 Yup! Pretty much! I highly recommend reading it or listening to the audiobook. (I’m pretty sure there’s a version read by Andy Serkis which sounds like it’d be fun to listen to) I found the novel a lot more fun and whimsical than the movies!
As someone who barely remembers the book I'll tell you that scene wasn't necessary, we don't need to see that to know Bilbo is a caring person, it's very obvious that he cares and has a soft heart, that scene wouldn't have added at all, I don't even remember that in the book (I only read half the book four years ago). I could tell easily that Bilbo was kind and incredibly considerate. I think you're looking at it from a biased perspective really
Bolg was not movie-only. He was in the battle of five armies and I'm pretty sure it was said that he killed thorin, fili, and kili, before Beorn carried them off and then came back to merc Bolg. The movies expanded on his character, but he was absolutely in the book.
@@dandiehm8414 Azog is also in the Book, but only mentioned because the Azog in the book was killed by Dain when the Dwarves tried to reclaim Khazad-Dum. Bolg is the son of Azog and was marching his army to avenge his father's death and to claim the dragon's horde at Erebor for himself.
You can pad out a movie and still have a good movie. The 1966 version of The Grinch added a bunch of fluff but it's still a classic. The 2018 version had much more but it's still enjoyable.
In fairness, the reason the barrel sequence exists in as such a big form is because it was shot originally as the climax for film 1, with Azog showing up instead of Bolg. As with many things, this got heavily disrupted in the last minute change to 3 movies. Also Bolg wasn’t movie only. He is the son of Azog who leads the goblin army at the Battle of Five Armies in the book. I agree with your overall critiques though!
@@matthewphilip2609 Bolg did not directly kill Thorin. Thorin got wounded in the battle while trying to break the ranks of Bolg's bodyguards. Eventually Beorn killed Bolg.
@@pepeedge5601 this right here! I always said if they wanted to have the orcs chase Thorin it should’ve been Bolg. Give him a backstory as a secondary antagonist to the plot when he sees his father die at the east gate of Moria. Alfrid and Tauriel didn’t need to be included at all. Legolas only should make the cut barely bc we know if his father is around he should be to an extent as well.
IMO the main reason it was so detested by fans of the LotR movies was that it just couldn't measure up. Peter Jackson made a good trilogy, but given what he had to work with, The Hobbit was never going to be a masterpiece, yet because of LotR, it would inevitably be compared to LotR and be found lacking, not because it's bad, but because LotR was just that damn good.
@@RonsaRRR Just because fast food isn't found in the garbage doesn't make the fast food great dining. Comparing mediocre to abysmal doesn't make the mediocre laudable. Raise your standards!
I rather enjoy the Hobbit trilogy. Yes movies have their faults. But Peter can only do what he was given from when he took over. Besides anyone that belittles someone for liking something because they do is just garbage. Referring to danm5911
As much as I understand all the reasons why people hate these movies, I freakin love them. But it’s probably because I grew up watching them way more then LOTR. I remember sitting in the theatre when an Unexpected Journey came out and loving every second of it. I remember when it ended, and Bilbo is looking out into the horizon where the lonely mountain sits, I leaned over to my mom and asked her, “is that how it ends?” And she said, “no, it’s just the beginning.” I’m an adult now, but still love The Hobbit movies despite the flaws. Is there too much CGI? Yes. Did they need to make 3 movies? No. Did they add unnecessary plot? Yes. Is LOTR better? YES. But I will forever treasure these movies for introducing me to Tolkiens world and stories.
Ok I love these movies too, the first trilogy came out while I was in highschool, and Jackson took many liberties with the text. The fact is if you read the books Tolken doesn't write action verbosely, so you have to take libertys if you want to make action movies. There was goofy action scenes in the first trilogy, Legolas fred flintstonesed down a trunk. If you are making a kids movie it is going to be a bit goofier and you have to deal with the gandalf problem. He just fucks off for no apparent reason leaving them in mortal peril, you probably have to do something about that. So I love these movies, they are close to what 10 year old me imagined. Edit: I don't like the CGI orks.
@@JMD501 YES! Exactly this. Way too many people overlook the writing style of JRRT, it's often overly descriptive of places but lacks descriptive actions; or gets so vague he can cover entire swaths of time in a couple sentences. Like the part where he says Sauron was taken prisoner by the king in the 2nd age and over time he ends up deceiving the court and becoming his council. The original writing isn't much longer than what I just wrote! 🤨 If you give book purists their way, and don't make up any dialogue or scenes for this passage; you'd end up with a musical montage of Sauron whispering in people's ears! 🤣 But if you want to show *HOW* Sauron becomes council to the king, you have to write both script and dialogue. Book purists seem to misunderstand the meaning of adaptation to the medium. There's creative freedoms and everybody's "vision" is going to be different. It's all so dumb when they throw a hissy fit over "book lore/ source material"🥴. I've never seen the elderly protest outside of theaters shouting "rEsPEct tHe sOuRCe mAtERiAL!" when the newest adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet is set in a futuristic storyline, or MacBeth in a post apocalyptic wasteland. 🙄🤣😂
@@ophilianecr 100% adaptation into a different medium can't keep all of the nuances of the original work it has to be you know adapted. And that's ok books aren't movies, and movies are not books. Even so in the hobbit we got a lot of great stuff from the source: the white council meeting then cleansing Dol Guldor, Thror fighting Azog, Thranduil recounting his battles with dragons, all stuff from the book. And adding a girl elf is fine there are 0 women in the hobbit, it's actually kinda crazy, it's current year and if your boss says 3 movies, adding one woman into the plot, ruins a movie for you, get help.
Same for me! This trilogy is a big reason for my interest in fantasy and DND, and Bilbo and the dwarves hold a special place in my heart. Though I understand that the movies were padded too much for their own good
I personally really like the direction they went with Gandalf and the Necromancer story. Seeing Elrond and Saruman in action at Dol Guldor was pretty sick.
I think the action wasn't that great and could have been made better, especially Galadriel's scenes. Though having the necromancer stuff in the movies was good imo.
It was good and bad, for me. Seeing how OP the White Council is, was cool. Elrond was as good in a fight as I would have expected of a millenia old elf who served as 2nd in command to Gil-Galad. I loved seeing Galadriel do something powerful. She is the mightiest elf or wizard there is, and the scene in the Return of the King appendix where she destroys Dol Goldur understandably wasn't in the film. I _hated_ the effects on Galadriel though. I hated the drowned visual, and the slowing of her speech. But the worst thing was that the Necromancer was obviously Sauron, and they all seemed to know it. They canonically had no idea Sauron had regained any form until the timeline of Fellowship. In the books, they only knew that The Necromancer was in Dol Guldor. iirc, they thought it might be The Witch-King.
It was a cool idea, and it's enjoyable. But it ruins the way the book was written, entirely from Bilbo's point of view. And it's funny how Gandalf doesn't tell Bilbo anything about what he does, and he keeps randomly disappearing. I just wish they had written it in a similar style as the book, it feels so different because it's switching between different characters and we're not really focusing on one person, Bilbo, like the bbok does.
@@gianna526 well, it makes sense in this context. The LoTR books are sequel to The Hobbit book. While the hobbit trilogy acts as a prequel to the lotr movies, so while I understand this change I also understand your criticism
Personally I like the barrel scene. I actually liked most of the hobbit movies. Not as much as LOTR but still really good. Compared to rings of power, the hobbit is a theatrical masterpiece.
The Hobbit films in their complete running time were longer than the audiobook version of the book the films were based on. I still remember reading the book and getting to the chapter where Smaug attacks and realizing there are only 30 pages left in the book, yet the movie did a nearly 3 hour interpretation of those 30 pages.
@@jPlanerv2 nah it would’ve made sense as a 20-30 minute battle. This is the climax of the book and should’ve been the climax of the series, there’s a lot of random shit that got added into these movies they really shouldn’t have ended up as long
As a kid it was certainly obvious to tell there were some behind the scenes issues going on with this film, because the toys for the first film included scenes that wouldn't happen until the second. I remember seeing Lego sets based on the Mirkwood spider and barrel scene in 2012. But then I was confused after seeing the film since those scenes were nowhere to be found, only to find out a few years later that they were in the second film. Maybe back when it was just going to be two films the barrel scene would have been the ending to the first.
This would've made more sense, but then we wouldn't have had time for cg rock creatures and four character additions and extra unnecessary plot points!
@fee foo no two films would have been better even if a bit bloated. It makes far more sense for Bilbo to prove himself to the dwarves in mirkwood and earn thorins respect then at the carrock. Structuraly it makes more sense for it to be two films than three.
@fee foo which is why they really should’ve cut a lot of things from these films. Unnecessary characters, pointless filler, random action scenes, etc made for a messy plot. You can tell by the end of the second movie that they were struggling to make these movies long enough for the trilogy, I agree to do the book Justice it would’ve taken a bit more than 1 movie but 2 movies should’ve been plenty enough for this story
@fee foo I would say two movies just because overall there really is a lot of events in the book, even tho it’s much shorter compared to two lotr books (each movie spanned about two books) the lotr books were much slower paced. The hobbit book kinda zooms through a lot of things happening so it would actually make sense to make it two movies or one super long movie (like 4-5 hours). But expanding it into a whole trilogy was definitely a huge mistake, they would’ve honestly been better off sticking closer to the source material and by the end of part two it shows
There's a very artificial look to the Hobbit trilogy, like everything looks very digital like it was done on computers compared to The Lord Of The Rings in which looked less artificial and more grounded with much more believable world building with maybe a touch of CGI, there was a lot of work and hard effort put into both trilogy's as I watched hours of hours of behind the scenes in which showed how they crafted these huge sequences which was no easy task. I also didn't like the 48fps higher frame rate The Hobbit was shot at as I felt it looked very unnatural for motion as 24fps has been the standard for movies for a long time as it gives more natural motion to images, I mean The Hobbit trilogy aren't bad movies it's just that The Lord Of the Rings trilogy set a very high standard for Filmmaking.
Higher framerates should be standard, it's so immersion breaking to see a choppy panning shot or fast actions limited to closeups to hide the blurryness all for the sake of cutting costs Less cgi and more practice effects would be nice in modern film too
The CGI looked like Playstation 2 graphics but the worst part about it is the physics. The 3D characters move like that Tomb Raider game released in 1996. The characters look like they're sliding on the ground when walking. The jumping animation looks floaty. The gravity and acceleration looks bouncy.
Something not talked about here that always really irked me about The Hobbit movies was the fact that they made Gandalf weary of Saruman when in the first Lord of the Rings movie, Gandalf didn't suspect anything about Saruman's treachery. I know that the whole plot eluding to Sauron in The Hobbit never happened in the book. But if they're going to add it to the movie, at least make it line up with and make sense with the LOTR movies. That just always irritated me.
Not so much wariness so much as Gandalf still trusted Saruman, but also believed in doing the right thing even if it was against the advice of the council.
I feel so bad for Peter. He's such a great director, I really have to believe that he was being strong-armed with this series. They didn't feel anything like the LOTR movies at all, it's clear he wasn't in full control.
I mean, they shouldn't have felt like the Lord of the Rings movies. One of my biggest critiques of the Hobbit films is that they stuffed in too much unnecessary Lord of the Rings lore. Guillermo del Toro would've kept it as the small, grounded fairytale the Hobbit was meant to be.
I feel awful for all the money he made. Must be difficult accepting a check to screw a fan base. Rings of Power I'm sure will milk it as well. Mmm mmmm blue milk. Fhk the state of current Hollywood.
My main issue with the hobbit movies (apart from the bad and too high usage of cgi) is that in most action scenes there is no tension or sense of danger. Compare the rapids scene or the chase scene in the goblin mountain to action scenes in the lord of the rings. In the hobbit you never have the feeling that anyone is really in danger.
If you put this into relation to LOTR, I'd say this point is pretty unfair. Especially the dwarves were in several precarious situation during the third movie, while the main cast of LotR just hacked & slashed through hordes until the very end
Bolg is not technically a movie only character, he just appears exclusively as the orc commander during the Battle of the Five Armies in the book. So he is in the book, just as an insanely minor character
What irks me even more is that Azog (the most active villain) is even smaller in role. He's mentioned once in the Hobbit book, and not even in the story itself but as a footnote marking him as Bolg's father. Gandalf mentions it was Dain (Thorin's cousin) who killed Bolg's old man in Moria.
@@Soul93Taker Azog is also mentioned in the first chapter as the orc who killed Thror, but yeah, he was already dead when the story started. Even if Bolg is only gets a minor mention, he is still described as a threat and a strong orc leader and only Beorn in Bear form was strong enough to overthrow his body guards and kill Bolg.
You can read the entire novel by the time Bilbo climbs the tree toward the end of the first one. Stretching it to a trilogy was insane. Butter scraped over too much bread, etc.
Many people feel that, but I think there is enough in Tolkein's world to fill 3 movies - after all, if Tolkein had written the books in the same order as the films were made, the Hobbit in it's book form probably wouldn't exist or would have sunk without trace - people wanted to know more, not less, about his world. But then again, I'm one of those people who thinks that the 3 LOTR films are a hugely inferior experience to the books. So maybe I just don't take it as seriously as some. Having said all that, the barrel scene is daft....
3:16 - Bolg did actually appear in the book, he was the son of Azog (who was also a book character tough in Tolkien he died in the battle of moria) Bolg was actually rhe leader of the goblin army during The Battle of Five armies and he was crushed by Beorn
3:41 & 7:53 The GoPro shots completely took me out of the moment while watching watching this in the cinema. It was so jarring. I did a quick exhale laugh and then looked around to see if anyone else noticed. To my surprise, most people seemed completely unfazed.
Good eye bro. I like your attention to detail. I still like The Hobbit trilogy, obviously it’s not as groundbreaking as the Lord trilogy but I still watch it once in awhile
I actually thought the movies were really enjoyable. For all the people with criticism I’d like to see them do better. Take your camera and do your best. See if it stacks up.
Thing that irked me the most in this trilogy is how at the end of Unexpected Journey, Thorin finally see why they needed Bilbo to come along and began to respect him as a companion. Then immediately in the second film, he hated Bilbo again only to see why they needed Bilbo to come along and began to respect him as a companion (again). Then at the beginning of the third movie, he hated Bilbo again, only to respect him at the end...then die.
Movie 1: Thorin didn't think Bilbo was truly gonna join them, and snuck away back home before the goblin caves. That's why he's angry in movie 1 Movie 2: he was never really that angry with Bilbo in this movie, just dwarf anger in general Movie 3: thorin is going mad and sees everyone as a threat so obviously he sees Bilbo as a threat, then Bilbo steals the arkenstone, so obviously Thorin is gonna be angry. Then moments before death, Thorin realized how meaningless all the gold in his mountain was, and apologized to one of his closest friends Source: watched them yesterday.
He was angry with Bilbo in the first movie, then he found respect for him. That makes complete sense. He was never angry at Bilbo in the second movie, Bilbo only ever helped. Any "anger" Thorin had was just Thorin being Thorin, being gruff as he is. He never hated Bilbo in the second movie whatsoever. In the third movie, he's gone mad, he has a mental illness. He's doesn't hate Bilbo in the third movie, he has ill will towards EVERYONE because of his mental illness acquired from the gold and the arkenstone. Once he overcomes his mental illness, he's back to himself, respecting the entire party (especially Bilbo) and being good old grumpy Thorin. Thorin being aggravated isn't him hating Bilbo or anybody, it's just him being his cranky, honorable, and compassionate self. All of the dwarves are like that. Thorin only ever had no respect for Bilbo BEFORE escaping Goblin Town.
While the two replies make a point, about there being reasons for things being as they are, I think the fundamental issue is retreading the same ground, at least without the effects of previous treks being reflected.
I love the two movie fan edits that put Smaug’s death closer to the middle of the second film. It gives the moment it’s due buildup, while still having the extra action of the battle of the five armies.
So many missed opportunities. Alfred’s entire character was MIND BOGGLING. I have no idea how that character was even created, much less allowed to grab that much screen time.
With respect to the actor playing him, who I have to assume was trying to make the best of the material he could, Alfred was a character so conceptually misguided that he single-handedly redeemed Jar-Jar Binks just by so thoroughly rebalancing the entire field of comparison.
@@iforgot87872 Stephen Fry as Master was great, if they had removed Alfrid and stucked closer to the bookd I would've liked that sequence. Now its just painful
Imo I don’t think the hobbit trilogy is as bad as most people say it is, but it definitely doesn’t hold a sword to the original lord of the rings trilogy. I did however, really enjoy the second film (Desolation of Smaug) due to Benedict Cumberbatch’s motion capture performance as Smaug (imo of the few things the trilogy got right both technically and narratively).
I thought it was a good trilogy. Was it perfect? No. Nothing is. I just think that people were expecting too much from it. Comparing to the original. People needed to temper their expectations. I like movies in general, and I not really a fan of anything. I didn’t really hold any sentiment toward the material. So, I guess that made it way easier for me to enjoy it. I actually saw the Hobbit Trilogy before the LOTR trilogy.
@@derrickdiggs8612 those expectations were created by the studios by getting Peter Jackson to replace del Toro and turning it into a trilogy. You try to imitate the big leagues, you get measured by big league standards. Without even comparing it to Jackson LOTR movies or the book, those were bad movies. Just outright badly written and completely made in green screen studios, doused in mediocre CGI. Not saying a bad movie cannot be entertaining, but for me ... it wasn't.
It is not as bad as most people say...it is worse! There are about 3 scenes in the whole book where Bilbo is not present. The final 3 hour movie had about 3 scenes where he WAS present. Instead of, in the book, Bilbo being the main character and the ACTUAL LEADER of the dwarves, movie Bilbo is totally unnecessary. Honestly, Tauriel seemed to get more screen time.
Same here, while my Middle-Earth stuff goes as far as the Hobbit trilogy movies, Fellowship of the Ring & half of The Two Towers, these were still some really fun movies.
I really like the Lindsay Ellis point about the fight in unexpected journey where they play the ringwraith music over thorin. Music written with a totally different intent (including lyrics) is slapped onto an unrelated scene because theres deadlines and it will sound like lotr.
