Damn, that zooming out shot of Jackson sat exhausted and alone on a vast and gaudy set surrounded by ruin is saddest visual metaphor for this trilogy ever
I agree about the Shire. Once they leave, however, the film goes downhill faster than a roller coaster. From Roast Mutton onward, the film is SO damn cringe-inducing.
ya honest knowing those scenes would not be seen by anyone until like a year after the theatrical release. honest after the fact is not honest at all because you have escaped the consequences. They have all our money anyways now. However i understand why not talk about his struggles during promotions because then most people would stay away. This all goes to show why studios have to much control in reality when coming on he should have been able to just say we need to scrap what del toro has done completely and start from scratch and postpone this film altogether. Nope that could never happen so because of that he had no choice but to do this rushed mess. Knowing this gives me a better appreciation though for a story basically out of no where jackson did a great job.
@Jon Dillon artistically and creatively, the Hobbit was a huge missed opportunity.. just because something makes money doesn't mean it's successful, especially when it comes to art
The only disappointment with the Hobbit trilogy was that Jackson didn't use the Benny Hill song during the escape from the Goblins. What a tragedy that was.
Indeed. Appreciate the reply! Love the channel, always looking for great film analysis. Hope you find the time and or motivation to tackle the trilogy.
It has been a year, but there was same type of BS in LOTR as in Hobbit. Peter Jackson somehow seemed to think that cutting away Saruman's dying was a good idea. Like why the heck.. Saruman dying would had removed all the loose knots from the story and plot could had moved nicely forward from there. It's true that the movie was already very long, but PJ should had rather cut more stuff away from the ending than that short few minute long piece from the beginning, which was super significant. Edit. Oh nvm Just Write actually mentioned that bit on this video. :D
In the books, Saruman didnt die at Isengard. He went to the shire and ruined it where he was defeated in a rebellion. He should have added that part in the 3rd movie, not his death in the 2nd movies extended edition.
@Eddie Venkman as far as I know, Tauriel was also pushed for by studios. Basically, the entire production was pre set by studios and Jackson had to comply to that, therefore was kind of paralyzed as a director himself
I don't think people give the studio enough flak for not giving the production some time to organize itself. They easily could have afforded it... look at how much money both LotR and The Hobbit made them alone.
The fact Jackson stepped in at the last moment and was forced to make it up as he went along explains alot - but it doesn't excuse anything. The films were an insult both to the ticket-buying public and to Tolkien's legacy.
Yah it pisses me off to no end when people actually say these movies are great. They are objectively bad movies. No it is not a matter of opinion. If someone enjoys the movies as meaningless entertainment then that is fine, I have no problem with that. But they are FACTUALLY bad!
How can anyone argue that a film is factually bad? Saying these movies are "great" is a huge stretch but there are plenty of people with mixed feelings about them and I wouldn't say they're scientifically incorrect. It's a pretty toxic view to have.
GoCrazyDontMindIfIDo The Hobbit was a beloved book for me. This trilogy was so awful it turned my stomach and I couldn't finish it. Maybe someone liked it and maybe someone likes drinking urine.
I think one of the fundamental flaws of the films was trying to balance screen time between 13 dwarves and a Hobbit. They didn't get the balance right and instead of the touching story of a hobbit trying to save his home land, (like in Lord Of The Rings) we follow a grumpy, emotionless dwarf motivated by greed for 9 hours of tacky CGI battles and poor character development.
J. Haller Productions it's not just personal greed, its a fear of losing your home, rejecting the world outside because they rejected him. He didn't just keep everyone out of Erebor because he's greedy, Thorin was bitter about their abandonment of him, only supporting him for their own gain. Greed for 9 hours, bah
What do you expect? This has always been Jackson's modus operandi. Ignore the chance to give the source material justice and flesh out what is already there, to replace it with complete made up nonsense and CGI battles involving completely made up characters and characters already existing doing things that Tolkien never had them doing.
The title of the book is The Hobbit. For long stretches he doesn't appear and when he returns to the screen I was like 'Oh yeah, this is supposedly a story about this guy.' The problem isn't so much one of balancing, it's of ignoring that it was never meant to be 'balanced' - it's about the hobbit.
Does anyone have an issue with colours in the Hobbit trilogy? Some scenes look like the camera lenses were wet during the shooting. Light parts of the picture look terrible.
Yeah, I think that's among the things I hated the most. They bloomed out the highlights. And that is a conscious decision, not a mistake. My guess is it's meant to hint at a "brighter" world at "dawn" or something, before the events of LOTR. But when Just Write cuts between shots of The Hobbit and LOTR you see how much more beautiful and better LOTR is, it looks earthy and sublime, how a fantasy world should do!
It's because they were using 3D camera equipment which didn't absorb color very well. And if you watch bonus features they talk about having to make sets and makeup brighter and with vivid colors in order for them to look normal on camera.
fun fact: when filming Beorn's hut/house the view behind where Beorn was standing cutting wood was fantastic. In order to get it in better lighting though they waited until the evening but unfortunately as they waited the sky became rather overcast and threatened to rain forcing them to build a greenscreen behind Beorn and then reconstruct the background using the... they have a term for it, but the photos they took earlier.
I think the best point you've made in your reviews is regarding the philosophy of adaptation. It really looks like Peter Jackson didn't know what he was doing from the very beginning of pre-production: he had never decided whether he's shooting a fairytale (and thus staying true to the source material), or a prequel to the Lord of the Rings (which would require extensive re-writing). Both decisions would be reasonable and could result in a very good movie(s). Jackson decided to do both and neither at the same time. The films never had a chance of turning out well that way.
Not to mention they just covered everything in cheese. Good god, those movies were cringe-inducing. Everything that was meant to be dark and intimidating was made silly and stupid. The movies didn't even focus on the damn Hobbit.
@@Richard_Nickerson True, but it was stated even by Jackson himself that they didin't use any of Del Toro's concepts or pre-production material and decided to just come up with stuff on the go. So it was his or the studio's (or both) choice to go with the blank slate.
I could tell immediately that Peter Jackson didn't know what to do just by his facial expressions and body language. He just didn't look like he was committed to the production of this Trilogy at all.
his face gives me "I'm exhausted, but I have to do it. But I wanna do it right. But I'm not prepared. I have no time. I have to wing it. I hate this." vibes
Most of LoTR was as much an adaptive disgrace as The Hobbit is. The Extended Editions help LoTR a lot but the theatrical releases are dreck for the most part. It suffered from as much lousy plot lines, unfinished invented plots and distortion of characters as The Hobbit did. Granted, they were better overall MOVIES than The Hobbit.
Is that supposed to be a disparaging term? Someone who read and valued the books because they're good is to be dismissed because what does he know? Anything good about the LOTR movies was attributable to the source material. Where it deviates, it fails. The Hobbit simply had more deviation. Give someone something flavorless covered in chocolate and call it masterful cooking, and then when someone points out that it's only the chocolate that's good you say "Ignore the chocolate purist."
WalterLiddy no it often is better in its deviations the movies aren't perfect but neither are the books they focus so much of filler and world building that it really grinds the pacing to a halt and many characters like Aragorn are as bland as cardboard in the book thankfully the film fixed Aragorn and gave him a character arc but then the tolkien purist complained sigh you people are so blinded to your love of the books you ignore its shortcomings.
LOTR was a masterpiece compared to these ones. The overall result of LOTR was good enought for me to buy the BluRay Extended edition but there were flaws and custom addons (Arwen saving Frodo for ex.), custom cutoff (Tom Bombadill) and custom madness (Saruman dying changing the final return to the shire). Don't you agree? :)
I definitely feel sorry for Jackson now. I saw him as George Lucas, when really he was Sam Raimi in Spiderman 3. Lucas had complete control and completely fucked up. Jackson had studios ruin shit, even while they refused to pay him. There are some great visual imagery we can take from The Hobbit films though, I just try to picture them with the actual plot of the original. It boggles the mind they were forced to stretch it to a trilogy, I guess that's what a lot of that love triangle was about. By the time of the extended Battle of the Five Armies one, I think they stopped caring because of all the retarded stuff they do like the chariot with spikes on decapitating six mini-trolls/whatever they are and Gandalf's staff short circuiting followed by the retarded death of Alfred.
+Snag Prophet i read an article where they were talking to Evangeline Lilly about the whole thing and apparently she even outlined in her contract that she didn't want to be, and wasn't going to be, a part of a love triangle sub plot, and for the majority of filming she wasn't, then near the end of production they brought her back for reshoots and it was entirely that subplot and she was majorly pissed off about it but told if she didn't do them she wouldn't be paid at all
Understanding what Jackson was going through, how he didn't even have completed scripts because he was thrown into these movies, makes me surprised that they're watchable at all. I think that is a testament to his abilities in its own way as much as LoTR.
Something else that bothered me about the Hobbit trilogy: there's something really weird about the cinematography that I can't quite put my finger on. The LOTR trilogy has a very painterly look to it - as if you're watching a cinematic oil painting. The Hobbit on the other hand, looks weirdly flat and low contrast. Laketown just looks incredibly...blaaaah somehow.
I’d put that to the 48 FPS cameras they used. It makes everything look hyper reel and items like matte paintings would look like paintings and not part of the scene.
battle of five armies was to me just one long-ass battle scene with the build up and the falling action added on. it was really tedious, and detracted from my appreciation of the previous two hobbit films as the trilogy was not completed in a satisfying way. this is my opijnion
Also, notice how literally every single elf in the army had the same plain face. I've seen people actually compare 'the battle of five armies' battle to helms deep and pellenor fields in lotr.. Tbofa is possibly the worst battle I've ever seen. Terrible cgi/ special effects, zero tension & completly boring, cuts away from anything important aka thorn vs azog
Exactly! A lot of people hate them all but I like the first 1 3/4 of them quite a bit despite being not as good as LOTR. The end of the 2nd film makes it apparent the story had the potential to be great if it was just 2 movies.
Not a Sage nah the third film is the best of the three, all the story elements were saved for it after two movies of build up. Just because an hour of the film is fighting doesn't mean it's pointless fighting, you've got a lot of stuff going on in those fights, primarily with the contrasting presentation of Thranduil, Bard and Thorin as leaders, progressing in motivation as the fight goes on. Reducing an hour of storytelling to "Just a battle" is quite a shallow way of tossing something aside.
Why praise Pellenor Fields so much? Jackson fucked that up too. For example Grond didn’t just smash the gate, the Angmar let out a scream. The haradrim had a cavalry charge against the theodens army as well. Angmar and Gandalfs showdown... also the ghost army
The battle of the 5 armies was literally just 2 pages long in the book. And it only described the beginning of the battle. Everything else was just hastily described. Just saying "We won" basically.
I didn’t like hobbit because it felt like a game. 1. Accept Quest 2. Tutorial to ride a pony 3. Outrun enemies 4. Diplomacy with elves Ect Seriously the running and tap out enemies felt like Mario but looked like Skyrim. Also had too much CGI
I just watched the full review. I have SO MUCH RESPECT for the time and effort you put into your videos. Whether I agree with your opinion or not, you are really out here working my man, and you have my infinite respect for that. I don't think I've ever seen a RUclipsr doing as much with their videos as you. WOW.
