The Hobbit films look absolutely disgusting

RustyNails

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,434
I remember reading the early impressions at the old place and some guy was blowing smoke up our asses by saying the second Hobbit movie was just as good as LOTR movies. I was sooo excited. Imagine my disappointment.
 

TAJ

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,832
3 long movies, and there are really only 3 good scenes in the trilogy.


1. Everything at Bag End at the start
2. Riddles In The Dark
3. Bilbo meets Smaug
The Smaug segment of the second movie, all of it, was actually what convinced me to skip the third movie in theaters. I basically thought "If they can't even get this right, then all hope for anything is lost.".
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,214
After Rings, this adaptation really disappointed and put me off even wishing for another. The third was like watching a dream die slowly over the course of hours, the second was so pointless, and the first, for all the glimmers of goodness (bag end, misty mountains cold, bilbo's pity, up a tree and the eagle rescue), even those moments felt rushed and compromised in ways that they weren't in Rings, and they were sandwiched in the worst kind of nonsense like Azog and the Goblin Clown. That they were in many places profoundly ugly and not scored to the same heights of excellence rubbed salt into the wound. Haven't seen the EEs and I don't intend to.

For all PJ and crew achieved with Rings, the troublesome aspects were a warning and PJ has learned the opposite of restraint since then. The show going with new blood is a small blessing.
 

Ether_Snake

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,129
RotK had this same problem creeping in but it didn’t manage to ruin the movie. Best ones are Fellowship and The Two Towers.
 

Toler Supreme

The Fallen
Nov 15, 2017
521
Savannah, GA
Or when he hopped on the warg in The Two Towers.
Fun fact, the reason they CGed him onto the warg was because when filming him mounting a moving horse (which is what he was doing in the scene, the warg was to be put over the horse) he fell and broke a rib. They then had to CG his entire body movement in that shot since they didnt get any succesful footage.
 

Keuja

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,204
I don't hate them. It's a good popcorn flick, like the the marvel movies. I didn't really expect more than that.
 

DrForester

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,535
The Smaug segment of the second movie, all of it, was actually what convinced me to skip the third movie in theaters. I basically thought "If they can't even get this right, then all hope for anything is lost.".
The Smaug sequence once the Dwarves enter the mountain was terrible.

I'm talking just Bilbo's first encounter with Smaug. I thought it was done really, really well.
 

TAJ

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,832
The Smaug sequence once the Dwarves enter the mountain was terrible.

I'm talking just Bilbo's first encounter with Smaug. I thought it was done really, really well.
I specifically mentioned EVERYTHING to do with Smaug. That part actually bothered me more than the Scooby Doo nonsense later.
 

Drewton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,999
The original trailer for The Hobbit is aesthetically and tonally so on-point. In retrospect, they clearly cherrpicked the best shots and misrepresented the film (or trilogy, I guess) as upholding the same weight and dignity of the LOTR trilogy. Instead, the films not only look like smeared shit, but are also cartoonish and campy in all the worst ways.

We all deserved this movie:
I really want to watch it again now

I sure did, lol. Check my edit.

Part of me still believes Jackson could rework the movies if he ever wanted to. Fan cuts can only go so far. With the unused dailies and master audio, he could theoretically excise the B/C/D plots and still preserve continuity (along with a clean, watchable edit). They still shot those scenes. They filmed the book that is The Hobbit. Not every scene can be salvaged, but I truly believe most of the subplots and probably 80% of the third film could be dropped entirely.
An Irishman style Bilbo narration could tie it all together
 

1138

Member
Sep 7, 2018
31
The Hobbit movies were worse than the Star Wars prequels. At least the latter had an interesting setting and good concept design. The Hobbit movies have perhaps 4-5 good scenes spread over 3 movies, and that is it. The whole thing feels like a cheap cash-in where they somehow managed to get the original actors to star.
 

kvetcha

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,513
The Hobbit movies were worse than the Star Wars prequels. At least the latter had an interesting setting and good concept design. The Hobbit movies have perhaps 4-5 good scenes spread over 3 movies, and that is it. The whole thing feels like a cheap cash-in where they somehow managed to get the original actors to star.
Real waste of absolutely perfect Martin Freeman casting.
 