I will say, for my part, Movie 1 of The Hobbit feels a worthwhile inclusion in the Middle Earth movie sagas...you can tell it was one that had the most time put into it, and while I do agree that the dwarves aren't that dwarvish, I thought it did a good job balancing the tone of the book with tonal consistency of the LOTR movies. Oh, and Rhadagast was sadly trivialized to the butt of a joke. That was needless - he could be odd but still clearly powerful and respectful. My hope, which is entirely unlike to happen in almost all circumstances is that Guillermo Del Toro gets an opportunity to make his version of The Hobbit - it's a story that I feel fits his style and sensibilities perfectly.
The other two movies weren't directed by Del, the first was.. till they fired him for not viewing to the studio's wants and forced PJ from production into production and directing the other two which were rushed and filler and rewritten to what the studio wanted, or else they'd all be fired, and the production moved out of New Zealand.
@@k-dogg9086 No, Peter Jackson did direct the first film, a simple Google search will tell you as such. Del Toro was initially the director but he left 2 years into production in 2010, leaving very little finished. The production company didn't push back the release date for Jackson either, so a lot was rushed with the first film as well.
I freakin love The Hobbit trilogy. I understand and agree with all the criticism it gets but I have so much fun everytime I rewatch it.Its just plain, ol' fun.
I love The Hobbit book, and was initially excited by the prospect of a movie duology. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to flesh out the story and characters of the book while also allowing for some new material. The trilogy we got was a massive disappointment. For me, the book is full of charm, wonder, and mystery. The movies managed to capture almost none of that
Maybe I'm just simply too much of a fan of all 6 of these movies and every book, both from JRR and Christopher Tolkien, but I'll never stop loving these movies. The LOTR trilogy is a gritty, beautiful adaptation of an adventure. The hobbit is a wondrous, exacerbated and exactly that: an unexpected journey. And no matter what side of the aisle we find ourselves on here; hating or loving these movies, we are all going to miss it when we're sat speechless at what ungodly creation Amazon made.
I'm in the exact same camp. I cringe a little at times during the Hobbit, but thinking about the trilogy overall fills me with a warm and grateful feeling, a fraction but a piece nonetheless of what the original trilogy brings us. Rings of Power is a cheap fantasy knockoff comparatively, and I guarantee will never give us the same inspirational and joy-giving memories as the movies.
Ahh this was beautifully said. I love LOTR so much, but I do also really enjoy the Hobbit movies. All 3 of them. Of course they are flawed, but I still love them for what they are and achieve. I really love the characters of Bilbo, Smaug and Thranduil and enjoyed this additional travel to Middle Earth, even if there are CGI abominations, tone inconsistencies and things added that weren't mentionned in the books. LOTR is epic, but the Hobbit movies give me a sort of warm feeling of nostalgia and safety, I can't describe.
There was nothing wrong with any of the tv adaptations people are just too picky. Everyone wants it to be exactly the same as source material which is not only impossible but would also drag everything out. I like how people claim things drag on in movies not enough action but if they were to get the exact same scene from source material there would need to be another 15 movies to tell you what happened in a six movie anthology. And OMG would people complain it’s dragging on too long not enough action. Fans are the real problems when it comes to these type of movies you can’t make everyone happy and you are even less likely to make any hardcore fan happy at all.
@@troillandford7679 I guess because it‘s not accurate to Tolkiens writings or how the fan culture interprets them. Probably some similar reasons like in The Hobbit. I did enjoy the first two episodes so far and am looking forward to watching more because they are fun to watch so far, no matter what they do to the story (like the hobbit). I would‘ve preferred a proper Hobbit top but no point in whining and ruining the movies for yourself
Despite the clashing tones, I liked that they added those moments of light hearted fun and epic grandeur. It was bringing us with Bilbo into a wild and magical world of these titanic battles and danger but it used scenes like the barrel scene to remind us that all is not bleak and that our heroes still have strength or at least dumb luck on their side. In fact I wish Jackson had decided to include more of this rather than developing the love triangle or “orc daddy issues”. I think we could have had a more kid friendly film following the intent of the books. A lot would have needed changing but with two movies focused on experiencing Bilbo’s epic adventure rather than recreating the solemn mystique of the LotR, maybe the third film (still a loose adaptation of a children’s novel) wouldn’t have received an R rating.
I didn't mind the 2 tones. Light hearted fun and when it's time to get real gotta get real. The 2 tones thing wasn't that bad to me bc that makes sense. The only time I can see it conflicting was the scene with the 3 trolls or ogres. J forgot which one they were
Having just watched the 15 or so hours of extras of the hobbit trilogy, I’m pretty impressed by what they achieved. They did literally make stuff moments before the script and scenes were to be filmed as you said. It was utter madness and it does show with the discontinuity of the dwarves emotions, particularly Thorin. I think the biggest problem over the contrived scenes you mention was the fact that you can’t get real close up emotions of the dwarves which can’t develop their characters much. This is due to the prosthetic faces, they don’t look that real which is why they never really say that much (except Thorin who didn’t have much prosthetics). The CGI characters say more, which they shouldn’t.
I know there wasn’t much in the books but after seeing the extended edition, I really wish they explored Thranduil a bit more. Honestly the scenes they cut for the theatrical version explains sooo much for why he is the way he is. They could’ve kept that and trashed the barrel scene. At least it explains the storyline….why he’s so adamant about the gems, etc…
Yeah, the extended versions have a lot of good things. Too bad it got cut for dwarves fighting a dragon by making a statue of gold that melts, but then the dragon just flys away to go do what he was already going to do. (Sorry for the run on sentence, but it fit the theme of the movie since it dragged.)
My biggest issue with the Hobbit other than what he already mentioned was how they just ignore physics. The dwarves jump around and do crazy feats that shouldn't be possible. I can forgive Legolas doing some crazy shit cause he was an elf and we didn't get endless scenes of it. Look at the bridge of khazad dum scene in LOTR compared to the Hobbits crazy escape scene in the first movie. There is one small crack in the bridge and because LOTR took physics and well the world in general seriously it was an amazing and intense scene. Compare that with the dwarves falling through the goblin caverns endlessly riding bridges and all that craziness and its clear that the hobbit ignores physics in the world. The same happened with the dwarves fighting smaug.
The main problems with the barrel scene is that it is pointless and completely overshadows Bilbo's previous actions in saving the Company twice, first from the spiders and then from the dungeons. If they had to have a prolonged action scene, they could have focused more on how Bilbo repeatedly drew the spiders away from the dwarves and fought bravely with them. That was an important character moment for Bilbo because he started feeling like a bold adventurer, and the dwarves started really respecting him and even looking to him for leadership. They also learnt about the Ring, which was, infuriatingly, completely skipped in the movie. In the book, he gave the dwarves hope while they were in the dungeons, and the future of the quest depended entirely on him. He struggled a lot while sneaking around, but he still eventually came up with a plan that was desperate, but still better thought out than the barrel plan in the movie. Even if being packed into the barrels was more uncomfortable for the dwarves, they weren't discovered and locked in like they were in the movie. These were important parts of Bilbo's character arc in the book. In the second and third movies, Bilbo was treated less like a protagonist, and more like he was just there to move the plot along. He didn't have much character development that didn't have anything to do with his relationship with Thorin or his relationship with the Ring. They were also careful not to set Bilbo up as any kind of leader, someone the dwarves could look to for guidance rather than Thorin. I don't mind that they gave Bilbo and Thorin a stronger friendship, or that they drew attention to the fact that there was something wrong with the Ring, but it bothers me that they diminished Bilbo's role and made him less of a hero in what was supposed to be his story.
The thing is, though, that Desolation of Smaug didn't really need to set up Bilbo as growing into a badass adventurer because the end of An Unexpected Journey already did that. The first movie was about Bilbo's character arc progressing from "3rd wheel along for the ride" to "invested member of the troupe on the way to becoming a badass." The second movie didn't need to focus as hard on that element of Bilbo's character because it had already set it up in the last hour of the first movie. In the book, the dwarves didn't start respecting Bilbo until he'd saved them from the spiders and the elves, but in the movies, they first of all were more respectful of Bilbo to begin with (only Thorin was really dismissive like in the book) and Thorin came to respect Bilbo when Bilbo saved him from Azog. I can agree that one factor in this is that because of his arc's progression in the first film, Bilbo has less growth to do in the second one, and thus is less of a leader character. IMO that's not entirely a problem, but it's a fair criticism. The way I see it, Thorin is more of the main character of the second film because it's about the conclusion of the journey to the Lonely Mountain. The second film sets up the bulk of Thorin's obsession with reclaiming his homeland once he's actually in sight of it, giving him generous cracks in his personality that the third movie then expands when he becomes a villain for the first half. This is all kind of still in the book as well, since Thorin IS obsessed with retaking Lonely Mountain (though in the book it's less about the homeland and mostly about the money) and he DOES turn evil-ish from the greed and refuse to share the gold with Laketown even though Smaug desolated Laketown and Bard killed Smaug. The movie primarily expands upon all of this by giving Thorin more to do (really, more ways to fuck up diplomacy) so that the conflict of the elves and the Laketown men showing up with claims on the gold has more validity. In the book it's just because the elves are as greedy as the dwarves; the men of Laketown want the share they really deserve for killing the dragon, but even in that case it isn't really the fault of the dwarves that they get attacked. Instead, Bilbo fucks up by accidentally giving Smaug reason to believe he's a man of Laketown by calling himself "barrel-rider" and Smaug attacks the town believing he was provoked by them. In the film, it's mostly Thorin's fault since he whips up the townsfolk by promising them lakes of gold like in the good old days so they'll support his quest. As a result, the elves and the men of Laketown have more reason to show up in the third film: Thranduil already feels insulted because Thorin intentionally insulted him and wants the gems he feels he deserves, while the men of Laketown took care of the dragon that Thorin's greed brought down upon them and rightfully feel they deserve compensation for Thorin promising to get rid of the dragon himself and then pushing the problem off on them. I also don't really agree that Bilbo feels less like a hero. To begin with, he doesn't do anything particularly heroic (from a LotR angle) in the book aside from the afore-mentioned spiders and elves. Bilbo's main angle in the book is that he's good-hearted and values friends, good food and the enjoyment of the journey rather than gold and jewels, which were ultimately what Thorin's Company (and to a lesser extent the elves and the men of Laketown) were after. He's not an action hero in the book, he's a selfless and good-hearted person who contrasts with the variety of greedy and selfish people he meets and journeys with. In the film, Bilbo gets the same amount of character growth as he does in the book (albeit spread out over three long movies, so it's understandable why it might feel like he gets less), maybe even a little more, and his character arc is mostly the same, but since Thorin's Company is specifically on the quest to reclaim their homeland, not just the gold, he stands out less because there are other basically decent people among the dwarves who are like him. Nevertheless, his ultimate fate in the third movie is the same as in the book: he steals the Arkenstone and gives it to the men of Laketown because he sees that Thorin's greed for it is corrupting him, and also because the men of Laketown do deserve compensation for having their hometown burned down and for killing Smaug. At the end of the day he's still a selfless and good-hearted person who isn't corrupted by greed in the films, it's just that his character arc (as a growing badass) peaks at the end of the first film and then slowly descends from there rather than peaking at the climax of the second arc when he confronts Smaug. His character progression in the Battle of the Five Armies is essentially unchanged from book to film, it's just that the book is over a lot faster than the third film is. In short, I can't really agree with your premise. Bilbo's character arc progression is basically the same from the book to the films, it's just that its peaks and valleys fall in different places, as one might expect for an adaptation, especially one that expands the scope of the story so drastically. Honestly, I think it was the right choice as well, at least given the premise that The Hobbit was going to be adapted into three films from one relatively short book. In the book, Bilbo doesn't really have any agency (or anything interesting to do really) until the Company makes it to Mirkwood, with the exception of the Riddles in the Dark scene. Considering that the first film is like 3 hours long, following the pacing of the book would make Bilbo's arc in the first film feel limp as fuck. Instead, he works up his badassery over the course of the first film and gradually gains his courage. He gathers the courage to go on the adventure of his own will rather than being strong-armed into it by Gandalf, he outwits the trolls (something that Gandalf did in the book; Bilbo was a helpless prisoner), then he tricks Gollum, and finally he pushes past his fear and confronts Azog to save Thorin. He doesn't need the Barrel scene to boost his cred because he spent the entire first film boosting his cred. As a result, by the time the second film comes around he's a true member of the Company rather than just a tagalong "thief," and so while he still saves the Company from the spiders and the elves, they don't feel that he needs to prove anything to them because he's already done it. As a result, the Barrel scene doesn't need to be one of Bilbo's few triumphs and is fine to be repurposed into a fun general action scene.
@@quintonhoffert6526 You're right, Bilbo did have less to prove in the second part of the story, but the dwarves also didn't have to prove that they were great warriors because that was already established, yet there were lots of extra fight scenes included. The most crucial contributions that Bilbo made to the Quest came in this part of the story, and they were not at all done justice. They were important to his character development, because this was when he really started gaining confidence in himself, and when we got to see how clever and competent he could be, as well as his courage and resilience in the face of hardships. I like that they gave him more to do in the beginning of the Quest, in the films, but those things still can't replace what he did in Mirkwood. You just can’t compare the challenges. At the end of the first movie, the dwarves probably respected Bilbo's character more, but I don't think that they really saw him as a real asset yet. I do understand that they needed to focus on Thorin's character at this point, and I actually appreciate that they showed him saving Legolas at one point, because it established that Thorin, regardless of his prejudices, wouldn't just let someone die. I disagree that Bilbo's character arc was the same. In the third instalment, Bilbo was appalled that Thorin was behaving so dishonourably, but he didn't help the people of Laketown for their sakes. He literally TELLS Bard that. The situation in the movie was less complicated than it was in the book. There was no siege. Thranduil (who was completely villainised) had positioned archers in front the mountain and was planning on attacking that night. Bilbo, after confirming with Balin that returning the Arkenstone to Thorin would not help him, handed the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil, so that they wouldn't attack. And he tells Bard that he's not doing it to help them, but that he only wanted to help his friends. That scene made me really angry when I saw it. Was this really something that Bard needed to hear? Thranduil was only helping him because he wanted a necklace (and, seriously, they turned a cute scene of Bilbo giving Thranduil a pearl necklace into an inspiration for some Silmarillion-esque type conflict) and then Bilbo told him that he's not trying to help him for his people's sake either. Not even Gandalf was trying to help his people. In the book, Bilbo gained the respect of both Bard and Thranduil with his actions. He was trying to avoid further trouble for everyone, and was willing to give up his share of the treasure to do it, and then return to the Dwarves to face the consequences of his actions (in the film he seemed to naively think that Thorin wouldn't hurt him). This scene in the book, in its understated way, highlighted how much integrity he had. In the film, he was only trying to help his friends, and we don't see any sign that giving up his share was a sacrifice for him at all. The movies technically hit the story beats of the book, but they didn’t include the details that made them powerful. Bilbo cut down the dwarves from the webs, like he did in the film, but he also taunted and distracted the spiders, using his intelligence, resourcefulness and courage to help them. He was shown getting them out of the Elvenking’s dungeons, but they didn’t show him spending weeks skulking around the Elvenking’s halls, looking for ways to get his friends out, and dealing with the pressure of having everyone depend on him (this needn’t have taken long to show on screen). He called himself barrel-rider in front of Smaug (this was both in the book and film) but he wasn’t shown manipulating Smaug into showing him his belly so he could see the hole in his armour. He gave the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil, but made it clear that he was only motivated by his loyalty to his own friends, and did not seem to think about how this would cost him, either in terms of treasure or his friendships. Bilbo, in the book, knew that his actions would cost him both, and possibly his life. At the end of the book, Bilbo went home after having gained the respect of three kings, aside from Thorin. Dain and Bard gifted him with treasure and Thranduil named him Elf-friend. He, a little fellow from the Shire, had become part of a much a wider world.
@@DeepikaGinger I don't remember the third movie all that well since it's been a long time since I've seen them. As a result, I won't disagree with your perspective on book vs movie changes to Bilbo's character development and ultimate end state. That said, at some point I do want to go back and rewatch them, and if I disagree then I might come back and respond again. That being said, I can kind of agree that some of the details that made Bilbo's big scenes powerful weren't included and that does weaken his character development. Nevertheless, I think the changed scenes from the first movie supplement those losses such that they still happened, just in the first movie. In the book, Bilbo proved his cleverness and courage taunting the spiders while invisible, as you said. In the films, he proved that by distracting the trolls. As I said in my first post, in the book Gandalf did that and Bilbo was helpless like the dwarves, whereas in the movies that scene represents Bilbo coming into his own, in the same sort of way that the spiders scene in the book did. Bilbo's supplement for his weeks of help in the elven dungeons was in his help during the goblin encounter in the Misty Mountains. Bilbo's problem during that part of the film was that he was getting cold feet about his part to play and he was thinking of abandoning Thorin's Company and turning back. In short, he was finding the pressure of the journey and the Company's expectations of his part at the end to be too much to bear. Over the course of the sequence he riddles with Gollum, finds his courage, and then throws himself in front of Azog so that Thorin can retreat. At the end, when they've been saved by the eagles, Bilbo reaffirms his conviction to help the dwarves. It isn't exactly the same scenario or the same feelings but the core character development is the same: Bilbo is stressed because he's feeling pressured by his role in the quest, and by the end of the scenario he's found his courage and has reaffirmed his role. I won't disagree with you that adding in a few of those book details could have improved each of those scenes (though Bilbo does trick the spiders into leaving the dwarves alone by throwing a stone and making a noise elsewhere, thus giving them time to regather themselves and get their weapons back, so Bilbo still does exhibit some cleverness during the Mirkwood sequence), but I don't agree that the character depth those scenes represented was lost. It was merely shifted around, like my first post said. It's a small add-on, but I'm also going to disagree with Thranduil being villainized by the film; he wasn't any better in the book (though of course he wasn't named). In the book, the elves of MIrkwood literally have no claim to the treasures of Lonely Mountain. There's no backstory where Thorin's grandfather Thror taunted the elves with the riches he wasn't going to give them, and the elves didn't offer the dwarves any aid, they just showed up after Smaug died and tried to claim some gold by right of might. Thranduil was definitely a dick in the movies, but considering how Thror taunted him at the start of the first film it's kind of understandable that there was some bad blood there. Even then, while he said it dickishly, Thranduil DID offer Thorin help with his quest in return for those white gems he wanted. Tactically, Thorin really should have accepted that deal, since he knew that Azog's forces were chasing them and the price of giving up a small bit of his potential riches in exchange for a host of elves delivering them straight to Lonely Mountain unmolested should have been an easy bargain. That scene instead was about setting up Thorin's pride and rage being his downfall, since he insulted Thranduil out of rage for the elves not helping when Lonely Mountain first fell, and also because he was petty and didn't want Thranduil to get what he wanted, rather than making the hard choice of working with someone he hated for the greater good. Again, Thranduil definitely still comes across as a major dick, but unlike in the book he actually has a reason to feel entitled to some of the treasure (even if it's a bad reason) other than just pure greed. He's still basically a bad guy but he's worse in the book. The elves overall are portrayed more positively in the films than in the book since in the book they're completely antagonistic towards the dwarves until the goblins show up at the end, whereas in the films Legolas and Tauriel always prioritize attacking orcs over the dwarves in the scenes when both are together and they choose to help the dwarves in Laketown when they really don't have to, and could easily have taken them hostage and then ransomed them back to the rest of the party in the Lonely Mountain in exchange for the gems Thranduil wanted. The movie makes it clear that Thranduil personally is a dick but the elves of Mirkwood overall are decent people, whereas in the book the king of Mirkwood's elves isn't named and they're all greedy antagonists.