This film was a shambles, and I really pity Peter Jackson for it. You can tell he just had no passion for it, and that is either bc of his stressful lack of prep and making it up as he went along, or bc of how much time (like 18 years collectively) he spent on it. Pre-production is THE MOST important part of filmmaking, period. If you fail there then the rest of the film will suffer because of it.
Thanks one more time for your wonderful analysis of why The Hobbit failed as a film. Also, I think it would be great to analyse also the technical stuff (48 fps, 5K, digital cameras, strange use of colours etc.).
I saw the first one in the high frame rate and it had severe problems. The action scenes were nice and crisp, and the water flowing looked almost real, but the closeups and interior scenes looked jarringly flat and almost like a bad daytime soap opera. I'm not sure what caused this effect or if it was poor lighting, but it was horrendous.
I've seen some explanation for the fake 'soap opera' look. When you get into very high frame rates, you lose the subtle motion blur of traditional film speeds. This isn't how we see in reality. If you quickly move an object in front of your face (like your hand), the image blurs, leaving trails behind because your eyes can't quite keep up. Faster frame rates eliminate this, leading to a flat, artificial looking image. Some people notice this in action heavy scenes, others in the more static shots (probably because there is less to distract you from how unreal it all looks).
5K is practically useless bc the human eye can't compute anything above 4K. That's why some bits of the Hobbit are actually really sickly to look at - there's just too much detail in the pixels for your eyes to figure out so it feels dizzy. The cameras are also the reason for the weird ass colouring in the film - they had to make the costumes poppy colours bc they were coming out green or not at all on the camera. So moral of the story: tech doesn't always make a film better.
subkontrabasklarinet and even on our film course we're only told to use a higher frame rate if we're going to film in slow motion. 24/25fps is what you film in, otherwise the picture just looks really dizzy and gross. Again. Bc your eye doesn't see that way.
Here's the thing about The Hobbit (the book). It says it right in the title, it's about the damn hobbit. The book is Bilbo's story. It's not the dwarves story, it's not about Gandalf, it's not even about Middle Earth. The book tells a very character focused story, and we follow Bilbo's perspective from start to finish. This WORKS for the story that this book is trying to tell, since it is so much smaller in scope than the LotR. (This was written as a children's book, after all, not an epic war novel.) For the purposes of movie making, it might not have been so bad if they had cut away from Bilbo every once in a while to show us other things that were happening elsewhere, if they had still kept the focus of the film mainly on THE HOBBIT, for fs sake. It seems like maybe about 90 percent of the problems with these movies could have been solved by simply not trying to make the story into something other than what it was meant to be.
After watching your brilliant series, I'm even gladder that I didn't shell out the hefty ticket price for the second and third part when all I heard were negative reviews. It's wonderful to be able to see why they were negative without having to sit through 6 (7? 8?) hours of films thanks to your in-depth look at this! I'm an aspiring screenwriter and filmmaker, and I've learned LOTS from this series! I couldn't agree more on what you said about making promises to the audience and having to fulfil them/satisfy them before the credits roll. (Or after, in case of the MCU, hehe^^) Can't wait to dive more into your channel! :D Best from Berlin!
The Films would’ve been better if Peter had more time they would’ve been as legendary as the lord of the rings. The studio gave him 2 months for The Hobbit. Before then. Jackson had 3 years to make Lord of the rings. So he didn’t know what was happening and what he was going to do.
It's not just the rushed production. It's having to step in and fix what was already there. I give props to Jackson for stepping in and getting the job done.
Most people don't watch the extended editions so you can't rely on that to fill in plot points. A movie needs to be well defined even without the extended edition which is really just there to add something to the already solid story
Out of the three films, I feel the first one is the best. Coincidentally, it's also the one that sticks closest to the source material, and the one that has the most influence from Del Toro...
Hi! I am a big fan of the Hobbit and actually even more of its appendices, yet on a lot of arguments I agreed with you. I am glad you made this vid, because it resolved all the points I felt that you were wrong about. Thank you so much for this series, it is so clear and thorough.
Your reviews on these movies were great. You were almost right about everything. Besides all the things you pointed out, the trilogy just doesnt feel right. It didn't live up to its expectations and I'm not even talking about the inaccuracies compared to the books. This whole trilogy just seems to be one big cartoon designed to make the viewer go 'what the hell is that' instead of bringing a good strong story.
+Michiel Gulickx I rewatched the first movie of the Hobbit yesterday. I wanted to give it a second chance. I had to force myself to see it to the end and im not watching it or the sequals again ever. RIP LotR franchise.
+UchihaDualStorm Well don't say rip lotr franchise too quick. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy has it's flaws just like any movie (series) but it's still a masterpiece in almost every way. It's also very innovative considering visual effects. The Lotr trilogy pretty much set the standard for every fantasy movie afterwards.
So why don't you apply this logic to LotR? They left out some important stuff like setting up and explaining the elves leaving Middle Earth early in Fellowship of the Ring. They left out Saruman's death from The Return of the King. He's just forgotten about in the theatrical version. What about Eowyn being healed after being wounded in battle? Or what about the important scenes with Boromir and Faramir and their father that help set up why he treats Faramir badly later on? I guess the movie's bad and we shouldn't care about it being in the Extended Edition because those scenes should've been in the theatrical cut. They're just trying to make us buy the same movie twice! It's like game DLC but for films! There's an unspoken promise by the filmmaker that the conflicts raised in the story will be adequately resolved by the end of the movie (or in some cases properly set up in the first place)! They amputated a finished movie just to force me to pay for it again! It doesn't matter that the problem is fixed in the definitive version of the movie, it's forever a piece of garbage! If your criticisms also apply to LotR, then admit they are also bad movies and their Extended Editions are the result of greed, or set aside these criticisms and use better ones instead. Now, The Hobbit is not as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It feels like the same expansive world as LotR. There are exciting action scenes. Good performances. Consistent looks for returning locations, consistent casting where it makes sense. The overall plot is the same as the book, and the added subplots are coherent, at least in the Extended Editions. The stuff that ties it in more heavily with LotR is based on the source material, so no problems there. If Peter Jackson had better circumstances to make the movies, they'd be better. Given the time constraints, immense pressure, and severe sleep deprivation, it is a miracle that this film trilogy is as good as it is. Tolkien would still hate it though.
Your review really was cathartic to me. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, to the point I have the extended editions, books on how the movie was made, posters, and documentaries on it. I love every single thing about it, and seeing the hobbit movies was so dissapointing it made me plain and simple sad: Sad it wasn't what I wanted them to be, sad that it didn't hold a candle to the LotR, sad that it lacked the heart of the original trilogy and sad to see PJ in the position he was. To this day I keep watching your hobbit review from time to time just because I really like them. So yeah, thanks for that review, and I hope to see you soon. It's been a while since your last video
I walked out of the final movie when I was at the movies. I was so bored, in the middle of the final battle, and especially disappointed what had been made. It was like pissing on LOTR to make them
I completely respect everyone who worked so hard on these movies. I don’t like the trilogy but the cast and crew earned my money. As long as I know a film team worked hard, they have my respect.
No one seems to acknowledge all the lore ret-cons to make Azog a villain. It was so forced. It’s because they made the movie about violent conflict and revenge, and no an adventure of a hobbit.
@@RealNTAF And Thain's cousin Dain killed Azog in the battle of Azanulbizar. What's your point? Azog wasn't a part of The Hobbit - because he was dead. His son Bolg was in the book, but only briefly mentioned during the Battle of The Five Armies. The whole plotline they fabricated for the movies about Azog "the pale orc" and his band of orcs that were chasing the heroes the whole time bore no resemblance to any of the events regarding goblins in the book.
@@hanburgundy4317 not true as Bolg was leading the army from North, just as he did in the movie. Making Azog the villain is no different than making up Lurtz to give Bormomir's killer a name in the Fellowship.
@@RealNTAF ...it's entirely different lol One case is personifying a nameless character who already existed for the third act of the film; the other is reviving a dead character (who was dead LONG before the events of the book) and completely altering the plot of THE ENTIRE film to revolve around said character. The events of Tolkien's The Hobbit center around Bilbo and his adventure; the events of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy center around Azog and Thorin, with Bilbo taking a definitive backseat. It's just weird, and no offense (as you obviously liked it) but it butchers the source material.
"While we were making the 3rd Hobbit movie, we realized we didn't have a clue about how to shoot the battle..." Gee, could that maybe mean the 3rd movie(if it had to have happened at all) shouldn't have focused so darn much on a battle which was barely even in the book? I realize it would have been better for them to have done just 2 movies, but I wonder how much better the 3rd movie might have been if they focused more on the repercussions of the battle, the goodbyes, Bilbo's journey home, and maybe bridging the gap between the prequel trilogy and the LotR trilogy as well
Before I watched this series of videos I honestly wasn't sure whether I wanted to watch them since I know that your channel is very persuasive and The Hobbit Trilogy are my favourite films of all time for personal reasons. However after watching this series I would like to say congratulations to all the hard work you put into these videos, they were so well made and clearly had a lot of passion behind them. The Hobbit trilogy will remain to be my favourite films of all time but you have opened my eyes to how a film can have many flaws but still be loved. So again thankyou for your review, I'm going to go re-watch them now and bask in the glorious world of Middle Earth!
JW: "there should be an unspoken promise between the creators of a film and its audience, that the conflicts raised in the film will be adequately resolved by the end of movie" David Lynch: "lol, no"
I didn't watch all of your Hobbit videos because, quite simply, I cannot stand watching more of The Hobbit. One or two of your videos was enough for me to confirm my suspicions through your excellent analysis. However, I appreciate that you made this video because it speaks to your convictions and that you aren't willing to be cheated by big studios. I commend you for that.
Having a script and a clear sense of what is going within an action scene seem basic requirements for a good movie. One wishes Jackson had just said, when asked to step in to save the mess, "I prefer not to." And I completely agree: I'm not spending more money to find out what happened to objects and characters you didn't make me care about in the first damn nine hours of storytelling.
But Sage! What about the various Hobbit fan edits? For instance, JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit is considered by many to be the definitive adaptation of The Hobbit What the L do you think about fan edits? Great video by the way.
+Will Hobson Thanks! Haven't seen any of the fan edits, though I do like the idea in theory. I think I'd have to judge it completely separate from the actual films themselves. In other words, a positive fan edit wouldn't much change my opinion of the theatrical releases, only confirm that there is a good film buried somewhere under all of the filler.
Sage Rants I feel the same way. I know the theatrical releases are less than stellar. But the fan edits just highlight what's already good about the films. Martin Freeman really has time to shine, and the action scenes have a little bit more tension. But I'd say it's well worth a watch.
