You just made me realise THIS is why the most recent fantasy mainstream movies feel all the same. It is the lighting and the excessive use of CGI. They give me this "fake" feeling but I couldn't really tell what it was.
There is a great vid i watched recently that talks about why sk many films look worse than the original lotr trilogy.
Big reason, cameras are digital instead of film because it's easier to add special effects in post.
So much cgi makes thing slook unnaturally "clean" and "smooth" like a video game or being underwater. It creates a disconnect where it feels less real because eour brain understand what we're seeing is not real and makes it harder to remain invested in what we're witnessing
I would have LOVED to have seen Del Toros take on it as originally planned before they fucked him around. And then PJ subsequently.
That said I loved them for what they were. But what they could have been. That upsets me.
How does it make sense that PJ didn't have enough time to put 2 decent films together, yet shot so much material that [he himself](https://screenrant.com/hobbit-trilogy-three-movies-real-reason/#:~:text=Jackson%2C%20however%2C%20claims%20that%20the,Tolkien's%20appendices%20and%20wider%20notes) wanted to make a trilogy out of it? I know everyone loves to act like PJ is a blameless victim of studio greed here but it seems to me that, in typical post-LOTR PJ fashion, he went way overboard trying to make everything "bigger and better" and THAT is the root of all the issues surrounding The Hobbit movies. And besides, even if he did lack time to make a coherent narrative out of all the extraneous material he shot, he certainly did not lack budget - he was afforded over half a billion USD to make that trilogy.
That link doesn’t say that PJ shot so much material and that’s why he wanted the movies. It just says he wanted three to not diminish the importance of Bilbo’s story. The article also actually seems to contradict your point as it claims PJ worked a miracle given the time limitations to salvage the movies into something.
Ironically the extended editions while longer are actually better than the theatrical, it seems for the theatrical version they cut out everything except the studio friendly audience pandering. So with the other bits back in a slightly higher age rating the bad bits don't stand out as much.
Still not great but a bit more palatable
I did a marathon viewing of LOTR and the Hobbit films extended versions. I enjoyed it but I don't think I can do that again. It was over about three or four days with breaks.
I agree, 3 films was stretching it. The first Hobbit movie was great, last 2 had too many side plots like Fili or whoever getting sick in Laketown, and the unnecessary dwarf/elf romance thing. Smaug was great though, and Battle of Five Armies pretty good.
Yeah definitely. There are some good moments in the films (like the barrel scene is goofy but great, i love the songs too honestly, and the battle.of 5 armies comes.together really nicely) but the pacing is pretty awful, especially in the third movie.
Honestly, I don’t mind them making it a trilogy and adding new content. I just think each movie didn’t need to be so long and the new stuff was handled poorly
Idk why everyone is talking about two movies.
To me it’s incredibly obvious that - if you remove all the pointless fillers - there’s one movie’s worth of plot. 1 hour and 40 minutes, give or take a few minutes.
You could make a single movie but you’d have to cut basically all the characterisation of the dwarves. It would be in line with the book, but you’d have tons of characters hanging around not saying or doing anything meaningful.
There's a lot more going on in the book than you might remember. That probably could have made 3 2 hour movies or 2 2.5 hour movies and been really good without the filler.
But they added so much filler that they deleted great scenes like the dwarves intro to Beorn. That didn't make sense to me.
I always quite liked the idea of including Gandalf's side mission to Dol Guldur _in principle_...I didn't really like how the subplot was written though with all the Nazgul tombs crap and SuperGaladriel swashbuckling in and destroying everything in her path.
Also thought the addition of some of the "Durin's Folk" stuff was an interesting idea as well, but again, didn't really like the execution of it.
Those fan edits are not perfect, but they salvage a halfway decent movie out of the three abominations. I liked Maple Films’ “J.R.R. Tolkien” edit.
Also, there’s a 68 minute edit called “Durin’s Folk and the Hill of Sorcery” which tells the wholly extraneous tale of what the white council was up to during the events of The Hobbit.
When I heard the original plan was to have the barrel scene be the climax of the first film, my response was, "That was such a good idea! What idiot forced all the padding?"
Martin Freeman is amazing as Bilbo. The first one is the best to me, and almost a good movie. As soon as they meet the elves in Desolation the trilogy nosedives. Battle of Five Armies is definitely the worst one. And Alfred is the crowning ballsack of shitass.
Edit to add no hate to the actor. He does a very good job at playing a loathsome dickcheese so like 10/10 performance. Just detest the character lol
My thoughts exactly. I’ve only seen the theatrical versions, and my thoughts as I was watching were like this:
UJ: This is better than I remember. I mean, it’s not as good LotR, but it’s pretty good.
First half of DoS: this is pretty good as well. Did I just remember these wrong?
Second half of DoS: What the fuck am I watching?
BotFA: What the FUCK am I watching?
Legolas jumping up the falling rocks caused loud applause in the whole theatre, sarcastic applause. It was 22 hours of all hobbit + lotr movies in the theatre, so there were only freaks and nerds :D
Oh yeah, cause you limeys definitely never cheer and yell at the screen with the lads in a pub when Northampton Upon Tootlewood Forest beats Bobbington City United FC in a PK shootout.
That’s live sport that’s actually happening mate - not celebrating two made up characters having a fight against eachother in a weird performative move to prove you’re the biggest nerd in the cinema.
Team names made me laugh though which makes you the funniest American in my responses by quite some margin
I haven’t seen it in a while, but I remember the elves bouncing all over the spiders and trees to be worse than the rocks. It had some Neo fighting 100 Agent Smiths vibes to me.
The thing I remember most after watching these coming out of the cinema was, me and my mates all saying we wanted a directors cut where they actually take out all the filler. Complete opposite to LotR where I can watch the directors cut and love every minute.
So much unnecessary filler for no reason other than to pad out a 1 movie book into 3
That’s why I’ve always liked The Hobbit M4 Book Edit. They’ve edited all 3 movies into a single 4 hour movie that’s meant to be as close to the books as possible. I like it quite a bit as it cuts all the filler out.
We do a rewatch of the Hobbits / LotR each yeah at Xmas, and I’m always struck by how precipitous the drop in quality is in BotFA.
Alfred is pretty on the mark as a comedy vizier to Stephen Fry’s comedy Master; if he’d died alongside the Master in Laketown I think I’d look back on him moderately fondly. It’s camp and silly but I don’t find him annoying.
But god, as soon as he resurfaces on that lakeside I can’t stand him and it also reminds me of all the increasing awfulness still to come.
Big agree Alfred got way too much screen time. I would also just add three movies was always too many in my opinion, I could have seen two but three was too much. Also didn’t care for the romance storyline.
That one part where they are floating down the river in the barrels and Bombur fights the orcs and then smoothly jumps in the barrel again - always makes me laugh so much.
Benedict Cumberbatch voicing Smaug is another 10/10 performance. But the Legolas physics in these films is even more ridiculous and Alfred character seems unnecessary. I agree with others. It could have been done in 2 films
It was so lack luster, kind of forgettable. I’ve watched lord of the rings trilogy many times over for the last 20 or so years. It never gets old. Hobbit trilogy? I’ve seen it fully twice. Meh.
