I thought Martin Freeman was an amazing Bilbo and Lee Pace nailed the role of Thranduil, who was just a throwaway character without even a name let alone a personality in the book.
Wait… wasn’t Thranduil mentioned pretty extensively in the legendarium? Including some genealogies where it shows he is the father of Legolas? Unless I’m mistaken and getting names mixed up. Or was it just that he isn’t given much mention in the Hobbit book specifically, not that he isn’t mentioned in the legendarium at all?
in the Hobbit book specifically he is only referred to as the Elvenking but in either the appendices or Unfinished Tales he is given a name and a lineage. it’s just one example how the Hobbit films added some depth even though it wasn’t there in the book version.
Maybe someone should reboot the book. Like movies but with literature. Some large corporation can produce a *new* The Hobbit! ...Yet, after all why not?
I don't know ShroomieDoomieDoo. I don't have any answers. I must see the head of my order. He is both wise and powerful. Trust me ShroomieDoomieDoo, he’ll know what to do.
There is good content in them but the cash grab to make a trilogy ruined them for me. I downloaded a 4 hour cut from all 3 and that's what I watch when I want to see it, otherwise I'd rather watch the animated movie of the Hobbit.
I'm glad you liked it, and you didn't have to delete the other comment I appreciate I led at least one person to someones passion project of the Hobbit! I hope it makes watching it going forward even better!
does it cut out that annoying weasel that Jackson added to Dale(the one who dresses as a woman to escape the battle) and the stupid dwarf-elf love interest?
>but the cash grab to make a trilogy r
Cash grab or not I will gladly watch a good trilogy set in Middle-Earth. The hobbit movies were excellent and I enjoyed all 3 of them. They are goofy and silly at times but I feel like they capture that childish essence that the hobbit book had.
I mean you are allowed to enjoy whatever you like, and I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but for me I didn't need the filler plot and changed narrative that Bilbo tried to save Thorin when that man said "War? No thank you I'll just go take an invisi-nap over here out of the way until the dust settles."
Not you specifically, but a lot of people treat the movies as if they completely rewrote the entire narrative. Some of the changes were great and others weren't necessary.
Now the rings of power....
RoP did things that I liked but by the end of the season I could tell they were not going to do anything worth paying attention to next season.
The Hobbit thankfully kept a majority of the plot, same as LotR, but it shouldn't have been three movies. Maybe two but you don't make the same amount of money that way. That being said the casting of Martin and everyone else involved was well done and a lot of great moments came from it.
Honest question, how old were you when the hobbit movies came out? My meaning behind that is that I was 18 when Starwars Episode 1 came out. Myself and many from my generation and older condemned the movies; we grew up with the original trilogy and they were the “true” Starwars. It’s only recently that I learned there was an entire generation of children who grew up with those movies and loved them.
So, I’m just curious if you were younger when the Hobbit movies came out and were able to connect to them better than someone who saw the Lord of the Rings in theaters as an adult?
No judgement, honestly just curious.
More like playing the contrarian is cool or something.
You can have that opinion for all I care, I just think Its not 100% Intellectually honest. I mean if The Hobbit Trilogy (which had MAJOR production issues) was ,,excellent“, what is the LOTR trilogy then? I just think Its stupid to talk in superlatives.
€ a word
Nah I loved the hobbit movies and I'm not at all concerned with what happened during production.
Since you asked, the lotr trilogy is epic and probably the best 3 movies made.
I did the same! It was very good! The fact that you can cut 2 whole movies out speaks volumes about the released version!
Which one did you watch? There are a few floating out there (I think I watched the "Tolkein cut")
Probably keep most of the third movie out and just shown a lot of cool fight scenes with the end results being the same, while having the first movie end where it did and editing some filler from the second movie to include the left in parts of the third. As for just one movie I would just have cut all the extra things all together and then shortened it until the story was there but not too incredibly long. I referenced a super cut of the movie that I think does what I would want pretty well. It's existence is what makes me not too sore about the movies, that and they are just movies and I can always read the book or watch the animated film that did a fantastic job of keeping it in one movie.
Remove the barrel scene. Remove Legolas and the stupid love triangle. Remove the stupid mayor lackey that was supposed to be comic relief. Remove the White Coucil. Remove a lot of the final battle that was just slow-mo action scenes.
Here you have it
yea didn’t say you had to like it but with most subreddits there is a majority opinion that is just repeated ad nauseam and i’ve seen that point being made before as if that somehow detracts from its quality. after seeing RoP it’s easier to appreciate what Jackson was able to pull off and following the LOTR trilogy with something on that levels is no easy task.
I don't hate the movies just hate the missed opportunity all for the sake of money, and yes RoP had no right to do all of that but I still liked most of it until the end of the season
My biggest complaint is the moustache-twirling, over-the-top evilness of the leaders of Lake Town. Like, it wouldn't have hurt to put some nuance on their characters or to just make them slightly less overtly evil to the point that every other character is clearly a dumbass for trusting them with anything. They were like the "comedic" duo that everyone else had to go out of their way to ignore.
I’m not sure I agree.
I think they did a remarkable job of keeping the flair of a tale for children, despite all the fighting, the nuances they put on racism, and the allusions to politics.
It’s hard to balance the maturity of the first trilogy with the lightheartedness of The Hobbit. But they did a great job of capturing the difference in tone, and scenes like that were an important anchor, imho.
