The Biggest Problems with Peter Jackson's Hobbit Movie Trilogy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 жов 2017
- Peter Jackson admitted he didn't know what he was doing when he filmed The Hobbit trilogy, and it shows. Here are some of the key things I think the movies got wrong.
One of the worst scenes in the Hobbit films was when Azog actually was arguing and demanding Sauron to let him hunt down the company, We all know Sauron would not dare let an Orc live for that, nor would any Orc have the Gaul to do that.
So many miserable scenes. I can remember going to watch those movies in theaters with my friends and literally feeling embarrassed to be there by the end
Sitting through those movies was abusive haha
@@NeedSomeNuance Yeah the films lose their way a lot of the time, the actions become cartoonish in quality, who could forget legolas's mario brcik jumping scene.
@@Historyfan476AD so true. And I still don’t believe it’s unfair to have expected those movies to be close to LOTR quality. Like yes it’s not Peter Jackson’s fault, but it is Warner bros and new line’s fault for rushing their product when they knew a big part of what made LOTR successful was freaking four years of pre production
@@NeedSomeNuance At least the Hobbit stayed true to the heart of middle earth and Tolkien. Better fate than what happened with the star wars sequels.
The Hobbit started out sort of good and I had hopes for it, but it ended up SO bad...lol
First movie: good.
Second movie: Extended filler.
Third movie: “Wtf is going on?”
Agreed. I loved the dwarves song and the way it came blazing back as an heroic theme when the dwarves came to Bilbo's aid in fighting Azog after the escape from the Misty Mountains
One other thing I hated was the way Beorn was depicted as gloomy and angst-filled, whereas in the book he seems ebullient and larger-than-life. I could imagine him being played by someone like Brian Blessed in his prime!
Absolutely right. I was seeing Brian Blessed as I read the book ! Incredible to find someone else who agrees !
I actually really like movie Beorn's quiet, calm and soft spoken personality more than his book personality.
Dupplin Muir, totally agree! He's a guy who turns into a bear! Booming voice, beard, hairy chest..... not some moody, manscaped, 2000s soy-male....
Nah he's already playing Tom Bombadil :)
There are 6 good moments I can point out
1. " I have never been so wrong in my life "
2. The pity of bilbo and gollum/ riddles in the dark
3. Smaug
4. Balin explaining dragon sickness
5. Song of the lonely mountain scene
6. Alan lees designs
Aside from that the tone doesn't match , too many conflicting tones , non-needed characters , bad romance , the spiders aren't even scary ( shelob was horrifying , and I'm an aracnaphobic ), Gandalf is no where near as charismatic , I could go on and on .
The best description for the action in the Hobbit movies is it's like watching a washing machine: Everything moves, nothing changes, so it's boring.
One of the making of documentaries from the Blue Rays is (or at least was) on UA-cam, and instead of the usual fluff it plays out as an unintended apology since they spend the whole thing explaining why things went wrong.
The Beorn scene in the book is one of my favorite moments. I was so upset when they absolutely ruined it in the movies
I actually thought Gandalf had found Thrain before the movie started and got the key and the map from him then gave it to Thorin.
It was the dwarves escape from the Goblins that drew the attention of the forces that waylaid them after they learned the dragon was dead.
A bird over heard Bilbo mention about the chip in Smaug's armor and told Bard about it who used that to kill Smaug I don't remember that from the movie!
I wouldn´t have made the Hobbit into movies at all. I would have done a mini series out of it. Where every chapter is one episode since it follows the narrative style of the book way more closely. In every chapter there is a "threat" or situation introduced and resolved within the same chapter. So you wouldnt even have to think about where to cut the episodes. just my opinion though :)
Yes, The Hobbit is definitely more episodic, so that would make more sense.
DerFalsche Lennox they’re perfect as movies
@@thehunter9149
You think these movies are perfect? WOOF
@@thehunter9149 The first movie started off really strong, including the dwarves singing seemed like they were going to include the kind of stuff LOTR's movies cut. The movie was overall alright.
The second movie added a bunch of unnecessary new content, though this is offset in my opinion by the inclusion of the White Council attacking Dol Goldur. Since The Hobbit was originally written as a standalone fairy tale of sorts, that plot line existed solely to explain why Gandalf wasn't around solving every problem but was covered in a simple line from Gandalf, only to be made much more significant in LOTR when Tolkien started fleshing out the world. It makes perfect sense why that was glossed over in the book but included in the movies that were made post LOTR.
The third movie shouldn't have existed period. A major difference between the movies and books is that Tolkien tended to gloss over large scale battle scenes. They happened and were important but Tolkien didn't go into great detail for the battles at large, only major plot points that happen during them. The movies fleshing them out makes perfect sense given the difference in medium, but not for The Hobbit.
The Battle of Five Armies in the book is glossed over incredibly fast due to the fact that Bilbo gets knocked out very early into the conflict and doesn't wake up until it's over. Tolkien did not elaborate on the conflict, focusing instead on the aftermath and the losses. The entire battle doesn't even take a full chapter in the book, then they decided to make an entire movie out of it. That would be like cutting ROTK off right as Aragon baits Sauron at the Black Gate, then opening a 4th movie with the Mouth of Sauron and having the film be 90% the battle of the Black Gate with the excuse they didn't have enough time in the third film to finish Frodo's story and had to stretch the battle into almost a full fourth movie just to fill time because the rest of Frodo's story is only about 10 minutes long.
