Funny story - I lost my wedding ring the first time I went to see this movie, and I found it in the middle of my second viewing some days later. Isn't that just precious?
I really like the Hobbit-movies, too. Did from the get go, haven't changed my mind later, as the years have passed. Neither did I think they were too many, neither did I think they were too long. Same goes for my partner: so at least 2 people in the world agrees with you! It brings me great joy hearing your ruminations on these 3 films, even if I often had to pause after an hour and then continue the next day... Doesn't matter, it's like a good book, you read as long as you can, you put it down to do what you must, then you return to the story when next you have an opportunity.
One of the things I genuinely did enjoy about the movies was the amount of extra character they put into the dwarves. To be honest the dwarves from the book, both the characters and the culture, weren't much more complex than the Seven Dwarves from Snow White. I really enjoyed the layers of character and character motivation they added much more. In that area I think these movies were an excellent adaptation by using the differences in medium to add layers to the story.
I don't think they accomplished t´what you think the were going for, while they try to add motivation and traits to each of the dwarfs, what the added was so flat and uninspired that they came accross as sunday moring cartoon characters instead of real people. They just turned them into tropes.
I'd like to genuinely thank you lorerunner. cheers for putting so much effort into these awesome ruminations. I've recently came across your channel and have been thoroughly enjoying all your rumination vids. ive been watching them every night and it is really enjoyable for me for reasons that i dont understand. but thank you very much! your work is appreciated greatly
I actually always thought the Arkenstone was the "Literal" Heart of the Mountain. The Stone that embodied it's Spirit. From LOTR it is said (from the books) that Caradras is sentient, though in that case it had a Malevolent Spirit, possibly being corrupted by the Balrog(s) slumbering beneath the Misty Mountains. The Lone Mountain may have, as it stands alone, never been corrupted by the Balrogs so the Spirit in the stone shines with a much purer light, untouched by evil.
I agree with this theory because of my personal fondness for elementalism as a concept (it's probably my single favorite thing in the entire fantasy genre, unless you include superheroes and the like as fantasy). Imo this doesn't fit super well with the motifs of Tolkien, but from less of a setting mythology perspective, and more from the viewpoint as being a simple parable for children that the rest later grew out of, it fits. If you only think about this one book, Smaug is just a dragon, rather than some servant of the same darkness which spawned Sauron and Ungoliant and the Balrogs; likewise, the Arkenstone is literally the elemental earth crystal node which focused all the magical essence of this mountain, turning it into a suitable homeland for the greatest of dwarven kingdoms. By mining out the stone, the dwarves literally killed the mountain, and then Smaug was drawn like a fly to its corpse.
this might be one of my favourite ruminations, Lore. If only because I've rarely seen such an in-depth discussion of the Hobbit films. Looking forward to the next two.
Greetings Lore! Great work here as always! And while I'm at it, let me thank you for years upon years of fantastic awesome content you created!!! Your insights, attitude, your expressions are a common and greatly apreciated input in my life now. Please dont ever stop contributing in this fashion! My dearest regards
I loved the hobbit movies. I feel given how much is in the book alone 3 movies aloud them to go through all the ins and outs of the book. Who made up the 5 armies, where did they come ?Who was the necromancer in the ruined fortress? Why was the arcene stone so important to the Dwarves? And finally you can't tell Bilbo's time Smaug was the absolute highlight of the second movie. And the epic nature of the Council fighting Sauron and the Nasgule was the cherry on the cake of this series.
I have to echo some of the criticisms you don't like hearing anymore. I loved the first Hobbit movie. The second and third... Less so. I don't think one film would do The Hobbit justice, but three was too many, and they should have just put it into two. There's too many padding scenes. The scenes that do have a significant point to make are sometimes drawn out and could have been shortened. Some scenes have a humorous point that gets drawn out to the point where I felt myself saying "OK, I got the joke the first three times, you can stop now." I don't think any of them are bad films, but the point still stands.
I made the mistake of watching extended editions for films 1 and 2, and this made the length problem worse; I found 3 to be the best film, but probably in part for being a tighter cut. Between 1 and 2, I would say 1 is both better and worse, while 2 is just blandly average. Nothing in 2 is as bad as the Goblin King song, nor as good as the Erebor intro, so I'd rather watch film 1 and skip some scenes, while for film 2 I would just be generally disengaged watching the whole thing, but wouldn't really skip anything.
I wasnt bothered by the length, The story of the Hobbit is just so dear to my heart and childhood that I loved seeing it being brought to live animation within the world Peter Jackson brought to film.
OH MY GOD THEY TOOK A SHORT STORY AND MADE IT INTO 3 FILMS!!! Sorry couldn't resist ;). I do enjoy the Hobbit Trilogy just not as much as the LOTR Trilogy. Which I consider the best movie ever made. (All 3 films are 1 movie for me.)
You are not the only one bothered by the length of these movies for the books had prologs and epilogs and appendices thst these movies touched on. Esp lets be honest Legolas would had exsisted in this time line and the fact he was in this trilogy was great!😄👐. This trilogy is a work of art and these 6 movies as a whole I can revisit again and again as I do for your ruminations of these films👐👐. Love your ruminations on these masterpieces. Keep rockin out👐😎.
4:00 I consider myself warned and I`m just putting it out there now that these movies did not appeal to me personally, BUT I still look forward to hearing Lore`s thoughts on the movies nevertheless.
I loved having a Hobbit/LoTR movie to come home to each year in college. I knew that every December when the first came out, I would have something to look forward to when I returned home from a house full of Brothers and finals; family, Christmas, and a Tolkien universe movie.
I find it interesting that you talk about how common it is for people to dislike the Hobbit movies. I am often in the same situation as I defend the Star Wars prequels.
I remember watching this movie. Near the end I look at my watch and thought I have so more time and hope they keep going. I think they made a good choice in make them that length instead of the clip note version we normally get.
I feel like I'm the only person who gets the out of setting significance of the dwarven headbutt greeting. The original trilogy cast used to do it when they couldn't hug or shake hands through their costumes, so they would gently bump their foreheads together as a brotherly thing. Viggo (Aragorn) was dared to do it to Orlando (Legolas) and accidentally did it hard enough to almost crack the skull.
Thought I had already said this, but imo the Arkenstone is literally the heart of the mountain, that it was the spiritual nexus of elemental earth, which made the lonely mountain into a thriving place for the dwarves to live.
I liked the movies too, strictly from a D&D perspective. I mean, the party went to Rivendell after finding the swords because Elrond had "identify". And when they showed him the swords he might as easily had said "This is the Goblin Slayer, a magical +2 sword of swiftness, every time you kill a goblin with it, you'll get +1 to your strength and constitution, but it will only last until the end of the encounter blah blah blah..." Seriously, it reminded me of a lot of my campaigns...
Whether the Arkenstone is a pretty rock or a frickin' Silmaril, I would say it's the anvil that breaks the camel's back, rather than a straw. Great job, thanks for doing these.
It's been about five years since I last read the book, but the explanation for why the eagles didn't take them any further, if I remember right, was that people tend to shoot at eagles, thinking they might be after their livestock. Who's tending livestock in mirkwood? Ya got me. Like I said it's been five years, but I remember it being something along those lines.