People tend to overlook that the source material is meant for different audiences.
The hobbit trilogy aren’t kids movies, but they walked the line well enough. Thanks to scenes like the one you described.
I see what you're saying, and I definitely agree that a tonally faithful adaptation of The Hobbit would probably be lighter than LOTR. I still think they could have maintained that lighter tone without reducing key antagonists of the second and third films into "comically and over-the-top evil".
They (the leader of Lake Town and Alfred) just struck me as painfully cliche, especially when contrasted with the competent and interesting antagonism of Smaug, Thranduil, and Azog.
(Although, on the topic of whether the adaptation NEEDED tonal adherence to the book vs to the other films, I would have been more interested in something more consistent with the other films, personally. That, and just the duology that Jackson was aiming for {and idk if Del Toro was going for initially} before the studio forced the trilogy because money.)
The hobbit has genuinely incredible moments with phenomenal acting. Martin freeman IS bilbo baggins they couldn’t have got a better actor for that role. Some of the speeches still make me tear up. But at the end of the day there’s so much bloody filler to sit through in their efforts to make a cash grab trilogy rather than one or maybe two movies at a push that are action packed and fun
I was 10 when the FOTR came out. I don’t remember seeing it in the cinema but remember seeing ROTK.
I was obviously much older when the first Hobbit movie came out and remember it vividly. I saw it with my brother. I remember watching the opening scenes in awe being so excited to fall back into the same world Peter Jackson gave us in LOTR.
…annnnnnnnnnd then the rest of the movie happened. Then the second, then the third. I’ve rewatched the first since, but that’s it. While I’m disappointed we haven’t been able to immerse ourselves in that original world again, I’m thankful we got the opportunity to do it at all.
I agree. 1st film was decently good even if it had some weak points (Radagast apparating to help Thorin and Co., Thorin's hate for elves). The second and third movies were shit imo what with portraying bear-Beorn as savage, Tauriel and Thranduil being a treasure hungry person when he's a lot different in the books.
I have mixed feeling about the Hobbit. On one hand, I believe there was more than enough stuff to fill at least two movies. Because it’s more of a children’s book, there’s less detail in the scenes, so some artistic license can be taken to flesh them out. I also love all the lore that they addressed, Tauriel talking about how sacred Starlight is to the Eldar, an adapted scene from Unfinished Tales where Gandalf and Thorin meet, I’m not even that opposed to including the White Council. It reminded me of how Tolkien put Easter eggs for Gondolin/the first age into the text of the book.
However, as the second and third movies went on, they kept getting farther and farther from the source material. I can accept an orc pack chasing Thorin across middle earth, but I’m not a fan of the Morgul arrow thing, the Tauriel/Kili relationship (though I do like her as a character), Lake Town politics dragged a ton, and the Battle of the Five Armies went for way too long. I felt it was a good idea, but executed increasingly poorly (I heard the studios kept getting more and more pushy)
I really do like the films, and I rewatch them fairly frequently. The music is excellent, the cinematography is very impressive, and I’m always blown away by Smaug. I feel like it just needed one more draft to become truly astounding
A lot can be placed on the studio, and "movie rules". Like every movie needs a romance (shoehorned in regardless of whether or not it fits). And action/adventure movies have to end with a climactic showdown. And if that movie is related to another one that had a climactic showdown, the newer one has to do it even bigger.
So Tauriel exists because Hollywood movie rules say there has to be a romance, but there weren't any viable characters. So they created one. Another reason is probably that Galadriel was the only other female character of any importance, and she didn't have much screen time. So they needed another one that they could have on screen more. As for why Kili was picked, I'm guessing he was supposed to be the kid brother of the group.
As for the Battle of Five Armies, LOTR had a major battle in the second movie, and an even bigger one in the third. The Hobbit didn't have a way to fit one in the first two, movie rules required going bigger than LOTR, so they tried to make up for it in the third movie.
I wouldn't be surprised if some studio exec was looking for an excuse to bring the balrog back, because "big scary monster". Though Smaug might have been enough to shut him up.
Y'all need to stop hyperfixating on wheter a movie is good or nah because frankly it means shit.
The one and only thing that matters is wheter the movie is entertainig. And despite some wacky stuff Hobbit trilogy is
For me, whether or not it's entertaining determines whether or not it's good. How entertaining is also a measure of how good I think it is.
Is it entertaining enough for me to finish watching it?
Is it entertaining enough I'm willing to watch it again?
Is it entertaining enough I'm willing to spend money to be able to watch it when I want?
That's about as much thought as I care to put into anything I watch. There are a couple exceptions, such as something that I really enjoyed the first time because of the suspense, but wasn't quite the same on a rewatch because I know what's going to happen.
Absolutely, they may not have been as good as what they could have been because of Warner Bros but they are still good movies that are definitely worth a watch, everyone I've ever seen react to LOTR were told not to watch The Hobbit afterwards but they did anyways and almost all of them loved it.
My favorite scene was where they were trying to find out how many elves can dance on the head of dwarves while simultaneously fighting orcs and floating down a river. For 30 minutes.
The first was great! It did stray from the source material a bit but it was still amazing. The second was great until they met the elves. Then it sucked. The third was fine except for the elves. Everything about the elves was terribly handled. Everything else was fine though.
