- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
thoughts on Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:18 am
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:18 am
I finally got around to watching Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy (extended version) last week, and thought that it was great fun.
It had been a while since I had read the original novel, so I decided to reread it yesterday. I'm about 2/3 of the way through it now, and I think that it's more than fair to say that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is, at best, loosely based on Tolkien's original novel. It definitely works well as a prequel of sorts to Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but not so well as a faithful adaptation of the original source material.
If I was a Tolkien fanboy, I would no doubt be offended by the liberties that Jackson took with the story. However, I'm not a Tolkien fanboy, and I think that watching the trilogy was great fun.
I do get why so many people disliked it, though.
Thoughts?
Oh, and I know that ^^^ made some people roll their eyes.
Good times.
It had been a while since I had read the original novel, so I decided to reread it yesterday. I'm about 2/3 of the way through it now, and I think that it's more than fair to say that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is, at best, loosely based on Tolkien's original novel. It definitely works well as a prequel of sorts to Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but not so well as a faithful adaptation of the original source material.
If I was a Tolkien fanboy, I would no doubt be offended by the liberties that Jackson took with the story. However, I'm not a Tolkien fanboy, and I think that watching the trilogy was great fun.
I do get why so many people disliked it, though.
Thoughts?
Oh, and I know that ^^^ made some people roll their eyes.
Good times.
31
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:20 am to sorantable
Depends on how you go into it. It's not the same type of movie as the LOTR trilogy, so you can't compare.
The Gollum scene was done perfectly, IMO. One of the top scenes for all 6 films. There's a lot in there that I didn't enjoy and felt it would have been better in 2 movies.
The Gollum scene was done perfectly, IMO. One of the top scenes for all 6 films. There's a lot in there that I didn't enjoy and felt it would have been better in 2 movies.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:20 am to sorantable
It was trash. The lack of physics was insulting. Insulting.
I will say I loved all the actors and there were some great scenes but your mind will be mush before you get to them.
I will say I loved all the actors and there were some great scenes but your mind will be mush before you get to them.
This post was edited on 1/18/17 at 8:21 am
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:20 am to sorantable
pretty stupid TBH but it's not Jackson's fault.
I fault the studio for trying to milk another trilogy after the model of the LOTR trilogy using a book that was only a couple of hundred pages.
I fault the studio for trying to milk another trilogy after the model of the LOTR trilogy using a book that was only a couple of hundred pages.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:21 am to sorantable
I thought it was fun, despite its flaws. I'd watch almost anything set in Middle Earth.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:22 am to sorantable
It was enjoyable if you don't try to compare it to LOTR in any way.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:24 am to sorantable
This post was edited on 5/4/23 at 7:40 am
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:25 am to sorantable
As a fan of the book I found it terrible. If you just take it as a fun romp for preteens loosely based on the Hobbit it is a lot more palatable.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:27 am to TheIrishFro
It wasn't given the same love and care that LOTR got. Stretching it to 3 movies made it pretty sloppy. Overall though it was pretty good, just not great like LOTR.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:28 am to sorantable
quote:
I do get why so many people disliked it, though.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:29 am to VermilionTiger
quote:
The Gollum scene was done perfectly, IMO. One of the top scenes for all 6 films.
Absolutely.
ETA: Also, this is random, but the Great Goblin was CGI trash. Very disappointed with his look.
This post was edited on 1/18/17 at 8:34 am
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:36 am to sorantable
Some incredible scenes throughout. Some absolutely horrific scens throughout as well. I really think if they made 2 movies instead of 3, a lot of trash would have gotten scrapped and they would have had a much better adaptation.
Have the first end in Laketown, the second start with Smaug and his defeat and the end the Battle of the Five Armies. Leave out Tauriel who while hot, served absolutely no purpose within the plot. Condense the goblins, elves, and the ridiculous scenes that defied all logic. Boom, instant classic.
Have the first end in Laketown, the second start with Smaug and his defeat and the end the Battle of the Five Armies. Leave out Tauriel who while hot, served absolutely no purpose within the plot. Condense the goblins, elves, and the ridiculous scenes that defied all logic. Boom, instant classic.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:37 am to sorantable
The version edited into a single movie is pretty good. A lot of the stupid extended cgi action scenes are removed. Extra characters are removed.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:39 am to lagallifrey
quote:Link?