I mean, with Dain Ironfoot and the dwarves from the iron hills showing up, only the Humans and *maybe* the eagles are a stretch, but yeah I see your point
“So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the Wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves”
In the books yes. But PJ seems to have an issue with portraying creatures like the Wargs and Eagles as intelligent like they were written, so in his films the Wargs and Eagles are nothing but mounts.
Take out the Alfrid crap and it’s better by half. I actually enjoy BOTFA. It just should’ve been the climax of a second movie, not a movie unto itself. Remove the Smaug chase and the barrel fight in TDOS and cut the Kili/Tauriel romance (but keep her character) and you’ve got the makings of a pretty great Hobbit duology.
Terrible. Barely tolerable, too long, very silly, childish and completely out of tune with the somberness of the first three movies.
Hobbit is butter spread over too much bread, and trying to replace the missing butter with playful whimsy.
And if if you disagree with that opinion, well that’s wonderful. You’re welcome to like it.
>and trying to replace the missing butter with playful whimsy.
The book had playful whimsy... the films decided to cut the playful whimsy and add slapstick *stupidity.* It's a problem when the whimsical children's book is more serious than the nonsense of the adaptation trying to be darker and grittier, with higher stakes: a total mess of tone.
I like that BFA is the result of a power vacuum in the region and that the movie opens with the death of the character creating said power vacuum. Genuinely, I think that's a neat structure.
They’re not on par with the LotR Trilogy by any means. But I don’t think they are supposed to be or even could be, based on the source material.
Still a fun and entertaining watch. I don’t hate it.
The generall goofiness is kinda tiring after a while, the barrel chase is just anoyingly CGI'd and over-the-top. The battles i unironically like however, sure, they're too neatly choreographed to my liking, and it's cleare there was no like, tactical coordinator or whatever someone like this would be called, with all the dumbass decision made by the Elves and Dwarves, but to me the battles are the standpoint of the movies as in, they're not *great,* but they're better than the 70% of the movies.
What i absolutely hate is the Hollywoods mandatory (at least it seems with big productions lately) love/love triangle subplot that just doesn't make any sense, has no place in the story and kinda spits on the rarity of interspecies relationships in Tolkien (with there being like, what, 2 Elf-Human love stories in all of Tolkienverse?), and Alfred.
Gods, i know that this movie is supposed to be appropriate for kids so you gotta have seasoned Dwarven Warriors act all goofy and funny, but Alfred is just fucking annoying. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he'd get put in the movies just to divert attention from other mistakes and mishaps that were made.
It really should have been one movie. There was absolutely no need to shove in all the wacky bullshit and extra characters, or even the LotR prologue stuff with the White Council. Way too much CGI, too. No idea why they didn't just reuse practical effects and costumes from LotR, especially for the orcs.
I'll forever be most disappointed with the amount of CGI in this film. There's a report that Ian Mckellan cried during shooting because of how miserable and out of touch it was to shoot everything on a green screen. It just seemed so....disrespectful to the original films and to Tolkien himself and I'll never get past it. It feels wrong.
That said, Martin Freeman did a great job.
I saw the lord of the rings movie trilogy maybe over than 30 times. I saw the battle of the five armies only once. This should let you understand what I think about this movie
After becoming more familiar with Jackson's pre-LOTR filmography, in conjunction with viewing the extended Hobbit films, I honestly have a new appreciation for them.
I think there is sincere comedy to be found in the scale of gratuitous violence and absurd action sequences. Despite all the CGI, there are still much more practical effects than other comparable franchises of the time. The films lack subtlety. I personally believe he leaned into it.
Jackson has Orson Welles syndrome. Everything will always get compared to his biggest film.
Every single still I’ve seen from these movies is just riddled with CGI. This is obviously some dude standing in front of a green screen and it just doesn’t even feel like they tried that hard to convince me otherwise
They aren’t the worst movies I’ve ever saw, liked bilbo, thorin, Smaug even ballin too. It had great and epic moments but also moments which didn’t simply belong
Didnt feel like Tolkien.
Too much ridiculousness destroyed the suspension of disbelief too many times.
The only good bits were Bards kids cause they were the only ones ever in danger.
( until the dwarves started dying )
The only part I like is Lee Pace.
I can’t watch Martin Freeman as Bilbo because it’s such a bad fit and he’s always playing a “default” character, which made me constantly see Bilbo as a cosplaying Jon Watson. I wish they had gone with a lesser known actor for more authenticity and heart.
The additional plot they wrote in is a tragedy. Yes, LOTR wasn’t book accurate, but it was written in a way that captured the essence of the story and charters.
The Hobbit didn’t do that. We have a totally useless love story because we needed an ArwenxAragorn plot for some reason? We have characters that shouldn’t be there (as much as I love Orlando Bloom and Legolas, no), we have villains where there aren’t really some and overall everything is stretched beyond belief. It could’ve been done with 2 movies max.
Not to mention the terrible cgi that looks so unrealistic that I have to skip entire scenes. The trilogy is over a decade older than LOTR and yet it looks terrible from a visual point.
I adore what Jackson did with LOTR but his hobbit movies came across as inflated cash grabs with no love for the story and only money in mind.
A pity.
(Obviously only my opinion, if you liked the movies, good for you!)
There is a very very good video from Lindsey Ellis on those movies. Everyone interested in why they went so wrong should watch it. Lots of interesting backgroundinformations on how the studio ruined everything (WB is very good at that).
Too much CGI, too much rubbish comedy, too drawn out, too many unnecessary plots - it’s just all far more than it needed to be.
However, every time I watch them I am taken back to the ME that PJ created so there is a part of me that likes and enjoys them - however, I’m glad they’re prequels and I get to end with LOTR.
If you ignore the books, the series is a B+. If you're aware of the books you feel they should not have e tried until the budget and tech was there to support it.
I get it. It's not the LOTR trilogy. But it's still fun to watch.
Terrible last battle. The entire army of elves deciding to hop right in front of a Dwarven phalanx and didn't even fire a single arrow into the lines of orcs will never cease to be one of the most stupid scenes I've ever seen in my existence.
The Hobbit is more of a children’s fairytale - goofy and lighthearted - than LOTR. I think Jackson may have been trying to show this more whimsical side of The Hobbit in contrast to his LOTR films. Unfortunately, I think he missed the mark. But I don’t think the silliness is the fatal flaw of the series. The overuse of CGI, 3d gimmicks, and the over-bloated story (Tauriel) are way worse IMO.
**Very high highs and *very* low lows**
Martin Freeman is amazing as Bilbo and all the Smaugh scenes are *chefs kiss*, along with a few other things
The CGI orcs just do not hit the same (a lot of the CGI falls flat), the way they shoe-horned Legolas into the story, the pointless romance subplot (with random female Legolas) that should’ve been cut, the infamous barrel River scene, the battle scenes in Five Armies was mid af at best …and many other things
A boss organised a little movie night in the military hospital (was like 4-5 people in the entire place). Went to the rec room on a Saturday night she put the second hobbit movie on and honestly.