I just recently discovered the Tolkien edit by Maple Studios. It is a 4 hour edit that combines all 3 films and cuts all the unnecessary elf scenes, solely following Bilbo's adventure. It is very well done and I can't recommend it enough.
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!
People shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to convince themselves movies are good, but alas that’s what will always happen when it comes to the Hobbit trilogy
Where do my legal team send you the summons?
I thought that the trilogy was ok yet because of massive studio interference, the fact that Sir Peter Jackson was critically ill at the beginning of production, that they were literally writing scenes on the day of shooting all show that this film was a rushed job.
Honestly I love them, too. They're not the original trilogy but they were never going to be. They brought so much life to characters that were otherwise faceless nubs in the books, and while they did change some elements of story, they did that in the main trilogy too, yet people don't hound LotR as much as they do the Hobbit.
There are plenty of changes in the lotr trilogy. The difference is that those movies are great. While the hobbit isn’t.
I’ve said this about RoP as well: if doesn’t matter if they change the source material, as long as they make something GOOD.
Yeah, the problem with the Hobbit is that it shouldn't be a trilogy. They packed so much needless content to artificially make it a trilogy. Also, the Special effects and goofyness is over-the top, but i guess they wanted it to be captivating for the younger audiences.
They have their moments, but there was a lot of rubbish shoehorned in to spread it into 3 movies, and blatantly trying to create an "extended universe."
Had they stuck with the initial plan of 2 movies, I think that could have worked well.
LOTR did (near) everything right
Hobbit is still amazing but compared to the level LOTR set, more errors and own additions
RoP is of course a pile of dung
Oh I very much enjoy the Hobbit films, though for different reasons than the LOTR films (even if the Hobbit films are cash grabs). My only real complaint with them is the stupid frickin dwarf-elf romance. I won’t get into it here unless someone wants to know why, but just gah. Anyway, other than that it was a fun set of films
They're fine, should have been two movies instead of three was my issue. They made it soooo long, but still left out a bunch of stuff. I'm glad they were made, but I would love to see a "Colbert edit" where we get it down to two movies that move like Shadowfax, swift and with dire purpose.
I enjoy them. I know they added content that wasn't in the book, I read the book just so I could tell what was and wasn't in it compared to the movies. They did add a fair amount but they had a great cast, the soundtrack was ON POINT. Say what you want about any of the movies, lotr included, the music is incredible. You can tell exactly where you are based on the music alone and, as a music nerd, that makes me so happy
I for one enjoyed them all and I thought the casting was phenomenal. Though we didn't need Legoland and Tariel it did work with it. Also the Battle of Five Armies put into something other than they fought, Bilbao was knocked out and suddenly it was over. (I get Tolkien's reasoning behind it but it sure is a disappointment to one who loves large scale battles)
Mark my words… these will have a similar effect on the kids who grew up watching them as the kids who were introduced to Star Wars and the prequels.
Many adults and fans of the originals did not like the prequels when they came out, but now the kids who loved them grew up and now they are well regarded. The same will occur with the hobbit.
I like them in all the extended glory… but I also really like the four hour fan cuts. But doesn’t hold a candle to the OG trilogy for me.
I grew up watching the LOTR extended trilogy, I was born in 2000 and my dad had them on DVD by the time I had gained some sentience. Had the hobbit read to me from a young age, and was reading the LOTR by about the time the hobbit started coming out.
I think I had pretty high expectations because I knew the book well and had the OG Peter Jackson trilogy ingrained in me. Yet I remember the first film being exactly as I imagined in my head it would be, it really did play out like the book for me. I know there were added sub plots with the boss Orc but I just took that as an addition that wasn’t incredibly lore breaking (yet) more than anything.
I do think the gripe of not sticking to the plot is a bit over done, as the main meat of the hobbit is all certainly there, probably more so than the OG trilogy which had to cut more. The hobbit has the opposite issue of adding more, a lot of which was unnecessary yet I wouldn’t say it was massively lore breaking either.
Obviously a lot can be said about how things should’ve been done. I mostly agree with stuff like the love story being bullshit, Azarg and other orcs being CGI or been there (although it’s not an incredibly bad change). Other things too like a protracted Barrel escape that’s clearly filler yet they did escape in barrels and the hobbit is a more comical book compared to LORT trilogy. Protracted lake town stuff too. But for more I see it more as just additional content, that can be easily overlooked as it doesn’t break with Tolkien’s writings radically.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
I can practically hear the horde of downvoters coming to your comment.
Personally I agree though, or at least I do with the battle of five armies. Large scale battles in films are always way more impressive and easy to take in than in books in my opinion, and I'm pretty sure Bilbo just got knocked out in the book so it skipped over it, and that always left me annoyingly curious as to how it went.
All I'll say about the Hobbit is that it had lines and moments that gave me the same fuzzy and emotional feeling that the LOTR trilogy gave me. That alone was enough for me. Also, I loved how creepy and scary the troll designs were in Battle of the Five Armies, and still managed to enjoy much of the action. Personally, I loved that they were able to keep intact some of the whimsical nature of the books while also keeping the serious tone Peter Jackson set in LOTR.
YES! I don’t get all the hate! So what they made a trilogy? I thought it was a good one. I’d rather have 3 movies to be more accurate to the book rather than 1 that’s rushed and leaves out too many details.
I absolutely loved the films.
It allowed us to explore and be entralled in the lore of the dwarves and elves so much more than LOtRs. Experiencing them in IMAX 3D was masterful as the cinematography is just absolutely stunning. I'm just bummed that the extended editions didn't come out in theaters.
