Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Hobbit Trilogy


Athena
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

It's been a long time since I've read the books, but isn't that what happens to the Master of Laketown?

 

He takes the gold and runs into the wilderness to starve. Can't buy food when there's no one around.

Link to comment

Talk about taking your time to gather the enthusiasm to watch this. I just finished the trilogy today! Yes, there was a lot of filler, but I think the most honestly disappointing thing about this movie was the total lack of resolution. I know there are answers in the books, but from a purely movie-going perspective, the actual story of this trilogy was very thin and never actually arrived at a conclusion. So Thorin and company set out to reclaim their home, and take possession of the Arkenstone so that Thorin can take his rightful place as King Under the Mountain? Ok, I'm on board with that. But then all these armies show up with very vague goals and allegiances, and then yet more armies show up to pile on, and it's not entirely clear who won or how. Then the Arkenstone ends up in Bard's hands, and then Thorin and his kin are killed... so.... what? Did the dwarves reestablish their home under the mountain? Who became king? What happened to the Arkenstone? Did the Laketown people keep it, or was it returned to the dwarves? Did the elves get their gems back, and did the Laketown people rebuild or find a new home, and who facilitated all of that on the dwarves' end, and what are relations like now between these factions? And what about Bilbo getting the ring? If Gandalf knew he had it, and how corrupting it could be, why did he seem totally unconcerned that Bilbo was far enough under its influence to lie about not having it, and just let him hang on to it like a shiny souvenir?

It feels like way too much pointless fighting happened, the story of the dwarves' quest was never wrapped up, and there is STILL a huge gap to bridge between this story and LotR. And for all the padding that was added, was the entire story of The Hobbit actually told?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 5/31/2016 at 2:07 AM, Joe said:

I could answer your questions, if they aren't just rhetorical. But I agree about being muddled.

Thanks, Joe. I appreciate that. They ARE rhetorical, and I did see some answers upthread, so I won't press you for info!

What I really want to point out by posing these questions is how poorly the big action sequence was integrated narratively. What makes great battle scenes (like in LotR) really great is that they serve the story. There is a context in which the battle takes place, a real THING to win or lose, that the audience has to really care about in order to be invested in the battle. The CGI can be pure crap, but as long as the battle serves the story, the audience will be on board. But here, in TBoFA, all the story that was set into motion over the previous two films was dropped either before or during the battle, meaning that in this case, the STORY served the BATTLE. Everything that happened during the previous 6 hours of runtime had no narrative significance other than to put everyone in place to have a big battle scene. The stakes of the battle, the THING to win or lose, was barely established (The Arkenstone? The mountain? The gold? What was the prize here?), and we were never actually told who "won" it, and what this means for the characters we've come to care about. Which is frustrating and really disappointing! I know, looking at that featurette upthread, that production was rushed, making it up as they went along, and trying to cram as much work into a day as humanly possible, which explains the muddled storytelling and shoddy CGI... but were they not working with a script? Did they not have a story arc plotted out all the way to the end? What the hell happened here?!

  • Love 1
Link to comment

My best answer was that it was initally going to be two movies, but that got expanded to three. So they had to pad it out. But that doesn't explain anything, really. In fleshing it out, they forgot the source material? It just doesn't work. One thing I heard from Corey Olsen was that Jackson didn't want a repeat of all the flack he got about the dozen endings to ROTK, so he decided to cut it short. I don't know if that was his speculation or something Jackson actually said. But yeah, muddled.

As for the CG, I have no idea. Maybe WETA had too much on their plate to give it the needed attention. Maybe it was too ambitious for them. Ultimately, I won't know unless someone says something.

Link to comment
On 5/31/2016 at 0:03 PM, NumberCruncher said:

The fact of the matter is that PJ should never have tried to make three movies out of what would have easily fit into one.

The best things about making it 3 movies were more time with Smaug, and he developed Bard's backstory.  Those were really the only benefits to stretching it out over 3 movies.  Making it 3 movies could have worked, had he stuck with the positives, namely Smaug, Bard, and Bilbo (who was somehow a freaking supporting character in his own story), and spent less time making the dwarves the focal point, not had Legolas, and no romance.

