Last installment of the Hobbit

Triton

Triton

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2000
Messages
35,963
So I know this one has been out since December, but I finally saw it this weekend before the shut it down in all the local theaters. I guess it says something about my expectations that I didn't see it until the last minute anyway. Can I just say that my expectations were met in spades? I thought the first Hobbit movie was mediocre at best, the second was awful and this last one was pretty gosh awful as well.

Things I hated the most:

1) The whole Azog vs Thorin Oakenshielf story arc. It is a complete fabrication of the movies and really very contrived and predictable.
2) The love interest with the girl elf and Fili or was it Kili? Again, a complete movie fabrication, very contrived and again completely predictable. Yes, I know you have to do something to keep the ladies from leaving the theater but did this really do it?
3) The attempts at comedy relief with the henchman of the master of Laketown. It wasn't funny, and was only a relief when he was off screen. Then he just kind of disappeared wearing a dress. I mean, good riddance but really?
4) Bard's children constantly being saved. He saved them like what 50 times in the movie? How did 3 kids get in so much trouble?
5) The wereworms. Another movie fabrication and completely unnecessary.
6) The scene where Leogolas (what was he doing in this movie anyway, another something for the ladies I guess) runs up the falling rocks to safety.
7) Leogolas flying around on bats and riding around on trolls, what was he doing in this movie again?
8) The troll using his head as a battering ram. Retarded.
9) Inconsistency from the orcs. Bilbo can take out a battalion of them by throwing rocks, their armor is completely worthless against stones apparently. On the other hand orcs can kill trained warriors with ease fending off swords and pikes with no problem.
10) Dain is riding a war pig?
11) Thranduil is riding an elk, and that scene where the elk lifts up a pile of orcs on its horns and Thranduil lops all their heads off... boy oh boy
12) Where did those Rams come from that Thorin and crew road up the hill?
13) Leogolas riding off in search of Aragorn at the end. What IS he doing in this movie?

Okay, Okay, I know this is just a movie, and obviously they knew what they were doing since they made millions of dollars. However, to a Tolkien purist this thing was awful and seemed like it was just a cash cow that they were milking for all they were worth. It's sad really.

What say you?
 
Loved Lord of the Rings, great films. I haven't bothered to see any of The Hobbit movies because of the way they were done. Maybe if Guillermo del Toro had directed I would have been more interested, but when Peter Jackson out-and-out said he didn't want to direct these and ended up doing it anyway I figured it wasn't worth the time or money.
 
When dealing with a Hollywood adaptation of a novel, any novel, one should keep one's expectations low. Mine were several feet below bedrock on the ocean floor, and the Hobbit movies lived up to them. Barely.
 
Saw all the Hobbit movies.
Read all of the books multiple, multiple times as a young man. Was a member of the Mythopeic society a number of decades ago.

Jackson had a problem. For The Lord Of The Rings, there was too much material to put into three movies, so he left some out.

For the Hobbit, there was too much material for two movies, yet not enough for three. So he added.

I didn't find either decision overly objectionable.
I felt the parts left out of TLOFR did not detract from the story.
I felt the additions to the Hobbit neither detracted from, nor changed the focus of, the story.
 
You have to understand that Middle Earth was this world before our time, these people were our ancestors. We've made a lot of progress since then!



We are the dwarves
we're not so tall
the rocks beneath our feet
we own them all

We are the elves
we're tall and thin
and this is why
we always win

We are the men
we're just like you
so you can guess
what we will do

We orc
no eat with fork



OK, guys. Let's have a vote. Who wants me to write the next trilogy? :cool:
 
The LOTRs series was written for a young adult audience as an allegory of the world war, while the Hobbit is a children's story on par with Grimm Tales. The material in the Hobbit does not lend itself for a LOTR prequel. It may provide the backstory to LOTR but the characters in portrayed book, like the perpectually bumbling dwarves, would be nearly unwatchable on film. It was no surprise that the hobbit series was a mess from the start. The same thing had happened when the material was originally produced in the animated films from the 1970s. Perhaps, at some point the three films will be edited down to a single movie, with most of the extra garbage pulled out, to make it a better fit with both the books and the LOTRs films.