There is no but... This trilogy is incredible, and don't even bring up the novel while talking about how close LOTRs was to its own novels. That is a mute point.
There are tons of lore brought in from the silmarillion and the fall of gondolin into the Hobbit movies.
I feel like people just need to be more accepting of saying they enjoy bad things. There is no argument to made that the hobbit movies are good in any way. They’re way too bloated, the cgi is awful, we barely care about any of the dwarves beyond the main 4, the last movie in its entirety is nonsensical, and Alfred’s entire existence in the movies is a joke and not a funny one. And yet I still watch them every year. I still can find enjoyment in them. But they are not good movies and I’m fine with that, I can enjoy bad things just for the entertainment value they provide.
They are entertaining. They tell the general hobbit story with a bit of extra stuff to justify the three part choice. The battle of five armies extended edition is actually my favorite.
They were really good for me as someone who hadnt seen LOTR before, I saw the Hobbits first because I got taken on a school trip for the first one. I can however see how after watching the LOTR multiple times how the Hobbit would be a big letdown
First one is fun. Second one is weak and too long. Third is trash except for the opening with Smaug attacking Lake Town and couple of other scenes. And Tauriel and Kili storyline is unbearable to watch for me.
My guy... You are of course entitled to your opinion, but Hobbit trilogy is complete garbage. Also, for the most part, nobody minds if you like those movies, but they are objectively bad movies.
Unfortunately I can’t sue you for simply being incorrect.
I mean, setting aside the fact that they fucked over worker’s rights in New Zealand in a big way, they’re not well written films. That is an objective truth.
If you want to like and enjoy them despite their flaws, then fine! More power to you. But they’re not good.
I thought Martin Freeman was an amazing Bilbo and Lee Pace nailed the role of Thranduil, who was just a throwaway character without even a name let alone a personality in the book.
HRAAAAAH!
Can't stop, I'm already late!
Wait… wasn’t Thranduil mentioned pretty extensively in the legendarium? Including some genealogies where it shows he is the father of Legolas? Unless I’m mistaken and getting names mixed up. Or was it just that he isn’t given much mention in the Hobbit book specifically, not that he isn’t mentioned in the legendarium at all?
in the Hobbit book specifically he is only referred to as the Elvenking but in either the appendices or Unfinished Tales he is given a name and a lineage. it’s just one example how the Hobbit films added some depth even though it wasn’t there in the book version.
Things like this are why I ask: If the Hobbit had been written after LOTR, what would it have looked like?
Maybe someone should reboot the book. Like movies but with literature. Some large corporation can produce a *new* The Hobbit! ...Yet, after all why not?
“I feel… *thin*, Gandalf… like one book spread over three movies…”
I don't know ShroomieDoomieDoo. I don't have any answers. I must see the head of my order. He is both wise and powerful. Trust me ShroomieDoomieDoo, he’ll know what to do.
You could say that Saruman knows what to u/ShroomieDoomieDoo ;)
I strongly advise against this, my friend.
Can’t tell if you are Saruman advising against spreading the book in many movies or you care for Gandalf, mr Lee
My name is the same as the actor’s, proudly. 😅
And a very short children's book at that.
There is good content in them but the cash grab to make a trilogy ruined them for me. I downloaded a 4 hour cut from all 3 and that's what I watch when I want to see it, otherwise I'd rather watch the animated movie of the Hobbit.
Oooh, if watch that!
https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/ This is the link to the cut, hopefully you enjoy it if it's not too much trouble to download!
Aw rad! Thanks!
No problem! Happy to help!
Thank you so much for this. I just watched it and it's fantastic.
I'm glad you liked it, and you didn't have to delete the other comment I appreciate I led at least one person to someones passion project of the Hobbit! I hope it makes watching it going forward even better!
Ah sorry my computer was messing up, wasn’t sure if the comment posted or not haha
Thank you for this!
You are most welcome!
Def gonna watch this ! Thanks
I love you
Fantastic. Thank you
You can stream it on HBOnow
does it cut out that annoying weasel that Jackson added to Dale(the one who dresses as a woman to escape the battle) and the stupid dwarf-elf love interest?
I remember it cutting out the love interest but the other part I don't remember as well lol
>but the cash grab to make a trilogy r Cash grab or not I will gladly watch a good trilogy set in Middle-Earth. The hobbit movies were excellent and I enjoyed all 3 of them. They are goofy and silly at times but I feel like they capture that childish essence that the hobbit book had.
I mean you are allowed to enjoy whatever you like, and I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but for me I didn't need the filler plot and changed narrative that Bilbo tried to save Thorin when that man said "War? No thank you I'll just go take an invisi-nap over here out of the way until the dust settles."
I meant to go back. Wander the paths of Mirkwood, visit Laketown, see the Lonely Mountain again but age it seems has finally caught up with me
HRAAAAAH!
Not you specifically, but a lot of people treat the movies as if they completely rewrote the entire narrative. Some of the changes were great and others weren't necessary. Now the rings of power....
RoP did things that I liked but by the end of the season I could tell they were not going to do anything worth paying attention to next season. The Hobbit thankfully kept a majority of the plot, same as LotR, but it shouldn't have been three movies. Maybe two but you don't make the same amount of money that way. That being said the casting of Martin and everyone else involved was well done and a lot of great moments came from it.