Link to comment

Part 2 was playing on TNT this weekend.  I tried watching, but it was all "I AM SAYING SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT NOW" and I ditched it before they got into Mirkwood.  So heavy-handed; they just beat all the juice out of the story. 

Link to comment

Watched extended edition scene where Alfrid the most annoying character in all of the Middle Earth movies dies. On the one hand it's such a silly and dumb method on the other hand I hated him so much I don't care how he dies as long as he's dead.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Part 2. I'm starting to think WB's troubles with the DCU is karma of how they botched the Hobbit:

 

I think it's more a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Every complaint people have about WB's management of the DCEU can be seen in The Hobbit movies. (Unrealistic schedules, studio mandates that negatively affected the movie, etc...) The big difference is that there was only three Hobbit films. With the DCEU the box office was somewhat steady for the first three movies, Wonderwoman did well (due to improved quality), then JL bombed. (Lowest gross profit and highest budget).

I think that studios get some benefit of the doubt if people are enthusiastic for a franchise. But once that's gone the fans take each film on a case by case basis. Based on these franchises I would say you have three movies if there is built in interst

So, maybe WB should stick to franchises of three movies or less. (Or make better movies, but I don't expect that from the current management there).

  • Love 3
Link to comment

These movies have recently been airing a lot on a couple channels, but I have no interesting re-watching them. I liked them the first time I watched them, but I don't think they've aged very well. I own the first one on DVD, but not the others.

I always watch the LotR movies when I find them, though. And I own the extended editions of each.

Kind of sad since The Hobbit is my favorite book.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

That's some good stuff. I remember hearing about some kind of NZ union dispute way back when, but never realised the source or extent of it. Just big business/corrupt politicians fucking over the little guy again. Now I feel dirty for going to see the Hobbit movies, and I don't think I'll ever watch a Jackson movie again. Of course, judging the Hobbit movies purely on their own merits, I don't think he can make anything watchable these days.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Browncoat said:

The first one damn near put me to sleep in the first 43 hours before they started on the journey, so I never bothered with the other two.  And now I'm glad.

The sum of all three films is probably a combination of one pretty decent longish film, one 60 minute YouTube video of videogame sequences, about 2 and a half hours of pointless padding in order to make 3 movies and set up the Hobbit as a quasi-prequel, and a bunch of deleted scenes for the DVD release.

Edited by HunterHunted
Link to comment
On 4/3/2018 at 10:23 PM, WritinMan said:

These movies have recently been airing a lot on a couple channels, but I have no interesting re-watching them. I liked them the first time I watched them, but I don't think they've aged very well.

I'm a weirdo. This is literally something I say aloud every time I see that one of the Hobbit movies is airing, 

"Always the same, and now all this. No more trilogies! No more movies! No more quests! No more systems! No more dwarves! No more elves! No more orcs! No more hobbitses! No more rings...So much faith in their tools, in their machines."

 or  

"I finally figured out the problem--too many hobbitses...movies."

It's a bit funny because the first is a paraphrase from X-Men: Age of Apocalypse, a much worse film than any of the Hobbit films, and the second is from Doctor Strange, a film with impressive visuals, but aggressively mediocre storytelling. I find both of these films actually bad in ways that completely turn you off of ever rewatching them; while, the Hobbit trilogy is just very disappointing and insubstantial, except for 5 Armies, which is a half an hour of plot stretched into 3 hours of movie. I find when the Hobbit films are on, I can pop in to watch the stuff I like and change the channel after that scene is over. They are not engrossing or compelling. And it's less that they've aged badly and more that there wasn't a lot of compelling narrative holding it together in the first place. This is the same reason we can decry films like Forrest Gump, Crash, Around the World in 80 Days, Chicago, Shakespeare in Love, and How Green Was My Valley. Ten minutes after they won their awards, you knew they weren't classics. They're not bad exactly and they're not really dated either, but they are middling and meh.

