Peter Jackson directed three wonderful adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. With the Hobbit series, he's on the verge of tarnishing that legacy. NEW DISGUISES EP: bit.ly/KaQ03Q
Definitely not PJ's fault. He was pushed into this, given 2 months to write things, and ended up working 20 hour days and sleeping for 4 hours for weeks to try and get the movie out when the studio wanted him to. Dumb love plot between the dwarf and the elf? Not Jackson. That was from the studio. If you watch the behind the scenes footage of him, he is trying desperately to create something decent, and just can't. On the Battle of the Five Armies they started shooting, and at one point it all caught up to Peter. He told everyone to take a long lunch break, and literally sat in the center of the set for the battle and just put his head in his hands. That day he forced the studio to cancel shooting. He apologized to the actors, went back to the drawing board, and remade the Battle of the Five Armies. Ever wondered why the Tolkien-esque moments only shine through at the beginning of "An Unexpected Journey" (the dwarves in Hobbiton, etc.) and at the end of "The Battle of the Five Armies" (Thorin's last words are incredibly Tolkien-like.)? It's because those are the only two spots of any of the Hobbit films that Jackson actually planned for. Blaming the failure and atrociousness of The Hobbit trilogy on Jackson is just plain disrespectful. This man created the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, arguably some of the greatest fantasy films of all time. The Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite movie of all time for sure, with incredible setpieces with unbelievably good planning and execution. Did you know Peter had them construct the Shire *2 years* before they began shooting just because he wanted it to feel old? And despite that he didn't abuse that set, just had it in the background while introducing characters. Peter Jackson is an incredible director, and it's a damn shame that the studio ruined the Hobbit and gave him a bad name.
I wasn't fully aware of how much of the film was PJ's and how much was the studio's bullcrap. Thank you for this because ever since the movies came out I've been so disappointed with PJ but now I'm not, I just feel sorry for him. I agree with you that the very beginning and the very end are the best, but I thought they did the best job they possibly could with the Gollum and Smaug scenes as well.
Doesn't matter. PJ could've easily said no to the bullshit from the studio and left. He was already worth over $200 million at that point, so the money was not an issue. He could've walked, which would've forced the studio have to decide if they were willing to let go of the guy that made the Lord of the Rings films successful to begin with. But PJ didn't do that. So, it's his fault. To quote Stanley Kubrick, "I don't care about the circumstances, it's always the director's fault."
Not actually true. If PJ walked out, there was actually a solid chance that the movies either wouldn't be made or wouldn't have been made in New Zealand, the country that Peter helped so drastically with the LOTR films. Think about all of the people who had already been prepping and working on the Hobbit, people who maybe quit other jobs to work on it or had planned their next few years around it. Think about what would happen to them and NZ as a whole if the movies were canceled. Peter couldn't do that to them and to his home country, so he stayed on. Stanley Kubrick may usually be right, but he's wrong here.
At the end of the day, Jackson was the one in charge. Many past directors have been pressured by studios and executives to take their film in a particular terrible direction, but they stood their ground and made something great. Jackson, in particular, should have had more than enough influence after the colossal success of the LotR trilogy to be able to put his foot down and do things right. Studios are always going to do what they can to make a film more marketable (generally in unfortunate ways). The mark of a great director is they simply know when to say NO.
When you cry more for Theoden's son, a minor character with literally 2 seconds of screen time and zero lines, than you do for Thorin, Fili, and Kili, who are with us for the entire Hobbit trilogy...
I have read the book and watched the Hobbit trilogy many times and still didn't remember that Filli and Killi even though I fully remember Theoden's son scene and his death. This is how true is this statement. Even though I don't have a very strong memory.
I think people get emotional because of theoden's reaction to his sons death, not because of the loss of the son himself. He gets zero screentime so we have zero connection to him. It's just theoden's reaction that is so saddening and well acted.
Nerdwriter messed up. The scene he was thinking about was the scene right before where Theodred is being carried into the mound. It's not deleted either way, it's in the Extended.
At least Peter Jackson admits that he didn't know what he was doing during The Hobbit movies. And I'm sure the decision to make it into three movies was more a choice made by the studio than one of Peter Jackson's.
Thank you. So many people think it's the director's fault but nobody has ever given reason. So often with big budget creations we see creativity being controlled by the ones funding it. I don't know how exactly it goes behind the scenes at Hollywood in those regards so i fully admit that may well be just me projecting my grievances with the games industry onto this :| lol
+PhyreI3ird I'd say that 2015's and 2016's flops showed exactly what you're describing. Broken, inconsistent movies stitched together by the studios that were afraid of giving the director more creative control.
Mattchester I mean, it's the opposite of auteurism. It's a bunch of executives at a boardroom with a checklist of things that should be included in the film for purposes of squeezing out as many dollars as possible. They lack creative visions.
If you guys search up "The Problem with The Battle of the Five Armies" you'll get a glimpse into what he was dealing with at the time. Uncompleted sets, scripts, and planning just made everything terrible and he had to deal with all of it. The video is pretty much the grim behind-the-scenes episode that they didn't put in the video series and shows how miserable he was during the time..
Nomad He was excellent as Bilbo, as was pretty much all of the cast in their respective roles. Unfortunately, the material they have to work with is utter shit.
Wow. Those two minutes. Goose bumps. And I panicked, thinking, I don't want my son to die. And then I realized I don't have a son. Now The Hobbit trilogy sucks even more!
Holy shit, I got chills. I think because it's become so ingrained in the public consciousness, we take the LOTR trilogy for granted nowadays. Such an emotional rollercoaster, it's the perfect cinematic encapsulation of just how awesome a fantasy story can be. ROTK is the movie that made me fall in love with cinema, so it will always have a special place in my heart.
And how much is in that two minutes! The constantly moving, trembling camera always on the edge of turning away from the uncomfortable, awkward view of a man breaking down, who is shaking from crying aswell vs the strong, steady shots of gandalf, the genius use of score, the natural yet toned down and clean colours...cinematography gold
The LOTR is a story about the the end of the world. Of course it going to be overly dramatic and have serious tone. The hobbit is a whimsical adventure and I think Jackson captured it perfectly . I especially enjoyed the film guldur subplot which explain why Gandalf left the company (which does occur in the history of the books). I even loves Tauriel. I think I would have preferred her to have just formed a friendship with Kili over love, however everyone else can accept other people falling in love in a stark fairytale fashion: Aragon and Arwen, Sam and rose, galadriel and Celeborn. I even enjoy the 3 film structure, however. Smaugs death should have been at the end of Desolation. Yes Peter may have Jacksonfied some of the hobbit scenes (such as the barrel sequence) but he did a lot to elevate the story through the development of key characters such as Thranduil and Bard who get little development in the book.
luchadorito I get chills just from reading that. I also find it powerful with a movie where a man is allowed to show his emotions. In a typical Hollywood action he would have bitten the bullet and Arnold the Schwarzenegger out of everything.
BetweenTwo Lungs I'm sorry but I don't agree to some of the things you list. Hobbit trilogy isn't a vimsical adventure. Jackson has tried to make a LotR out of the Hobbit and I think it fails so hard. I see less emotion in the entire trilogy than in the two minute clip in the video above....
Your criticisms are basically all valid, but attributing them to Jackson is highly unfair I feel. The epic amount of behind the scenes content included in the Extended Editions shows a portrait of a man who didn't really want to direct the films, stepping in for another director at a point when there was less than a third of the preparation time of LOTR remaining, then having a studio foist a third movie on him. The man nearly broke himself making those films and they still turned out as a mess, a fact I'm sure he is painfully aware of. I honestly think he did his absolute best; what ruined the films was the unreasonable commercial templates they were required to fit in.
Absolutely agree with this. The producers for this film pulled an "Alien 3." They threw a crappy project on a director genius, and when it inevitably sucked, they all scattered leaving the director alone to explain what was now attributed to being *his* fault when it most assuredly wasn't.
That Theoren scene in the TT is one of many reasons why I believe its the best one in the trilogy. Just my opinion, it's like trying to pick your favorite child. The LOTR as a whole is a masterpiece 👑
Nils Engman The entire thing was also made in a row, as well as based on a single completed story. There aren't really stylistic differences between the movies.
Nils Engman I think nowadays are often quite in-between trying to be their own movie and trying to be part of a whole. I actually think each Lord of the Rings movie can still be described as having a 3 act structure, at least there's plenty going on throughout each movie.
I think you're right. I get confused because I haven't seen the theatrical versions in so long. I think what's deleted is the funeral song sung by Eowyn just before this scene (also beautiful).
Nerdwriter1 I know I'm late to this, but EnderOnIce is correct. The TTT scene *is* in the original theatrical release. It's one of my favorite scenes, partly because Theoden is my favorite LOTR character (so Shakespearean -- a tragic, flawed hero). I actually prefer it without the funeral scene that is in the extended edition, because the funeral and Eowyn's singing interrupt that beautiful cut from Theoden's face, asking where is son is, to the shot of the simbelmynë.
+EnderOnIce i think we should rather call them extended scenes. i mean, like anyone even watches the the theatrical versions anymore. what's the point, lol
iamsaztak Nope, the scene before that one (when eowyn sings the lament at theodred's funeral) is a director's cut scene. This one however is from the theatrical version.
The Hobbit should have been what the book was; a lighthearted adventure story with warriors, monsters, and an unlikely hero. It should have had a different tone and a different scale than Lord of the Rings. Hollywood can't make these kinds of decisions though, because then people would have to think. They would have to separate the story they've seen from this different, but similar story. Nine out of ten people are fucking morons and need everything neat, simple, and predictable.
+Owen McCauley That is what The Hobbit ought to have been. Unfortunately, stories don't generally progress from solemn dramas to light-hearted romps. If the tone evolves at all, it's in the opposite direction because the audience develops more emotional investment in a story, its characters, and/ or its world as they spend more time with it, so ongoing stories typically take advantage of that by upping the drama. Once LOTR was made as a movie, The Hobbit was really off the table as a follow up because it just doesn't work tonally as a prequel to LOTR.
+Owen McCauley The only part of the H trilogy is the beginning in Bilbo's house. It was funny, lighthearted, it felt like a fairytale. The Hobbit should not have been a prequel. It should've been a different story only with occasional hidden hints to the LotR trilogy. And it should've been just a single movie. It's a pitty we'll never see it done again properly :)
+Owen McCauley Wow, such hate, well I enjoyed the hobbit movies. and I disagree with your opinion on them. :P Call me one of those "morons" you are so eager to label other human beings as without consideration for their own arguments to things.
+Owen McCauley I felt like it were best if it were as originally planned: two movies by Guillermo del Toro. Maybe 2 hours each? I suppose he might have been taken off the project because he wanted to turn it into the fairy tale that the Hobbit actually is.
just remember that peter didn't actually want to do the hobbit. del torro was supposed to be the director but he quit so peter stepped in and suddenly was faced with the task of making a huge blockbuster with basically no preparation and preplanning. he just did the best he can with the little time he had. on the LOTR they did 3-4 years of preplanning and setting everything up b4 even starting to shoot. for the hobbit peter had a couple of moths. put on top of that the worse source material and the fact that it not even works as a base to make a huge blockbuster series out of it, and you couldn't hope for a good trilogy. for more background watch "The Problem With The Battle of Five Armies" - bonus material from the blue ray - on youtube where peter and the staff talk about all the problems of the movies and the shoot.
Personally I blame the studio. They wanted a new LOTR trilogy to make the big moneys, where as Del Toro and PJ both knew that there would never be enough material or time to make three huge movies out of it in the timeframe they were offered. They just basically ran out of time and went with what they had, which we now know was not enough. As much as I would've wanted to see Del Toros vision of middle earth, I'm glad he dodged the bullet on this one and simultaneously I feel bad for PJ for getting all the hate and blame. Atleast he tried, I just wish he could've had more time with it and that he didn't have a contract that forced him to make more movies that was possible.
Sorry, you're only offering more damning commentary. That's all the more reason NOT to have bloated the small, self contained Hobbit story into a 3 film epic equal in length to the entire LOTR trilogy. Instead of one great film, he made three bad ones.
Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing? Where is the harp on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing? Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow; The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. Who shall gather the smoke of the deadwood burning, Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?
Tolkien always considered the Silmarillion and the world of Arda and its history to be his main and most important work, and he started writing it years before the Hobbit. The Hobbit was simply a children's book set in the world he had created. Because of that, I think making a 9 hour CGI noise-fest out of it is akin to dragging Tolkien's name through the mud.
Correct, NW. Excellent points. I was disappointed in the Hobbit movies and that nearly broke my heart. Jackson made a film for kids and people who don't like Tolkien in order to sell tickets. The Hobbit is not about dragons and magic rings. It is a story about self discovery. Bilbo didn't ask for that adventure and didn't want it. But when it happened, the hero woke inside him like a sleeping dragon. And that hero shook the pillars of the world. These movies have none of that spirit.
Peter Jackson made the same mistakes that George Lucas made with the prequels: He leaned too heavily on CGI, and he struggled to find the right cinematic tone. The LOTR movies were able to navigate between dark and light, serious and comic. The gravitas felt earned, and it definitely had its epic scope and seriousness down. The comedy had a childlike lightness without being childish. The Hobbit is fundamentally a lighter, children's tale. Peter Jackson simultaneously tried to make it more serious and epic and made the childlike wonder into simple childishness
Tolkien would disagree with you. He would say that The Hobbit is as literally about dragons and magic rings as any story could possibly be. Reading into Tolkien’s work allegorically is a losing battle.