The Hobbit is by far the shortest of the four books to be adapted into film, yet it gets stretched into 3 movies by adding a ton of stuff that never happened. Meanwhile each of the LOTR books legitimately had enough content to be a trilogy each but understandably got cut down to a single movie per book. Making The Hobbit a trilogy was just pure greed, plain and simple.
I love listening to rants if they're justified (and yours is) so I would love a part 2 to this.
There’s one thing that makes my blood boil every time I see it: Bilbo claims his door was painted last week, yet when there was a close up it was chipped and weathered. Unforgivable.
I think Peter Jackson thought he needed more callbacks to the Lord of the Rings when it wasn't needed.
There's a problem with Bard in the book. He performs one of the story's key actions when he kills the dragon, and he has too little story time for someone who's so important to the plot. Peter Jackson may have been trying to make up for that. I agree he went too far in the other direction.
Yay! Fantastic review! You have the makings of a really good film critic because you're noticing some really subtle things. When I was learning about film criticism I distinctly remember discovering that my vocabulary was inadequate to perfectly say what was wrong about a thing and I see you here struggling to find the right words to describe why the comedic way Jackson played the dwarves and Bilbo, particularly in the scene with Beorn, was wrong for exactly the same reason.
There are many words that I had to learn from reading critical reviews of professional critics before I became better able to express what are often really subtle matters. Incidentally, I think the phrase you wanted was 'heavy-handed' i.e. Jackson's direction of the comedy was clumsy, obvious, and heavy-handed. In the book, the scene was a lesson in deftness in that Tolkien managed to highlight Gandalf's cleverness and discretion in managing the problem of having to take a large party of dwarves to a potentially deadly being and manipulate Beorn into accepting the unwelcome and unannounced intrusion into his life without making Beorn realise he was being manipulated (since that too could be deadly); and he did this in a way that remained light-hearted enough to be fun for children without losing the undercurrent of danger that is necessary for it to be an exciting part of the story. So Gandalf was supposed to be balancing on a knife-edge which could see Beorn lose his temper and start tearing them all limb from limb. Jackson's portrayal lost all of this, his use of comedy much too heavy-handed for any real sense of threat to remain, the ensemble reduced almost to clowning. This hurt the film not only in that it diminished the sense of Gandalf's cunning but also because it removed entirely all foreshadowing of Beorn as an immensely powerful being. The more perilous the director makes this scene, the greater the sense conveyed to the audience that Beorn is not to be trifled with. So Jackson actually undermined Beorn, Gandalf, and even the dwarves who came off seeming like idiotic buffoons who couldn't follow a carefully laid plan.
Your critique of how Bilbo is played is fantastic even if you struggle to put your finger on the description. I would struggle too because it's a subtle thing. Freeman's portrayal too often feels flippant, as if all Bilbo's achievements are just accidents of chance or things that anyone would have done which entirely defeats the point of having Gandalf put his faith in him as a hobbit. You correctly identify Freeman as always being half-serious, that "they went a little too heavy with Martin being a comic actor" - yes! This is a case, I think, of the actor being allowed to let his reputation influence his portrayal, to play Bilbo in a way that fits what Freeman thinks audiences expects of him based on his previous work. This is simply a terrible idea, for many reasons. Firstly, Freeman isn't the director and if he's going to make the role, any role, *honest* so that it feels genuine to the audience, he's got to play it according to the demands of the character not the demands of the audience and especially not the actor's own ego. We've seen comedic actors play serious roles well, defying expectations and consequently getting favourable reviews, and we've seen them play roles described as having been phoned in because they're completely to type. Billy Connolly is a good example because he too is in The Hobbit. He's played serious roles without his stand-up comedian persona showing at all yet in this film he plays his dwarf character as essentially Billy Connolly which defeats the object of having a character to play at all.
Jackson should have reined Freeman in and had him play Bilbo much more straight so he wasn't the same all the time. He needed to begin with Bilbo as someone with a very strong idea of who he is, what he does, and where he belongs i.e. NOT an adventurer; someone is is always safe (and wants to stay that way) and comfortable with plenty of sleep, warmth, and good food who finds himself thrust into a situation that actually terrifies him, in which he feels alientated, totally out of his depth, and longing to be back home. That way he would have scope to gradually discover surprising things about himself, a genuine skill at adventuring and cunning, and at being the company 'burglar'. As it was Freeman played Bilbo as Martin Freeman, the actor who makes those funny little expressions of mild surprise at everything; and since we've already seen him doing this, it comes across as safe and bland.
Turning the giants into living mountains really bugged me. And it is Bilbo who discovers the dragon's weakness and sends the thrush to tell Bard about the dragon's weakness and that was stolen from Bilbo in the movie. In the movie Bard already knows about the weakness I believe. The dwarves fighting Smaug and driving him off was just so awful.
It is no one's fault, but Warner Bros' for why Peter Jackson was rushed to producing the Hobbit films into a trilogy and was forced to wing it.
Great analysis!
I could forgive most of these except for the inclusion of Tauriel and the love triangle, which is a shame because a lot of my women friends have expressed how much they like Tauriel and I could never bring myself to say that she adds nothing to the story.