@@quintonhoffert6526 Okay, so I do like the first movie the best out of all the three, and in some ways it does an even better job of setting up Bilbo as a hero and an adventurer than the book did. But, while I appreciate the troll scene, and Bilbo saving Thorin from Azog in the first film, like I said, they can’t replace the scenes in Mirkwood, where Bilbo demonstrates so much resilience and resourcefulness. Even Bilbo’s scene with Smaug wasn’t done justice, in my opinion. It felt like he’d hit his peak in the first film, and nothing he did after that was as remarkable. And, while I can understand why they needed to focus on Thorin a bit more, the second movie turned Bilbo into a supporting character in his own series, and that didn’t really change in the next film. Bilbo’s scenes with Gollum in the first film were largely done justice, but Bilbo’s great act of mercy was something that was inspired by some advice that Gandlaf had given him earlier, which isn’t too bad, but it does somewhat undermine what an independent thinker Bilbo is in the book. Another thing that was changed was that Bilbo didn’t have a lot of his snark. In the book, he used to grumble and talk back to Thorin and the rest of the dwarves. In the film, he comes across as a lot more docile, and less spirited. In the book, all the characters were motivated, to some degree, by greed, but Thranduil was not the worst of them, or the heartless villain in the book that he was in the movies. In the book, he clearly doesn’t trust dwarves, but the dwarves also refused to answer any questions and behaved in a really hostile manner, which would have probably made him more suspicious. Also, in the book, the dwarves had tried to approach his people in the forest, so he had some cause to be suspicious and question them. Nonetheless, he did treat the prisoners decently and gave them plenty of food and drink. That’s one reason why I think Thranduil abandoning the dwarves after the dragon attacked in the film was really out of character for him. Another reason is that, after he’d heard of the dragon’s demise, he and his people marched towards the mountain, but when they heard of the plight of the people of Laketown, they immediately turned back and helped them. After that, when they approached the mountain, Thranduil did not put forth any demands of his own, but only supported Bard in his claims. Of all the leaders, Thranduil ended up with the least in the end. Bard gave him the emeralds of Girion as a gift of gratitude, but Bard had a fourteenth share of the treasure, which made him richer than most mortal kings. Even before that, when Bard wished to fight, Thranduil did not wish to start a war over gold, and wanted to wait and hope for a reconciliation, even though their numbers would have been enough to win them a victory. This contrasts starkly with Movie Thranduil who gave his archers orders to shoot anyone who moved on the mountain. Now, Thranduil did make for Erebor before he’d heard of the plight of the people of Laketown, and we don’t know if he was planning on keeping all the gold for himself (we don’t have any clear reason to know one way or the other), but his subsequent actions speak in his favour. He expressed genuine respect for Bilbo when he told them that he was willing to give up his share of the treasure for the sake of a resolution. He also returned Orcrist, an ancient Elven blade, to Thorin’s grave, as a gesture of reconciliation.
@@DeepikaGinger I'll admit that I also haven't read the book in a while, but I definitely don't remember the elves being portrayed as heroically as you're saying they were. Diplomacy breaks down between the dwarves and the elves like in the movie, but IMO the elves come across worse overall in the book because of the situation the dwarves have been put it. While traveling through Mirkwood and having lost their way, the dwarves have run out of food and water and twice approached the elves feasting at night, only for them to disappear like a dream (something which is largely out of the wheelhouse of LotR elves since they don't really have magic, but The Hobbit doesn't fully tie thematically to LotR and elves having illusion magic is a common trope of Middle Ages elf stories so whatever). Then, after narrowly escaping death by giant spider, the elves capture the dwarves and question them. Obviously greed is definitely a motivating factor in Thorin and company refusing to explain themselves to the elves, but at the same time I think the elves definitely acted more suspiciously towards the dwarves than was really fair. It's not like the dwarves attacked either of the midnight feasts they happened upon, they just approached and then all the elves and the food disappeared like an illusion. Maybe we can chalk it up to being a misunderstanding but I still feel like imprisoning a company of dwarves for the crime of not explaining their traveling goals is overly hostile, especially since they could have simply marched the dwarves to the gates of their kingdom, dumped them out, and told them not to come back. IMO it speaks more of a general distrust of dwarves among the elves of Mirkwood than the actual actions of Thorin's Company, shifty may they have been. Also, on a side note, I don't think it's right of you to list "treating the prisoners decently and giving them plenty of food and drink" as a point in favor of the elves. Starving and abusing prisoners is basically a war crime. Considering that the humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits are supposed to be the good races of Middle Earth, I would say that the elves of Mirkwood failing to live up to that standard would be a strong condemnation of them as being evil. As it stands they're definitely not evil, but treating prisoners humanely (despite neither party being human) isn't a point in their favor any more than not trying to drug and sexually assault your date at the bar isn't a point in your favor: its the base standard you'd expect. Another thing I would highlight is that the movies have an expanded scope from the book, as one would expect from a 10 hour film series versus a 100k word book, and part of that adaptation process involved changing around character development and expanding on characters and plots that didn't get as much development in the original book. The book is indeed just Bilbo's story, and as a result all of the other characters act as supporting characters to his narrative, often fairly shallow supporting characters at that. The films have a wider scope, and as a result Bilbo is one of the main characters but he isn't the only one. Thorin and (arguably) Gandalf both function as primary protagonists in the films, albeit in different ways and places than Bilbo, and are thus elevated to a greater status of character development and agency. Technically speaking you're right that some of Bilbo's scenes and motivations have changed and that he's no longer the sole beneficiary of character growth and cool moments, but those changes also elevate other characters that weren't particularly well fleshed out in the book, while Bilbo still retains most of the development and moments from the book that make him who he is. You're free to dislike that, but I don't think it's fair to criticize it as a failing of the adaptation when, obviously, making a one-to-one translation of the book to the big screen was never the goal to begin with. Basically, a lot of your points more or less just feel like nitpicking to me. I want to make it clear that nowhere in any of my arguments am I saying that you're wrong to dislike the movies, or that you should change your opinion to be more like mine. I'm not the culture police. If you have a special connection to the book then that's great, and if you don't like the movies you don't like the movies. Nevertheless, it really feels to me like a lot of your problems with the movies come down to little details you liked better in the book that weren't in the movies, and that you didn't like that other characters in the films were elevated to largely the same protagonist status as Bilbo. If that's how you feel then that's fine, but I don't think it's a fair criticism of the movies either. A more fair version of that criticism would be "The Hobbit didn't need to be three movies and should have just been one," which I could agree with (although personally I really wanted a more LotR-like version of the Hobbit and I prefer what we got to what we could have had, assuming the general quality level would have been the same), but considering it was really obvious that the film adaptation wasn't going to be that one-to-one translation of book to film as soon as the decision to make it a trilogy was announced, I don't think it's fair to criticize a larger project for trying to have a larger scope. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing your argument, in which case I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but that's really the sense I get from your arguments thus far. The way I see it, you have a bunch of specific scenes that are sacred cows for you and your biggest problem with the films is that their rendition of those scenes wasn't sacred enough for you.
I rewatched the Hobbit trilogy back in the summer and was pleasantly surprised that they were better than I remembered them. I think the first one inparticular is genuinely decent, and the second has some good moments. I think the problem generally is that as a trilogy it just tails off, and BoTFA just doesn't hit the right notes. I remember watching BoTFA in cinema and being really disappointed afterwards
Extended editions are very good. Especially for the 3rd movie because it fixes the dwarves being sidelined and gives them a proper ending. These movies still have some of the most epic scenes in recent fantasy. The prologue with Erebor, the chasing with Smaug in Erebor, the riddles in the dark and the eagles coming, the Dol Guldur fight, these are highlights which hold up still to this day.
For those who enjoyed these movies but wished they were shorter, I highly recommend the M4 Fan Edit or the Ravenomics cuts. Condensed to a single 4 hr + film with an intermission for the former, and two 2 1/2 hour films for the latter. Both work nicely and keep the quality and gut the flab. I still love these movies despite some truly glaring flaws Nerdstalgic accurately points out. Also love LOTR films of course!
This is 100% on point. I really disliked the Hobbit movies when they came out (despite seeing them all on opening nights). I feel like my resentment towards them has dwindled over the years, and will probably be non existent once Power comes out. Just sucks how industry standards continue to drop. I think the golden age of film is over 😔
The irony about Power is Tolkien would despise Amazon, even without it bastardizing his work. Peter clearly showed his thoughts on industry in the first trilogy and Amazon is pure industrial terror.
@@aegaeon117 A big red flag right off the bat was that Amazon asked Peter Jackson if he wanted a part in the show and then they ghosted him when he asked to see the scripts before he made a decision
I still don't like the Hobbit. Rings of Power being awful doesn't make them better, it just dulls the anger a little. They do have great scenes though. Like the Star Wars Prequels, I only rewatch The Hobbit movies in 3 minute UA-cam clips. They're fun that way.
I think if there was a “condensed edition” (as opposed to an extended edition) I would actually really enjoy the Hobbit. Just cutting out the fluff would allow more focus on the really cool aspects of the show.
Bolg is actually not a movie-only character. At the end of the original Hobbit book we are introduced to the goblin leader Bolg, who was the canonical son of Azog (who was sort of a movie only character seeing as he canonically died before the events of The Hobbit take place). When the many hordes of goblins were galvanized into action by the death of the Great Goblin earlier in the story, Bolg led the goblin armies that instigated the Battle of the Five Armies, coming down from Mount Gundabad to attack the dwarves, elves, and men. Thorin received his fatal wounds in battle against Bolg's personal bodyguards trying to reach him, and Bolg was finally slain by Beorn when the skin-changer joined the battle. The movie version of Bolg kind of gives him both more and less importance to the story, introducing him much sooner but delegating him to being more of a side villain rather than the final antagonist.
I genuienly believe it would have been far better to leave Azog dead and have Bolg be the personal antagonist to Thorin, which would have been a "conflict of the forefathers now being passed down to their children" situation
I've watched both videos on "The Hobbit," and each one is very informative, so THANK YOU, Nerdstalgic. But, honestly, I just don't see the problem with this trilogy. For all of my fellow Fantasy fans out there who do not like this trilogy, I do not begrudge any of you, for you all have valid reasons for your disappointment in this trilogy. But for me, this trilogy is so much fun to watch, and I find it every bit as enjoyable as "The Lord of The Rings." Despite it being crafted from a single book, it was great to go back to Middle Earth and revisit old friends like Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel for a whole new trilogy. And although we never got a Del Toro helmed "Hobbit," I was glad to have Jackson back as the director.
To be fair, when you start off with those books, "The Hobbit" is the one that captures the younger imaginations the best. I dont want to call it childish, but it paints much better visual works in your head and helps you understand the people and land really well, and I have always seen it as a "warm up" to the trilogy. 3 movies that are almost 3 hours long each seems like a stretch, but I remember reading "The Hobbit" over a dozen times when I was in school, I loved the book and couldnt get enough. I did read a lot, a few books a week, and though I will probably not READ the book again, it is fun to have 3 full and long movies devoted to such an awesome book. And kids these days.....my son refuses to read "the Hobbit"....but if I get us a pizza and some snacks, I bet I could get him to watch it with me instead. I can accept that lol.
well, now i'm heartbroken to hear they had actually planned to give the dwarves more screen-time. 💔 it was one of the things that had me excited for these movies, and unfortunately no fan-cut can fix the lack of it.
The dwarves got tons of screentime in the EE of BofA. Almost 90% of the added scenes focuses on at least one of the dwarves. We get a nice and friendly conversation between Bilbo and Bofur and tons of battle scenes with our main dwarves and Dain's army, next to the funeral scene.
I like the fan edit you can search for that turns it back into two films (essentially - they call it one film with an interval but it's as long as two). It cuts out the fat and the story's so much better for it. I would've personally left out the "trolls are disgusting, in case you didn't know" scene and in its place, left in at least a little bit of explanation why the dragon's covered in gold soup all of a sudden... but that's a nitpick in the grand scheme of it. They did an excellent job. Rock'em sock'em rockbots, gone. Love triangle, gone. Plate smashing song now just a quick joke instead of a good reason to already dislike everyone. Barrel scene, now just a simple escape. Can't have Legolas anti-grav when you don't have Legolas. Just so many obvious improvements to trim out and I really like that someone went to the bother and showed how much better it could've been. We are still left without the personality development of the majority of a cast we're supposed to care about, so it's not like it's perfect, but it's certainly a big step up.
Only thing I didnt like was how they cut out the Erebor story in the beginning. All those shots of Erebor and Dale are so amazing and beautiful, why leave them out? It also tells the audience how the dwarves lost their home in the first place. This def should be in there.
@@Oozaru85 I'd forgot that bit, yeah. Yeah I agree that didn't need to get left out. I guess the one thing I liked most about it was all the cutting achieved a big increase tonal consistency, but that certainly would've fit right in still.
Ok in fairness, I still enjoy the first Hobbit film. And everything involving Cumberbatch as Smaug later on. I just thing the trilogy’s big sin is that it needed to be two parts and not directly intertwine with Sauron’s long-term scheming. That was fully unnecessary.
Despite the completely unnecessary nature of intertwining Sauron with the plot of the Hobbit, gotta admit though, the fight with Elrond and Saruman against the Nine in Dol Guldur was a fantastic and satisfying bit of that film, not to mention an epic send-off for Christopher Lee in his final film.
The Hobbit being intertwined with Sauron's long-term scheming is Tolkien canon though. Lord Of The Rings makes reference to Gandalf's entire involvement in The Hobbit being all about taking Smaug off the board before Sauron became active, because nobody wants Sauron with a dragon in his army.
@@Carabas72 To be true, you're right, it is all connected, think some people though thought that it detracted from being an adaptation of the original material rather than one where it was tied to Lord of the Rings. I think they wanted the story told on a individual level from thar trilogy. Doesn't bother me though, really enjoy all 3 of those movies.
@@Carabas72 Would Smaug have even wanted to work with Sauron? Ik he’s greedy when it comes to hoarding wealth, but Smaug never seems like the kind willing to take orders from anyyone. Even someone with Sauron’s power.
@@benwasserman8223 Tolkien seems to think it wouldn't have been an issue at all for Sauron to recruit Smaug. As a species, dragons are strongly associated with Morgoth and his underlings.
I actually loved reading this scene in the books! The barrel scene, and giant spiders in the forest is something I was looking forward to so much! I sadly agree though, the pacing, and the extra characters added into the scene just took me away from it more than helped.
You know that Beorn was in the book because he felt like an unnecessary and random addition to the movie. Hence, the movie was so disconnected from the book that they were in opposition to each other throughout the telling.
@@Yes-Bean yeah but when it presents itself as the successor of THE EPITOME OF FANTASY FICTION and when showrunners blatantly decided to inore Tolkien's writings to depict their own creation of mordor... It also nailed it's demise like a fucking Roman.
I recommend checking out fan-edits since there's some fun ones out there (I've made my own in fact), but I still grieve what this series could have been so regularly. Each dwarf was supposed to have their own little side quest, which was turned into simply "they all have some trait so you can tell them apart". Thorin's the leader with the backstory, Balin's the old, wise one, Dwalin's the bald, rough n' tumble one, Kili's the hot archer one, Fili's the one with the knives, Bofur's the friendly one (he also has a big hat), Bifur has an axe stuck in his head and therefore can only talk the dwarven language, Bombur's the fat one, Ori's the young, naiive one with a sling shot, Dori's the polite one, Nori's the kleptomaniac, Oin's the old, deaf one and Gloin's Gimli's father. This was supposed to be our "story with the dwarves", but alas
I’m a fan of the book and the graphic novel version that I got recently (illustrated by David Wenzel). I lent The Hobbit to my sister a while back. I haven’t asked what she thinks of it yet but hopefully she had fun reading.
TLOTR surprisingly felt different in my opinion, aged like a fine wine, still remembers a lot of its scenes, been watched it since it's not so popular as right now (I watched it for the first time on 2004). Dayum, VFX is so raw, realistic, and always heats my adrenaline.
They made the story longer and didn't use any of that time to make the 12 dwarves more distinguished characters. Its telling what exactly got expanded on and what didn't because its pretty clear where their priorities were.
It's a shame because it lacks that homely, warm feeling you get with lord of the rings. The lord of the rings series has really managed to capture it though!
