The Hobbit movies discussion

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

Im looking forward to the Extended Edition.

II'm actually looking forward to the two-hour-cut of all three movies combined, making the mess into a story worthy of the title 'The Hobbit'. Quite contrary to the Lord of the Rings-movies, where I couldn't wait for the extended cuts.

The way these hobbit moves are they should be called: 'Epic stuff because the director likes epic stuff and excess, and somewhere in the middle of all this mess, there is a hobbit'. Isn't that an epic title?

Edited November 14, 2014 by DarthTwoShedsJackson

[bachamn]

II'm actually looking forward to the two-hour-cut of all three movies combined, making the mess into a story worthy of the title 'The Hobbit'. Quite contrary to the Lord of the Rings-movies, where I couldn't wait for the extended cuts.

The way these hobbit moves are they should be called: 'Epic stuff because the director likes epic stuff and excess, and somewhere in the middle of all this mess, there is a hobbit'. Isn't that an epic title?

Well, to each their own. I believe someone else said something similar to this (might not have been here) but when it comes to Tolkien I welcome as much footage as I can, especially knowing PJ's production quality is so spectacular.

If they made a miniseries about hobbits sitting around drinking in the Shire and telling stories I'd be glued to the screen every time it came on.

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

Contrary to the theatrical release of The Lord of the Rings-movies, The Hobbit-movies so far lack the flow an adventure movie should have. They are rather stoppy-starty, whereas the LotR movies had a nicer flow to them. An extented version of The Hobbit would be even worse. Each to their own, if you like, yes. Still, I can argue that an extended version of The Hobbit-movies would not be an improvement, but just more excess.

I like the old PJ-movies most, because their low-budget nature made the excesses to which he went rather charming. In a high-budget production like The Hobbit his tendency to excess comes across more like a lack of the ability to edit yourself, which is a shortcoming for an artist. It's like a band creating 30 songs for their new album and then being unable to select the 12 best and ditch the rest. Editing yourself is a core element of any artistic endeavour.

Make no mistake - this is criticism on a high level, because these movies are still very good, and I'm especially fond of how you can feel that the creators are in it because they love Tolkien and his creation, unlike so many other movies who are sloppily or cheaply made and then just marketed *cough* Transformers *cough*. I'm just pointing these things out, because the movies could be even better.

Edited November 15, 2014 by DarthTwoShedsJackson

[bachamn]

The Hobbit-movies so far lack the flow an adventure movie should have.... They are rather stoppy-starty...I can argue that an extended version of The Hobbit-movies would not be an improvement, but just more excess.

I can agree with you about the irregular pacing of the films, but I guess this just hasn't ever bothered me. Maybe it's because I can recognize PJ's struggle as a Tolkien fan to get in as much of the canon as possible while still keeping the films short enough to be "watchable". I know I would struggle with this if I were in his position. In the LotR director's commentary, editing for pacing is repeatedly mentioned by the production team as an obstacle they had to overcome and it's why the EE's exist in the first place. That is to say, I don't think they were giving as much consideration to pacing in the EE's because that wasn't the focus of the editing. I'm certain that if they decided against releasing EE's for The Hobbit films there would have been a huge outcry.

I agree that the AUJ extras were a bit lacking, but the added scenes in DoS really flesh out some things that were kind of grazed over in the theatrical edition. So to me, they're 100% worth it.

The extended Mirkwood scenes really add to the struggle and sense of muddled confusion the party experiences, which I feel wasn't emphasized enough before. I was happy to see them carrying Bombur, since this felt like a major hardship that got left out. That's not to mention the whole finding of Thror, which I find interesting for personal reasons (I worked as a developer on a Tolkien MUD in the late 90's and Dol Guldur was one of the areas I designed, so this portion of lore is very dear to me ).

So yeah, obsessive fans of the lore, like myself, aren't going to be bothered by the slowing down of the pace of the film if it means we get to enjoy more of the scenery, so to speak. I'm not watching these films to get that "action film" experience you describe, as I might if I were watching a superhero flick. My focus is given to absorbing the lore that I love in a visually stimulating format, and in that respect I really feel like the EE's are the "true" versions of the films.

Edited November 17, 2014 by bachamn

[Palathadric]

So much of that "action" they could have just cut out to add more of the good stuff, but...

[The Legonater]

Yeah, the EE of DoS really fleshed out the film and made it much better in terms of pacing and over-all feel.

I really don't understand how people can possibly think the entirely of the Hobbit's basic story could be fit into one movie. Sure, it's one book, but it gets away with that by being a book. The first film, asides from a couple scenes, was fairly accurate to the book. I could see the two-film method originally planned as being the minimal possible design. It may not be a long book, but it's very sequential, with a lot of events. Adding in the Necromancer arc managed to answer the questions people surely would have as to Gandalf's whereabouts, as well as include events that were taking place at the time and lead up to LotR. Not to mention lots of added stuff giving more character to the dwarves. I'm fine with my Hobbit trilogy.