Man up and don't hold your tongue in favor of women.
Didn't the elves find the dwarves still incapacitated from the spider venom?
Bilbo realized they were gone and chased after them using the ring to sneak inside the elven fortress.
Great video, honestly the second Hobbit film was one of the worst big budget movies I’ve seen in a long time and it’s legitimately worse than a lot of the worst fantasy films of the 80’s or 90’s, I’d rather watch Red Sonja or Never-ending Story 2 or something. Like you said there are so many problems but it’s mind boggling the extent they screwed up Bard the BOWMAN, the thing that made Bard so cool was that he was just one badass guy that was willing to die to for his town, he went out there with his bow and arrow and held the line and of course his people respected that enough to make him king, yes he was from the line of Dale but so where a lot of the people in Lake Town. Making him into a cheap Aragorn knock off just ruined the entire character, and don’t even get me started on the freaking ballista, he’s called Bard the Bowman not Bard the goddamn Ballisaman, the whole point was that he was skilled with a bow.
The primary difficulty in creating a movie from a book with 15 main characters is developing the characters in such a way that the viewers care for them. The 13 dwarves didn't look much like drarves at all and had to distinguished from each other by their individual outrageous garb and hair styles. They wound up being caricatures instead of characters.
Hey! Im from the future. Wait 5 years until you see rings of power.
I'm actually quite sorry for PJ, there were many financial issues with MGM & NL Cinema which stalled the pre-production and production of the films. Once Guillermo left after 2 years of work Peter asked WB for more time and they said ''No'' (rumours say that they were in contrast due to creative content and since they had no idea whether the project had been green lit, he would have left to go film Pacific Rim). A month before production is about to start PJ is rushed to the hospital, where he is treated for months. He never had the time to prep his films, there is a documentary about it on youtube that i encourage you to find. I thought the first one was decent at the best, the other two.....meh, didn't feel like Middle Earth to me. Absolutely hated the Tauriel, Legolas, Kili storyline. If they had to add filler stuff, they could have added more scenes with the other Dwarves to get to know them better.
I agree with you, one of the most touching scenes in the trilogy was the scene where Thorin hugs Bilbo or when Bilbo decides to spare Gollum. The riddles in the dark sequence was quite good. The acting in the trilogy is good as well and i enjoyed Richard Armitage as Thorin, eventhough i think he should have had a longer beard. Have you seen any of the edits of the trilogy online?
+paolo lozupone I was aware of some of the pre-production troubles, but that’s a nightmare! Haven’t seen any of the edits you mentioned. I’m guessing it’s people cutting out the junk to make it more true to the source?
im currently working on one myself but one of the many i saw on the web that is actually quite good you can find it here: drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kZu_P0fJ84S0loQ3h0ZmlRNmM/view
It's two films. The guy also made a spinoff named ''Durin's folk and the Hill of Sorcery'' witch you can download here: vimeo.com/130716015
paolo lozupone no. Peter was the executive producer, and hired a director, whom the studio fired because he didn’t want to do it their way but remain faithful to the book. So Peter took over well after production began and was just as much pressured by the studio to do things their way or they’d move production out of NZ. Peter complained after the release of the Rings that He was being shorted on subsidies by the studio and tried suing but 2 years later settled out of court and the studio pressured NZ officials to make a new law to defend it against the artists union which rightfully complained about being taken advantage of by the studios they signed with.
paolo lozupone sadly, the Hobbit was used by the studio as an nostalgic cash grab and nothing more. Changing even the theme and importance of the major cast (Bilbo and the Dwarves) into something it was not meant to be, “from our story to theirs.”
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 exactly, at the time i may have missed a couple of points but you summed it up perfectly. Man, imagine what could've been...however i have to admit that with fan edits, you can easily turn the trilogy into a good duology.
As much as I HATE the Hobbit trilogy, and I know movies get called the director's thing, I just HAVE to say that The Hobbit isn't really Jackson's trilogy.
He was NOT the original director, he did NOT make it a trilogy, and there's evidence that the studio making it a trilogy and the lack of direction before he took up the mantle really screwed the entire project over. He's clearly a capable and visionary director, look at LotR. If you want to blame someone, blame the studio. If you want to call it someone's movie, call it the studio's.
The Goblin trap wasn't a pit trap it was a secret door at the back of the cave and they burst in on them when they were napping.
I don’t know if you really can blame Jackson for the disasters of the movies. From my understanding, he was brought in to safe a sinking ship and given almost no time to prepare. Watch “just writes” videos on the hobbit.
I would love to see you break down Peter Jackson’s portrayal of the Nazgûl. Like in the hobbit, he seems to show them as 9 dead men that were raised from the dead as ghosts by sauron. I know this is inaccurate, but I would love to hear you talk about this topic
I might go full rage mode 😂
Some people might not know what you are talking about, but when i first saw them all I knew there was something wrong with them i just couldnt put my finger on it. Thank you for exemplifying some of my opinions about this story that I love so much. If I had the money I'd make my own hobbit movie. But honestly I think it gets some parts of the history very much correct, it is really just the added stuff. I am still disappointed they didn't have Tom Bombs in the first movie.
insanum666 corporate influence and power over artistic passion and expression.
