Back on release I gave this movie a lot of shit, but reviewing some of the scenes it wasn't bad at all.
If you can ignore the useless appearances of legolas,the elf chick and some of the comedy crap the movie itself is a well made story.
So tell me, Holla Forums which part did you like best ? I probably liked 3 the most because of the war, but part 1 was great as a story. 2 felt very weak.
Also is dwarf tech superior to elvish tricks ?
Other urls found in this thread:
I like the opening of 1 the best, up until they're on the road. It's comfy and is the only part of the trilogy (apart from the Smaug and Bilbo scene) that feels like the book.
So like 1/10 of the films? Don't forget the awful awful cgi. There's also two really bad films to one decent one.
Isn't there like a fan edit somewhere that cuts out all the shit that wasn't in Tolkien's book?
I'm surprised no one has made some allegory of the Dwarves being Jews retaking their homeland and screwing over the humans who lived in Dale as an allegory to the Palestinians and the West Bank. Also the elves as an allegory to Aryans.
Yes its somewhere online.
Part 1 was the most tolerable. Part 2 was filled with so much bullshit I couldn't sit through a lot of it. It was so absurdly with unnecessary things to fill out screentime and it was so uninteresting. They try to make you believe they gave up on their quest because they can't get through the mountain, when you know better that the movie is not going to end this way. That should have been cut. The fucking around inside the mountain trying to evade the dragon should have been cut. Ideally, Part 2 should have ended with Smaug being killed by Bard the Bowman and then having the movie focusing in the Battle of the Five Armies. At least it wouldn't have ended on such anti-climatic note as it did. I was fortunate to have seen that at home, because if I have seen that on theaters, I would have so unbelievably pissed off.
Well 3 add some decent fighting scenes. 2 is cancer though. Even the smaug dialogue is bad.
A lot of people did, but I dislike that comparison. Tolkien's dwarves are strong and fight head on. Jews are not like that.
2 was indeed really annoying in the cinemas. It had a lot of really bad camera play and bad links between the scenes.
Also this old animation has probably the best Smaug dialogue.
The dwarves weren't really all that Jewish, pic related is the closest to a Jew in the movies I can think of. Morgoth and Sauron were also pretty Jewish in the books.
...
IF you are going to watch this The Tolkien edit:
tolkieneditor.wordpress.com
removes most of the bullshit (love triangle, Radagast,Legolas shit,etc.) & combines the hobbit into one 4 hour movie that is closer to the book.
Personally I think he could still do a bit more cutting but this is far better than sitting through all the fluff and shit of the originals. Radagast….someone needs to hang for that.
DELETE THIS
There are more aggressive edits out there, but personally I had enough after watching the first movie, no matter how much you cut out it will still be shit.
Hackson didn't learn anything from the successes of the Lord of the Rings films, instead he used the Hobbit as a test bed for new special effects technology. Script-wise we'll never know how many of the bad decisions were written by del Taco before he fled the project and how many were added when Hackson was drafted back in because they haven't talked about it much.
To contrast with the 10 hour bloated shitshow, the Hobbit cartoon managed to cover the story quite faithfully in just 78 minutes. All Hackson had to do was take that as an inspiration and expand it to his usual three hour time slot to fit in all the things the cartoon had to cut out and then stage it in the same style as his Lord of the Rings films. It would have been the exact product movie audiences were expecting and it wouldn't have received any major backlash.
Well he originally only wanted to do two movies right? Then I think he was pressured into three and thats where all the bloat comes from.
Yes, it was much better that the one from the shitty Hobbit ones; Even when the modern one is more loyal to the book description!
Yes, Smaug boast more like in the movie, in a calm way, instead of the animated more, more "classical dragon". Surprising, isnt it? Even by being more like in the books, the modern Hobbit one is just mediocre, and has less integrity than the animated one.
Vigo Mortenssen kind of warned Jackson about his wrong direction he was headed in.
He said the lotr movies were getting progressively worse as Jackson relied more and more on CGI.
...
Ah cool any suggestions?
Based King of Gondor .