[bachamn]

So much of that "action" they could have just cut out to add more of the good stuff, but...

this I can definitely agree with, I should have mentioned that in my previous reply. I'd prefer the film be categorized under Fantasy/Adventure but PJ does have a proclivity to "spice it up" with extended action sequences. The barrel escape is probably the most obvious example of departure from the book and creating a made-up battle sequence. I loved it in the theatre, but after rewatching a few times it's one of my least favorite parts of the film.

I really don't understand how people can possibly think the entirely of the Hobbit's basic story could be fit into one movie. Sure, it's one book, but it gets away with that by being a book.

I couldn't have said it better myself. When I re-read Hobbit again recently I was kind of shocked at how quickly paced everything was, but I guess that comes with the territory of being a children's book. Totally agree that most of the audience would be wondering why Gandalf just disappears mid-quest (as I did when first read this as a kid) if the film didn't follow him to DG so the inclusion of extra Necromancer plotline outside of what was in book's narrative was necessary to make a cohesive story, and ultimately tie the events in with LotR.

Edited November 18, 2014 by bachamn

[Palathadric]

I am the only one wondering how in the world they're going to fit all that needs to happen still in just one movie? Considering how long they've extended battle scenes that didn't even exist, what will it be like to have so many major happenings in the final film. Smaug will have to die, there's got to be some big fight thing at DG and of course, the BoFA. Unless they're going to mix them all up into one, which I'm worriedly beginning to think is very likely...I don't how they'll fit it into one film.

Anyone, I still enjoy the Hobbit in spite of itself.

Am I the only one who enjoyed, for the most AUJ over DoS? Everyone I've met seems to prefer DoS. Granted, Smaug was awesome, but Beorn was rather disappointing.

[Mr Breden]

I agree, I love them both, but AUJ had a different feel IMO, more Middle Earth-y.

[Fives]

I agree, I love them both, but AUJ had a different feel IMO, more Middle Earth-y.

Thats because pretty much 100% of the locations in that film we've already seen and been to in LOTR. DOS took us to completely uncharted territory as an audience, which I think finally set the tone for the Hobbit trilogy.

[The Legonater]

I am the only one wondering how in the world they're going to fit all that needs to happen still in just one movie?

I'm wondering the exact opposite. We have, effectively, three fight scenes with some intrigue interspersed within. That's not a lot over all. DoS covered a lot more ground in the same amount of time.

As for preference, I feel AUJ definitely captured the feel and look of the Hobbit. I was really pleased with the movie. I like DoS much better now that I've seen the EE, but I feel I'll appreciate it the most seeing the trilogy as a whole.

[Borador]

I personally felt AUJ was too long, random, and ultimately, boring.I loved the Lord of the Rings, but AUJ was just... bad. More Middle-Earth looking, sure. But the pacing was awful. It dragged on way too long, and was, frankly, boring.

DoS was MUCH better because the pacing was better. I think it was shorter? I don't know. But it didn't feel long, or boring, or random or anything. It was closer to Lord of the Rings in quality, and that, to me, is what made DoS more Middle-Earth-y. Looks don't count, quality does. And DoS was closer to Lord of the Rings in that respect. Not quite there (seriously, pouring gold on the dragon?) but it was much better than AUJ, which was a huge failure in terms of pacing.

At least, I believe. But when I was watching DoS, I got that sense of Adventure, that fun, that heart, and all that good stuff from Lord of the Rings that AUJ didn't have. I was really happy with that. Still not quite perfect, but a big improvement. If the trend continues, and if BotFA is better than DoS, then I'm sure I'll be totally thrilled with that one.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Borador

[bachamn]

Unless they're going to mix them all up into one, which I'm worriedly beginning to think is very likely...

huh?

[Jedi-Bendu]

II'm actually looking forward to the two-hour-cut of all three movies combined, making the mess into a story worthy of the title 'The Hobbit'. Quite contrary to the Lord of the Rings-movies, where I couldn't wait for the extended cuts.

The way these hobbit moves are they should be called: 'Epic stuff because the director likes epic stuff and excess, and somewhere in the middle of all this mess, there is a hobbit'. Isn't that an epic title?

+1

Peter Jackson isn't a great director imo. Sure, LotR was fantastic....but he had great source material.........The Hobbit is also a great book, but it had a very different tone than LotR. His approach wasn't the best imo. He should've made 1, max 2 movies of this book.....without Legolas, Tauriel, etc. King Kong (again, good source material) wasn't great as well......and I never liked Bad Taste, Braindead, The Frighteners en Meet the Feebles....Heavenly Creatures was good on the other hand.

Still, I have to see this movie:

Edit: http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-7-trailer-release-plans/

Edited November 20, 2014 by Jedi-Bendu

[bachamn]

+1

Peter Jackson isn't a great director imo. Sure, LotR was fantastic....but he had great source material.........The Hobbit is also a great book, but it had a very different tone than LotR. His approach wasn't the best imo. He should've made 1, max 2 movies of this book.....without Legolas, Tauriel, etc. King Kong (again, good source material) wasn't great as well......and I never liked Bad Taste, Braindead, The Frighteners en Meet the Feebles....Heavenly Creatures was good on the other hand.