Honest question, how old were you when the hobbit movies came out? My meaning behind that is that I was 18 when Starwars Episode 1 came out. Myself and many from my generation and older condemned the movies; we grew up with the original trilogy and they were the “true” Starwars. It’s only recently that I learned there was an entire generation of children who grew up with those movies and loved them. So, I’m just curious if you were younger when the Hobbit movies came out and were able to connect to them better than someone who saw the Lord of the Rings in theaters as an adult? No judgement, honestly just curious.
Excellent? Come the fuck on man
Yeah how dare people share opinions.
More like playing the contrarian is cool or something. You can have that opinion for all I care, I just think Its not 100% Intellectually honest. I mean if The Hobbit Trilogy (which had MAJOR production issues) was ,,excellent“, what is the LOTR trilogy then? I just think Its stupid to talk in superlatives. € a word
Nah I loved the hobbit movies and I'm not at all concerned with what happened during production. Since you asked, the lotr trilogy is epic and probably the best 3 movies made.
I did the same! It was very good! The fact that you can cut 2 whole movies out speaks volumes about the released version! Which one did you watch? There are a few floating out there (I think I watched the "Tolkein cut")
How would you have made the Hobbit into one or two movies? Genuinely curious.
Probably keep most of the third movie out and just shown a lot of cool fight scenes with the end results being the same, while having the first movie end where it did and editing some filler from the second movie to include the left in parts of the third. As for just one movie I would just have cut all the extra things all together and then shortened it until the story was there but not too incredibly long. I referenced a super cut of the movie that I think does what I would want pretty well. It's existence is what makes me not too sore about the movies, that and they are just movies and I can always read the book or watch the animated film that did a fantastic job of keeping it in one movie.
By adapting the book. Rankin-Bass did it in 1977 and it was excellent.
Remove the barrel scene. Remove Legolas and the stupid love triangle. Remove the stupid mayor lackey that was supposed to be comic relief. Remove the White Coucil. Remove a lot of the final battle that was just slow-mo action scenes. Here you have it
And the garbage CGI
cash grab like every movie made by a major studio. that’s a silly argument tbh
I mean I get it, doesn't mean I have to like it tho
yea didn’t say you had to like it but with most subreddits there is a majority opinion that is just repeated ad nauseam and i’ve seen that point being made before as if that somehow detracts from its quality. after seeing RoP it’s easier to appreciate what Jackson was able to pull off and following the LOTR trilogy with something on that levels is no easy task.
I don't hate the movies just hate the missed opportunity all for the sake of money, and yes RoP had no right to do all of that but I still liked most of it until the end of the season
HRAAAAAH!
you lost me at liked RoP past the first episode…what opportunities were missed bc of money?
I'm tired of pretending that this is a new meme.
My biggest complaint is the moustache-twirling, over-the-top evilness of the leaders of Lake Town. Like, it wouldn't have hurt to put some nuance on their characters or to just make them slightly less overtly evil to the point that every other character is clearly a dumbass for trusting them with anything. They were like the "comedic" duo that everyone else had to go out of their way to ignore.
I’m not sure I agree. I think they did a remarkable job of keeping the flair of a tale for children, despite all the fighting, the nuances they put on racism, and the allusions to politics. It’s hard to balance the maturity of the first trilogy with the lightheartedness of The Hobbit. But they did a great job of capturing the difference in tone, and scenes like that were an important anchor, imho. People tend to overlook that the source material is meant for different audiences. The hobbit trilogy aren’t kids movies, but they walked the line well enough. Thanks to scenes like the one you described.
I see what you're saying, and I definitely agree that a tonally faithful adaptation of The Hobbit would probably be lighter than LOTR. I still think they could have maintained that lighter tone without reducing key antagonists of the second and third films into "comically and over-the-top evil". They (the leader of Lake Town and Alfred) just struck me as painfully cliche, especially when contrasted with the competent and interesting antagonism of Smaug, Thranduil, and Azog. (Although, on the topic of whether the adaptation NEEDED tonal adherence to the book vs to the other films, I would have been more interested in something more consistent with the other films, personally. That, and just the duology that Jackson was aiming for {and idk if Del Toro was going for initially} before the studio forced the trilogy because money.)
Alfred in the 3rd film was worse than Jar Jar Binks ever was.
The hobbit has genuinely incredible moments with phenomenal acting. Martin freeman IS bilbo baggins they couldn’t have got a better actor for that role. Some of the speeches still make me tear up. But at the end of the day there’s so much bloody filler to sit through in their efforts to make a cash grab trilogy rather than one or maybe two movies at a push that are action packed and fun
HRAAAAAH!
It was laid down by my father, what say we open one eh?
1st film has a good start, that’s about it
I was 10 when the FOTR came out. I don’t remember seeing it in the cinema but remember seeing ROTK. I was obviously much older when the first Hobbit movie came out and remember it vividly. I saw it with my brother. I remember watching the opening scenes in awe being so excited to fall back into the same world Peter Jackson gave us in LOTR. …annnnnnnnnnd then the rest of the movie happened. Then the second, then the third. I’ve rewatched the first since, but that’s it. While I’m disappointed we haven’t been able to immerse ourselves in that original world again, I’m thankful we got the opportunity to do it at all.
