Why The Hobbit Sucks Part Three: Unresolved Plotlines
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- YOU CAN HELP ME MAKE MORE VIDEOS! Support this channel on Patreon: / justwrite
Whatever happened to the Arkenstone? In this part, I take a closer look at the ending of The Battle of the Five Armies.
Watch Part One here: • Why The Hobbit Sucks P...
Twitter ▶ / sagehyden
Facebook ▶ / justwriteyoutube
Instagram ▶ / justwriteyoutube
Pinterest ▶ / pins
The Hobbit Trilogy is the property of Warner Bros.
Supposedly Alfrid dies in the extended edition during a deleted scene. It's bizarre that Jackson forced us to bear witness to his version of Jar Jar Binks for an entire movie and then didn't even have the decency to show us him dying in some undignified fashion.
+archfiendbaramos Yes, we didn't' get a good "burke getting grabbed by a xenomorphe payback scene".
And yet we get literally five seconds of Beorn as the review points out. I personally myself was waiting to see Beorn kill a bunch of orcs, and it never happened.
+archfiendbaramos I was looking forward to watching him die because he was so annoying but in the extended edition his death is the most stupid them I have ever seen. He gets catapulted into a trolls mouth by accident.
It was still better that the scene got taken out, it's one of the worst things I've ever seen
Agreed. I was like. What....did I just see....
to be honest, it says strait in the book that the Arkenstone is placed with Thorin's body when he died and at last returned to the earth from which it came. Like why couldn't they just add one short shot of that
Tristan Perez unfortunately that scene is in the extended edition
That shit bothered me so much. It was a major plot point, how the fuck could they leave it unanswered
Its there in the extended edition
Prasanna Kumar So? IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE PLOT, IT WSS PRESENTED IN THE FIRST SCENE OF THE FIRST MOVIE. Even if in the Extended edition they have basically made a DLC of an uncompleted movie
Here i am replaying to a 3 year old comment but, No, the
sword is the one placed upon Thorin’s Tomb. Bard kept the Arkenstone as a gift from Thorin’s cousin or something
9:59 well actually, there's several "lesser rings" besides the 19. Gandalf was convinced Bilbo's ring wasn't "the one" until he realized Bilbo wasn't getting any older.
This.
Haunted Holiday While this is true in the books, it is never explained in the movies. It would be a logical scene if they had taken the time to explain more ring lore and mentioned this.
Mathyas you're right that they didn't outright explain it but I thought they did allude to it in the movies? Gandalf called it a magic ring at end of the hobbit. And in fellowship he says 'there are many magic rings in the world and none of them should be used lightly'. Yet when characters mention one of the 19 they usually refer to it as a Great ring, not simply a magic one. At least that's how I picked it up.
In the books, which is why it works great there. The problem here is the movies, who did not explain that very point, which they should have. In other words, you'd have written this better that Jackson.
Exactly
Oh god, I just realized... those extended edition scenes you described are film's version of DLC...
@Gerald Sergei
..................really?
@Gerald Sergei No! I'm not even aware what I'm thinking most of the time!
How is that...?
I never seen such comments on torrents...except "waste of bandwith" =P
@@DeepInsideZettaiRyouiki I DON'T KNOW!!!
And even these extra scenes are quiet bad
I agree with everything, except ... the "Gandalf pipe-smoking scene".
Believe it or not, those short 30 seconds or so were probably my favorite scene of the three movies (excluding the "Riddles in the Dark" scene which was gold from beginning to end and felt like it was from a different movie entirely). Them sitting in silence, understanding each other and their grief, and sharing a moment where they don't even have to talk to each other, and Gandalf smoking in silence in honor of their fallen friend, the little glance and smile that said it all ("yep ... we went through A LOT just now") ... I was super moved. It might have had to do with both actors being the best ones in the movies (again, except for Andy Serkis who's in his own category).
Came here to make this exact point
The "The eagles are coming" thing, and the sackville bagggins were actually in the original book, if anything those scenes are the few that actually remain faithful to Tolkien's original works.
Kelven Optimus Maximus introducing Lobelia randomly at the fucking end of the movie is just bad writing. If they had introduced her before, I’d understand. But the audience who hasn’t read the book knows nothing of their family history
But I don't think introducing Lobelia was necessarily a nod to LOtR, but more to Unexpected Journey. Bc in the scenes with Frodo, Bilbo and him talk abt the Sackville-Bagginses, and abt how Bilbo caught Lobelia making off with his spoons. So even if the viewer never saw LOtR (where Bilbo and Frodo only run and hide from the S-Bs), they'd still be able to make a connection to the first Hobbit movie if they had been paying attention/remembered.
@@DaniRoberts I remember laughing hard. Like, "THAT thing comes full circle?!"🤣🤣🤣🤣 So this is when she was making off with the spoons. Much earlier than I thought. I see why he is unsociable even to the Shyre people.
@@DaniRoberts I am saying, "remember" as if I haven't just seen it today for the first time.
Beorn is meant to kill Bolg. Instead they gave it to Legolas.
+Luke McGowan The problem with that is Beorn could destroy in Bolg in like half a second. When he flies off the eagles and turns into a bear he litterally destroys hundreds of orcs on his own. Bolg wouldent stand a chance.
Luke McGowan I would've loved seeing legolas fight bolg in the same battlefield as where Beorn was. And then, just when Legolas was about to be surrounded by bolg and his followers, Beorn comes crashing in and destroys Bolg completely.
that would have been the 1000th "Character gets saved last minute"-scene in that movie alone :D
Brabbel93 Yeah, but at least that one would have been entertaining and interesting.