I'm so happy to see someone address this. With this scene alone, I lost any investment and engagement that the movie had built up to that point and I just couldn't get past it after that.
I really like the Hobbit. I kinda understand why people don't like it but I still like it very much! Smaug is amazing. And Gollum was terrifying in it.
Yeah I really like it. It was a fun world to explore. I laugh, I cried, and the action was wonderful. Bilbo is one of my favorite characters in the Lord of Rings and he got flushed out pretty well. I also think the Hobbit has one of the underrated endings. Gandalf visited Bilbo at Bilbo's old age. Bilbo was so happy to see him. They stayed friends for a life time. It was settle, but I liked it.
The most frustrating part is that those brilliant moments were truly gold! Martin Freeman as Bilbo, the glimpses of personality in the dwarves, the taste of the Hobbit world that we loved it for...And then they set those moments in the middle of such fluff.
If we had a scene where after getting into barrels, they get out smoothly (still with some tension but no chase scene) and land on the shore, it would be more of a Bilbo moment as it would be clear that them getting out was direct outcome of his plan.
100% agree. You could sum up that entire 10 minute monstrosity of a sequence in one sentence: "Bilbo helps the dwarves escape through the hatch and watches as one barrel at a time drops into the river, and they escape the castle." Done. Move on. Story is king. Spectacle is window dressing. Aristotle said it, so it's good enough for me.
Thank you for this! I’ve been trying so hard to put my finger on why this trilogy just doesn’t sit right with me. I really enjoyed the first movie, it felt like settling right back into Middle Earth, even if it was pretty drawn out. Desolation of Smaug was really where it started to fall apart, and it all starts with the barrel scene.
@@SpartanX027 fr my main complaint abt these movies is that they don't have MORE whimsical scenes like this. the whole trilogy is framed as bilbo's account being read from his POV after all. bilbo would include or even exaggerate parts of his retelling of what really happened. jumping on heads and tumbling down hills while taking down a bunch of orcs is exactly what bilbo would say happened, gopro shots and all.
Good video, but Bolg isn't a movie only character, he is the villain of The Hobbit and led the army of goblins and wargs in The Battle of the Five Armies in the book
Spot on. The moment I watched the barrel scene I knew this "trilogy" was toast. What ticks me off is that they package it with LOTR and call it the "Middle Earth Ultimate Collector's Edition" like they are in the same universe of quality.
@@savannah2931 Who, you calling Oddivia miserable? Because they have actual taste and standards for quality? It IS 10 minutes of absolute boredom and zero suspense. You sit there waiting for it to end. And that's not the first time it happens in the trilogy. Probably the sixth or seventh by this point. Raise your standards!
@@apricot2879 Yeah, except it really was that bad. The good qualities of these films are dwarfed by the absurd and all-too frequent long drawn out spectacles that have zero relevance to the story, and leave the viewer bored. Did you really think there was even the slightest chance that any of the dwarves might die in these 10 minutes (or the five minutes falling in the tower in film 1, or from the rock giants, or from the trolls, etc. etc..?). These scenes sap the film of any suspense or tension. And they are not fun. Had they wanted to do a little whitewater scene with a few arrows being shot from the tower, and extend it out a minute or two, that might have been okay. But TEN minutes? No. Story is king. Spectacle is window dressing.
"I feel... thin... like one book spread across three movies."
Nice reference. 👍
Hobbit was good
The Hobbit would've been great as one or two films at most.
@@aitornavarro6597 well, there is actually a cartoon movie version of hobbit since 1980. It's literally the three movies in an two hours film. Please search it
@@killcounter1587 Yes but I was referring to one or two films in the 2 hr-3hr format not necessarily 1 hr long
At the end of the second movie when I saw their entire plan of capturing Smaug in vain, he shook off the gold dust, flew to the Dale saying "I am fire... I am death" it really gave me chills. Then he died in 15 minutes into next movie.
They should have dragged Smaug out more. Have the entry into the Mountain be the end. The movie ends as they walk into the dark tunnel on the side of the Mountain.
They ruined the 3rd movie by dragging 5 pages of book into an entire movie.
Movie 3- Act 1 - Smaug attacks Lake Town, is defeated.
Act 2 - Lake Town refugees flood into Dale, ask Dwarves for help, elf army arrives with aid, and jointly set up camp outside the Mountain. Gandalf arrives. Bilbo gives Bard the Arkenstone. Orc army shows up.
Act 3 - Battle. And then like LOTR, long, relaxing ending after the high stakes battle. Thorin's funeral, highlights of Gandalf and Bilbo's trip home (like the trolls turned to stone), and getting home to find his stuff being auctioned. Buys it all back with his ridiculous new wealth. Movie ends with him sitting down to start writing his book.
Could easily make it 2 hours with all that.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human They teased the idea of Sauron recruiting Smaug to his side, and I think they should have gone all-in and used that idea in the third movie. Keep Smaug alive through to the final battle and have him team up with the Orc army. Make him a big enough threat to force the Dwarves and Elves to fight side by side. Find some way to incorporate Bard and the black arrow into the battle if necessary.
It's like, Jackson and company fucked with the story enough to make huge changes, but didn't fuck *enough* to make those changes work.
@@episodenull I'm not gonna blame Jackson too much.
The studio split it from 2 films to 3, after the 1st film had already come out, forcing Jackson to add more filler and make structural changes. He was writing script pages on the day they were being filmed.
The studio had let him take his time with LOTR partly because they didn't think it would be successful, so they didn't pressure him.
You can make something good and fast, but it won't be cheap. You can make something cheap and fast, but it won't be good, which is how they made The Hobbit. Or you can make something good and cheap, but it won't be fast, which is how they made LOTR.
When they made The Hobbit, they were in financial trouble, so they wanted some quick money. Then Del Toro dropped out because he and the studio had "creative differences", and Jackson was brought on and given a few months to do all the prep, not the years he had for LOTR.
While Jackson certainly isn't blameless, and could have done better within the constraints he had, the largest part of the blame falls on New Line Cinema. And also MGM.
The fact New Line had to get MGM to co-fund the movie shows how poor New Line's finances were, and why they pushed Jackson into making it quickly (hence the CGI) and into making it more accessible for kids (hence the slapstick comedy).
biggest issue of the hobbit is how Smaug died tbh
Tbf the greatest dragon in middle earth lore is killed by a dude in a flying boat. It seems Tolkien dragons are destined to be written as great beings, only to die in fairly easy and underwhelming ways, in whatever media they apear in
It's honestly a huge testament to Peter Jackson's talent that the Hobbit movies weren't a thousand times worse. The studio screwed him over from the very beginning.
I get the feeling Peter Jackson aquiesced to make 3 films as he could give more business to his home country of New Zealand. He's the one who likes to over-extend sequences. Look at the dinosaur chase in the bloated 3hr King Kong film. Far too long, far too much. Lots of fake CG. He wanted to invite Legloas back. Add extra sequences. In the Hobbit trilogy each film is not "over 2" hours as the video says. It's 3 films over 2 and a half hours! That was ridiculous! The 2-3 hour fan edits are the best versions of these films!
"It's honestly a huge testament to Peter Jackson's talent that the Hobbit movies weren't a thousand times worse."
I'm pretty sure Del-Toro's version would have been a thousand times better though.
"The studio screwed him over from the very beginning"
Peter mostly screwed himself over. People expected him to outperform LOTR, which is a nearly impossible task becuase LOTR has reached a legendary status, it's beyond criticism at this point.
The books did not have enough material for three movies but he(!) agreed to it anyway (because money), requiring him to write even more material that he had no time for.
And finally he stupidly stupidly stupidly agreed to making the movie without preptime. He was in a very strong position at the time, he could have just told the studio he needed more time and the studio would have to choose between giving him more time or risking the movie not getting made at all, and they'd miss out on billions of dollars in profit. Badsically, the cost of time Jackson needed woukld be eraned back in ticketsales in the first half-hour, so what are we talking about here?
Ofcourse the studio did not give him time and Jackson thought he was a superman who would simply make this movie, and they all learned valuable lessons about greed, limit's to abilities, that none of them actualyl were the gods they thought they were, and the world had gotten thre movies that only a handfull of people can actually enjoy.
And I hope people do learn to enjoy the hobbit. I can't, becuase my brain doesn't let me suspend my disbelief during the action scenes, it refuses to accept the premise ofthe story as something a sane person would do, basically my brain picks up on all the flaws. And no, it did that long before they were pointed out to me.
totally agree
@@vinny142 oh i don't think anyone expected him to outperform LOTR (except dumbass studio executives). everyone knew when they saw that the hobbit was being made into multiple movies that it wasn't going to beat LOTR no matter who the director was.
the problem the studio executives had here is just that, though. they WANTED a children's book to outperform a massive three-book-long epic. almost everything wrong with the hobbit movies stems from them trying to make them something they aren't: a LOTR 2.0. of course, the source material is fundamentally not trying to be LOTR, so the result is a half-baked children's book with odd whimsical moments and jokes drizzled on top of a half-baked grimdark epic. and the studio executives probably learned nothing and blamed it all on jackson. (and i do think you're right that while most of the blame is on the execs, jackson has some of it too. those legolas scenes looked exactly like the ones from the trilogy, but with less time to finish the CGI, and the result is comical.
@@vinny142 I disagree heavily that del toro's version would have been better, it would not have felt like Lotr
What kills me is that some parts of The Hobbit were still genuinely fantastic. The dwarves at Bilbo's are fantastic, Riddles in the Dark is superb, and... well actually that's about it, but still. Those two scenes were fantastically well done.
I also like the music and the character design of the dragon.
But I dislike that they turned Bilbo from a "thief" to a generic protagonist who has to save the day in battles. I also dislike the illogical behavior of all people involved in the battles (for example archers jumping between two clashing armies) or the things which don't make sense as a prequal for the Lotr and so on. But luckily I forgot most of what was bothering me. I watched the trilogy when it was in the cinema and I watched a fancut around 4 years ago.
Every every single dwarf was shit, imo. They failed casting, design and writing. They lazily went with snow white characterisations and sprinkled in one pretty boy for a half baked romance. The dwarves are what I disliked the most, really.
I also liked the "three trolls scene", Bilbos interaction with Smaug, the extended cut version of Beorns place and of them wandering through the forest, how the dwarves had to be forced to go to Rivendell and how hostile they behave towards elves in general. And that they made them less "cowardly". As that fits better with how they are portayed in the Silmarillion and the LotR. I also thought that Lake city was done well enough and if I'm honest, I also liked the "fight" with Smaug at the end of the second movie, and thought the Gandalf side story was at least allright (in ther way that it makes sense to tell that story as in the overall picture it is actually way more important). Concerning Legolas beeing inserted into it: It at least makes sense that he would be there. Apart from how the cgi on the orcs looked, I didn't even hate most of the combat ...I guess I think that the first two movies are mostly fine or even good and actually great in parts, considering that the book "the Hobbit" itself, beeing a children's book, is also very much inferior to the book "Lord of the Rings". The third one though...
@@blurgle9185 Among the 12 Dwarves or however many there were, they had enough combined character development for one person.
The fact that they made it to the end of the movie against INFINITE goblins without a scratch (except for the leader guy with an injured nose) means that there was never a point in the movie with real tension. No life or death urgency. It was like a live action Teen Titans Go.
The Smaug disrespect is horrendous
Correction; Bolg isn’t a movie only character, he’s actually mentioned in the book as leading the goblin forces at the Battle of the Five Armies
He is but he's barely fleshed out, as compared to the movie.
But honestly I liked that they fleshed him out. Get some more orc personality in here
And it is also mentioned that he is Azog's son, btw
Came here to mention that, but yes, he was quite unimportant for the plot, more so for Middle Earth lore
LOOKS LIKE BOLG'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS!
The movies were better than this review imo
Another big miss is Bilbo's bravery in the passage on Erebor. The mighty dwarves, for good reason, are hesitant to go through and therefore call on Bilbo to fulfill his duties as burglar. Inside the passage, in my opinion, is Bilbo's greatest moment of internal struggle and personal courage. He knows that if he goes any further he'll come face to face with an actual carnivorous fire breathing dragon. The terror of that realization paralyzes him. But only for a moment. In that moment Bilbo strengthens his resolve and presses on. In fact this is what Tolkein himself wrote
"It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterward were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait."
When I read this as an 11 year old this passage had a profound effect on me. The film seems to have just glossed over this.
I remember that passage as well! A lot of people don't think about it, but in the book the DWARVES were too scared, the ones who were actual warriors, to go and enter Smaug's domain. People always seem to act like they would be the bravest one in the story, but from Bilbo's perspective, he was in a dark tunnel about to enter a room that had an ACTUAL dragon, one that had killed many men and dwarves, AND he was going to do it BY HIMSELF because his friends were too nervous to. That takes a ton of courage, and in the book Smaug is basically the biggest bad to have bad, so I wouldn't have blamed him if he couldn't do it, BUT HE DID. And a lot of people don't seem to recognize that, even though it was supposed to be his bravest moment, despite the passage being rather short compared to everything else.
The whole scene where the dwarves refused to go into the cave was just wrong from the characters standpoints. It was just a blatant plot device.
My favorite scene from the book is the one where he kills a spider in Mirkwood, and I love it for the same reasons. Tolkien writes “Somehow the killing of the giant spider, all alone by himself in the dark without the help of the wizard or the dwarves, or anyone else, made a great difference to mr Baggins. He felt a different person, and much fiercer and bolder in spite of an empty stomach.”
I love that scene and the first movie ruined it without even reaching Mirkwood when they had Bilbo jump in front of and kill a warg by himself.
@@mrbill4206 I mean, most of them were probably there when Smaug attacked, so I think it makes sense that they wouldn't want to face him unless absolutely necessary
@@sndragonfan7257 Yes, the whole point of Bilbo going in was a stealth reconnaissance mission. Even in the end Smaug still didn't know who or what Bilbo was.
Man, watching Bilbo come home to a ransacked Bag-End gets me every time. What a well-crafted, superbly acted, utterly devastating moment.
Why does everyone talk about the barrel scene? The Legolas running on the falling bricks was way way way worse.
Elves are magical, so maybe.
But yeah it did look really bad.
The run of the mill love triangle killed it for me. And I had to turn of the third movie because it was unbearable. I have only turned of the D&D Movie with Jason Statham in all the years I watched even the strangest stuff..
and the third part of this nightmare of a movie, ruined by idiots from outside. I have to thank Peter Jackson for somehow making the first movie good and the second somewhat watchable.
1. In FotR we see Legolas walk on snow like it's solid ground
2. He's not running, he's jumping (you know, pushing himself up) from them
@@TwojaStaraIFrytki first, the snow was packed enough for someone to walk lightly and carefully, like an elf who naturally walks that way. And second, to use a freely falling object as a surface to step up with, you have to push it downward with enough force to bring it at least to its terminal velocity, which isn't possible in any universe with similar physics to ours.
Lord of the Rings also had some bad Legolas scenes too😅... Today's standards? What that even mean?
Legolas climbing the "Olyphant", the 3 running out of the tombs in Return of the King, Legolas sliding on the stairs with a shield
I find it kind of sad how obvious it was that the Hobbit movies COULD have been great. Smaug and Gollum were fantastic in appearance and writing, but they were overshadowed by bad plots and writing.
What you just said they had good writing but then also said they were overshadowed by bad writing!? Which one do you agree with?
@@jacksonbrickmedia939 I think he means the CHARACTERS were written well, but the PLOT was written badly.
@@jacksonbrickmedia939 Very easy to understand his point....
they needed to cut out the entire Dale plotline. i've never seen a movie where little kids scream DAH (or anything) every single opening scene they appear in. it was the most doofy, obnoxious thing i've ever seen in a movie. god that Dale stuff was so stupid, holy crap.
Well, and it was just so MUCH. It has a lot of good ideas, but it constantly goes so far over the top that it just becomes ridiculous, over and over. Every single major action scene feels like it would have been better at half the length, with more care to choose the *best* moments rather than throwing everything imaginable at the screen.
The sadest part for me is that Martin freeman made the acting performance of a life time. Had it been done properly with one or two films and a single tone and style it could have been in league with LOTR
It really is a great cast, just a shame the writing didn't lift them to their highest.
I never liked him until this.. I also hated Bilbo in LOTR but Martin made me love him!
@@ghouling1111 Bilbo for me, I felt vice versa. Thought I have not read the Hobbit vs LOTR
I mean Martin Freeman is great, but still. 🙃
I actually liked the first one. The last two should’ve been one movie
Two films tops and it could’ve been amazing, following closer to the book-plot without all the distractions and less human dwarves and it would definitely be a lot better.
The young dwarves don’t even have proper beards, and no big noses or any odd features, they look more like hobbits than dwarves.
I'll never stop reminding people that Jackson took over DelToro's groundwork. Had it been prepped the same way as LOTR, I'm certain it would've been more coherent. Still would've had issues, butter being spread over too much bread and all, but it would've been slightly better...
Just Jessee, well said! Look at the state of the director's health while shooting. Yes he consciously lost weight to improve his health, but this movie didn't help. He looks haggard. Had he began this like he did LOTR, he would have planned out Battle of Five Armies before the first set was built. As it was he took over, and was rushed, and kept putting things off. Opposite attitude to what he did with the first trilogy.
Loved the buttery way you said this in your comment!
Jackson gets unnecessary flack. Jackson's King Kong and Lord of the Rings are some of my all-time favorite films, and an adamantine proof that he's a very talented director.
From a different perspective, had it been solely Del Toro, it probably would’ve been truly something singular and special
My problem is that Jackson had the juice to demand more time and less fat. He didn't.
Actually, he didn't. He hardly used anything of del toros. So he had months to plan the movie instead of 10 years. I highly recommend watching the behind the scenes documentaries. It is even mentioned during this vid.
The Hobbit trilogy isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's a fine series of movies, but because of who directed it and the fact that the LotR trilogy was adapted first, it will always be compared to one of the best film adaptations of a book of all time, and no matter what Peter Jackson did to try make it work, it would never measure up. I think if people were to ignore all context and just watch the trilogy as a series of movies, I think many who call the trilogy crap would actually think it's a good trilogy. Entertaining, though not groundbreaking or legendary in any way. Worth a single watch through the set.
