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.
I was stunned at how bad this looked on the big screen. The T1000 looks better than this.
Can you ask for a ban?
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
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.
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.
Im curious what about it did you dislike? Critics widely praised that section of the film.I specifically mentioned EVERYTHING to do with Smaug. That part actually bothered me more than the Scooby Doo nonsense later.
I specifically mentioned EVERYTHING to do with Smaug. That part actually bothered me more than the Scooby Doo nonsense later.
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:
An Irishman style Bilbo narration could tie it all togetherI 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.
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.
I don't hate them. It's a good popcorn flick, like the the marvel movies. I didn't really expect more than that.
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.
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 itHe'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.
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.
I enjoy the first 2 Hobbit films, I guess...
Although I do agree The Battle of Five Armies was, surprisingly, dull.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.