I was waiting for Beorn to kill Bolg and make Azog watch.
"The eagles are coming" was actually Bilbo's line in the Hobbit book before he passes out, and when he wakes up the battle's over.
It's funny how the hobbit still has extended versions despite being over extended into three parts
this needs more likes.
Yeah the way they adapted this movie was dumb. It only needed one 2 hr movie not three.
"There are many magic rings in this world, Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly."
The ring Bilbo has doesn't "have to be the one ring." Gandalf assumed it was just a minor magic ring, of which there are many in Middle Earth.
Exactly. There are more rings than the ones given to the leaders of men, elves, and dwarves too. It specifically mentions in the Silmarillion how the smiths of Gondolin would create utter masterworks of rings of power and still throw them away because they didn't think they were good enough. In fact I worked that into a certain LOTR RPG session I'm DMing.
+ there were 7 dwarf rings 6 were lost some of them eaten by dragons and even some lost in moria so it could be a different dwarf ring.
Logi gudmundsson the 7th dwarf ring was that of Thrain…
Gondolin created mainly weapons,the lesser rings are described as simply test works and are unknown to hold any actual power or the be even found in middle earth which is very unlike since they probably sunk with beleriand, the masterwork rings were a creation of the smiths of eregion under sauron/anatar teachings
As I recall Eregion created many test rings as well and I do not recall any mention of rings of power being made by Gondolin or rings in general existing during the first age.
I actually love that scene of Gandalf and Bilbo just sitting after the battle.
Naythan Millya So do I.
It was completely out of case and insensitive. Thorin and his nephews just died and in the next scene is Bilbo and Gandalf sitting and smiling while smoking crack? Piss off Peter Jackson!
@@jaimegutier273 You can only hate it if you have some sort of hate for weed that you project onto the scene. It's like if after a huge action scene, two of the heroes sit quietly in the night smoking sigarettes, not even knowing what to say to each other. Everyone would understand that they are trying to calm down and process stuff after having been through heavy shit.
@@theWebWizrd Not to belabour the point, but pipe-weed is meant to be roughly the Middle-Earth equivalent to tobacco, admittedly an anachronism in relation to Europe. But Tolkien used a pipe a lot himself, so it's just a funny little conceit of his I think.
@@stapler942 I think absolutely everyone understands that pipe-weed is analogous to (or exactly the same as) tobacco. It's smoked in a pipe, after all. I referred to weed in my comment because the guy I replied to said they smoked crack, projecting narcotics into what is like you said just tobacco.
I always interpreted the Gandalf cleaning his pipe scene as a "life goes on" moment. Him tending to something so mundane in the face of such great loss was a way to snap Bilbo out of that spiral he was in. Was it the warmest and gentlest way to do things? Nope. But that's just par for the course with how Gandalf usually acts. A lot of the criticisms levied at him in that regard actually belong to the book, not the movies. Demigods are usally dicks anyways xD
It seems like a very English thing to do, the sort of keep calm and carry on attitude
The problem was that it felt rushed. Thorin pretty much just had died, and it was still early for gandalf to be all "life goes on". It's really heartbreaking in the book when thorin dies, because for the first and only time in a book that tries to be so cheery in front of actually sad events, it says that bilbo cried his little eyes out. That to me hit hard, especiakly because tolkien took time to explain that, while the rest of the book moves on so quickly and jumps over such details. I took it as a sign that that occurance was a life changing one for bilbo, as in he would never be the same.
Anyway, my point is -- a single phrase in such a small book made me feel more that the scene in the movie.
I agree. It was (Grey) Gandalf 101.
Agreed, but maybe it was the way it was handled as a scene? If gandalf sat down and cleaned his pipe but the sound effect of him doing so were less pronounced, it would come off as less of a jerk move.
Right now I'm adding onto a fan edit of the three films as one movie, and that scene is edited in a way that makes it feel more like "oof, the battle's over. We finally have a moment to sit and reflect on what's happened." Or at least that's the effect I'm trying to get.
Facts, well said
Alfrid = discount Grima
@Liz Lee He's just a Thrift Shop version of Jar Jar Binks.
Hm. Grima ALSO didn't get a resolution outside the extended edition. I guess LOTR wasn't perfect.
Grima had purpose, but wasn't fun at all.
Alfred is fun, but had little purpose. I don't see the problem. The hobbit is scratches comedy from time to time, where the lotr was a more serious story.
The Hobbit will never be lotr and you shouldn't compare like people are doing now.
Alfrid = Liam Gallagher after leaving Oasis
@@benjimain6 Alfred was as much fun as a canker sore.
Ok, now you're stretching it, much like the movies themselves. Gandalf in these movies is one of the few things they actually manage to keep true to the source material and his portrayal in FOTR for the most part. Call him a 'prick' if you want, but he is an itinerant, somewhat grumpy and secretive sort of wizard. And as for that scene with Bilbo at the end, it's one of the few human gems in this otherwise laborious affair in blockbuster inanity.
Jonathan Walmsley He's also still Gandalf the Grey here, who's a much less admirable character than his rebirth Gandalf the White.
@@Maren617 And much more interesting.
Yeah, he was way off the mark with that criticism. Tolkien's own description of Gandalf - "His joy, and his swift wrath, were veiled in garments grey as ash, so that only those that knew him well glimpsed the flame that was within. Merry he could be, and kindly to the young and simple, yet quick at times to sharp speech and the rebuking of folly."
