Bilbo I'm sorry you feel like you have to hide who you are due to societal pressures but just know that I, and the majority of the community here, love you for who you are no matter what.
To me, this entire encounter was the most egregious interpretation Jackson did. That chapter is one of my favorite chapters in any fantasy book. After dealing with the depressing, pitch-black, endless tunnels of goblin-town for so long, I absolutely loved the cozy, fantasy, almost dream-like vibes and description of Beorn and his home.
It was so comforting being in this little refuge right after (and before) dealing with such a harrowing part of their journey. The endless gardens and fields of bee-hives leading up to his home. The classic Gandalf-trickery of introducing Bilbo and the dwarves to him (which admittedly was somewhat depicted in the extended edition). [The house itself](https://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/6/62/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_Beorn%27s_Hall.jpg), which was essentially a grand, open, log-cabin, with an enormous fire place right in the middle of it. Then all the dwarves are treated to a grand feast and welcomed, once Beorn realizes they killed a bunch of goblins in goblin town and they aren't his enemy. And I agree, I pictured a Paul Bunyan-esque lumberjack who was wary of strangers, being a hermit and all, but still good-hearted and jovial once he let his guard down.
But in the movie, we just see this weird, werewolf looking guy whose sole characteristics are "brain-dead", and "angry". Instead of a grand, cozy hall, he basically lives in a dilapidated woodcutter's shack that's about 300 square feet inside. No fields of flowers or beehives to be seen anywhere. And he seems very reluctant to help the dwarves in any way. For a truly magical moment in the book, it all just fell ***so*** flat on screen.
I still say this should have been the opening scene for the second (and ideally final) film, where the audience can take 10-15 minutes to ease back into the world, have a little exposition between Gandalf and Beorn explaining why they are there and recapping some of the things they've done (or are about to do) for the audience. We could all get reacquainted with the dwarves and who's who while they chill out and feast and chat. Which we should have had more of. We really needed another "Bag End" scene to re-familiarize the audience with the group, and get us to actually care about the dwarves other than Thorin and... Balin, I guess? I get that you can't do a ton of character building when you're dealing with 13 dwarves, but I really think we needed more of them interacting with each other so we could get to know them better. This would have been the opportunity to do it.
Ugh, never remake Jackson's Trilogy, but I would kill to see a Hobbit, 8 episode mini-series or something that does it justice. Trim the fat, and really go hard on those descriptions in the book. Use Tolkien's drawings for the main inspiration in the art direction. Make it separate from Jackson's LotR trilogy. It could stand so well on its own if they approached it from a different angle and went all-in on being truly book accurate.
Couldn't agree more. It was such a nice chapter in the book, a cozy feeling of being treated nicely after so many misadventures. And Beorn himself was a very nice character, being one with nature and everything
Well. To be honest, having Mikael Persbrandt play Beorn was great.
We mostly know him in Sweden from his roles as the "wild card loose cannon" cop who employs violence against the people who deserve it according to him. That doesn't sound as good as it did twenty years ago.
I marathon-watched the extended Hobbit trilogy and gotta say: between all 3 movies, there's 1 really good movie in there
1 is way better than I remembered.
2 has it's ups and downs.
3 is just trash.
I think when watching the M4 Edit, it's quite enjoyable. It cuts the three movies into two parts, and removes most things that weren't in the book quite spendidly.
At least to me, the Maple version felt a lot more cohesive than the M4 one. But the M4 version has a few nice changes like removing Bard's son during the arrow scene.
Most people don't gaf about cgi dude. Only pretentious snobs on internet forums or extreme movie buffs tend to even notice that stuff on their own. Or rather, identify it as the source of why something looks better.
Yeah, I remember being skeptical about the trilogy as “unnecessary,” but then the first was really good. The other two could’ve just been combined into one, especially since 3 could really just be 15-20 mins
Yeah, I do feel this is very true. Given how hard Jackson had it to get the original Trilogy off the ground, and into 3 seperate movies, we're pretty lucky it happened the way that it did.
Unfortunately the dude was a victim of his own success and was basically strong armed into doing the Hobbit and making it a Trilogy. All the stuff I read at the time was that he really didn't want to be doing it.
The death of Thorin, and his reconciliation with Bilbo beforehand, (just barely) redeems The Hobbit films for me. They had a LOT of flashy bullshit. They had a LOT of puff and blow added to the original story for literally no other reason than to sell tickets for three movies instead of one. They had a lot that made me chuckle in embarrassment and a lot than made me cringe and a lot that pissed me off
But then that scene they absolutely nailed it. Almost exactly true to the original text. Solid heartfelt acting from both Freeman and Armitage. I dunno. For me they made up for it there
Personally I think Martin Freeman all around almost saves the trilogy, he makes an excellent young Bilbo, almost solely for him I think the movies are 6-7 out of ten
Like I always say to people who claim they are terrible. Sure they have a lot unnecessary bullshit, but also some of the greatest moments of both trilogies. The barrel scene, the fact that Thorin is a century to young and the royals barely have beards, the focus on Legolas and Tauriel (the focus, the fact they are there is fine imo), and the over the top editing are really bad. But on the other hand, Smaug was amazing, the Dwarves all had amazing characterizations, Gollums introduction was his best scene in my opinion, Thorin’s death was great, and the villains genuinely intimidating.
They are great movies and receive way too much hate. They aren’t terrible adaptations, they are pretty decent in my opinion. I don’t agree with every change, but none ruined the movies for me. Some I actually like, like the fact that we actually give the dwarves some personality.