+Given Suman no he said cinematic, thats why he showed the star wars prequels image. His point was LOTR movies > Hobbit movies, Star Wars originals > Star Wars prequels, and he couldnt think of an example where the prequels out shined the originals in a set of movies. X-Men easily fits.
+Giorgi Tsurtsumia I wouldn't call it a true prequel. It's story line doesn't line up exactly with the first three X-men movies without editing large portions of the Phoenix story line that was previously presented. It's more of a reboot than anything else.
I haven’t heard PJs defense of this film as of yet but it’s clear to anyone who loved Lord of the Rings that the Hobbit was not his movie. It was god bloody awful on so many levels. A great Bilbo was the only redeeming factor. Maybe some one will edit it down to the original story because if you look hard enough, it’s all in there!
It improved the story, nobody cares about matching films in the X-men series to atrocities like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In a series that has already broken continuity it's better to break it in ways that make the series better, not worse. That's what first class does.
For me First Class is a part of a reboot trilogy, it had a lot of continuity issues wich were all fixed in Days of Future Past (erasing the original movies plot).
hakasims So... you think the comics have a cohesive continuity? That's pretty much what world shattering event pieces in comics were designed to do. Not fix anything - hit the reset button. I've got no love to lose for Fox as a company, but I don't know why you're hating the player, when you should be hating the game. Even with all the narrative subterfuge Marvel didn't have the basic superficial insight to hire an actor who looks anything like Terrence Howard to play Tony Stark's sidekick. Continuity is an afterthought in big budget superhero films. Even in some TV shows, because Gotham is complete, random bullshit.
hakasims i know this is late, but looking at how marvel is pumping out 3-4 movies a year, each requiring you to have watched the previous one to understand what the hell is actually going on, and disney only halted the plans to have a new star wars every year due to the awful reception of last jedi and solo pandering to mass commercialism in selling toys to innocent kids and fanfictions in order to try and keep everyone happy-which really just made most people very upset. X men needed something new after the disaster of last stand and origins, and they’re not exactly pumping them out ‘every year’, nor are they exactly going for sales figures in toys. Although apocalypse was pretty bad, at least they feel like they have some genuine emotion with them, and important themes in terms of fighting prejudice and accepting who you are. These days I find marvel movies becoming less and less memorable-they’re not bad, they have a few laughs, but they’re extremely safe movies. The self deprecating humour almost acts as a detour from any emotion these movies could have, as if the film is scared to actually show genuine feeling. Instead, let’s just have a funny joke to ruin the emotional integrity of this scene. And tbh, there are only 2 x men timelines-the original x,x2,xls timeline, and the revised timeline starting from dofp, followed up by apocalypse and logan. It’s really not that hard when you think about it, it’s just that the *time* itself moves back and forward due to the wolverine movies starting from the american civil war. Logan and wonder woman were 2 of the most emotionally genuine films I’ve seen in a long time-I laughed, I cried, and I remembered the film. marvel just doesn’t do that for me anymore. And sorry for this random comment lol this just triggered a response
I totally fell for your editing trick, well played. For my part, Doom is my favorite entry in the series, and I think it does give more depth to the character by providing a glimpse of who he was when he was more of a "Mercenary" to borrow Belloq's term.
+Jack Whyte Because as a prequel it plays to the continuing story. If it were stand alone you wouldn't have enough meant to make a full movie and it would be a let down. The back story elements expand on the modern events. Stand alone prequels are telling their own story (and being lesser as a result). Telling the rise of Vito Corleone instead plays juxtaposition to the life of Michael as Don.
Not sure how old you are Dylan, but if you spend you entire life hearing how Godfather I and II are the pinnacle of cinema, I imagine they might be a bit of a letdown when you finally get around to watching them. It's hard for any film(s) to live up to the kind of praise, and later idolatry, those films have received. I'm afraid though I can't help you here as I'm as guilty as most of said idolatry. To me they are simply cinematic masterpieces. Keep this in mind though. Those films, especially Brando's performance, all but invented what we think of today as Italian mafia films and shows. There is no Sopranos without The Godfather.
what about The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, X-Men: First Class and Casino Royale? and if I'm being a bit lenient, Revenge Of The Sith, Puss In Boots, Prometheus and Paranormal Activity 3
Revenge of the Sith is below any of the original movies and it's overrated because of how bad Ep 1 and Ep2 were. Prometheus? You're kidding right? X-Men: First Class is part of a reboot (Days of Future Past erased the originals) and Casino Royale is a remake. The only I can really say that worked as a prequel is the Planet of the Apes movies.
Erm, REALLY lenient on Revenge of the Sith and Prometheus... especially if we're arguing that these prequels improved on the original work. To me, RotS and Prometheus had more of an acidic affect on their pre-existing properties. RotS is one step short of character assassination for Vader. Kickin' Rad Villain to weak-willed whiner is a bit of a down-grade, really.
You are very much right. I am seriously surprised that the the half-sequel/half-prequel style of The Godfather Part II is not imitated more often. It just seems like such a perfect way to extend a story, and yet I can't think of any examples other than this film that do it.
I hesitate to call it a flashback, since de Niro's portion takes up about half the running time and chronicles the life of a character that died in the first film.
That Hobbit video reminded me that I need to rewatch Lord of the Rings again and never watch Hobbit ever again and forget it exists in the same cinematic universe.
Also, Peter Jackson didn't have as much time to plan it out as he did with LOTR. When Del Toro suddenly left the project, Jackson was stuck with trying to fix this mess in a limited amount of time.
I think you missed the most important part: Magic. In both the LotR and The Hobbit you always feel a tower of lore and myths looming above you. Every item, every sentence feels important, mythical. You start in a place where there is nothing magical about it. It's almost dull. But with every line of a poem Bilbo remembers or Sam hears you get the feel of being in an magical heroic world of unseen treasures and wonders. You always feel that there is much much more, even if you don't know anything about Numenor, the Valar or Melkor. You meet ancient beings like Beorn and Tom Bombadil and no one tells you who they are and where they come from. Yes, the only thing of significance in The Hobbit is the finding of the ring, but it happens in a world full of mysteries. Tolkien does that by dropping hundreds of small references and describing details with great importance. It's like walking thorugh a sunken city. The LotR films kinda captured that feeling as well. You get eery elves chanting, shots of swords, TONS of scenery no one explains, namedropping everywhere... The first part of The Hobbit kinda did the same thing but less impressive. But you still felt there being more. The second one did nothing at all. It was all about the stupid action, the love triangle and goofy parts. There was zero time to pause and think about the things you are seeing at the moment, you never ask yourself "who build this, where does that guy come from, what is this fella referencing?". No tension between Bilbo and the dwarves. Besides, the dwarves proof to be excellent fighters, why should they need a Hobbit anyway? Anyways, my point is: Peter Jackson killed the magic, that made Tolkiens books special. In the end both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are nowadays generic, predictable fantasy books. The reason why they are still holding up today is that they manage to create feelings of heroism, myth and importance modern texts don't manage to do. It's more like reading an ancient tale than reading a modern book.
The Dollar Trilogy are 3 completely separate stories, though. They work more as folk tales about this mysterious character that may or may not have happened at some point, similar to the Mad Max franchise.
While I was quite disappointed in the finished product that is the Hobbit Trilogy, I think that it is also important to point out that it wasn't entirely Peter Jackson's fault. Since the studios were slacking off so much, Guillermo Del Toro left the project almost 2 and half years into pre-production, leaving Peter with 6 or so months to try and direct a movie he was not planning to direct in the first place. On top of that, a vast majority of what they created was already in the style of Del Toro, which is very distinct and hard to replicate. Peter was pulling 23 hour days trying to keep up and finally decided they needed to make a third movie, because otherwise it just wasn't possible. This series was supposed to be 2 movies long, but ended up being three with a ton of useless filler (yes, I'm looking at you Tauriel). Again, I am disappointed, especially in comparison to LOTR, but I've grown to like them a little more after thinking about how the Hobbit is supposed to be more fantastical and fun (which is probably why they slated Del Toro). It was a children's story after all, and I think the series captures that fairly well. It amazing that it turned out as well as it did. I just wish Peter would've directed it from the start.
I agree completely, although unintentional on the filmmaker's behalf, the Hobbit films are perhaps best viewed as a light-hearted adventure, similar to the book.
I feel like it’s worth noting that Del Toro probably didn’t quit. If you watch interviews of him talking about it, he actually tends to avoid it, and talks about how the pain of leaving is still really fresh. He seems to have been forced out by the studio
@@teddybeddy123 i suppose you could watch the hobbit trilogy from the perspective of Bilbo heavily exaggerating the retelling of his road trip with a bunch of dwarves to the kids in the Shire. Would definitely explain all the Legolas bits, barrel chase and Radagast theme park ride being shoehorned into the movie - that's just him trying to keep his young audience entertained.
I completely, although with del toro it’s waaay more complicated than that. The studio and peter seemed like they didn’t like the way the film was going or something, and they SAY it was taking to long for him, buuut preproduction with other movies have been WAAAAY longer, and if you look at interviews after he left, he was so deeply troubled and depressed by the whole thing, even comparing leaving to “becoming widowed and then having people ask what happened”. I think peter and the studio wanted another lord of the rings, while del toro wanted THE HOBBIT.... which is completely different tonally and structurally different.
I've never watched any of the Tolkien movies or read the books, but 4:20 scene is heart wrenching. You immediately know something is wrong by the music, then step by step you see the man's grief coming out until he's literally on his knees crying,
I see you're point, and you make it well. But I would argue that you should not be going to see the movie as "a Tolkien superfan", even if it is based on those books. A film is it's own creation, and a very different medium to a book, as well as being a product of many new creators. They have every right to make their own movie, and the fact that is based on something by someone else relegates that source material, in the context of the movie, to just a starting point. You should go see any movie as simply "a person wanting to be entertained, or moved, or made to think, etc". Your disappointment does not come from the film being inherently rubbish (I must say, I enjoyed it and thought it was good) but because of your expectations. I think it best not to bring expectations into a cinema; just popcorn, and judge the piece on its own merit.
I completely agree with you. I enjoyed the deso of smaug quite a bit because it's some of the best world building and creature effects ever created, but unfortunately it's impossible to separate this movie form the lotr trilogy because well, it's the same world and half the same characters and takes place as a prequel, not as it's own individual franchise. With that connection inseparable, I couldn't ignore the terrible dialogue, poorly constructed drama, and goofy action scenes when the lotr did those things so amazingly well. I try to never hate a movie, there are parts to like in every one, those parts just weren't some of them in the hobbit.
Hi Esme - I only ever treat movies as movies, and I never begrudge filmmakers the need to change the source material. But by the criteria of filmmaking, and only filmmaking, The Desolation of Smaug is a piece of shit.
except that in this case we had the expectation that the movies would be correlated with the book in the same way as in the Lord of the rings... so disappointment is somewhat justified.
ProfessorBorax Ok, I'll give that to you. There does have to be a basic correlation. And I did want the feeling of Toklien's legendarium, but I would still be OK with even major narrative alterations.
Nerdwriter1 Narrative alteration is fine, the problem was they took all the liberties in the wrong directions. Obviously they were going to change the hobbit a lot to make it work as a movie, but instead of altering it to be more compelling, they dumbed down the dialogue and created hollow characters, added a cliche romance, and overdid the cg action spectacle to the point where it was no longer spectacular and just dull. Did I enjoy it in the theater? Yes. But that is the problem with a lot of blockbusters these days imo, they wow you with the experience, but have no replay-ability. I will likely never watch this at home since the rest of the movie doesn't hold up without the theater spectacle. Same problem I had with gravity and Star Trek. Now if you're just going for the experience like it is a theme park attraction, then arguably there is nothing wrong here. But for fans of cinema and good stories there certainly is.
Prequels in book form can enrich the series, but that's different. Because we're on the topic of children's fantasy, The Magician's Nephew added a lot to the story of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Wtf, Marvel has more grounded characters than you think. All have humanity in them, not like dc (inevitable comparison), that, in the other hand, have god-like characters with humanity around them.
Those two minutes are very much a part of the film. And what lines up the characters future choices. Non the less, an incredible scene that gives a concentrated drop if pain and reality.
Oh c'mon, Unexpected Journey, mediocre as it is, has at least TWO things going for it: 1) It's actually about Bilbo a fair amount of the time. 2) The Riddles in the Dark scene is legitimately well done. Desolation of Smaug, on the other hand... yeah, total garbage.
I so agree with the emotional content of the scene from TTT. And the music only makes it better. I get chills everytime i hear the oboe and how the choir gently takes over until a trumpet makes a final eulogy...this scene is sublime. This one and Elrond's visions of Aragorn's death are probably my favourite scenes from the entire franchise.
We should have an open debate, if half a film in a sequel contains events that precede the existing work but doesn't focus on the events occurring before the original narrative, Should it be considered a prequel?