The hobbit movies aren't bad as a whole. They do have bad elements definitely. They also have some very good moments. The backstory of the Dwarves, the Riddles in the dark part, Beorn and the Mirkwood sequence, Bilbo's interaction with Smaug and making Bard an actual charachter instead of a guy who just randomly shows up and kills the dragon and some more stuff.
Agreed. Wasn't the production development phase only 12 weeks instead of the couple of years on LOTR? Jackson has said he had so little time to put the trilogy together due to studio pressures.
I love them & might even prefer the Hobbit trilogy to LOTR.
No, I'm pretty sure they are bad as a whole
@@blueshit199 to each their own.
@@blueshit199 you’re entitled to your opinion
Completely agree. It's a very frustrating trilogy, considering how much I love the book and the good performances that feel overshadowed by incomprehensible decisions.
Definitely Martin Freeman is among the best of the film. Seeing behind the scenes and understanding that a lot of his performance was inside a green room, with very little to interact with, is admirable.
Agree. The hobbit is one of my favorite books.
My main problem with it was the choice of shoehorning a romance element.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo They played dirty with Tauriel. She might have been a decent character on his own, but intertwining her with Legolas and Kili was embarrassing to see.
@@eliali1194 first issue I take with that is that it isn't in the source material. Second issue I take with that is love triangles.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo Shoehorn. There is no better word. It was the most out of place element in the entire trilogy. At first I thought it was going to be a platonic proto-Gimli and Leoglas moment, where Tauriel's respect for Kili and his sacrifice also has an effect on Legolas, however small. Then the Hollywood-imposed romance starts to trickle in, and I knew we were in for a massive narrative fuckup.
Bolg was not a movie-only character, he lead the attack of the battle of 5 armies. Azog never appeared in the book, but was mentioned.
Exactly 💯
Smh bruh mf didn’t even know he just read a script written by someone else who didn’t read it
They shouldve just let Azog be dead and Bolg be the lead orc
Yep, Azog was killed by Dain Ironfoot in the battle where the dwarves tried to retake Khazad-Dum.
Bolg led the attack, but he doesn’t have much of a role outside of that, because most of the battle is skimmed over in the book.
The Barrel Scene just reminded me of a video game level. The CGI is shockingly obvious, particularly in relation to Legolas - he just looked like a videogame avatar bouncing around. If they'd replaced the soundtrack with the Mario theme tune the effect would've been complete.
There's a really good fan edits that combines all three movies into a single two hour film. Despite the break-neck pace, it works well
how do I find it?
What are they called?
@@Lukas-lw4eg Not sure which one they meant exactly, but there's a couple of good ones. The Cardinal Cut and the Maple edit being personal favourites
@@glennnygard9673 Ravenomics did one better on Cardinal cut Although he did cut down the colors when I preferred the bright colors.
@@Phillibetrus Also a great edit. I really liked that the Cardinal Cut removed so much of the final movie, so I'll probably still prefer it. But I really appreciate the efforts to make the scene transitions flow a lot better in the Ravenomics one
There’s certain aspects left out in the barrel scene that, I feel, take something away from Bilbo’s character before the fighting even starts. The barrel scene is one of the scenes that highlights Bilbo’s compassion. In the novel, he makes sure he puts the cell keys back on the guard so the guard doesn’t get in too much trouble, and when helping the dwarves into the barrels, Bilbo tries to make them more comfortable by shoving hay in the barrels to cushion the dwarves. These were just such vital moments that showed Bilbo’s character, and I have a hard time watching the barrel scene in the movie because of those missing aspects.
So they cut those out to save time, and then added ten minutes of nothingness mindless action with no purpose.. Thanks for sharing, I haven't read the book but these dropped character moments are emblematic of what's wrong with these movies.
@@danm5911 Yup! Pretty much! I highly recommend reading it or listening to the audiobook. (I’m pretty sure there’s a version read by Andy Serkis which sounds like it’d be fun to listen to) I found the novel a lot more fun and whimsical than the movies!
@@Myr642 Yes I have heard the book is very good. Maybe I can get my kid to read it with me
@@Myr642 Also for some audiobook trivia, the LOTR audiobooks (at least the ones I have on tape) have ian holm (Bilbo in the films) voices frodo.
As someone who barely remembers the book I'll tell you that scene wasn't necessary, we don't need to see that to know Bilbo is a caring person, it's very obvious that he cares and has a soft heart, that scene wouldn't have added at all, I don't even remember that in the book (I only read half the book four years ago). I could tell easily that Bilbo was kind and incredibly considerate. I think you're looking at it from a biased perspective really
Bolg was not movie-only. He was in the battle of five armies and I'm pretty sure it was said that he killed thorin, fili, and kili, before Beorn carried them off and then came back to merc Bolg. The movies expanded on his character, but he was absolutely in the book.
Yep - but Azog was not. And nobody was hunting the Dwarves, at least not until the Great Goblin was killed.
@@dandiehm8414 Azog is also in the Book, but only mentioned because the Azog in the book was killed by Dain when the Dwarves tried to reclaim Khazad-Dum. Bolg is the son of Azog and was marching his army to avenge his father's death and to claim the dragon's horde at Erebor for himself.
Bolg didn’t kill them it was The bodyguard of Bolg and Beorn only carried Thorin away.
@@jayc3091 Bolg killed thorin, fili, and kili
It wasn't mentioned who specifically killes them. Thorin was stabbed by many spears and Kill with Fili died defending him, so I doubt it was Bolg.
I read The Hobbit in less time than it would take to watch the films. That literally said everything i needed to know.
You can pad out a movie and still have a good movie.
The 1966 version of The Grinch added a bunch of fluff but it's still a classic. The 2018 version had much more but it's still enjoyable.
*Rings of power aired*
Most of the fans: *perhaps I've treated you too harshly*
AKA the Phantom Menace Syndrome
Aka the ludinhoff effect
@agnosticdevoteeSaid no one ever.
@BareMcDaddy unfathomably awful take
@selfawarebot1your not self aware
In fairness, the reason the barrel sequence exists in as such a big form is because it was shot originally as the climax for film 1, with Azog showing up instead of Bolg. As with many things, this got heavily disrupted in the last minute change to 3 movies.
Also Bolg wasn’t movie only. He is the son of Azog who leads the goblin army at the Battle of Five Armies in the book.
I agree with your overall critiques though!
yeah bolg is the goblin that killed thorin Azog is technically the movie only character since azog was dead in the book
@@matthewphilip2609 Yep Azog was kiled by Dain iron foot in the battle of Moria which happened years ago before Bilbos jurney
It would’ve been a terrible climax.
@@matthewphilip2609 Bolg did not directly kill Thorin.
Thorin got wounded in the battle while trying to break the ranks of Bolg's bodyguards.
Eventually Beorn killed Bolg.
@@pepeedge5601 this right here! I always said if they wanted to have the orcs chase Thorin it should’ve been Bolg. Give him a backstory as a secondary antagonist to the plot when he sees his father die at the east gate of Moria. Alfrid and Tauriel didn’t need to be included at all. Legolas only should make the cut barely bc we know if his father is around he should be to an extent as well.
After being force fed the rings of power, I see this trilogy as a masterpiece.
IMO the main reason it was so detested by fans of the LotR movies was that it just couldn't measure up. Peter Jackson made a good trilogy, but given what he had to work with, The Hobbit was never going to be a masterpiece, yet because of LotR, it would inevitably be compared to LotR and be found lacking, not because it's bad, but because LotR was just that damn good.
Bro it doesn't mean it's lord of the rings if it says "lord of the rings", don't judge by cover 😂
We in eastern Europe put vodka in water bottles in fridge..
@@Quicky3 that explains a lot of weird nights in my Eastern European friend's house...😐
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 🤣 Always smell the "water" before drinking it, especially in hot summer days
3:17 Bolg is not a Movie only character... He's more present in The Hobbit than Azog who is dead in the books.
Everyone should see 'The Tolkien Edit' - it cuts down 9 hours of material into a 4-hour film. Way more watchable than the theatrical or extended cuts.
How do we find that?
How do we find this, and is it FREE???
I'm still surprised this hasn't been turned into an actual release. Made the hobbit (films) actually half-decent.
@@MetalHeadbanger7 It’s the Tolkien Edit from Maple Films and it has to be torrented. Definitely well worth it though.
Anyone seen M4's edition ? Fantastic view imo.
The hobbit movies are some of my guilty pleasures. I especially like an unexpected journey. I thought the music bits were great
It's not guilty. The movies were great. Especially comparing to the Ring of Power.
@@RonsaRRR anything is better than rings of power tbh
@@RonsaRRR Just because fast food isn't found in the garbage doesn't make the fast food great dining. Comparing mediocre to abysmal doesn't make the mediocre laudable. Raise your standards!
@@danm5911 It's not fast food - it's a great food.
I rather enjoy the Hobbit trilogy. Yes movies have their faults. But Peter can only do what he was given from when he took over. Besides anyone that belittles someone for liking something because they do is just garbage. Referring to danm5911
As much as I understand all the reasons why people hate these movies, I freakin love them.
But it’s probably because I grew up watching them way more then LOTR. I remember sitting in the theatre when an Unexpected Journey came out and loving every second of it. I remember when it ended, and Bilbo is looking out into the horizon where the lonely mountain sits, I leaned over to my mom and asked her, “is that how it ends?” And she said, “no, it’s just the beginning.” I’m an adult now, but still love The Hobbit movies despite the flaws.
Is there too much CGI? Yes.
Did they need to make 3 movies? No.
Did they add unnecessary plot? Yes.
Is LOTR better? YES.
But I will forever treasure these movies for introducing me to Tolkiens world and stories.
That's super sweet.
Ok I love these movies too, the first trilogy came out while I was in highschool, and Jackson took many liberties with the text. The fact is if you read the books Tolken doesn't write action verbosely, so you have to take libertys if you want to make action movies. There was goofy action scenes in the first trilogy, Legolas fred flintstonesed down a trunk. If you are making a kids movie it is going to be a bit goofier and you have to deal with the gandalf problem. He just fucks off for no apparent reason leaving them in mortal peril, you probably have to do something about that. So I love these movies, they are close to what 10 year old me imagined.
Edit: I don't like the CGI orks.
@@JMD501 YES! Exactly this. Way too many people overlook the writing style of JRRT, it's often overly descriptive of places but lacks descriptive actions; or gets so vague he can cover entire swaths of time in a couple sentences. Like the part where he says Sauron was taken prisoner by the king in the 2nd age and over time he ends up deceiving the court and becoming his council. The original writing isn't much longer than what I just wrote! 🤨
If you give book purists their way, and don't make up any dialogue or scenes for this passage; you'd end up with a musical montage of Sauron whispering in people's ears! 🤣 But if you want to show *HOW* Sauron becomes council to the king, you have to write both script and dialogue.
Book purists seem to misunderstand the meaning of adaptation to the medium. There's creative freedoms and everybody's "vision" is going to be different. It's all so dumb when they throw a hissy fit over "book lore/ source material"🥴. I've never seen the elderly protest outside of theaters shouting "rEsPEct tHe sOuRCe mAtERiAL!" when the newest adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet is set in a futuristic storyline, or MacBeth in a post apocalyptic wasteland. 🙄🤣😂
@@ophilianecr 100% adaptation into a different medium can't keep all of the nuances of the original work it has to be you know adapted. And that's ok books aren't movies, and movies are not books. Even so in the hobbit we got a lot of great stuff from the source: the white council meeting then cleansing Dol Guldor, Thror fighting Azog, Thranduil recounting his battles with dragons, all stuff from the book. And adding a girl elf is fine there are 0 women in the hobbit, it's actually kinda crazy, it's current year and if your boss says 3 movies, adding one woman into the plot, ruins a movie for you, get help.
Same for me! This trilogy is a big reason for my interest in fantasy and DND, and Bilbo and the dwarves hold a special place in my heart. Though I understand that the movies were padded too much for their own good
I have no idea why I just sat there and watched this dude roast the hobbit for nine minutes straight.
Oh my sweet summer child, there are many videos on UA-cam criticising The Hobbit that are HOURS long.
I personally really like the direction they went with Gandalf and the Necromancer story. Seeing Elrond and Saruman in action at Dol Guldor was pretty sick.
Yes!
I think the action wasn't that great and could have been made better, especially Galadriel's scenes.
Though having the necromancer stuff in the movies was good imo.
It was good and bad, for me. Seeing how OP the White Council is, was cool. Elrond was as good in a fight as I would have expected of a millenia old elf who served as 2nd in command to Gil-Galad. I loved seeing Galadriel do something powerful. She is the mightiest elf or wizard there is, and the scene in the Return of the King appendix where she destroys Dol Goldur understandably wasn't in the film.
I _hated_ the effects on Galadriel though. I hated the drowned visual, and the slowing of her speech.
But the worst thing was that the Necromancer was obviously Sauron, and they all seemed to know it. They canonically had no idea Sauron had regained any form until the timeline of Fellowship. In the books, they only knew that The Necromancer was in Dol Guldor. iirc, they thought it might be The Witch-King.
It was a cool idea, and it's enjoyable. But it ruins the way the book was written, entirely from Bilbo's point of view. And it's funny how Gandalf doesn't tell Bilbo anything about what he does, and he keeps randomly disappearing. I just wish they had written it in a similar style as the book, it feels so different because it's switching between different characters and we're not really focusing on one person, Bilbo, like the bbok does.
@@gianna526 well, it makes sense in this context. The LoTR books are sequel to The Hobbit book. While the hobbit trilogy acts as a prequel to the lotr movies, so while I understand this change I also understand your criticism
What’s crazy is, the barrel scene is still more entertaining and creative compared to about 90 percent of the action we have nowadays.
Yeah but wrong movie sadly.
Personally I like the barrel scene. I actually liked most of the hobbit movies. Not as much as LOTR but still really good.
Compared to rings of power, the hobbit is a theatrical masterpiece.
the barrel scene is a cinematic masterpiece compared to the shit we are getting in rings of power
Based!
Yep. People should learn to enjoy and stop overanalysing. They must be really fun at parties (sarcasm) if they cannot find enjoyment in small things
The Hobbit films in their complete running time were longer than the audiobook version of the book the films were based on. I still remember reading the book and getting to the chapter where Smaug attacks and realizing there are only 30 pages left in the book, yet the movie did a nearly 3 hour interpretation of those 30 pages.
i mean whole battle of five armies was just few pages long, it would be a waste to make this epic battle last only like 20 min.
@@jPlanerv2 They should've made the last movie into five movies, one for each army
@@orangenostril this comment made me laugh 😂
@@jPlanerv2 nah it would’ve made sense as a 20-30 minute battle. This is the climax of the book and should’ve been the climax of the series, there’s a lot of random shit that got added into these movies they really shouldn’t have ended up as long
@@jPlanerv2 dude a 20 min battle in a movie is a long battle looll
"movie only character, Bolg" sounds like someone didnt do their homework or even the bare minimum
kms
The rings of prime are gonna make this trilogy look like a masterpiece
They did. They really did
@@Tonatheos They really did indeed.
Prophetic.
This is sad but it’s true… my gosh did they ever mess this up 😢
The rings of prime is pretty goood
As a kid it was certainly obvious to tell there were some behind the scenes issues going on with this film, because the toys for the first film included scenes that wouldn't happen until the second. I remember seeing Lego sets based on the Mirkwood spider and barrel scene in 2012. But then I was confused after seeing the film since those scenes were nowhere to be found, only to find out a few years later that they were in the second film. Maybe back when it was just going to be two films the barrel scene would have been the ending to the first.
This would've made more sense, but then we wouldn't have had time for cg rock creatures and four character additions and extra unnecessary plot points!
@fee foo no two films would have been better even if a bit bloated. It makes far more sense for Bilbo to prove himself to the dwarves in mirkwood and earn thorins respect then at the carrock. Structuraly it makes more sense for it to be two films than three.
@fee foo True but I'd argue that it would make for a more satisfying film adaptation.
@fee foo which is why they really should’ve cut a lot of things from these films. Unnecessary characters, pointless filler, random action scenes, etc made for a messy plot. You can tell by the end of the second movie that they were struggling to make these movies long enough for the trilogy, I agree to do the book Justice it would’ve taken a bit more than 1 movie but 2 movies should’ve been plenty enough for this story
@fee foo I would say two movies just because overall there really is a lot of events in the book, even tho it’s much shorter compared to two lotr books (each movie spanned about two books) the lotr books were much slower paced. The hobbit book kinda zooms through a lot of things happening so it would actually make sense to make it two movies or one super long movie (like 4-5 hours). But expanding it into a whole trilogy was definitely a huge mistake, they would’ve honestly been better off sticking closer to the source material and by the end of part two it shows
There's a very artificial look to the Hobbit trilogy, like everything looks very digital like it was done on computers compared to The Lord Of The Rings in which looked less artificial and more grounded with much more believable world building with maybe a touch of CGI, there was a lot of work and hard effort put into both trilogy's as I watched hours of hours of behind the scenes in which showed how they crafted these huge sequences which was no easy task. I also didn't like the 48fps higher frame rate The Hobbit was shot at as I felt it looked very unnatural for motion as 24fps has been the standard for movies for a long time as it gives more natural motion to images, I mean The Hobbit trilogy aren't bad movies it's just that The Lord Of the Rings trilogy set a very high standard for Filmmaking.
Oh they're bad
Naw, they're legitimately pretty bad
Ah yes, "maybe a touch of CGI", such as having a major character in two of the films be a 100% CGI character.
Higher framerates should be standard, it's so immersion breaking to see a choppy panning shot or fast actions limited to closeups to hide the blurryness all for the sake of cutting costs
Less cgi and more practice effects would be nice in modern film too
The CGI looked like Playstation 2 graphics but the worst part about it is the physics. The 3D characters move like that Tomb Raider game released in 1996. The characters look like they're sliding on the ground when walking. The jumping animation looks floaty. The gravity and acceleration looks bouncy.