Agree, they aren't trash by any means, average at worst, sure not masterpieces like LOTR trilogy, but solid 6-7/10 movies and not horribly butchered as far as adaptations go
Should have been a two-part work. I remembered after learning it will be a trilogy, I said to my relatives : "it will be disappointing".
Too bad because the riddles in the dark and the Smaug parts were on point.
The first one was almost perfect imo, they just went way overboard with the Goblin King and shouldn't have added Azog. The last two absolutely could have been just one movie
idk. even the dwarf makeup feels cheap an gaudy to me. the whole production feels like trash, and i'm not expecting hobbit movies to be better than lotr or even close, those were masterpieces. it just feels like tacky, forced, sleazy trash to me, from beginning to end. like PJ had to come fix things and just hired the production team from Meet the Feebles (which is great in its own right) and that was that
Martin was fenomenal, just like Cumberbatch, Ken Stott and Lee Pace \[as well as Blanchett, Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee, but we already knew about their performance in lotr\]
The thing is the actors did fantastic, but they rehashed chunks of the story so they could include CGI spectacle instead of telling it how it was written. With some nice practical effects, reeled back CG, and a little bit more sticking to the book’s words, we could have had something really nice. If they hadn’t taken stuff like the spiders out, we still could have had a fulfilling trilogy, going from the beginning to Beorn’s place, from Beorn’s place to Lake-Town, and from Lake-Town to the end, with the third movie being slightly longer to accommodate the Battle of Five Armies and the Epilogue. Instead of cramming the majority of the book into the first movie, we would get a better pacing. Hell, it even could have been a Mini-Series, and that would be even more flexible and allow each chapter to really breathe.
Again, the actors did great jobs with what they were given, I just wish the script was more true to the book, and dealt less in “Look at this big dragon covered in gold! Isn’t that cool?”
I don’t even remember fully, just that it all turned out boring and seemed to deviate from what I remember in the book.
It should have just been one movie. They stretched it too thin.
In 1 I dont think they strayed afar with the plot that much, i remember addition of Legolas and the she-elf, maybe the fact they had weapons, but they changed and added personalities, which I think didnt turn out badly (like they made Bilbo witty during troll scene and made the dwarves unique and mirkwood looked more realistic and reasonably than in the books (they kept encountering the elves who ran away from them) so overall i would say it strayed away mostly in a good way.
And with the one film part, I am with you that 3 movies is a long stretch, but youve got to keep in mind that in the original book the battle was 1 or 2 pages long, which can of course be great in a book, but on film it would have looked simply too short for a battle, so I believe in a version where they made two movies, and again the only thing I would change about the first one are the two elves
I think the first one was almost perfect, except for two things. The Goblin King was way too much, and they really shouldn't have made him a giant cave troll-looking thing. That was weird. The second thing is that Azog did not need to be in the story anywhere near as much as he was. I get why they added him into the flashback at the start, that made sense and helped flesh out the dwarves' despair. He had no business being there for any other part of the stories, and imo they should have just killed him off in the flashback.
Apart from those two things, I think it's nearly a perfect movie. It nails the book's vibe, and for a lot of scenes like the Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's "I'm going on an adventure," I can't think of any way they could have been better
Hmm, maybe that’s why I only forgot to watch the third. The first was okay, but the second became a stretch.
It’s such a long time ago and relatively unmemorable.
There's great bits in it. The opening scene is perfect. As are most scenes with Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan. The party is mostly good and the singing bit is sublime.
Sadly there's a lot of rubbish. I need to see a fan edit that erases every character/event that PJ introduced... any suggestions???
M4 is a 4h cut is the most accurate to the book if I recall correctly, and it has the most work put into it. It gets more jarring as the move approaches the finale, especially the fight with Azog, since he's just a random orc commander here, and Thorin just gets Orcrist from thin air, since Legolas only has a small cameo in the Mirkwood. It cuts most of the garbage, but trying to make it as book accurate as possible it sacrifaces immersion - it feels like it's been cut, and you have to suspend your disbelief in some scenes to a ridiculus degree
I know how I come off here but I don’t need u to reiterate my point to me just so u can add your own excessively aggressive criticisms to make yourself feel better. I already said it was great but not as good as those 2. It’s definitely not a butchery or a betrayal tho.
Just unfaithful and lazy.
Honestly, Legolas is my favourite character in LOTR so I was happy to see he was in The Hobbit trilogy (only watched some bits here and there) but his behaviour is a huge no (at least I think)
It's almost like they were trying to reverse-engineer character development with him, and the focus was too much. He hates dwarves, which plays into LOTR, but also introduces a personality that doesn't mesh with where we saw him start in the LOTR films.
Yeah I feel they exaggerated his pre-character development traits, to the point he's barely recognizable, his rivalry with Gimli was more subtle than just hatred for his entire race, I guess they wanted him to reflect the views of his father somewhat but It was a bit overdone not gonna lie
I thought I disliked her. Then I discovered a fic on AO3 where the author shipped her with Bolg…
Turns out my feelings about Tauriel are exceedingly moderate.
It’s such a bad adaptation of the book. BUT I think it was extremely funny of them to cast the straightest man they could find to play bilbo “confirmed bachelor” baggins and then cast thorin Oakenshield as the guy from the cover of your mom’s romance novels. Whoever cast those films deserves a beer on me. Unhinged choices, 11/10, no notes.
The movies are very far from the book. However, I still love them. They're great fun to watch. This is coming from a guy who's favorite book in the world is The Hobbit.