An addendum: Smaug (albeit fictional as well historical) IS a victim of Richard Wagner's work: unable to adapt to changing times he is forced to act in the only way he knows, slowed down by time and his own history, he seeks to defend what he "thinks" is his. Which doesn't make him less dangerous but slower. Again, Tolkien draws upon his enormous knowledge of "European" or rather, Northern Culture, to portray a "legendary" foe. I feel a great empathy towards him, seeing the onslaught of what he perceives as hordes of "minor cults" or minions of a lesser races. I was sad to see him go, driven back by the tide of "Modern Times". Excellent rumination, still. THANK YOU !
27:45 ya I appreciate that too. It's actually the problem I have with most bioware games is that they always start with jumping right into the thick of things (except Dragon age origins kinda).
I'm not bothered by the length of the films. I'm bothered by the padding RELATIVE TO THE NOVEL. While I can understand adding some scenes and even characters that don't exist in the novel (for example, adding Radagast the Brown, Legolas, and even inventing Tauriel) to make an adaption work better, I just can't accept the invented material added just to add stuff. It really does feel like a proper and entertaining adaption of the novel could have been only two films, or even just one long one. _At least_ three hours of material seem entirely unnecessary. The main example is the love affair between Fili and Tauriel. (IT'S NOT JUST THE LENGTH OF THE FILM!!!) A dwarf/elf romance feels VERY out of place in The Hobbit, and even diminishes the thematic importance of the friendship between Legolas and Gimli in LOTR. Yes, the fangirls love it, but it just makes facepalm. I'm not a "purist" -- I swear! I love the LOTR films even with their added material and over-the-top Peter Jackson action scenes, but The Hobbit films just pollute the story with ridiculous, contrived scenes and subplots. I haven't even bought all of these films on DVD, and I certainly wanted to. I enjoy the longer "extended editions" of the LOTR films, but for The Hobbit I'd want only one four hour film with all of the unnecessary scenes removed instead of longer versions of all of the theatrical films.
While I agree with nearly all your sentiments, I don't think Lore is taking the book into consideration when reviewing this film. Its the same way with every movie he reviews that is a screen adaptation of a novel. The book doesnt matter to him , only the movie. If anything he is probably comparing this directly to the LOTR movies.
I absolutely agree. I kind of wish Lore would have taken more of his approach with the Star Wars prequels to the Hobbit movies. Being totally upfront honest and blunt about their major problems but still taking some time to highlight the positive aspects, of which there are many. Instead I feel he is kind of glossing over that and giving an unrealistic viewpoint of the film. Ultimately for me a lot of the problems I have with the Hobbit still exist with or without the book taken into consideration. The whole damn trilogy just feels gratuitous at the end of the day to me. There are positives, but they are ultimately positives that I didn't need in the first place. The negatives are very noticeable to me, and further undermine not only the effort of this trilogy but stuff that was also established in LOTR. For example, this movie completely ruined the character of Legolas for me personally. Even watching the LOTR trilogy nowadays I have a different perception of him than before, and it isn't a positive perception either.
The problem with any adaptation of The Hobbit, particularly if it is done in conjunction with an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings IS the novel, as it is not suited to cinema. Even if you can get over the tonal differences, you are still left with a work with the structure of a chapter-a-night bedtime story for children, where they get into a scrape / chapter ends / Gandalf or Bilbo save everyone, repeat, for pretty much the whole novel, a company of dwarves almost entirely bereft of character and completely indistinguishable from each other, beside Thorin and "the fat one", and the fact that Smaug, the 'big bad' that they have been working towards, is never more than a distant threat for the majority of the novel (there is no sense of urgency or raising stakes), and is then killed by some guy who hardly features in the story. The only choices are to add material, or make a kid's cartoon.
No, by no means: NO, you're not the only one, lengthwise, but the dwarf-characters COULD have been more prolific in the way they're portrayed (each to his own) it feels (sometimes) as though they are extra's in the films whereas in The Hobbit (book) they are the protagonists and Bilbo is more a side-character (except for his encounter with Smaug (and He is tattoed on my shoulder) :) . Great rumination, BTW. Congrats. I must add, I'm a linguist (Phd, Middle-English and Chinese). Keep up the good work ! PS: I should add that I speak 6 languages and (as frequent flyer, I always take The Silmarillion and unfinished tales with me when going to The USA/China (I do translate/revise Chinese poetry (check CPJ)) and my tattoo is from Tolkien's original drawing I obtained in Oxford) :) ! ) But anyhow, THANK YOU ! PS2: I am a (retired psychiatric nurse) and just to reiterate: Gandalf (as mentioned by Saruman in LOTR 's mind DULLED by the Hobbit's "Weed", Radagast is more Shaman-like in consuming "Magic Mushrooms" whereas Saruman himself is a paranoid alcoholic) and the animosity between Elves and Dwarves might have been influenced by Tolkien's experience in trench warfare alongside French and English. This just as an aside :) , albeit "subconsciously" because Tolkien denied that his war experience did influence his work (though I do think that Sauron (The German Nation) did play a role as such. Much obliged !!
I've never even considered the idea that the Arkenstone could be a Silmaril. The pedant in me wants to say "The Silmarils are all accounted for", and they are. But that doesn't mean the Arkenstone can't be one. Maedhros repented of his oath and threw himself and his recovered Silmaril into a fiery chasm. In a magical universe like Tolkien's it's not impossible it could've made it's way to the Lonely Mountain somehow. Not likely, but I wouldn't say impossible.
My previous link was off topic but I thought it would interest you. I really love your ruminations. Keep up the good work. Looking forward to your thoughts on TNG
I generally dislike this trilogy, but wanted so badly for it to be good. I actually enjoyed An Unexpected Journey, and feel that if two and three had been combined it would have cut out most of the padding issues and made these movies closer to being on-par with LotR. Regardless, I enjoyed watching and thanks for the analysis, Lore!
I like the length. I’d rather watch an in depth 10 hour movie than a short and sweet 1 hour one. I feel the same way about 15 minutes reviews versus 1.5 hour reviews it seems, as I adored this.
I am not bothered by the length of them. If I am to be completely blunt though, my issue is that in my opinion, very little of value was added. I found a version that cut the entire trilogy down to 4 hours, and I enjoyed it a lot more, though not enough to say that I loved it. I could go on and on about my feelings on the Hobbit films, but I'll just state it simply. I really wanted to love them. I wanted to so, so very bad. I was, however, very much disappointed with them, especially the third one. I'm glad you enjoy them, and there are absolutely scenes that I love. Bilbo's meeting with Gollum and his meeting with Smaug come to mind. They were absolutely fantastic. Even with that, however, I left the theater with a very similair feeling as I did in regards to the Star Wars prequels. Just made me kind of sad, to be quite frank.
As far as the length goes, you aren't understanding what they did exactly. They took a tiny amount of cream cheese, maybe a full tablespoon, and spread it across both sides of the bagel suuuper thin. I don't hate these movies. Not even a little bit. But I can see ALL the flaws people talk about, and most of them are justified. The first film had the least amount of flaws. The second had about the same. But the third? The third was FULL of scenes that were drawn out and completely unnecessary. It had a TON of flaws. I still don't hate the movie. Hell I give it a solid 7/10. An actual 7/10. 5 being "not good not bad". Please don't overly defend these films, especially the 3rd, because people didn't like them. These 3 ruminations won't be as good as they could be if you do. Edit: Also the CGI was used waaay too much for the 3rd film.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but I just don't understand how you can defend the length and the padding. It seemed so arrogant to me to take a story that is almost perfect in literary terms and try to improve and lengthen it by adding things. It was a money-grubbing effort to capitalize on the success of the LOTR trilogy. It could have been a GREAT single film--instead it's a ponderous and lame attempt to chas in. I'll just rewatch the 1977 animated one.