Something not talked about here that always really irked me about The Hobbit movies was the fact that they made Gandalf weary of Saruman when in the first Lord of the Rings movie, Gandalf didn't suspect anything about Saruman's treachery. I know that the whole plot eluding to Sauron in The Hobbit never happened in the book. But if they're going to add it to the movie, at least make it line up with and make sense with the LOTR movies. That just always irritated me.
Not so much wariness so much as Gandalf still trusted Saruman, but also believed in doing the right thing even if it was against the advice of the council.
I feel so bad for Peter. He's such a great director, I really have to believe that he was being strong-armed with this series. They didn't feel anything like the LOTR movies at all, it's clear he wasn't in full control.
Then he should of walked away and not been such a coward
@@tevildo45 hey it ain't that easy
I mean, they shouldn't have felt like the Lord of the Rings movies. One of my biggest critiques of the Hobbit films is that they stuffed in too much unnecessary Lord of the Rings lore. Guillermo del Toro would've kept it as the small, grounded fairytale the Hobbit was meant to be.
@@tevildo45 Agreed. In the end he took the money and ran.
I feel awful for all the money he made. Must be difficult accepting a check to screw a fan base. Rings of Power I'm sure will milk it as well. Mmm mmmm blue milk. Fhk the state of current Hollywood.
My main issue with the hobbit movies (apart from the bad and too high usage of cgi) is that in most action scenes there is no tension or sense of danger. Compare the rapids scene or the chase scene in the goblin mountain to action scenes in the lord of the rings. In the hobbit you never have the feeling that anyone is really in danger.
That's exactly why I was very unprepared for the /too many/ deaths in the end of the film, made me kinda sad
It could be worse..it could be Amazons the Rings of Power.
@@spechund7109 boy, so true!
It's a children's book, my guy. Just keep in mind Tolkien's intended audience.
If you put this into relation to LOTR, I'd say this point is pretty unfair. Especially the dwarves were in several precarious situation during the third movie, while the main cast of LotR just hacked & slashed through hordes until the very end
Bolg is not technically a movie only character, he just appears exclusively as the orc commander during the Battle of the Five Armies in the book.
So he is in the book, just as an insanely minor character
What irks me even more is that Azog (the most active villain) is even smaller in role. He's mentioned once in the Hobbit book, and not even in the story itself but as a footnote marking him as Bolg's father. Gandalf mentions it was Dain (Thorin's cousin) who killed Bolg's old man in Moria.
Azog is the movie-only character, being dead decades before the events of the Hobbit in canon.
@@Soul93Taker Azog is also mentioned in the first chapter as the orc who killed Thror, but yeah, he was already dead when the story started. Even if Bolg is only gets a minor mention, he is still described as a threat and a strong orc leader and only Beorn in Bear form was strong enough to overthrow his body guards and kill Bolg.
I'm so thankful to the M4 edit for making it into a pretty decent movie!
You can read the entire novel by the time Bilbo climbs the tree toward the end of the first one.
Stretching it to a trilogy was insane. Butter scraped over too much bread, etc.
Many people feel that, but I think there is enough in Tolkein's world to fill 3 movies - after all, if Tolkein had written the books in the same order as the films were made, the Hobbit in it's book form probably wouldn't exist or would have sunk without trace - people wanted to know more, not less, about his world. But then again, I'm one of those people who thinks that the 3 LOTR films are a hugely inferior experience to the books. So maybe I just don't take it as seriously as some. Having said all that, the barrel scene is daft....
@@Blezonu Well you’re wrong. It’s basically a 7 hour movie
I heard Peter Jackson wanted to do 2 movies....but it was the studio that made him turn it into a trilogy...
If anything it could have been two. Three was just obnoxious and clearly for $$$$
3:16 - Bolg did actually appear in the book, he was the son of Azog (who was also a book character tough in Tolkien he died in the battle of moria) Bolg was actually rhe leader of the goblin army during The Battle of Five armies and he was crushed by Beorn
3:41 & 7:53 The GoPro shots completely took me out of the moment while watching watching this in the cinema. It was so jarring.
I did a quick exhale laugh and then looked around to see if anyone else noticed. To my surprise, most people seemed completely unfazed.
I was unfazed as well. Still don't see the jarring problem with those shots. In context they played out fine for me.
Good eye bro. I like your attention to detail. I still like The Hobbit trilogy, obviously it’s not as groundbreaking as the Lord trilogy but I still watch it once in awhile
Ditto, Leptons. it cheapened the epic/cinematic tone further. Felt like too much like a water theme park ride.
I know right it was so bad i don't understand why they would let such a bad shot in it when it was unnecessary
I think the go pro shots were the "in" thing at the time.
I actually thought the movies were really enjoyable. For all the people with criticism I’d like to see them do better. Take your camera and do your best. See if it stacks up.
😂😂
Thing that irked me the most in this trilogy is how at the end of Unexpected Journey, Thorin finally see why they needed Bilbo to come along and began to respect him as a companion. Then immediately in the second film, he hated Bilbo again only to see why they needed Bilbo to come along and began to respect him as a companion (again). Then at the beginning of the third movie, he hated Bilbo again, only to respect him at the end...then die.
Movie 1: Thorin didn't think Bilbo was truly gonna join them, and snuck away back home before the goblin caves. That's why he's angry in movie 1
Movie 2: he was never really that angry with Bilbo in this movie, just dwarf anger in general
Movie 3: thorin is going mad and sees everyone as a threat so obviously he sees Bilbo as a threat, then Bilbo steals the arkenstone, so obviously Thorin is gonna be angry. Then moments before death, Thorin realized how meaningless all the gold in his mountain was, and apologized to one of his closest friends
Source: watched them yesterday.
He was angry with Bilbo in the first movie, then he found respect for him. That makes complete sense. He was never angry at Bilbo in the second movie, Bilbo only ever helped. Any "anger" Thorin had was just Thorin being Thorin, being gruff as he is. He never hated Bilbo in the second movie whatsoever. In the third movie, he's gone mad, he has a mental illness. He's doesn't hate Bilbo in the third movie, he has ill will towards EVERYONE because of his mental illness acquired from the gold and the arkenstone. Once he overcomes his mental illness, he's back to himself, respecting the entire party (especially Bilbo) and being good old grumpy Thorin. Thorin being aggravated isn't him hating Bilbo or anybody, it's just him being his cranky, honorable, and compassionate self. All of the dwarves are like that. Thorin only ever had no respect for Bilbo BEFORE escaping Goblin Town.
thing is you didnt pay attention to the movies at all if you didnt know why Thorin was mad at Bilbo, specially in the third movie.
While the two replies make a point, about there being reasons for things being as they are, I think the fundamental issue is retreading the same ground, at least without the effects of previous treks being reflected.
Deja-vu revisited
I love the two movie fan edits that put Smaug’s death closer to the middle of the second film. It gives the moment it’s due buildup, while still having the extra action of the battle of the five armies.
Where can I find these edits
@@nicoletremblay3217 The best edit I found was by Ravenomics. The instructions to download it are on his channel
@@simongrant1015 thx
So many missed opportunities. Alfred’s entire character was MIND BOGGLING. I have no idea how that character was even created, much less allowed to grab that much screen time.
They probably just said: "you know Grima Wormtongue? Get that same feeling in but with no background whatsoever"
With respect to the actor playing him, who I have to assume was trying to make the best of the material he could, Alfred was a character so conceptually misguided that he single-handedly redeemed Jar-Jar Binks just by so thoroughly rebalancing the entire field of comparison.
Oh yeah. I'm like "why do you exist!"
I thought he and the master added something to the universe up until the master died, then he started to become irritating pretty quickly.
@@iforgot87872 Stephen Fry as Master was great, if they had removed Alfrid and stucked closer to the bookd I would've liked that sequence. Now its just painful
Tell me you lack joy and whimsy without telling me you lack joy and whimsy
For real, like why do people just nitpick the smallest things just because it's not the original or the lord of the rings
Imo I don’t think the hobbit trilogy is as bad as most people say it is, but it definitely doesn’t hold a sword to the original lord of the rings trilogy. I did however, really enjoy the second film (Desolation of Smaug) due to Benedict Cumberbatch’s motion capture performance as Smaug (imo of the few things the trilogy got right both technically and narratively).
for me, its the equivalent of eating fast food: it isn't nearly as high-quality as real food (LoTR), but its something to be enjoyed once in a while.
I thought it was a good trilogy. Was it perfect? No. Nothing is. I just think that people were expecting too much from it. Comparing to the original. People needed to temper their expectations. I like movies in general, and I not really a fan of anything. I didn’t really hold any sentiment toward the material. So, I guess that made it way easier for me to enjoy it. I actually saw the Hobbit Trilogy before the LOTR trilogy.
Actually it sucks
@@derrickdiggs8612 those expectations were created by the studios by getting Peter Jackson to replace del Toro and turning it into a trilogy. You try to imitate the big leagues, you get measured by big league standards. Without even comparing it to Jackson LOTR movies or the book, those were bad movies. Just outright badly written and completely made in green screen studios, doused in mediocre CGI. Not saying a bad movie cannot be entertaining, but for me ... it wasn't.
It is not as bad as most people say...it is worse! There are about 3 scenes in the whole book where Bilbo is not present. The final 3 hour movie had about 3 scenes where he WAS present. Instead of, in the book, Bilbo being the main character and the ACTUAL LEADER of the dwarves, movie Bilbo is totally unnecessary. Honestly, Tauriel seemed to get more screen time.
They've grown on me over the years. Mostly dialogue scenes like those of the Shire, Beorn's house, the Woodland realm and Laketown
Same. My kid liked it more than the original trilogy.
Probably because the Hobbit was made more like a kid's movie.
I was a kid when I first saw Hobbit. Even though I really love the LoTR trilogy, I enjoyed Hobbit more as a kid and that brings nostalgia to me
Same here, while my Middle-Earth stuff goes as far as the Hobbit trilogy movies, Fellowship of the Ring & half of The Two Towers, these were still some really fun movies.
@@MrBonessss yeah, just enjoy being in middle earth
I really like the Lindsay Ellis point about the fight in unexpected journey where they play the ringwraith music over thorin. Music written with a totally different intent (including lyrics) is slapped onto an unrelated scene because theres deadlines and it will sound like lotr.
Lindsay Ellis needs to fade away into obscurity and just disappear. Nothing of what that woketard says holds any weight.
Yeah as much as i love the hobbit movies, that part just shows too much of the slack.
I see everyone saying hobbit trilogy is bad but never see someone explaining why its bad. Barrel scene had incredible action sequences.
They just don't know how to have fun
The 3 hour fan edit that cuts all 3 films together and only focuses on bilbo and thorin was really good
Where can it be found?
@@godzilla7779 it was taken down unfortunately! I did save it on my laptop and put onto a USB though. Happy to send it over to you!
I don't see it on Google either
@@Jericho67777 send link
@@Jericho67777 I would love to see it
I will say, for my part, Movie 1 of The Hobbit feels a worthwhile inclusion in the Middle Earth movie sagas...you can tell it was one that had the most time put into it, and while I do agree that the dwarves aren't that dwarvish, I thought it did a good job balancing the tone of the book with tonal consistency of the LOTR movies.
Oh, and Rhadagast was sadly trivialized to the butt of a joke. That was needless - he could be odd but still clearly powerful and respectful.
My hope, which is entirely unlike to happen in almost all circumstances is that Guillermo Del Toro gets an opportunity to make his version of The Hobbit - it's a story that I feel fits his style and sensibilities perfectly.
The other two movies weren't directed by Del, the first was.. till they fired him for not viewing to the studio's wants and forced PJ from production into production and directing the other two which were rushed and filler and rewritten to what the studio wanted, or else they'd all be fired, and the production moved out of New Zealand.
@@k-dogg9086 No, Peter Jackson did direct the first film, a simple Google search will tell you as such.
Del Toro was initially the director but he left 2 years into production in 2010, leaving very little finished. The production company didn't push back the release date for Jackson either, so a lot was rushed with the first film as well.
I freakin love The Hobbit trilogy. I understand and agree with all the criticism it gets but I have so much fun everytime I rewatch it.Its just plain, ol' fun.
Totally agree, they aren’t objective good but man do I love them
Couldn't agree more! Love those films.
Just watched them today, I always watch Hobbits and LOTR together I don't care about the flaws I enjoy every moment of both trilogies.
Sameeee. It gets so much hate but i love it a lot :')
fr
Another correction: the LOTR scripts were also changing on a daily basis, they talk about it in the behind the scenes
I love The Hobbit book, and was initially excited by the prospect of a movie duology. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to flesh out the story and characters of the book while also allowing for some new material. The trilogy we got was a massive disappointment. For me, the book is full of charm, wonder, and mystery. The movies managed to capture almost none of that
Maybe I'm just simply too much of a fan of all 6 of these movies and every book, both from JRR and Christopher Tolkien, but I'll never stop loving these movies.
The LOTR trilogy is a gritty, beautiful adaptation of an adventure.
The hobbit is a wondrous, exacerbated and exactly that: an unexpected journey.
And no matter what side of the aisle we find ourselves on here; hating or loving these movies, we are all going to miss it when we're sat speechless at what ungodly creation Amazon made.
I'm in the exact same camp. I cringe a little at times during the Hobbit, but thinking about the trilogy overall fills me with a warm and grateful feeling, a fraction but a piece nonetheless of what the original trilogy brings us. Rings of Power is a cheap fantasy knockoff comparatively, and I guarantee will never give us the same inspirational and joy-giving memories as the movies.
Ahh this was beautifully said. I love LOTR so much, but I do also really enjoy the Hobbit movies. All 3 of them. Of course they are flawed, but I still love them for what they are and achieve. I really love the characters of Bilbo, Smaug and Thranduil and enjoyed this additional travel to Middle Earth, even if there are CGI abominations, tone inconsistencies and things added that weren't mentionned in the books. LOTR is epic, but the Hobbit movies give me a sort of warm feeling of nostalgia and safety, I can't describe.
What’s so bad about the series? I don’t get what people are mad about
There was nothing wrong with any of the tv adaptations people are just too picky. Everyone wants it to be exactly the same as source material which is not only impossible but would also drag everything out. I like how people claim things drag on in movies not enough action but if they were to get the exact same scene from source material there would need to be another 15 movies to tell you what happened in a six movie anthology. And OMG would people complain it’s dragging on too long not enough action. Fans are the real problems when it comes to these type of movies you can’t make everyone happy and you are even less likely to make any hardcore fan happy at all.
@@troillandford7679 I guess because it‘s not accurate to Tolkiens writings or how the fan culture interprets them. Probably some similar reasons like in The Hobbit. I did enjoy the first two episodes so far and am looking forward to watching more because they are fun to watch so far, no matter what they do to the story (like the hobbit). I would‘ve preferred a proper Hobbit top but no point in whining and ruining the movies for yourself
Despite the clashing tones, I liked that they added those moments of light hearted fun and epic grandeur. It was bringing us with Bilbo into a wild and magical world of these titanic battles and danger but it used scenes like the barrel scene to remind us that all is not bleak and that our heroes still have strength or at least dumb luck on their side. In fact I wish Jackson had decided to include more of this rather than developing the love triangle or “orc daddy issues”. I think we could have had a more kid friendly film following the intent of the books. A lot would have needed changing but with two movies focused on experiencing Bilbo’s epic adventure rather than recreating the solemn mystique of the LotR, maybe the third film (still a loose adaptation of a children’s novel) wouldn’t have received an R rating.
If you ask me that barrel scene was a little more than "light-hearted". It was just ridiculous.
I didn't mind the 2 tones. Light hearted fun and when it's time to get real gotta get real. The 2 tones thing wasn't that bad to me bc that makes sense. The only time I can see it conflicting was the scene with the 3 trolls or ogres. J forgot which one they were
Having just watched the 15 or so hours of extras of the hobbit trilogy, I’m pretty impressed by what they achieved. They did literally make stuff moments before the script and scenes were to be filmed as you said. It was utter madness and it does show with the discontinuity of the dwarves emotions, particularly Thorin. I think the biggest problem over the contrived scenes you mention was the fact that you can’t get real close up emotions of the dwarves which can’t develop their characters much. This is due to the prosthetic faces, they don’t look that real which is why they never really say that much (except Thorin who didn’t have much prosthetics). The CGI characters say more, which they shouldn’t.
I know there wasn’t much in the books but after seeing the extended edition, I really wish they explored Thranduil a bit more. Honestly the scenes they cut for the theatrical version explains sooo much for why he is the way he is. They could’ve kept that and trashed the barrel scene. At least it explains the storyline….why he’s so adamant about the gems, etc…
Yeah, the extended versions have a lot of good things.
Too bad it got cut for dwarves fighting a dragon by making a statue of gold that melts, but then the dragon just flys away to go do what he was already going to do.
(Sorry for the run on sentence, but it fit the theme of the movie since it dragged.)
Why is he
@@laimaravillon895The gems belong to his wife before she died and, after Legolas, the only reminder of her he has.
My biggest issue with the Hobbit other than what he already mentioned was how they just ignore physics. The dwarves jump around and do crazy feats that shouldn't be possible. I can forgive Legolas doing some crazy shit cause he was an elf and we didn't get endless scenes of it.
Look at the bridge of khazad dum scene in LOTR compared to the Hobbits crazy escape scene in the first movie. There is one small crack in the bridge and because LOTR took physics and well the world in general seriously it was an amazing and intense scene. Compare that with the dwarves falling through the goblin caverns endlessly riding bridges and all that craziness and its clear that the hobbit ignores physics in the world. The same happened with the dwarves fighting smaug.
Relax it's a movie.