While I don't agree with most of your perspectives on the Hobbit films, I have to give you a +1 for mentioning Meet the Feebles. That movie is...something else haha

but yeah, film could have done without Legolas and Tauriel. I've said it before on here but everything she does irks me, she just feels out of place in the world, not just because she's a PJ fabrication. I mean, even her theme music seems generic and contrived to me.

Edited November 20, 2014 by bachamn

[Mandate]

Tbh I found DoS to be very boring. With the ridiculous amounts of ways they changed the plot, and some highly stupid decisions. Namely the "Barrel Fight" and Smaug's bath in gold. I can excuse the barrel fight sequence, because that was hilarious. But DoS' ending was terrible and I don't have high hopes for the next film.

Although then again, movies set in Middle Earth have had a history of making stupid "additions" to the plot to increase the drama.

[Jedi-Bendu]

While I don't agree with most of your perspectives on the Hobbit films, I have to give you a +1 for mentioning Meet the Feebles. That movie is...something else haha

but yeah, film could have done without Legolas and Tauriel. I've said it before on here but everything she does irks me, she just feels out of place in the world, not just because she's a PJ fabrication. I mean, even her theme music seems generic and contrived to me.

I've been in stores where the store clerks placed the Meet the Feebles DVD in the kids section...."hey, a cover that has silly animals on it must be a kiddie movie right?"

Regarding The Hobbit; I think Jackson tried too hard turning The Hobbit into something (an epic spectacle) it isn't: let's face it: The Hobbit is (unlike LotR) a childrens book.

And all these additions that make no sense don't help either.......just like the barrel scene that is just bad and wrong. Legolas has moves even Neo from The Matrix can only dream of. Plus the movies are too long.....$ and € are the only reasons they made 3 instead of 2 movies.

Still, as a fantasy movie it's great.......but as an adaptation of the book (a book I first read 23 years ago and is still one of the best ever written) it lacks a lot.

[bachamn]

First, seeing Meet the Feebles in the kid's section would make me do a double take; that's hilarious and just so, so wrong.

Still, as a fantasy movie it's great.......but as an adaptation of the book (a book I first read 23 years ago and is still one of the best ever written) it lacks a lot.

so you feel it's lacking? So far the only arguments I've seen against it are that they put too much into it

or did you mean lacking in thoughtful planning/production decisions?

[Jedi-Bendu]

First, seeing Meet the Feebles in the kid's section would make me do a double take; that's hilarious and just so, so wrong.

so you feel it's lacking? So far the only arguments I've seen against it are that they put too much into it

or did you mean lacking in thoughtful planning/production decisions?

I meant the last

Yes, it's too long and it lacks the 'feel' of the book.

[Darth Punk]

I meant the last

Yes, it's too long and it lacks the 'feel' of the book.

I agree, it's a haphazard mess. A whole that seems less than the sum of its parts.

The Hobbit was never meant to be an equal of TLoR, rather a supplement. And all of the additions Jackson has made only emphasis that fact. Another trilogy whose story gets buried by special effects.

[Zilcho]

BoFA was great! The White Council scene was simply spectacular. The Smaug battle was indeed amazing as well. I think Alfred definitely stole the show as far as humour is concerned.

It's very sad that it has all come to an end though :(

[kreimkoek]

Saw BoFA yesterday.

Spoilers below

The first half of the movie was great but the second half could not fulfill my expectations. Many scenes were left out in favor of the extended edition, even scenes that were in the trailers.

Alfred was annoying as hell. He is like the Jar Jar Binks of the Hobbit trilogy (he was not as annoying in Desolation of Smaug).

Bards children also got too much screentime. The only thing they do is call out each others names. Dad!!! Bain!!! Sigrid!!! Tilda!!!

The battle itself wa alot of fun but when they switched to the Ravenhill scenes it only got worse. I wanted more dwarf and elven action.

One more thing that bothered me was how easy the trolls, goblins and orcs die in this movie. In Lotr they had so much trouble killing the moria troll even with Aragorn, Gimli, Gandalf and Legolas while in BoFA they die so easy it seemed.

Oh and the Wargs were nowhere to be seen in this movie...

The eagles and Beorn were also a letdown, they had like 30sec of screentime.

I would rate the theatrical editions of The Hobbit trilogy like this:

1 The Desolation of Smaug

2 Unexpected yourney

3 Battle of The Five Armies

I will await the extended edition of BoFA and maybe we will see some Wargs in that one :)

Edited December 13, 2014 by kreimkoek

[Cagast]

1 The Desolation of Smaug

2 Unexpected yourney

3 Battle of The Five Armies

I agree with you on this rating. BoTFA was good, but TDOS was outstanding.

[BrickTamland]

After watching BotFA I'd say it didn't destroy expectations, and it had its shortcomings, but its a worthy addition to the cinematic Middle Earth. It did leave me wishing for a live action adaption of The Silmarillion.

[SandMirror38]

Least favourite Middle Earth film.. which is a shame because I was really looking forward to this..Will definetly get the extended edition.