90% channels that critics movies shouldn’t have subs
No, I think Gandalf, while still a bit of a git, was marginally nicer and more respectful in the books. In LOTR, he constantly calls Pippin ‘Fool of a Took’ but doesn’t mock him for pledging his service to Denethor, like he did in the movie, but appreciated his generosity. He disagreed with Aragorn about climbing Caradhras, but was willing to try things his way. Also, in The Hobbit, he brought Bilbo’s handkerchief and pipe which he’d forgotten. He also never shamed Bilbo for valuing his heirlooms. He’s also generally a bit more friendly and encouraging.
I legit forgot Beorn was even in this series of movies. He just wasn't memorable. In the books he mattered.
James Harder yeah,i was looking forward to see his bees,animals n stuff,n specially how Gandalf tactfully introduces the team to him
I loved Beorn in the books and looked forward to him the most. I remember when the promo posters came out and there was a bear and I was like WOOO! Yes! Then the movies came out and i was beyond disappointed. Wtf were they thinking?
The most powerful creature of the Middle Earth the barehanded winner of the Battle of the five armies, forgotten.
He was pretty terrifying when he chased the dwarves. After that nah.
I think he's my favorite character
7:15 "Dude he lost his lover" I love that part!
"Friend"
Hated that. Crass and unnecessary.
hated it.
Hated it
I don't need a resolution for Alfid! I need a resolution for Fili! He dies and no one seems to care about Fili after that! He just lies forgotten on Ravenhill. The extended edition isn't very satisfying either.
And Alfrid gets a resolution in the Extended Edition. *Spoiler Alert* he dies
The way Fili's death was treated was probably the biggest disappointment of the entire trilogy to me. Granted, in the book both him and Kili die off-screen, but they are fairly minor characters there. They got TONS of screentime in the movies though, so the random little "I have your brother - Nooo - SLISH - dead body drops off a cliff and is never mentioned again" scene they threw in was just utterly disappointing.
So Tolkien didnt care about Fili too, becouse he didnt show us any scene with Filis death or Kilis death, or any fight of them, becouse in the book there was only one sentence - short information about that they died in the battle protecting Thorin. Jackson actualy showed it :)
@@TallisKeeton The movie is slightly different from the books in case you didn't notice
i agree with you
Thank you for bringing up the Arkenstone, it’s always bothered me. They make it out to be the One Ring of the hobbit trilogy then it just stops mattering during the climax. I can’t believe extended editions were made to add extra scenes but didn’t bother addressing the Arkenstone.
*"The Eagles Are Coming!"* - The Hobbit book did that first, Return of the King book actually was homaging that moment from The Hobbit.
To be fair, Bilbo was suffering from a vicious blow to the head when he mentioned the eagles coming. Also, the wood elves were holding the dwarves prisoner and not executing/eating them like the goblin king was planning.
The pipe smoking scene actually one of my favourite in all of the hobbit, mostly cause it give that great feeling of "Yeah we've through some heavy stuff" haven'twe
Yep, some heavy stuff that sucked.
A. Saruman told everyone that the One Ring was swept out to sea by the river so there was no point to looking for it so Gandalf doesn't suspect that the random 'magic' ring Bilbo found in the goblin tunnels was in fact the One Ring.
B. In Fellowship, Gandalf says 'There are MANY magic rings in this world Bilbo Baggins....'' Implying that there are more 'magic' rings out there in middle earth beyond the 'Rings of Power'
Also...all of these other plot lines are resolved in the Extended Cut :P
The extended cut is bullsh*t. Those are THE MOST IMPORTANT PLOTS, NOT SOME RANDOM THINGS TO EXPAND THE LORE OR CHARACTERS. You are basically justifying an incomplete movie saying “But there is a dlc!”
Thorin’s death was heartbreaking. Gandalf knew what would happen. Him sitting down next to Bilbo in silence just smoking is beautiful
The telepathic conversation with Galadriel while Saruman is talking to him is more like being on your phone texting in a business meeting
For those of us who read the books, can we just also add in the fact that half the action scenes in the movie are actually total replacements of real and other wise insightful scenes in the book. Insightful scenes in to individual characters and some fairly tense moments, like the sleeping river that almost drowns one of the dwarves who barely survived.
Everyone hating on the hobbit films, just wait for Amazon’s lotr series and this will become a masterpiece.
The only two things that give some hope about the series are
1: It's the most expensive series ever created
2: The orcs interpreted by actors and practical effects returns, no more CGI
Besides that I don't know what to expect
4:17 I was half expecting a scene where Alfrid found the Arkenstone and stuffed it up his arse as a 'comedic scene'.
I just can't get over the fact that bard looks more like Orlando bloom than Legolas
The only thing is that when you were talking about when Bilbo said, “The eagles are coming,” that was actually an iconic line from the book that Pippin also happened to say in the Lord of the Rings and then compared it in retrospect. Everything else I’m on board with, and yes Bilbo definitely should have said it before all the eagles were actually there, like in the book.
I don't blame Jackson, I blame Warner Bros
Yeah, they're the ones who wanted to make this into three films, just so that they can earn a lot of money.
Master Penguin I'm not sure that's actually true. I don't have a source, but I think it's the hobbit appendices that when peter jackson took over the hobbit, it was meant to be 2 films, but it eventually expanded so much it had to be done in 3
@@etheldir128no..warner bros made him go to 3
Don't exclude Peter Jackson, there is plenty of blame to spread around.
@@TKDLION Well, he's probably not blameless, but he has mitigating circumstances. He wasn't intending to direct these movies to begin with, he was called upon as a replacement pretty late if I remember correctly. So yeah, he kind of phoned it in, but I don't think that's really on him.