Completely right
The main problems with the barrel scene is that it is pointless and completely overshadows Bilbo's previous actions in saving the Company twice, first from the spiders and then from the dungeons. If they had to have a prolonged action scene, they could have focused more on how Bilbo repeatedly drew the spiders away from the dwarves and fought bravely with them. That was an important character moment for Bilbo because he started feeling like a bold adventurer, and the dwarves started really respecting him and even looking to him for leadership. They also learnt about the Ring, which was, infuriatingly, completely skipped in the movie. In the book, he gave the dwarves hope while they were in the dungeons, and the future of the quest depended entirely on him. He struggled a lot while sneaking around, but he still eventually came up with a plan that was desperate, but still better thought out than the barrel plan in the movie. Even if being packed into the barrels was more uncomfortable for the dwarves, they weren't discovered and locked in like they were in the movie. These were important parts of Bilbo's character arc in the book. In the second and third movies, Bilbo was treated less like a protagonist, and more like he was just there to move the plot along. He didn't have much character development that didn't have anything to do with his relationship with Thorin or his relationship with the Ring. They were also careful not to set Bilbo up as any kind of leader, someone the dwarves could look to for guidance rather than Thorin. I don't mind that they gave Bilbo and Thorin a stronger friendship, or that they drew attention to the fact that there was something wrong with the Ring, but it bothers me that they diminished Bilbo's role and made him less of a hero in what was supposed to be his story.
The thing is, though, that Desolation of Smaug didn't really need to set up Bilbo as growing into a badass adventurer because the end of An Unexpected Journey already did that. The first movie was about Bilbo's character arc progressing from "3rd wheel along for the ride" to "invested member of the troupe on the way to becoming a badass." The second movie didn't need to focus as hard on that element of Bilbo's character because it had already set it up in the last hour of the first movie. In the book, the dwarves didn't start respecting Bilbo until he'd saved them from the spiders and the elves, but in the movies, they first of all were more respectful of Bilbo to begin with (only Thorin was really dismissive like in the book) and Thorin came to respect Bilbo when Bilbo saved him from Azog.
I can agree that one factor in this is that because of his arc's progression in the first film, Bilbo has less growth to do in the second one, and thus is less of a leader character. IMO that's not entirely a problem, but it's a fair criticism. The way I see it, Thorin is more of the main character of the second film because it's about the conclusion of the journey to the Lonely Mountain. The second film sets up the bulk of Thorin's obsession with reclaiming his homeland once he's actually in sight of it, giving him generous cracks in his personality that the third movie then expands when he becomes a villain for the first half. This is all kind of still in the book as well, since Thorin IS obsessed with retaking Lonely Mountain (though in the book it's less about the homeland and mostly about the money) and he DOES turn evil-ish from the greed and refuse to share the gold with Laketown even though Smaug desolated Laketown and Bard killed Smaug. The movie primarily expands upon all of this by giving Thorin more to do (really, more ways to fuck up diplomacy) so that the conflict of the elves and the Laketown men showing up with claims on the gold has more validity. In the book it's just because the elves are as greedy as the dwarves; the men of Laketown want the share they really deserve for killing the dragon, but even in that case it isn't really the fault of the dwarves that they get attacked. Instead, Bilbo fucks up by accidentally giving Smaug reason to believe he's a man of Laketown by calling himself "barrel-rider" and Smaug attacks the town believing he was provoked by them. In the film, it's mostly Thorin's fault since he whips up the townsfolk by promising them lakes of gold like in the good old days so they'll support his quest. As a result, the elves and the men of Laketown have more reason to show up in the third film: Thranduil already feels insulted because Thorin intentionally insulted him and wants the gems he feels he deserves, while the men of Laketown took care of the dragon that Thorin's greed brought down upon them and rightfully feel they deserve compensation for Thorin promising to get rid of the dragon himself and then pushing the problem off on them.
I also don't really agree that Bilbo feels less like a hero. To begin with, he doesn't do anything particularly heroic (from a LotR angle) in the book aside from the afore-mentioned spiders and elves. Bilbo's main angle in the book is that he's good-hearted and values friends, good food and the enjoyment of the journey rather than gold and jewels, which were ultimately what Thorin's Company (and to a lesser extent the elves and the men of Laketown) were after. He's not an action hero in the book, he's a selfless and good-hearted person who contrasts with the variety of greedy and selfish people he meets and journeys with. In the film, Bilbo gets the same amount of character growth as he does in the book (albeit spread out over three long movies, so it's understandable why it might feel like he gets less), maybe even a little more, and his character arc is mostly the same, but since Thorin's Company is specifically on the quest to reclaim their homeland, not just the gold, he stands out less because there are other basically decent people among the dwarves who are like him. Nevertheless, his ultimate fate in the third movie is the same as in the book: he steals the Arkenstone and gives it to the men of Laketown because he sees that Thorin's greed for it is corrupting him, and also because the men of Laketown do deserve compensation for having their hometown burned down and for killing Smaug. At the end of the day he's still a selfless and good-hearted person who isn't corrupted by greed in the films, it's just that his character arc (as a growing badass) peaks at the end of the first film and then slowly descends from there rather than peaking at the climax of the second arc when he confronts Smaug. His character progression in the Battle of the Five Armies is essentially unchanged from book to film, it's just that the book is over a lot faster than the third film is.
In short, I can't really agree with your premise. Bilbo's character arc progression is basically the same from the book to the films, it's just that its peaks and valleys fall in different places, as one might expect for an adaptation, especially one that expands the scope of the story so drastically. Honestly, I think it was the right choice as well, at least given the premise that The Hobbit was going to be adapted into three films from one relatively short book. In the book, Bilbo doesn't really have any agency (or anything interesting to do really) until the Company makes it to Mirkwood, with the exception of the Riddles in the Dark scene. Considering that the first film is like 3 hours long, following the pacing of the book would make Bilbo's arc in the first film feel limp as fuck. Instead, he works up his badassery over the course of the first film and gradually gains his courage. He gathers the courage to go on the adventure of his own will rather than being strong-armed into it by Gandalf, he outwits the trolls (something that Gandalf did in the book; Bilbo was a helpless prisoner), then he tricks Gollum, and finally he pushes past his fear and confronts Azog to save Thorin. He doesn't need the Barrel scene to boost his cred because he spent the entire first film boosting his cred. As a result, by the time the second film comes around he's a true member of the Company rather than just a tagalong "thief," and so while he still saves the Company from the spiders and the elves, they don't feel that he needs to prove anything to them because he's already done it. As a result, the Barrel scene doesn't need to be one of Bilbo's few triumphs and is fine to be repurposed into a fun general action scene.
@@quintonhoffert6526 You're right, Bilbo did have less to prove in the second part of the story, but the dwarves also didn't have to prove that they were great warriors because that was already established, yet there were lots of extra fight scenes included. The most crucial contributions that Bilbo made to the Quest came in this part of the story, and they were not at all done justice. They were important to his character development, because this was when he really started gaining confidence in himself, and when we got to see how clever and competent he could be, as well as his courage and resilience in the face of hardships. I like that they gave him more to do in the beginning of the Quest, in the films, but those things still can't replace what he did in Mirkwood. You just can’t compare the challenges. At the end of the first movie, the dwarves probably respected Bilbo's character more, but I don't think that they really saw him as a real asset yet. I do understand that they needed to focus on Thorin's character at this point, and I actually appreciate that they showed him saving Legolas at one point, because it established that Thorin, regardless of his prejudices, wouldn't just let someone die.
I disagree that Bilbo's character arc was the same. In the third instalment, Bilbo was appalled that Thorin was behaving so dishonourably, but he didn't help the people of Laketown for their sakes. He literally TELLS Bard that. The situation in the movie was less complicated than it was in the book. There was no siege. Thranduil (who was completely villainised) had positioned archers in front the mountain and was planning on attacking that night. Bilbo, after confirming with Balin that returning the Arkenstone to Thorin would not help him, handed the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil, so that they wouldn't attack. And he tells Bard that he's not doing it to help them, but that he only wanted to help his friends. That scene made me really angry when I saw it. Was this really something that Bard needed to hear? Thranduil was only helping him because he wanted a necklace (and, seriously, they turned a cute scene of Bilbo giving Thranduil a pearl necklace into an inspiration for some Silmarillion-esque type conflict) and then Bilbo told him that he's not trying to help him for his people's sake either. Not even Gandalf was trying to help his people. In the book, Bilbo gained the respect of both Bard and Thranduil with his actions. He was trying to avoid further trouble for everyone, and was willing to give up his share of the treasure to do it, and then return to the Dwarves to face the consequences of his actions (in the film he seemed to naively think that Thorin wouldn't hurt him). This scene in the book, in its understated way, highlighted how much integrity he had. In the film, he was only trying to help his friends, and we don't see any sign that giving up his share was a sacrifice for him at all.
The movies technically hit the story beats of the book, but they didn’t include the details that made them powerful. Bilbo cut down the dwarves from the webs, like he did in the film, but he also taunted and distracted the spiders, using his intelligence, resourcefulness and courage to help them. He was shown getting them out of the Elvenking’s dungeons, but they didn’t show him spending weeks skulking around the Elvenking’s halls, looking for ways to get his friends out, and dealing with the pressure of having everyone depend on him (this needn’t have taken long to show on screen). He called himself barrel-rider in front of Smaug (this was both in the book and film) but he wasn’t shown manipulating Smaug into showing him his belly so he could see the hole in his armour. He gave the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil, but made it clear that he was only motivated by his loyalty to his own friends, and did not seem to think about how this would cost him, either in terms of treasure or his friendships. Bilbo, in the book, knew that his actions would cost him both, and possibly his life. At the end of the book, Bilbo went home after having gained the respect of three kings, aside from Thorin. Dain and Bard gifted him with treasure and Thranduil named him Elf-friend. He, a little fellow from the Shire, had become part of a much a wider world.
@@DeepikaGinger I don't remember the third movie all that well since it's been a long time since I've seen them. As a result, I won't disagree with your perspective on book vs movie changes to Bilbo's character development and ultimate end state. That said, at some point I do want to go back and rewatch them, and if I disagree then I might come back and respond again. That being said, I can kind of agree that some of the details that made Bilbo's big scenes powerful weren't included and that does weaken his character development. Nevertheless, I think the changed scenes from the first movie supplement those losses such that they still happened, just in the first movie.
In the book, Bilbo proved his cleverness and courage taunting the spiders while invisible, as you said. In the films, he proved that by distracting the trolls. As I said in my first post, in the book Gandalf did that and Bilbo was helpless like the dwarves, whereas in the movies that scene represents Bilbo coming into his own, in the same sort of way that the spiders scene in the book did. Bilbo's supplement for his weeks of help in the elven dungeons was in his help during the goblin encounter in the Misty Mountains. Bilbo's problem during that part of the film was that he was getting cold feet about his part to play and he was thinking of abandoning Thorin's Company and turning back. In short, he was finding the pressure of the journey and the Company's expectations of his part at the end to be too much to bear. Over the course of the sequence he riddles with Gollum, finds his courage, and then throws himself in front of Azog so that Thorin can retreat. At the end, when they've been saved by the eagles, Bilbo reaffirms his conviction to help the dwarves. It isn't exactly the same scenario or the same feelings but the core character development is the same: Bilbo is stressed because he's feeling pressured by his role in the quest, and by the end of the scenario he's found his courage and has reaffirmed his role. I won't disagree with you that adding in a few of those book details could have improved each of those scenes (though Bilbo does trick the spiders into leaving the dwarves alone by throwing a stone and making a noise elsewhere, thus giving them time to regather themselves and get their weapons back, so Bilbo still does exhibit some cleverness during the Mirkwood sequence), but I don't agree that the character depth those scenes represented was lost. It was merely shifted around, like my first post said.
It's a small add-on, but I'm also going to disagree with Thranduil being villainized by the film; he wasn't any better in the book (though of course he wasn't named). In the book, the elves of MIrkwood literally have no claim to the treasures of Lonely Mountain. There's no backstory where Thorin's grandfather Thror taunted the elves with the riches he wasn't going to give them, and the elves didn't offer the dwarves any aid, they just showed up after Smaug died and tried to claim some gold by right of might. Thranduil was definitely a dick in the movies, but considering how Thror taunted him at the start of the first film it's kind of understandable that there was some bad blood there. Even then, while he said it dickishly, Thranduil DID offer Thorin help with his quest in return for those white gems he wanted. Tactically, Thorin really should have accepted that deal, since he knew that Azog's forces were chasing them and the price of giving up a small bit of his potential riches in exchange for a host of elves delivering them straight to Lonely Mountain unmolested should have been an easy bargain. That scene instead was about setting up Thorin's pride and rage being his downfall, since he insulted Thranduil out of rage for the elves not helping when Lonely Mountain first fell, and also because he was petty and didn't want Thranduil to get what he wanted, rather than making the hard choice of working with someone he hated for the greater good. Again, Thranduil definitely still comes across as a major dick, but unlike in the book he actually has a reason to feel entitled to some of the treasure (even if it's a bad reason) other than just pure greed. He's still basically a bad guy but he's worse in the book. The elves overall are portrayed more positively in the films than in the book since in the book they're completely antagonistic towards the dwarves until the goblins show up at the end, whereas in the films Legolas and Tauriel always prioritize attacking orcs over the dwarves in the scenes when both are together and they choose to help the dwarves in Laketown when they really don't have to, and could easily have taken them hostage and then ransomed them back to the rest of the party in the Lonely Mountain in exchange for the gems Thranduil wanted. The movie makes it clear that Thranduil personally is a dick but the elves of Mirkwood overall are decent people, whereas in the book the king of Mirkwood's elves isn't named and they're all greedy antagonists.
@@quintonhoffert6526 Okay, so I do like the first movie the best out of all the three, and in some ways it does an even better job of setting up Bilbo as a hero and an adventurer than the book did. But, while I appreciate the troll scene, and Bilbo saving Thorin from Azog in the first film, like I said, they can’t replace the scenes in Mirkwood, where Bilbo demonstrates so much resilience and resourcefulness. Even Bilbo’s scene with Smaug wasn’t done justice, in my opinion. It felt like he’d hit his peak in the first film, and nothing he did after that was as remarkable. And, while I can understand why they needed to focus on Thorin a bit more, the second movie turned Bilbo into a supporting character in his own series, and that didn’t really change in the next film. Bilbo’s scenes with Gollum in the first film were largely done justice, but Bilbo’s great act of mercy was something that was inspired by some advice that Gandlaf had given him earlier, which isn’t too bad, but it does somewhat undermine what an independent thinker Bilbo is in the book.
Another thing that was changed was that Bilbo didn’t have a lot of his snark. In the book, he used to grumble and talk back to Thorin and the rest of the dwarves. In the film, he comes across as a lot more docile, and less spirited.
In the book, all the characters were motivated, to some degree, by greed, but Thranduil was not the worst of them, or the heartless villain in the book that he was in the movies. In the book, he clearly doesn’t trust dwarves, but the dwarves also refused to answer any questions and behaved in a really hostile manner, which would have probably made him more suspicious. Also, in the book, the dwarves had tried to approach his people in the forest, so he had some cause to be suspicious and question them. Nonetheless, he did treat the prisoners decently and gave them plenty of food and drink. That’s one reason why I think Thranduil abandoning the dwarves after the dragon attacked in the film was really out of character for him. Another reason is that, after he’d heard of the dragon’s demise, he and his people marched towards the mountain, but when they heard of the plight of the people of Laketown, they immediately turned back and helped them. After that, when they approached the mountain, Thranduil did not put forth any demands of his own, but only supported Bard in his claims. Of all the leaders, Thranduil ended up with the least in the end. Bard gave him the emeralds of Girion as a gift of gratitude, but Bard had a fourteenth share of the treasure, which made him richer than most mortal kings. Even before that, when Bard wished to fight, Thranduil did not wish to start a war over gold, and wanted to wait and hope for a reconciliation, even though their numbers would have been enough to win them a victory. This contrasts starkly with Movie Thranduil who gave his archers orders to shoot anyone who moved on the mountain. Now, Thranduil did make for Erebor before he’d heard of the plight of the people of Laketown, and we don’t know if he was planning on keeping all the gold for himself (we don’t have any clear reason to know one way or the other), but his subsequent actions speak in his favour. He expressed genuine respect for Bilbo when he told them that he was willing to give up his share of the treasure for the sake of a resolution. He also returned Orcrist, an ancient Elven blade, to Thorin’s grave, as a gesture of reconciliation.
@@DeepikaGinger I'll admit that I also haven't read the book in a while, but I definitely don't remember the elves being portrayed as heroically as you're saying they were. Diplomacy breaks down between the dwarves and the elves like in the movie, but IMO the elves come across worse overall in the book because of the situation the dwarves have been put it. While traveling through Mirkwood and having lost their way, the dwarves have run out of food and water and twice approached the elves feasting at night, only for them to disappear like a dream (something which is largely out of the wheelhouse of LotR elves since they don't really have magic, but The Hobbit doesn't fully tie thematically to LotR and elves having illusion magic is a common trope of Middle Ages elf stories so whatever). Then, after narrowly escaping death by giant spider, the elves capture the dwarves and question them. Obviously greed is definitely a motivating factor in Thorin and company refusing to explain themselves to the elves, but at the same time I think the elves definitely acted more suspiciously towards the dwarves than was really fair. It's not like the dwarves attacked either of the midnight feasts they happened upon, they just approached and then all the elves and the food disappeared like an illusion. Maybe we can chalk it up to being a misunderstanding but I still feel like imprisoning a company of dwarves for the crime of not explaining their traveling goals is overly hostile, especially since they could have simply marched the dwarves to the gates of their kingdom, dumped them out, and told them not to come back. IMO it speaks more of a general distrust of dwarves among the elves of Mirkwood than the actual actions of Thorin's Company, shifty may they have been.
Also, on a side note, I don't think it's right of you to list "treating the prisoners decently and giving them plenty of food and drink" as a point in favor of the elves. Starving and abusing prisoners is basically a war crime. Considering that the humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits are supposed to be the good races of Middle Earth, I would say that the elves of Mirkwood failing to live up to that standard would be a strong condemnation of them as being evil. As it stands they're definitely not evil, but treating prisoners humanely (despite neither party being human) isn't a point in their favor any more than not trying to drug and sexually assault your date at the bar isn't a point in your favor: its the base standard you'd expect.