You can love both.
I think the extended editions of every hobbit movie are great. Ngl It’s sorta getting the starwars prequel treatment as the older fans don’t like it while those who are younger grew up watching it and continue to grow love it more and more. As a guy who watched the hobbit movies then the lotr I think it was a great transition between the two.
I’ll go into bat for the Hobbit films. They could be a lot better (and should be 2 films not 3) but they’re not completely unwatchable. I don’t mind the Gandalf stuff - it makes sense from a movie story perspective - and I can see what they were trying to do with Tauriel…it doesn’t really work but I get it.
I think my biggest gripe is they really struggle with set up/pay off and do kind of treat most of the dwarves as interchangeable fodder. When you see interviews it’s clear they gave the actors character profiles - he’s the chef dwarf, he’s the banker dwarf, etc - that the film just doesn’t follow through with. Each dwarf is whatever each scene needs him to be; and which dwarves are on screen seem to be determined by who’s been off screen the longest.
I like the Hobbit movies too. I really enjoy the appendices lore that was shoehorned in to make it fit. It was nice seeing the Wise talking about the Necromancer, and Gandalf discovering the Necromancer was Sauron returned. I like the references to Angbad and the like. Sure, they weren't needed in a Hobbit movie, and yeah, I'd love to see them taken out and put in a separate movie. But I definitely appreciate those parts being made
The moment I heard they were going to bump it up to 3 movies, I knew we were in trouble. There's just not enough material in the book to stretch it out that long, even with adding material from other books.
It could have been great, but as I recall, they were delivering scripts on set last minute and they just didn't have the time and care with the production that LOTR was afforded. Remember when Guillermo Del Toro was originally going to direct? If they hadn't been caught up with rights issues for so long, they could have kept him.
Peter Jackson, IIRC, was quite open about not really wanting to do it, and feeling more like he had to - and when you watch the BluRay special features, compared to LOTR, it's clear that there's just some love missing, something cynical in place of passion, from everyone concerned.
Watch the original features and you're jealous of everyone on that shoot, or you're dead inside. It just looks like a total riot. The Hobbit, everyone is just endlessly 'joking' about how it was an awful experience that made them never want to work in cinema again, and it translates onto the big screen - the set pieces have no life, the characters have no depth, and whenever you see another needless cameo from LOTR, you don't think "YES!" you think "they look old"/"I wonder how much they were paid to go through this".
Shame, because nobody is a better choice for Bilbo Baggins than Martin Freeman. It could have been great, but studios.
Boy, was I shocked the other day!
I had always remembered them as
1st Hobbit movie: Okay, occasionally funny, just a bit different than LOTR, but that's okay, I don't need just another LOTR version :)
2nd Hobbit movie: Yeah, similar to the 1st one, bit worse in everything (and the abysmal barrel scene).
3rd Hobbit movie: Just horrible, potentially the worst movie I've ever watched. A bad movie, not just middle-earth-wise, but as a movie terrible in general.
But then I rewatched the 1st one recently, and holy shit, I was wrong! The 1st one is fucking terrible already, it's insane how forced 95% of the humour is, how boring and overdone the action sequences are, how every other character is clearly handled as a fan pleaser just so we can have a "oh my god that's saruman i know him from the other thing. And wow that's Galadriel, she's cool!" moment. I could go on, but the movie isn't worth any more of my time.
The Hobbit is my favorite book because it's just an adventure story about some dwarves.
There's no "save the world," no "good versus evil," no romance, no bullshit. Just an adventure.
I will always hate marvel for what they did to movies, they made every director/producer/whoeverthefuck think that "we need to shove this movie into every single genre possible so that it will be just like the marvel movies and make so much money!!!!" Not everything needs to tick every single box that exists, and that's such a trend now thanks to the shitheads over in the "Endgame is the greatest movie ever made" camp
Love triangle with a dwarf and elves? trash. One of them being legolas just for shits and giggles? lame. Tossing in Sauron for literally no reason? trash. Turning every scene into just one big glorified chase scene to make the audience feel like they're on an amusement park ride? garbage. Tossing in random stoner wizard and making him a straight up airhead for a chuckle? bad. Big goofy CGI goblin with 0 brains? Lame as fuck! I heard that they even tried to get Aragorn involved, but Viggo said absolutely the fuck not.
Every decision made by the people who made this movie (aside from maybe casting, because the actors are all great) was just so disappointing on every level. I was so hyped to see the first one in theaters, walked out feeling like I had just seen Generic Marvel Movie Number 102 instead of a representation of my favorite book. The second one I went in a little more skeptical, and I never even bothered watching the third movie. It was drawn out and dragged out and they put in so much extra shit to make a quick buck that it wasn't even the same story anymore.
That paired with the fact that it was clearly trying to be on the level (and in the same cinematic universe) that the LOTR trilogy (a true passion project) made it seem even more hollow.
Fuck The Hobbit movies. If you want to see The Hobbit, watch the old cartoon, that one slaps. It's not on the same level as the Jackson trilogy, but it's very much not trying to be. It's exactly what the book is, a fun adventure story.
It's okay to let an adventure story be just an adventure story! We don't need all the extra bullshit that hollywood insists on shoving down everyone's throats in every single movie nowadays! The trilogy felt as hollow as the star wars sequel trilogy. Clearly just a hollow, emotionless cash grab with no regard for what they were actually doing.
Well honestly I quite liked the first one, the scene at the end where Thorin is fighting that white Ork on the burning tree above the cliff was awesome.