Yeaaay. Someone else who likes the hobbit movies. Sure don’t me wrong they have flaws but I really loved them. Especially considering all the setbacks and complications they had to overcome.
I Just Finished the Movie You Know what's weird in this movie is that Bilbo was so against going on this Adventure even though Gandalf and the Dwarves tried there hardest to get him to join and he was like No No No you got the Wrong Hobbit, and then the Next Morning he was going after the Dwarves and telling everyone ''I'm going on a Adventure'' why the Sudden change it's just weird.
The eagles take you as far as their complex religion allows, they then instruct through dancing... directions to the misty mountain. The party has +1 initiative and reroll towards endurance checks for the remainder of the day.
Arkenstone is definitely not a silmaril, Tolkien wrote what happened to jewels one into the air, one to the sea the last one into the earth, with the sea and earth jewels being lost forever, Arkenstone is just a beautiful jewel. Thrór had Durin's ring in his possession, and used to found the Erebor fortune, Sauron couldn't used the seven to control the seven Dwarf Lords, but the rings made them powerful and rich, but had the darkside of making them greedy, and eventually bringing Dragons. That mostlike Is the reason why Smaug attacked Erebor.
I always felt eagles could only be used (for lack of better word) when all other sources and means ran out, once you could in some way act of yourself, their purpose before you ended, and to use them became a sacrilege (or at least something that would bring on ones immediate destruction)
You're not the only person who is not bothered by the length of the films - I would have been happier if there were six! Thats because I think that the films were really very good because they brought the dwarves to life instead of the cardboard cutouts they were in the book. The focus on Galadriel and Good Saruman made it far more interesting and appropriate especially because it underlines how important Sarumans subsequent corruption by Sauron is via the palantir. That then makes more sense about how Denethor became depressed and careless about readying the defences.
Here's how I would definite the three tiers of being extant. Survival:. You are a lab rat in a tiny cage, drinking water from a tube and eating the same food pellets every day forever. You have not even the faintest suggestion of control over your life; you are completely at the mercy of the scientist running the lab, who will use you for whatever purpose he sees fit. Existence: you are a tiger in a habitat at the San Diego Zoo. You have a big natural-seeming area to run around in; you get not only good quality food, but a variety of enrichment items that look and smell and taste interestingly different. You probably don't really mind being gawked at by humans all day; you have a comfortable life with a convincing illusion of freedom, and you need not try very hard. But you're still not free, and the ultimate proof of that is that you don't get to mate unless the zoo decides they're interested in having some tiger cubs. You are not able to thrive and flourish and expand as you see fit; the boundaries of your existence are tightly curtailed. Living: you are a member of the dominant species in your environment, with all the privileges and responsibilities of such a station.
The Eagles probably don't have Beorn's permission to fly over his territory, and even though this contradicts your points about Mirkwood in the next film, I would say that the skies above Mirkwood are dangerous for the eagles, or at least unpleasant enough that they're unwilling to tolerate it. So that's my explanation for why the eagles don't take them all the way to Erebor.
I genuinely liked the first 2 films... I would have liked them to only be 2 films. It wouldn't have been so bad had they cut down on Legolas more superhero moments... and generally cut down on the violence. The escape in the barrels is one of my favorite scenes in the book, and I didn't like it going from the dwarves being miserably tossed about in the barrels to what 15 minutes of goblin slaughter, and the dwarves were riding the river and fighting in much more graceful manner.
one really interesting thing is, this film is about the Hobbits... it is not on "The Hobbit"... it is a film about Bilbo... in fact, a film that takes a vast amount of other texts, & what can be called Tolkienite Beta-cannon, running really deep with it.... but it totally throws out of the window the concept of The Hobbit as a fairy tale as it was meant to be in-Universe. it is a take, not on the characters as they were seen by Tolkien at the time he wrote the Hobbit, but how he viewed them having completed the story towards the end of his life.... Yes it is long... for The Hobbit! The original, in it's format could not be meaningfully stretched to such a length. but this is about a deeper, much fuller set of characters, with a fuller background. it is how The Hobbit might be told not even by Bilbo, or Sam Gamgee, but by an old and frail Gandalf (who is the master of the work himself...)
6:20 "People tend to forget how many people were pushing for a Hobbit Trilogy. People were like "we need to have a Hobbit film"". I can think of literally nobody who wanted a Hobbit trilogy. Hobbit film yes, Hobbit trilogy no.
The drawers and tellarites are kind of similar they're naturally a more boisterous in confrontation little people but not to be negative it's just their way
IMO i loved these movies, especially the first hobbit movie, it truly felt to me how a DnD campaign would look like on the big screen. I almost could see the dice rolls with some scenes :D
I'll bite, I enjoy the Hobbit Trilogy, but nowhere near as much as LOTR. I also have many more problems with it but I'm not going to write an essay on the matter here. I don't even mind giving the book a tonal shift to make it more in line with the original trilogy, because artistically it makes sense, elsewise it would be very jarring. My heart broke for Ian when he had his near breakdown and thought he was 'done'. I don't blame PJ for how these films turned out in the slightest. In the behind the scenes stuff for film 3 there's a clip where you can just see how exhausted and drained he is. Worth noting, in the book, the dwarves absolutely leave Bilbo with the washing up. I thought the Gollum/Bilbo scene first to give other parts of production time to catch up as they were essentially going by the seat of their pants.
One reason, I think, that the movie starts off slow is it has to establish everything - for people who have read the book, and most importantly - for people who haven't. Sure it's slow for those of us who have read the book, but for someone who hasn't you need that buildup to understand the characters and what is actually going on.
I liked An Unexpected Journey. But I really really did not like The desolation of Smaug. But thats why I cant wait to hear what you like about it and why!
The Vala Varda, hallowed the Silmarils and mortals could not touch them nor would they abide evil. It would not have called Smaug and he would not have slept on it.
i brought the box set, and watched all of them in one go, 9 hours, the next day, i watched the making of the making, and now im watching you, and im 70, so to long ? not long enough, typical hollywood, rush rush rush, wheres the profit gime the money
Smaug's contemporary Scatha the Worm (Cold worms are much smaller, flightless and fire-less), whom was killed by one of the Rohirrim's descendants (can't remember the name of the dude who killed him) His most literaly analogy is the Urulokí (flightless fire dragon) Glaurung from the Children of Hurin. Though in stature he is more like a lesser Anchalagon the Black (The largest dragon ever, died at the end of the first age)
Best of the trilogy, and it's all down from here baby. At the time it didn't feel like the films are too long, however there shouldn't be three of them..
I was ridiculously hyped to go see the first Hobbit movie, and left with a meh + vibe. I was pretty into it for the first half and the rest really fell short on me. I loved Bilbo, but was actually kind of disappointed by Gollum this time around. Not that Andy Serkis did a bad job but I certainly thought his performance in the original trilogy was something very special. The strange thing about this movie, is that I kind of feel that I almost immediately forgot about it after I left the theater that day. I was working on a cruise ship as a jazz musician in a band when the 2nd movie came out in 2013 and I did not have time to see it. When the final one came out in 2014, I went with a friend of mine back home to see it in theaters. We were both fans of the Lord of the Rings movies as well as Tolkien fans, and went in with the agreement that we would only compare it to the original LOTR movies and the previous two Hobbit films. Based on this, we both agreed that we didn't think it was any good at all for many reasons. I guess Ill mention those in two weeks when Lore releases that video.