Another thing I would highlight is that the movies have an expanded scope from the book, as one would expect from a 10 hour film series versus a 100k word book, and part of that adaptation process involved changing around character development and expanding on characters and plots that didn't get as much development in the original book. The book is indeed just Bilbo's story, and as a result all of the other characters act as supporting characters to his narrative, often fairly shallow supporting characters at that. The films have a wider scope, and as a result Bilbo is one of the main characters but he isn't the only one. Thorin and (arguably) Gandalf both function as primary protagonists in the films, albeit in different ways and places than Bilbo, and are thus elevated to a greater status of character development and agency. Technically speaking you're right that some of Bilbo's scenes and motivations have changed and that he's no longer the sole beneficiary of character growth and cool moments, but those changes also elevate other characters that weren't particularly well fleshed out in the book, while Bilbo still retains most of the development and moments from the book that make him who he is. You're free to dislike that, but I don't think it's fair to criticize it as a failing of the adaptation when, obviously, making a one-to-one translation of the book to the big screen was never the goal to begin with.
Basically, a lot of your points more or less just feel like nitpicking to me. I want to make it clear that nowhere in any of my arguments am I saying that you're wrong to dislike the movies, or that you should change your opinion to be more like mine. I'm not the culture police. If you have a special connection to the book then that's great, and if you don't like the movies you don't like the movies. Nevertheless, it really feels to me like a lot of your problems with the movies come down to little details you liked better in the book that weren't in the movies, and that you didn't like that other characters in the films were elevated to largely the same protagonist status as Bilbo. If that's how you feel then that's fine, but I don't think it's a fair criticism of the movies either. A more fair version of that criticism would be "The Hobbit didn't need to be three movies and should have just been one," which I could agree with (although personally I really wanted a more LotR-like version of the Hobbit and I prefer what we got to what we could have had, assuming the general quality level would have been the same), but considering it was really obvious that the film adaptation wasn't going to be that one-to-one translation of book to film as soon as the decision to make it a trilogy was announced, I don't think it's fair to criticize a larger project for trying to have a larger scope. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing your argument, in which case I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but that's really the sense I get from your arguments thus far. The way I see it, you have a bunch of specific scenes that are sacred cows for you and your biggest problem with the films is that their rendition of those scenes wasn't sacred enough for you.
Dear The Hobbit, Sorry I was harsh to you, now that I've seen what Amazon is capable of.
I rewatched the Hobbit trilogy back in the summer and was pleasantly surprised that they were better than I remembered them. I think the first one inparticular is genuinely decent, and the second has some good moments. I think the problem generally is that as a trilogy it just tails off, and BoTFA just doesn't hit the right notes. I remember watching BoTFA in cinema and being really disappointed afterwards
Same. Rewatched them recently and honestly fell in love with them. They aren't perfect but much better than what we are getting today imo.
Extended editions are very good. Especially for the 3rd movie because it fixes the dwarves being sidelined and gives them a proper ending.
These movies still have some of the most epic scenes in recent fantasy. The prologue with Erebor, the chasing with Smaug in Erebor, the riddles in the dark and the eagles coming, the Dol Guldur fight, these are highlights which hold up still to this day.
fuck is bofta?
@@simonrockstream haha, battle of the five armies
@@sollywhirlme as well! Hated it when it came out, recently watched it again and was much more chill about it.
For those who enjoyed these movies but wished they were shorter, I highly recommend the M4 Fan Edit or the Ravenomics cuts. Condensed to a single 4 hr + film with an intermission for the former, and two 2 1/2 hour films for the latter. Both work nicely and keep the quality and gut the flab. I still love these movies despite some truly glaring flaws Nerdstalgic accurately points out. Also love LOTR films of course!
This is 100% on point. I really disliked the Hobbit movies when they came out (despite seeing them all on opening nights). I feel like my resentment towards them has dwindled over the years, and will probably be non existent once Power comes out. Just sucks how industry standards continue to drop. I think the golden age of film is over 😔
Power makes The Hobbit look like Citizen Kane
@@Tonatheos painfully true
The irony about Power is Tolkien would despise Amazon, even without it bastardizing his work. Peter clearly showed his thoughts on industry in the first trilogy and Amazon is pure industrial terror.
@@aegaeon117 A big red flag right off the bat was that Amazon asked Peter Jackson if he wanted a part in the show and then they ghosted him when he asked to see the scripts before he made a decision
I still don't like the Hobbit. Rings of Power being awful doesn't make them better, it just dulls the anger a little.
They do have great scenes though.
Like the Star Wars Prequels, I only rewatch The Hobbit movies in 3 minute UA-cam clips. They're fun that way.
I think if there was a “condensed edition” (as opposed to an extended edition) I would actually really enjoy the Hobbit. Just cutting out the fluff would allow more focus on the really cool aspects of the show.
"The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit"
Bolg is actually not a movie-only character. At the end of the original Hobbit book we are introduced to the goblin leader Bolg, who was the canonical son of Azog (who was sort of a movie only character seeing as he canonically died before the events of The Hobbit take place). When the many hordes of goblins were galvanized into action by the death of the Great Goblin earlier in the story, Bolg led the goblin armies that instigated the Battle of the Five Armies, coming down from Mount Gundabad to attack the dwarves, elves, and men. Thorin received his fatal wounds in battle against Bolg's personal bodyguards trying to reach him, and Bolg was finally slain by Beorn when the skin-changer joined the battle.
The movie version of Bolg kind of gives him both more and less importance to the story, introducing him much sooner but delegating him to being more of a side villain rather than the final antagonist.
I genuienly believe it would have been far better to leave Azog dead and have Bolg be the personal antagonist to Thorin, which would have been a "conflict of the forefathers now being passed down to their children" situation
Agreed.
For what we got I think Peter Jackson really is an amazing writter/director that he was able to wipe something up so fast XD
well yes, but the point I guess is that this whole situation where he actually needs to work fast, should have been avoided.
I've watched both videos on "The Hobbit," and each one is very informative, so THANK YOU, Nerdstalgic.
But, honestly, I just don't see the problem with this trilogy. For all of my fellow Fantasy fans out there who do not like this trilogy, I do not begrudge any of you, for you all have valid reasons for your disappointment in this trilogy.
But for me, this trilogy is so much fun to watch, and I find it every bit as enjoyable as "The Lord of The Rings."
Despite it being crafted from a single book, it was great to go back to Middle Earth and revisit old friends like Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel for a whole new trilogy.
And although we never got a Del Toro helmed "Hobbit," I was glad to have Jackson back as the director.
those go pro shots were something else
Hi-five to all my brothers and sisters who was a huge fan long before the movies. The Hobbit is just one of those books that never gets old.
To be fair, when you start off with those books, "The Hobbit" is the one that captures the younger imaginations the best. I dont want to call it childish, but it paints much better visual works in your head and helps you understand the people and land really well, and I have always seen it as a "warm up" to the trilogy.
3 movies that are almost 3 hours long each seems like a stretch, but I remember reading "The Hobbit" over a dozen times when I was in school, I loved the book and couldnt get enough. I did read a lot, a few books a week, and though I will probably not READ the book again, it is fun to have 3 full and long movies devoted to such an awesome book.
And kids these days.....my son refuses to read "the Hobbit"....but if I get us a pizza and some snacks, I bet I could get him to watch it with me instead. I can accept that lol.
Have you bought him a copy and given it to him on Christmas? Timing and setting can be a big factor.
well, now i'm heartbroken to hear they had actually planned to give the dwarves more screen-time. 💔 it was one of the things that had me excited for these movies, and unfortunately no fan-cut can fix the lack of it.
The dwarves got tons of screentime in the EE of BofA. Almost 90% of the added scenes focuses on at least one of the dwarves. We get a nice and friendly conversation between Bilbo and Bofur and tons of battle scenes with our main dwarves and Dain's army, next to the funeral scene.
ok but what if I said the barrel scene was fun and awesome what about that?
they dont care they gotta defend their beoved lotr
honestly same
Same
I like the fan edit you can search for that turns it back into two films (essentially - they call it one film with an interval but it's as long as two). It cuts out the fat and the story's so much better for it. I would've personally left out the "trolls are disgusting, in case you didn't know" scene and in its place, left in at least a little bit of explanation why the dragon's covered in gold soup all of a sudden... but that's a nitpick in the grand scheme of it. They did an excellent job. Rock'em sock'em rockbots, gone. Love triangle, gone. Plate smashing song now just a quick joke instead of a good reason to already dislike everyone. Barrel scene, now just a simple escape. Can't have Legolas anti-grav when you don't have Legolas. Just so many obvious improvements to trim out and I really like that someone went to the bother and showed how much better it could've been. We are still left without the personality development of the majority of a cast we're supposed to care about, so it's not like it's perfect, but it's certainly a big step up.
Only thing I didnt like was how they cut out the Erebor story in the beginning. All those shots of Erebor and Dale are so amazing and beautiful, why leave them out? It also tells the audience how the dwarves lost their home in the first place. This def should be in there.
@@Oozaru85 I'd forgot that bit, yeah. Yeah I agree that didn't need to get left out. I guess the one thing I liked most about it was all the cutting achieved a big increase tonal consistency, but that certainly would've fit right in still.
@@Torthrodhel Did you see the M4 book edit of the movies? Its even better. Def one of the best fan edits out there.
@@Oozaru85 no I only saw the one edit of it. Might have to check that out, then. :)
@@Torthrodhel DO IT. It's literally the best
Ok in fairness, I still enjoy the first Hobbit film. And everything involving Cumberbatch as Smaug later on. I just thing the trilogy’s big sin is that it needed to be two parts and not directly intertwine with Sauron’s long-term scheming. That was fully unnecessary.
Despite the completely unnecessary nature of intertwining Sauron with the plot of the Hobbit, gotta admit though, the fight with Elrond and Saruman against the Nine in Dol Guldur was a fantastic and satisfying bit of that film, not to mention an epic send-off for Christopher Lee in his final film.
The Hobbit being intertwined with Sauron's long-term scheming is Tolkien canon though. Lord Of The Rings makes reference to Gandalf's entire involvement in The Hobbit being all about taking Smaug off the board before Sauron became active, because nobody wants Sauron with a dragon in his army.
@@Carabas72 To be true, you're right, it is all connected, think some people though thought that it detracted from being an adaptation of the original material rather than one where it was tied to Lord of the Rings. I think they wanted the story told on a individual level from thar trilogy. Doesn't bother me though, really enjoy all 3 of those movies.
@@Carabas72 Would Smaug have even wanted to work with Sauron? Ik he’s greedy when it comes to hoarding wealth, but Smaug never seems like the kind willing to take orders from anyyone. Even someone with Sauron’s power.
@@benwasserman8223
Tolkien seems to think it wouldn't have been an issue at all for Sauron to recruit Smaug.
As a species, dragons are strongly associated with Morgoth and his underlings.
I actually loved reading this scene in the books! The barrel scene, and giant spiders in the forest is something I was looking forward to so much! I sadly agree though, the pacing, and the extra characters added into the scene just took me away from it more than helped.
You know that Beorn was in the book because he felt like an unnecessary and random addition to the movie. Hence, the movie was so disconnected from the book that they were in opposition to each other throughout the telling.
Beorn in the books is one of the adventurous things in their adventure.
Beorn was my favorite character in the book. In the movie he was lame.
and it's still better than literally anything I suffered through in those first two episodes of rings of power
The trauma of The Rings of Power premiere sounds like what I experienced as a Stargate SG-1 fan when Stargate Universe premiered
Absolutely not. Hater
Rings of power ain't that bad.
Sure it's not as good as the LoTR trilogy but it's still good
@@Yes-Bean yeah but when it presents itself as the successor of THE EPITOME OF FANTASY FICTION and when showrunners blatantly decided to inore Tolkien's writings to depict their own creation of mordor... It also nailed it's demise like a fucking Roman.
@@eleanorrigby41 true, especially since it was the most expensive show ever and I did expect a bit more
I recommend checking out fan-edits since there's some fun ones out there (I've made my own in fact), but I still grieve what this series could have been so regularly. Each dwarf was supposed to have their own little side quest, which was turned into simply "they all have some trait so you can tell them apart". Thorin's the leader with the backstory, Balin's the old, wise one, Dwalin's the bald, rough n' tumble one, Kili's the hot archer one, Fili's the one with the knives, Bofur's the friendly one (he also has a big hat), Bifur has an axe stuck in his head and therefore can only talk the dwarven language, Bombur's the fat one, Ori's the young, naiive one with a sling shot, Dori's the polite one, Nori's the kleptomaniac, Oin's the old, deaf one and Gloin's Gimli's father. This was supposed to be our "story with the dwarves", but alas
I’m a fan of the book and the graphic novel version that I got recently (illustrated by David Wenzel). I lent The Hobbit to my sister a while back. I haven’t asked what she thinks of it yet but hopefully she had fun reading.
TLOTR surprisingly felt different in my opinion, aged like a fine wine, still remembers a lot of its scenes, been watched it since it's not so popular as right now (I watched it for the first time on 2004). Dayum, VFX is so raw, realistic, and always heats my adrenaline.
They made the story longer and didn't use any of that time to make the 12 dwarves more distinguished characters. Its telling what exactly got expanded on and what didn't because its pretty clear where their priorities were.
It's a shame because it lacks that homely, warm feeling you get with lord of the rings. The lord of the rings series has really managed to capture it though!
I'm so happy to see someone address this. With this scene alone, I lost any investment and engagement that the movie had built up to that point and I just couldn't get past it after that.
I really like the Hobbit. I kinda understand why people don't like it but I still like it very much! Smaug is amazing. And Gollum was terrifying in it.
Very well said, my exact stance on the hobbit trilogy
I agree. It is still better than 80% of 2010s blockbusters.
Yeah I really like it. It was a fun world to explore. I laugh, I cried, and the action was wonderful. Bilbo is one of my favorite characters in the Lord of Rings and he got flushed out pretty well. I also think the Hobbit has one of the underrated endings. Gandalf visited Bilbo at Bilbo's old age. Bilbo was so happy to see him. They stayed friends for a life time. It was settle, but I liked it.
Agreed. LoTR is a gourmet dinner, the hobbit is a mcdonalds happy meal.
@@Hummingbirdzah what is your opinion on the book?
The most frustrating part is that those brilliant moments were truly gold! Martin Freeman as Bilbo, the glimpses of personality in the dwarves, the taste of the Hobbit world that we loved it for...And then they set those moments in the middle of such fluff.
If we had a scene where after getting into barrels, they get out smoothly (still with some tension but no chase scene) and land on the shore, it would be more of a Bilbo moment as it would be clear that them getting out was direct outcome of his plan.
100% agree. You could sum up that entire 10 minute monstrosity of a sequence in one sentence:
"Bilbo helps the dwarves escape through the hatch and watches as one barrel at a time drops into the river, and they escape the castle."
Done. Move on. Story is king. Spectacle is window dressing. Aristotle said it, so it's good enough for me.
I LOOOOVE the barrel scene lol
Thank you for this! I’ve been trying so hard to put my finger on why this trilogy just doesn’t sit right with me. I really enjoyed the first movie, it felt like settling right back into Middle Earth, even if it was pretty drawn out. Desolation of Smaug was really where it started to fall apart, and it all starts with the barrel scene.
Is the LOTR trilogy an objectively better work of cinema? Yes. Is the Hobbit trilogy one I nevertheless enjoy even with all of its issues? Also yes 😊
Agree with the first part.
I also really appreciate them and watch them every year
I Agree the Hobbit is my favorite but I will admit LOTR is one of the best movie trilogies
It's so sad that you believe that.
LOTR fanboys talk bad about The Hobbit because it did as good as LOTR in Box Office lmao
“Why does watching this scene hurt so much?”
“Because none of it was real”
the barrel scene was amazing, actually
Thats what I'm saying, like why do people complain about everything, that scene was so funny and cool
@@SpartanX027 fr my main complaint abt these movies is that they don't have MORE whimsical scenes like this. the whole trilogy is framed as bilbo's account being read from his POV after all. bilbo would include or even exaggerate parts of his retelling of what really happened. jumping on heads and tumbling down hills while taking down a bunch of orcs is exactly what bilbo would say happened, gopro shots and all.
Good video, but Bolg isn't a movie only character, he is the villain of The Hobbit and led the army of goblins and wargs in The Battle of the Five Armies in the book
Lindsey Ellis' three-part video essay on the films is all you really need to see to understand how fucking messy this production was.
Those essays are fuckin magnificent
After watching her essay, I can't even watch that movie anymore. It's disgusting
Spot on. The moment I watched the barrel scene I knew this "trilogy" was toast. What ticks me off is that they package it with LOTR and call it the "Middle Earth Ultimate Collector's Edition" like they are in the same universe of quality.
It really wasn't that bad. Bit of an exaggeration and over reacting.
I can't believe that scene is *10 minutes*... I just wanted it to end. There's a difference between ridiculous and just stupid.
@@tonichan89 top 10 most miserable people of all time
@@savannah2931 Who, you calling Oddivia miserable? Because they have actual taste and standards for quality? It IS 10 minutes of absolute boredom and zero suspense. You sit there waiting for it to end. And that's not the first time it happens in the trilogy. Probably the sixth or seventh by this point. Raise your standards!
@@apricot2879 Yeah, except it really was that bad. The good qualities of these films are dwarfed by the absurd and all-too frequent long drawn out spectacles that have zero relevance to the story, and leave the viewer bored. Did you really think there was even the slightest chance that any of the dwarves might die in these 10 minutes (or the five minutes falling in the tower in film 1, or from the rock giants, or from the trolls, etc. etc..?).
These scenes sap the film of any suspense or tension. And they are not fun. Had they wanted to do a little whitewater scene with a few arrows being shot from the tower, and extend it out a minute or two, that might have been okay. But TEN minutes? No. Story is king. Spectacle is window dressing.
To be fair, Bolg is not a movie only character
The Rings of Power has given me a new appreciation for these movies. Especially the fan edit that make it into 1 movie.
Now that’s soooo true lol 😂
The Rings of Power would make syphilis look good.