Tom Bombadil would have slowed down the plot of the Fellowship of the Ring movie in a negative way.
Tom Bombadil does not contribute to anything significant to the LOTR plot.
Good comments. Agree wholeheartedly with everything. Glad you mentioned Azog being the primary bad guy in the movie. That drove me nuts. Azog was dead long before the damn Hobbit. Why isn't Bolg good enough? Why do we need two big bad guys? They destroy Thorin's character. He is a complete d-bag in the 2nd and 3rd movies. Also HATED that they had Azog leading his army from the rear like a field general. He is a damn orc! He got his position via battle prowess, period. The entire series is also ruined by ridiculous video game-like action sequences in every movie. Legalos had nothing to do and his fights with Bolg had ZERO tension since we know he's alive afterwards. Actually didn't mind Tauriel; its just that she had nothing to do for the final movie. UGH! I could go on and on.
Anyway, Martin Freeman is fantastic in the movies. I would watch them again maybe just for him. And of course, there is Ian McKellin as Gandalf. Always worth seeing.
Otherwise, terrible movies.
Another thing which annoyed me about Azog was their was a scene when he was arguing with Sauron over hunting down the company. Literally shouting at sauron he wants Thorin's head and standing up to Sauron. When in reality any Orc would not dare do that Sauron nor would Sauron let them live for doing it anyway.
I agree . I believe the Lord of the rings trilogy are three of the greatest films ever made , critically too, however the hobbit films are heavily flawed . However the hobbit did do a few things right . The soundtrack was amazing as well as Martin freeman , and everything essentially with bilbo and Smaug and the actor who played bard .
they recycled the Nazgul theme, using it for orcs... how can you say that the soundtrack was amazing...
I think they added Azog & Bolg just to split them up to have one with Thorin and one with Legolas
I felt that they missed it from the very beginning. For Tolkien it began and ended... in a hole in the ground at Bag End. The way they began "An Unexpected Journey" was the exact opposite. They began it in the LOTR trilogy films. Like yeah we get it you're the guy who made the other films, these are the same characters. Did you really have to shove that in our face at the beginning. You're starting with an altogether changed forever Bilbo? What was this virgin experience of the shire that pre there and back again Bilbo loved? Cart before the horse. Tolkien began in the still quiet fields of the Shire, took our humble character out into the wild unknown without certainty of safe return and finally unexpectedly back to the quiet greens of the shire entirely changed forever. PJ starts by reminding us that he created LOTR trilogy and this is the only Bilbo there is. Then gave us this very odd awkward slapstick version of Bilbo and co.
i think the motto of the hobbit trilogy was “fuck it will fix it in post”
Completely agree. Jackson really fucked it up.
On the positive side, whether you like the characters or not, the casting of Bard & Thranduil were on point. They look like what I pictured from the books.
Truthfully I know it’s fluffed up to fill 3 movies but I genuinely didn’t hate them. I also know it was treated like a prequel even tho it isnt. It’s in own story. But still I like it. And yes iv read the books. Still, I did enjoy my time but I can see why people don’t like them
I always found Legolas' scenes in the last film hilarious and ridiculous. They already went overboard in the LOTR trilogy with his feats, but that movie went beyond that somehow.
They did stay the night in Beorn's house while the bears danced outside...13:44
The chase scene with Radagast in AUJ made me cringe, as did the scene in DoS when the dwarves were trying to kill Smaug with molten gold: I hate to break it to you chaps, but he's a dragon - he's obviously proof against fire!
How dare you, I really like Radgast the Brown. I really like that Peter Jackson included him in the Hobbit films.
Whichever executive turned the hobbit movie into 3 movies and made the love triangle should be blacklisted from Hollywood. Literally was such a bad decision. Ruined sooo much
TBH from a cinematic and story telling point, Bard is much better in the movies than the books. In the book he sort of pops up out of knowhere and I remember having to read back a bit to see if I missed something, but the film establishes him as early as possible which is much better for a character of such importance.
I hated most of what they did with Radaghast. All the Goblin Town stuff was pretty terrible. And the tone was all over. Even though Lord of the Rings had their issues as adaptations, I like them overall and the Hobbit trilogy constantly kept calling back to LOTR, not in a good way, but in a way that keeps reminding you you're NOT watching those better movies.....................
Peter Jackson cut out so many important plot points and events to put things that never happened
What did he cut out of The Hobbit?
I couldn't understand why Thorin is the main character and not Bilbo.
I agree with all the bad rendition of the movie, but I don't blame Jackson. I blame the circumstance that Jackson was forced into. The producers had their problems and priorities and it came to Jackson and their bottom line (money)... and the money won. And, you can't even fault that as evil... it just is what it is.
I hope that Jackson gets involved in the Amazon project. I think he would IF Amazon promises that he will have the atomony he has in LOTR. And, I believe Amazon will back him. That is what I hope.
I think I’ve seen that he’s declined to get involved, except maybe as a consultant.
Tim Hutzler I think Jackson should turn independent start up his own studio so he and the rest of the artists won’t be taken advantage of by big-name studios that they’d be forced to sign with if they wanted to work.
Tolkien Lore he was the executive producer, not director. After the studio fired the director and put Peter into the seat again did he take control, but he did not have a say about production since many controlling interests were involved with the film and wanted to draw on lotr nostalgia. He wasn’t the only voice of influence.. not like he was on lotr.