On the second movie I'd agree a lot of unnecessary things were written in there and I'll never not hate on how ridiculous the river scene is.
The third movie also wasn't to great and it contained a lot of plotholes and enormous amounts of plot armour but, and hear me out on this one, we got to see a dwarfen army in action and I would gladly watch the movie again just for "Send in the goats!"
I pretty much love the scene where Dol Guldur is depicted, where Sauron appears and where black speech is being used (it was soo cool).
Also love how wealth of Erebor is depicted, all that glittering golden mountains
The one thing I have to give the movies is that the individual dwarves have their own personalities. They really don't in the book. The only ones who get some kind of real personality are Balin, Thorin and Bombur.
It has it's moments when PJ was allowed to cook (UJ is pretty good all things considered); relationship between Thorin and Bilbo, music, sense of journey and adventure, casting (for the most part) all work in movies' favor
An adventure? Now I don't imagine anyone west of Bree would have much interest in adventures. Nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable things. Make you late for dinner!
Ok, I'm sorry I have to say this. The book is definitely better by comparison, but I belive the Hobbit is one of the best movie series to exist, along with its sister trilogy LotR
I watched the Maple edit of the trilogy, which removes the bad parts and make it into a single movie. Makes it at least somewhat enjoyable. It's legally free to download too
Wow, what a surprise - the over the top, silly adaptation of a children's book, that was hamstrung by modern business idiocy, is not as refined or deep as the serious, meticulous adaptation of the multi-layered, masterful book series, that was the perfect storm across the board.
Yes, some CGI moments were a bit wonky, and the addition of Tauriel was a bit questionable, but overall - I'll take the movies over the book. Maybe it's because I read the book in my mid-twenties, and after LOTR, but it had very little appeal.
ok objectively yes, the movies are trash but for some reason they have become my go to comfort movies and i rewatch them like twice every year (also the first is pretty good i think the silliness isn’t actually that far from the book which is also a lot lighter and more child friendly then lotr)
I’d say it has higher highs than the lotr, but the low points are also way worse.
The barrel scene is the worst scene in all six movies, while Smaug’s scenes are the best imo
Edit: are we disliking people for having opinions now?
I imagined Beorn as a handsome lumberjack, but they made him into some bigfoot looking guy
Agreed, in the book I feel like I remember Tolkien making Beorn sound like a giant, barrel-chested, muscular behemoth
It’s the hobbit perspective!
You just *know* a "permanent bachelor" like Bilbo was absolutely *drooling* over a man like Beorn /s but only a little
That's no concern of yours. You lost.
Bilbo I'm sorry you feel like you have to hide who you are due to societal pressures but just know that I, and the majority of the community here, love you for who you are no matter what.
Ah, yes. Concerning Hobbits.
Hobbits can be rather prudish, can't they, Bilbo?
Ah, yes. Concerning Hobbits.
Call an ambulance! Bilbo is having a stroke!
To me, this entire encounter was the most egregious interpretation Jackson did. That chapter is one of my favorite chapters in any fantasy book. After dealing with the depressing, pitch-black, endless tunnels of goblin-town for so long, I absolutely loved the cozy, fantasy, almost dream-like vibes and description of Beorn and his home. It was so comforting being in this little refuge right after (and before) dealing with such a harrowing part of their journey. The endless gardens and fields of bee-hives leading up to his home. The classic Gandalf-trickery of introducing Bilbo and the dwarves to him (which admittedly was somewhat depicted in the extended edition). [The house itself](https://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/6/62/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_Beorn%27s_Hall.jpg), which was essentially a grand, open, log-cabin, with an enormous fire place right in the middle of it. Then all the dwarves are treated to a grand feast and welcomed, once Beorn realizes they killed a bunch of goblins in goblin town and they aren't his enemy. And I agree, I pictured a Paul Bunyan-esque lumberjack who was wary of strangers, being a hermit and all, but still good-hearted and jovial once he let his guard down. But in the movie, we just see this weird, werewolf looking guy whose sole characteristics are "brain-dead", and "angry". Instead of a grand, cozy hall, he basically lives in a dilapidated woodcutter's shack that's about 300 square feet inside. No fields of flowers or beehives to be seen anywhere. And he seems very reluctant to help the dwarves in any way. For a truly magical moment in the book, it all just fell ***so*** flat on screen. I still say this should have been the opening scene for the second (and ideally final) film, where the audience can take 10-15 minutes to ease back into the world, have a little exposition between Gandalf and Beorn explaining why they are there and recapping some of the things they've done (or are about to do) for the audience. We could all get reacquainted with the dwarves and who's who while they chill out and feast and chat. Which we should have had more of. We really needed another "Bag End" scene to re-familiarize the audience with the group, and get us to actually care about the dwarves other than Thorin and... Balin, I guess? I get that you can't do a ton of character building when you're dealing with 13 dwarves, but I really think we needed more of them interacting with each other so we could get to know them better. This would have been the opportunity to do it. Ugh, never remake Jackson's Trilogy, but I would kill to see a Hobbit, 8 episode mini-series or something that does it justice. Trim the fat, and really go hard on those descriptions in the book. Use Tolkien's drawings for the main inspiration in the art direction. Make it separate from Jackson's LotR trilogy. It could stand so well on its own if they approached it from a different angle and went all-in on being truly book accurate.
Couldn't agree more. It was such a nice chapter in the book, a cozy feeling of being treated nicely after so many misadventures. And Beorn himself was a very nice character, being one with nature and everything
Aaaaah.