What has saved them for me is finding out that Jackson had to step in to direct at the last minute and had to start the process all over. He had 2-3 years preproduction for LOTR and basically 6 months for Hobbit. DelToro backed out around May 2010. Jackson stepped in the next month and had to reboot preproduction with principal photog starting March 2011. So he was playing catch up the whole time!
I think the CG is what really ruined the hobbit films. way too much of it, and it just took me out of the plot and I was constantly reminded I was watching a movie.. so I didn't feel like I was watching this stuff go on around me, rather, I was just watching a screen with fake, albeit pretty, landscapes and characters.
CGI is the reason I dislike most modern day movies, there are plenty of reasons why I dispise the sequels of both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings but I think the main one is the abuse of CGI it happened to me exactly the same I couldn´t get into the films
CG itself is usually not the problem, but the how it is used and how well implemented. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy also has a lot of CG elements, but we don't complain much about the CG even though it's over a decade old. I think the issue with The Hobbit has more to do with Peter Jackson's obsession with film technology as a whole. As shown in this video he had a much higher focus on the narrative aspect of filmmaking in LOTR. The Hobbit has no use of 48 frames per second (creatively and narratively speaking), yet he decided to use it. Even though miniature set pieces worked wonders back in the days, he went with green screen studios today. The Lord Of The Rings is clearly a work of love for both the material and the craft. The Hobbit feels like a chance to explore new film technology and venture into romantic days long since past, forgetting what made them good. The Lord Of The Rings needed three films to be told in a respected manner. The Hobbit was not given the same treatment as it is dragged out extra hours instead of made to proper length in regards to the source material. All in all I don't think it's all about the use of CG, but the way the filmmaker use his tools in general in reflection of the story he's trying to tell.
They could have used CGI properly with the Hobbit, if they would have used it to make the movie look like a fantasy story, kinda like what Pan's Labyrinth did. What ruined the movies for me personally was how they mixed the light hearted humor for kids and the epic war stuff. Needless to say the result is a non-working clusterfuck.
+Jonas Eikrem I think that 48 fps makes everything look more like it is. So all the wonderful landscapes look more like the actual landscapes. Things like the wind going through the leaves or hair can look really cool specifically. But it also means that costumes will look more like costumes, sets will look more like sets and CGI will look more like CGI.
I think the biggest problem is that the Hobbit movies just don't succeed as either a movie version of the book, but also not as something to live up to the original Lord of the Rings movie.
*cough* Xmen Origins: Wolverine *cough* (I agree though, they're mostly ok. So glad the timeline was fixed in the most recent one, so Deadpool can work properly.)
what really hit me from that deleted scene, and not a lot 'bothers' me in modern film, was the almost "fourth wall breaking" that Theoden performs: "no parent should have to bury their child". it doesn't matter if you are in middle earth or the real world, that fact still holds true...
"The Halls of your father's", is a line that if put in the Hobbit would say "The Halls of Mandos". The Lord of the Rings holds back on certain names and places to not seem bloated. In the Hobbit the cram in as much lore as possible that the non-Tolkien audiences don't understand, and thus render it useless.
Minor gripe: Those two minutes of The Two Towers were not deleted. They were included in the theatrical version. The couple of minutes just prior to these which show the funeral are included in the extended edition, but cut from the theatrical.
The Hobbit films aren't perfect. They're not even great. But I don't think they're bad or inconsistent with Tolkien's lore of Middle-Earth. You know what is inconsistent with the lore of of Middle-Earth though? Well. The Hobbit book. And this is something that Tolkien himself felt when he set about writing The Lord of the Rings, enough so that he actually revised the book as it's first version actively contradicted the concept of Rings. Fun fact for those who don't know: the Riddles in the Dark chapter was originally completely different. In it, Gollum actually wagers the Ring in the game of riddles and is actually very cooperative. However, this is not the version that most readers know. And in this revision also came other things. For example, we get casual name drops to the Necromancer/Sauron as Tolkien did have that story in mind. Ultimately, from what we know, Tolkien actually intended a massive overhaul of The Hobbit to come after publication of the Silmarillion that would include all of the content from the Appendices which happened concurrently (e.g. the White Council, Battle of Dol Guldur, Thrain's return etc.). Now, what's in dispute is what became of this rewrite. Some have said that Tolkien eventually gave up on the idea. Others suggest that it was still meant to happen, however as we know Tolkien actually died before completing the Silmarillion and his son Christopher stepped in to put some finishing touches on it to make it fit for publication. But Chris was only able to do that because the majority of that book was already written. However, the third revision of The Hobbit was still in it's infancy. So essentially, what Jackson attempted to do was what Tolkien himself attempted to do: reconcile The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings both in terms of tone and the overall significance of it's story. But did Jackson succeed? I'm not sure of the best way to word my answer there. "Meh"? Perhaps? Or maybe that answer can be best summed up by a wibbly-wobbly hand gesture. I think the problem Jackson encountered (besides the chaotic and rushed production) was attempting to reconcile the raised stakes of the third revision content while also trying to capture the lighthearted tone of the original story. It lead to certain moments coming off as very silly. And I definitely feel like they were just too pressed for time and weren't able to put the same level of love into the film as they did with the Rings trilogy. This lead to them using CG as a crutch whereas before they would have had more in camera effects. Not that there weren't great practical effects, mind you. Just not as great as what we'd seen before. But there were some true gems to be found in those movies. Gollum's cameo. Smaug. Radagast. I felt Thorin's journey to be compelling. In fact, I like how all of the thirteen dwarves were now all identifiable as distinct characters. Even like Azog's inclusion. In fact, the whole Azanulbizar sequence. Howard Shore's score, again. Although there were a few parts of that which baffled me; like why did he suddenly drop the Misty Mountain theme, which was the theme for the Company, after film one while the company was still intact? Also, WHY THE FUCKING FUCK DID THE NAZGUL THEME COME UP DURING THORIN'S FACEOFF WITH AZOG? Honestly I have fond memories of The Hobbit movie. I may be in the minority there, but that's just how I feel.
About the nazgul theme during Thorin vs Azog, the Nazgul were once men/kings who ended up being corrupted, right? Who amassed power, wealth, etc, but ended up losing themselves as it were, right? Since Thorin is himself a prince/king, maybe the nazgul theme represents him giving in to his own selfish desires, prioritizing his own lust for vengeance over the well-being of his comrades? In this sense, the appearance of the nazgul theme foreshadows his downward slide once they take back the lonely mountain, his greed, his dragon sickness and so on. The only complaint I have is that, if this was the case, Shore doesn't really follow up on this idea. I can't remember the nazgul theme making another appearance.
I won't say that you're entirely wrong! Most of what I didn't like about LT were the Master and Alfrid's scenes. Like I thought some of the humor there was just like the lowest hanging fruit, ya know?
Good point, but it doesn't change the fact that it DID NOT NEED TO BE IN 3 PARTS!! The plagued production aside, the Hobbit still won't have worked as a trilogy... Bridging Hobbit with LOTR is something ONLY Tolkien had the right to do and ONLY HE could do it. The Hobbit is a lighthearted tale of self-discovery, a coming-of-age feel runs through the narrative. There's not enough richness to merit a bridge to LOTR, let alone merit 3 parts
That I just can't agree with. I think for the sake of cinematic consistency, mining the Appendices was necessary and even still, The Hobbit is a very dense book on its own. And there's a lot in the Hobbit that is not contextualized directly (keep in mind that Tolkien originally envisioned the Hobbit as being completely separate from Middle-Earth and all connections to that universe were made retroactively). My issues with the Hobbit are mostly technical and critiques of its execution on some part. I honestly don't think that just a completely straight and disconnected adaption would have worked; the tonal differences I think would have been to jarring to serve as proper set up to the LOTR films.
In relation to the Trilogy movies, The Hobbit shoehorned in so much stuff the actual story seemed pushed to the side. It's like he got to the third installment and thought, "Oh yeah, Bilbo is supposed to face a Smaug. Let's work that in somehow." He did the story a grave injustice.
Just to clear the air, the above sequence *is* in the theatrical edition and is thus in the extended edition as well. The deleted scene he's probably thinking of is the funeral procession that precedes this scene, in which Eowyn sings an epitaph for her cousin.
I fully agree and even go further. The movie reminds me of Eragon, a film where pretty much every sentence evokes some kind of irritation due to its lack of motivation in the story or because it so extremely flat that it is foreseeable long before. Both hobbit movies have so many inconsistencies that I could hardly believe it was made by the same people: In so many scenes things happen that are just not logic or utterly impossible: Bombur jumps into a previously non existing barrel, the city is ice cold but to the north there is not even snow anymore, the dragon being so eloquent in the first minutes turns stupid moments later during the unnecessary and totally random fight with the dwarves. Meanwhile orcs are rampaging through the city which just before had full surveilance. Too many things just don't fit and it's so sad because the book gives more than enough content for maybe even four movies. The best scenes from the book have been cut to a few eye blinks, creating a void that was filled by a) scenes that are mentioned by Tolkien somewhere (that's ok), b) with action scenes (might be ok) and c) fillers that justify some weird added content (not ok at all). On top, many visual effects seemed unpolished, partly unfinished. The Hobbit 2 was not only a bad Tolkien film adaptation but also a bad one in general. Disappointing in so many ways and yes, you're right, poop all the way.
You nailed it with that scene at the end. The one crucial difference between LOTR and The Hobbit is that the latter lacks soul. I simply did not care about any of the characters and none of them were fleshed out decently (while they had lots of time to do so). The only guy who plays his part with feeling is Martin Freeman. The worst thing about The Hobbit Trilogy is that it made me spot the weak links in the first trilogy as well. I can’t now unsee the typical Jackson clichés in LOTR because of their overabundance in the Hobbit: excessive use of slow motion for no reason, stupid comic relief, the inability to write original dialogue that doesn’t feel forced… He turned from a well respected director into a second Michael Bay, with all his shitty CGI.
It was still okay in LOTR (less so now that I saw his later movies), but it's completely overdone in The Hobbit, and it was absolutely ridiculous in some parts of his King Kong movie. He literally made Adrien Brody type "Skull Island" letter by letter on a typewriter in slow motion. I laughed out loud during that part.
PJ's "downfall" if you want to call it began with Two Towers when he started to use more and more greenscreen instead on real location at least that's what Viggo Mortensen said. And I peronally despise what PJ did with the Gimli in the later LotR-movies, he turned him into a comic relief character. Having said all of that, I still think all three LotR are masterpieces. The Hobbit trilogy is complete garbage, totally ignoring the heart of the book and trying to be something it's not supposed to be.
JAL90 I don't get the greenscreen argument in this case. What does it matter if the visual effects are good, even pretty much flawless? I second the notion that The Hobbit relied too much on the stuff, even if it did look flawless in parts. But the notion that The Lord of the Rings made too many uses of greenscreen and CGI is utter nonsense in my mind. The Lord of the Rings is not over abundant with CG; it's effective, efficient and greater filmmaking.
+Nils While there probably wasn't another way to shoot the battle for Minas Tirith, you can see how much more CGI he uses in RotK compared to FotR. Both are still fantastic movies though. Now compare the battle of the five armies with for example the battle for helm's deep. It looks like a video game. There is none of the tension, not of the emotion on the faces of the people waiting and none of the buildup. The Hobbit movies simply don't have the magic LOTR had, and were purely made for the money, by a director who was forced into making them and didn't get the time to make them great. In hindsight, I'm going to say this is primarily the studio's fault, and not Jackson's. He just got dealt a horrible hand.
Spartacus: Blood and sand has a successful and rewarding prequel: Gods of the arena. Full of great acting, intense plots and free from notable compromise.
Oh god, please do this, Ford. Everything that's wrong with the Hobbit movies is matched with excellence in LOTR. And yes, in my opinion, the extended editions are the only editions worth watching.
One of the things I will remember fondly from 2016 is how _Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_ might be the prequel you are looking for. Four films to go but at least the first installment is decent and told its story without over-reliance to "pre-weight".
Forgive me for not having seen them, but are they set before the events of the first movie? I thought the Godfather was a chronological story with no prequel...(yet)
Jesus, I can't believe how far I have taken this, I hope you're ready. I'm still undecided on whether or not this could be rightfully considered a prequel. by definition a prequel is: "a work which precedes that of a previous work, by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative" - Suggesting the entirety of the work needs to take place prior to the original work, this is a contentious issue though I now realise. A scene in a movie which takes place prior the main events of the story would traditionally be called a "flashback sequence", so which of the two terms better fits in with the Godfather Part 2? I decided to look into this some more and from what I can tell, Godfather part 2 rides a fine line between being a prequel and a sequel... Yes, it's apparently both. I found a forum titled "Is Godfather Part II the only film that is both a prequel and a sequel?" Here's some interesting and funny posts I found: "I don't think I've ever seen another movie that follows a preceding film and is basically telling two separate, but thematically-related stories that are occurring decades apart like you see in The Godfather Part II. Kind of amazing if you think about it - you'd think someone would have stolen that concept by now. " Later, somebody actually tried to work out mathematically how much of "prequel" it is: "The Godfather II was, very roughly, about 1/3 prequel and 2/3 sequel" The conversation then devolves into a argumentative discussion about how Back to the Future 3 is set before the previous two stories, thus being a prequel by definition too, but because in the main time line they chronological- -Actually forget it. THE FILM IS ABOUT TIME TRAVEL. .... So I wont even bother.