You should make more of these Hobbit reviews as you make a lot of good points.
Castellan of Gundabad Thanks! I'm definitely going to make more videos like these!
+Gerald Snowman Uh....read the book or do research. And there are deleted scenes if you care to see.
***** Smaug came from the North, like all dragons. People may travel up there or word starts to get around. Before you know it Samug finds out. Thorin also knew from the trees being ripped out of the ground.
you should hear mine..they're endless....
I mean, Gandalf the Grey is kind of a showoffy prick in the Hobbit. But it works that way since the Hobbit is about adventure and the Lord of the Rings is about consequences and the journey that HAS to be taken.
Alfred = Viceroy Gunray
Jackson's answer to the unresolved plots? "Well, my kids thought it would be best if..."
MacDragard Except Gunray had a satisfying death.
Can we talk about that shot where the elves jumping over the dwarf shield and spear wall? Like they had a good tactical formation and they totally blow it by going in front of their defense
At some point I came across a channel that critiques movie battle scenes in a roughly medieval-analogous setting.
The commentator is usually quick to point out that many of these flashy battle scenes forget the most basic tried and true tactic: dig a frigging ditch. 🤣
You know, Tolkien himself tried to rewrite The Hobbit in the 60's I believe to connect it to his Lord of the Rings books and just gave up on it because he rightly stated it was just a story he wrote to entertain his children.
Agreed. in the Hobbit book it was originally just a ring that made you invisible and nothing else.
@@Delta040301 I think it is related to the Hobbit not being done first. and there do seem to be too many attempts to reveal Sauron and the coming threat, as opposed to stuff like Tom Bombadil.
To be fair, a lot of the "Gandalf being a dick" stuff is in the original book.
he doesn't leave them before the trolls because he gets into an argument and storms off like a child. in the books, he just quietly leaves them to scout ahead for information.
This review is like crack. I love watching these because they are so good. Would love to see more reviews in this style.
Check out the plinkett reviews
Gene chowder He hasn't reviewed The Hobbit yet as of yet though?
CommandoSoldier Oh yeah no he hasn't I was just saying that the Plinkett reviews are done in a similar style
Saying it's like crack is not a compliment. You're basically sayibg they're addictive, but very harmful
Dayoscript, a spanish channel that is just as good or even better
“The Eagles are Coming” was in the Hobbit book. If anything, Pippin saying it in Return of the King was a call back to Bilbo. Not the other way around.
No, I read the book, Bilbo didn't say that.
@@kylethefraggle30 I've heard it on audiobook multiple times, and I'm almost certain he says that. But I'll double check just to be certain.
@Daffodil Productions Oh okay then. Maybe the execution in the hobbit movies was just lazy or mishandled.
This are brilliant videos man.
Unlike your grammar.
Your burn is 2 years late
Lake Leander Similar styles does not mean ripping off.
@Lake Leander It's not even that accurate as well.
These movies were so boring and so uninteresting that I didn't realize that Thorin died until this video.
Thorin dies? I've seen the trilogy at least twice and don't remember this.
Jak MP looool
You have to watch the director's cut.
@yo wtf put the mask back on he does not
You probably watched some discount lord of the rings
The whole girl power was done so much better by Eowyn in the Return of the King then in the hobbit movies. Hell I barely remembered the girl power in the hobbit, but “I am no Man” will stick with me as a girl power moment forever.
Beorn transforming midfall into a bear is just about the silliest shit I've ever seen in a Tolkien adaptation. The "Where There's a Whip" song from Rankin Bass' Return of the King is more dignified.
What made that scene even sillier, was that a bear falling from that height would've surely died upon impact.
Hey "Where there's a whip, there's a way" was a great song!
+realtsavo seriously, those Rankin/Bass adaptions were my childhood right there!
Jason G It makes the orcs more sympathetic than most of Jacksons movies tbh
I dunno...that troll with pogo stick legs was embarrassing.
im seriously thinking about making more youtube accounts so I can upvote these videos more times. this critique means a lot to me and you do a great job at capturing the fatal flaws of the movies!
Bruh I watched the entire LOTR trilogy and fell madley in love with it and Peter Jackson. I watched the Hobbit trilogy about a week after coming off the night of LOTR and after each film I felt my enthusiasm went down drastically. To cure this I rewatched the entire LOTR trilogy and pretend The Hobbit never happened. Although I must say the first film of The Hobbit was actually quite good.
To be honest, I didn't care about the unresolved plotlines; I was just glad it was over!
A lot of the references to LotR were actually references to The Hobbit which were put into LotR. The return to the Shire is quite accurate in the reception Bilbo receives... Pity they cut most if not all of the Shire background the book gives.
Every single problem you pointed out, It's solvable with editing, that's why I re-edited the trilogy in two movies.
Omg did they just have elves jumping over an elven spear wall? Why not just not have a spear wall? All of those guys that jumped over are dead right now haha. Bah idc I just like total war and military tactics.
+I am a Lion It's a dwarven spear wall. And sadly the Elves did not instantly die, but instead cut a bloody swathe through the charging Orcs.
I am a Lion eleves jumped over Dwarf spear wall if i remember right
Yeah I like Total War too, these scenes make me cringe hard....
The gandalf pipe scene was probably the most enjoyable scene in this gods forsake trilogy. It was the most "human" interaction throughout.
Peter Jackson became George Lucas in that he got off on using the CGI his fx studio could create.
so true he literally did the exact same mistake! crazy!