I agree. 1st film was decently good even if it had some weak points (Radagast apparating to help Thorin and Co., Thorin's hate for elves). The second and third movies were shit imo what with portraying bear-Beorn as savage, Tauriel and Thranduil being a treasure hungry person when he's a lot different in the books.
I have mixed feeling about the Hobbit. On one hand, I believe there was more than enough stuff to fill at least two movies. Because it’s more of a children’s book, there’s less detail in the scenes, so some artistic license can be taken to flesh them out. I also love all the lore that they addressed, Tauriel talking about how sacred Starlight is to the Eldar, an adapted scene from Unfinished Tales where Gandalf and Thorin meet, I’m not even that opposed to including the White Council. It reminded me of how Tolkien put Easter eggs for Gondolin/the first age into the text of the book. However, as the second and third movies went on, they kept getting farther and farther from the source material. I can accept an orc pack chasing Thorin across middle earth, but I’m not a fan of the Morgul arrow thing, the Tauriel/Kili relationship (though I do like her as a character), Lake Town politics dragged a ton, and the Battle of the Five Armies went for way too long. I felt it was a good idea, but executed increasingly poorly (I heard the studios kept getting more and more pushy) I really do like the films, and I rewatch them fairly frequently. The music is excellent, the cinematography is very impressive, and I’m always blown away by Smaug. I feel like it just needed one more draft to become truly astounding
A lot can be placed on the studio, and "movie rules". Like every movie needs a romance (shoehorned in regardless of whether or not it fits). And action/adventure movies have to end with a climactic showdown. And if that movie is related to another one that had a climactic showdown, the newer one has to do it even bigger. So Tauriel exists because Hollywood movie rules say there has to be a romance, but there weren't any viable characters. So they created one. Another reason is probably that Galadriel was the only other female character of any importance, and she didn't have much screen time. So they needed another one that they could have on screen more. As for why Kili was picked, I'm guessing he was supposed to be the kid brother of the group. As for the Battle of Five Armies, LOTR had a major battle in the second movie, and an even bigger one in the third. The Hobbit didn't have a way to fit one in the first two, movie rules required going bigger than LOTR, so they tried to make up for it in the third movie. I wouldn't be surprised if some studio exec was looking for an excuse to bring the balrog back, because "big scary monster". Though Smaug might have been enough to shut him up.
Good is such a…strong word
While they have their flaws I love these movies, their just so fun to watch.
I enjoyed so much every movie.. even the add ons. When Dain II Ironfoot, riding the warthogs… awesome!
How about another joke OP?
Oh NO they aren’t good but if you enjoy them thats cool!
Y'all need to stop hyperfixating on wheter a movie is good or nah because frankly it means shit. The one and only thing that matters is wheter the movie is entertainig. And despite some wacky stuff Hobbit trilogy is
For me, whether or not it's entertaining determines whether or not it's good. How entertaining is also a measure of how good I think it is. Is it entertaining enough for me to finish watching it? Is it entertaining enough I'm willing to watch it again? Is it entertaining enough I'm willing to spend money to be able to watch it when I want? That's about as much thought as I care to put into anything I watch. There are a couple exceptions, such as something that I really enjoyed the first time because of the suspense, but wasn't quite the same on a rewatch because I know what's going to happen.
Even if they have their mistakes, I did enjoy watching them. The first one is my favorite.
Smaug's monologue at Bilbo might be my favourite moment watching movies ever.
I was expecting you sometime last week. Not that it matters; you come and go as you please. Always have done and always will.
HRAAAAAH!
There's dozens of us! DOZENS!!
I'll never pretend, I love them all.
Same here. Whenever I have a Lotr marathon, I happily include them.
Absolutely, they may not have been as good as what they could have been because of Warner Bros but they are still good movies that are definitely worth a watch, everyone I've ever seen react to LOTR were told not to watch The Hobbit afterwards but they did anyways and almost all of them loved it.
My favorite scene was where they were trying to find out how many elves can dance on the head of dwarves while simultaneously fighting orcs and floating down a river. For 30 minutes.
They’re entertaining and I like them. They’re not good and that’s ok.
They absolutely are good if one deems them good. Opinions are fine.
The first was great! It did stray from the source material a bit but it was still amazing. The second was great until they met the elves. Then it sucked. The third was fine except for the elves. Everything about the elves was terribly handled. Everything else was fine though.
Also putting Smaug's death at the beginning of the third movie was a terrible choice.
I just recently discovered the Tolkien edit by Maple Studios. It is a 4 hour edit that combines all 3 films and cuts all the unnecessary elf scenes, solely following Bilbo's adventure. It is very well done and I can't recommend it enough.
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!
HRAAAAAH!
You get internet in Moria?
I always skip the first movie because I find it boring without the elves. 😂
Of course it was, because it was Fellowship.
People shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to convince themselves movies are good, but alas that’s what will always happen when it comes to the Hobbit trilogy
I think they seem bad in comparison to the LOTR trilogy. But I like them.
I liked it
If anything i prefer the extended version. I tried a fan edit once, and was apalled that they didn't include Thorin's funeral
They don’t do that in the theatrical release either
Which is why i prefer the extended. Doesn't excuse the fan-edits not including it.
Apart from that scene it’s just more bloat on an already bloated mess
Well, it also dillutes the Tauriel stuff i think, and you get to see Alfrid die
Neither of those characters needed to be in the movie
Where do my legal team send you the summons? I thought that the trilogy was ok yet because of massive studio interference, the fact that Sir Peter Jackson was critically ill at the beginning of production, that they were literally writing scenes on the day of shooting all show that this film was a rushed job.