I'm listening to this Rumination in large part so I can decide whether to bother actually watching the Hobbit DVD which I grabbed off my library's shelves. I'm leaning toward it, but I want to hear your opinion. Still, even if I end up liking the Hobbit as we got it, I'm going to go out right now and say that getting Pacific Rim instead of Del Toro's Hobbit was a good trade. My love for Pacific Rim is impossible to overstate, it's a beautiful and wonderfully affecting film that *isn't* an adaptation or a remake! Whatever we get for Hobbit, I'll take it, instead of complaining that Del Toro went off and did something which is SO much more meaningful to me.
have you read the book of lost tales 1? the forward talks about how J.R.R Tolkien would purposely choose not to reveal details like the arkenstone to add depth to the story. I would like to know because the book itself is hard for me to read. books are awesome let's talk about them..👕😎
sorry but no... Goblins are not thesame as Orcs by Tolkien... in the Trilogy, the Uruk-Hai, are brought about through the interbreeding of the two, through the work of Sauron, who also, "Buries Orcs & Pulls them out of the Earth"... something we see shown in the movie. Orcs, however are former Elves, Eldrin totally corrupted, first by the temptations of nature, then transformed by pain and evil into the image of his wish *(2nd chapter of the book of Valaquenta, Silmarillion) the origin of Goblins is not so clear, though, it is generally thought they are rocks possessed by a corrupted wish to exist outside of the limit placed to them by the Ainur, and granted that wish through the powers of the witch-king... they are not strictly speaking seen as living creatures, though, possessing a life. (Extended Cannon)
In pertaining to Del Toro... I agree with not being a fan of his directing. I much prefer him in the roll of costume/set designer. his directing comes off as too vague.
I like his films but there is always something I find to be missing: hellboy and the shape of water I both liked but I feel like they could be a lot better if the pacing was done a bit different.
I hated this portrayal of the trolls, and beyond-hated the Goblin King. Fortunately both were excellent in Rankin Bass. This film focuses instead on getting the dwarves, hobbits, and orcs right, and that's probably the right call.
My biggest issue with this trilogy as a whole - apart from the fact it's 3 films rather than 2 (sorry but it's a common complaint because it's true) - is that it takes all the very Peter Jackson-Middle Earth-ish traits that really worked in the original trilogy and dialed them up to 11 to the point where fantastical became quite frankly just silly and jarring 😔 Also the humour mostly falls flat for me and several of the characters are made clownish and caricature-ish to the point of not being respected as serious characters
I like these movies, I prefer the themes of the books, and you have to forget the books, one can like the adaptation of the setting, to which it is great, just not theme or plot.
You're not alone in not having a problem with the length of the movies. I've always found it absurd that people who complain about the movies totaling just under nine hours have absolutely no problem with the book totaling eleven hours (as an unabridged audiobook). So, 9 = HORRIBLE AND WAY TOO LONG!!!!! But, if you add 2 more to that 9 = AWESOME BENCHMARK THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD!!!!! Um, okay. Or the related criticism of "but, it's just one book, how can you justify three movies?!" Oh, it's just one book? Well, zip-a-de-fucking-do-da! "Game of Thrones" was just one book and how many hours of episodes did they create from it? Another thing I'm really tired of hearing is "oh, stretching it out to three movies was just a naked money making attempt (copy, paste, repeat ad infinitum)." There is only one way someone can know that for a fact - they can straight up legitimately read Peter Jackson's mind. If that's the case, then we have the first fully-verified, documentable proof of Human Telepathy. Either that or you all are just full of shit and need to shut the hell up already.
i dont post on youtube much but this is one of the dumbest comments ive ever read. What does the length of the audiobook have to do with anything? How many people who have seen the movies heard the audiobook? less than 1%? This is so nonsensical I cant believe you are a trek fan. LOTR is 3 books, 3 movies. Hobbit is 1 book, 3 movies. This is the comparison. Not some audio book or TV shows with countless characters and storylines not to mention game of thrones is 4x the length of the hobbit Im so confused as to what point you are making. Im also confused about who thumbed your post up. One must have been you, thats for certain. Im going back away from the comments section for another few years, see where we are then.
Hmmm.... you don't post on UA-cam much but in this case you just had to in order to insult someone. Gee, I wonder why UA-cam comments don't have a good reputation. But, in the interest of fairness, here's my argument again.... "I'm going to spend eleven hours listening to 'The Hobbit'." = most people think that's just fine. "I'm going to spend nine hours watching 'The Hobbit'." = most people freak out and think it's unacceptably long. See the problem?
Film should be shorter than audio - particularly an audio book which doesn't even have sound effects to help illustrate what's happening. Even just describing actions, you're doing well to describe them in the same time it takes to do them on screen; when it comes to descriptions, you can spend way more than a thousand words and still not do as much as a 3 second establishing shot. And, just for perspective, if LotR had had the same words per movie as the Hobbit, it would have been nearer 18 movies long...
I realy love the hobbit but saddly this is just in some part. I think at some moment peter jakson try to hard in the epic and it's affect the core and the dramatic theme the movie try to acomplish.
Alles metarial like the movies but if I'm being honest I filled could have been better compressed in the two movies I just felt there was too much filler in the second and third
With ya on most of it. And do appreciate your videos. But, not with you on your views of Copyright. And I'm not sure I'd call what stalled these movies crap. Tolkien's estate, and Christopher Tolkien, who this was literally part of his childhood, should have control over the rights, and should absolutely protect them. Not saying this compares, but if I took your videos, rebranded them, did better SEO, and made more money off them, I'm sure you'd take issue. If Christopher felt WB had taken liberties with his father's works, or felt they weren't treated fairly financially, that is 100% their prerogative, glad they found a middle ground and the movies got made. But not at all against Christopher ever protecting his dad's works.
Funny story - I lost my wedding ring the first time I went to see this movie, and I found it in the middle of my second viewing some days later.
Isn't that just precious?
Adam Bram Just don't let the stupid hobbitses gets it.
XD
I really like the Hobbit-movies, too. Did from the get go, haven't changed my mind later, as the years have passed. Neither did I think they were too many, neither did I think they were too long. Same goes for my partner: so at least 2 people in the world agrees with you!
It brings me great joy hearing your ruminations on these 3 films, even if I often had to pause after an hour and then continue the next day... Doesn't matter, it's like a good book, you read as long as you can, you put it down to do what you must, then you return to the story when next you have an opportunity.
One of the things I genuinely did enjoy about the movies was the amount of extra character they put into the dwarves. To be honest the dwarves from the book, both the characters and the culture, weren't much more complex than the Seven Dwarves from Snow White. I really enjoyed the layers of character and character motivation they added much more. In that area I think these movies were an excellent adaptation by using the differences in medium to add layers to the story.
William Ozier that was the worst thing about the movies litteraly
I don't think they accomplished t´what you think the were going for, while they try to add motivation and traits to each of the dwarfs, what the added was so flat and uninspired that they came accross as sunday moring cartoon characters instead of real people. They just turned them into tropes.