n2s
 
Last edited:
The hobbit movies left me wanting my time and money back... but as a diehard Tolkien fan I had to watch them. :D
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Loved Lord of the Rings, great films. I haven't bothered to see any of The Hobbit movies because of the way they were done. Maybe if Guillermo del Toro had directed I would have been more interested, but when Peter Jackson out-and-out said he didn't want to direct these and ended up doing it anyway I figured it wasn't worth the time or money.
Click to expand...

As it turns out you were correct. I thought Peter Jackson might be able to pull it off even with stretching it into three movies. I was wrong.
 
yablanowitz said:
When dealing with a Hollywood adaptation of a novel, any novel, one should keep one's expectations low. Mine were several feet below bedrock on the ocean floor, and the Hobbit movies lived up to them. Barely.
Click to expand...

I thought they did a pretty good job with the Lord of the Rings. Okay there was the Legolas skateboarding on a shield incident (why is he the constant refrain in my complaints?) and if whoever that little twit was that played Frodo rolled up his eyes in the back of his head and looked all pitiful one more time I was going to barf but other than that they did pretty well.
 
knarfeng said:
Saw all the Hobbit movies.
Read all of the books multiple, multiple times as a young man. Was a member of the Mythopeic society a number of decades ago.

Jackson had a problem. For The Lord Of The Rings, there was too much material to put into three movies, so he left some out.

For the Hobbit, there was too much material for two movies, yet not enough for three. So he added.

I didn't find either decision overly objectionable.
I felt the parts left out of TLOFR did not detract from the story.
I felt the additions to the Hobbit neither detracted from, nor changed the focus of, the story.
Click to expand...

Agreed for the most part especially about the length of the books not lending themselves easily to a set of 3 movies. As mentioned above I agree that they did a decent job with the Lord of the Rings, but holy moly I think they completely mucked up the storyline of the Hobbit!
 
Esav Benyamin said:
You have to understand that Middle Earth was this world before our time, these people were our ancestors. We've made a lot of progress since then!



We are the dwarves
we're not so tall
the rocks beneath our feet
we own them all

We are the elves
we're tall and thin
and this is why
we always win

We are the men
we're just like you
so you can guess
what we will do

We orc
no eat with fork



OK, guys. Let's have a vote. Who wants me to write the next trilogy? :cool:
Click to expand...

Count me in for Esav doing the movie adaptation of the Silmarillion. He can call it THE SILMARILLION THE DISMANTLING OF THE NOLDOR. Also we can make sure that Legolas is involved so that he can do some other highly improbable (even for an elf) stunts involving running, jumping or molesting female elves...
 
not2sharp said:
The LOTRs series was written for a young adult audience as an allegory of the world war, while the Hobbit is a children's story on par with Grimm Tales. The material in the Hobbit does not lend itself for a LOTR prequel. It may provide the backstory to LOTR but the characters in portrayed book, like the perpectually bumbling dwarves, would be nearly unwatchable on film. It was no surprise that the hobbit series was a mess from the start. The same thing had happened when the material was originally produced in the animated films from the 1970s. Perhaps, at some point the three films will be edited down to a single movie, with most of the extra garbage pulled out, to make it a better fit with both the books and the LOTRs films.

n2s
Click to expand...

I like it and I bet Hollywood would jump at a chance to release it in another format for everyone to buy again!
 
Triton said:
As it turns out you were correct. I thought Peter Jackson might be able to pull it off even with stretching it into three movies. I was wrong.
Click to expand...

If Jackson had been completely on board, I think it would have been worth it, but his strength as a director seems to be his commitment to the subject and attention to detail, those don't translate well to projects he didn't really want to do in the first place.
 