The version edited into a single movie is pretty good. A lot of the stupid extended cgi action scenes are removed. Extra characters are removed.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:40 am to sorantable
The set piece scenes were quality stuff. They should've condensed it down to 2 movies. The CGI was just too much at times. I truly liked the attention to detail in the set, costume, and prop design of LOTR. The attention to detail was great. However, in the Hobbit, I think they just relied way too much on the CGI to make up for that stuff.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:41 am to sorantable
The Tolkien Edit version of the movie
quote:
The investigation of Dol Guldor has been completely excised, including the appearances of Radagast, Saruman and Galadriel. This was the most obvious cut, and the easiest to carry out (a testament to its irrelevance to the main narrative). Like the novel, Gandalf abruptly disappears on the borders of Mirkwood, and then reappears at the siege of the Lonely Mountain with tidings of an orc army.
quote:
The Tauriel-Legolas-Kili love triangle has also been removed. Indeed, Tauriel is no longer a character in the film, and Legolas only gets a brief cameo during the Mirkwood arrest. This was the next clear candidate for elimination, given how little plot value and personality these two woodland sprites added to the story. Dwarves are way more fun to hang out with anyway. ??
quote:
The prelude with old Bilbo is gone. As with the novel, I find the film works better if the scope starts out small (in a cosy hobbit hole), and then grows organically as Bilbo ventures out into the big, scary world. It is far more elegant to first learn about Smaug from the dwarves’ haunting ballad (rather than a bombastic CGI sequence). The prelude also undermines the real-and-present stakes of the story by framing it as one big flashback.
quote:
The Pale Orc subplot is vastly trimmed down. Azog is obviously still leading the attack on the Lonely Mountain at the end, but he does not appear in the film until after the company escapes the goblin tunnels (suggesting that the slaying of the Great Goblin is a factor in their vendetta, as it was in the novel).
quote:
Several of the orc skirmishes have been cut. I felt that the Battle of the Five Armies provided more than enough orc mayhem. If you pack in too much before then, they just become monotonous, and it lessons their menace in the audience’s mind. I was tempted to leave in the very first Azog confrontation (since it resembles a chapter from the novel), but decided to cut it for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I found it tonally jarring to jump from the emotional crescendo of Thorin being saved by Bilbo (and the sense of safety the company feels after being rescued by the eagles), straight back into another chase sequence. Plus, I think the film works better if Bilbo is still trying to earn Thorin’s respect the entire journey, as he was in the novel. Not to mention the absurdity of Bilbo suddenly turning into John McClane with a sword!
quote:
Several of the action scenes have been tightened up, such as the barrel-ride, the fight between Smaug and the dwarves (no molten gold in this version), and the Battle of the Five Armies. Though, it should be noted that Bilbo’s key scenes—the encounter with Gollum, the battle against the Mirkwood spiders, and the conversation with Smaug—have not been tampered with, since they proved to be excellent adaptions (in no small part due to Freeman’s performance), and serve to refocus the film on Bilbo’s arc.
quote:
A lot of filler scenes have been cut as well. These are usually harder to spot (and I’ve probably missed a couple), but once they’re gone, you’ll completely forget that they ever existed. For example, the 4-minute scene where Bard buys some fish and the dwarves gather up his pay.
This post was edited on 1/18/17 at 8:52 am
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:49 am to sorantable
There are a few problems with the Hobbit trilogy, other than the fact that it shouldn't have been a trilogy.
First, the action scenes are too long. This is a Peter Jackson hallmark fail. He delivers plenty of action, but the scenes just go on and on and on, and become more ridiculous as the scene drags on. Action scenes should be exciting, not exhausting. He keeps trying to go over the top with these scenes, and then over the top of over the top. Scale it down. Slow it down. Make it more personal.
Second, the third-tier love story of Tauriel and the Dwarf is ridiculous. I realize Jackson and company are trying to work in a love story here, and a female character as well. Why not have a female character we care about, independent of a love story, especially a ridiculous one between two races that hate each other, and are physical mismatches? This makes about as much sense as a killer whale and a dolphin getting it on. I think they could have had a more compelling love story, and character development for Legolas, if they focused more on how Legolas loved and lost with Tauriel.
Third, Bilbo and the Dwarfs carry the story, because it's what carries the book. It felt to me like 2/3 of the Dwarfs were comic relief. There are moments of Dwarf comedy in the book, but these are people who lost their homes and want it back. Show me more about why a dozen Dwarfs would not surrender to an army of hundreds when they showed up on their doorstep. Dig deeper on what motivates them. It needs to be more personal.
That being said, there are some good things that I enjoyed about the movies:
I thought Smaug was done well. I liked the fight between Smaug and the Dwarfs.
I liked the Dwarf set designs in the Lonely Mountain. I liked the battle at the gates of Moria, and Dane Ironfoot.
I liked the scene with Gollum, which was one of the keys to the whole thing working or failing.
I liked Gandalf investigating the re-emergence of Sauron.