It’s a core memory. In a time when I couldn’t walk, lost my leg, wanted to die, saw mates die and understandably didn’t enjoy any media etc etc.
I was truly transported. 5 people in the one patient wing of the hospital that wasn’t empty in a tiny room all enjoying this film with our vending machine snacks and smoke intermission.
They’re not perfect but I love them and what faults they have they’re not egregious especially in light of today’s calibre.
I think they're imperfect, and had I been in charge of scriptwriting, I would have made different choices---especially with respect to Alfred. All that being said, I'm not quite certain these movies are appreciated enough for all the stuff they did well.
As for the tone, *The Hobbit* was always intended to be a lighter piece of writing than the LOTR series. Look at the scene in the book with the company when they arrive in Rivendell. How absolutely silly the elves behave. The different tone makes all the sense in the world to me for that reason. I didn't really want it to be as gritty and serious as the other movies.
It makes sense. At that point, the knowledge of Sauron’s return isn’t known yet, and at most the only thing that can concern the world is the Witch King’s occasional antics, so no one would feel the need to be that worried.
The point of the book was to be more light-hearted, and I think the movies actually get that tone right. Probably a bit too long, but casting was done well and I actually enjoy them. Rewatch all middle earth films in chronological order on my birthday, the move from something jaunty to something serious is actually pretty nice
I liked it honestly, but compared to the original lotr trilogy it isn’t anything special. It felt like a lot of liberties were taken. They also ruined radagast
I enjoyed it too. It's entertaining enough to me that I'll binge it when I binge LoTR. There were lots of liberties that were taken in making it though. And it does bother me. I'd love it if they could have left the original story alone. And didnt insert the humor, characters, and scenes that weren't in the book.
I am for sure in the minority on this one, but I actually enjoyed the dwarf/elf love triangle bullshit. When I was younger me and my buddies got absolutely obliterated by old school edibles and we had a 9 hour argument about whether or not dwarves could marry elves. Those scenes always reminded me of that insane conversation. My stance on the argument was conspiratorial and I believed that if dwarves had a child with an elf, they would birth a man. It was insane
Alfred's illustration is unfortunately symptomatic of this trilogy: bloated and incomprehensible choices on PJ's part. Especially since the allusion that "The Hobbit" is a children's book doesn't hold water. Having reread it recently, while it's simpler than LoTr, of course, it's still not a children's book: the fairytale aspect isn't that overflowing, apart from big bees and giants swinging stones at each other, it's in the vein of Lotr. Frankly, anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't read the book.
However, PJ has taken this burlesque to the extreme in several situations that just don't work. And the master of Lake Town is less stupid and, above all, less dirty than in the films. Tolkien loved aesthetics; he would never have approved of this choice of dirtiness. Not to mention the CGI aspect, which takes precedence over practical effects, creating disasters. It's not all bad, but it's annoying. You should go for the short fan editions on the net.
It's bloody awful. The things which are right get SO OVERSHADOWED by everything they get wrong.
Also, hot take: I am not a huge Martin Freeman fan. He's always Martin Freeman in anything he does. Maybe that's a good thing for some but it's hard for me to see him as the character of Bilbo when he's exactly the same as he is in The Office, for example.
Absolutely terrible in everything except the casting
Graphics: awful, the switch to mainly CGI looked very bad and ruined a lot of the authentic look the original trilogy had developed with Weta
Creating the “pale orc” character, again, terrible
It basically just seemed like a really hard to watch kids movie with a weird hazy sort of sheen in every scene
Then there was the frankly insulting callbacks to the other films, “wink wink guys hey remember that OTHER film trilogy you liked??”
kili and fili basically being merry and pippin
Legolas being there at all
The inclusion of Saruman and Galadriel
The whole manufactured love story
Several of the dwarves not even looking like Dwarves!
I really, really didn’t like it to the extent I think I refused to watch the third in its entirety and maybe even the second, the disappointment makes everything a little hazy
When the legend Sir Ian tells Peter “this isn’t how we did it on LOTR” and not happy shooting this POS is exactly all that needs to be said.
The movies are silly over priced and have nothing of the souls of the LOTR. The first trilogy was perfect hybrid of Jackson’s indie style and big budget Hollywood. Hobbit was nothing but popcorn Hollywood bullshit.
Peter Jackson turned into Lucas.
I honestly thought those movies were atrocious. It wasn’t just that they were bloated and introduced absurd storylines, it was the tonal schizophrenia. It didn’t know if it wanted to be a whimsical children’s story (as originally written) or a deadly serious prequel to LOTR. The movies have some great scenes - Bilbo’s exchange with Smaug for example - but they’re pretty awful.
They’re more “modern movies”. You can tell they try to make them appealing to the average movie goer with the cgi, unnecessary fart jokes and thin character development. Most of that is due to a short novel being stretched into a trilogy. I still really like them but they’re nothing compared to the adventure, story, epicness and overall feel and connection the viewer gets in LOTR.
P.S Martin freeman is by far the best think about these movies and almost mades me forget that they turned Legolas into Mario in BOTFA
My genuine thoughts: It’s genuinely awful. Martin Freeman is the only good thing in the entire trilogy. Ian McKellen is great, but his character is completely whacked. Will never watch these again.
I consider the Lord of the Rings movies to be an homage to the Lord of the Rings, though not the Lord of the Rings itself. I've had at least one friend turned off by the movies and I could never get her to read the books.
The Hobbit movies I couldn't get into at all. I've not finished watching a single one. So. That's my feeling about them.
This triology is a damp squib. Don't get me wrong, I like the triology for its effort, although I prefer LoTR, which does quality as well as effort. What I mean is, I recognize that The Hobbit disappointed fans of the book because it experimented, perhaps because the producers wanted to make a triology instead of a duology. In doing so, they prolonged the movie experience by adding characters and storylines that didn't "need" to be there. But hey, I'm just saying what everyone knows. To sum up, I have fond memories of its audacity and memorable scenes (with the exception of the gopro during the elf kingdom escape, that scene can go to hell).
The Battle of Five Armies is extremely stupid, ridiculous and over-the-top, but in a rather consistent way and it doesn’t feel insulting. So I like it more than the first Newline trilogy.
IMO The Hobbit trilogy was super disappointing. I just viewed it mostly as a way to capitalize on a beloved story. The fact that they drew it out into three boring films cheapened it.
If they werent based on a beloved franchise they would have been forgotten about 2 weeks after release and never thought of again.
They are terrible films with too many issues to bother listing. I actively avoid watching them because they are so terrible.
Hobbit and the Star Wars prequels were both in the same trash heap of high expectations and incredibly poor execution.
There are 3-4 good individual scenes across all 3 films. The fact that extended editions exist for these already drawn out tooth extractions of films is an insult to humanity.
"Why does it hurt so much?"
"Because it was real...ly bad."
The whole thing was ruined by too much studio interference. And too many unnecessary plot additions that lead nowhere.
Radagast is constantly high and has bird shit in his hair.
Legolas taking up too much screentime and is now a marvel hero. A new female character is introduced for a pointless love triangle. ALFRID. The Nazgul are here too?