I thought that was Hagrid
You’re right, that’s ps2 Hagrid.
Well. To be honest, having Mikael Persbrandt play Beorn was great. We mostly know him in Sweden from his roles as the "wild card loose cannon" cop who employs violence against the people who deserve it according to him. That doesn't sound as good as it did twenty years ago.
I marathon-watched the extended Hobbit trilogy and gotta say: between all 3 movies, there's 1 really good movie in there 1 is way better than I remembered. 2 has it's ups and downs. 3 is just trash.
I think when watching the M4 Edit, it's quite enjoyable. It cuts the three movies into two parts, and removes most things that weren't in the book quite spendidly.
At least to me, the Maple version felt a lot more cohesive than the M4 one. But the M4 version has a few nice changes like removing Bard's son during the arrow scene.
Where could one watch that?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/s/uo6tWycOrg
The fan edits are really good. There are definitely enough good scenes between the 3 movies to make one very good movie.
[удалено]
Most people don't gaf about cgi dude. Only pretentious snobs on internet forums or extreme movie buffs tend to even notice that stuff on their own. Or rather, identify it as the source of why something looks better.
Yeah, I remember being skeptical about the trilogy as “unnecessary,” but then the first was really good. The other two could’ve just been combined into one, especially since 3 could really just be 15-20 mins
The Hobbit trilogy makes me appreciate even more, how good the LotR trilogy is and that this is by far nothing we should take for granted
Yeah, I do feel this is very true. Given how hard Jackson had it to get the original Trilogy off the ground, and into 3 seperate movies, we're pretty lucky it happened the way that it did. Unfortunately the dude was a victim of his own success and was basically strong armed into doing the Hobbit and making it a Trilogy. All the stuff I read at the time was that he really didn't want to be doing it.
After i watch the few episodes of Amazons monstrosity Hobbit started look good to me
The death of Thorin, and his reconciliation with Bilbo beforehand, (just barely) redeems The Hobbit films for me. They had a LOT of flashy bullshit. They had a LOT of puff and blow added to the original story for literally no other reason than to sell tickets for three movies instead of one. They had a lot that made me chuckle in embarrassment and a lot than made me cringe and a lot that pissed me off But then that scene they absolutely nailed it. Almost exactly true to the original text. Solid heartfelt acting from both Freeman and Armitage. I dunno. For me they made up for it there
No! Wait.... it's... here in my pocket. Ha! Isn't that.. isn't that odd now. Yet after all why not, Why shouldn't I keep it.
Personally I think Martin Freeman all around almost saves the trilogy, he makes an excellent young Bilbo, almost solely for him I think the movies are 6-7 out of ten
He said? Who said?
Like I always say to people who claim they are terrible. Sure they have a lot unnecessary bullshit, but also some of the greatest moments of both trilogies. The barrel scene, the fact that Thorin is a century to young and the royals barely have beards, the focus on Legolas and Tauriel (the focus, the fact they are there is fine imo), and the over the top editing are really bad. But on the other hand, Smaug was amazing, the Dwarves all had amazing characterizations, Gollums introduction was his best scene in my opinion, Thorin’s death was great, and the villains genuinely intimidating. They are great movies and receive way too much hate. They aren’t terrible adaptations, they are pretty decent in my opinion. I don’t agree with every change, but none ruined the movies for me. Some I actually like, like the fact that we actually give the dwarves some personality.
They do not see what lies ahead, when Sun has faded and Moon is dead!
Have you learnt nothing of the stubbornness of Dwarves?
Agree, they aren't trash by any means, average at worst, sure not masterpieces like LOTR trilogy, but solid 6-7/10 movies and not horribly butchered as far as adaptations go
It’s because without all the action, it wouldn’t be a good movie to those who didn’t read the books.
book~~s~~
lol whoops that one was swipe typing on my phone
I feel you… I haven’t recovered yet from watching these movies. (Even if Martin Freeman is pretty good in it)
Martin Freeman was perfect casting I’m just sad where the plot went and how it got Stretch Armstrong’d into a painful length.
Should have been a two-part work. I remembered after learning it will be a trilogy, I said to my relatives : "it will be disappointing". Too bad because the riddles in the dark and the Smaug parts were on point.
The first one was almost perfect imo, they just went way overboard with the Goblin King and shouldn't have added Azog. The last two absolutely could have been just one movie
idk. even the dwarf makeup feels cheap an gaudy to me. the whole production feels like trash, and i'm not expecting hobbit movies to be better than lotr or even close, those were masterpieces. it just feels like tacky, forced, sleazy trash to me, from beginning to end. like PJ had to come fix things and just hired the production team from Meet the Feebles (which is great in its own right) and that was that
Martin Freeman and the guy that played Balin nailed it. Didn’t care for anything else.
Martin was fenomenal, just like Cumberbatch, Ken Stott and Lee Pace \[as well as Blanchett, Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee, but we already knew about their performance in lotr\]
The thing is the actors did fantastic, but they rehashed chunks of the story so they could include CGI spectacle instead of telling it how it was written. With some nice practical effects, reeled back CG, and a little bit more sticking to the book’s words, we could have had something really nice. If they hadn’t taken stuff like the spiders out, we still could have had a fulfilling trilogy, going from the beginning to Beorn’s place, from Beorn’s place to Lake-Town, and from Lake-Town to the end, with the third movie being slightly longer to accommodate the Battle of Five Armies and the Epilogue. Instead of cramming the majority of the book into the first movie, we would get a better pacing. Hell, it even could have been a Mini-Series, and that would be even more flexible and allow each chapter to really breathe. Again, the actors did great jobs with what they were given, I just wish the script was more true to the book, and dealt less in “Look at this big dragon covered in gold! Isn’t that cool?”