I still love fight scene with the White Council against the Nazgul and The Necromancer (Sauron) at Dol Guldur. That battle scene was epic.
My favourite thing about the Hobbit films ? The dwarves song "Far over the Misty Mountains Cold". I didn't rate Shore's stuff for LOTR - uninspired and uninspiring I thought it - but the music for this song was gorgeous. Of course, it benefitted by words by JRRT
I don’t know if you’ll see this, but I agree with all of your points. I used to love the hobbit movies but that changed when I actually read the book for the first time. Overall I still enjoy the movies but they deserve all the criticism they get. If you have the time however, I would highly recommend watching the cardinal cut by cardinal west. It’s a re-cut of the hobbit movies into a single 4 hour cut, that fixes all of the issues of the movies (in my opinion at least) I’ll link it below, but the link itself links to cardinal west’s video talking about his cut and pointing out everything he cut out. If you click on the link to the video and go to the description of that video, you’ll see a link to the 4 hour cut. Definitely worth your time. Anyways, have a nice day!
Link to cardinal west’s video on the cardinal cut
ua-cam.com/video/XB6h9uCAZmI/v-deo.html
I think there’s more than one such cut out there. I’ve never gotten around to watching any of them but I do want to.
Well said! The goofiness and the super long monologue by Smaug was ridiculous and too much for anyone to take seriously.
What? Smaug's monologue is one of the best parts of the trilogy and it's taken from the book!?
@@korvo3427 it's a good example of what works well in a book but not a movie.
But Hobbit movies attracted me the most to learn about Tolkien
Fair enough, and more power to you if you enjoy them, but I can’t help but see them as a huge step backwards from the quality of the LOTR trilogy.
Beorn’s story is much sadder in the film , the extended cut of coming out to meet Beorn is great, it’s funny and I liked it... don’t care! Hahaha
Yeah, I am pretty much where you are. I did enjoy seeing more of Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel, since I like the characters and the actors playing them, but a lot of the movie was pure filler and stupid hijinxs. The Battle of the Five Armies was horrendous. There are fanedits out there that remove pretty much all the excess stuff to make a more 'book-accurate' version, and those run generally around 2.5h, if memory serves. Those can be a pretty good rewatch.
What would you think of LOTR & HOBBIT films if there were no books & it was only Jackson’s Creation... can you separate yourself enough from the text, I’d like to hear what you would think of them then.
As movies, LOTR is great, Hobbit falls flat.
PABrewNews this was not just Jackson’s creation.. there were many voices of power over him, including the studio, that influenced which movie was made.
I enjoy these films for what they are, but as a massive fan of the original book, I cannot for the life of me call them good adaptations. They have good elements to them, amazing even at points, but the bad overshadows the good, and it felt like the story didn't even take place in Middle-Earth no matter how hard they tried. I don't blame Peter Jackson for how the trilogy turned out, though. The whole thing reeks of studio interference, I even heard the films were made only to keep MGM from going bankrupt, and Peter didn't have enough time to prepare for everything like he did with Lord of the Rings.
In contrast, I enjoyed the (greatly flawed) Jackson Hobbit movies. IMO, Jackson included some of the additional scenes, like the White Council attack on Dol Guldur to make a more complete story for the movie series. That being said at least 1 move could have been eliminated, which Would’ve made the hobbit movies more faithful to the original book. Alas, money talks.
I love the Hobbit movies! Your content is really interesting, but nothing would make me dislike those movies. Sorry. 😆
Well there’s not arguing about taste lol
I thought it should of been called THE DWARVES, since it was way more about Thorin & Keli’s love interest...
You should have written " should HAVE been called" not OF, you idiot
A big part of the problem was that, for a film series with so much pointless filler, a lot was left unsaid or unexplained.
I cant stand the hobbit movies.
Also the Bilbo actor, didnt like him, the way he talks etc.
Youre right about evetything you said. Silly movies.
Love the lotrings trilogy tho
I find Bard very unlikable ... Love Stephen Fry , the master was such a bastard! Hahaha
I edited the first film removing the extraneous material. It was 71 minutes shorter. The majority of the second film is superfluous.
They should release on dvd a trimmed down edit that cuts out the unnecessary filler. You could make one or two much better movies out of the cut down part and it would make them more money because people would buy the edited version
The first movie was goodish. Then...the other 2...
I saw the first Hobbit movie and I would never see another one.
Why do you talk about the bad parts of the movie? I think the movie can be anything its up to the viewer to decide if its good or not. I think the upgraded technology played a large part in the movie seeming to be weird or terrible. I think they did a fine job i mean the Hobbit to me doesn't have a lot of interesting things to offer like the LoTR does, so I guess that's why the referenced it so much in the movies. They had to improvise it a lot. Did you see the cartoon movie of the Hobbit? Its like super boring, even childish, so they had to add fillers, it was the only way to make it nearly like the LoTR trilogy.