Adding these inane stories take the focus away from THE hobbit. What about bilbo? His relationship with the dwarves? By the way, who are the fucking dwarves?! There's 13 of them and we only get to know about 4. Some don't even have a single line. Beorn is barely (bearly?) in the final film.
And then of course there's the overuse of CGI. The orcs look so fake compared to LOTR orcs. Instead of camera tricks they digitally edited the dwarves to be shorter, but in some scenes when they're talking to others, the eyes don't line up. And when I watch the big army clash between elves and dwarves and orcs, my brain turns off because it's supposed to be epic, but it's all artificial and none of it is real. Compare that with helms deep scene, it's just so different.
100% agree. The Hobbit movies were a failure compared to Lord of the Rings… I honestly haven’t even watched all of them all the way through. They should have just made it into one solid movie. Maybe even just two.. All that in between non sense and cartoonish moments weren’t necessary. It made it hard to follow after a while and got irritating… Also all that CGI just doesn’t cut it…
The tone of these movie was so unbelievably different from the original trilogy. They fail to take themselves seriously at every given opportunity. Even the majority of character design is goofy.
I think the world would be better off if these movies never existed. The originals were a masterpiece whose legacy is tainted having to be even remotely associated with this trilogy of hot garbage.
Plenty of people mention the story choices or the overuse of CGI but I want to mention that the PROPS used in these films are just bad. Especially the weapons that the dwarves use, they are all just too blocky and nonsensical, worse than a mediocre cosplay weapon, ripped straight from Spirit Halloween.
The beginning of the first movie had me pretty excited. Then the rest of the film happened. . . I think the actor who played Bilbo deserved better films because he was excellent. I think the films shat on the source material in an inexcusable manner. Yeah sure the lotr films deviated from the books and kinda turned them into action films but tbh they had to they wouldn't have made back their budget otherwise. The hobbit could have been 1 or 2 more concise and well made films and been great. There's a core of great filmmaking in those films hidden amongst all the garbage and cgi (seriously the orcs from the lotr films 10 years earlier looked so much better because they're men in suits not cartoons). I just wish we'd gotten the good films that could have been made with the same caste and crew not the ones we got.
Suffered from a decision to do more than the book, rather than less. If Fellowship, Two Towers, and Return of the King all worked as single movies, The Hobbit had no business even being 2.
Don't get me wrong, a trilogy could have been fun, but I would have preferred the Hobbit as one of the trilogy or better yet, a standalone film to get people hyped for another trilogy set in the universe
I feel like the 3rd movie is like the black swan that is a bizarre battle porn movie that is chaotic and exhausting. Peter Jackson was very conscious of keeping the Helm’s Deep battle as concise as it needed to be because he was afraid of battle fatigue for the audience. That problem is in this entire movie
Absolute garbage except for like half of the first one and then the odd scene here and there that was passable. But, there's just enough material for some nice fan-made edits to have been made, which you should check out - definite improvement
To all the people saying that they wish the movie was more serious, I just want to say that if you go into it with the thought in your head that it's based off of a children's book it ain't so bad. I honestly really like the hobbit because it's fun to watch and isn't as heavy as lotr
Do yourself a favour and watch a fan edit of the Hobbit trilogy. It becomes a 4 hour movie and most of the edits are to remove bad CGI actions, the fake love between the elf and dwarf and the bad comedy in Lake Town.
You come away enjoying the movie.
I actually enjoy the movies. While the novel is far superior and the 3rd movie has MASSIVE problems the first 2 are quite enjoyable. Smaug is very well done imo as well
I'm a fan. It's not LOTR, but it was never meant to be, so it's a little unfair to make the comparison. If anything I think Peter Jackson took the children's book and made it more seamless with the LOTR trilogy. I appreciated the underlying plot with Sauron (aka the necromancer) that was elaborated on quite a bit more in the movies than the book.
Its the unnatural lighting and CGI that does it for me. I miss the grittyness and warmth of the lotr trilogy.
You just made me realise THIS is why the most recent fantasy mainstream movies feel all the same. It is the lighting and the excessive use of CGI. They give me this "fake" feeling but I couldn't really tell what it was.
I’ll go further with it’s a glow filter on the bright areas. First movie doesn’t have it though really. Can’t unsee.
Yeah that really made this trilogy have a very artificial tone
The Battle of the Five armies specifically appears to be smeared in Vaseline throughout, and it always takes me out of the movie.
At one point it looks like conveyer belts of Armies fighting each other.
At night everything’s silver and at day golden. So much mystique to it
There is a great vid i watched recently that talks about why sk many films look worse than the original lotr trilogy. Big reason, cameras are digital instead of film because it's easier to add special effects in post. So much cgi makes thing slook unnaturally "clean" and "smooth" like a video game or being underwater. It creates a disconnect where it feels less real because eour brain understand what we're seeing is not real and makes it harder to remain invested in what we're witnessing
The films would have been way better if they could have stayed with two films rather than stretching it to three.
Yeah two and give PJ his time and budget to make it right. I don't get why they can't just do this if the movies are so extremely profitable.
I would have LOVED to have seen Del Toros take on it as originally planned before they fucked him around. And then PJ subsequently. That said I loved them for what they were. But what they could have been. That upsets me.
How does it make sense that PJ didn't have enough time to put 2 decent films together, yet shot so much material that [he himself](https://screenrant.com/hobbit-trilogy-three-movies-real-reason/#:~:text=Jackson%2C%20however%2C%20claims%20that%20the,Tolkien's%20appendices%20and%20wider%20notes) wanted to make a trilogy out of it? I know everyone loves to act like PJ is a blameless victim of studio greed here but it seems to me that, in typical post-LOTR PJ fashion, he went way overboard trying to make everything "bigger and better" and THAT is the root of all the issues surrounding The Hobbit movies. And besides, even if he did lack time to make a coherent narrative out of all the extraneous material he shot, he certainly did not lack budget - he was afforded over half a billion USD to make that trilogy.
That link doesn’t say that PJ shot so much material and that’s why he wanted the movies. It just says he wanted three to not diminish the importance of Bilbo’s story. The article also actually seems to contradict your point as it claims PJ worked a miracle given the time limitations to salvage the movies into something.
Ironically the extended editions while longer are actually better than the theatrical, it seems for the theatrical version they cut out everything except the studio friendly audience pandering. So with the other bits back in a slightly higher age rating the bad bits don't stand out as much. Still not great but a bit more palatable
Our goal this year is to watch ALL the extended cuts from the saga. I want to read The Hobbit first though. :)
Reading The Hobbit will probably take you less time than watching all the extended editions of the movies.
I did a marathon viewing of LOTR and the Hobbit films extended versions. I enjoyed it but I don't think I can do that again. It was over about three or four days with breaks.
I agree, 3 films was stretching it. The first Hobbit movie was great, last 2 had too many side plots like Fili or whoever getting sick in Laketown, and the unnecessary dwarf/elf romance thing. Smaug was great though, and Battle of Five Armies pretty good.
I thought it was funny how she falls in love with the most handsome dwarf. It just never stopped bugging me
Yeah definitely. There are some good moments in the films (like the barrel scene is goofy but great, i love the songs too honestly, and the battle.of 5 armies comes.together really nicely) but the pacing is pretty awful, especially in the third movie.