3:36 „Showing a bear skydive off an eagle is not resolution“
Hollywood: „hold our pipeweed“
The Battle of Five Armies in the book had the potential to be a terrific scene. Men, Elves, and Dwarves, against Goblins and Wargs, and as the battle wore on, and it seemed like the bodyguard of Bolg, mighty Orcs of dread stature, seem to be crushing and killing wherever they tread, the wall closing Erabor collapsed outwards, as the thirteen Dwarves, clad in ancient armour, leap out, led by Thorin wielding a mighty warhammer. The last desperate rally of the three kindreds behind him, sweeping aside Goblins and Wargs as though they were chaff, and then breaking against Bolg and his bodyguard, Thorin struck down, Fili and Kili slain, defending him with their bodies... and then... the Lord of the Eagles, and his mighty kindred swoop down, tearing at Goblins, Orcs and Wargs... and then Beorn is there, in the form of a great bear, dreadful in his wrath. He tears apart the bodyguard of Bolg, takes the great Orc and crushes him. With their leader slain, the Goblins, Orcs, and Wargs flee, and great is the slaughter of them.
Or, you know, we could have some dumb scene with unarmoured Thorin stabbed through some ice, because dumb reasons, I guess.
As many have said before, you blame Jackson a lot for matters which in large part where far beyond his control. In my personal opinion and from what I know about the production they were dicked over constantly by the studio, Jackson himself was not the original director and when he was almost forced to step in and fill the role he was not given any time to adjust for the change in vision and thus he had almost no time to overhaul much of the previously done work as well as in large part completely re-write the story and it was not uncommon for scenes to be written and shot within a day. Due to all these problems and more, frankly I am glad that the movies are as good as they are which is not to say that they are masterpieces. To be honest I think that the movies could have been far better had Jackson been given the time and freedom to create them how he wanted, for instance we would not have had the rushed and quite shitty and INCREDIBLY lore-breaking romance between Tauriel and Kili...Fili? Whichever.
On a side note the dwarves are a weird issue in terms of character development. This is the case as they are 13 characters who have no development apart from vague references from other materials such as how Ori appeared in FOTR as a skeleton clutching that huge book Gandalf reads alongside 2-3 of the other dwarves. This may not be a huge problem in enough itself and can in fact be a boon however, they never split up. This may sound obvious but my point is that in LOTR we start with 2 characters move up to 4 then to 9 then 2 die in quick succession, the second being immediately followed by the fellowship splitting into 3 groups, two of 2 and 1 of 3. Then a member previously thought dead joins the three to make a four and they go off on their own adventure. Eventually one of the groups of two joins with the four to be immediately split again with two leaving. My point you ask? Well during the pre-9 phase we meet 2 characters core to the movie, Frodo and Gandalf and then see them develop in relation to each other and after Gandalf leaves we see Frodo develop alongside Merry, Pippin, and Sam. Alongside this we see Gandalf get some development on his own. Aragorn then meets the 4 and we get a general feel for yet another important character before anything that important happens. When they get to Rivendell we already have met 6 of the 9 characters and have had time to give them at least some rudimentary character development. We are then introduced to Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir of which only Boromir has much development in relation to characters outside of the new 3 (albeit we get a very rough idea of Legolas and Gimli from the meeting). They then head of as 9 and from here the stroy mostly revolvs around the plot with small tid-bits of character development sprinkled here and there. I am starting to ramble but I have mostly demonstrated my point. In LOTR we are introduced to 9 characters + a few sides in a staggered way, focusing mostly on the more important characters. This allows at least a short period for us to get acquainted with each character before a new one is thrust upon us. In the Hobbit(book and to a lesser extent the movies) 13 Dwarves literally fall through Bilbo's door in a heap, are then rapidly introduced by name, and onto Bilbo and the story we go. We are given no time to meet each character and instead now have a host of strangers accompanying our main character on this journey. This is a result of the style of the book. however in movie form it means that the director now has the task of introducing 13 unique characters and developing them all at the same time which is practically impossible. In addition at the end of the first LOTR movie our 9 heroes are split into small groups each with their own story to tell and as such there is plenty of room for each character to participate in memorable scenes as well as to be developed alongside the plot. In a large group it is very hard to both tell a story and develop characters as we can only focus on the emotions and reactions of a single character or maybe two on a good day, whereas is a small group of 2 - 4 we can see the impact of the journey on each individual much more clearly and thus can gain a greater attachment to them. As such it becomes very easy to argue that it is harder to write good characters in a Hobbit movie than in a LOTR movie as we will always have about 10 other characters left out of the conversation not being developed and being forgotten about. Anyways to cut this short (ha) I think that given the task and the problems Jackson had to overcome in filming I think he did a bloody good job of giving each dwarf an individual character, even if they are largely forgotten about or left in the background. This is one of the many reasons why I still feel that Jackson could have made great Hobbit movies had he not been screwed over.
In the extended Edition, Alfrid dies and the Arkenstone is barried with Thorin. Even Beorn gets a little more Dcreentime.
Buried
The “Calling everyone else stupid” scene is gold, idk what you’re on about. That line out of the entire trilogy is legendary
In the extended edition it showed that the dwarves Burris’s the Arkenstone with Thorin. Why didn’t they put that important scene in the actual movie? Don’t ask me...
Alfrid does get his comeuppance, when gandalf fights an Olog Alfrid hides in a catapult on the back of a dead Olog and the coins in his bra fall onto the catapult mechanism and he is thrown into the jaw of the Olog attacking Gandalf Killing it and Alfrid as well as saving Gandalf
its a slap in the face that the theatrical release has so many pointless filler scenes that had everyone picking their fingernails but necessary plot is swept in to the extended edition
I enjoyed the first two critiques. This one goes off the rails though. The idea that the heros are being too unfair to the Orcs and too biased towards the Elves is a little too post modern for me sorry.