Sage Rants I will say however that I'm not too big of a fan of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit's ending. Mainly for the same reason you mentioned in your review. But otherwise, it's a superbly put together edit.
Mr Cat, really? Because, the SW prequels are just full of bad acting and they are built on a not so good foundation. Whereas the Hobbit movies actually have good acting and quality storytelling and sets. However the good things are sometimes covered in action and CGI crap. The SW prequels ARE action and CGI crap.
The Desolation of Smaug was honestly so bad I couldn't bring myself to see the last one. I was so pissed off by the end, it was everything I could do not to just walk out of the second one.
LOTR was brilliant in so many ways. The extended versions were just perfect. Everything that was cut was understandable. The movies work in both versions.
Thank you very much for making all these vidios! I think you spend very much time and effort in making them and formulating your opinion and that is commendable. One interesting point I think you try to make, is that there are differences between 'cause', 'blame' and 'excuse'. As you mention, the cause for the problems in the hobbit is that there was not enough time to prepare everything. Who to blame is a complicated matter, and in the end, doesn't really matter, because it is not a good 'excuse'. Imagine the president accidentally firing nukes at another country, and then saying 'I'm sorry, I didn't sleep well last night'. Once again, thank you very much for your work, it's great!
I agree 100% with your opinion of the Arkenstone. It bothered me so much that the issue had not been resolved that I consider it one of the biggest plot holes I've ever seen in ANY movie. And no, I haven't seen the extended versions because I've already seen the Hobbit trilogy and don't care to see it again. They had their chance and they blew it.
As a Tolkien fan, I can say that the trailer for DOS had got me so hyped. My brother and I watched it together and were jumping up and down the whole time. Like you said, I have sympathy for what Jackson had to deal with, but overall, I couldn't get behind it, no matter how much I wanted to.
How in the hell can something like this even happen when there's that much money on board? Don't the studioheads who finance these things know how much work goes to plan how the movie, scene, or even a sequence goes. They can't just expect that a talented filmmaker who's thrown on board at the last minute to craft a perfect masterpiece, without first taking some time to pre-plan the film.
I watched your whole series on The Hobbit today and afterward I watched the JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit fan edit of the movies (which I think is an improvement on the original). I think that both your videos and the fan edit show so clearly that less is more. When you trim all the unnecessary fat of a story what you have left is a stronger story that the viewer is more interested in. This is a great lesson for me personally as I am studying creative writing, so thanks for the videos they were great (actually I like everything I've seen on your channel)
I've loved the book since I was a child and was really excited to watch the movie! (Also lotr was my favourite movie of all time.) Then I watched the hobbit trilogy. Let's just say this, it's the worst trilogy I've ever seen (yeah 'twilight' get outta of here!) I thought the hobbit had soooo much potential to be soooo good, but istead they used the well written pages of the script to wipe their dirty asses with! (too far?) Me and my dad discussed for hours about how they should have made only two movies, cut out the pointless nonsense and focus on the main character Bilbo instead of F***ing Legolass jumping on rocks! Then just yesterday I found your seires and I must, YOU'RE AWESOME!
Watch the Maple Films 4 hour edit of the Hobbit trilogy. It cuts out almost all the baggage and makes Bilbo the centre-point. It also colour grades the film to make it look like another LOTR film. Trust me, it will soothe your pain.
[response to 1 year ago]; the Hobbit book has always been better material to make a "dudes on a roadtrip gone wrong" story; just 90 minutes of Bilbo and the Dwarves shooting the shit on a roadtrip, getting attacked by random creatures, complaining about the weather, with the cankery high-IQ 1000+ year-old Gandalf telling them to get their shit together. I am 100% not joking; that is *what the book is,* and that would make an awesome movie.
Thank you sir for giving such a great analysis of why these films were not successful. The one thing that I will never understand about Jackson, is that, he had a novel to go by to tell this story, but still, in his own words, "Didn't know what the hell he was doing", lol. Still, just boggles my mind. To finish, as a long time Tolkiendil, I couldn't agree with you more on the Hobbit trilogy.
I like how you mentioned an unspoken agreement between the audience and the movie maker. There are certain things the fans want to know, and although the fans do not always want what's best; there is certain extent where the film should please the fans.
So if the fans want things that constitute bad storytelling and guarantee a disappointing result out of ignorance, then a filmmaker should give them a crappy movie, to please them? What? It's the job of the filmmaker to know how to make a work of quality that fans will enjoy. Whether the fans are aware of what will be enjoyable or not is irrelevant to his/her process.
SAGE! Thanks for your thorough review, and thanks for addressing these comments. As viewers we often take advantage of the content tossed on RUclips and end up not appreciating well the content makers. Well, I appreciate you, dude! I'm that budding-filmmaker you mentioned, and going through the many aspects of the Hobbit with you has been very educational. I'm in the middle of a script I've been working on for a few months now, and watching your key points has made me evaluate some of my own character motives, actions and plotting in my writing. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and I pray for much success and strength on your future projects. Thanks, keep doing you and best wishes! You're awesome.
The fact that you weren't interested enough to watch the extended edition reminded me of how I paused one of the movies during the barrel-riding battle scene to do some chores. Then I stopped the movie and couldn't bring myself to finish watching it for several weeks. And I seem to recall that I fast-forwarded past ridiculous and boring battle scenes, and didn't watch the trilogy thru a second time, and either threw away or gave away the DVDs. And the most I can muster up now is to watch a few scenes that people uploaded to RUclips, and all of this from a person who bought several editions of the LOTR movies and watched them over and over.
I guess that does explain why all the scenes with Bilbo are very clear and to the point; where as all the action scenes (which were made up and occasionally even forced for the sake of not wasting everyone's time standing around on set) are a complete fkn mess. Additionally explains the use of CGI, seeing as all they could really do was have the characters fighting green guys and add everything in later on. - It explains why the things they chose to do were done badly. It does not explain why they chose to do those things. Why they chose to focus on action and sweeping landscape shots, rather than dialogue through referential exposition (as with the books). It does not explain why they had all the terrible characters forced in, nor does it justify "Bard's family troubles" and "interspecies romance" that do nothing for the plot nor the story. It does not explain why Logolas rides hundreds of miles away to Gundabad to witness their drama for the audience, and then rides all the way back in what seems like a few days and barely arrives in front of the "marching" orcs. In both trilogies, we got an action packed fan-fiction interpretation; one was made well, the other was made poorly. Though fan-fiction in tone and quality they remain. - Thanks for the insightful videos.
@@SunburnCity Meh, as much as I love the Lord of the Rings movies (I prefer them to the books, honestly - the books kind of drag and the characters aren't as compelling), I can admit that they altered and left out a lot of the source material and that they added a lot of fluff; they're hardly true adaptations of the books. But, while the LotR movies - fan fiction that they were - were masterpieces, the Hobbit films were flat out garbage and differed so greatly from the source material as to be almost unrecognizable. They misrepresented what they _did_ include, to a disgusting level. Everything was made silly - cringe-inducingly so; all gravity and depth was removed. Every scene that is even reminiscent of the chapter it references wasn't presented anywhere near how Tolkien wrote it or meant it to be. I've tried watching a couple of the fan edits, but even what is still there does no justice to the book and I can't appreciate it. The visuals were stunning when it came to backgrounds/setting, but the rest of the movies are so aggravatingly cheesy and unbelievable.
As someone who loved these movies I gotta say I enjoyed these videos. With other people that didn't like these movies they seem so angry and mean spirited. But you approach it in an intelligent and well-spoken manor. You give fair and strong criticisms some of which I can actually agree with.
4 года назад+10
For me the most disappointing part was the escape from Woodland Realms. I was hoping for some very dark tension borderline claustrophobic (I know it's a kids movie) while the dwarves were escaping in the barrels. Instead we got that game'ish action scene which made me laugh at how bad it was...
You make a very good point when comparing LotR to Hobbit. The extended editions flesh stuff out and add flavour, but are not necessary. One issue is that the gift giving is cut from the original FotR, but that seems like more of a screw-up than intentionally cutting up the film to sell you the extra bits.
Krisha Actually How so? They actually added a lot of stuff that wasnt in the book in order to reference the LoTR movies (Saruman, Sauron rising, Legolas, mention of Aragorn..)
@@calick7208 Aragorn at the time of the Hobbit was 10 years old and lived with Elrond, he didnt had the name of Strider, he wasnt even known as Aragorn, Elrond told him his real name when he was 20. The mentioning of Strider/Aragorn was just a stupid error.
@@Hesher93 He claims to be 87 in The Two Towers, and Fellowship begins 60 years after Bilbo found the Ring (there is a hard-to-miss "60 years later" subtitle at the start of the movie). You do the math. The reason for this is that they skipped the long wait for Gandalf when he left the Shire in a rush after Bilbo's final departure, turning it from years to a mere few months. The movie timeline is actually 17 years ahead of that one from the books (both LoTR and Hobbit included).
I saw an ad for a film with the tag line "from the makers of Lord of the Rings" earlier this week. All I could think of was "yeah, but those guys also made The Hobbit movies".
I have to heavily disagree about cutting Saruman from the Return of the King. Saruman is (arguably) the second biggest villain in Lord of the Rings, and we need to know what happens to him. The scene that was cut, wraps up all loose ends with Saruman and Grìma Wormtongue. Maybe it's just me, but I would've like this scene to be in the theatrical release. Instead of what we got, which was just Gandalf saying, "Don't worry guys, leaving this evil dude with all of his powers unchecked will definitely not bite us in the ass later. Now, let's go deal with Sauron, because some idiots in the past left him with his powers unchecked and now it's come to bite us in the ass."
The problem is, that's what happened in the book. Sarumon and Grima were not killed until way late and they were in The Shire, where they had continued to cause problems.
In the movie, they revisited the site and an army of ents were keeping watch. Considering they were the ones who just overthrew him and there was no army returning to rescue him, it made sense that they were capable of keeping him helplessly trapped in a tower surrounded by a moat. He, as a threat, was pretty much neutralized and it didn’t require some tacked on murder by Grima.
Personally I think a trilogy could have worked for Jackson if he had more time. If he was in charge at the very beginning instead of Del Toro then it would have been like LOTR all over again. Del Toro is always cancelling projects left and right so it’s no surprise he left, but if Jackson had the amount of time just like he had during LOTR he would have made magic no matter if it was a trilogy or not.
Hans Ollo Even then they could have eliminated most of the Unexpected Journey plot and add the Lake Town segment and in the second movie Smaug dies, and the battle of te five armies
I know I am late in saying this but you making that video or series of videos helped me more than you would think. I want to make films and that video opened this side of RUclips that I didnt know existed, the video essay. Thank you sir
Yeah while it's wrong to blame a director like Jackson for everything wrong with a movie, it is fair to do so imo. I mean when a movie is a success usually the director takes all the credit for it doing well. They are usually considered to have the last word on anything put into the movie, so it is their fault for the most part. Some times producers can stick their noses in but with a big name like Jackson you know he didn't have to put up with to much studio BS. He had free reign to do what ever he wanted, and this is what we got.