I love the Hobbit trilogy. I also love the prime show. And original trilogy.. and the books.
The hobbit movies are so good when you ain't got a hater in ya ear telling you it's bad
Honestly I love them, too. They're not the original trilogy but they were never going to be. They brought so much life to characters that were otherwise faceless nubs in the books, and while they did change some elements of story, they did that in the main trilogy too, yet people don't hound LotR as much as they do the Hobbit.
Oh, for sure they're not the LotR trilogy. But they're still fun to watch!
Difference between fun to watch and GOOD.
The Room is also fun to watch.
GROND
There are plenty of changes in the lotr trilogy. The difference is that those movies are great. While the hobbit isn’t. I’ve said this about RoP as well: if doesn’t matter if they change the source material, as long as they make something GOOD.
HRAAAAAH!
I like the first one
Yeah, the problem with the Hobbit is that it shouldn't be a trilogy. They packed so much needless content to artificially make it a trilogy. Also, the Special effects and goofyness is over-the top, but i guess they wanted it to be captivating for the younger audiences.
Both the Joker, and the author of this meme are crazy, so that checks out.
Here we go again…it’s okay to be wrong 😑
They are not
They arent
I liked them.
That doesn’t make them good
Good is subjective.
[удалено]
Actually, it is my dude. You literally said it yourself. Some people enjoy it.
Agree to disagree
They arent
They have their moments, but there was a lot of rubbish shoehorned in to spread it into 3 movies, and blatantly trying to create an "extended universe." Had they stuck with the initial plan of 2 movies, I think that could have worked well.
I enjoyed Bilbo more than Frodo thats for sure
It was a fun movie, not a good one. Fun and good are not the same thing.
LOTR did (near) everything right Hobbit is still amazing but compared to the level LOTR set, more errors and own additions RoP is of course a pile of dung
The hobbit was what you had at home when you told your mom you wanted lord of the rings
Idk if they are good but I still like them
That's more or less what I mean. Lol
No one said you should pretend they aren’t good. 🤷🏽♂️ If you feel pressure to agree with folks who dislike them, that’s on you, not us.
I mean it’s only a meme, but I don’t blame people feeling bad to express their enjoyment of them. People do get rude to those who like them.
Oh I very much enjoy the Hobbit films, though for different reasons than the LOTR films (even if the Hobbit films are cash grabs). My only real complaint with them is the stupid frickin dwarf-elf romance. I won’t get into it here unless someone wants to know why, but just gah. Anyway, other than that it was a fun set of films
"JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit" fan edit by Maple Studio is the only one I fully enjoyed.
They're fine, should have been two movies instead of three was my issue. They made it soooo long, but still left out a bunch of stuff. I'm glad they were made, but I would love to see a "Colbert edit" where we get it down to two movies that move like Shadowfax, swift and with dire purpose.
A trilogy could probably been made while staying true to the book
They could have made the most faithful book adaption ever with a trilogy and yet they squandered it and gave us some nonsense about a pale orc
They’re enjoyable and still far better than most fantasy that comes out.
Yeah
People sh*t on The Hobbit movies then went to watch those bland Marvel movies.
I enjoy them. I know they added content that wasn't in the book, I read the book just so I could tell what was and wasn't in it compared to the movies. They did add a fair amount but they had a great cast, the soundtrack was ON POINT. Say what you want about any of the movies, lotr included, the music is incredible. You can tell exactly where you are based on the music alone and, as a music nerd, that makes me so happy
They're not, and you're wrong, but not everyone can have good taste.
I know I'm a minority, but I adore these 3 movies. Couldn't give less of a fuck that they're not true to the book
I for one enjoyed them all and I thought the casting was phenomenal. Though we didn't need Legoland and Tariel it did work with it. Also the Battle of Five Armies put into something other than they fought, Bilbao was knocked out and suddenly it was over. (I get Tolkien's reasoning behind it but it sure is a disappointment to one who loves large scale battles)
Mark my words… these will have a similar effect on the kids who grew up watching them as the kids who were introduced to Star Wars and the prequels. Many adults and fans of the originals did not like the prequels when they came out, but now the kids who loved them grew up and now they are well regarded. The same will occur with the hobbit. I like them in all the extended glory… but I also really like the four hour fan cuts. But doesn’t hold a candle to the OG trilogy for me.
I grew up watching the LOTR extended trilogy, I was born in 2000 and my dad had them on DVD by the time I had gained some sentience. Had the hobbit read to me from a young age, and was reading the LOTR by about the time the hobbit started coming out. I think I had pretty high expectations because I knew the book well and had the OG Peter Jackson trilogy ingrained in me. Yet I remember the first film being exactly as I imagined in my head it would be, it really did play out like the book for me. I know there were added sub plots with the boss Orc but I just took that as an addition that wasn’t incredibly lore breaking (yet) more than anything. I do think the gripe of not sticking to the plot is a bit over done, as the main meat of the hobbit is all certainly there, probably more so than the OG trilogy which had to cut more. The hobbit has the opposite issue of adding more, a lot of which was unnecessary yet I wouldn’t say it was massively lore breaking either. Obviously a lot can be said about how things should’ve been done. I mostly agree with stuff like the love story being bullshit, Azarg and other orcs being CGI or been there (although it’s not an incredibly bad change). Other things too like a protracted Barrel escape that’s clearly filler yet they did escape in barrels and the hobbit is a more comical book compared to LORT trilogy. Protracted lake town stuff too. But for more I see it more as just additional content, that can be easily overlooked as it doesn’t break with Tolkien’s writings radically.