I don't disagree with you, but was "The Hobbit" not more of a children's/young adult story? I see no reason why the films should not match this tone. "The Lord of the Rings" was more of an adult story with adult themes: war, death, persistance, will. While these new films feel like something of a parody of "The Lord of the Rings", I can't say they're all together bad. I'd wager a guess and say that you'd amped your expectations due to your love for LotR, and I don't blame you. I'm sorry you didn't like the movie, but I'm happy that you're making vlogs again.
Fun With Currency Hmm, sort of. I do think they are supposed to be part of the same canon though, despite the character inconsistencies. Like how X-men Origins: Wolverine was part of the canon of the orig trig, even though the Sabretooth from X1 and Wolverine had nothing in common. I think it's sort of a principle of, whatever was released most recently supersedes earlier releases, like the Qu'ran
Another part of this is the behind the scenes production level of what was going on. Jackson was brought onto after Guillermo del Toro left due to the project being extremely taxing. Jackson was given nearly the same due date del Toro had, and the behind the scenes (which can be found on youtube) shows just how excessively stressful everything was. They were using props that were just finished being made, CGI was used in a lot of scenes because they didn't have time for "bigatures", there was a lot of negative vibes on set because of how demanding the situation was. Given enough time I think Jackson or del Toro could have made a brilliant film and Jackson only stayed on because he knew no one could do it better than him given those constraints and his love for the world. The Hobbit is definitely lacking in comparison to the original trilogy, but I would never go as far as to blame Jackson for it. The man without any doubt has love for the world of Middle-earth.
I agree, that the movie did lack sustenance for lack of a better word. But it's understandable. The Hobbit was on a much smaller scale that Peter Jackson felt the need to elaborate and connect the dots. The Hobbit was originally meant for small children, infact Tolkien intended it for children at age 6. But Jackson knew he was catering for a larger and more broad audience. Trying to put the same wonder and oomph into a movie that a relished tale that millions of people read as a child, that created such a euphoric feeling and immersion to a completely knew world, it makes an incredible amount of work. And for a movie to try to create life and feeling into characters such as the 13 dwarves in just over 3 hours, as well as our main protagonist and a few other namely people, from a book that merely described them as "wearing different coloured cloaks", It's that sense of nostalgia that is unbreakable and never achievable in any form of media, that is stopping this film from being as grand as the LOTR. Jackson had incredible difficulties in the writing and production of The Hobbit, He had only a year of preparation for The Hobbit, due to the original Directer Guillermo Del Toro's departure two years into production. To say The Hobbit is no where near as good as the originals is correct, and there would be no possible way for Jackson to make it the same or better. And The Hobbit trilogy is by no way a bad set of films, nor are they even not good. And for a film they provide structure, humour and entertainment whilst still on a strict set of guidelines and trying to exceed the mass hype and expectations. For the most part, it was never going to happen. And if you though that The Hobbit was going to be as good as LOTR your are the failure in the films success. If this film was watched as a clean slate, without expectation or knowledge of what happens next, it would be perceived as a generally good film.
I think the cast of Bilbo was a big mistake. He's supposed to be jolly and fat and laugh a lot. This guy was good in sherlock Holmes, but as Bilbo he kept the same character and it doesn't fit at all...
Nerdwriter1 No they just chose the wrong guy. I wonder if you'll like this: www.dropbox.com/sh/e4f756ulswjx0mc/pzq2W0MTCt I think it's brilliant, almost know it all off by heart ^^
Something I never noticed about the deleted LotR scene you hold up as powerful (I agree). While the king mourns his son, all Gandalf can offer, with all his wisdom, are meaningless platitudes. There are some pains that cannot be assuaged with mere words and this scene shows that.
I really like the Hobbit trilogy. I think the 3 movies work in whole as an adventure story. Each movie keeps its focus on Bilbo by using his love of and longing for home as its emotional core. This is why I cared about what happened to him and around him even when he wasn't directly involved in some things. The overarching theme of a place one calls home juxtaposed with others long lost home which they want to reclaim is easy to miss or gloss over especially when one is too focused on some of the movies' moving parts as if they are what matter the most. The Hobbit trilogy is about one's home with all its comforts and pleasures. Bilbo reluctantly leaves his beloved home and goes on an epic adventure no hobbit has ever gone on that's about helping others who long since lost their home to evil forces both of an internal(arrogance/greed) and external(dragon/orcs) nature. The movies are a mix of the silly, lighthearted, serious as well as gleefully child-like fun. They are more than just about Bilbo as Bilbo himself in his narration at the beginning makes clear. You're analysis misses the mark somewhat.
"The Good the Bad and the Ugly" was a prequel to "Fistfull of Dollars" and "A Few Dollars More." It only loosely ties into the other movies, which is probably why it works so well as its own film.
Nice catch. I don't think it's precisely the kind of prequel I was talking about (being so loosely connected to the narrative of the other films), but I'm so in love with the Dollars trilogy (and everything Leone has done), that I'll give it to you.
I recently watched the LOtR director's cut for the first time. I didn't like the 9 hour version much, but this... they cut so much! It's a completely different movie. No pacing issues, no noticable plotholes (at least I didn't notice), SO MUCH MORE LORE and character development... ugh... no use fanboying, but I really liked it.
Prequel that is better than the initial story: To Kill a Mockingbird. Harper Lee had originally written the events of "Go Set a Watchmen" but upon advice from her editor put it on a back shelf. "To kill a Mockingbird" with young Scout and Atticus Finch is its prequel.
Monsters University is the closest thing that comes to my mind right now that is a prequel which is either as good or better than the first. I was really impressed about how they went about that film.
Well, I mean, it does depend on your viewpoint. I think Monsters Inc. is in my top 3 of all pixar movies (which is saying a lot, because PIXAR), so it's a little hard to beat it for me. I was frankly disappointed in Monsters University. Maybe that's just because I hold the original in such high regard that it colors my view significantly. I really want to watch it again sometime, because it was released like, two, three years ago now I think? It's very fuzzy in my memory now. How time flies.
I don't have a film example of prequels done right. Neither is it anything made in the west but the anime/novel Fate Zero which is a prequel to Fate Stay Night is arguably even better then it's original. You should take a look at them if you ever have time
I can't express how much I appreciate finding this channel recently. As a film student, listening to these kinds of intellectually analytical videos is a great way of exploring ideas and dissecting how these creative works are put together. I don't just mean his videos on film, but art on in general.
Damn you. Damn you! Those last 2 minutes have a zillion times more pathos than the entire 7.5 hours of the Hobbits, and now I've got a headache and the sniffles because I can't watch that scene without crying. Damn you!
The Hobbit inadvertently undermines everything that made LoTR so epic and moving and breathtaking. I mean, come on, the scene between Gandalf and the Balrog is so epic because this is like the confrontation of all confrontations, and we are grounded in its reality. I know that PJ isn’t to blame for the Hobbit movies. He freakn’ went down fighting, what a legend. I’m still so incredibly grateful for putting LoTR on film in such a moving, powerful, poignant fashion.
+Olov Svedjeland Ödlund You must be kidding. Red Dragon was shit. It was also a remake of the vastly superior Manhunter which predated Silence of the Lambs and which was itself not focused on Hannibal Lector so its not really a prequel.
having seen the 3rd installment, I would say it is the most disappointing movie I have seen in my lifetime. and with expectations low going in, that is saying something.
+Ned Jeffery to be perfectly fair to the team behind it, they were under immense pressure and didn't have enough time to prepare. Still, that is absolutely no excuse for some of the worst writing and direction I've ever seen in a blockbuster.
+Thomas Alvarez if it's on HBO or Netflix and I got time I'll watch. But I won't pay for it. You say my loss but if it's anything like the first two I'm fine missing it. The Hobbit was my favorite book and I was disappointed in the films.
man that scene with Theoden gets me all the time. the actor conveys the anguish so perfectly
after seeing this in real life it just made me appreciate the scene and actors even more
Chills and moist eyes, every fucking time.
Bernard Hill is an excellent Actor, underappreciated in my opinion.
My eyes literally hurt
"No parent should have to bury their child"
Definitely not PJ's fault. He was pushed into this, given 2 months to write things, and ended up working 20 hour days and sleeping for 4 hours for weeks to try and get the movie out when the studio wanted him to. Dumb love plot between the dwarf and the elf? Not Jackson. That was from the studio. If you watch the behind the scenes footage of him, he is trying desperately to create something decent, and just can't. On the Battle of the Five Armies they started shooting, and at one point it all caught up to Peter. He told everyone to take a long lunch break, and literally sat in the center of the set for the battle and just put his head in his hands.
That day he forced the studio to cancel shooting. He apologized to the actors, went back to the drawing board, and remade the Battle of the Five Armies. Ever wondered why the Tolkien-esque moments only shine through at the beginning of "An Unexpected Journey" (the dwarves in Hobbiton, etc.) and at the end of "The Battle of the Five Armies" (Thorin's last words are incredibly Tolkien-like.)? It's because those are the only two spots of any of the Hobbit films that Jackson actually planned for.
Blaming the failure and atrociousness of The Hobbit trilogy on Jackson is just plain disrespectful. This man created the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, arguably some of the greatest fantasy films of all time. The Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite movie of all time for sure, with incredible setpieces with unbelievably good planning and execution. Did you know Peter had them construct the Shire *2 years* before they began shooting just because he wanted it to feel old? And despite that he didn't abuse that set, just had it in the background while introducing characters. Peter Jackson is an incredible director, and it's a damn shame that the studio ruined the Hobbit and gave him a bad name.
I wasn't fully aware of how much of the film was PJ's and how much was the studio's bullcrap. Thank you for this because ever since the movies came out I've been so disappointed with PJ but now I'm not, I just feel sorry for him. I agree with you that the very beginning and the very end are the best, but I thought they did the best job they possibly could with the Gollum and Smaug scenes as well.
Doesn't matter. PJ could've easily said no to the bullshit from the studio and left. He was already worth over $200 million at that point, so the money was not an issue. He could've walked, which would've forced the studio have to decide if they were willing to let go of the guy that made the Lord of the Rings films successful to begin with.
But PJ didn't do that. So, it's his fault. To quote Stanley Kubrick, "I don't care about the circumstances, it's always the director's fault."
Not actually true. If PJ walked out, there was actually a solid chance that the movies either wouldn't be made or wouldn't have been made in New Zealand, the country that Peter helped so drastically with the LOTR films.
Think about all of the people who had already been prepping and working on the Hobbit, people who maybe quit other jobs to work on it or had planned their next few years around it. Think about what would happen to them and NZ as a whole if the movies were canceled. Peter couldn't do that to them and to his home country, so he stayed on.
Stanley Kubrick may usually be right, but he's wrong here.
Hi Liam, I completely agree with your assessment.
At the end of the day, Jackson was the one in charge. Many past directors have been pressured by studios and executives to take their film in a particular terrible direction, but they stood their ground and made something great. Jackson, in particular, should have had more than enough influence after the colossal success of the LotR trilogy to be able to put his foot down and do things right. Studios are always going to do what they can to make a film more marketable (generally in unfortunate ways). The mark of a great director is they simply know when to say NO.
When you cry more for Theoden's son, a minor character with literally 2 seconds of screen time and zero lines, than you do for Thorin, Fili, and Kili, who are with us for the entire Hobbit trilogy...
I have read the book and watched the Hobbit trilogy many times and still didn't remember that Filli and Killi even though I fully remember Theoden's son scene and his death. This is how true is this statement. Even though I don't have a very strong memory.
I think people get emotional because of theoden's reaction to his sons death, not because of the loss of the son himself. He gets zero screentime so we have zero connection to him. It's just theoden's reaction that is so saddening and well acted.
I didn't even realize that scene was cut i must have always watched the extended version
It was not cut, it is in the Theatrical and Extended versions.
Nerdwriter messed up. The scene he was thinking about was the scene right before where Theodred is being carried into the mound. It's not deleted either way, it's in the Extended.
At least Peter Jackson admits that he didn't know what he was doing during The Hobbit movies. And I'm sure the decision to make it into three movies was more a choice made by the studio than one of Peter Jackson's.
"Think up a story" - consider what you just said.
Thank you. So many people think it's the director's fault but nobody has ever given reason. So often with big budget creations we see creativity being controlled by the ones funding it. I don't know how exactly it goes behind the scenes at Hollywood in those regards so i fully admit that may well be just me projecting my grievances with the games industry onto this :| lol
+PhyreI3ird I'd say that 2015's and 2016's flops showed exactly what you're describing. Broken, inconsistent movies stitched together by the studios that were afraid of giving the director more creative control.
Mattchester I mean, it's the opposite of auteurism. It's a bunch of executives at a boardroom with a checklist of things that should be included in the film for purposes of squeezing out as many dollars as possible. They lack creative visions.
If you guys search up "The Problem with The Battle of the Five Armies" you'll get a glimpse into what he was dealing with at the time. Uncompleted sets, scripts, and planning just made everything terrible and he had to deal with all of it. The video is pretty much the grim behind-the-scenes episode that they didn't put in the video series and shows how miserable he was during the time..
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Trilogy
"Unwanted trilogy"
Disappointed Triology
Unexpected Failure
LMBO
Pacific Rim was an excellent prequel to Toy Story.