I did enjoy your rant, a lot. To me yet another snag maybe not with all, but movies in both the LOTR and Bilbo trilogies, are all the nuking the fridge moments. All characters in the books basically obey Newtonian physics. Ok, maybe not dragons, but you get the point. The extent to which dwarfs fall down chasms on top of a bridge though, orcs are fought jumping up and down barrels, elves skating shields, doing je ne sais quoi up and down oliphants, and a gigantic Sauron mowing down men and elves like grass and the list goes on - it's just numbing. I like a good action sequence as much as the next guy, but there is quite some action in the books already.
Maybe a suggestion: best and worst action in books vs. trilogies, either one of them.
+klutttmuttsprutt Not a bad idea. Maybe actually a video discussing the different approaches to action sequences, because they are in fact very different from the novels to the movies, and even the LOTR movies compared to the Hobbit ones for the reasons you mentioned.
There are also two types of madness in the movies, I think. Straight out impossible things of course, but also the strategically insane choices. Take the Rohirrim riding straight into a forest of spears, both at Helms deep and on the Pelennor. That's just not how cavalry fight, and the Rohirrim of all should know this. Tolkien was clever enough to not throw cavalry at the orcs and men at Helms deep, but Erkenbrand and 1000 men on foot. The enemy was also broken already by the sudden attack from the Hornburg. So instead of Alexanders phalanx, men on foot, no horses, met an enemy on the run. Oh well, the books are so good.
I definitely understand and can appreciate why people disliked or even hated these movies. The extended cuts are far better, especially BOFTA. The movies were made without any prep time and it shows at times. The love triangle/story was WB issue.(watch the UA-cam interview with Evangeline Lilly, it was added later during reshoots.). While I have defended PJ, there are some decisions He made that are solely his fault.
1) He actually states in an interview that it was His and Fran’s idea to stretch it to three movies after filming had already started.(from the onset maybe, but halfway through was a Terrible idea)
2) Beorn was almost completely taken out of BOFTA even after stating there were a lot more scenes to be added to the extended cut? That never happened. This was unforgivable. He changes the tide of the battle in the book!
3) Alfred should have died with the Master of Laketown. He serves NO Purpose. Period.
4) Legolas being overly angry and a Ridiculous Ninja.(ie hang gliding from a bat? Ugh).
5) While Azog adds more tension, Bolg(the extended cut version of him in BOFTA) should have been used instead. The fact Dain killed his Father Azog in the books, would have been plenty of motivation for Bolg to Hate the Dwarves by itself.
I actually enjoy the extended cuts(which I own) despite their flaws. I thought AUJ and DOS were Good but not Great, and BOFTA was all over the place. At least the extended cut battle is far better and you get to see the Funeral with Dain being Crowned.
3 and 4 are probably the worst offenders of the bunch lol.
While I agree, if I could only pick one, it would be for Beorn to put back in and have him kill Bolg. That’s what happened in the books and would have been much more satisfying then LegoNija putting a knife through his skull.
Yeah, and that fight dragged on way too long anyway....
Dave Gentry watch Oin’s (don’t know his name) interview concerning the movies, it’s an eye opener.
FBN Flavius Broadcasting Network Yeah, I’ve seen it. Lindsay’s three part hobbit trilogy essay does a great job at explaining all the issues. She interviewed him for it in New Zealand. Warner Brothers is notorious for being a greedy corporate overlord. They are the main reason these movies are not as good as they should have been.
Whisper whisper whisper
For me the extended editions make the even movies worse except perhaps The Desolation of Smaug that adds lots of lore and context to the return of Sauron and the lore of the rings. The third one gets even work my gosh, simply can't stand thinking of watching that movie again.
I can't get very far into the third movie of the Hobbit trilogy!
I get where they discover the aid is posing as a woman and that's where i stopped.
I remember the Mayor didn't die from a dragon falling on him but having run off with the gold Lake Town was given and was abandoned by the people with him because he refused to part with any of the treasure if I recall that correctly?
Yeah, that’s how it goes in the book.
I don't hate them as much as you, but there were some bad choices made even though there were elements that had real potential. Before the movies came out, I was stoked that they were going to bring in the Necromancer stuff. But then they added the ridiculous chases, the Azog subplot, the awful portrayal of Radagast, and worst of all, the Tauriel love triangle. If you had to bring in a female elf, that's one thing. But the inter-species love triangle? Really? It was like Peter Jackson watched too many of those late 90s Hollywood action movies.
wtf with the dishes washing up scene. wtf uno lol. I was hortified 1st time I saw it unfold.
It set the tone
The dwarves do clean-up according to the book.
+Tamerlane Villanos But not in such an over-the-top, physics defying fashion.
Perhaps, yet I have no problem with a Disney-esque fleshing out of a scene as such. One of the lesser faults of the film that get ... ahem... dwarfed by other problematic issues.
+Tamerlane Villanos Sure, it’s not the worst thing, but it’s a hint at the trauma to come....
I gave my Hobbit movies away free of charge, just couldn't look at it on my shelf
Making dwarves boorish is really, in my opinion dishonorable and embarrasing at the same time. These truly insult Tolkien.
The first part with dwarves is good (the party I mean) though I disapprove their table manners. :-))) The rest of movie, I don't want to watch it either.
Political Correctness does not belong in a film about a Tolkien novel. And yet: there it is! The Hobbit!
Willem Van Staden political correctness and corporatism! Stains of the western world!
Additionally, the films missed many opportunities for song.
The first Hobbit film was half decent the sequels got progressively worse. The Battle of Five Armies being probably the worst film I have ever seen.