(And actually your criticism of Gandalf's knowledge of the One Ring is just demonstrating you are unfamiliar with the story and the mythology. Many lesser rings were made prior to the 3, the 9, the 7 and the One.)
You are right, but the thing is, people are going to watch the film that had not read the books. You as a director, cannot assume the viewers already know everything. A bit of exposition is useful in those scenes (because Gansalf knows of the lesser rings, but the audience doesn´t)
@@vilwarin5635 Yes I agree more should have been explained in the movies
@@vilwarin5635 but gandalf said it in the first lotr movie xdddd
In the book the Arkenstone is buried with Thorin, but that really should’ve been shown in the movie
Estelle .S The absence of Thorin's funeral in the theatrical version was the biggest shock for me. I've heard Peter Jackson's arguments for leaving that scene out, but I can't agree.
There are many many lesser magic rings besides the ones given to the elf, men and dwarves (and the One). They were practice rings made by Celebrimbor and Sauron as test runs, and Gandalf thought Bilbo had one of those, since some of them also provided the wielder with invisibility
This is a good critique of the problems with the trilogy, but its very clear he never actually read The Hobbit. If you are going to spend an hour discussing this, why wouldn't you read the source material, if only to know what actually is pulled from the book and what was invented as filler? I can see balking at reading The lord of the Rings trilogy, but you can read The Hobbit in a day.
James Story because he is criticizing the movies - there are a ton of people who havent read the books, therefore dont have the additional knowledge and are even more confused
He can read the hobbit, but tbh when someone make a movie, it have to be enjoyable without any other references. At least this kind of blockbuster movies
The Lord of the rings is short too. Well ok, I did skip the songs.
One should not BALK at reading The Trilogy. Balking demonstrates weakness.
@@isi_hpt okay but when he's critizising the movies for referencing the lotr trilogy (when they are actually doing stuff from the books) that argument stops being valid
I actually think that the pipe smoking scene is the best of the trilogy. Two friends who suffered through a horrible battle finally get the chance to just sit down. I do agree with amost all your other points, though.
Alfred pretty much ruined Battle of the Five Armies. Completely pointless and all over the place.
Does everything need a point? xD Obviously he was there to add some humorous scenes and it worked imo.
All these completely entangled plots nowadays are boring and unrealistic.
@@benjimain6 there was enough humor in the terribly constructed rube goldberg style action scenes lol
No women in Lotr? Really?! Arwen? Galadriel? Eowyn? Some of my favorite lotr characters and super badasses and essential to the story!
I don't blame Jackson for any of the issues with the Hobbit films. He wasn't given a fair shot at making these films. He was thrown in last minute and forced to come up with stuff on the spot. I feel bad for the guy. I know he could have done better if he had been at the helm from day one.
ObscurityIsBest Up!
Elapine: "Up!"? I don't understand your comment.
ObscurityIsBest I just agree with you. Sometimes you write up to make the comment go up on the page as a post with lots of answers. I don't know if youtube works like that but I wanted more people to see your post.
Elapine: Oh, okay. Thanks! I appreciate the support! :D
Jackson bears responsiblity for many of the problems including the over-use of Computer Generated Imagery.
Gandalf's side adventures aren't just mere references to The Lord of the Rings. It is mentioned in The Hobbit. He had to leave to attend to the threats of Dol Goldur in Mirkwood where Sauron (known at this time only as the Necromancer), and he simply could not stay with the dwarves for the quest. Furthermore, the Arkenstone plot is one of the most accurate things from the book to the movies. I just wish that they would have explained what happened with Erebor in the end.
@3:37 I dont get it, how could Beorn along with his entire race be captured when they are so powerful that they can, on their own, destroy an entire army when they are in their monster form?! Wouldn't they fucking wreck any kind of orc infantry that tried to capture them?
The Gandalf and Bilbo scene at the end is one of my favorite, it's basically a giant "ei Bilbo, life goes on"
Gandalf in the Hobbit trilogy was one of the areas I think they actually improved on, compared to the original trilogy. It's close to book characterization. In my opinion, the performances were stronger across the board for the few main characters who had any real material to work with, but the pointless tedium of inclusions like Legolas and Alfred detracts from that comparison. For example, I feel that Bilbo is a better-performed, better-defined (and closer-to-canon) character than Frodo and that Thorin was a better performance (if less canon) than Aragorn despite having more complicated, often poorly-written material, but the trilogy's lack of clear character focus detracts from that, and any impactful secondary characters or supporting protagonists (like LOTR's Merry, Pippin, Theodin, Boromir, Faramir, Eowyn, and so on) are basically compressed down to 1) a side character who impacts nothing, 2) a brief magic show that impacts nothing, and 3) a love triangle that none of the actors involved wanted or invested themselves in. That's one of the main frustrations for me: that the genuinely great performances in this trilogy (imo: Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf) are drowned out by how much they got wrong about plot, focus, other characters, and all the rest. :(
"We will honor the agreement of the dead, and he has now the Arkenstone in his keeping"
You brought up a great point about what the hell happened to the Arkenstone? I read the book but couldn't remember what happened to it so I went back to the book. Basically it got hurried with Thorin. Afterwards there was that beautiful line I put in the beginning and I just thought that one little line would fix some of the major unresolved problems you brought up:
1) what happened to the Arkenstone that Thorin was so ready to sacrifice his whole gang for
2) did the men of Laketown get the gold they so desperately need to survive and were willing to go to war for
3) the evil of greed that the Arkenstone brought about was buried with Thorin meaning that the ultimate evil of the story (greed) was defeated
You brought up a lot of great flaws with the movies but honestly the book is pretty solid. Not perfect perhaps, but if Jackson had stuck a little more with the book rather than emphasizing the battles then I think the movies would have been better
Alfred is worse than Jar Jar Binks
Solid video! I hated the Hobbit movies but never went back to see why, these explain everything so well. Keep up the good content man
0:56
You should watch the extended edition, his death is so bloody funny and ironic
The Trebuchet into the Troll mouth manuver. Classic.