I'd like to genuinely thank you lorerunner. cheers for putting so much effort into these awesome ruminations. I've recently came across your channel and have been thoroughly enjoying all your rumination vids. ive been watching them every night and it is really enjoyable for me for reasons that i dont understand. but thank you very much! your work is appreciated greatly
O😅 of k
I actually always thought the Arkenstone was the "Literal" Heart of the Mountain. The Stone that embodied it's Spirit. From LOTR it is said (from the books) that Caradras is sentient, though in that case it had a Malevolent Spirit, possibly being corrupted by the Balrog(s) slumbering beneath the Misty Mountains. The Lone Mountain may have, as it stands alone, never been corrupted by the Balrogs so the Spirit in the stone shines with a much purer light, untouched by evil.
I agree with this theory because of my personal fondness for elementalism as a concept (it's probably my single favorite thing in the entire fantasy genre, unless you include superheroes and the like as fantasy). Imo this doesn't fit super well with the motifs of Tolkien, but from less of a setting mythology perspective, and more from the viewpoint as being a simple parable for children that the rest later grew out of, it fits. If you only think about this one book, Smaug is just a dragon, rather than some servant of the same darkness which spawned Sauron and Ungoliant and the Balrogs; likewise, the Arkenstone is literally the elemental earth crystal node which focused all the magical essence of this mountain, turning it into a suitable homeland for the greatest of dwarven kingdoms. By mining out the stone, the dwarves literally killed the mountain, and then Smaug was drawn like a fly to its corpse.
this might be one of my favourite ruminations, Lore. If only because I've rarely seen such an in-depth discussion of the Hobbit films. Looking forward to the next two.
Greetings Lore!
Great work here as always!
And while I'm at it, let me thank you for years upon years of fantastic awesome content you created!!!
Your insights, attitude, your expressions are a common and greatly apreciated input in my life now.
Please dont ever stop contributing in this fashion!
My dearest regards
I remember thinking the Hobbit movies being perfectly fine. I get the feeling hating on stuff en masse online is just a stupid trend to be ignored.
I loved the hobbit movies. I feel given how much is in the book alone 3 movies aloud them to go through all the ins and outs of the book. Who made up the 5 armies, where did they come ?Who was the necromancer in the ruined fortress? Why was the arcene stone so important to the Dwarves? And finally you can't tell Bilbo's time Smaug was the absolute highlight of the second movie. And the epic nature of the Council fighting Sauron and the Nasgule was the cherry on the cake of this series.
Lore, you deserve so many more subs. Thanks for making this.
Think lack of a podcast or super chat streams could be a reason
I love hearing Lorerunner's positive take on things I usually rip apart. The Hobbit trilogy being the perfect example.
I have to echo some of the criticisms you don't like hearing anymore. I loved the first Hobbit movie. The second and third... Less so. I don't think one film would do The Hobbit justice, but three was too many, and they should have just put it into two. There's too many padding scenes. The scenes that do have a significant point to make are sometimes drawn out and could have been shortened. Some scenes have a humorous point that gets drawn out to the point where I felt myself saying "OK, I got the joke the first three times, you can stop now."
I don't think any of them are bad films, but the point still stands.
I made the mistake of watching extended editions for films 1 and 2, and this made the length problem worse; I found 3 to be the best film, but probably in part for being a tighter cut. Between 1 and 2, I would say 1 is both better and worse, while 2 is just blandly average. Nothing in 2 is as bad as the Goblin King song, nor as good as the Erebor intro, so I'd rather watch film 1 and skip some scenes, while for film 2 I would just be generally disengaged watching the whole thing, but wouldn't really skip anything.
I wasnt bothered by the length, The story of the Hobbit is just so dear to my heart and childhood that I loved seeing it being brought to live animation within the world Peter Jackson brought to film.
OH MY GOD THEY TOOK A SHORT STORY AND MADE IT INTO 3 FILMS!!! Sorry couldn't resist ;). I do enjoy the Hobbit Trilogy just not as much as the LOTR Trilogy. Which I consider the best movie ever made. (All 3 films are 1 movie for me.)
You are not the only one bothered by the length of these movies for the books had prologs and epilogs and appendices thst these movies touched on. Esp lets be honest Legolas would had exsisted in this time line and the fact he was in this trilogy was great!😄👐. This trilogy is a work of art and these 6 movies as a whole I can revisit again and again as I do for your ruminations of these films👐👐. Love your ruminations on these masterpieces. Keep rockin out👐😎.
4:00 I consider myself warned and I`m just putting it out there now that these movies did not appeal to me personally, BUT I still look forward to hearing Lore`s thoughts on the movies nevertheless.
I loved having a Hobbit/LoTR movie to come home to each year in college. I knew that every December when the first came out, I would have something to look forward to when I returned home from a house full of Brothers and finals; family, Christmas, and a Tolkien universe movie.
I find it interesting that you talk about how common it is for people to dislike the Hobbit movies. I am often in the same situation as I defend the Star Wars prequels.
There's literally so much good about the prequels. Flawed but far from awful.
I remember watching this movie. Near the end I look at my watch and thought I have so more time and hope they keep going.
I think they made a good choice in make them that length instead of the clip note version we normally get.
1:05:22 I dunno if it was intentional, but I love that you said "Gandalf is not Grandalf". Very fun Freudian slip.
I feel like I'm the only person who gets the out of setting significance of the dwarven headbutt greeting. The original trilogy cast used to do it when they couldn't hug or shake hands through their costumes, so they would gently bump their foreheads together as a brotherly thing. Viggo (Aragorn) was dared to do it to Orlando (Legolas) and accidentally did it hard enough to almost crack the skull.
Thought I had already said this, but imo the Arkenstone is literally the heart of the mountain, that it was the spiritual nexus of elemental earth, which made the lonely mountain into a thriving place for the dwarves to live.
I liked the movies too, strictly from a D&D perspective.
I mean, the party went to Rivendell after finding the swords because Elrond had "identify". And when they showed him the swords he might as easily had said "This is the Goblin Slayer, a magical +2 sword of swiftness, every time you kill a goblin with it, you'll get +1 to your strength and constitution, but it will only last until the end of the encounter blah blah blah..."
Seriously, it reminded me of a lot of my campaigns...
Whether the Arkenstone is a pretty rock or a frickin' Silmaril, I would say it's the anvil that breaks the camel's back, rather than a straw.
Great job, thanks for doing these.
It's been about five years since I last read the book, but the explanation for why the eagles didn't take them any further, if I remember right, was that people tend to shoot at eagles, thinking they might be after their livestock.
Who's tending livestock in mirkwood? Ya got me. Like I said it's been five years, but I remember it being something along those lines.
An addendum: Smaug (albeit fictional as well historical) IS a victim of Richard Wagner's work: unable to adapt to changing times he is forced to act in the only way he knows, slowed down by time and his own history, he seeks to defend what he "thinks" is his.
Which doesn't make him less dangerous but slower. Again, Tolkien draws upon his enormous knowledge of "European" or rather, Northern Culture, to portray a "legendary" foe. I feel a great empathy towards him, seeing the onslaught of what he perceives as hordes of "minor cults" or minions of a lesser races. I was sad to see him go, driven back by the tide of "Modern Times". Excellent rumination, still. THANK YOU !
I love The Hobbit films! When something good stretching it out makes it even better
Not sure what other time you ment, when a dragon was in fact terrifying, but I instantly thought of the movie "reign of fire"
27:45 ya I appreciate that too. It's actually the problem I have with most bioware games is that they always start with jumping right into the thick of things (except Dragon age origins kinda).