Peter Jackson's overwhelming fault is his motto "Nothing succeeds like Excess". A short (comparatively) story bloated to 3 long films ? The first one was the best (?) of the 3 in my opinion, despite occasional lapses into grossness. The last ne completely ignores the basic laws of physics - eg. that damn orc breaking up through the ice where in fact, if he had been able to survive that long underwater (he wasn't a fish after all) he would have pushed himself further under not up through the ice. The battle was far too long and drawn out too
I think Peter Jackson made Bilbo too grouchy.
am I going deaf or this video is rather low on audio volume
Might be the volume, I’ve had some that didn’t come out right for some reason.
@@TolkienLorePodcast I found it is only problematic with earphones (in the middle of the night when I don't want to wake anyone). If I can use the speakers then it's quite okay.
You have to admit Tolkien Lore, Lee Pace's Thranduil has more personality than the Elf King in the Hobbit book.
Way too quiet
He would of been like 9 years ago and wasn’t called Stryder until way way later. But it was a nice try...
PABrewNews no, Aragorn would’ve been 20 at that time. 60 years passed from the Hobbit to Rings, and in Rings Aragorn was 80 years old.. living till 120. But when he met Legolas Aragorn was 20. And Legolas was the oldest out of the members of the Fellowship. In fangorn forest, he called Aragorn and Gimli children when he described the age of fangorn saying, this forest is old. So old that I feel young again, which hasn’t happened since I travelled with you children. The old forest and fangorn were one a long long long time ago, as Elrond hinted at and Treebeard spoke of.
Nope, 9-10 is more accurate because in LOTR Aragorn was 87, and after the Hobbit 60 years pass till Bilbo’s birthday party, then another 17 between that and when Frodo sets out.
This seems like a bad bunch of points...
1. Often it's justified that something is bad because the book is different. I don't agree, the book has its own shortcomings (I love the book by the way, one of the first books I ever read as a child).
2. Drama and comedy... that's not a problem with the tone. There is a transition with music and logic to change from one to the other. That's what movies do.
There is a lot of problems of continuity, specially with the lord of the rings movies and such, and there is too much cgi, which is not so good as the more practical effects of Lord of the rings. There are strange, bad choices too, but... all that said, I think that the Hobbit movies are not that bad. I feel about them a little like I feel with the Avatar movie (the James Cameron one). They are good movies that people want to see as bad because... money? Cgi? Ego? Excess? I don't know. The Hobbit movies are not great by any means but they are quite entertaining and there's genuinely some great scenes.
But so many critics are so bad... like, "too many references to lord of the rings", like for real? Is that a critic of the Hobbit? How much is too many? Why? Do you really feel confused by the references? I don't think so.
It's very easy to find people hating the hobbit movies but it's much harder to find good critics for the movies.
The problem isn’t just that it’s different from the movie, but that it differs in a way that guys the heart of the story. Bilbo has no character arc, and his growth IS the story in the book, so we’re left with very little else. And yes, shifting from drama to comedy is fine, but these movies aren’t doing that. They’re shifting from epic grandeur to grotesque slapstick.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Thanks for answering.
Well, I think that Bilbo has a character arc. He grows a lot after being doubted by Thorin, when he helps him against the wolves or even later, when he steps forward and brings the stone to the elves. I saw a character arc. I saw a change.
I mean, why do you think that he has no character arc?
I think that I have a very different notion of "grotesque landstick", that's all, and I'll illustrate that fact with the Goblin king.
I prefer the practical effects over CGI almost always, even when they look ridiculous. Because I feel that there is something real there. The goblin king is pure cgi, or almost pure cgi (I don't know if there is some facial capture). It doesn't look as good as the orcs in lotr. HOWEVER. He looks exactly the way I imagined him. He is exactly what the target public of the hobbit (the book) would imagine. A fat, big, pretentious goblin, ugly, etc...
Maybe he is too big, but that is a remark over his importance and his hedonism. It's nothing out of the common in this kind of material and he fits with the looking of his servants. He fits in the movie.
I would agree with you about drastic changes if it wasn't for the soundtrack. The soundtrack of the Hobbit is AMAZING, and it changes subtly but clearly each time they want to change between drama and comedy.
The problem is not on the movies, at least no exactly. This trilogy was a prequel for The Lord of the Rings movies, not just an adaptation of the original book. It needs to carry some of the original tone of the other movies, while trying to bring the tone of the hobbit book too. It had to do both and that's not a choice: It had to.
It was the only way to be loyal to both audiences. And they had the challenge to make it fit, to make both tones fit, and to me, they did it well most of the time. It's highly subjective I suppose, but I would need specific citations and watch the scene to be able to respond more precisely.
What I really really didn't like about those movies were things like Radagast, but my nephew loved it. He didn't read the books like I did. So, highly subjective again.
I didn't really the dwarf - elf couple, it felt forced and unnecessary, and I don't understand why trying to do that. I would ask Peter Jackson if I could. It breaks the suspension of disbelief completely, at least for me. It's not natural enough.
There is two dozens of things like that. But you didn't name barely anything, your critic was too general and ambiguous.
I think that the problem is maybe that you took very little time and effort in criticize this movies. You thought they didn't deserve the effort to make something elaborate. As a natural result, the critic is weak.