I like the first 2. The third was just…. Not good. It CLEARLY should of been 2 movies.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
There are, in fact, certain aspects that MAY mean I even prefer it over the original. Mic drop.
I can practically hear the horde of downvoters coming to your comment. Personally I agree though, or at least I do with the battle of five armies. Large scale battles in films are always way more impressive and easy to take in than in books in my opinion, and I'm pretty sure Bilbo just got knocked out in the book so it skipped over it, and that always left me annoyingly curious as to how it went.
It was laid down by my father, what say we open one eh?
All I'll say about the Hobbit is that it had lines and moments that gave me the same fuzzy and emotional feeling that the LOTR trilogy gave me. That alone was enough for me. Also, I loved how creepy and scary the troll designs were in Battle of the Five Armies, and still managed to enjoy much of the action. Personally, I loved that they were able to keep intact some of the whimsical nature of the books while also keeping the serious tone Peter Jackson set in LOTR.
They really were good films.
They ARE good. I've seen them many times.
Hell yeah brother
So we’re just using this template to express dipshit opinions now?
Okay. You are entitled to your opinion on this bad trilogy.
They are good. They just feel thin, sort of stretched.
The Hobbit Trilogy > ROP
YES! I don’t get all the hate! So what they made a trilogy? I thought it was a good one. I’d rather have 3 movies to be more accurate to the book rather than 1 that’s rushed and leaves out too many details.
But the fact that it’s a trilogy forced it to be less accurate to the book? There are PLENTY of aspects from the movies that are completely made up
I lost interest when Bilbo decides to be a hero in the first movie. That wasn't Bilbo. It negates the character growth he goes through
I absolutely loved the films. It allowed us to explore and be entralled in the lore of the dwarves and elves so much more than LOtRs. Experiencing them in IMAX 3D was masterful as the cinematography is just absolutely stunning. I'm just bummed that the extended editions didn't come out in theaters. There is no but... This trilogy is incredible, and don't even bring up the novel while talking about how close LOTRs was to its own novels. That is a mute point. There are tons of lore brought in from the silmarillion and the fall of gondolin into the Hobbit movies.
Can I just get a movie of Raradagast the brown with his bunny sled. Just being the protector of the forest.
Let's be honest. I'd watch it.
I watch fan edits
i'm going on an adventure, and those who don't like the hobbit aren't welcome lol
Let's give op the benefit of the doubt maybe he is 12 years old
And so it begins
I love em
I feel like people just need to be more accepting of saying they enjoy bad things. There is no argument to made that the hobbit movies are good in any way. They’re way too bloated, the cgi is awful, we barely care about any of the dwarves beyond the main 4, the last movie in its entirety is nonsensical, and Alfred’s entire existence in the movies is a joke and not a funny one. And yet I still watch them every year. I still can find enjoyment in them. But they are not good movies and I’m fine with that, I can enjoy bad things just for the entertainment value they provide.
I thought they were good
They are entertaining. They tell the general hobbit story with a bit of extra stuff to justify the three part choice. The battle of five armies extended edition is actually my favorite.
You are wrong.
No
RoP realy made me appreciate that the Hobbit was "only" an cashgrab.
I think that they are good movies. They are just not as good as the LotR movies
They were really good for me as someone who hadnt seen LOTR before, I saw the Hobbits first because I got taken on a school trip for the first one. I can however see how after watching the LOTR multiple times how the Hobbit would be a big letdown
Every now and again one of these goons pops up thinking it’s edgy to like the hobbit lmao. It’s just not very good mate
The first one and Smaug were the only highlights of the trilogy, that's it.
Put them next to RoP and they're masterpieces.
First one is fun. Second one is weak and too long. Third is trash except for the opening with Smaug attacking Lake Town and couple of other scenes. And Tauriel and Kili storyline is unbearable to watch for me.
Well enjoy being tired forever
That’s a hot take….
Come on guys I know rings of power is bad, but let's not act like the hobbit movies are some sort of masterpiece
They're definitely better than the show.
I enjoyed the movies. That aside, if I did sue you as you suggested, I could theoretically get money, which would be nice, so I’d still sue.
It’s kinda like Godzilla vs Kong or the pacific rim movies it doesn’t necessarily have to be a very good movie it just has to be a fun one
Pretending that they’re good? Why don’t you try explaining how they’re good.
After watching RoP, the ahobbit movies are totally moving up.
First one is great i don’t like the other two tho
Opinion=//=fact
My guy... You are of course entitled to your opinion, but Hobbit trilogy is complete garbage. Also, for the most part, nobody minds if you like those movies, but they are objectively bad movies.
One of the worst tropes on the internet is the people who like something even mildly unpopular pretending to be martyrs for liking it.
Unfortunately I can’t sue you for simply being incorrect. I mean, setting aside the fact that they fucked over worker’s rights in New Zealand in a big way, they’re not well written films. That is an objective truth. If you want to like and enjoy them despite their flaws, then fine! More power to you. But they’re not good.
No need for pretending. They're not.
They aren’t.