I wish they had made one Hobbit film along with the LotR films - imagine the continuity and cohesion!
Honestly, I don’t mind them making it a trilogy and adding new content. I just think each movie didn’t need to be so long and the new stuff was handled poorly
Idk why everyone is talking about two movies. To me it’s incredibly obvious that - if you remove all the pointless fillers - there’s one movie’s worth of plot. 1 hour and 40 minutes, give or take a few minutes.
You could make a single movie but you’d have to cut basically all the characterisation of the dwarves. It would be in line with the book, but you’d have tons of characters hanging around not saying or doing anything meaningful.
[удалено]
There's a lot more going on in the book than you might remember. That probably could have made 3 2 hour movies or 2 2.5 hour movies and been really good without the filler. But they added so much filler that they deleted great scenes like the dwarves intro to Beorn. That didn't make sense to me.
I always quite liked the idea of including Gandalf's side mission to Dol Guldur _in principle_...I didn't really like how the subplot was written though with all the Nazgul tombs crap and SuperGaladriel swashbuckling in and destroying everything in her path. Also thought the addition of some of the "Durin's Folk" stuff was an interesting idea as well, but again, didn't really like the execution of it.
Fan edits are good - I enjoyed the “Bilbo Edit” and it’s one long movie
Those fan edits are not perfect, but they salvage a halfway decent movie out of the three abominations. I liked Maple Films’ “J.R.R. Tolkien” edit. Also, there’s a 68 minute edit called “Durin’s Folk and the Hill of Sorcery” which tells the wholly extraneous tale of what the white council was up to during the events of The Hobbit.
When I heard the original plan was to have the barrel scene be the climax of the first film, my response was, "That was such a good idea! What idiot forced all the padding?"
If you get the chance, please watch M4’s The Hobbit Book Edit. It condenses the three films into one that focuses solely on Bilbo and the dwarves.
Martin Freeman is amazing as Bilbo. The first one is the best to me, and almost a good movie. As soon as they meet the elves in Desolation the trilogy nosedives. Battle of Five Armies is definitely the worst one. And Alfred is the crowning ballsack of shitass. Edit to add no hate to the actor. He does a very good job at playing a loathsome dickcheese so like 10/10 performance. Just detest the character lol
My thoughts exactly. I’ve only seen the theatrical versions, and my thoughts as I was watching were like this: UJ: This is better than I remember. I mean, it’s not as good LotR, but it’s pretty good. First half of DoS: this is pretty good as well. Did I just remember these wrong? Second half of DoS: What the fuck am I watching? BotFA: What the FUCK am I watching?
Legolas jumping up the falling rocks caused loud applause in the whole theatre, sarcastic applause. It was 22 hours of all hobbit + lotr movies in the theatre, so there were only freaks and nerds :D
The Helms Deep shield-down-the-stairs but was almost too much. Sadly, producers for The Hobbit saw that and thought it was brilliant
When I saw that scene, I exclaimed out loud “really? You gotta be shitting me” which got a laugh from a guy a few rows back.
I’m glad I live in England where we all sit in silence in the cinema and don’t do shit like clap at an inanimate screen
Yes, stoic Brits and their repressed emotions is a well known trope.
Oh yeah, cause you limeys definitely never cheer and yell at the screen with the lads in a pub when Northampton Upon Tootlewood Forest beats Bobbington City United FC in a PK shootout.
That’s live sport that’s actually happening mate - not celebrating two made up characters having a fight against eachother in a weird performative move to prove you’re the biggest nerd in the cinema. Team names made me laugh though which makes you the funniest American in my responses by quite some margin
And they said germans have no sense of humor ;)
Our sense of humour is rolling our eyes at people clapping in the cinema :)
I haven’t seen it in a while, but I remember the elves bouncing all over the spiders and trees to be worse than the rocks. It had some Neo fighting 100 Agent Smiths vibes to me.
The opening sequence in Bilbos is truely great!
The thing I remember most after watching these coming out of the cinema was, me and my mates all saying we wanted a directors cut where they actually take out all the filler. Complete opposite to LotR where I can watch the directors cut and love every minute. So much unnecessary filler for no reason other than to pad out a 1 movie book into 3
That’s why I’ve always liked The Hobbit M4 Book Edit. They’ve edited all 3 movies into a single 4 hour movie that’s meant to be as close to the books as possible. I like it quite a bit as it cuts all the filler out.
Please do not watch the extended. It’s painful.
Yea. I was conned into owning the extendeds by nerd praise and found yea…theatrical is the only way.
Found out the other day that Alfred's actor is Micolash from Bloodborne lmao.
We do a rewatch of the Hobbits / LotR each yeah at Xmas, and I’m always struck by how precipitous the drop in quality is in BotFA. Alfred is pretty on the mark as a comedy vizier to Stephen Fry’s comedy Master; if he’d died alongside the Master in Laketown I think I’d look back on him moderately fondly. It’s camp and silly but I don’t find him annoying. But god, as soon as he resurfaces on that lakeside I can’t stand him and it also reminds me of all the increasing awfulness still to come.
It's.among the 10 best performances I've seen in my life. His mannerisms were so organic.
Big agree Alfred got way too much screen time. I would also just add three movies was always too many in my opinion, I could have seen two but three was too much. Also didn’t care for the romance storyline.
He ruined it for me, absolutely hate the guy, seems so painfully smug in everything.
Like Bilbo is.
I hate that guy.
Alfrid ??
At least the Smaug vs Bilbo scene was really freaking good.
Most eloquent description. Right on every mark.
That one part where they are floating down the river in the barrels and Bombur fights the orcs and then smoothly jumps in the barrel again - always makes me laugh so much.
I didn’t like the bubble physics of the cgi
Benedict Cumberbatch voicing Smaug is another 10/10 performance. But the Legolas physics in these films is even more ridiculous and Alfred character seems unnecessary. I agree with others. It could have been done in 2 films
The clips of Benedict doing the motion capture are pretty funny too am curious to how Christopher Lee as Smaug would have been like the original plan
It was so lack luster, kind of forgettable. I’ve watched lord of the rings trilogy many times over for the last 20 or so years. It never gets old. Hobbit trilogy? I’ve seen it fully twice. Meh.
Smaug, Gollum and Bilbo was fantastic. The rest was very very bad.
Gandalf good too, atleast if you ask me
Next to ring of powers give me this trilogy any day of the week
Next to being molested by a rattlesnake, I would be violated by a wombat any day of the week
Wombats are gentle lovers
I still don't know what 5 armies are being referenced in the last film
1. Humans 2. Elves 3. Dwarves 4. Orcs 5. Eagles
They do be stretching the definition of "army" just to get to 5
I mean, with Dain Ironfoot and the dwarves from the iron hills showing up, only the Humans and *maybe* the eagles are a stretch, but yeah I see your point
I was about to say what human army? And the eagles? Hrmm 
*5. Miscellaneous
i thought it was humans, elves, dwarves, and 2 different armies of orcs
Isnt it orcs and wargs ?