Say what
Yeah I agree
Not as good as the Titan trilogy which consisted of Remember the Titans, Clash of Titans and Attack on Titan
Sans Andreas is the worst. Barely connected to any Gran Theft Auto.
@@SkyreeXScalabar Can't forget the spinoff, Titanic
"Good prequel? Better Call Saul!"
You have to admit Martin Freeman was a pretty great Bilbo.
He was barley there it was all about obnoxious thorin dickface and lord of the references
Nomad He was excellent as Bilbo, as was pretty much all of the cast in their respective roles. Unfortunately, the material they have to work with is utter shit.
Nomad You Are Correct
No, you really don’t
He was the best thing in those movies. Too bad he got relegated to being an extra in his own movie at the end.
Wow. Those two minutes. Goose bumps. And I panicked, thinking, I don't want my son to die. And then I realized I don't have a son. Now The Hobbit trilogy sucks even more!
Holy shit, I got chills. I think because it's become so ingrained in the public consciousness, we take the LOTR trilogy for granted nowadays. Such an emotional rollercoaster, it's the perfect cinematic encapsulation of just how awesome a fantasy story can be. ROTK is the movie that made me fall in love with cinema, so it will always have a special place in my heart.
And how much is in that two minutes! The constantly moving, trembling camera always on the edge of turning away from the uncomfortable, awkward view of a man breaking down, who is shaking from crying aswell vs the strong, steady shots of gandalf, the genius use of score, the natural yet toned down and clean colours...cinematography gold
The LOTR is a story about the the end of the world. Of course it going to be overly dramatic and have serious tone. The hobbit is a whimsical adventure and I think Jackson captured it perfectly . I especially enjoyed the film guldur subplot which explain why Gandalf left the company (which does occur in the history of the books). I even loves Tauriel. I think I would have preferred her to have just formed a friendship with Kili over love, however everyone else can accept other people falling in love in a stark fairytale fashion: Aragon and Arwen, Sam and rose, galadriel and Celeborn. I even enjoy the 3 film structure, however. Smaugs death should have been at the end of Desolation. Yes Peter may have Jacksonfied some of the hobbit scenes (such as the barrel sequence) but he did a lot to elevate the story through the development of key characters such as Thranduil and Bard who get little development in the book.
luchadorito I get chills just from reading that. I also find it powerful with a movie where a man is allowed to show his emotions. In a typical Hollywood action he would have bitten the bullet and Arnold the Schwarzenegger out of everything.
BetweenTwo Lungs I'm sorry but I don't agree to some of the things you list. Hobbit trilogy isn't a vimsical adventure. Jackson has tried to make a LotR out of the Hobbit and I think it fails so hard. I see less emotion in the entire trilogy than in the two minute clip in the video above....
Your criticisms are basically all valid, but attributing them to Jackson is highly unfair I feel. The epic amount of behind the scenes content included in the Extended Editions shows a portrait of a man who didn't really want to direct the films, stepping in for another director at a point when there was less than a third of the preparation time of LOTR remaining, then having a studio foist a third movie on him. The man nearly broke himself making those films and they still turned out as a mess, a fact I'm sure he is painfully aware of. I honestly think he did his absolute best; what ruined the films was the unreasonable commercial templates they were required to fit in.
Absolutely agree with this. The producers for this film pulled an "Alien 3." They threw a crappy project on a director genius, and when it inevitably sucked, they all scattered leaving the director alone to explain what was now attributed to being *his* fault when it most assuredly wasn't.
That Theoren scene in the TT is one of many reasons why I believe its the best one in the trilogy. Just my opinion, it's like trying to pick your favorite child. The LOTR as a whole is a masterpiece 👑
It does feel like one gigantic movie. It was also pretty much made as one.
PauLtus B I'd say it's the most consistently good trilogy in existence, from what I've seen. All three are masterpieces.
Nils Engman
The entire thing was also made in a row, as well as based on a single completed story.
There aren't really stylistic differences between the movies.
PauLtus B It's really just one. Not to say that I don't love trilogies were each subsequent part is more of a standalone as opposed to Act 1 of 3.
Nils Engman
I think nowadays are often quite in-between trying to be their own movie and trying to be part of a whole.
I actually think each Lord of the Rings movie can still be described as having a 3 act structure, at least there's plenty going on throughout each movie.
That clip you showed from The Two Towers wasn't deleted... it was in the original film...
I think you're right. I get confused because I haven't seen the theatrical versions in so long. I think what's deleted is the funeral song sung by Eowyn just before this scene (also beautiful).
Nerdwriter1 I know I'm late to this, but EnderOnIce is correct. The TTT scene *is* in the original theatrical release. It's one of my favorite scenes, partly because Theoden is my favorite LOTR character (so Shakespearean -- a tragic, flawed hero). I actually prefer it without the funeral scene that is in the extended edition, because the funeral and Eowyn's singing interrupt that beautiful cut from Theoden's face, asking where is son is, to the shot of the simbelmynë.
+EnderOnIce i think we should rather call them extended scenes. i mean, like anyone even watches the the theatrical versions anymore. what's the point, lol
+EnderOnIce I'm pretty sure it was part of the directors cut/extended version, not the original release.
iamsaztak Nope, the scene before that one (when eowyn sings the lament at theodred's funeral) is a director's cut scene. This one however is from the theatrical version.
The Hobbit should have been what the book was; a lighthearted adventure story with warriors, monsters, and an unlikely hero. It should have had a different tone and a different scale than Lord of the Rings. Hollywood can't make these kinds of decisions though, because then people would have to think. They would have to separate the story they've seen from this different, but similar story. Nine out of ten people are fucking morons and need everything neat, simple, and predictable.
+Owen McCauley That is what The Hobbit ought to have been. Unfortunately, stories don't generally progress from solemn dramas to light-hearted romps. If the tone evolves at all, it's in the opposite direction because the audience develops more emotional investment in a story, its characters, and/ or its world as they spend more time with it, so ongoing stories typically take advantage of that by upping the drama. Once LOTR was made as a movie, The Hobbit was really off the table as a follow up because it just doesn't work tonally as a prequel to LOTR.
+Owen McCauley The only part of the H trilogy is the beginning in Bilbo's house. It was funny, lighthearted, it felt like a fairytale. The Hobbit should not have been a prequel. It should've been a different story only with occasional hidden hints to the LotR trilogy. And it should've been just a single movie. It's a pitty we'll never see it done again properly :)
+Owen McCauley Wow, such hate, well I enjoyed the hobbit movies. and I disagree with your opinion on them. :P Call me one of those "morons" you are so eager to label other human beings as without consideration for their own arguments to things.
Thurston Lhast I don't know if I'd call it hate. Cynicism, yes, but not hate.
+Owen McCauley I felt like it were best if it were as originally planned: two movies by Guillermo del Toro. Maybe 2 hours each? I suppose he might have been taken off the project because he wanted to turn it into the fairy tale that the Hobbit actually is.
That LOTR scene totally made me wanna watch the trilogy again. Something that no scene from the Hobbit will ever achieve.
just remember that peter didn't actually want to do the hobbit. del torro was supposed to be the director but he quit so peter stepped in and suddenly was faced with the task of making a huge blockbuster with basically no preparation and preplanning. he just did the best he can with the little time he had. on the LOTR they did 3-4 years of preplanning and setting everything up b4 even starting to shoot. for the hobbit peter had a couple of moths. put on top of that the worse source material and the fact that it not even works as a base to make a huge blockbuster series out of it, and you couldn't hope for a good trilogy.
for more background watch "The Problem With The Battle of Five Armies" - bonus material from the blue ray - on youtube where peter and the staff talk about all the problems of the movies and the shoot.
Roman R Kubrick only had a few butterflies to get ready for Eyes Wide Shut.
Yeah, it's that Benicio del Toro guys is fault!
Yeah, it's still PJs fault
Personally I blame the studio. They wanted a new LOTR trilogy to make the big moneys, where as Del Toro and PJ both knew that there would never be enough material or time to make three huge movies out of it in the timeframe they were offered. They just basically ran out of time and went with what they had, which we now know was not enough. As much as I would've wanted to see Del Toros vision of middle earth, I'm glad he dodged the bullet on this one and simultaneously I feel bad for PJ for getting all the hate and blame. Atleast he tried, I just wish he could've had more time with it and that he didn't have a contract that forced him to make more movies that was possible.
Sorry, you're only offering more damning commentary. That's all the more reason NOT to have bloated the small, self contained Hobbit story into a 3 film epic equal in length to the entire LOTR trilogy. Instead of one great film, he made three bad ones.
Better Caul Saul is a great prequel
+Ole Per Øyan one of my favorite shows so far
Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the harp on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the deadwood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?
+Dennis Reynolds thank you Dennis, that was beautiful.
+Dennis Reynolds Aahhhh, shivers
+Dennis Reynolds Hwar crom mearg? Hwar cwom mago?
Hwar cwom mathumgyfa?
Hwar cwom seledreamas?
Hwar sindon gesetu?
Eala beorcht buna!
Eala byrnwiga!
Eala theodnes thrym!
+Dennis Reynolds
Thanks for the reminder, Tokien could drive me to tears with simply his prose.
too soon :(
"It's also a small, self-contained book" Yes. Thank you.
Tolkien always considered the Silmarillion and the world of Arda and its history to be his main and most important work, and he started writing it years before the Hobbit. The Hobbit was simply a children's book set in the world he had created. Because of that, I think making a 9 hour CGI noise-fest out of it is akin to dragging Tolkien's name through the mud.
Correct, NW. Excellent points.
I was disappointed in the Hobbit movies and that nearly broke my heart. Jackson made a film for kids and people who don't like Tolkien in order to sell tickets.
The Hobbit is not about dragons and magic rings. It is a story about self discovery. Bilbo didn't ask for that adventure and didn't want it. But when it happened, the hero woke inside him like a sleeping dragon. And that hero shook the pillars of the world.
These movies have none of that spirit.
You are so right, A.T. The extent of character development in both Hobbit movies is Bilbo saying, "I found...my courage." Terrible.
But The Hobbit is a kids book,...
Peter Jackson made the same mistakes that George Lucas made with the prequels: He leaned too heavily on CGI, and he struggled to find the right cinematic tone. The LOTR movies were able to navigate between dark and light, serious and comic. The gravitas felt earned, and it definitely had its epic scope and seriousness down. The comedy had a childlike lightness without being childish. The Hobbit is fundamentally a lighter, children's tale. Peter Jackson simultaneously tried to make it more serious and epic and made the childlike wonder into simple childishness
the hobbit was a childrens book
what do you expect
Tolkien would disagree with you. He would say that The Hobbit is as literally about dragons and magic rings as any story could possibly be.
Reading into Tolkien’s work allegorically is a losing battle.
X-men first class
+Given Suman no he said cinematic, thats why he showed the star wars prequels image. His point was LOTR movies > Hobbit movies, Star Wars originals > Star Wars prequels, and he couldnt think of an example where the prequels out shined the originals in a set of movies. X-Men easily fits.
+Giorgi Tsurtsumia thats a good one!
+Giorgi Tsurtsumia nobody likes X-men... x-men dont even like x-men..
+Giorgi Tsurtsumia I wouldn't call it a true prequel. It's story line doesn't line up exactly with the first three X-men movies without editing large portions of the Phoenix story line that was previously presented. It's more of a reboot than anything else.
Agreed! The last three have been better than the first three in story writing, dialoguing, overall directing, editing, and character developing.
I haven’t heard PJs defense of this film as of yet but it’s clear to anyone who loved Lord of the Rings that the Hobbit was not his movie. It was god bloody awful on so many levels. A great Bilbo was the only redeeming factor. Maybe some one will edit it down to the original story because if you look hard enough, it’s all in there!
X men first class was a good prequel
It improved the story, nobody cares about matching films in the X-men series to atrocities like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In a series that has already broken continuity it's better to break it in ways that make the series better, not worse. That's what first class does.
For me First Class is a part of a reboot trilogy, it had a lot of continuity issues wich were all fixed in Days of Future Past (erasing the original movies plot).
hakasims
So... you think the comics have a cohesive continuity? That's pretty much what world shattering event pieces in comics were designed to do. Not fix anything - hit the reset button. I've got no love to lose for Fox as a company, but I don't know why you're hating the player, when you should be hating the game. Even with all the narrative subterfuge Marvel didn't have the basic superficial insight to hire an actor who looks anything like Terrence Howard to play Tony Stark's sidekick. Continuity is an afterthought in big budget superhero films. Even in some TV shows, because Gotham is complete, random bullshit.
hakasims Oh you'll let it slide? The arrogance.
hakasims i know this is late, but looking at how marvel is pumping out 3-4 movies a year, each requiring you to have watched the previous one to understand what the hell is actually going on, and disney only halted the plans to have a new star wars every year due to the awful reception of last jedi and solo pandering to mass commercialism in selling toys to innocent kids and fanfictions in order to try and keep everyone happy-which really just made most people very upset. X men needed something new after the disaster of last stand and origins, and they’re not exactly pumping them out ‘every year’, nor are they exactly going for sales figures in toys. Although apocalypse was pretty bad, at least they feel like they have some genuine emotion with them, and important themes in terms of fighting prejudice and accepting who you are. These days I find marvel movies becoming less and less memorable-they’re not bad, they have a few laughs, but they’re extremely safe movies. The self deprecating humour almost acts as a detour from any emotion these movies could have, as if the film is scared to actually show genuine feeling. Instead, let’s just have a funny joke to ruin the emotional integrity of this scene. And tbh, there are only 2 x men timelines-the original x,x2,xls timeline, and the revised timeline starting from dofp, followed up by apocalypse and logan. It’s really not that hard when you think about it, it’s just that the *time* itself moves back and forward due to the wolverine movies starting from the american civil war. Logan and wonder woman were 2 of the most emotionally genuine films I’ve seen in a long time-I laughed, I cried, and I remembered the film. marvel just doesn’t do that for me anymore. And sorry for this random comment lol this just triggered a response
Godfather 2. De Niro marks the Corleone family with an early vigour that sprouts to become the believable empire of the first movie
The only problem is that GF part 2 is not exactly a prequel. Vito's origin is the minority of the film compared to The Godfather.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Nah, I'm just playing.