Bilbo was acted well. I also liked Thorin.
Overall, it's not terrible, but it could have been better if the scope were smaller, and not as ambitious. The Hobbit is an intimate story of a introverted person becoming involved in a greater world. Though it has epic parts, it's not supposed to be an epic story, like LOTR. I think Jackson was too EPIC in his approach.
First, the action scenes are too long. This is a Peter Jackson hallmark fail. He delivers plenty of action, but the scenes just go on and on and on, and become more ridiculous as the scene drags on. Action scenes should be exciting, not exhausting. He keeps trying to go over the top with these scenes, and then over the top of over the top. Scale it down. Slow it down. Make it more personal.
Second, the third-tier love story of Tauriel and the Dwarf is ridiculous. I realize Jackson and company are trying to work in a love story here, and a female character as well. Why not have a female character we care about, independent of a love story, especially a ridiculous one between two races that hate each other, and are physical mismatches? This makes about as much sense as a killer whale and a dolphin getting it on. I think they could have had a more compelling love story, and character development for Legolas, if they focused more on how Legolas loved and lost with Tauriel.
Third, Bilbo and the Dwarfs carry the story, because it's what carries the book. It felt to me like 2/3 of the Dwarfs were comic relief. There are moments of Dwarf comedy in the book, but these are people who lost their homes and want it back. Show me more about why a dozen Dwarfs would not surrender to an army of hundreds when they showed up on their doorstep. Dig deeper on what motivates them. It needs to be more personal.
That being said, there are some good things that I enjoyed about the movies:
I thought Smaug was done well. I liked the fight between Smaug and the Dwarfs.
I liked the Dwarf set designs in the Lonely Mountain. I liked the battle at the gates of Moria, and Dane Ironfoot.
I liked the scene with Gollum, which was one of the keys to the whole thing working or failing.
I liked Gandalf investigating the re-emergence of Sauron.
Bilbo was acted well. I also liked Thorin.
Overall, it's not terrible, but it could have been better if the scope were smaller, and not as ambitious. The Hobbit is an intimate story of a introverted person becoming involved in a greater world. Though it has epic parts, it's not supposed to be an epic story, like LOTR. I think Jackson was too EPIC in his approach.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:49 am to sorantable
There are many flaws in the Hobbit trilogy that a lot of people in the thread have already talked about. The things that made me the most upset were how bad the orcs and goblins looked compared to LoTR. In Lotr the evil monsters truly looked dark and nasty while in the hobbit they just looked goofy with bad cgi. I also couldn't stand the fan service they tried to pull with putting Legolas in the movie. The movies are still fun, but they do add a stain to LoTR trilogy. Luckily not even close to as bad as what the star wars prequels did.
This post was edited on 1/18/17 at 8:52 am
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:54 am to sorantable
Just uneventful.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 8:55 am to athenslife101
I enjoyed them, but thought they were pretty stupid a lot of times. And at times it definitely felt like they were trying to drag two movies into three, and it lacked because of that.
But to be honest, that wouldn't have bothered me if it wasn't so overly cartoonish. And I don't just mean overused CGI (which there was anyway). But just how literally the movie looked like a cartoon too often. And this plays into it:
The whole scene with them in the mountain (mines?) with the goblins was so hilariously bad. I can suspend belief a good bit when it comes to movies like this, but the "falling from thousands of feet and landing softly on the ground" or "hopping from this to that while flying down the river" type stuff is insulting even for someone trying to suspend belief.
And I think it's very fair to compare them to LotR. At the very least in terms of Peter Jackson's capacity to make good movies that don't overly look like trash. The LotR trilogy is my #1 trilogy of all time. Hobbit is straight garbage in a lot of places.
All that being said though, I still thought it was enjoyable enough of a story to like it well enough.
But to be honest, that wouldn't have bothered me if it wasn't so overly cartoonish. And I don't just mean overused CGI (which there was anyway). But just how literally the movie looked like a cartoon too often. And this plays into it:
quote:
The lack of physics was insulting. Insulting.
The whole scene with them in the mountain (mines?) with the goblins was so hilariously bad. I can suspend belief a good bit when it comes to movies like this, but the "falling from thousands of feet and landing softly on the ground" or "hopping from this to that while flying down the river" type stuff is insulting even for someone trying to suspend belief.
And I think it's very fair to compare them to LotR. At the very least in terms of Peter Jackson's capacity to make good movies that don't overly look like trash. The LotR trilogy is my #1 trilogy of all time. Hobbit is straight garbage in a lot of places.
All that being said though, I still thought it was enjoyable enough of a story to like it well enough.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News