"Indisputable Fact About Hobbit Trilogy" Topic

1. Yes
2. No
3. Utter

4. Jar Jar would have made it better.

I dont think it could have been worse.

The parts that came from the book were nice, the stuff Jackson added to the film stunk.

2.
I'm not sure how it could be worse

Most of the action sequences were unbelievable – even for fantasy. Battle of Five Armies was the worst for me. The only way it could have been worse is if the characters would have engaged in long stream of consciousness dialogs.

It's fantasy?

Jar Jar would at least have given me a few laughs. I could barely tolerate the last of these films. The second was awful but the third, ye gads -- I didn't even bother to see it until the DVD was out (and the extended version at that, talk about masochism), and apart from Galadriel's moment of power, I resented and hated it. I'm a tolerant Tolkien purist but the Hobbit films just reeked of arrogance and misjudgment and pandering to the lowest common denominator, to me.

I felt like I was watching The Goonies in the first movie.

It is difficult to imagine how it could have been worse.

Even the big battle in the third movie was boring!

Not a fair comparison, there was never a point during the Goonies that I bored senseless.

Action scenes were so badly done that I felt I had stumbled into watching one of the kids playing a computer game… except it was worse…

The parts I did see were so bad that I skipped most of them when my brother and his family watched them on Netflix.

Painted minis instead.

I dont think it could have been worse.

I'm with Chuck.

I have an image in my head now of Jar Jar being prodded by a troll and saying 'How Wooood!'

Yes, IMHO, Steve Jackson messed up big with his film 'Interpretations' of good stories!

I'm not permitted, on the basis of medical advice, to watch these films…

John T

I found the last movie dreary, rather than terrible. I just didn't care about the characters and the climactic battle was uninspiring.

It was…

wait for it…

Hollywood. What should we ever expect, they don't make movies for us.

If they had stuck to the book, it would have been better.

That said, I'm sure it could have been much worse.

After all, they could have strung it out to 4 movies…

I liked them all. Fight me.

They were not great but they were not terrible, and Jar Jar was terrible.

I was so disappointed by the first two that my expectations were pretty low for number 3 and I managed to not hate it.

Won't bother watching them ever again though.

I loved all three of the films in the HOBBIT trilogy, maybe even my favorite films of all time. From a film perspective (script, acting, energy, storytelling, etc.) they are 1,000% better than Lord of the Rings, which I found to be slow and poorly written. I really don't care for all of those silly purists out there who think the movie version should follow each and every word of the original book.

The worst part of the movie were the gi-normous Dune-ian Cave Worms that bored out of the mountains to release the Orcish hordes…totally non-Tolkienian, completely absurd that detracted, not added to the movie.

YouTube link

DWilliams

Glad you enjoy it. Mind that most of us don't dislike the Hobbit trilogy because they didn't follow the book, but because was boring, uninteresting, badly scripted and with scenes so badly filmed that they were unintendly comical.

It could have been worse – but overall I liked it a lot

The pacing in all of Jackson's movies is too slow. The scenery and costumes look right for Middle-Earth, but the dialogue doesn't feel right. Jackson needed someone who could write an interesting screenplay in which the characters talked more and showed less of their overly exaggerated emotions. Too many close ups of a character just staring at the camera and not saying anything. Tolkien was much more subtle in his story telling and therefore appealed to a smarter audience.

I really don't care for all of those silly purists out there who think the movie version should follow each and every word of the original book

You're absolutely right, of course, DWilliams. I often feel the same about historical films.

For example, I think U571 is the best submarine film ever made though the Battle of the Bulge – with Telly Sevalis engaged in 'tank-on-tank' warfare in the snowy forests of the Ardennes (just inside the Spanish border…) is just too much of a history lesson to be as enjoyable…

John T

I'm with Weasel & Dwilliams

I think most others do too – check the numbers:
Hobbit 1: cost $250 USD million, made $1 USD billion
Hobbit 2: cost $250 USD million, made $960 USD million
Hobbit 3: cost $250 USD million, made $955 USD million

So even though the numbers went down – they're still getting a 4:1 return on their investment. I would love that kind of return on my investments.

Jackson needed someone who could write an interesting screenplay in which the characters talked more and showed less of their overly exaggerated emotions

Or….Jackson shouldn't have tried to turn a single child's adventure book into an epic 3-trilogy movie. Even with the bridging story "Quest of Erebor" added, two would have been plenty.

Movie one: Similar to the first Hobbit movie, except we accelerate the story to take the party through the halls of the Goblin King, the rescue by the Eagles, Beorn's Hall and into Mirkwood. where we leave them in the spider's snare.

However, we add in the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur. The Quest of Erebor turns the Hobbit into a Commando raid organized by Gandalf to distract or neutralize Smaug while he gets the White Council to attack Sauron in Dol Guldur. In the Quest the White Council uses forces from Saruman (not his orcs, but men) and from Lothlorien and there's a big 'ol fight that drives Sauron from Dol Guldur. The perfect way to end the first movie -- the Hobbit and Dwarves in peril against the spiders as a cliffhanger, and a big battle.

Movie two: The Party escapes the spiders, then Thranduil, brief stop in Laketown, then to the Lonely Mountain to "Riddles in the Dark." Gandalf is occupied with the aftermath of the fall of Dol Guldur, visiting the lost tombs of the 9, etc. Then we get Smaug all riled up, burning Laketown, then the Battle of Five armies and home.

Heck, that's a lot -- plenty of material that Jackson didn't need to invent all the filler stuff he added, like the Dwarf-Elf romance, the long Laketown scenes, extended water barrel ride fight, etc.

My two bits worth.

Ever movie has gotten further from the books, wouldn't suprise me if Jar-Jar showed up in a new movie

Not Hollywood -- these were Wellywood movies! (WETA, in Wellington NZ)

Oh, I'd buy and watch them *all over again* if Jar Jar Binks replaced Gandalf.

Despite its liberties with history, I thought U571 was a fantastic film.

Sometimes the liberties with the source material do ruin a movie for me, like The Patriot, so I get it.
It just didn't bug me with Hobbit.

It should have been one or two movies. The extra fluff was unnecessary and boring at times. Some of the CGI was terrible. I saw the hobbit movies once but I don't own any of them.

I think the first movies of either trilogy are fine for the most part. And there's lots to love in both series, they just need to be trimmed by a movie's worth each.

Alternately:
YouTube link

Just annoyed they never released the orchestrated version of Beat It.

The pacing in all of Jackson's movies is too slow.

Welll, when you turn one book into three movies, bound to be a little drawwwwwwwwwn out.

"I feel thin Gandalf – like too little plot spread over too much run time."

Well the book isn't exactly the greatest in the world, so you can't expect much from an attempt to make 3 movies from it. Despite all that I've seen much worse. Alexander was only 1 but seemed longer than the 3 Hobbit films put together.

With drastic editing it might've made one really good film.

With drastic editing it might've made one really good film.

Yes it does.
tolkieneditor.wordpress.com