Your point about the women folk going to fight and the daughters is such a massive mood!!!!!!! It is pandering; it's bloody insulting. Lazy story telling at best and patronising at worst, it fundamentally missed the mark of diverse and interesting storytelling in an attempt to 'tick boxes'.
I haven't watched any of the Hobbit movies, but I have read the book. Are all these scenes in the movie? They aren't in the book, so I don't know what do they have to do with anything
Good points in a good video.
Seriously, I could watch ten of these in a row.
I love your comment about women and the thought about making women like it more by having pointless women in it. The truth of the matter is, women LOVED the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. I remember being on the school bus and all us girls swooning over the movie and how good it is. Of course there was one feminist who said, "It doesn't have any women in it." We all just paused, stared at her like she was an idiot and said, "So what, it has hot guys!" It's just a good movie overall. And it did have women characters that we all loved. They didn't do much fighting but they were wise, loving. They weren't sexualized, yet beautiful. There was a "sort of" love triangle, but that was mostly a young woman having a crush on a man who already had a girlfriend and no interest in her. And guess what? It was resolved with grace and maturity with Aragorn letting the girl down easy. What is there not for a girl to like in the original trilogy.
No man can defeat me.
I think as a child I liked it so much because of how affectionate the men were. LOTR is so different to other movies solely based on the relationships between characters. Sam and Frodo embrace constantly, the Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli time; the way they truly care for each other and are concerned about each other. I love how they touch foreheads and call each other 'my friend.' It shows how caring men can be and it connected with the female audience not through the female characters but through the emotion of the men involved.
Yep. I don't need made up gurrrrlll power moments and I actively despise any media that pulls that stunt.
It's so ironic how Alfrid's character is used to criticise unfair gender expectations about women (like his remark about letting the women clean up), but at the same time to shame men as pathetic cowards, if they don't want to sacrifice themselves in a war.
I love how he does the exact thing the Hobbit does wrong, turning what should be one thing into three things, hilarious
I wish you made more critique videos like that. Really entertaining!
Even if not a prick, if you think about it Gandalf was always manipulative even in the original. He was willing to sacrifice Rohan and Gondor by making them take the battle just to give time to Frodo. Winning the battle of minas tirith was a huge coincidence and tbh i don't think Gandalf would have give a shit if they lose because they did their job by buying time.
Officers & generals must make big costly decisions, knowing full well that some soldiers will suffer & die because of those choices. The greater duty & onus is on them to strive to make the right decision based on what is known & unknown. Gandalf works what he does by mercy, pity, suffering, endless travel, battling evil over thousands of years, AND and seeking to forestall, block, and deflect the endless machinations of a near-undefeatable superhuman evil genius.
Alongside his work (for which he was sent from the Undying Lands by the Valar), there are the operations of "co-incidence", by which Tolkien means divine providence, ordering all things towards the magnifying of the good, and the preventing or forestalling of evil ("You were 'meant' to find the ring").
Regarding the Rings, and Bilbos ring being the One ring, it is stated in the books that there were many such rings made, not only the 20 Great rings. Toys and exercises in the craft, for perhaps making someone invisible, which is in itself a pretty minor power in comparison to the Great Rings. the elven smiths made them for sport and because they could. Then they made the Great Rings, with the aid of Anattar (Sauron in disguise). Gandalf thought it to be such a minor ring.
Whats that music that plays almost the whole video? i really love that tack
'Kevin MacLeod ~ Miri's Magic Dance' he gave a credit at the end of the vid
10:11
In LotR, it is told that Gandalf was told not to look into the ring by Saruman, who told him that the ring fell into the sea. So he did not look into it due to his trust in Saruman.
Why are there no women in Tolkien's world?!?!? WTF? ever read the tale of Beren and Luthien where Luthien saves Beren at least 6 times after he gets caught or maimed?! Ever read LOTR where Galadrial and Eowyn are two of the biggest badass characters in the whole FREAKIN TRILOGY?!?! idiotic statements.
Have you seen the whole video?
Have you even ever considered that they show a male hobbit for comedy when he shows the girls? Have you considered that Luthien is not mentioned (except in the extended edition) not even once?
The Arkenstone is in Thorin's hands when he is being mourned. He is burried with it. Kind of a way of saying he is "King under the Mountain", but tragic as well
Edit: never mind, apparently there is an extended edition, and I watched that unknowingly
In the books, there are other, minor rings of power other than the major 20, but it never says so in the movies, so Gandalf is being an idiot in the movies.
he say it in the beggining of the first movie of lotr
just want to say, the eagles did deliver Beorn to the battle. I find it odd that Jackson included minor things like that from the book but changed major parts
I liked your series a great deal until you started doing that absurd strawmannning of mithrandir. Just to point out one of your arguments that you can't refute - the rings of power are not the only magic rings. Celebrimbor has made other rings, and so have other elves. mithrandir did not know Bilbo had a ring of power for sure. HOWEVER, in the actual story he does not have all the ifo he has in this "film". I agree with you the film did a pretty piss poor job with this detail. It's just not a plot hole
I guess Peter Jackson kinda forgot about the Arkenstone....