I'm not bothered by the length of the films. I'm bothered by the padding RELATIVE TO THE NOVEL. While I can understand adding some scenes and even characters that don't exist in the novel (for example, adding Radagast the Brown, Legolas, and even inventing Tauriel) to make an adaption work better, I just can't accept the invented material added just to add stuff. It really does feel like a proper and entertaining adaption of the novel could have been only two films, or even just one long one. _At least_ three hours of material seem entirely unnecessary.
The main example is the love affair between Fili and Tauriel. (IT'S NOT JUST THE LENGTH OF THE FILM!!!) A dwarf/elf romance feels VERY out of place in The Hobbit, and even diminishes the thematic importance of the friendship between Legolas and Gimli in LOTR. Yes, the fangirls love it, but it just makes facepalm. I'm not a "purist" -- I swear! I love the LOTR films even with their added material and over-the-top Peter Jackson action scenes, but The Hobbit films just pollute the story with ridiculous, contrived scenes and subplots. I haven't even bought all of these films on DVD, and I certainly wanted to. I enjoy the longer "extended editions" of the LOTR films, but for The Hobbit I'd want only one four hour film with all of the unnecessary scenes removed instead of longer versions of all of the theatrical films.
While I agree with nearly all your sentiments, I don't think Lore is taking the book into consideration when reviewing this film. Its the same way with every movie he reviews that is a screen adaptation of a novel. The book doesnt matter to him , only the movie. If anything he is probably comparing this directly to the LOTR movies.
That's a fair statement, though it should explain to Lore why he is getting those reactions.
I absolutely agree. I kind of wish Lore would have taken more of his approach with the Star Wars prequels to the Hobbit movies. Being totally upfront honest and blunt about their major problems but still taking some time to highlight the positive aspects, of which there are many. Instead I feel he is kind of glossing over that and giving an unrealistic viewpoint of the film. Ultimately for me a lot of the problems I have with the Hobbit still exist with or without the book taken into consideration. The whole damn trilogy just feels gratuitous at the end of the day to me. There are positives, but they are ultimately positives that I didn't need in the first place. The negatives are very noticeable to me, and further undermine not only the effort of this trilogy but stuff that was also established in LOTR. For example, this movie completely ruined the character of Legolas for me personally. Even watching the LOTR trilogy nowadays I have a different perception of him than before, and it isn't a positive perception either.
The problem with any adaptation of The Hobbit, particularly if it is done in conjunction with an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings IS the novel, as it is not suited to cinema.
Even if you can get over the tonal differences, you are still left with a work with the structure of a chapter-a-night bedtime story for children, where they get into a scrape / chapter ends / Gandalf or Bilbo save everyone, repeat, for pretty much the whole novel, a company of dwarves almost entirely bereft of character and completely indistinguishable from each other, beside Thorin and "the fat one", and the fact that Smaug, the 'big bad' that they have been working towards, is never more than a distant threat for the majority of the novel (there is no sense of urgency or raising stakes), and is then killed by some guy who hardly features in the story.
The only choices are to add material, or make a kid's cartoon.
Never spend money on a film until the rights are secured and legal. Great review.
No, by no means: NO, you're not the only one, lengthwise, but the dwarf-characters COULD have been more prolific in the way they're portrayed (each to his own) it feels (sometimes) as though they are extra's in the films whereas in The Hobbit (book) they are the protagonists and Bilbo is more a side-character (except for his encounter with Smaug (and He is tattoed on my shoulder) :) . Great rumination, BTW. Congrats. I must add, I'm a linguist (Phd, Middle-English and Chinese). Keep up the good work ! PS: I should add that I speak 6 languages and (as frequent flyer, I always take The Silmarillion and unfinished tales with me when going to The USA/China (I do translate/revise Chinese poetry (check CPJ)) and my tattoo is from Tolkien's original drawing I obtained in Oxford) :) ! ) But anyhow, THANK YOU ! PS2: I am a (retired psychiatric nurse) and just to reiterate: Gandalf (as mentioned by Saruman in LOTR 's mind DULLED by the Hobbit's "Weed", Radagast is more Shaman-like in consuming "Magic Mushrooms" whereas Saruman himself is a paranoid alcoholic) and the animosity between Elves and Dwarves might have been influenced by Tolkien's experience in trench warfare alongside French and English. This just as an aside :) , albeit "subconsciously" because Tolkien denied that his war experience did influence his work (though I do think that Sauron (The German Nation) did play a role as such. Much obliged !!
Remember this was the first book I read in English
I've never even considered the idea that the Arkenstone could be a Silmaril. The pedant in me wants to say "The Silmarils are all accounted for", and they are. But that doesn't mean the Arkenstone can't be one. Maedhros repented of his oath and threw himself and his recovered Silmaril into a fiery chasm. In a magical universe like Tolkien's it's not impossible it could've made it's way to the Lonely Mountain somehow. Not likely, but I wouldn't say impossible.
Andy and Martin better have an outtake in the upcoming Black Panther movie where they start acting like Golum and Bilbo
My previous link was off topic but I thought it would interest you. I really love your ruminations. Keep up the good work. Looking forward to your thoughts on TNG
I generally dislike this trilogy, but wanted so badly for it to be good. I actually enjoyed An Unexpected Journey, and feel that if two and three had been combined it would have cut out most of the padding issues and made these movies closer to being on-par with LotR. Regardless, I enjoyed watching and thanks for the analysis, Lore!
I like how the backstory was there, things mentioned in the silmarillion I think it was about why there was the war between dwarves and goblins
I like the length. I’d rather watch an in depth 10 hour movie than a short and sweet 1 hour one. I feel the same way about 15 minutes reviews versus 1.5 hour reviews it seems, as I adored this.
Eagle Ex Machina. See what I did there?
I am not bothered by the length of them. If I am to be completely blunt though, my issue is that in my opinion, very little of value was added. I found a version that cut the entire trilogy down to 4 hours, and I enjoyed it a lot more, though not enough to say that I loved it. I could go on and on about my feelings on the Hobbit films, but I'll just state it simply. I really wanted to love them. I wanted to so, so very bad. I was, however, very much disappointed with them, especially the third one. I'm glad you enjoy them, and there are absolutely scenes that I love. Bilbo's meeting with Gollum and his meeting with Smaug come to mind. They were absolutely fantastic. Even with that, however, I left the theater with a very similair feeling as I did in regards to the Star Wars prequels. Just made me kind of sad, to be quite frank.
As far as the length goes, you aren't understanding what they did exactly. They took a tiny amount of cream cheese, maybe a full tablespoon, and spread it across both sides of the bagel suuuper thin.
I don't hate these movies. Not even a little bit. But I can see ALL the flaws people talk about, and most of them are justified. The first film had the least amount of flaws. The second had about the same. But the third? The third was FULL of scenes that were drawn out and completely unnecessary. It had a TON of flaws. I still don't hate the movie. Hell I give it a solid 7/10. An actual 7/10. 5 being "not good not bad".
Please don't overly defend these films, especially the 3rd, because people didn't like them. These 3 ruminations won't be as good as they could be if you do.
Edit: Also the CGI was used waaay too much for the 3rd film.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but I just don't understand how you can defend the length and the padding. It seemed so arrogant to me to take a story that is almost perfect in literary terms and try to improve and lengthen it by adding things. It was a money-grubbing effort to capitalize on the success of the LOTR trilogy. It could have been a GREAT single film--instead it's a ponderous and lame attempt to chas in.
I'll just rewatch the 1977 animated one.