GolazoDan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15
I saw the first one at the cinema and the projector broke (!) 20 minutes before the end. So when a friend wanted to watch it I watched the majority of it again. Not worth it. I don’t usually give up on movies but I got so bored during the second one I put it down and never picked it back up.

Tim off The Office, Richard Armitage, James Nesbitt, Aiden Turner: great bits of casting. The Misty Mountains song: great song. They also put Manu Bennett in it right around him being the main man in Arrow and turned him into the CGI abomination of a main orc villain. What the hell.
 

HotAndTender

Member
Dec 6, 2017
437
They're completely forgettable movies. I've seen them all a few times and for the life of me can't remember key parts. LOTR films on the otherhand i know inside out. Should of made the hobbit 1 movie IMO
 

artemis

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,635
I still can't believe I gave money to see the first two movies. Man, they were underwhelming.
 

Maledict

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
I don't hate them. It's a good popcorn flick, like the the marvel movies. I didn't really expect more than that.
Why are the marvel films the go to comparison for bad films? ;-)

Marvel films are at least competently made. The hobbit trilogy suffers from massive pacing issues, awful cgi, a fundamental misunderstanding of the source material and totally unnecessary links to the LotR trilogy.

I don’t see how anyone could legitimately consider them the same quality wise, and I don’t even like most Marvel films.
 

BlackFyre

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,405
People really need to research The Hobbit trilogy production or the very least watch Lindsay Ellis's take on it. Jackson was thrown into direct it due to Del Toro's departure.
He's a big boy. He took the job. He didn't have to. He should have enough pull to say, if you want it done right, I need more time.
Studios will always push for deadlines but he shouldn't have taken the job.

He of all people should not how much pre production time is needed.
 

Inkvoterad

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,914
Eh, i like them alot, and the extended cuts even more. My only real gripes with them is the added love story and the big screentime for that ugly mayor assistant in the third film.
 

Shugga

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,778
tfw you're having a decent day and you're reminded that there are hobbit extended cuts
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,954
The book isn't the best source material either. To me, it's a bedtime story for kids under 12, really, and LOTR is more engaging and exciting in every way. Really just a set of movies that did not need to be made.
 

GS_Dan

Member
Oct 30, 2017
855
He's a big boy. He took the job. He didn't have to. He should have enough pull to say, if you want it done right, I need more time.
Studios will always push for deadlines but he shouldn't have taken the job.

He of all people should not how much pre production time is needed.
Weren't the studio threatening to pull out of New Zealand if he didn't do it? It would have tanked the fledgling industry, I can understand him feeling pressured to do it
 

SillyEskimo

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
2,897
I marathoned them all a couple of years ago and I enjoyed them more than single viewings. Flawed, but enjoyable none the less. That final battle is some bullshit though.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,696
I enjoy the first 2 Hobbit films, I guess...

Although I do agree The Battle of Five Armies was, surprisingly, dull.
 

Sabercrusader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,032
I still strongly maintain that the first Hobbit film is mostly fine. Certainly worse than the entire original trilogy, but still perfectly enjoyable...

The second and third movies are just...not good. Honestly, the only good part of the second one is Bilbo interacting with Smaug. In fact, Martin Freeman as Bilbo was great casting. Not enough to save the movies, but I still enjoy watching many of the Bilbo scenes because of him.

The third movie is an abomination. Just awful in almost every aspect. I suppose if I had to chose one good scene from the third, it would be Thorin's death? That at least was done relatively well.
 

Mr_Moogle

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,363
Saw the first one at the cinema. Thought it was okay, 6/10 sort of movie, nothing special. I fell asleep half way through the second film and never even saw the third.