Edited by HunterHunted
Link to comment
13 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

I'm a weirdo. This is literally something I say aloud every time I see that one of the Hobbit movies is airing, 

"Always the same, and now all this. No more trilogies! No more movies! No more quests! No more systems! No more dwarves! No more elves! No more orcs! No more hobbitses! No more rings...So much faith in their tools, in their machines."

 or  

"I finally figured out the problem--too many hobbitses...movies."

It's a bit funny because the first is a paraphrase from X-Men: Age of Apocalypse, a much worse film than any of the Hobbit films, and the second is from Doctor Strange, a film with impressive visuals, but aggressively mediocre storytelling. I find both of these films actually bad in ways that completely turn you off of ever rewatching them; while, the Hobbit trilogy is just very disappointing and insubstantial, except for 5 Armies, which is a half an hour of plot stretched into 3 hours of movie. I find when the Hobbit films are on, I can pop in to watch the stuff I like and change the channel after that scene is over. They are not engrossing or compelling. And it's less that they've aged badly and more that there wasn't a lot of compelling narrative holding it together in the first place. This is the same reason we can decry films like Forrest Gump, Crash, Around the World in 80 Days, Chicago, Shakespeare in Love, and How Green Was My Valley. Ten minutes after they won their awards, you knew they weren't classics. They're not bad exactly and they're not really dated either, but they are middling and meh.

 

Well, agree to disagree on Doctor Strange.  I look at it as succeeding where Green Lantern failed. Plus I love the third act.

Why the Hobbit movies are so disappointing  is compared to the LOTR which are genuine classics  where you CAN be engrossed watching for the entire running time, despite some flaws. Also the book does have a compelling narrative. Guillermo Del Toro could have made a great adaptation *sigh*. At least things eventually turned out great for Del Toro.

As much as I still feel bad for Peter Jackson(especially when you watch the behind the scenes footage)  seeing him dismiss the actors union of his own country's demands in the interview("What if the actors decide to have a little bit of fun again?" makes me think he made his own bed.

Edited by VCRTracking
Link to comment

I'm not saying the Hobbit (book) had no compelling narrative; I'm saying that the films lacked one.

I don't know that Del Toro would have done a good job either with the same pressures that Jackson was under. Del Toro wouldn't have been as rushed because he had already done a lot of pre-production work, but prior to this, Mimic was his film with the most studio interference. Fifteen years later, he put out a director's cut. I don't think Del Toro had the constitution to put up with the kinds of things Jackson went through on the Hobbit. That's not a point for one and a knock against the other.

Edited by HunterHunted
  • Love 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Browncoat said:

The Hobbit (the book) did have a compelling narrative.  It simply wasn't enough to sustain three long movies, regardless of any behind-the-scenes issues.

I know it should have been one long movie or two two hour movies. Three 3-hour movies was pushing it.

It's such a missed opportunity. Martin Freeman was the perfect choice to play Bilbo but other than three, the dwarves are just a bunch of blanks to me. I know it's hard to tell apart 12 dwarves in a book but in a movie you can do things to distinguish them and establish each individual. I haven't seen The Dirty Dozen in years but I can still remember at least 8 of them!

  • Love 3
Link to comment
On 4/20/2018 at 10:10 AM, Joe said:

That's some good stuff. I remember hearing about some kind of NZ union dispute way back when, but never realised the source or extent of it. Just big business/corrupt politicians fucking over the little guy again.

I was going to rant about a movie studio getting a sovereign nation to change its laws for its exclusive benefits, but then I remember that American copyright laws were basically written by the Walt Disney Company.

Given the amount of corporate middle-management that went into the entire process, I'm surprised that the first of the three is something that I find pretty watchable, but then again, that's almost entirely due to Martin Freeman.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Quote

Topher Grace is at again. This time he's edited the Hobbit trilogy down to a single 2 hour movie

I don't know if it needed to be edited down that much...but I do feel it would have been great as a 2 part series instead of a trilogy.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...