What about the Hangover 2? So Original.
Is that a prequel?
I totally fell for your editing trick, well played. For my part, Doom is my favorite entry in the series, and I think it does give more depth to the character by providing a glimpse of who he was when he was more of a "Mercenary" to borrow Belloq's term.
Godfather 2 was half prequel, half sequel.
+notbobby125 Godfather II came to mind for me when he challenged us for a good sequel as well
+Jack Whyte Because as a prequel it plays to the continuing story. If it were stand alone you wouldn't have enough meant to make a full movie and it would be a let down. The back story elements expand on the modern events.
Stand alone prequels are telling their own story (and being lesser as a result). Telling the rise of Vito Corleone instead plays juxtaposition to the life of Michael as Don.
+notbobby125 Well technically, the prequel bits in the godfather 2 is in the original book
notbobby125 I've never read Lord of the rings, but I read and watched the hobbit and I liked the book and movies
Not sure how old you are Dylan, but if you spend you entire life hearing how Godfather I and II are the pinnacle of cinema, I imagine they might be a bit of a letdown when you finally get around to watching them. It's hard for any film(s) to live up to the kind of praise, and later idolatry, those films have received. I'm afraid though I can't help you here as I'm as guilty as most of said idolatry. To me they are simply cinematic masterpieces.
Keep this in mind though. Those films, especially Brando's performance, all but invented what we think of today as Italian mafia films and shows. There is no Sopranos without The Godfather.
The Godfather Part II is the only time a prequel has worked.
Ainsley Harriott And really that was adapted from the book and it was also spliced in with the sequel story that was written for the movie.
what about The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, X-Men: First Class and Casino Royale?
and if I'm being a bit lenient, Revenge Of The Sith, Puss In Boots, Prometheus and Paranormal Activity 3
Revenge of the Sith is below any of the original movies and it's overrated because of how bad Ep 1 and Ep2 were. Prometheus? You're kidding right? X-Men: First Class is part of a reboot (Days of Future Past erased the originals) and Casino Royale is a remake.
The only I can really say that worked as a prequel is the Planet of the Apes movies.
And the Godfather Part 2 is a sequel with flashbacks scenes.
Erm, REALLY lenient on Revenge of the Sith and Prometheus... especially if we're arguing that these prequels improved on the original work. To me, RotS and Prometheus had more of an acidic affect on their pre-existing properties. RotS is one step short of character assassination for Vader. Kickin' Rad Villain to weak-willed whiner is a bit of a down-grade, really.
Wow I watery eyes from that Théoden scene. Incredible acting, dialogue, music and cinematography all blended perfectly
The Godfather Part II is half-prequel, so that counts toward redeeming this sort of film.
You are very much right. I am seriously surprised that the the half-sequel/half-prequel style of The Godfather Part II is not imitated more often. It just seems like such a perfect way to extend a story, and yet I can't think of any examples other than this film that do it.
+Rosa Night You beat me to it. De Niro as Vito Corleone was for me the highlight of the trilogy.
good call, but wouldn't it technically a flash back ?
I hesitate to call it a flashback, since de Niro's portion takes up about half the running time and chronicles the life of a character that died in the first film.
Rosa Night Oh yeah, I forgot Brando had died.
damn that theoden and gandalf scene is powerful when you consider we didn't even meet the Dead prince of rohan
At least Hobbit series brought us the "I see fire" song. I'm grateful for that, masterpiece.
That Hobbit video reminded me that I need to rewatch Lord of the Rings again and never watch Hobbit ever again and forget it exists in the same cinematic universe.
Also, Peter Jackson didn't have as much time to plan it out as he did with LOTR. When Del Toro suddenly left the project, Jackson was stuck with trying to fix this mess in a limited amount of time.
+NegativePleasure I felt sorry for Jackson and Del Toro has a a bit of a habit of dropping out of movies.
I think you missed the most important part:
Magic. In both the LotR and The Hobbit you always feel a tower of lore and myths looming above you. Every item, every sentence feels important, mythical. You start in a place where there is nothing magical about it. It's almost dull. But with every line of a poem Bilbo remembers or Sam hears you get the feel of being in an magical heroic world of unseen treasures and wonders. You always feel that there is much much more, even if you don't know anything about Numenor, the Valar or Melkor. You meet ancient beings like Beorn and Tom Bombadil and no one tells you who they are and where they come from. Yes, the only thing of significance in The Hobbit is the finding of the ring, but it happens in a world full of mysteries. Tolkien does that by dropping hundreds of small references and describing details with great importance. It's like walking thorugh a sunken city.
The LotR films kinda captured that feeling as well. You get eery elves chanting, shots of swords, TONS of scenery no one explains, namedropping everywhere...
The first part of The Hobbit kinda did the same thing but less impressive. But you still felt there being more. The second one did nothing at all. It was all about the stupid action, the love triangle and goofy parts. There was zero time to pause and think about the things you are seeing at the moment, you never ask yourself "who build this, where does that guy come from, what is this fella referencing?". No tension between Bilbo and the dwarves. Besides, the dwarves proof to be excellent fighters, why should they need a Hobbit anyway?
Anyways, my point is: Peter Jackson killed the magic, that made Tolkiens books special. In the end both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are nowadays generic, predictable fantasy books. The reason why they are still holding up today is that they manage to create feelings of heroism, myth and importance modern texts don't manage to do. It's more like reading an ancient tale than reading a modern book.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly
futurestoryteller not sure if the poncho bit totally qualifies it as a prequel...
Samuel Pérez García
Really now...
Samuel Pérez García It came out after but was set before the other movies
The Dollar Trilogy are 3 completely separate stories, though. They work more as folk tales about this mysterious character that may or may not have happened at some point, similar to the Mad Max franchise.
Mattchester except that there is a timeline
While I was quite disappointed in the finished product that is the Hobbit Trilogy, I think that it is also important to point out that it wasn't entirely Peter Jackson's fault. Since the studios were slacking off so much, Guillermo Del Toro left the project almost 2 and half years into pre-production, leaving Peter with 6 or so months to try and direct a movie he was not planning to direct in the first place. On top of that, a vast majority of what they created was already in the style of Del Toro, which is very distinct and hard to replicate. Peter was pulling 23 hour days trying to keep up and finally decided they needed to make a third movie, because otherwise it just wasn't possible. This series was supposed to be 2 movies long, but ended up being three with a ton of useless filler (yes, I'm looking at you Tauriel).
Again, I am disappointed, especially in comparison to LOTR, but I've grown to like them a little more after thinking about how the Hobbit is supposed to be more fantastical and fun (which is probably why they slated Del Toro). It was a children's story after all, and I think the series captures that fairly well. It amazing that it turned out as well as it did. I just wish Peter would've directed it from the start.
I agree completely, although unintentional on the filmmaker's behalf, the Hobbit films are perhaps best viewed as a light-hearted adventure, similar to the book.
I feel like it’s worth noting that Del Toro probably didn’t quit. If you watch interviews of him talking about it, he actually tends to avoid it, and talks about how the pain of leaving is still really fresh. He seems to have been forced out by the studio
@@teddybeddy123 i suppose you could watch the hobbit trilogy from the perspective of Bilbo heavily exaggerating the retelling of his road trip with a bunch of dwarves to the kids in the Shire. Would definitely explain all the Legolas bits, barrel chase and Radagast theme park ride being shoehorned into the movie - that's just him trying to keep his young audience entertained.
I completely, although with del toro it’s waaay more complicated than that. The studio and peter seemed like they didn’t like the way the film was going or something, and they SAY it was taking to long for him, buuut preproduction with other movies have been WAAAAY longer, and if you look at interviews after he left, he was so deeply troubled and depressed by the whole thing, even comparing leaving to “becoming widowed and then having people ask what happened”. I think peter and the studio wanted another lord of the rings, while del toro wanted THE HOBBIT.... which is completely different tonally and structurally different.
Of Peter Jackson directed it from the beginning it would be way better
SO true! These two minutes made me shiver compared to the whole Hobbit series.
I've never watched any of the Tolkien movies or read the books, but 4:20 scene is heart wrenching.
You immediately know something is wrong by the music, then step by step you see the man's grief coming out until he's literally on his knees crying,
Those last 2 minutes.... Now I need to whip open my extended editions again and have a good watch!
The worst part is that it's been over ten years since Lord of the Rings. People would have been fine with a smaller scale for this movie.
I see you're point, and you make it well. But I would argue that you should not be going to see the movie as "a Tolkien superfan", even if it is based on those books.
A film is it's own creation, and a very different medium to a book, as well as being a product of many new creators. They have every right to make their own movie, and the fact that is based on something by someone else relegates that source material, in the context of the movie, to just a starting point.
You should go see any movie as simply "a person wanting to be entertained, or moved, or made to think, etc". Your disappointment does not come from the film being inherently rubbish (I must say, I enjoyed it and thought it was good) but because of your expectations. I think it best not to bring expectations into a cinema; just popcorn, and judge the piece on its own merit.
I completely agree with you. I enjoyed the deso of smaug quite a bit because it's some of the best world building and creature effects ever created, but unfortunately it's impossible to separate this movie form the lotr trilogy because well, it's the same world and half the same characters and takes place as a prequel, not as it's own individual franchise. With that connection inseparable, I couldn't ignore the terrible dialogue, poorly constructed drama, and goofy action scenes when the lotr did those things so amazingly well. I try to never hate a movie, there are parts to like in every one, those parts just weren't some of them in the hobbit.
Hi Esme - I only ever treat movies as movies, and I never begrudge filmmakers the need to change the source material. But by the criteria of filmmaking, and only filmmaking, The Desolation of Smaug is a piece of shit.
except that in this case we had the expectation that the movies would be correlated with the book in the same way as in the Lord of the rings... so disappointment is somewhat justified.
ProfessorBorax Ok, I'll give that to you. There does have to be a basic correlation. And I did want the feeling of Toklien's legendarium, but I would still be OK with even major narrative alterations.
Nerdwriter1 Narrative alteration is fine, the problem was they took all the liberties in the wrong directions. Obviously they were going to change the hobbit a lot to make it work as a movie, but instead of altering it to be more compelling, they dumbed down the dialogue and created hollow characters, added a cliche romance, and overdid the cg action spectacle to the point where it was no longer spectacular and just dull. Did I enjoy it in the theater? Yes. But that is the problem with a lot of blockbusters these days imo, they wow you with the experience, but have no replay-ability. I will likely never watch this at home since the rest of the movie doesn't hold up without the theater spectacle. Same problem I had with gravity and Star Trek. Now if you're just going for the experience like it is a theme park attraction, then arguably there is nothing wrong here. But for fans of cinema and good stories there certainly is.
Prequels in book form can enrich the series, but that's different. Because we're on the topic of children's fantasy, The Magician's Nephew added a lot to the story of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
And is soooo awesome.
You're a fan of Tolkeeeeeeeen?
No, it's Tokeee-an. And it's Smaaayyy-uuuaaahhhg. Or is it Smaaauuughhuug?
I'm a big fan of J.B.B. Trollkenning, and the dragon Smajagoogoo was an iconic creation!
X-Men First Class was pretty good.
better than the first... ill give you that.
X-Men is boring
Yeah, Marvel and their non-realistic, no depth having, overy heroic plots bore me.
Wtf, Marvel has more grounded characters than you think. All have humanity in them, not like dc (inevitable comparison), that, in the other hand, have god-like characters with humanity around them.
To be fair, First Class is so removed from the first three X-men movies, that it's almost a reboot.
SUPER LATE COMMENT but The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is in a way a prequel and considered the best Leone "Man With No Name" film by many.
Nerdwriter is gonna a field day with what Amazon is cooking 😂
Those two minutes are very much a part of the film. And what lines up the characters future choices. Non the less, an incredible scene that gives a concentrated drop if pain and reality.
Does this guy looks a bit like John Krasinski to anyone else?
More like Joseph Fiennes. Matter of fact he looks almost identical to him.
+Tate Hildyard I think he is John Krasinski! *giggles*
+Tate Hildyard He reminds me of Liam Hemsworth
+Dr Tarantism I was just thinking that
He's Sean Maher with a little of the above mixed in.
Oh c'mon, Unexpected Journey, mediocre as it is, has at least TWO things going for it:
1) It's actually about Bilbo a fair amount of the time.
2) The Riddles in the Dark scene is legitimately well done.