And I really think that they were not so black and white. I watched the first movie 3 times on cinema, I think there is a lot to be enjoyed. And I am a Tolkien nerd too (as I said, the hobbit was one of the first books I read, with 8 years, and I loved it).
I just don't think that you were fair with them, at least based on your critic here. Maybe if you give it another chance? You will never love it because we know what we like or not at our age, but maybe you can watch it trying to not let your original expectations affect your opinion. Because the original expectations we, the fans, had were huuuuge.
I’ve actually got a rather long video on the subject of Bilbo’s character arc: Book v. Movie- Bilbo's Character Arc | Hobbit Day 2020 ua-cam.com/video/ghB_Di5MGns/v-deo.html. But Wgen I say slapstick I’m talking about, for instance, the more absurd things the Dwarves do in Rivendell, or the barrel-riding thrill ride from the Elven halls to Long Lake. It would have been easy to make the movies dramatic and also comedic without being literally absurd.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Those over the top action scene like the barrel-riding are part of the brand I suspect. Do you remember the absurd killings of Legolas in Lotr? When he kills the oliphant... he does something similar against the troll in Moria.
In the Hobbit they double down. But I'll say something. I enjoyed that ride XD, the scene is unrealistic but we are watching dwarfs and elves and dragons. The scene was amazingly hard to make for the people involved and I think it works amazingly. Yes, it's over the top... slightly more than the Oliphant kill because this scene took longer.
But it was fun action, very well done action even. Very, very well done.
I don't know, do you remember the start of the movie Goldeneye? When Bond jumps to get a plan that is falling... and he succeed? One of my favorite movies of all time XD.
I don't think that's such a problem. The only scene of that type that felt harder to accept for me was in the end of the third movie, when legolas fights the orcs almost by flying over the rocks. The worse part is that it makes sense in the Tolkien lore, to a certain degree... elves are light enough to walk over recent snow without sinking. So just take that one step further. It hurt me anyway... Maybe because it wasn't fun.
I'll take a look into your video, maybe I'll make a comment. I am relatively new to the channel, I am still exploring the content.
Thank you and sorry. I am alone in home due to the covid situation and I feel a strong need to talk, that's why I write so much.
Have a nice day.
No worries, long comments can be good fodder for future videos anyway. ;)
Are you going to listen to the LIVE event of Andy Serkis reading The Hobbit ?
If I had twelve hours to spare I might, but I don’t lol
@@TolkienLorePodcast I wonder if the recording will be available for download loading $ at sometime in the future. I like Rob Ingles unabridged recording best of any I have heard.
@@deanwilson7373 when is that?
@@waitwhat3547 Already finished. He started May 8th at 10 am BST (5 am EST/ 2 am PST)
The UA-cam link was
UA-cam.com/watch?v=4QOF_r_Y5-a
I'm on mobile so I hope I entered it correctly the manual method.
Other than the first 25 minutes of Hobbit #1, I think these movies are unwatchable. The last one I've never viewed, except hearing all the roaring from another room; my son described it as two hours of absurd fighting with monstrous or monstrous-pinheaded orcs. Most scenes seem like caricatures or lame versions of video games, and the Lake Town scene makes me sick (it looks like a kooky, twisted version of London, with not a straight stick of wood in site, and where most of the men are venal and stupid). I'm surprised PJ didn't have a gay female Lake-chick shoot down the dragon.
The Hobbit trilogy where an absolute pile of Americanized dog shite,they never warranted three movies,especially of that quality(or lack of)......an insult to Tolkien's memory.
I didn't even bother, but I like hearing about how right I was not to.
Peter Jackson did to The Hobbit what Disney did to Star Wars....and there was plenty of lack of quality, melodramatic mediocrity, stupidity and childish humour on the Star Wars franchise prior to Disney raping them (Remember Jar Jar Binks or the pointless Ewoks?).
Don’t get me started... I did enjoy them for what they are. But it was a bad butcher job... yikes!
Believe it or not, i actually liked these movies. But then again, im not a Tolkien geek, more of a fantasy fan, and i think the Hobbit movies are good fantasy. Also i appreciate humorous characters and references to previous works. The only thing i agree on is the elf-dwarf romance. Really? Was that necessary? Also, whats with the handsome short-bearded dwarves? Thorin looks pretty wrong. He looks like a very short Man rather than a dwarf
honestly I don't think the hobbit was that bad. sure it wasn't very well executed. but some of the changes from the book aren't that big of a deal. Azog being alive isn't a problem sure its not completely accurate but no movie based on a book ever is.
I also hate the Hobbit movies.
I hate and never liked Alfrid.
I love these movies to death lol, both the lord of the rings and the hobbit. I enjoy peter’s spin on the book. It’s one franchise that I don’t really criticize, idk why, but just don’t. The only sorta problem I had with the hobbit was that it didn’t have consistent music. I wish the dwarves theme from the unexpected journey was in all the movies
You have the right to your opinion, even if it’s wrong.
I personally like The Hobbit in all its forms more then the LOTR
Blasphemy. You shall be tried for heresy
I actually agree with you. Probably because I hold LOTR so highly that the things in that movie bother me much more. Army of the Dead at Minas Tirith?
You have an right to your wrong opinion.