Have you done or plan to do a rumination of the Matrix trilogy or at least the first movie?
Yeaaay. Someone else who likes the hobbit movies. Sure don’t me wrong they have flaws but I really loved them. Especially considering all the setbacks and complications they had to overcome.
I Just Finished the Movie You Know what's weird in this movie is that Bilbo was so against going on this Adventure even though Gandalf and the Dwarves tried there hardest to get him to join and he was like No No No you got the Wrong Hobbit, and then the Next Morning he was going after the Dwarves and telling everyone ''I'm going on a Adventure'' why the Sudden change it's just weird.
The eagles take you as far as their complex religion allows, they then instruct through dancing... directions to the misty mountain. The party has +1 initiative and reroll towards endurance checks for the remainder of the day.
Arkenstone is definitely not a silmaril, Tolkien wrote what happened to jewels one into the air, one to the sea the last one into the earth, with the sea and earth jewels being lost forever, Arkenstone is just a beautiful jewel.
Thrór had Durin's ring in his possession, and used to found the Erebor fortune, Sauron couldn't used the seven to control the seven Dwarf Lords, but the rings made them powerful and rich, but had the darkside of making them greedy, and eventually bringing Dragons.
That mostlike Is the reason why Smaug attacked Erebor.
I always felt eagles could only be used (for lack of better word) when all other sources and means ran out, once you could in some way act of yourself, their purpose before you ended, and to use them became a sacrilege (or at least something that would bring on ones immediate destruction)
You're not the only person who is not bothered by the length of the films - I would have been happier if there were six! Thats because I think that the films were really very good because they brought the dwarves to life instead of the cardboard cutouts they were in the book. The focus on Galadriel and Good Saruman made it far more interesting and appropriate especially because it underlines how important Sarumans subsequent corruption by Sauron is via the palantir. That then makes more sense about how Denethor became depressed and careless about readying the defences.
Here's how I would definite the three tiers of being extant.
Survival:. You are a lab rat in a tiny cage, drinking water from a tube and eating the same food pellets every day forever. You have not even the faintest suggestion of control over your life; you are completely at the mercy of the scientist running the lab, who will use you for whatever purpose he sees fit.
Existence: you are a tiger in a habitat at the San Diego Zoo. You have a big natural-seeming area to run around in; you get not only good quality food, but a variety of enrichment items that look and smell and taste interestingly different. You probably don't really mind being gawked at by humans all day; you have a comfortable life with a convincing illusion of freedom, and you need not try very hard. But you're still not free, and the ultimate proof of that is that you don't get to mate unless the zoo decides they're interested in having some tiger cubs. You are not able to thrive and flourish and expand as you see fit; the boundaries of your existence are tightly curtailed.
Living: you are a member of the dominant species in your environment, with all the privileges and responsibilities of such a station.
The Eagles probably don't have Beorn's permission to fly over his territory, and even though this contradicts your points about Mirkwood in the next film, I would say that the skies above Mirkwood are dangerous for the eagles, or at least unpleasant enough that they're unwilling to tolerate it. So that's my explanation for why the eagles don't take them all the way to Erebor.
I genuinely liked the first 2 films... I would have liked them to only be 2 films. It wouldn't have been so bad had they cut down on Legolas more superhero moments... and generally cut down on the violence. The escape in the barrels is one of my favorite scenes in the book, and I didn't like it going from the dwarves being miserably tossed about in the barrels to what 15 minutes of goblin slaughter, and the dwarves were riding the river and fighting in much more graceful manner.
one really interesting thing is, this film is about the Hobbits... it is not on "The Hobbit"... it is a film about Bilbo... in fact, a film that takes a vast amount of other texts, & what can be called Tolkienite Beta-cannon, running really deep with it.... but it totally throws out of the window the concept of The Hobbit as a fairy tale as it was meant to be in-Universe. it is a take, not on the characters as they were seen by Tolkien at the time he wrote the Hobbit, but how he viewed them having completed the story towards the end of his life....
Yes it is long... for The Hobbit! The original, in it's format could not be meaningfully stretched to such a length. but this is about a deeper, much fuller set of characters, with a fuller background. it is how The Hobbit might be told not even by Bilbo, or Sam Gamgee, but by an old and frail Gandalf (who is the master of the work himself...)
away with ye yu pointy eared princess thats got to be one of the best insults ever, i rolled up
6:20 "People tend to forget how many people were pushing for a Hobbit Trilogy. People were like "we need to have a Hobbit film"". I can think of literally nobody who wanted a Hobbit trilogy. Hobbit film yes, Hobbit trilogy no.
The drawers and tellarites are kind of similar they're naturally a more boisterous in confrontation little people but not to be negative it's just their way
IMO i loved these movies, especially the first hobbit movie, it truly felt to me how a DnD campaign would look like on the big screen. I almost could see the dice rolls with some scenes :D
I'll bite, I enjoy the Hobbit Trilogy, but nowhere near as much as LOTR. I also have many more problems with it but I'm not going to write an essay on the matter here. I don't even mind giving the book a tonal shift to make it more in line with the original trilogy, because artistically it makes sense, elsewise it would be very jarring. My heart broke for Ian when he had his near breakdown and thought he was 'done'. I don't blame PJ for how these films turned out in the slightest. In the behind the scenes stuff for film 3 there's a clip where you can just see how exhausted and drained he is. Worth noting, in the book, the dwarves absolutely leave Bilbo with the washing up. I thought the Gollum/Bilbo scene first to give other parts of production time to catch up as they were essentially going by the seat of their pants.
One reason, I think, that the movie starts off slow is it has to establish everything - for people who have read the book, and most importantly - for people who haven't. Sure it's slow for those of us who have read the book, but for someone who hasn't you need that buildup to understand the characters and what is actually going on.
I liked An Unexpected Journey. But I really really did not like The desolation of Smaug. But thats why I cant wait to hear what you like about it and why!
The Vala Varda, hallowed the Silmarils and mortals could not touch them nor would they abide evil. It would not have called Smaug and he would not have slept on it.
i brought the box set, and watched all of them in one go, 9 hours, the next day, i watched the making of the making, and now im watching you, and im 70, so to long ? not long enough, typical hollywood, rush rush rush, wheres the profit gime the money
What was the other dragon that was terrifying?
Smaug's contemporary Scatha the Worm (Cold worms are much smaller, flightless and fire-less), whom was killed by one of the Rohirrim's descendants (can't remember the name of the dude who killed him)
His most literaly analogy is the Urulokí (flightless fire dragon) Glaurung from the Children of Hurin.
Though in stature he is more like a lesser Anchalagon the Black (The largest dragon ever, died at the end of the first age)
Best of the trilogy, and it's all down from here baby.
At the time it didn't feel like the films are too long, however there shouldn't be three of them..
I was ridiculously hyped to go see the first Hobbit movie, and left with a meh + vibe. I was pretty into it for the first half and the rest really fell short on me. I loved Bilbo, but was actually kind of disappointed by Gollum this time around. Not that Andy Serkis did a bad job but I certainly thought his performance in the original trilogy was something very special. The strange thing about this movie, is that I kind of feel that I almost immediately forgot about it after I left the theater that day. I was working on a cruise ship as a jazz musician in a band when the 2nd movie came out in 2013 and I did not have time to see it. When the final one came out in 2014, I went with a friend of mine back home to see it in theaters. We were both fans of the Lord of the Rings movies as well as Tolkien fans, and went in with the agreement that we would only compare it to the original LOTR movies and the previous two Hobbit films. Based on this, we both agreed that we didn't think it was any good at all for many reasons. I guess Ill mention those in two weeks when Lore releases that video.