Desolation of Smaug, on the other hand... yeah, total garbage.
god that scene was powerful
I so agree with the emotional content of the scene from TTT. And the music only makes it better. I get chills everytime i hear the oboe and how the choir gently takes over until a trumpet makes a final eulogy...this scene is sublime. This one and Elrond's visions of Aragorn's death are probably my favourite scenes from the entire franchise.
Freaking preach it, you beautiful man.
there is no equal to the soundtrack of Lord of the Rings... Goddamn!
Karthik Gurumurthy i agree!!
Karthik Gurumurthy indeed.
DURRRUUUU DUUUU dun dun dun.
Star Wars music gets me the same way
Star Wars edges it out for me
Prequels that improves story? Godfather 2, Indiana jones temple of doom, good bad and ugly, gods and generals, mask of zorro.
We should have an open debate, if half a film in a sequel contains events that precede the existing work but doesn't focus on the events occurring before the original narrative, Should it be considered a prequel?
Temple of doom may have been set before Raiders but I wouldn't consider it a prequel.
Godfather 2 is both a sequel and a prequel. I loved the prequel part more.
What has saved them for me is finding out that Jackson had to step in to direct at the last minute and had to start the process all over. He had 2-3 years preproduction for LOTR and basically 6 months for Hobbit. DelToro backed out around May 2010. Jackson stepped in the next month and had to reboot preproduction with principal photog starting March 2011. So he was playing catch up the whole time!
I think the CG is what really ruined the hobbit films. way too much of it, and it just took me out of the plot and I was constantly reminded I was watching a movie.. so I didn't feel like I was watching this stuff go on around me, rather, I was just watching a screen with fake, albeit pretty, landscapes and characters.
CGI is the reason I dislike most modern day movies, there are plenty of reasons why I dispise the sequels of both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings but I think the main one is the abuse of CGI it happened to me exactly the same I couldn´t get into the films
CG itself is usually not the problem, but the how it is used and how well implemented. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy also has a lot of CG elements, but we don't complain much about the CG even though it's over a decade old. I think the issue with The Hobbit has more to do with Peter Jackson's obsession with film technology as a whole.
As shown in this video he had a much higher focus on the narrative aspect of filmmaking in LOTR. The Hobbit has no use of 48 frames per second (creatively and narratively speaking), yet he decided to use it. Even though miniature set pieces worked wonders back in the days, he went with green screen studios today.
The Lord Of The Rings is clearly a work of love for both the material and the craft. The Hobbit feels like a chance to explore new film technology and venture into romantic days long since past, forgetting what made them good. The Lord Of The Rings needed three films to be told in a respected manner. The Hobbit was not given the same treatment as it is dragged out extra hours instead of made to proper length in regards to the source material.
All in all I don't think it's all about the use of CG, but the way the filmmaker use his tools in general in reflection of the story he's trying to tell.
They could have used CGI properly with the Hobbit, if they would have used it to make the movie look like a fantasy story, kinda like what Pan's Labyrinth did.
What ruined the movies for me personally was how they mixed the light hearted humor for kids and the epic war stuff. Needless to say the result is a non-working clusterfuck.
+Jonas Eikrem I think that 48 fps makes everything look more like it is. So all the wonderful landscapes look more like the actual landscapes. Things like the wind going through the leaves or hair can look really cool specifically. But it also means that costumes will look more like costumes, sets will look more like sets and CGI will look more like CGI.
I think the biggest problem is that the Hobbit movies just don't succeed as either a movie version of the book, but also not as something to live up to the original Lord of the Rings movie.
X-Men First Class
Mike Mecek oh hell yes!
+Mike Mecek x-men origins though...
+Mike Mecek You took my answer!!!
*cough* Xmen Origins: Wolverine *cough*
(I agree though, they're mostly ok. So glad the timeline was fixed in the most recent one, so Deadpool can work properly.)
The Godfather Part 2 is a Prequel/Sequel
what really hit me from that deleted scene, and not a lot 'bothers' me in modern film, was the almost "fourth wall breaking" that Theoden performs: "no parent should have to bury their child". it doesn't matter if you are in middle earth or the real world, that fact still holds true...
I love how the best part of a video on The Hobbit is two minutes from The Two Towers
"The Halls of your father's", is a line that if put in the Hobbit would say "The Halls of Mandos".
The Lord of the Rings holds back on certain names and places to not seem bloated. In the Hobbit the cram in as much lore as possible that the non-Tolkien audiences don't understand, and thus render it useless.
What the hell, man? How could you just slip that scene in there with no warning?? I wasn't ready. Jesus.
Alas, that these evil days should be mine!
Nerdwriter1 Quality. Has to be my most fave scene :)
Nerdwriter1 Stop it. I'm crying D:
Minor gripe: Those two minutes of The Two Towers were not deleted. They were included in the theatrical version. The couple of minutes just prior to these which show the funeral are included in the extended edition, but cut from the theatrical.
Better Call Saul is the best example of prequel done right.
The Hobbit films aren't perfect. They're not even great. But I don't think they're bad or inconsistent with Tolkien's lore of Middle-Earth. You know what is inconsistent with the lore of of Middle-Earth though? Well. The Hobbit book. And this is something that Tolkien himself felt when he set about writing The Lord of the Rings, enough so that he actually revised the book as it's first version actively contradicted the concept of Rings. Fun fact for those who don't know: the Riddles in the Dark chapter was originally completely different. In it, Gollum actually wagers the Ring in the game of riddles and is actually very cooperative. However, this is not the version that most readers know. And in this revision also came other things. For example, we get casual name drops to the Necromancer/Sauron as Tolkien did have that story in mind. Ultimately, from what we know, Tolkien actually intended a massive overhaul of The Hobbit to come after publication of the Silmarillion that would include all of the content from the Appendices which happened concurrently (e.g. the White Council, Battle of Dol Guldur, Thrain's return etc.). Now, what's in dispute is what became of this rewrite. Some have said that Tolkien eventually gave up on the idea. Others suggest that it was still meant to happen, however as we know Tolkien actually died before completing the Silmarillion and his son Christopher stepped in to put some finishing touches on it to make it fit for publication. But Chris was only able to do that because the majority of that book was already written. However, the third revision of The Hobbit was still in it's infancy. So essentially, what Jackson attempted to do was what Tolkien himself attempted to do: reconcile The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings both in terms of tone and the overall significance of it's story.
But did Jackson succeed? I'm not sure of the best way to word my answer there. "Meh"? Perhaps? Or maybe that answer can be best summed up by a wibbly-wobbly hand gesture. I think the problem Jackson encountered (besides the chaotic and rushed production) was attempting to reconcile the raised stakes of the third revision content while also trying to capture the lighthearted tone of the original story. It lead to certain moments coming off as very silly. And I definitely feel like they were just too pressed for time and weren't able to put the same level of love into the film as they did with the Rings trilogy. This lead to them using CG as a crutch whereas before they would have had more in camera effects. Not that there weren't great practical effects, mind you. Just not as great as what we'd seen before. But there were some true gems to be found in those movies. Gollum's cameo. Smaug. Radagast. I felt Thorin's journey to be compelling. In fact, I like how all of the thirteen dwarves were now all identifiable as distinct characters. Even like Azog's inclusion. In fact, the whole Azanulbizar sequence. Howard Shore's score, again. Although there were a few parts of that which baffled me; like why did he suddenly drop the Misty Mountain theme, which was the theme for the Company, after film one while the company was still intact? Also, WHY THE FUCKING FUCK DID THE NAZGUL THEME COME UP DURING THORIN'S FACEOFF WITH AZOG?
Honestly I have fond memories of The Hobbit movie. I may be in the minority there, but that's just how I feel.
About the nazgul theme during Thorin vs Azog, the Nazgul were once men/kings who ended up being corrupted, right? Who amassed power, wealth, etc, but ended up losing themselves as it were, right? Since Thorin is himself a prince/king, maybe the nazgul theme represents him giving in to his own selfish desires, prioritizing his own lust for vengeance over the well-being of his comrades? In this sense, the appearance of the nazgul theme foreshadows his downward slide once they take back the lonely mountain, his greed, his dragon sickness and so on.
The only complaint I have is that, if this was the case, Shore doesn't really follow up on this idea. I can't remember the nazgul theme making another appearance.
Well, it somehow managed to rush good parts of the book to add more bullshit in Laketown.
I won't say that you're entirely wrong! Most of what I didn't like about LT were the Master and Alfrid's scenes. Like I thought some of the humor there was just like the lowest hanging fruit, ya know?
Good point, but it doesn't change the fact that it DID NOT NEED TO BE IN 3 PARTS!! The plagued production aside, the Hobbit still won't have worked as a trilogy... Bridging Hobbit with LOTR is something ONLY Tolkien had the right to do and ONLY HE could do it. The Hobbit is a lighthearted tale of self-discovery, a coming-of-age feel runs through the narrative. There's not enough richness to merit a bridge to LOTR, let alone merit 3 parts
That I just can't agree with. I think for the sake of cinematic consistency, mining the Appendices was necessary and even still, The Hobbit is a very dense book on its own. And there's a lot in the Hobbit that is not contextualized directly (keep in mind that Tolkien originally envisioned the Hobbit as being completely separate from Middle-Earth and all connections to that universe were made retroactively). My issues with the Hobbit are mostly technical and critiques of its execution on some part. I honestly don't think that just a completely straight and disconnected adaption would have worked; the tonal differences I think would have been to jarring to serve as proper set up to the LOTR films.
The Godfather II was a prequel and a sequel.
And at least the equal of the first.
In relation to the Trilogy movies, The Hobbit shoehorned in so much stuff the actual story seemed pushed to the side. It's like he got to the third installment and thought, "Oh yeah, Bilbo is supposed to face a Smaug. Let's work that in somehow." He did the story a grave injustice.
Those were deleted minutes? I watched the lord of the rings on DVD and they included those minutes.
Yes, they were not deleted.
They're from the extended edition
Jebact Every scene that is in the original movie is also in the extended, so yeah, it is. It is also in the original cut, i watched it 3 days ago.
Just to clear the air, the above sequence *is* in the theatrical edition and is thus in the extended edition as well.
The deleted scene he's probably thinking of is the funeral procession that precedes this scene, in which Eowyn sings an epitaph for her cousin.
Who even watches Theatrical releases though? What's the point? XD
I fully agree and even go further. The movie reminds me of Eragon, a film where pretty much every sentence evokes some kind of irritation due to its lack of motivation in the story or because it so extremely flat that it is foreseeable long before. Both hobbit movies have so many inconsistencies that I could hardly believe it was made by the same people:
In so many scenes things happen that are just not logic or utterly impossible: Bombur jumps into a previously non existing barrel, the city is ice cold but to the north there is not even snow anymore, the dragon being so eloquent in the first minutes turns stupid moments later during the unnecessary and totally random fight with the dwarves. Meanwhile orcs are rampaging through the city which just before had full surveilance.
Too many things just don't fit and it's so sad because the book gives more than enough content for maybe even four movies.
The best scenes from the book have been cut to a few eye blinks, creating a void that was filled by a) scenes that are mentioned by Tolkien somewhere (that's ok), b) with action scenes (might be ok) and c) fillers that justify some weird added content (not ok at all). On top, many visual effects seemed unpolished, partly unfinished.
The Hobbit 2 was not only a bad Tolkien film adaptation but also a bad one in general. Disappointing in so many ways and yes, you're right, poop all the way.
Hi Stephan - if I could go back and add all the points you make here, I would. Let's just consider this an addendum to my video.
You nailed it with that scene at the end. The one crucial difference between LOTR and The Hobbit is that the latter lacks soul. I simply did not care about any of the characters and none of them were fleshed out decently (while they had lots of time to do so). The only guy who plays his part with feeling is Martin Freeman. The worst thing about The Hobbit Trilogy is that it made me spot the weak links in the first trilogy as well. I can’t now unsee the typical Jackson clichés in LOTR because of their overabundance in the Hobbit: excessive use of slow motion for no reason, stupid comic relief, the inability to write original dialogue that doesn’t feel forced… He turned from a well respected director into a second Michael Bay, with all his shitty CGI.
Slow motion for no reason doesn't seem so bad though.
It was still okay in LOTR (less so now that I saw his later movies), but it's completely overdone in The Hobbit, and it was absolutely ridiculous in some parts of his King Kong movie. He literally made Adrien Brody type "Skull Island" letter by letter on a typewriter in slow motion. I laughed out loud during that part.
PJ's "downfall" if you want to call it began with Two Towers when he started to use more and more greenscreen instead on real location at least that's what Viggo Mortensen said. And I peronally despise what PJ did with the Gimli in the later LotR-movies, he turned him into a comic relief character.
Having said all of that, I still think all three LotR are masterpieces.
The Hobbit trilogy is complete garbage, totally ignoring the heart of the book and trying to be something it's not supposed to be.
JAL90 I don't get the greenscreen argument in this case. What does it matter if the visual effects are good, even pretty much flawless? I second the notion that The Hobbit relied too much on the stuff, even if it did look flawless in parts. But the notion that The Lord of the Rings made too many uses of greenscreen and CGI is utter nonsense in my mind. The Lord of the Rings is not over abundant with CG; it's effective, efficient and greater filmmaking.