But the 3rd movie is unfilmable without CGI. The Battle of Plennor Fields would have been laughable without those YUGE wide shots of Rohan charging into the army of Mordor. Mortenssen was right about Jackson's direction though.
It's the best part of the trilogy really. Except you have things like this:
The fake-tolkein writing gets old real fast.
Yeah man its like it captured the spirit more than the details. Hell it even had songs in it while the Jackson version didn't.
I liked seeing it once. Never felt the need to ruin it and see it again. Frankly the movie was long winded, but when you're in a comfy theatre it doesn't bother you
What allegory is there to make?
It has always been there.
Mordor are Germans.
Hobbits are british.
Elves are the Celts.
Rohan is France.
Gondor is the USA.
Dwarves are jews.
Southron are niggers.
Easterlings are Turks/arabs.
It's not like it's complicated.
5 Armies is retarded because it's essentially a videogame that gives more screentime to the gay butler of Laketown's mayor than it does to the titular character. But nothing triggers me so hard as the fucking Dune Worms. Where did they go after the conveniently dug a hole for all the orcs? They didn't go backwards, obviously, and they didn't do anything at the battle. Why didn't Sauron or whoever use them to crush Gondor or anyone that resisted them? Seem like handy creatures to have, they make oliphaunts look like rats.
Nigger, the opening for 1 was retarded. Frodo has no business being in this movie and neither does old Bilbo who should look more or less the same.
The 20 minutes exposition we get from Bilbo in a desperate attempt to copy Fellowship's intro should be given as exposition between the Dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo on the road so that the audience learns like our (supposedly main character the fucking hobbit) AND so that there is some character interactions beyond Thorin being grouchy at having a hobbit with him. Then we can see the emotion in the dwarves, show their sorrow for what they've lost by having them talk about how great things were, throw in a song, cut out Radagast and the wolf chase. The flashbacks throughout these movies were annoying as fuck. There were more flashbacks than in LotR, which shouldn't happen but that was the only way to get anyone interested-or informed-on the characters (in hackson's mind at least).
It would be hard to break up the Hobbit cleanly in 2. I've mulled it over and there are 2 different ways: Either the way the first one ended, after they escape the goblins and wolves, so that Part 2 can open up with Gandalf introducing them to Beorn like in the book (simultaneously explaining what they've been doing to him as well as the audience and reintroducing each of the dwarves). Also that chapter is comfy, and it would be good to start the movie comfy before the company is back on the road into the forest.
Another way would be to have Part 1 end with them being captured by the Elves, so that the audience is left on a cliffhanger. But it stretches part 1 out.
The first Hobbit had songs, the dwarves sang and the goblins had their song too. The only thing you can't criticize this trilogy on is the music.
Hackson gets some of the details spot on, and then completely ignores other more important details for inconceivable reasons. Goblins are not a different species than orcs, it's just what hobbits call orcs. And the fucking Dune Worms, wtf
b8/10
Best part about these movies is they made me go out and buy a new copy of the book so I could experience out properly again.
If you never read the book or just don't mind them raping the source materials they're ok "cool fantasy shit happening" films. As adaptations they're irredeemable.
Forgot about that. It would be better without that but that scene was probably for the nostalgiafags to clap wildly at.
Just this would have made the entire movie 50% better.
It only works if something is actually kino, fam.
Worst thing that happened to the Hobbit movies that they were based on the LotR movies. Being forced into a trilogy instead of one long movie was already bad, but the tone is all over the place because of the disparity between the source material and the style of LotR movies. It's a huge mess. I don't think I would have found them passable even if I had never heard of the book.
I liked the Gandolf/Witch King fight where Gandolf goes super sayin.
Still could've worked if they kept a consistent style, but apparently they didn't know if they wanted to do a serious prequel to the LotR movies or a fun adventure movie for the kids, so they tried to do both and failed horribly. That's why you have the whacky chase scene inside the mountain, as well as the more serious and heavy stuff with the White Council debating over what to do about the Necromancer.
I would have preferred a more serious prequel to LotR, but I recognized that both ways would have worked in their own right, unlike that tonal chimaera we got.
Lord of the Hobbits Multiverse when?
What did he mean by this?