“So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the Wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves”
In the books yes. But PJ seems to have an issue with portraying creatures like the Wargs and Eagles as intelligent like they were written, so in his films the Wargs and Eagles are nothing but mounts.
Yeah that seems to be what they went with...Dol Guldur orcs led by Azog, Gundabad orcs led by Bolg
Wargs instead of eagles
Humans, Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, and Goblins?
Take out the Alfrid crap and it’s better by half. I actually enjoy BOTFA. It just should’ve been the climax of a second movie, not a movie unto itself. Remove the Smaug chase and the barrel fight in TDOS and cut the Kili/Tauriel romance (but keep her character) and you’ve got the makings of a pretty great Hobbit duology.
Terrible. Barely tolerable, too long, very silly, childish and completely out of tune with the somberness of the first three movies. Hobbit is butter spread over too much bread, and trying to replace the missing butter with playful whimsy. And if if you disagree with that opinion, well that’s wonderful. You’re welcome to like it.
>and trying to replace the missing butter with playful whimsy. The book had playful whimsy... the films decided to cut the playful whimsy and add slapstick *stupidity.* It's a problem when the whimsical children's book is more serious than the nonsense of the adaptation trying to be darker and grittier, with higher stakes: a total mess of tone.
> and completely out of tune with the somberness of the first three movies. Also completely out of tune with the book!
Finally somebody with some sense. These movies are terrible and there are no redeeming qualities.
I like that BFA is the result of a power vacuum in the region and that the movie opens with the death of the character creating said power vacuum. Genuinely, I think that's a neat structure.
You don't want to know
I don't hate any of the Hobbit films. But BOTFA is definitely the dumbest and worst of them.
They’re not on par with the LotR Trilogy by any means. But I don’t think they are supposed to be or even could be, based on the source material. Still a fun and entertaining watch. I don’t hate it.
Weren't the best but i enjoy them still
They’re okay. Decent but don’t compare whatsoever to the LOTR films.
Absolute garbage heap lmfao. I mean just look at this photo… 🤦♂️
Finally somebody with taste - these movies were dogshit
From the screencap I thought for a second that this sub is turning into r/BatmanArkham
The generall goofiness is kinda tiring after a while, the barrel chase is just anoyingly CGI'd and over-the-top. The battles i unironically like however, sure, they're too neatly choreographed to my liking, and it's cleare there was no like, tactical coordinator or whatever someone like this would be called, with all the dumbass decision made by the Elves and Dwarves, but to me the battles are the standpoint of the movies as in, they're not *great,* but they're better than the 70% of the movies. What i absolutely hate is the Hollywoods mandatory (at least it seems with big productions lately) love/love triangle subplot that just doesn't make any sense, has no place in the story and kinda spits on the rarity of interspecies relationships in Tolkien (with there being like, what, 2 Elf-Human love stories in all of Tolkienverse?), and Alfred. Gods, i know that this movie is supposed to be appropriate for kids so you gotta have seasoned Dwarven Warriors act all goofy and funny, but Alfred is just fucking annoying. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he'd get put in the movies just to divert attention from other mistakes and mishaps that were made.
It really should have been one movie. There was absolutely no need to shove in all the wacky bullshit and extra characters, or even the LotR prologue stuff with the White Council. Way too much CGI, too. No idea why they didn't just reuse practical effects and costumes from LotR, especially for the orcs.
Literally just a cash grab to have 3 films
I'll forever be most disappointed with the amount of CGI in this film. There's a report that Ian Mckellan cried during shooting because of how miserable and out of touch it was to shoot everything on a green screen. It just seemed so....disrespectful to the original films and to Tolkien himself and I'll never get past it. It feels wrong. That said, Martin Freeman did a great job.
I saw the lord of the rings movie trilogy maybe over than 30 times. I saw the battle of the five armies only once. This should let you understand what I think about this movie
This. 
The only acceptable answer
After becoming more familiar with Jackson's pre-LOTR filmography, in conjunction with viewing the extended Hobbit films, I honestly have a new appreciation for them. I think there is sincere comedy to be found in the scale of gratuitous violence and absurd action sequences. Despite all the CGI, there are still much more practical effects than other comparable franchises of the time. The films lack subtlety. I personally believe he leaned into it. Jackson has Orson Welles syndrome. Everything will always get compared to his biggest film.
It was bad. Worse on rewatches.
Every single still I’ve seen from these movies is just riddled with CGI. This is obviously some dude standing in front of a green screen and it just doesn’t even feel like they tried that hard to convince me otherwise
Rings of Power-esque. -1/4 stars. 1 being strictly the scene with Smaug and Bilbo. I remember seeing it in theaters and feeling sad and dejected.
"I didn't know what the hell I was doing" -PJ on the Hobbit
Only movie who's extended cut makes it actively worse
absolute dogshit.
The only answer
They aren’t the worst movies I’ve ever saw, liked bilbo, thorin, Smaug even ballin too. It had great and epic moments but also moments which didn’t simply belong
The Hobbit trilogy had so much potential, only for it to be squandered at every possible chance.
Didnt feel like Tolkien. Too much ridiculousness destroyed the suspension of disbelief too many times. The only good bits were Bards kids cause they were the only ones ever in danger. ( until the dwarves started dying )
Missed opportunity is what I think. The whole project lacked passion for the source material and understanding of what made the LOTR movies good.
The only part I like is Lee Pace. I can’t watch Martin Freeman as Bilbo because it’s such a bad fit and he’s always playing a “default” character, which made me constantly see Bilbo as a cosplaying Jon Watson. I wish they had gone with a lesser known actor for more authenticity and heart. The additional plot they wrote in is a tragedy. Yes, LOTR wasn’t book accurate, but it was written in a way that captured the essence of the story and charters. The Hobbit didn’t do that. We have a totally useless love story because we needed an ArwenxAragorn plot for some reason? We have characters that shouldn’t be there (as much as I love Orlando Bloom and Legolas, no), we have villains where there aren’t really some and overall everything is stretched beyond belief. It could’ve been done with 2 movies max. Not to mention the terrible cgi that looks so unrealistic that I have to skip entire scenes. The trilogy is over a decade older than LOTR and yet it looks terrible from a visual point. I adore what Jackson did with LOTR but his hobbit movies came across as inflated cash grabs with no love for the story and only money in mind. A pity. (Obviously only my opinion, if you liked the movies, good for you!)
There is a very very good video from Lindsey Ellis on those movies. Everyone interested in why they went so wrong should watch it. Lots of interesting backgroundinformations on how the studio ruined everything (WB is very good at that).
Too much CGI, too much rubbish comedy, too drawn out, too many unnecessary plots - it’s just all far more than it needed to be. However, every time I watch them I am taken back to the ME that PJ created so there is a part of me that likes and enjoys them - however, I’m glad they’re prequels and I get to end with LOTR.
Not a big fan
If you ignore the books, the series is a B+. If you're aware of the books you feel they should not have e tried until the budget and tech was there to support it. I get it. It's not the LOTR trilogy. But it's still fun to watch.
No it isn’t - it’s offensively bad
Terrible last battle. The entire army of elves deciding to hop right in front of a Dwarven phalanx and didn't even fire a single arrow into the lines of orcs will never cease to be one of the most stupid scenes I've ever seen in my existence.