+Nils While there probably wasn't another way to shoot the battle for Minas Tirith, you can see how much more CGI he uses in RotK compared to FotR. Both are still fantastic movies though. Now compare the battle of the five armies with for example the battle for helm's deep. It looks like a video game. There is none of the tension, not of the emotion on the faces of the people waiting and none of the buildup. The Hobbit movies simply don't have the magic LOTR had, and were purely made for the money, by a director who was forced into making them and didn't get the time to make them great. In hindsight, I'm going to say this is primarily the studio's fault, and not Jackson's. He just got dealt a horrible hand.
That short clip from a lotr gave me more goosebumps than all hobbit movies, transformers 5 and alien covenant put together.
@2:27
Oooooh 'member the Prancing Pony from LOTRD ????
Oooohh I 'member !!!!
The Hobbit movies were a huge member berries orgy
Spartacus: Blood and sand has a successful and rewarding prequel: Gods of the arena. Full of great acting, intense plots and free from notable compromise.
+Kristofer Pettersson Once again the gods part arse and deliver cock instead of fortune
+Joseph Napoli I'm for wine and the embrace of questionable women.
Great now I have to clear 12 hours in my schedule to marathon The Lord of the Rings... Thanks
Oh god, please do this, Ford. Everything that's wrong with the Hobbit movies is matched with excellence in LOTR. And yes, in my opinion, the extended editions are the only editions worth watching.
Nerdwriter1 Well I guess I am having a LOTR party!
One of the things I will remember fondly from 2016 is how _Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_ might be the prequel you are looking for. Four films to go but at least the first installment is decent and told its story without over-reliance to "pre-weight".
The Godfather Part II?
The Godfather Part II.
Forgive me for not having seen them, but are they set before the events of the first movie? I thought the Godfather was a chronological story with no prequel...(yet)
There's Vito Corleone's rise to power, which takes place beforehand. I just thought it showed how a prequel could add meaning to a story.
Jesus, I can't believe how far I have taken this, I hope you're ready.
I'm still undecided on whether or not this could be rightfully considered a prequel. by definition a prequel is:
"a work which precedes that of a previous work, by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative" - Suggesting the entirety of the work needs to take place prior to the original work, this is a contentious issue though I now realise. A scene in a movie which takes place prior the main events of the story would traditionally be called a "flashback sequence", so which of the two terms better fits in with the Godfather Part 2?
I decided to look into this some more and from what I can tell, Godfather part 2 rides a fine line between being a prequel and a sequel... Yes, it's apparently both. I found a forum titled "Is Godfather Part II the only film that is both a prequel and a sequel?" Here's some interesting and funny posts I found:
"I don't think I've ever seen another movie that follows a preceding film and is basically telling two separate, but thematically-related stories that are occurring decades apart like you see in The Godfather Part II. Kind of amazing if you think about it - you'd think someone would have stolen that concept by now. "
Later, somebody actually tried to work out mathematically how much of "prequel" it is:
"The Godfather II was, very roughly, about 1/3 prequel and 2/3 sequel"
The conversation then devolves into a argumentative discussion about how Back to the Future 3 is set before the previous two stories, thus being a prequel by definition too, but because in the main time line they chronological-
-Actually forget it. THE FILM IS ABOUT TIME TRAVEL. .... So I wont even bother.
It's just the only good prequel-ish thing I could think of, and I wanted to feel smart.
I love the both of you and I want to mark the end of this so it remains perfect.
The Godfather and Fate/Zero for the same reason: the contrast between the father and the son.
I don't disagree with you, but was "The Hobbit" not more of a children's/young adult story? I see no reason why the films should not match this tone. "The Lord of the Rings" was more of an adult story with adult themes: war, death, persistance, will. While these new films feel like something of a parody of "The Lord of the Rings", I can't say they're all together bad. I'd wager a guess and say that you'd amped your expectations due to your love for LotR, and I don't blame you. I'm sorry you didn't like the movie, but I'm happy that you're making vlogs again.
The Battle of Five armies was hardest for me. I...I kinda lost my faith after that one.
I just wanna watch the two towers now
X-men first class is the best X-men movie and its a prequel :P
hell yes
Nope. Was too YA for my taste. I liked the first one and Future Past much better.
That was more of a soft reboot
Fun With Currency
Hmm, sort of. I do think they are supposed to be part of the same canon though, despite the character inconsistencies. Like how X-men Origins: Wolverine was part of the canon of the orig trig, even though the Sabretooth from X1 and Wolverine had nothing in common. I think it's sort of a principle of, whatever was released most recently supersedes earlier releases, like the Qu'ran
Another part of this is the behind the scenes production level of what was going on. Jackson was brought onto after Guillermo del Toro left due to the project being extremely taxing. Jackson was given nearly the same due date del Toro had, and the behind the scenes (which can be found on youtube) shows just how excessively stressful everything was. They were using props that were just finished being made, CGI was used in a lot of scenes because they didn't have time for "bigatures", there was a lot of negative vibes on set because of how demanding the situation was. Given enough time I think Jackson or del Toro could have made a brilliant film and Jackson only stayed on because he knew no one could do it better than him given those constraints and his love for the world. The Hobbit is definitely lacking in comparison to the original trilogy, but I would never go as far as to blame Jackson for it. The man without any doubt has love for the world of Middle-earth.
I agree, that the movie did lack sustenance for lack of a better word. But it's understandable. The Hobbit was on a much smaller scale that Peter Jackson felt the need to elaborate and connect the dots. The Hobbit was originally meant for small children, infact Tolkien intended it for children at age 6. But Jackson knew he was catering for a larger and more broad audience. Trying to put the same wonder and oomph into a movie that a relished tale that millions of people read as a child, that created such a euphoric feeling and immersion to a completely knew world, it makes an incredible amount of work. And for a movie to try to create life and feeling into characters such as the 13 dwarves in just over 3 hours, as well as our main protagonist and a few other namely people, from a book that merely described them as "wearing different coloured cloaks", It's that sense of nostalgia that is unbreakable and never achievable in any form of media, that is stopping this film from being as grand as the LOTR. Jackson had incredible difficulties in the writing and production of The Hobbit, He had only a year of preparation for The Hobbit, due to the original Directer Guillermo Del Toro's departure two years into production. To say The Hobbit is no where near as good as the originals is correct, and there would be no possible way for Jackson to make it the same or better. And The Hobbit trilogy is by no way a bad set of films, nor are they even not good. And for a film they provide structure, humour and entertainment whilst still on a strict set of guidelines and trying to exceed the mass hype and expectations.
For the most part, it was never going to happen. And if you though that The Hobbit was going to be as good as LOTR your are the failure in the films success. If this film was watched as a clean slate, without expectation or knowledge of what happens next, it would be perceived as a generally good film.
I think the cast of Bilbo was a big mistake. He's supposed to be jolly and fat and laugh a lot. This guy was good in sherlock Holmes, but as Bilbo he kept the same character and it doesn't fit at all...
Yea, I'm pretty sure it's not Martin Freeman's fault. He's incredible in Sherlock - and let's never forget, The Office!
Nerdwriter1 No they just chose the wrong guy. I wonder if you'll like this: www.dropbox.com/sh/e4f756ulswjx0mc/pzq2W0MTCt
I think it's brilliant, almost know it all off by heart ^^
ProfessorBorax
I like the link, but isn't there copy right or anything on it? :P
Stephan Schuler Could be, But I bought this in 4 cassettes a long time ago. you're right though maybe I should take it down
martin freeman was the only good thing in the hobbit
Something I never noticed about the deleted LotR scene you hold up as powerful (I agree). While the king mourns his son, all Gandalf can offer, with all his wisdom, are meaningless platitudes. There are some pains that cannot be assuaged with mere words and this scene shows that.
I really like the Hobbit trilogy. I think the 3 movies work in whole as an adventure story. Each movie keeps its focus on Bilbo by using his love of and longing for home as its emotional core. This is why I cared about what happened to him and around him even when he wasn't directly involved in some things. The overarching theme of a place one calls home juxtaposed with others long lost home which they want to reclaim is easy to miss or gloss over especially when one is too focused on some of the movies' moving parts as if they are what matter the most. The Hobbit trilogy is about one's home with all its comforts and pleasures. Bilbo reluctantly leaves his beloved home and goes on an epic adventure no hobbit has ever gone on that's about helping others who long since lost their home to evil forces both of an internal(arrogance/greed) and external(dragon/orcs) nature. The movies are a mix of the silly, lighthearted, serious as well as gleefully child-like fun. They are more than just about Bilbo as Bilbo himself in his narration at the beginning makes clear. You're analysis misses the mark somewhat.
4:30 That scene still gets me emotional!!
The Hobbit films a lesson in how to ruin your movie by adding unnecessary shit into perfectly good source material.
Well I like the Matrix sequels and there technically was no source material for that, they were free to do whatever they wanted.
"The Good the Bad and the Ugly" was a prequel to "Fistfull of Dollars" and "A Few Dollars More." It only loosely ties into the other movies, which is probably why it works so well as its own film.
Nice catch. I don't think it's precisely the kind of prequel I was talking about (being so loosely connected to the narrative of the other films), but I'm so in love with the Dollars trilogy (and everything Leone has done), that I'll give it to you.
I recently watched the LOtR director's cut for the first time. I didn't like the 9 hour version much, but this... they cut so much! It's a completely different movie. No pacing issues, no noticable plotholes (at least I didn't notice), SO MUCH MORE LORE and character development... ugh... no use fanboying, but I really liked it.
Prequel that is better than the initial story: To Kill a Mockingbird.
Harper Lee had originally written the events of "Go Set a Watchmen" but upon advice from her editor put it on a back shelf. "To kill a Mockingbird" with young Scout and Atticus Finch is its prequel.
Monsters University is the closest thing that comes to my mind right now that is a prequel which is either as good or better than the first. I was really impressed about how they went about that film.
+cragnog btw I gotta say Gandalf's beard in that scene was lookin well fake
Well, I mean, it does depend on your viewpoint. I think Monsters Inc. is in my top 3 of all pixar movies (which is saying a lot, because PIXAR), so it's a little hard to beat it for me. I was frankly disappointed in Monsters University. Maybe that's just because I hold the original in such high regard that it colors my view significantly. I really want to watch it again sometime, because it was released like, two, three years ago now I think? It's very fuzzy in my memory now. How time flies.
I don't have a film example of prequels done right. Neither is it anything made in the west but the anime/novel Fate Zero which is a prequel to Fate Stay Night is arguably even better then it's original. You should take a look at them if you ever have time
+Garowice oh, good! i haven't thought of fate/zero! But entering anime territory, I would say Ga-rei zero
X-men first class is a wonderful prequel
SuperHarryFan
That is true but I'd say that it was a bit easier for Fox since they took continuity and threw it out of the window.
+Garowice
Red Dragon was pretty good. Not better than Silence of the Lambs, but still good.
Just makes me mourn the Hobbit movie(s) we got even more.
Rogue 1 Is a pretty dope prequel that enhances the beginning to A New Hope
You sir, give perspective to the hungry learning minds, that is one of the noble thing to do. I admire and respect you.
I can't express how much I appreciate finding this channel recently. As a film student, listening to these kinds of intellectually analytical videos is a great way of exploring ideas and dissecting how these creative works are put together. I don't just mean his videos on film, but art on in general.
I tried to explain this to my gf so I thank you for making it easier.
My pleasure.
Damn you. Damn you! Those last 2 minutes have a zillion times more pathos than the entire 7.5 hours of the Hobbits, and now I've got a headache and the sniffles because I can't watch that scene without crying. Damn you!
The Hobbit inadvertently undermines everything that made LoTR so epic and moving and breathtaking. I mean, come on, the scene between Gandalf and the Balrog is so epic because this is like the confrontation of all confrontations, and we are grounded in its reality.
I know that PJ isn’t to blame for the Hobbit movies. He freakn’ went down fighting, what a legend. I’m still so incredibly grateful for putting LoTR on film in such a moving, powerful, poignant fashion.
Red Dragon, the prequal to Silence of the lambs
+Olov Svedjeland Ödlund I do agree that Red Dragon is great but I think Hannibal the tv show is better
+Olov Svedjeland Ödlund Manhunter was a far better film (though I do like Red Dragon).
+Olov Svedjeland Ödlund True as far as the movies go, but in the books, Red Dragon was actually first and not a prequel.
+Olov Svedjeland Ödlund You must be kidding. Red Dragon was shit. It was also a remake of the vastly superior Manhunter which predated Silence of the Lambs and which was itself not focused on Hannibal Lector so its not really a prequel.
Couldn't. Agree. More. I refuse to watch the third installment.
+ATL Designs Good call, one of the only (if not the only) films I have ever rage quit.
having seen the 3rd installment, I would say it is the most disappointing movie I have seen in my lifetime. and with expectations low going in, that is saying something.
+Ned Jeffery to be perfectly fair to the team behind it, they were under immense pressure and didn't have enough time to prepare. Still, that is absolutely no excuse for some of the worst writing and direction I've ever seen in a blockbuster.
+ATL Designs Your loss
+Thomas Alvarez if it's on HBO or Netflix and I got time I'll watch. But I won't pay for it. You say my loss but if it's anything like the first two I'm fine missing it. The Hobbit was my favorite book and I was disappointed in the films.