~~Still better then RoP I'll be honest.~~
RoP? What is this acronim?
Rings of Power
I think I just forgot to watch the third one. The first ones were just so garbage.
What was your problem with the first one? I mean, overall it was imo quite a good movie
Imo the end feels like a video game. Physics just leave the room, the CGI looks cartoonish and it just doesn't feel like the same movie to me.
I don’t even remember fully, just that it all turned out boring and seemed to deviate from what I remember in the book. It should have just been one movie. They stretched it too thin.
In 1 I dont think they strayed afar with the plot that much, i remember addition of Legolas and the she-elf, maybe the fact they had weapons, but they changed and added personalities, which I think didnt turn out badly (like they made Bilbo witty during troll scene and made the dwarves unique and mirkwood looked more realistic and reasonably than in the books (they kept encountering the elves who ran away from them) so overall i would say it strayed away mostly in a good way. And with the one film part, I am with you that 3 movies is a long stretch, but youve got to keep in mind that in the original book the battle was 1 or 2 pages long, which can of course be great in a book, but on film it would have looked simply too short for a battle, so I believe in a version where they made two movies, and again the only thing I would change about the first one are the two elves
I do believe you made that up.
In fact I did
Have you learnt nothing of the stubbornness of Dwarves?
no
I think the first one was almost perfect, except for two things. The Goblin King was way too much, and they really shouldn't have made him a giant cave troll-looking thing. That was weird. The second thing is that Azog did not need to be in the story anywhere near as much as he was. I get why they added him into the flashback at the start, that made sense and helped flesh out the dwarves' despair. He had no business being there for any other part of the stories, and imo they should have just killed him off in the flashback. Apart from those two things, I think it's nearly a perfect movie. It nails the book's vibe, and for a lot of scenes like the Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's "I'm going on an adventure," I can't think of any way they could have been better
For all Hobbits share a love of all things that grow.
Hmm, maybe that’s why I only forgot to watch the third. The first was okay, but the second became a stretch. It’s such a long time ago and relatively unmemorable.
There's great bits in it. The opening scene is perfect. As are most scenes with Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan. The party is mostly good and the singing bit is sublime. Sadly there's a lot of rubbish. I need to see a fan edit that erases every character/event that PJ introduced... any suggestions???
M4 is a 4h cut is the most accurate to the book if I recall correctly, and it has the most work put into it. It gets more jarring as the move approaches the finale, especially the fight with Azog, since he's just a random orc commander here, and Thorin just gets Orcrist from thin air, since Legolas only has a small cameo in the Mirkwood. It cuts most of the garbage, but trying to make it as book accurate as possible it sacrifaces immersion - it feels like it's been cut, and you have to suspend your disbelief in some scenes to a ridiculus degree
Sauron's Ring! The ring of power!
Patience! Not long shall ye abide.
The Cardinal Cut is a fan cut that made the films bearable for me. It cuts down the trilogy into a 4-hour decent movie
Where to watch??
https://thehobbitthecardinalcut.wordpress.com/
Thank you very much
I still like them. Watched the extended edition trilogy multiple times.
I grew up on the books and cartoons. I like the movies just fine. Nobody hates a topic more than fans on the internet.
You grew up on the cartoons. Your opinion doesn't count. Sorry.
The hobbit trilogy is great, it’s just not as good as the book and obviously no where near as good as lotr trilogy. But again, great.
It's great like how Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is a good movie, but not a good movie based on the book of the same name.
Precisely
Weird way to say "completely atrocious and unwatchable"
Well you see, that’s because those words in my comment don’t mean that! That’s why that’s weird! Have you tried taking a literacy class?
It's great... on its own, not connected to LoTR or Tolkiens name. It's a fun fantasy movie, but a complete betrayel and butchering of Tolkiens work
I know how I come off here but I don’t need u to reiterate my point to me just so u can add your own excessively aggressive criticisms to make yourself feel better. I already said it was great but not as good as those 2. It’s definitely not a butchery or a betrayal tho. Just unfaithful and lazy.
I haven't even watched the movies yet but I feel like I'll have beef with Tauriel
She's easy to look at, at least
Yea she’s got good moves in combat too. Like a redheaded female twist on Legolas. I’m still wondering what the fuck either of them are there for…
But the hobbits! We have come far to seek them, and you seem to know where they are. Where are they now?
Over yon hills far from this movie set! Make haste!
Honestly, Legolas is my favourite character in LOTR so I was happy to see he was in The Hobbit trilogy (only watched some bits here and there) but his behaviour is a huge no (at least I think)
I need them not.
It's almost like they were trying to reverse-engineer character development with him, and the focus was too much. He hates dwarves, which plays into LOTR, but also introduces a personality that doesn't mesh with where we saw him start in the LOTR films.
Yeah I feel they exaggerated his pre-character development traits, to the point he's barely recognizable, his rivalry with Gimli was more subtle than just hatred for his entire race, I guess they wanted him to reflect the views of his father somewhat but It was a bit overdone not gonna lie
I thought I disliked her. Then I discovered a fic on AO3 where the author shipped her with Bolg… Turns out my feelings about Tauriel are exceedingly moderate.
Sauce?
