Demoncarnotaur
Member
I liked the first, loathed the other two. Really bummed how they turned out, LotR spoiled me.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Hobbit movies
- Thread starter Alucard
- Start date
- Status
I'm guessing this is from the 3rd movie (could be from 2) so potential spoilers I guess:
His good, trustworthy and respected friend Saruman said he'd deal with the Sauron situation (who was relatively weak at the time), and probably lied to Gandalf afterwards that everything had been taken care of.
Right. Forgot that part. Still seems kind of flimsy.
Okay, the stuff with Bilbo and Smaug is really really good. Very tense, well written, and feels like it has stakes. The Legolas stuff just feels weird and tacked on, though.
So yeah, the last hour of this movie is actually pretty good minus some annoying character decisions. Doesn't save the movie as a whole, but it's still worth watching the final hour.
Ol No Bones
Banned
I agree the movies have issues but there is one scene I really appreciate in the third movie. They added Legolas to give this movie some character depth and in one scene in particular you get to see him shine. So there is a collapsing bridge that would send any man, orc or dwarf to its death, but legolas is able to step on the collapsing stones and get to safety. You really get to know legolas in this scene like you never could in the LOTR trilogy. You get to see his incredible agility and athleticism like never was possible. I'm not sure if Peter Jackson could have crafted a scene like this with the tech available when he made the LOTR trilogy.
Skiptastic
Member
It is very rare that a post sums up my thoughts so perfectly. This one did it (though I might move Fellowship to number two but that's a minor quarrel.)
Ennosuke
Member
The first one was good. It was a good start, but maybe a little bit too long. At least I was looking forward to the journey.
But I wasn't really happy with the second one. The story felt pointless, streteched and had no character development. But Smaug was awesome.
For the third movie I have no words, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. No one needed this movie, this was actually well reflected by the movie. Oh and it looked bad.
But I wasn't really happy with the second one. The story felt pointless, streteched and had no character development. But Smaug was awesome.
For the third movie I have no words, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. No one needed this movie, this was actually well reflected by the movie. Oh and it looked bad.
Ol No Bones
Banned
1. Fellowship
2. Return
3. Towers
4. Unexpected
5. Desolation
6. Armies
Hobbit is one of the most treasured stories of my childhood. There was almost no way I would skip the films. Even though I was very displeased there is a curiosity that couldn't be ignored. People are more than welcome to watch a movie and express criticism. In this case a LOT of well deserved criticism.
ThatStupidLion
Member
worst. movies. ever.
jackson shit all over that lore.
Fellowship
Return
TT
and i dont even know how to rank the hobbits....i fall asleep every time i try to rewatch them.
jackson shit all over that lore.
Fellowship
Return
TT
and i dont even know how to rank the hobbits....i fall asleep every time i try to rewatch them.
Agreed. Very underused. Could've used it here to great effect like this fella has done https://vimeo.com/123164429
I thought Billy Boyd's credits song was good, and I liked Feast of Starlight too from the second film.
Dictator93
Member
You got a knee slap out of me.
---
I really do not remember the first movie anymore, but dear god the 2nd and 3rd are hideous looking (bloom + CGI for everything + unrealistic movement for CGI objects). I swear though, there is one tiny shot from one scene in the last movie that had real orcs for just a split second... and then went back to CGI. I will find it one day and screen it... it was really obvious. That one scene was better than the rest of the movie.
Also, the characterisation, pace, tone and everything are just off.
None of them are totally terrible, but they pretty much match up to the books
The Hobbit was aimed at 5-11 year olds, Lord of the Rings was for 10-14/16 y.o.?,
it's amazing that adults still get really angry about these films, they're decent entertainment,
If you feel the need to analyse the 'mythos' or 'canon', it's probably worth having a long and hard look in to the mirror.
The Hobbit was aimed at 5-11 year olds, Lord of the Rings was for 10-14/16 y.o.?,
it's amazing that adults still get really angry about these films, they're decent entertainment,
If you feel the need to analyse the 'mythos' or 'canon', it's probably worth having a long and hard look in to the mirror.
funkystudent
Member
I cant even imagine what was left on the cutting room floor and put back into the extended editions because those movies feel like they where stretching every little thing they had.
Should have been 2 movies max. And those 2 movies should have only been 90 minutes long.
Should have been 2 movies max. And those 2 movies should have only been 90 minutes long.
I didn't see any of it in the movies and also didn't understand how the source material ended up being translated into what those movies became.
I read the hobbit book and also loved the graphic novel, when I saw the movies I was puzzled at what the hell was going on.
I want to make a comment about the story structure being ignored/ruined and no character development but I was so bored by those movies I can't even remember if that was what failed...
Edit: couldn't help feeling like it was a deja vu like experience watching these movies and the star wars prequels.
The action/ fight sequences made me laugh as they were so bad (some orc jumping 2 metres out of the water onto a sheet of ice etc)
I read the hobbit book and also loved the graphic novel, when I saw the movies I was puzzled at what the hell was going on.