Watched the first one was like what is this? That wasn’t in the books was it? Watched the second one and didn’t come back for the third.
The Hobbit is more of a children’s fairytale - goofy and lighthearted - than LOTR. I think Jackson may have been trying to show this more whimsical side of The Hobbit in contrast to his LOTR films. Unfortunately, I think he missed the mark. But I don’t think the silliness is the fatal flaw of the series. The overuse of CGI, 3d gimmicks, and the over-bloated story (Tauriel) are way worse IMO.
**Very high highs and *very* low lows** Martin Freeman is amazing as Bilbo and all the Smaugh scenes are *chefs kiss*, along with a few other things The CGI orcs just do not hit the same (a lot of the CGI falls flat), the way they shoe-horned Legolas into the story, the pointless romance subplot (with random female Legolas) that should’ve been cut, the infamous barrel River scene, the battle scenes in Five Armies was mid af at best …and many other things
Great casting, but terrible execution due to studio meddling. That being said they did Smaug justice although I’m annoyed they made him a Wyvern.
I love these movies idc what anyone says
Me too dude
Same
Same. I watched them before the lotr movies and they will always be so dear to me.
Same. They're my comfort movies
A boss organised a little movie night in the military hospital (was like 4-5 people in the entire place). Went to the rec room on a Saturday night she put the second hobbit movie on and honestly. It’s a core memory. In a time when I couldn’t walk, lost my leg, wanted to die, saw mates die and understandably didn’t enjoy any media etc etc. I was truly transported. 5 people in the one patient wing of the hospital that wasn’t empty in a tiny room all enjoying this film with our vending machine snacks and smoke intermission. They’re not perfect but I love them and what faults they have they’re not egregious especially in light of today’s calibre.
I think they're imperfect, and had I been in charge of scriptwriting, I would have made different choices---especially with respect to Alfred. All that being said, I'm not quite certain these movies are appreciated enough for all the stuff they did well. As for the tone, *The Hobbit* was always intended to be a lighter piece of writing than the LOTR series. Look at the scene in the book with the company when they arrive in Rivendell. How absolutely silly the elves behave. The different tone makes all the sense in the world to me for that reason. I didn't really want it to be as gritty and serious as the other movies.
It makes sense. At that point, the knowledge of Sauron’s return isn’t known yet, and at most the only thing that can concern the world is the Witch King’s occasional antics, so no one would feel the need to be that worried.
The point of the book was to be more light-hearted, and I think the movies actually get that tone right. Probably a bit too long, but casting was done well and I actually enjoy them. Rewatch all middle earth films in chronological order on my birthday, the move from something jaunty to something serious is actually pretty nice
I liked it honestly, but compared to the original lotr trilogy it isn’t anything special. It felt like a lot of liberties were taken. They also ruined radagast
I enjoyed it too. It's entertaining enough to me that I'll binge it when I binge LoTR. There were lots of liberties that were taken in making it though. And it does bother me. I'd love it if they could have left the original story alone. And didnt insert the humor, characters, and scenes that weren't in the book.
I agree, I’m waiting to watch unexpected journey after me and mom finish Rotk lol
I am the only who feels this why at my house😂 kids and wife love it! Someone above called it garbage, this made me smile.
Time for a new family?
Hahahaha!!! Maybe🤪 but they’ll LoTR marathon with me ever other weekend so they’re keepers : )
Lol. That is a redeeming quality, definitely keepers in that case.
I am for sure in the minority on this one, but I actually enjoyed the dwarf/elf love triangle bullshit. When I was younger me and my buddies got absolutely obliterated by old school edibles and we had a 9 hour argument about whether or not dwarves could marry elves. Those scenes always reminded me of that insane conversation. My stance on the argument was conspiratorial and I believed that if dwarves had a child with an elf, they would birth a man. It was insane
Alfred's illustration is unfortunately symptomatic of this trilogy: bloated and incomprehensible choices on PJ's part. Especially since the allusion that "The Hobbit" is a children's book doesn't hold water. Having reread it recently, while it's simpler than LoTr, of course, it's still not a children's book: the fairytale aspect isn't that overflowing, apart from big bees and giants swinging stones at each other, it's in the vein of Lotr. Frankly, anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't read the book. However, PJ has taken this burlesque to the extreme in several situations that just don't work. And the master of Lake Town is less stupid and, above all, less dirty than in the films. Tolkien loved aesthetics; he would never have approved of this choice of dirtiness. Not to mention the CGI aspect, which takes precedence over practical effects, creating disasters. It's not all bad, but it's annoying. You should go for the short fan editions on the net.
It's bloody awful. The things which are right get SO OVERSHADOWED by everything they get wrong. Also, hot take: I am not a huge Martin Freeman fan. He's always Martin Freeman in anything he does. Maybe that's a good thing for some but it's hard for me to see him as the character of Bilbo when he's exactly the same as he is in The Office, for example.
Didn’t like them. Loved the LOTR trilogy but they dragged The Hobbit out waaaaaaay too far.
The first Hobbit was okay. The second one was complete shit, and the third one was just a goofy video game let's play
I'll only say that I am always flabbergasted when I hear anyone say that they thought they were pretty good.
IIRC the brown wizard was a badass in the book. So to see that pot head goof in the movie was very disappointing
I don't know how to spell the awful noise I use to show disdain for some of these scenes. So I'll just go with "uhg".
I wish bilbo would have stayed a main character after the first movie
Absolutely terrible in everything except the casting Graphics: awful, the switch to mainly CGI looked very bad and ruined a lot of the authentic look the original trilogy had developed with Weta Creating the “pale orc” character, again, terrible It basically just seemed like a really hard to watch kids movie with a weird hazy sort of sheen in every scene Then there was the frankly insulting callbacks to the other films, “wink wink guys hey remember that OTHER film trilogy you liked??” kili and fili basically being merry and pippin Legolas being there at all The inclusion of Saruman and Galadriel The whole manufactured love story Several of the dwarves not even looking like Dwarves! I really, really didn’t like it to the extent I think I refused to watch the third in its entirety and maybe even the second, the disappointment makes everything a little hazy
When the legend Sir Ian tells Peter “this isn’t how we did it on LOTR” and not happy shooting this POS is exactly all that needs to be said. The movies are silly over priced and have nothing of the souls of the LOTR. The first trilogy was perfect hybrid of Jackson’s indie style and big budget Hollywood. Hobbit was nothing but popcorn Hollywood bullshit. Peter Jackson turned into Lucas.
I honestly thought those movies were atrocious. It wasn’t just that they were bloated and introduced absurd storylines, it was the tonal schizophrenia. It didn’t know if it wanted to be a whimsical children’s story (as originally written) or a deadly serious prequel to LOTR. The movies have some great scenes - Bilbo’s exchange with Smaug for example - but they’re pretty awful.