I'm pretty much at a point now where I want somebody to completely redo this film. I'm not a fan of reboots but the Hobbit so damn offensive it needs one. The same can be said of the Star Wars prequels. Just throw it all out and do it again properly.
 

Pegaknight

Member
Dec 1, 2019
13
The book isn't the best source material either. To me, it's a bedtime story for kids under 12, really, and LOTR is more engaging and exciting in every way. Really just a set of movies that did not need to be made.
Absolutely agree. The Hobbit, though fun, is a very simple story. I don't think they really could've done much with it in the first place. It's just not the type of story people want to see on the big screen. LOTR has way more going for it.
 

Maledict

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
I enjoy the first 2 Hobbit films, I guess...

Although I do agree The Battle of Five Armies was, surprisingly, dull.
Partly because in the actual books it doesn’t even exist - Bilbo gets knocked out offscreen and wakes up when it’s done. Also partly because they tried to turn a relatively small skirmish into a LotR style epic battle, which then makes no sense.The point where 12 dwarves charging from the gates suddenly makes a material difference to a battle involving thousands upon thousands of IRC’s is ridiculous.
 

Steiner_Zi

Member
Oct 28, 2017
326
I mean, yeah the films look bad in many places, especially as the trilogy went on. It should have been 2 films as originally planned and most of the fluff/bullshit would not have made it into the final cut. But 'absolutely disgusting' is a major hyperbole.
 

tata toothy

Member
Dec 24, 2017
418
The whole thing should have just been a charming little three hour adventure that felt and looked like Willow and other 80s fantasy films more than anything else.
 

justin haines

Member
Nov 27, 2018
1,318
I won’t even watch the hobbit stuff, or even the lotr rewatches anymore, too much damn green screen and aging cgi

Was a fun event at the time tho

Maybe that new show will look good
 

kalgore

Member
Oct 29, 2017
139
The third movie was on AMC on Saturday and my wife and I got sucked in. When these came out I really didnt like them. However on Saturday I really enjoyed what I watched.

Also the armored pig mount for the dwarf is pretty awesome.
 

emilioasis

Member
Nov 1, 2017
83
The studio didn't give anyone on the crew any time to prepare or plan. The fact they are even WATCHABLE is a miracle given how rushed they were.
This. Peter Jackson didn’t want to do this movies (let alone three of them). The reason they used CG so much was because nothing was planned, so they basically did the movie as they went along (even the script was unfinished).

Cut PJ some slack.
 

Garlador

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,635
Didn’t Jackson try to save the movie?
He salvaged them as best he could, but he wasn't afforded the time or resources to "fix" the mess he was given. He never wanted them to be three movies either, but that was mandated, and thus he was forced to add in hours of new content outside of the book.

For Lord of the Rings, Jackson and his crew had nearly 2 years of pre-production to set the groundwork for the films. For The Hobbit movies, he literally was filming entire big set piece action scenes on the spot with incomplete scripts, no choreography or staging, and no plan whatsoever.

Jackson is a great filmmaker, but it's like those "10 second drawing" challenges. No matter how good you are, when you're rushed, it's going to get messy.
 

Tuorom

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,408
The book isn't the best source material either. To me, it's a bedtime story for kids under 12, really, and LOTR is more engaging and exciting in every way. Really just a set of movies that did not need to be made.
Absolutely agree. The Hobbit, though fun, is a very simple story. I don't think they really could've done much with it in the first place. It's just not the type of story people want to see on the big screen. LOTR has way more going for it.
Disagree. The Hobbit is a kids story yes, but there are a lot of good scenes in there. It could have been a nice prelude to the LOTR, but they got greedy and The Hobbit was never meant to be a big 3 movie epic like LOTR. It would be a solid 2 and a half to 3 hr movie, at most.

It would have been neat to have a little backstory to why Bilbo is so different from other hobbits, and why Gandalf thinks so highly of hobbits. It would have added to all the scenes with Bilbo in LOTR.