Yes and no. Fillipa Boyens was very vocal and forceful on what she wanted to be in these films - a lot of the changes and additions made to the LotR films were her doing and not Jackson's. No amount of putting your foot down is going to stop those with creative control - especially those in charge of financing - from putting what they want in a movie. The studio is generally at fault for any film's shortcomings; it's rarely the fault of the director.
I enjoy this channel very much. I am always looking to learn new things when it comes to writing, movies and art in general. It's nice to have analysis done by other people that appreciate this type of work. Thanks so much!
I liked an Unexpected Journey. I thought it was fine, it had some of the more enjoyable thematic moments... but it goes pretty hard downhill from there. I agree with you about the lack of dramatic tension and how that hinders you from getting into the scene. I also REALLY liked how you referenced a GREAT moment in the fellowship to counterbalance the tension-less issues of the chase through goblin town. I also think that that was an issue in Dr. Strange, the lack of tension, in large part because of the three dimensional nature of the magic and the warping of space, made it very difficult to follow. I appreciate reviews like yours, I like the insight they provide, and even if I come across something you or someone else does that I disagree with... I can still like it. I try and be open minded, actually open minded not just say I am open minded, ignore your point and wait my turn to yell back at you... that is not how I like to act or represent myself. Anyways, this was fun, I agree with most of your points here and I really want to do a special shout out to the one you make about your previous videos: it was VERY cathartic to hear someone who had articulated their points talk about feelings i had about the other films, even the first one... the one I liked. It helps to have clarity in one's mind about something that caused such duress, which seeing a book I love reduced down to pretty much nonsense, is incredibly disheartening. So thank you for that.
if you liked the first hobbit then you are very simple minded. the film was made for people like you. The type of person that likes the fast and the furious saga as well because they are so profound.
I will always love the Hobbit Movies(and the film adaptation of Middle Earth as a whole) but I agree with your series of arguments against certain elements. It's definitely not immune to criticism, even for a fan. I appreciated your putting my thoughts into coherent words, and giving me something to think about in terms of storytelling. I thought you did excellent on the whole thing.
I think the biggest blame should fall on the movie companies for wanting to push out 3 movies instead of the planned 2 so they can make more money out of it. Next in line is Del Toro for bailing on the project. I know he only signed up for 2 movies and everything but I doubt he really cared about The Hobbit enough to begin with, if he could just abandon 2 years of work that way.
+St M. That doesn't make much sense in light of what was going on at the set because that would mean 50% more work and that they'll have to waste time and pad the running time in order to stretch it to 3 movies, which is what happened. I think they even admitted at some point that they wanted to tell the story of Bilbo on the same level they have with LotR, which is PR talk for we want more money.
Actually bailing off and letting the studio deal with it's own stupid issues is exactly what someone who cared about The Hobbit should have done. I seriously can not to this day believe Jackson didn't flip them off and leave. Studio basically put Del Toro in a room with The Hobbit tied to a chair and told him "beat it to death". Then did the same thing with Jackson. The difference is that one of them just said "fuck no" and left the room...
As a writer, I can really appreciate your analysis on this trilogy. I personally enjoyed the movie, but I can definitely see the faults that you've described and agree with the reasoning as to why they are shortcomings to begin with.
Have you seen the Maple Films cut? It takes the three films and their extended editions and cuts them down to a nice, manageable 4:19 mins with a mid-film intermission. Honestly, it was GREAT! I feel like it finds the perfect balance and actually rescues a terrible trilogy and makes one really great film. The pacing is fixed. The extraneous characters are removed. It's focused. It's a hundred times more enjoyable.
The Hobbit films disappointed me from the first film, simply because of visuals. I understand Greenscreens will always be a thing in modern, big budget film making, but the Hobbit hurts for me to watch (and not in a overly dramatic sense, it actually hurts my fucking eyes), with so many jarring things popping out of every scene, with so many garishly bright golds and greens shinning almost constantly. In @videogamedunkey 's new video he describes Halo 5 as having too much shit on the screen, and making it impossible to really tell what is going on, and it describes exactly how I feel about the Hobbit films. They are just way to many things on the screen for my eyes to comfortably focus on Look at LOTR and you'll see very few scenes where unnaturally bright colors make it physically painful to watch, only in very few occasions does this happen. In the Hobbit, it's almost every single scene that I see so many lens-flares, and shimmers that it is just an eyesore to watch. Lastly, for a big budget film, they could have at least tried to make the CGI look real, many scenes with CGI animals, or the orcs are just embarrassing to see, and look like they weren't even rendered properly.
I would like to see a fan edit that takes into account the scenes from the extended editions. 2 films that keep some of the changes made to the original source (some Legolas and Tauriels' scenes, the White Council and Radagast have to be in the story) but keep the futile scenes to the minimum
I'd recommend the two-film edit by Adam Dens. It cuts the majority of the filler content whilst keeping subplots such as the White Council but makes them more interesting due to it being over two films. The first film ends with the barrels (a much shorter sequence may I add), and with the reveal of the necromancer, meaning Lake Town begins the second movie. The pacing is well done and keeps the focus on Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. Here is the trailer, hope this helps: ruclips.net/video/45UMmNk_myQ/видео.html
I agree with you good sir in almost every way concerning these films, though I would submit to you one more irritation concerning filming and one concerning characters. Personally the 3D digital filming to me made the whole thing seem very cartoonish and to me film seems more real to me. And concerning character the thing I would have changed was the incredibly forced elf/dwarf romance, that is to say not have one. We don't need it and there is no way someone falls in love with someone in a day, at least not enough to risk their life and existing relationships for them. This whole segment of the movies is in sharp contrast to the LoTR trilogy regarding love which triumphs long standing romance (Aragorn&Arwen) over new impulsive one (Aragorn&Eowen). What should have been done was make Legolas and Tauriel romantically involved but make Tauriel more innocent and fascinated by dwarves and dwarven culture and thus sympathetic to their cause and more willing to explore Erabor. Then have her die saving Legolas' life in the battle of the five armies which is why Legolas leaves the Greenwood to wander for 60 years and why he personally is prejudiced against dwarves in the LoTR. Thoughts?
Saruman didn't die falling down from the tower (onto the spikes). His servant (the shady guy whose name I completely forgot) slits his throat in the shire a long time after the LotR ends. Yes, he goes to the shire after getting defeated, and after he dies the Valar don't accept him back because he failed his mission.
I remember reading some theories about one or possibly even multiple "The Hobbit" movies back in like 2008.... i was incredibly excited, there was an actual possibility of these movies coming to life sometime! At that point i already read the book, i was (and still am) a huge LOTR fan and i wanted those movies to happen, they NEEDED to happen... now i wish it didn't happen. After seeing it for the first time i defended it, said that it "perfectly captured the book's atmosphere"... but that didnt last long. If this never happened i could at least keep imagining it in all it's potential glory.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Damn, that zooming out shot of Jackson sat exhausted and alone on a vast and gaudy set surrounded by ruin is saddest visual metaphor for this trilogy ever
Are you telling me even movies have DLC now?
Schwarzer Ritter they had DLC before videogames had DLC.
4 Words
Star Wars: Special Edition
So, cgi aliens are basically horse armor?
Schwarzer Ritter movie loot boxes in the future
Schwarzer Ritter
XD
Love your comment. So true, lol.
Kein Name Can I swap DLCs and give the stormtroopers armoured horses?
To me the first movie was the best. Especially the scenes in the Shire. Those scenes captured the feel of the book for me.
I agree about the Shire. Once they leave, however, the film goes downhill faster than a roller coaster. From Roast Mutton onward, the film is SO damn cringe-inducing.
The misty mountains... yeah, that part was amazing...
I agree with you. Saw it in Sydney in IMAX. One of the best theatrical experience i ever had, if not the best.
Agreed!
I also thought smaug was pretty good for the most part
But at least Jackson was honest about it
Will he refund my ticket price and give me 4 hours of my precious life back? That would be the honest thing to do.
MMGWsceptic you've probably watched three times those 4 hours in shitty RUclips videos that you can never get that time back. So don't be a dick.
You aren't owed a refund just because his movie sucked. You paid to see his movie, so that's what you got.
ya honest knowing those scenes would not be seen by anyone until like a year after the theatrical release. honest after the fact is not honest at all because you have escaped the consequences. They have all our money anyways now. However i understand why not talk about his struggles during promotions because then most people would stay away. This all goes to show why studios have to much control in reality when coming on he should have been able to just say we need to scrap what del toro has done completely and start from scratch and postpone this film altogether. Nope that could never happen so because of that he had no choice but to do this rushed mess. Knowing this gives me a better appreciation though for a story basically out of no where jackson did a great job.
sick avatar dude
The worst part was that the movies had some really good components that are just overshadowed by big problems
Give on of the fan edits a try! I've only seen the Maple Edit (4 hours) and the improvement is enourmous. The BotFA is still mostly trash though.
if i would describe the hobbit trilogy in one sentence:
missed opportunity
@Jon Dillon artistically and creatively, the Hobbit was a huge missed opportunity.. just because something makes money doesn't mean it's successful, especially when it comes to art
More like 1 incomplete sentence.
If I were to describe the LOTR trilogy in one sentence:
Overhyped and overrated
@@kegsmagegs1516
No, that's the MCU.
I’d say both
If only Jackson had the time to create another masterpiece on the level of Lord of the Rings
He did, it's called King Kong
@@HAL-vm3wn no.
@@sir_john_hammond Did you seriously name your youtube account John Hammond, Jurassic Park is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
@@user-tz2mh1ex2v Your name doesn't sound much better. Burema sounds like a disease.
@@user-tz2mh1ex2v Hahaha Jurassic Park is a film icon. It is objectively a well made film.
The only disappointment with the Hobbit trilogy was that Jackson didn't use the Benny Hill song during the escape from the Goblins.
What a tragedy that was.
Perfect!!
Auto subs interpret "Saruman" as "sour mom"
Juicy.
plaidyissues lol
JK Rowling: Saruman was a single mother
Any plans to do an analysis on what makes The Lord of the Rings films so great?
It's a start! ruclips.net/video/OrAT0cD4pvA/видео.html
Indeed. Appreciate the reply! Love the channel, always looking for great film analysis. Hope you find the time and or motivation to tackle the trilogy.
It has been a year, but there was same type of BS in LOTR as in Hobbit.
Peter Jackson somehow seemed to think that cutting away Saruman's dying was a good idea. Like why the heck.. Saruman dying would had removed all the loose knots from the story and plot could had moved nicely forward from there. It's true that the movie was already very long, but PJ should had rather cut more stuff away from the ending than that short few minute long piece from the beginning, which was super significant.
Edit. Oh nvm Just Write actually mentioned that bit on this video. :D
In the books, Saruman didnt die at Isengard. He went to the shire and ruined it where he was defeated in a rebellion. He should have added that part in the 3rd movie, not his death in the 2nd movies extended edition.