Triton said:
and if whoever that little twit was that played Frodo rolled up his eyes in the back of his head and looked all pitiful one more time I was going to barf but other than that they did pretty well.
Click to expand...

I kept wishing Samwise would just push Frodo into the fire, ring and all. Couldn't stand either of them, frankly, but thought Andy Serkis as Gollum was fabulous.

Legolas reminds me of those parkour twits. Enough already. No telling where he'll turn up next, probably on the planet Vulcan, advising the Council.
 
Jackson did an excellent job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He did a mediocre job with the Hobbit. All I wanted to see was Smaug, which he did a great job, but I also wanted to see Beorn take down Bolg.

Spoilers ahead












All I got to see was Beorn jumping off of an eagle and hitting the ground running as a bear into a pack of orcs, and that was it.
 
Triton said:
Things I hated the most:

1) The whole Azog vs Thorin Oakenshielf story arc. It is a complete fabrication of the movies and really very contrived and predictable.
2) The love interest with the girl elf and Fili or was it Kili? Again, a complete movie fabrication, very contrived and again completely predictable. Yes, I know you have to do something to keep the ladies from leaving the theater but did this really do it?
3) The attempts at comedy relief with the henchman of the master of Laketown. It wasn't funny, and was only a relief when he was off screen. Then he just kind of disappeared wearing a dress. I mean, good riddance but really?
4) Bard's children constantly being saved. He saved them like what 50 times in the movie? How did 3 kids get in so much trouble?
5) The wereworms. Another movie fabrication and completely unnecessary.
6) The scene where Leogolas (what was he doing in this movie anyway, another something for the ladies I guess) runs up the falling rocks to safety.
7) Leogolas flying around on bats and riding around on trolls, what was he doing in this movie again?
8) The troll using his head as a battering ram. Retarded.
9) Inconsistency from the orcs. Bilbo can take out a battalion of them by throwing rocks, their armor is completely worthless against stones apparently. On the other hand orcs can kill trained warriors with ease fending off swords and pikes with no problem.
10) Dain is riding a war pig?
11) Thranduil is riding an elk, and that scene where the elk lifts up a pile of orcs on its horns and Thranduil lops all their heads off... boy oh boy
12) Where did those Rams come from that Thorin and crew road up the hill?
13) Leogolas riding off in search of Aragorn at the end. What IS he doing in this movie?
Click to expand...

Why wasn't this is whine and cheese?

You can't just make a movie that is exactly like the book without it being complete crap. The Thorin vs Azog storyline was actually pretty necessary so that in the end it wouldn't be "a random orc killed thorin and he died, the end." It worked in the book, but in a movie it would have been ridiculous.
 
Noswad0208 said:
Why wasn't this is whine and cheese?

You can't just make a movie that is exactly like the book without it being complete crap.
Click to expand...

How can you tell? As far as I can see, it has never been attempted. They always "take artistic liberties".

The Thorin vs Azog storyline was actually pretty necessary so that in the end it wouldn't be "a random orc killed thorin and he died, the end." It worked in the book, but in a movie it would have been ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So, in the movies, the mighty cannot be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers? A Hero can only be slain by a Villain? We have to have a whole involved sub-plot that wasn't in the original material because otherwise no one dies in a battle? In my opinion, that is ridiculous.
 
yablanowitz said:
How can you tell? As far as I can see, it has never been attempted. They always "take artistic liberties".



So, in the movies, the mighty cannot be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers? A Hero can only be slain by a Villain? We have to have a whole involved sub-plot that wasn't in the original material because otherwise no one dies in a battle? In my opinion, that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, it's quite possible, but it would be very anti-climatic in a film. "He was in a battle and he got whacked by a random orc, welp, that's all, folks. See you next Tolkien film."

Not sure about you, but I think the idea of a main villan killing a hero is a lot more exciting than just having a bunch of orcs walk up and lop his head off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top