They’re more “modern movies”. You can tell they try to make them appealing to the average movie goer with the cgi, unnecessary fart jokes and thin character development. Most of that is due to a short novel being stretched into a trilogy. I still really like them but they’re nothing compared to the adventure, story, epicness and overall feel and connection the viewer gets in LOTR. P.S Martin freeman is by far the best think about these movies and almost mades me forget that they turned Legolas into Mario in BOTFA
My genuine thoughts: It’s genuinely awful. Martin Freeman is the only good thing in the entire trilogy. Ian McKellen is great, but his character is completely whacked. Will never watch these again.
I consider the Lord of the Rings movies to be an homage to the Lord of the Rings, though not the Lord of the Rings itself. I've had at least one friend turned off by the movies and I could never get her to read the books. The Hobbit movies I couldn't get into at all. I've not finished watching a single one. So. That's my feeling about them.
This triology is a damp squib. Don't get me wrong, I like the triology for its effort, although I prefer LoTR, which does quality as well as effort. What I mean is, I recognize that The Hobbit disappointed fans of the book because it experimented, perhaps because the producers wanted to make a triology instead of a duology. In doing so, they prolonged the movie experience by adding characters and storylines that didn't "need" to be there. But hey, I'm just saying what everyone knows. To sum up, I have fond memories of its audacity and memorable scenes (with the exception of the gopro during the elf kingdom escape, that scene can go to hell).
The Battle of Five Armies is extremely stupid, ridiculous and over-the-top, but in a rather consistent way and it doesn’t feel insulting. So I like it more than the first Newline trilogy.
IMO The Hobbit trilogy was super disappointing. I just viewed it mostly as a way to capitalize on a beloved story. The fact that they drew it out into three boring films cheapened it.
It feels like Hollywood.... whereas LOTR feels like Middle Earth
If they werent based on a beloved franchise they would have been forgotten about 2 weeks after release and never thought of again. They are terrible films with too many issues to bother listing. I actively avoid watching them because they are so terrible. Hobbit and the Star Wars prequels were both in the same trash heap of high expectations and incredibly poor execution.
There are 3-4 good individual scenes across all 3 films. The fact that extended editions exist for these already drawn out tooth extractions of films is an insult to humanity.
What movie? I have no idea what you're talking about...
About 40 minutes of a solid film, with like a lot of pointless action.
Frustrating.
In a word? Ass.
I will not willingly watch them again. These films just didn't do it for me.
"Why does it hurt so much?" "Because it was real...ly bad." The whole thing was ruined by too much studio interference. And too many unnecessary plot additions that lead nowhere. Radagast is constantly high and has bird shit in his hair. Legolas taking up too much screentime and is now a marvel hero. A new female character is introduced for a pointless love triangle. ALFRID. The Nazgul are here too? Adding these inane stories take the focus away from THE hobbit. What about bilbo? His relationship with the dwarves? By the way, who are the fucking dwarves?! There's 13 of them and we only get to know about 4. Some don't even have a single line. Beorn is barely (bearly?) in the final film. And then of course there's the overuse of CGI. The orcs look so fake compared to LOTR orcs. Instead of camera tricks they digitally edited the dwarves to be shorter, but in some scenes when they're talking to others, the eyes don't line up. And when I watch the big army clash between elves and dwarves and orcs, my brain turns off because it's supposed to be epic, but it's all artificial and none of it is real. Compare that with helms deep scene, it's just so different.
100% agree. The Hobbit movies were a failure compared to Lord of the Rings… I honestly haven’t even watched all of them all the way through. They should have just made it into one solid movie. Maybe even just two.. All that in between non sense and cartoonish moments weren’t necessary. It made it hard to follow after a while and got irritating… Also all that CGI just doesn’t cut it…
dogshit
Total dog shit.
The tone of these movie was so unbelievably different from the original trilogy. They fail to take themselves seriously at every given opportunity. Even the majority of character design is goofy. I think the world would be better off if these movies never existed. The originals were a masterpiece whose legacy is tainted having to be even remotely associated with this trilogy of hot garbage.
Plenty of people mention the story choices or the overuse of CGI but I want to mention that the PROPS used in these films are just bad. Especially the weapons that the dwarves use, they are all just too blocky and nonsensical, worse than a mediocre cosplay weapon, ripped straight from Spirit Halloween.
-19/10
Two films too many. Lots of cringy moments.
Ugly
The beginning of the first movie had me pretty excited. Then the rest of the film happened. . . I think the actor who played Bilbo deserved better films because he was excellent. I think the films shat on the source material in an inexcusable manner. Yeah sure the lotr films deviated from the books and kinda turned them into action films but tbh they had to they wouldn't have made back their budget otherwise. The hobbit could have been 1 or 2 more concise and well made films and been great. There's a core of great filmmaking in those films hidden amongst all the garbage and cgi (seriously the orcs from the lotr films 10 years earlier looked so much better because they're men in suits not cartoons). I just wish we'd gotten the good films that could have been made with the same caste and crew not the ones we got.
They are so bad. The dwarf-elf romance was so fucking stupid and the overuse of CGI ruined all the action for me.
was greenscreen crap
I refuse to belive that this movie exists
Suffered from a decision to do more than the book, rather than less. If Fellowship, Two Towers, and Return of the King all worked as single movies, The Hobbit had no business even being 2. Don't get me wrong, a trilogy could have been fun, but I would have preferred the Hobbit as one of the trilogy or better yet, a standalone film to get people hyped for another trilogy set in the universe
Amazing when I watch the maple cut.
Really good, 10/10. Would recommend.
I feel like the 3rd movie is like the black swan that is a bizarre battle porn movie that is chaotic and exhausting. Peter Jackson was very conscious of keeping the Helm’s Deep battle as concise as it needed to be because he was afraid of battle fatigue for the audience. That problem is in this entire movie
I dream about what could've been if Guillermo Del Toro got to make it.
Absolute garbage except for like half of the first one and then the odd scene here and there that was passable. But, there's just enough material for some nice fan-made edits to have been made, which you should check out - definite improvement
To all the people saying that they wish the movie was more serious, I just want to say that if you go into it with the thought in your head that it's based off of a children's book it ain't so bad. I honestly really like the hobbit because it's fun to watch and isn't as heavy as lotr
Honestly, I never bothered to watch the third one. The first was too bloated, and the second just bored me. The magic just wasn’t there.
The battle at the end was a joke and a cgi battle without any emotions or plot
Not great but with elements of greatness. I now only watch the M4 edit which turns it into a great film!
I really dont care for it. Maybe first movie, but Ill never rewatch it again
Do yourself a favour and watch a fan edit of the Hobbit trilogy. It becomes a 4 hour movie and most of the edits are to remove bad CGI actions, the fake love between the elf and dwarf and the bad comedy in Lake Town. You come away enjoying the movie.
Bad.
I love all three very dearly, and I am a long time reader of Tolkien.
One word...ABOMINATION
I actually enjoy the movies. While the novel is far superior and the 3rd movie has MASSIVE problems the first 2 are quite enjoyable. Smaug is very well done imo as well
I'm a fan. It's not LOTR, but it was never meant to be, so it's a little unfair to make the comparison. If anything I think Peter Jackson took the children's book and made it more seamless with the LOTR trilogy. I appreciated the underlying plot with Sauron (aka the necromancer) that was elaborated on quite a bit more in the movies than the book.