+ Jonathan Roberts: That would be a waste of time, since they are only marginally less awful than this shambles.
I don't think that Jackson gets enough credit for actually managing to make a film trilogy given the circumstances he found himself in.
@Eddie Venkman as far as I know, Tauriel was also pushed for by studios. Basically, the entire production was pre set by studios and Jackson had to comply to that, therefore was kind of paralyzed as a director himself
Then stop production to figure out wtf you’re doing.
I don't think people give the studio enough flak for not giving the production some time to organize itself. They easily could have afforded it... look at how much money both LotR and The Hobbit made them alone.
May I ask what happened
What bad parts did the Studio force in? and what were Jackson's work?
@@motazfawzi2504 the love triangle, the white council stuff, the galadrial flirting, extended legolas.
I miss when movies were not 90% shitty noticeable CGI and used half CGI and half real world. so sick of it
Thank God Jackson didn't have enough money in the budget to afford more cgi in the lotr trilogy
@@FloatingOer Think again.
The fact Jackson stepped in at the last moment and was forced to make it up as he went along explains alot - but it doesn't excuse anything. The films were an insult both to the ticket-buying public and to Tolkien's legacy.
Yah it pisses me off to no end when people actually say these movies are great. They are objectively bad movies. No it is not a matter of opinion. If someone enjoys the movies as meaningless entertainment then that is fine, I have no problem with that. But they are FACTUALLY bad!
That isn't a good mindset to have on any movie.
How can anyone argue that a film is factually bad? Saying these movies are "great" is a huge stretch but there are plenty of people with mixed feelings about them and I wouldn't say they're scientifically incorrect. It's a pretty toxic view to have.
Definitely!
GoCrazyDontMindIfIDo The Hobbit was a beloved book for me. This trilogy was so awful it turned my stomach and I couldn't finish it. Maybe someone liked it and maybe someone likes drinking urine.
I think one of the fundamental flaws of the films was trying to balance screen time between 13 dwarves and a Hobbit. They didn't get the balance right and instead of the touching story of a hobbit trying to save his home land, (like in Lord Of The Rings) we follow a grumpy, emotionless dwarf motivated by greed for 9 hours of tacky CGI battles and poor character development.
At least it was better than Star Wars, the Unwanted SJW
J. Haller Productions it's not just personal greed, its a fear of losing your home, rejecting the world outside because they rejected him. He didn't just keep everyone out of Erebor because he's greedy, Thorin was bitter about their abandonment of him, only supporting him for their own gain.
Greed for 9 hours, bah
shoulda called it 'The Dwarf'
What do you expect? This has always been Jackson's modus operandi. Ignore the chance to give the source material justice and flesh out what is already there, to replace it with complete made up nonsense and CGI battles involving completely made up characters and characters already existing doing things that Tolkien never had them doing.
The title of the book is The Hobbit. For long stretches he doesn't appear and when he returns to the screen I was like 'Oh yeah, this is supposedly a story about this guy.' The problem isn't so much one of balancing, it's of ignoring that it was never meant to be 'balanced' - it's about the hobbit.
Does anyone have an issue with colours in the Hobbit trilogy? Some scenes look like the camera lenses were wet during the shooting. Light parts of the picture look terrible.
I think that's one of the worst visual things about this movie. It only highlights (heh) the fake, CGI feel of it all and it sucks so much.
yea i wasnt really on board with the ultra high contrast and bloom effect.
Yeah, I think that's among the things I hated the most. They bloomed out the highlights. And that is a conscious decision, not a mistake. My guess is it's meant to hint at a "brighter" world at "dawn" or something, before the events of LOTR.
But when Just Write cuts between shots of The Hobbit and LOTR you see how much more beautiful and better LOTR is, it looks earthy and sublime, how a fantasy world should do!
It's because they were using 3D camera equipment which didn't absorb color very well. And if you watch bonus features they talk about having to make sets and makeup brighter and with vivid colors in order for them to look normal on camera.
The colors did look strange at times
Lord of the Rings used more nature, less CGI, it looked more real, the Hobbit looked "magically" unreal
fun fact: when filming Beorn's hut/house the view behind where Beorn was standing cutting wood was fantastic. In order to get it in better lighting though they waited until the evening but unfortunately as they waited the sky became rather overcast and threatened to rain forcing them to build a greenscreen behind Beorn and then reconstruct the background using the... they have a term for it, but the photos they took earlier.
I think the best point you've made in your reviews is regarding the philosophy of adaptation. It really looks like Peter Jackson didn't know what he was doing from the very beginning of pre-production: he had never decided whether he's shooting a fairytale (and thus staying true to the source material), or a prequel to the Lord of the Rings (which would require extensive re-writing). Both decisions would be reasonable and could result in a very good movie(s). Jackson decided to do both and neither at the same time. The films never had a chance of turning out well that way.
Sir David Payne Good summing up. Everything and nothing at the same time is quite an apt way to describe what went wrong with Jackson's solution.
Not to mention they just covered everything in cheese. Good god, those movies were cringe-inducing. Everything that was meant to be dark and intimidating was made silly and stupid. The movies didn't even focus on the damn Hobbit.
Jackson wasn't in pre-production, he joined during regular production.
@@Richard_Nickerson True, but it was stated even by Jackson himself that they didin't use any of Del Toro's concepts or pre-production material and decided to just come up with stuff on the go. So it was his or the studio's (or both) choice to go with the blank slate.
I could tell immediately that Peter Jackson didn't know what to do just by his facial expressions and body language. He just didn't look like he was committed to the production of this Trilogy at all.
Of course he wasn't. He was forced to go by a shopping list given by the studio.
stop defending Jackson dude, Two Towers and ROTK was CGI schlockfest too the man is just a giant toddler who cant control his garbage impulses
his face gives me "I'm exhausted, but I have to do it. But I wanna do it right. But I'm not prepared. I have no time. I have to wing it. I hate this." vibes
The movies are still a bitter disappointment. LOTR was a such a masterpiece.
Most of LoTR was as much an adaptive disgrace as The Hobbit is. The Extended Editions help LoTR a lot but the theatrical releases are dreck for the most part. It suffered from as much lousy plot lines, unfinished invented plots and distortion of characters as The Hobbit did. Granted, they were better overall MOVIES than The Hobbit.
guibox3 ignore the Tolkien purist.
Is that supposed to be a disparaging term? Someone who read and valued the books because they're good is to be dismissed because what does he know? Anything good about the LOTR movies was attributable to the source material. Where it deviates, it fails. The Hobbit simply had more deviation. Give someone something flavorless covered in chocolate and call it masterful cooking, and then when someone points out that it's only the chocolate that's good you say "Ignore the chocolate purist."
WalterLiddy no it often is better in its deviations the movies aren't perfect but neither are the books they focus so much of filler and world building that it really grinds the pacing to a halt and many characters like Aragorn are as bland as cardboard in the book thankfully the film fixed Aragorn and gave him a character arc but then the tolkien purist complained sigh you people are so blinded to your love of the books you ignore its shortcomings.
LOTR was a masterpiece compared to these ones. The overall result of LOTR was good enought for me to buy the BluRay Extended edition but there were flaws and custom addons (Arwen saving Frodo for ex.), custom cutoff (Tom Bombadill) and custom madness (Saruman dying changing the final return to the shire). Don't you agree? :)
I definitely feel sorry for Jackson now. I saw him as George Lucas, when really he was Sam Raimi in Spiderman 3. Lucas had complete control and completely fucked up. Jackson had studios ruin shit, even while they refused to pay him. There are some great visual imagery we can take from The Hobbit films though, I just try to picture them with the actual plot of the original.
It boggles the mind they were forced to stretch it to a trilogy, I guess that's what a lot of that love triangle was about. By the time of the extended Battle of the Five Armies one, I think they stopped caring because of all the retarded stuff they do like the chariot with spikes on decapitating six mini-trolls/whatever they are and Gandalf's staff short circuiting followed by the retarded death of Alfred.
+Snag Prophet i read an article where they were talking to Evangeline Lilly about the whole thing and apparently she even outlined in her contract that she didn't want to be, and wasn't going to be, a part of a love triangle sub plot, and for the majority of filming she wasn't, then near the end of production they brought her back for reshoots and it was entirely that subplot and she was majorly pissed off about it but told if she didn't do them she wouldn't be paid at all
+TheCriticalGamer Really? Wow.
yh just looked it up again to check myself and here's the article moviepilot.com/posts/2581844
It's why the first film and a half are pretty good, then it just devolves into nonsense.
The Star Wars prequels are secretly brilliant
Understanding what Jackson was going through, how he didn't even have completed scripts because he was thrown into these movies, makes me surprised that they're watchable at all. I think that is a testament to his abilities in its own way as much as LoTR.
Something else that bothered me about the Hobbit trilogy: there's something really weird about the cinematography that I can't quite put my finger on. The LOTR trilogy has a very painterly look to it - as if you're watching a cinematic oil painting.
The Hobbit on the other hand, looks weirdly flat and low contrast. Laketown just looks incredibly...blaaaah somehow.
P.S. I just stumbled across your channel. Good stuff! I've subscribed.
I thought the laketown was one of the good aspects of the movie
I’d put that to the 48 FPS cameras they used. It makes everything look hyper reel and items like matte paintings would look like paintings and not part of the scene.
The movie sucks because it looks and feels like a video game movie.
battle of five armies was to me just one long-ass battle scene with the build up and the falling action added on. it was really tedious, and detracted from my appreciation of the previous two hobbit films as the trilogy was not completed in a satisfying way.
this is my opijnion
Also, notice how literally every single elf in the army had the same plain face. I've seen people actually compare 'the battle of five armies' battle to helms deep and pellenor fields in lotr.. Tbofa is possibly the worst battle I've ever seen. Terrible cgi/ special effects, zero tension & completly boring, cuts away from anything important aka thorn vs azog
Exactly! A lot of people hate them all but I like the first 1 3/4 of them quite a bit despite being not as good as LOTR. The end of the 2nd film makes it apparent the story had the potential to be great if it was just 2 movies.
Not a Sage nah the third film is the best of the three, all the story elements were saved for it after two movies of build up. Just because an hour of the film is fighting doesn't mean it's pointless fighting, you've got a lot of stuff going on in those fights, primarily with the contrasting presentation of Thranduil, Bard and Thorin as leaders, progressing in motivation as the fight goes on. Reducing an hour of storytelling to "Just a battle" is quite a shallow way of tossing something aside.
Why praise Pellenor Fields so much? Jackson fucked that up too. For example Grond didn’t just smash the gate, the Angmar let out a scream. The haradrim had a cavalry charge against the theodens army as well. Angmar and Gandalfs showdown... also the ghost army
The battle of the 5 armies was literally just 2 pages long in the book. And it only described the beginning of the battle. Everything else was just hastily described. Just saying "We won" basically.
I didn’t like hobbit because it felt like a game.
1. Accept Quest
2. Tutorial to ride a pony
3. Outrun enemies
4. Diplomacy with elves
Ect
Seriously the running and tap out enemies felt like Mario but looked like Skyrim.