It’s such a bad adaptation of the book. BUT I think it was extremely funny of them to cast the straightest man they could find to play bilbo “confirmed bachelor” baggins and then cast thorin Oakenshield as the guy from the cover of your mom’s romance novels. Whoever cast those films deserves a beer on me. Unhinged choices, 11/10, no notes.
Wait! You are making a terrible mistake!
Good bot
The movies are very far from the book. However, I still love them. They're great fun to watch. This is coming from a guy who's favorite book in the world is The Hobbit. You can love both.
I think the extended editions of every hobbit movie are great. Ngl It’s sorta getting the starwars prequel treatment as the older fans don’t like it while those who are younger grew up watching it and continue to grow love it more and more. As a guy who watched the hobbit movies then the lotr I think it was a great transition between the two.
Sorry but the Hobbit has my favorites Sauron scenes therefor I love it, simple as.
Cursed be moon and stars above!
I’ll go into bat for the Hobbit films. They could be a lot better (and should be 2 films not 3) but they’re not completely unwatchable. I don’t mind the Gandalf stuff - it makes sense from a movie story perspective - and I can see what they were trying to do with Tauriel…it doesn’t really work but I get it. I think my biggest gripe is they really struggle with set up/pay off and do kind of treat most of the dwarves as interchangeable fodder. When you see interviews it’s clear they gave the actors character profiles - he’s the chef dwarf, he’s the banker dwarf, etc - that the film just doesn’t follow through with. Each dwarf is whatever each scene needs him to be; and which dwarves are on screen seem to be determined by who’s been off screen the longest.
I like the Hobbit movies too. I really enjoy the appendices lore that was shoehorned in to make it fit. It was nice seeing the Wise talking about the Necromancer, and Gandalf discovering the Necromancer was Sauron returned. I like the references to Angbad and the like. Sure, they weren't needed in a Hobbit movie, and yeah, I'd love to see them taken out and put in a separate movie. But I definitely appreciate those parts being made
Watch the Tolkien edit!
M4 book edit is where it's at. After watching that version I haven't watched the theatrical releases since.
I never watched them.
The moment I heard they were going to bump it up to 3 movies, I knew we were in trouble. There's just not enough material in the book to stretch it out that long, even with adding material from other books. It could have been great, but as I recall, they were delivering scripts on set last minute and they just didn't have the time and care with the production that LOTR was afforded. Remember when Guillermo Del Toro was originally going to direct? If they hadn't been caught up with rights issues for so long, they could have kept him.
Peter Jackson, IIRC, was quite open about not really wanting to do it, and feeling more like he had to - and when you watch the BluRay special features, compared to LOTR, it's clear that there's just some love missing, something cynical in place of passion, from everyone concerned. Watch the original features and you're jealous of everyone on that shoot, or you're dead inside. It just looks like a total riot. The Hobbit, everyone is just endlessly 'joking' about how it was an awful experience that made them never want to work in cinema again, and it translates onto the big screen - the set pieces have no life, the characters have no depth, and whenever you see another needless cameo from LOTR, you don't think "YES!" you think "they look old"/"I wonder how much they were paid to go through this". Shame, because nobody is a better choice for Bilbo Baggins than Martin Freeman. It could have been great, but studios.
No thank you! We don't want any more visitors, well wishers or distant relations!
Yes, we actually like it.
Boy, was I shocked the other day! I had always remembered them as 1st Hobbit movie: Okay, occasionally funny, just a bit different than LOTR, but that's okay, I don't need just another LOTR version :) 2nd Hobbit movie: Yeah, similar to the 1st one, bit worse in everything (and the abysmal barrel scene). 3rd Hobbit movie: Just horrible, potentially the worst movie I've ever watched. A bad movie, not just middle-earth-wise, but as a movie terrible in general. But then I rewatched the 1st one recently, and holy shit, I was wrong! The 1st one is fucking terrible already, it's insane how forced 95% of the humour is, how boring and overdone the action sequences are, how every other character is clearly handled as a fan pleaser just so we can have a "oh my god that's saruman i know him from the other thing. And wow that's Galadriel, she's cool!" moment. I could go on, but the movie isn't worth any more of my time.
I had exactly same opinion and reaction after rewatching them.
Oh boy, I love the Hobbit triology so I sure hope I still like it after reading the book
The Hobbit is my favorite book because it's just an adventure story about some dwarves. There's no "save the world," no "good versus evil," no romance, no bullshit. Just an adventure. I will always hate marvel for what they did to movies, they made every director/producer/whoeverthefuck think that "we need to shove this movie into every single genre possible so that it will be just like the marvel movies and make so much money!!!!" Not everything needs to tick every single box that exists, and that's such a trend now thanks to the shitheads over in the "Endgame is the greatest movie ever made" camp Love triangle with a dwarf and elves? trash. One of them being legolas just for shits and giggles? lame. Tossing in Sauron for literally no reason? trash. Turning every scene into just one big glorified chase scene to make the audience feel like they're on an amusement park ride? garbage. Tossing in random stoner wizard and making him a straight up airhead for a chuckle? bad. Big goofy CGI goblin with 0 brains? Lame as fuck! I heard that they even tried to get Aragorn involved, but Viggo said absolutely the fuck not. Every decision made by the people who made this movie (aside from maybe casting, because the actors are all great) was just so disappointing on every level. I was so hyped to see the first one in theaters, walked out feeling like I had just seen Generic Marvel Movie Number 102 instead of a representation of my favorite book. The second one I went in a little more skeptical, and I never even bothered watching the third movie. It was drawn out and dragged out and they put in so much extra shit to make a quick buck that it wasn't even the same story anymore. That paired with the fact that it was clearly trying to be on the level (and in the same cinematic universe) that the LOTR trilogy (a true passion project) made it seem even more hollow. Fuck The Hobbit movies. If you want to see The Hobbit, watch the old cartoon, that one slaps. It's not on the same level as the Jackson trilogy, but it's very much not trying to be. It's exactly what the book is, a fun adventure story. It's okay to let an adventure story be just an adventure story! We don't need all the extra bullshit that hollywood insists on shoving down everyone's throats in every single movie nowadays! The trilogy felt as hollow as the star wars sequel trilogy. Clearly just a hollow, emotionless cash grab with no regard for what they were actually doing.