Nice to see gandalf saruman great friendship.
Nice opening, looks real
cold.
I'm listening to this Rumination in large part so I can decide whether to bother actually watching the Hobbit DVD which I grabbed off my library's shelves. I'm leaning toward it, but I want to hear your opinion.
Still, even if I end up liking the Hobbit as we got it, I'm going to go out right now and say that getting Pacific Rim instead of Del Toro's Hobbit was a good trade. My love for Pacific Rim is impossible to overstate, it's a beautiful and wonderfully affecting film that *isn't* an adaptation or a remake! Whatever we get for Hobbit, I'll take it, instead of complaining that Del Toro went off and did something which is SO much more meaningful to me.
there is something with the fist episodes of trilogies. i always like them the best. and its exactly for the reason of establishing the worlds...
I think an unexpected journey lived up to the original trilogy.
18:35 for direct movie discussion
I think I want to make a one hour long rumination on your rumination, haha.
Looking sharp!
not bothered at all.. you can't tell the story with just one movie - that is actually true for most books brought to the big screen
Galadriel is actually elder than Saruman... at least in earthly form, considering wizards are Maiar.
From another perspective, the wizards are all older than the universe, so...
Scary Dragon: Vermithrax Perjorative from Dragon Slayer?
Nah nah nah. I love long movies. I wish each of the movies were like 10 hours each.
Every dorf know to never trust a filthy elf
have you read the book of lost tales 1? the forward talks about how J.R.R Tolkien would purposely choose not to reveal details like the arkenstone to add depth to the story. I would like to know because the book itself is hard for me to read. books are awesome let's talk about them..👕😎
The only really terrifying dragon i ever saw was Maleficents dragon in the end of Sleeping beauty (1959).
the arkanstone is simply the hart of the mountain and it as not even a chance to be one of the tree silmaril sorry for those who think it could be
sorry but no... Goblins are not thesame as Orcs by Tolkien...
in the Trilogy, the Uruk-Hai, are brought about through the interbreeding of the two, through the work of Sauron, who also, "Buries Orcs & Pulls them out of the Earth"... something we see shown in the movie.
Orcs, however are former Elves, Eldrin totally corrupted, first by the temptations of nature, then transformed by pain and evil into the image of his wish *(2nd chapter of the book of Valaquenta, Silmarillion)
the origin of Goblins is not so clear, though, it is generally thought they are rocks possessed by a corrupted wish to exist outside of the limit placed to them by the Ainur, and granted that wish through the powers of the witch-king... they are not strictly speaking seen as living creatures, though, possessing a life. (Extended Cannon)
This is gold, not unlike all your work
In pertaining to Del Toro... I agree with not being a fan of his directing. I much prefer him in the roll of costume/set designer.
his directing comes off as too vague.
I like his films but there is always something I find to be missing: hellboy and the shape of water I both liked but I feel like they could be a lot better if the pacing was done a bit different.
Love the outfit, extremely professional.=
I hated this portrayal of the trolls, and beyond-hated the Goblin King. Fortunately both were excellent in Rankin Bass. This film focuses instead on getting the dwarves, hobbits, and orcs right, and that's probably the right call.
My biggest issue with this trilogy as a whole - apart from the fact it's 3 films rather than 2 (sorry but it's a common complaint because it's true) - is that it takes all the very Peter Jackson-Middle Earth-ish traits that really worked in the original trilogy and dialed them up to 11 to the point where fantastical became quite frankly just silly and jarring 😔 Also the humour mostly falls flat for me and several of the characters are made clownish and caricature-ish to the point of not being respected as serious characters
I like these movies, I prefer the themes of the books, and you have to forget the books, one can like the adaptation of the setting, to which it is great, just not theme or plot.
and yeah, you look great
I really like them too. I get shit for it all the time haha
My biggest memory of this movie: the rubber dwarves video-gaming their way out of the Misty Mountains.
I love you.
You're not alone in not having a problem with the length of the movies. I've always found it absurd that people who complain about the movies totaling just under nine hours have absolutely no problem with the book totaling eleven hours (as an unabridged audiobook). So, 9 = HORRIBLE AND WAY TOO LONG!!!!! But, if you add 2 more to that 9 = AWESOME BENCHMARK THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD!!!!! Um, okay. Or the related criticism of "but, it's just one book, how can you justify three movies?!" Oh, it's just one book? Well, zip-a-de-fucking-do-da! "Game of Thrones" was just one book and how many hours of episodes did they create from it?
Another thing I'm really tired of hearing is "oh, stretching it out to three movies was just a naked money making attempt (copy, paste, repeat ad infinitum)." There is only one way someone can know that for a fact - they can straight up legitimately read Peter Jackson's mind. If that's the case, then we have the first fully-verified, documentable proof of Human Telepathy. Either that or you all are just full of shit and need to shut the hell up already.
i dont post on youtube much but this is one of the dumbest comments ive ever read. What does the length of the audiobook have to do with anything? How many people who have seen the movies heard the audiobook? less than 1%? This is so nonsensical I cant believe you are a trek fan.
LOTR is 3 books, 3 movies. Hobbit is 1 book, 3 movies. This is the comparison. Not some audio book or TV shows with countless characters and storylines not to mention game of thrones is 4x the length of the hobbit
Im so confused as to what point you are making. Im also confused about who thumbed your post up. One must have been you, thats for certain. Im going back away from the comments section for another few years, see where we are then.
Hmmm.... you don't post on UA-cam much but in this case you just had to in order to insult someone.
Gee, I wonder why UA-cam comments don't have a good reputation.
But, in the interest of fairness, here's my argument again....
"I'm going to spend eleven hours listening to 'The Hobbit'." = most people think that's just fine.
"I'm going to spend nine hours watching 'The Hobbit'." = most people freak out and think it's unacceptably long.
See the problem?
Film should be shorter than audio - particularly an audio book which doesn't even have sound effects to help illustrate what's happening. Even just describing actions, you're doing well to describe them in the same time it takes to do them on screen; when it comes to descriptions, you can spend way more than a thousand words and still not do as much as a 3 second establishing shot.
And, just for perspective, if LotR had had the same words per movie as the Hobbit, it would have been nearer 18 movies long...
Fun fact: Books aren't movies.
Personal time stamp: 40:14
I realy love the hobbit but saddly this is just in some part. I think at some moment peter jakson try to hard in the epic and it's affect the core and the dramatic theme the movie try to acomplish.
Alles metarial like the movies but if I'm being honest I filled could have been better compressed in the two movies I just felt there was too much filler in the second and third
Oh my God I hate people who hate the Hobbit movies.
New uniform hoype!
With ya on most of it. And do appreciate your videos. But, not with you on your views of Copyright. And I'm not sure I'd call what stalled these movies crap. Tolkien's estate, and Christopher Tolkien, who this was literally part of his childhood, should have control over the rights, and should absolutely protect them. Not saying this compares, but if I took your videos, rebranded them, did better SEO, and made more money off them, I'm sure you'd take issue. If Christopher felt WB had taken liberties with his father's works, or felt they weren't treated fairly financially, that is 100% their prerogative, glad they found a middle ground and the movies got made. But not at all against Christopher ever protecting his dad's works.
How it should have ended.