Also had too much CGI
Etc*
It's short for et cetera, not ec tetera
I just watched the full review. I have SO MUCH RESPECT for the time and effort you put into your videos. Whether I agree with your opinion or not, you are really out here working my man, and you have my infinite respect for that. I don't think I've ever seen a RUclipsr doing as much with their videos as you. WOW.
This film was a shambles, and I really pity Peter Jackson for it. You can tell he just had no passion for it, and that is either bc of his stressful lack of prep and making it up as he went along, or bc of how much time (like 18 years collectively) he spent on it.
Pre-production is THE MOST important part of filmmaking, period. If you fail there then the rest of the film will suffer because of it.
Thanks one more time for your wonderful analysis of why The Hobbit failed as a film. Also, I think it would be great to analyse also the technical stuff (48 fps, 5K, digital cameras, strange use of colours etc.).
I saw the first one in the high frame rate and it had severe problems. The action scenes were nice and crisp, and the water flowing looked almost real, but the closeups and interior scenes looked jarringly flat and almost like a bad daytime soap opera. I'm not sure what caused this effect or if it was poor lighting, but it was horrendous.
I've seen some explanation for the fake 'soap opera' look. When you get into very high frame rates, you lose the subtle motion blur of traditional film speeds. This isn't how we see in reality. If you quickly move an object in front of your face (like your hand), the image blurs, leaving trails behind because your eyes can't quite keep up. Faster frame rates eliminate this, leading to a flat, artificial looking image. Some people notice this in action heavy scenes, others in the more static shots (probably because there is less to distract you from how unreal it all looks).
5K is practically useless bc the human eye can't compute anything above 4K. That's why some bits of the Hobbit are actually really sickly to look at - there's just too much detail in the pixels for your eyes to figure out so it feels dizzy.
The cameras are also the reason for the weird ass colouring in the film - they had to make the costumes poppy colours bc they were coming out green or not at all on the camera.
So moral of the story: tech doesn't always make a film better.
subkontrabasklarinet and even on our film course we're only told to use a higher frame rate if we're going to film in slow motion.
24/25fps is what you film in, otherwise the picture just looks really dizzy and gross. Again. Bc your eye doesn't see that way.
So, do you feel dizzy when you look at the outside world ? Because it sure has too much detail for your eyes to figure out...
Here's the thing about The Hobbit (the book). It says it right in the title, it's about the damn hobbit. The book is Bilbo's story. It's not the dwarves story, it's not about Gandalf, it's not even about Middle Earth. The book tells a very character focused story, and we follow Bilbo's perspective from start to finish. This WORKS for the story that this book is trying to tell, since it is so much smaller in scope than the LotR. (This was written as a children's book, after all, not an epic war novel.) For the purposes of movie making, it might not have been so bad if they had cut away from Bilbo every once in a while to show us other things that were happening elsewhere, if they had still kept the focus of the film mainly on THE HOBBIT, for fs sake. It seems like maybe about 90 percent of the problems with these movies could have been solved by simply not trying to make the story into something other than what it was meant to be.
"Buy the extended edition"
- Christopher Lee
My problem with the Hobbit my favorite book of all times is that the dwarves looked ridiculous
To be fair, in the book they all had coloured helmets, that wouldn't particularry look good
@@twanduvigneau5809 No, they had different colored hoods. Which would look just fine.
After watching your brilliant series, I'm even gladder that I didn't shell out the hefty ticket price for the second and third part when all I heard were negative reviews. It's wonderful to be able to see why they were negative without having to sit through 6 (7? 8?) hours of films thanks to your in-depth look at this!
I'm an aspiring screenwriter and filmmaker, and I've learned LOTS from this series! I couldn't agree more on what you said about making promises to the audience and having to fulfil them/satisfy them before the credits roll. (Or after, in case of the MCU, hehe^^)
Can't wait to dive more into your channel! :D Best from Berlin!
The Films would’ve been better if Peter had more time they would’ve been as legendary as the lord of the rings. The studio gave him 2 months for The Hobbit. Before then. Jackson had 3 years to make Lord of the rings. So he didn’t know what was happening and what he was going to do.
It's not just the rushed production. It's having to step in and fix what was already there. I give props to Jackson for stepping in and getting the job done.
Would have preferred the film to have come out in 2016 rather than 2013 if the quality had been good
@@ice1330 2016 would have been a crazy movie year
And Del Toro spent 18 months on it before he was relieved. Man I want so much to see his vision.
Most people don't watch the extended editions so you can't rely on that to fill in plot points. A movie needs to be well defined even without the extended edition which is really just there to add something to the already solid story
Out of the three films, I feel the first one is the best. Coincidentally, it's also the one that sticks closest to the source material, and the one that has the most influence from Del Toro...
Hi! I am a big fan of the Hobbit and actually even more of its appendices, yet on a lot of arguments I agreed with you. I am glad you made this vid, because it resolved all the points I felt that you were wrong about. Thank you so much for this series, it is so clear and thorough.
Your reviews on these movies were great. You were almost right about everything. Besides all the things you pointed out, the trilogy just doesnt feel right. It didn't live up to its expectations and I'm not even talking about the inaccuracies compared to the books. This whole trilogy just seems to be one big cartoon designed to make the viewer go 'what the hell is that' instead of bringing a good strong story.
+Michiel Gulickx I rewatched the first movie of the Hobbit yesterday. I wanted to give it a second chance. I had to force myself to see it to the end and im not watching it or the sequals again ever. RIP LotR franchise.
+UchihaDualStorm Well don't say rip lotr franchise too quick. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy has it's flaws just like any movie (series) but it's still a masterpiece in almost every way. It's also very innovative considering visual effects. The Lotr trilogy pretty much set the standard for every fantasy movie afterwards.
I liked them, and I liked your analysis, mostly because I get to go in depth into the world.
So why don't you apply this logic to LotR? They left out some important stuff like setting up and explaining the elves leaving Middle Earth early in Fellowship of the Ring. They left out Saruman's death from The Return of the King. He's just forgotten about in the theatrical version. What about Eowyn being healed after being wounded in battle? Or what about the important scenes with Boromir and Faramir and their father that help set up why he treats Faramir badly later on? I guess the movie's bad and we shouldn't care about it being in the Extended Edition because those scenes should've been in the theatrical cut. They're just trying to make us buy the same movie twice! It's like game DLC but for films! There's an unspoken promise by the filmmaker that the conflicts raised in the story will be adequately resolved by the end of the movie (or in some cases properly set up in the first place)! They amputated a finished movie just to force me to pay for it again! It doesn't matter that the problem is fixed in the definitive version of the movie, it's forever a piece of garbage! If your criticisms also apply to LotR, then admit they are also bad movies and their Extended Editions are the result of greed, or set aside these criticisms and use better ones instead.
Now, The Hobbit is not as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It feels like the same expansive world as LotR. There are exciting action scenes. Good performances. Consistent looks for returning locations, consistent casting where it makes sense. The overall plot is the same as the book, and the added subplots are coherent, at least in the Extended Editions. The stuff that ties it in more heavily with LotR is based on the source material, so no problems there. If Peter Jackson had better circumstances to make the movies, they'd be better. Given the time constraints, immense pressure, and severe sleep deprivation, it is a miracle that this film trilogy is as good as it is. Tolkien would still hate it though.
Your review really was cathartic to me. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, to the point I have the extended editions, books on how the movie was made, posters, and documentaries on it. I love every single thing about it, and seeing the hobbit movies was so dissapointing it made me plain and simple sad: Sad it wasn't what I wanted them to be, sad that it didn't hold a candle to the LotR, sad that it lacked the heart of the original trilogy and sad to see PJ in the position he was. To this day I keep watching your hobbit review from time to time just because I really like them. So yeah, thanks for that review, and I hope to see you soon. It's been a while since your last video
I walked out of the final movie when I was at the movies. I was so bored, in the middle of the final battle, and especially disappointed what had been made. It was like pissing on LOTR to make them
I completely respect everyone who worked so hard on these movies. I don’t like the trilogy but the cast and crew earned my money. As long as I know a film team worked hard, they have my respect.
No one seems to acknowledge all the lore ret-cons to make Azog a villain. It was so forced. It’s because they made the movie about violent conflict and revenge, and no an adventure of a hobbit.
Exactly. That's what made the book so charming: it was just a simple tale of adventure, experienced through the eyes of a Hobbit.
@@hanburgundy4317 except Azog (and Bolg) were in the book, and Azog killed Thror at Moria.
@@RealNTAF
And Thain's cousin Dain killed Azog in the battle of Azanulbizar. What's your point? Azog wasn't a part of The Hobbit - because he was dead. His son Bolg was in the book, but only briefly mentioned during the Battle of The Five Armies. The whole plotline they fabricated for the movies about Azog "the pale orc" and his band of orcs that were chasing the heroes the whole time bore no resemblance to any of the events regarding goblins in the book.
@@hanburgundy4317 not true as Bolg was leading the army from North, just as he did in the movie. Making Azog the villain is no different than making up Lurtz to give Bormomir's killer a name in the Fellowship.
@@RealNTAF
...it's entirely different lol One case is personifying a nameless character who already existed for the third act of the film; the other is reviving a dead character (who was dead LONG before the events of the book) and completely altering the plot of THE ENTIRE film to revolve around said character. The events of Tolkien's The Hobbit center around Bilbo and his adventure; the events of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy center around Azog and Thorin, with Bilbo taking a definitive backseat. It's just weird, and no offense (as you obviously liked it) but it butchers the source material.
"While we were making the 3rd Hobbit movie, we realized we didn't have a clue about how to shoot the battle..." Gee, could that maybe mean the 3rd movie(if it had to have happened at all) shouldn't have focused so darn much on a battle which was barely even in the book?
I realize it would have been better for them to have done just 2 movies, but I wonder how much better the 3rd movie might have been if they focused more on the repercussions of the battle, the goodbyes, Bilbo's journey home, and maybe bridging the gap between the prequel trilogy and the LotR trilogy as well
Before I watched this series of videos I honestly wasn't sure whether I wanted to watch them since I know that your channel is very persuasive and The Hobbit Trilogy are my favourite films of all time for personal reasons. However after watching this series I would like to say congratulations to all the hard work you put into these videos, they were so well made and clearly had a lot of passion behind them. The Hobbit trilogy will remain to be my favourite films of all time but you have opened my eyes to how a film can have many flaws but still be loved. So again thankyou for your review, I'm going to go re-watch them now and bask in the glorious world of Middle Earth!
JW: "there should be an unspoken promise between the creators of a film and its audience, that the conflicts raised in the film will be adequately resolved by the end of movie"
David Lynch: "lol, no"
I didn't watch all of your Hobbit videos because, quite simply, I cannot stand watching more of The Hobbit. One or two of your videos was enough for me to confirm my suspicions through your excellent analysis. However, I appreciate that you made this video because it speaks to your convictions and that you aren't willing to be cheated by big studios. I commend you for that.