It's strange bc they took away the consequence of their meddling with the goblins by replacing them with elves. Like. Azog was a friggin goblin who had gone to avenge his king. Isn't that more compelling than: I'm going to kill Thorin bc I want his head bc for some reason I want the head of every dwarf king?
Idk...it annoyed me.
It was really annoying that Alfred (I didn't even bother to pay attention to his name in the movie) kept interrupting what should have been the most epic part of the story, just for a few stupid comedy scenes. Of course, the battle scenes already had their issues, as you pointed out in the last video.
As for Beorn, I actually missed that he was even in the last movie. That really disappointed me, since he had a big role in the book, bringing Thorin to safety after he is wounded and tearing apart the goblin leader and his bodyguard. There's an epic sketch of that pivotal moment in Michael Hague's illustrations for the book, and it really highlighted the epic feel that the Battle of the Five Armies had for me. Until the movie failed utterly with that whole battle.
There's a big tension in the book when Bilbo shouts - note: he shouts - that the eagles are coming, and everyone's looking around and wondering if it's true since they can't see them yet.
Admittedly, the Sacksville-Bagginses were mentioned in the Hobbit book as suspected of having purloined his silver spoons, but I still agree that it was still poorly done. As for the goblin king Gandalf kills, I got the impression in the book that it was because the goblins were about to kill the dwarfs, which makes it a little more justifiable, and the whole thing with him being fine with the elf king was in the book, so I think that was an issue that already existed to a degree in the book - not that I don't think that movie Gandalf messed up his whole rendezvous with everyone in the last movie.
7:15 Bagginshield!
2:50 Now to be fair, at the end of the day Jackson is a horror film director. Screaming girls is like oxygen for those guys
People actually complain about the lack of strong women in LOTR? In the movie versions the hobbits get saved by Arwen and Eowyn slays the leader of the Nazgul... how much more can you ask for? The female characters basically did some of the hardest work in the movies...
when people complain about the lack of female women in Tolkien, i think they are not referring to the films. they are referring to the books.
Eowyn still exists in the books, I'm pretty sure. And is the one who kills the Witch-king of Angmar.
yes, she is, but that is one female in the trilogy who is doing things. one is not that much at all compared to the dozens of males, in the eyes of people. and to be fair, they have a point. and yes, there is Galadriel and arwen, but they are barely in the lotr AT ALL. and definitely not in the hobbit, really. They have connections to the appendices. however, many of the cool things that arwen did in the lotr film were not done by her in the books. other males, like glorfindel, did it. her main role was simply that if Aragorn wanted to marry arwen, then he had to prove himself to Elrond. that was really it. and Galadriel is regarded as powerful, but we don't really get to see it in the narrative. we just find out about it afterwards in notes. also, in hobbit, from what I read in the book, I didn't really remember any main women in it
LOTR unapologetically depicts a "man's world." The books or movies exclude women from all of the active roles in society (besides Eowyn, which is strange in universe). This isn't commented on and seems to get tacit approval for existing. Doesn't undermine the story but work criticizing IMO
+Christopher Silvia
It's not that strange in universe because there is definite what's the word... push back? Eowyn is not fully accepted in an active role, at least not by her uncle the king and the other people around her. Iirc Eomer helped her be active in some ways, training, but also did not want her to join the fight. Basically she was deliberately shown to be stepping outside of what "should be" her role. But it's not as if that never happened historically. It's uncommon but not unheard of.
3:37
Gravity and pointy spears have apparently stopped working as they should.
spears do not workin on beorn , that states on the book
I totally agree with the first and last part, but you sound downright bitter in the mid portion. Sorry mate :/
I mean Bilbo couldn't have known that the Eagles were "already there", he said "they're coming" cus that's what it looked like to him (even if it's a reference). The smoking scene some say was the best scene in the movie also it serves as a build up (?) to Bilbo and Gandalf's friendship. Gandalf knowing Beorn's house may or may not be safe but not telling the dwarves was necessary cus you know they were running from Beorn and they kinda needed a place to run to... And killing the Goblin king was racist... seriously?
+Sandy Hardstone He didn't mean killing the Goblin king was racist. He meant killing the Goblin king and then not caring at all about what Thranduil did, even though he did the exact same thing to the dwarves.
Nathan H. Thranduil did the exact same thing to the dwarves? How? I'm genuinely confused
Sandy Hardstone Captured them, held them captive...
Nathan H. That's not the "exact" same. Thranduil merely planned to lock 'em up (forever), he in fact wanted to help the dwarves in exchange for the jewels. The Goblin king, on the other hand, was going to hand Thorin over to Azog and kill the rest.
Also can you imagine the uproar it would cause among the elves if Thranduil, king of the Mirkwood was killed? The Goblin king was just a lowly ruler in a tunnel.
Sandy Hardstone But he was still a legitimate ruler. In the book, the death of the goblin king caused all the goblins to pour out over the lands, possibly murdering many innocents along their way to Erebor.
Loving this series and agree with most of your points. One thing though - I'm pretty sure the Goblin King's realm in the Hobbit and Moria are in two different locations. Both within the Misty Mountains but still quite far apart, so if Gandalf thought the Dwarven ring was lost in Moria it wouldn't make much sense for him to think it was the one found by Bilbo. But then even this point is rendered moot by the extra scene with Gandalf and Thorin's father.