I want to make a comment about the story structure being ignored/ruined and no character development but I was so bored by those movies I can't even remember if that was what failed...
Edit: couldn't help feeling like it was a deja vu like experience watching these movies and the star wars prequels.
The action/ fight sequences made me laugh as they were so bad (some orc jumping 2 metres out of the water onto a sheet of ice etc)
You thought Jackson's adaptation was the worst, but you were wrong.
Join Bilbo Baaagns, General Taurin Oakenshield, and Princess Mika on their quest to take down the dragon Slag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBnVL1Y2src&feature=youtu.be
Join Bilbo Baaagns, General Taurin Oakenshield, and Princess Mika on their quest to take down the dragon Slag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBnVL1Y2src&feature=youtu.be
not psycho
Member
The Hobbit movies would have been better with Liam Neeson as Radagast in the starring role, brutally killing friend and foe alike to cleanse Middle Earth, then breaking the fourth wall to engage the filmmakers in mortal combat.
As it stands, they are pointlessly awful, irredeemable garbage. And that's being generous. In truth, the word "garbage" connotes an ill-deserved sense of aspiration. "Garbage" is often the byproduct or the remnants of something useful. The Hobbit movies are a sort of ready-made waste product.
As it stands, they are pointlessly awful, irredeemable garbage. And that's being generous. In truth, the word "garbage" connotes an ill-deserved sense of aspiration. "Garbage" is often the byproduct or the remnants of something useful. The Hobbit movies are a sort of ready-made waste product.
Will watch fully later. Slag looks like a pimp.
Grimm Fandango
Member
Watched about 30 minutes of the final movie. Had enough. Just felt no connection at all to the characters. The battle with the Ringwraiths was very disjointed and boring.
| Praxis |
Banned
I barely made it through the first one, I have no plans of watching the sequels. Not a fan of the book either, but at least it's short.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
First 30 minutes of the first film was decent. The rest was bloat and garbage.
They turned what should have been a great single addition to the Tolkien films into a superfluous trilogy that hardly feels like it's part of the same world at times.
Still, it had it's moments, some good performances and I can't say I wasn't entertained. I'm just definitely not adding it to my shelf and that's disappointing.
Still, it had it's moments, some good performances and I can't say I wasn't entertained. I'm just definitely not adding it to my shelf and that's disappointing.
LOTR trilogy is my favorite set of movies, ever. But The Hobbit trilogy is amongst my least favorite. There are some really good scenes, but they got so much wrong that it really takes away from the experience. Some of my key issues with the films...
1. Legolas- completely unnecessary.A measly way of connecting the films together that wasn't needed.
2. Tariel- why? Was having a strong female character really necessary? Completely ruined the film as it this one single decision created a chain of events that continuously reminds the film throughout.
3. Arkenstone- what happened? The entire trilogy is about the dwarves retaking their homeland and Thorin getting the Arkenstone back, yet they fail to disclose what happened to the stone. Talk about missing a criticism plot point.
4.Battle of Five Armies- what in the world? Seriously, what happened here? They should have kept it all on the battlefield instead of having Thorin, Fili and Kili go running off to an imaginary stronghold to kill a character that was already dead in the books in the first place. Such a hugely missed opportunity. Fili and Kili should have went down fighting side-by-side on the field and Thorin should have been speared to death as described in the book. No reason this should have been left out and changed so drastically.
5. CG- too much! They went far overboard on the CG. It took away any sense of realism that could have been captured in the films. It's one of the LOTR was so good. It was a nice blend of costumes and CG, whereas The Hobbit is almost entirely composed of CG. Not very believable and really takes away from the experience.
2. Tariel- why? Was having a strong female character really necessary? Completely ruined the film as it this one single decision created a chain of events that continuously reminds the film throughout.
3. Arkenstone- what happened? The entire trilogy is about the dwarves retaking their homeland and Thorin getting the Arkenstone back, yet they fail to disclose what happened to the stone. Talk about missing a criticism plot point.
4.Battle of Five Armies- what in the world? Seriously, what happened here? They should have kept it all on the battlefield instead of having Thorin, Fili and Kili go running off to an imaginary stronghold to kill a character that was already dead in the books in the first place. Such a hugely missed opportunity. Fili and Kili should have went down fighting side-by-side on the field and Thorin should have been speared to death as described in the book. No reason this should have been left out and changed so drastically.
5. CG- too much! They went far overboard on the CG. It took away any sense of realism that could have been captured in the films. It's one of the LOTR was so good. It was a nice blend of costumes and CG, whereas The Hobbit is almost entirely composed of CG. Not very believable and really takes away from the experience.
The arkenstone's total lack of closure was so damn frustrating, as was Bard suddenly vanishing altogether near the end of the movie. Zero sense. Assuming this is handled in the extended cut. Or maybe not. These two things seemed like massive oversights. Not sure how they could have missed them outside of having a deadline to meet and not enough time to properly finish the screenplay.
- Status