Having a script and a clear sense of what is going within an action scene seem basic requirements for a good movie. One wishes Jackson had just said, when asked to step in to save the mess, "I prefer not to." And I completely agree: I'm not spending more money to find out what happened to objects and characters you didn't make me care about in the first damn nine hours of storytelling.
But Sage! What about the various Hobbit fan edits? For instance, JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit is considered by many to be the definitive adaptation of The Hobbit What the L do you think about fan edits?
Great video by the way.
+Will Hobson Thanks! Haven't seen any of the fan edits, though I do like the idea in theory. I think I'd have to judge it completely separate from the actual films themselves. In other words, a positive fan edit wouldn't much change my opinion of the theatrical releases, only confirm that there is a good film buried somewhere under all of the filler.
Sage Rants I feel the same way. I know the theatrical releases are less than stellar. But the fan edits just highlight what's already good about the films. Martin Freeman really has time to shine, and the action scenes have a little bit more tension. But I'd say it's well worth a watch.
Sage Rants I will say however that I'm not too big of a fan of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit's ending. Mainly for the same reason you mentioned in your review. But otherwise, it's a superbly put together edit.
I saw a fan edit of the Stars Wars prequels and they were so much better than Lucas' edits.
Mr Cat, really? Because, the SW prequels are just full of bad acting and they are built on a not so good foundation. Whereas the Hobbit movies actually have good acting and quality storytelling and sets. However the good things are sometimes covered in action and CGI crap. The SW prequels ARE action and CGI crap.
The Desolation of Smaug was honestly so bad I couldn't bring myself to see the last one. I was so pissed off by the end, it was everything I could do not to just walk out of the second one.
LOTR was brilliant in so many ways. The extended versions were just perfect. Everything that was cut was understandable. The movies work in both versions.
no, LOTR definitely isn't ''perfect''
@@reek4062ya but the thing I like about LOTR was how it was perfect
@@preston0808 LOTR ruins Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Faramir and Denetor, so it isn't perfect
@@reek4062 agreed, great movie series
@@reek4062 LMAO No.
Thank you very much for making all these vidios! I think you spend very much time and effort in making them and formulating your opinion and that is commendable. One interesting point I think you try to make, is that there are differences between 'cause', 'blame' and 'excuse'. As you mention, the cause for the problems in the hobbit is that there was not enough time to prepare everything. Who to blame is a complicated matter, and in the end, doesn't really matter, because it is not a good 'excuse'. Imagine the president accidentally firing nukes at another country, and then saying 'I'm sorry, I didn't sleep well last night'. Once again, thank you very much for your work, it's great!
5:40 that dead eyed thousand yard stare though... he clearly did not want to be making these movies for any reason other than $$
He didnt want The Hobbit to be an absolute failure and never get another adaptation is my guess.
These videos have certainly been cathartic for me. Good work.
I agree 100% with your opinion of the Arkenstone. It bothered me so much that the issue had not been resolved that I consider it one of the biggest plot holes I've ever seen in ANY movie. And no, I haven't seen the extended versions because I've already seen the Hobbit trilogy and don't care to see it again. They had their chance and they blew it.
Rick O'Shea can’t disagree with that. It’s a real shame because some parts of the movies are good
As a Tolkien fan, I can say that the trailer for DOS had got me so hyped. My brother and I watched it together and were jumping up and down the whole time. Like you said, I have sympathy for what Jackson had to deal with, but overall, I couldn't get behind it, no matter how much I wanted to.
How in the hell can something like this even happen when there's that much money on board?
Don't the studioheads who finance these things know how much work goes to plan how the movie, scene, or even a sequence goes. They can't just expect that a talented filmmaker who's thrown on board at the last minute to craft a perfect masterpiece, without first taking some time to pre-plan the film.
I watched your whole series on The Hobbit today and afterward I watched the JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit fan edit of the movies (which I think is an improvement on the original). I think that both your videos and the fan edit show so clearly that less is more. When you trim all the unnecessary fat of a story what you have left is a stronger story that the viewer is more interested in. This is a great lesson for me personally as I am studying creative writing, so thanks for the videos they were great (actually I like everything I've seen on your channel)
I've loved the book since I was a child and was really excited to watch the movie! (Also lotr was my favourite movie of all time.)
Then I watched the hobbit trilogy. Let's just say this, it's the worst trilogy I've ever seen (yeah 'twilight' get outta of here!)
I thought the hobbit had soooo much potential to be soooo good, but istead they used the well written pages of the script to wipe their dirty asses with! (too far?) Me and my dad discussed for hours about how they should have made only two movies, cut out the pointless nonsense and focus on the main character Bilbo instead of F***ing Legolass jumping on rocks!
Then just yesterday I found your seires and I must, YOU'RE AWESOME!
Watch the Maple Films 4 hour edit of the Hobbit trilogy. It cuts out almost all the baggage and makes Bilbo the centre-point. It also colour grades the film to make it look like another LOTR film. Trust me, it will soothe your pain.
Could you provide the link please???
Everybody Loves Rasmus yess ive had discussions with my brothers 2 about how it shouldve been 2 movies!! love ur comment btw
[response to 1 year ago]; the Hobbit book has always been better material to make a "dudes on a roadtrip gone wrong" story; just 90 minutes of Bilbo and the Dwarves shooting the shit on a roadtrip, getting attacked by random creatures, complaining about the weather, with the cankery high-IQ 1000+ year-old Gandalf telling them to get their shit together. I am 100% not joking; that is *what the book is,* and that would make an awesome movie.
@Samuel Wallace - You nailed it.
Thank you sir for giving such a great analysis of why these films were not successful. The one thing that I will never understand about Jackson, is that, he had a novel to go by to tell this story, but still, in his own words, "Didn't know what the hell he was doing", lol. Still, just boggles my mind. To finish, as a long time Tolkiendil, I couldn't agree with you more on the Hobbit trilogy.
I like how you mentioned an unspoken agreement between the audience and the movie maker. There are certain things the fans want to know, and although the fans do not always want what's best; there is certain extent where the film should please the fans.
So if the fans want things that constitute bad storytelling and guarantee a disappointing result out of ignorance, then a filmmaker should give them a crappy movie, to please them? What? It's the job of the filmmaker to know how to make a work of quality that fans will enjoy. Whether the fans are aware of what will be enjoyable or not is irrelevant to his/her process.
Lmao your first point about the arkenstone made me laugh so hard. I’ve NEVER thought about that and you are so right.
aww i feel so bad for Pete now. it's great to see him talk about it that honestly though
SAGE! Thanks for your thorough review, and thanks for addressing these comments. As viewers we often take advantage of the content tossed on RUclips and end up not appreciating well the content makers. Well, I appreciate you, dude! I'm that budding-filmmaker you mentioned, and going through the many aspects of the Hobbit with you has been very educational. I'm in the middle of a script I've been working on for a few months now, and watching your key points has made me evaluate some of my own character motives, actions and plotting in my writing. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and I pray for much success and strength on your future projects. Thanks, keep doing you and best wishes! You're awesome.
I think is actually easier to explian: I would rewatch Lord of the Rings endlessly. I do not want to rewatch The Hobbit.
You're my hero :D
I am binge watching all your videos... before I take out my notebook and watch them all again :)
I still love these movies despite the flaws. Wish I could say the same for the new Star Wars.
100%
I can see all the negative aspects too and the trilogy could have been way more epic and organic, but I am happy that it exists at all.
The fact that you weren't interested enough to watch the extended edition reminded me of how I paused one of the movies during the barrel-riding battle scene to do some chores. Then I stopped the movie and couldn't bring myself to finish watching it for several weeks. And I seem to recall that I fast-forwarded past ridiculous and boring battle scenes, and didn't watch the trilogy thru a second time, and either threw away or gave away the DVDs.
And the most I can muster up now is to watch a few scenes that people uploaded to RUclips, and all of this from a person who bought several editions of the LOTR movies and watched them over and over.
I guess that does explain why all the scenes with Bilbo are very clear and to the point; where as all the action scenes (which were made up and occasionally even forced for the sake of not wasting everyone's time standing around on set) are a complete fkn mess. Additionally explains the use of CGI, seeing as all they could really do was have the characters fighting green guys and add everything in later on. - It explains why the things they chose to do were done badly.
It does not explain why they chose to do those things. Why they chose to focus on action and sweeping landscape shots, rather than dialogue through referential exposition (as with the books). It does not explain why they had all the terrible characters forced in, nor does it justify "Bard's family troubles" and "interspecies romance" that do nothing for the plot nor the story. It does not explain why Logolas rides hundreds of miles away to Gundabad to witness their drama for the audience, and then rides all the way back in what seems like a few days and barely arrives in front of the "marching" orcs.
In both trilogies, we got an action packed fan-fiction interpretation; one was made well, the other was made poorly. Though fan-fiction in tone and quality they remain. - Thanks for the insightful videos.
I'd argue the tone of the previous movies was much closer to that of the books than you appear to give credit.
@@SunburnCity Meh, as much as I love the Lord of the Rings movies (I prefer them to the books, honestly - the books kind of drag and the characters aren't as compelling), I can admit that they altered and left out a lot of the source material and that they added a lot of fluff; they're hardly true adaptations of the books. But, while the LotR movies - fan fiction that they were - were masterpieces, the Hobbit films were flat out garbage and differed so greatly from the source material as to be almost unrecognizable. They misrepresented what they _did_ include, to a disgusting level. Everything was made silly - cringe-inducingly so; all gravity and depth was removed. Every scene that is even reminiscent of the chapter it references wasn't presented anywhere near how Tolkien wrote it or meant it to be. I've tried watching a couple of the fan edits, but even what is still there does no justice to the book and I can't appreciate it. The visuals were stunning when it came to backgrounds/setting, but the rest of the movies are so aggravatingly cheesy and unbelievable.
As someone who loved these movies I gotta say I enjoyed these videos. With other people that didn't like these movies they seem so angry and mean spirited. But you approach it in an intelligent and well-spoken manor. You give fair and strong criticisms some of which I can actually agree with.
For me the most disappointing part was the escape from Woodland Realms. I was hoping for some very dark tension borderline claustrophobic (I know it's a kids movie) while the dwarves were escaping in the barrels. Instead we got that game'ish action scene which made me laugh at how bad it was...
You have put all of my thoughts and feelings on this trilogy that I couldn't quite articulate into complete succinct perfection. Subscribed.
Kind of heartbreaking that it turned out like it did, like if he had the time and preparation it could've turned out great
You make a very good point when comparing LotR to Hobbit. The extended editions flesh stuff out and add flavour, but are not necessary. One issue is that the gift giving is cut from the original FotR, but that seems like more of a screw-up than intentionally cutting up the film to sell you the extra bits.
The worst thing about The Hobbit movies is that they totally disregard the Middle-Earth timeline and canon.