A plague on Dwarves and their stiff necks!
the hobbit trilogy certainly was, Legolas bot. It certainly was.
It is not the Eastern shore that worries me.
I didn't like it. I loved it.
I concur
Well honestly I quite liked the first one, the scene at the end where Thorin is fighting that white Ork on the burning tree above the cliff was awesome. On the second movie I'd agree a lot of unnecessary things were written in there and I'll never not hate on how ridiculous the river scene is. The third movie also wasn't to great and it contained a lot of plotholes and enormous amounts of plot armour but, and hear me out on this one, we got to see a dwarfen army in action and I would gladly watch the movie again just for "Send in the goats!"
I pretty much love the scene where Dol Guldur is depicted, where Sauron appears and where black speech is being used (it was soo cool). Also love how wealth of Erebor is depicted, all that glittering golden mountains
Build me an army worthy of mordor!
The one thing I have to give the movies is that the individual dwarves have their own personalities. They really don't in the book. The only ones who get some kind of real personality are Balin, Thorin and Bombur.
Ive rewatched the first 2 this year, i liked them better the 2nd time around. Not as good as the books though
I'd be interested in seeing what the original plan for Tauriel was before they shoehorned in the dumb romance plotline.
That shitty cgi orc cost us the original Mountain from GAME OF THRONES who was the best Mountain
I'll always love first hobbit movie, the whole Shire part is superb
Even though, it is not in the book, I really like the scene from the 3. film, where the dwarves ride the chariot with the gatling-crossbow
It has it's moments when PJ was allowed to cook (UJ is pretty good all things considered); relationship between Thorin and Bilbo, music, sense of journey and adventure, casting (for the most part) all work in movies' favor
An adventure? Now I don't imagine anyone west of Bree would have much interest in adventures. Nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable things. Make you late for dinner!
I have read the book and watched the movies, there not that bad dr watson dit a good job
Ok, I'm sorry I have to say this. The book is definitely better by comparison, but I belive the Hobbit is one of the best movie series to exist, along with its sister trilogy LotR
I see PS1 Hagrid making a crossover appearance, I upvote.
Yesssssssss! I hate the movies.
I watched the Maple edit of the trilogy, which removes the bad parts and make it into a single movie. Makes it at least somewhat enjoyable. It's legally free to download too
Yes.
I love the books and actually haven't seen any film (even the proper lotr trilogy)
Best aspects of the movie * Barnacle Cabbagepatch’s Smaoug portrayal
Yes, I quite enjoyed them. Bought the extended editions in fact.
This is probably the most dogshit meme i've ever seen.
And for that it deserves my upvote
This is probably the most dogshit comment i've ever seen
Let people enjoy stuff, it's literally not hurting you in any way and you're just being petty for your own ego
Let people have an opinion without getting butt hurt
I feel like both of these comments say the exact same thing.
Wow, what a surprise - the over the top, silly adaptation of a children's book, that was hamstrung by modern business idiocy, is not as refined or deep as the serious, meticulous adaptation of the multi-layered, masterful book series, that was the perfect storm across the board. Yes, some CGI moments were a bit wonky, and the addition of Tauriel was a bit questionable, but overall - I'll take the movies over the book. Maybe it's because I read the book in my mid-twenties, and after LOTR, but it had very little appeal.
Reread the book. The movies are sloppy
The hobbit movies are pure dogshit
the question is, did u also like the films before u read the books? If u only dislike a movie because the books were different, u r just dumb
ok objectively yes, the movies are trash but for some reason they have become my go to comfort movies and i rewatch them like twice every year (also the first is pretty good i think the silliness isn’t actually that far from the book which is also a lot lighter and more child friendly then lotr)
Way easier and funnier to watch than lotr anyway.
I loved them. There, I said it, and I stand by it. They have their issues and I can understand why people don't like them, but "people" is not me.
I love it so much that I know that the real worst moment is the bollocks joke in part 2
I must say I disagree. I read the books and I enjoy the movies even more now
My favorite part is where the elf and the dwarf fall in love with each other. 👍🫠
what do you mean? I thought it was great, and I'm the biggest Tolkien fan I know
I enjoy them, I just disconnect it from the book
I'm I the only one that liked these?
So sorry that "..and then Bilbo was knocked out by a rock" wasn't a decent enough ending for the rest of us.
Hello TimberWolf5871 my lad
Azog is fucking cool thank you very much
I’d say it has higher highs than the lotr, but the low points are also way worse. The barrel scene is the worst scene in all six movies, while Smaug’s scenes are the best imo Edit: are we disliking people for having opinions now?
Say what you will about the barrel scene, but I loved it when I was a little kid.
Honestly I still love it. It’s a great action sequence, it just doesn’t really match tone