Krisha Actually How so? They actually added a lot of stuff that wasnt in the book in order to reference the LoTR movies (Saruman, Sauron rising, Legolas, mention of Aragorn..)
@@calick7208 Aragorn at the time of the Hobbit was 10 years old and lived with Elrond, he didnt had the name of Strider, he wasnt even known as Aragorn, Elrond told him his real name when he was 20. The mentioning of Strider/Aragorn was just a stupid error.
@@Hesher93 According to the movie's timeline, he's 27 at the time of The Hobbit, so it makes sense he'd gotten his nickname by then.
@@calick7208 he is not
@@Hesher93 He claims to be 87 in The Two Towers, and Fellowship begins 60 years after Bilbo found the Ring (there is a hard-to-miss "60 years later" subtitle at the start of the movie). You do the math.
The reason for this is that they skipped the long wait for Gandalf when he left the Shire in a rush after Bilbo's final departure, turning it from years to a mere few months. The movie timeline is actually 17 years ahead of that one from the books (both LoTR and Hobbit included).
I saw an ad for a film with the tag line "from the makers of Lord of the Rings" earlier this week. All I could think of was "yeah, but those guys also made The Hobbit movies".
I have to heavily disagree about cutting Saruman from the Return of the King. Saruman is (arguably) the second biggest villain in Lord of the Rings, and we need to know what happens to him. The scene that was cut, wraps up all loose ends with Saruman and Grìma Wormtongue.
Maybe it's just me, but I would've like this scene to be in the theatrical release. Instead of what we got, which was just Gandalf saying, "Don't worry guys, leaving this evil dude with all of his powers unchecked will definitely not bite us in the ass later. Now, let's go deal with Sauron, because some idiots in the past left him with his powers unchecked and now it's come to bite us in the ass."
The problem is, that's what happened in the book. Sarumon and Grima were not killed until way late and they were in The Shire, where they had continued to cause problems.
In the movie, they revisited the site and an army of ents were keeping watch. Considering they were the ones who just overthrew him and there was no army returning to rescue him, it made sense that they were capable of keeping him helplessly trapped in a tower surrounded by a moat. He, as a threat, was pretty much neutralized and it didn’t require some tacked on murder by Grima.
Personally I think a trilogy could have worked for Jackson if he had more time. If he was in charge at the very beginning instead of Del Toro then it would have been like LOTR all over again. Del Toro is always cancelling projects left and right so it’s no surprise he left, but if Jackson had the amount of time just like he had during LOTR he would have made magic no matter if it was a trilogy or not.
I no it does not matter anymore but I want to point out that Jacksson did say no to 7 weeks of pre poduction that could probubly have helpt a lot.
The first one was nice. That part where Neo is sleeping and he wakes up and the computer has those messages. It's cool.
they split a short book in 3 movies....and i need to watch the extended edition to know the "true ending" ?thx but no thx
The book wasn't that short; it's about as long as The Fellowship of the Ring.
Hans Ollo its a fair bit shorter
Hans Ollo Even then they could have eliminated most of the Unexpected Journey plot and add the Lake Town segment and in the second movie Smaug dies, and the battle of te five armies
@@hanburgundy4317 Hobbit = 400 pages, Fellowship = 570 pages, almost 50% longer.
Yooo thanks for returning to this! Awesome.
When movies start having paid DLC
I know I am late in saying this but you making that video or series of videos helped me more than you would think. I want to make films and that video opened this side of RUclips that I didnt know existed, the video essay. Thank you sir
Yeah while it's wrong to blame a director like Jackson for everything wrong with a movie, it is fair to do so imo. I mean when a movie is a success usually the director takes all the credit for it doing well. They are usually considered to have the last word on anything put into the movie, so it is their fault for the most part. Some times producers can stick their noses in but with a big name like Jackson you know he didn't have to put up with to much studio BS. He had free reign to do what ever he wanted, and this is what we got.
Yes and no. Fillipa Boyens was very vocal and forceful on what she wanted to be in these films - a lot of the changes and additions made to the LotR films were her doing and not Jackson's. No amount of putting your foot down is going to stop those with creative control - especially those in charge of financing - from putting what they want in a movie. The studio is generally at fault for any film's shortcomings; it's rarely the fault of the director.
I enjoy this channel very much. I am always looking to learn new things when it comes to writing, movies and art in general. It's nice to have analysis done by other people that appreciate this type of work. Thanks so much!
Jackson done goofed. 😂😂😂
Your closing line was killer! Actually LOLed man! Well done!
I liked an Unexpected Journey. I thought it was fine, it had some of the more enjoyable thematic moments... but it goes pretty hard downhill from there. I agree with you about the lack of dramatic tension and how that hinders you from getting into the scene. I also REALLY liked how you referenced a GREAT moment in the fellowship to counterbalance the tension-less issues of the chase through goblin town. I also think that that was an issue in Dr. Strange, the lack of tension, in large part because of the three dimensional nature of the magic and the warping of space, made it very difficult to follow.
I appreciate reviews like yours, I like the insight they provide, and even if I come across something you or someone else does that I disagree with... I can still like it. I try and be open minded, actually open minded not just say I am open minded, ignore your point and wait my turn to yell back at you... that is not how I like to act or represent myself. Anyways, this was fun, I agree with most of your points here and I really want to do a special shout out to the one you make about your previous videos: it was VERY cathartic to hear someone who had articulated their points talk about feelings i had about the other films, even the first one... the one I liked. It helps to have clarity in one's mind about something that caused such duress, which seeing a book I love reduced down to pretty much nonsense, is incredibly disheartening. So thank you for that.
if you liked the first hobbit then you are very simple minded. the film was made for people like you. The type of person that likes the fast and the furious saga as well because they are so profound.
I will always love the Hobbit Movies(and the film adaptation of Middle Earth as a whole) but I agree with your series of arguments against certain elements. It's definitely not immune to criticism, even for a fan. I appreciated your putting my thoughts into coherent words, and giving me something to think about in terms of storytelling. I thought you did excellent on the whole thing.
100%
I think the biggest blame should fall on the movie companies for wanting to push out 3 movies instead of the planned 2 so they can make more money out of it.
Next in line is Del Toro for bailing on the project. I know he only signed up for 2 movies and everything but I doubt he really cared about The Hobbit enough to begin with, if he could just abandon 2 years of work that way.
+DmanDmax I'm pretty sure they split it in three because Peter Jackson needed more time.
+St M. That doesn't make much sense in light of what was going on at the set because that would mean 50% more work and that they'll have to waste time and pad the running time in order to stretch it to 3 movies, which is what happened. I think they even admitted at some point that they wanted to tell the story of Bilbo on the same level they have with LotR, which is PR talk for we want more money.
Actually bailing off and letting the studio deal with it's own stupid issues is exactly what someone who cared about The Hobbit should have done. I seriously can not to this day believe Jackson didn't flip them off and leave.
Studio basically put Del Toro in a room with The Hobbit tied to a chair and told him "beat it to death". Then did the same thing with Jackson. The difference is that one of them just said "fuck no" and left the room...
DmanDmax peter Jackson himself said it was his choice not the studio.
As a writer, I can really appreciate your analysis on this trilogy. I personally enjoyed the movie, but I can definitely see the faults that you've described and agree with the reasoning as to why they are shortcomings to begin with.
Have you seen the Maple Films cut? It takes the three films and their extended editions and cuts them down to a nice, manageable 4:19 mins with a mid-film intermission.
Honestly, it was GREAT! I feel like it finds the perfect balance and actually rescues a terrible trilogy and makes one really great film. The pacing is fixed. The extraneous characters are removed. It's focused. It's a hundred times more enjoyable.
Thanks a ton for your videos on The Hobbit mess. It helps people to turn “that was terrible “ into something tangible and useful.
The Hobbit films disappointed me from the first film, simply because of visuals. I understand Greenscreens will always be a thing in modern, big budget film making, but the Hobbit hurts for me to watch (and not in a overly dramatic sense, it actually hurts my fucking eyes), with so many jarring things popping out of every scene, with so many garishly bright golds and greens shinning almost constantly. In @videogamedunkey 's new video he describes Halo 5 as having too much shit on the screen, and making it impossible to really tell what is going on, and it describes exactly how I feel about the Hobbit films. They are just way to many things on the screen for my eyes to comfortably focus on
Look at LOTR and you'll see very few scenes where unnaturally bright colors make it physically painful to watch, only in very few occasions does this happen. In the Hobbit, it's almost every single scene that I see so many lens-flares, and shimmers that it is just an eyesore to watch. Lastly, for a big budget film, they could have at least tried to make the CGI look real, many scenes with CGI animals, or the orcs are just embarrassing to see, and look like they weren't even rendered properly.
I would like to see a fan edit that takes into account the scenes from the extended editions. 2 films that keep some of the changes made to the original source (some Legolas and Tauriels' scenes, the White Council and Radagast have to be in the story) but keep the futile scenes to the minimum
I'd recommend the two-film edit by Adam Dens. It cuts the majority of the filler content whilst keeping subplots such as the White Council but makes them more interesting due to it being over two films. The first film ends with the barrels (a much shorter sequence may I add), and with the reveal of the necromancer, meaning Lake Town begins the second movie. The pacing is well done and keeps the focus on Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin.
Here is the trailer, hope this helps: ruclips.net/video/45UMmNk_myQ/видео.html
I agree with you good sir in almost every way concerning these films, though I would submit to you one more irritation concerning filming and one concerning characters. Personally the 3D digital filming to me made the whole thing seem very cartoonish and to me film seems more real to me.
And concerning character the thing I would have changed was the incredibly forced elf/dwarf romance, that is to say not have one. We don't need it and there is no way someone falls in love with someone in a day, at least not enough to risk their life and existing relationships for them. This whole segment of the movies is in sharp contrast to the LoTR trilogy regarding love which triumphs long standing romance (Aragorn&Arwen) over new impulsive one (Aragorn&Eowen).
What should have been done was make Legolas and Tauriel romantically involved but make Tauriel more innocent and fascinated by dwarves and dwarven culture and thus sympathetic to their cause and more willing to explore Erabor. Then have her die saving Legolas' life in the battle of the five armies which is why Legolas leaves the Greenwood to wander for 60 years and why he personally is prejudiced against dwarves in the LoTR.
Thoughts?
Saruman didn't die falling down from the tower (onto the spikes). His servant (the shady guy whose name I completely forgot) slits his throat in the shire a long time after the LotR ends. Yes, he goes to the shire after getting defeated, and after he dies the Valar don't accept him back because he failed his mission.
6:04 Hello, darkness, my old friend...
I remember reading some theories about one or possibly even multiple "The Hobbit" movies back in like 2008.... i was incredibly excited, there was an actual possibility of these movies coming to life sometime! At that point i already read the book, i was (and still am) a huge LOTR fan and i wanted those movies to happen, they NEEDED to happen... now i wish it didn't happen. After seeing it for the first time i defended it, said that it "perfectly captured the book's atmosphere"... but that didnt last long. If this never happened i could at least keep imagining it in all it's potential glory.