And apparently they are awesome. Metro Goldwyn Mayer - again - did some great filming.
When I initially watched the hobbit parts, I was mad about not respecting the books. They kinda did, I know realize. In HD, and in native language these movies are a piece of art.
I had a very strong opinion about how bad they were - but I reconsidered. Even the lead actor Bilbo I opposed - He did a remarkable act. Anyhow. American influence hits hard, once it does. Started at some safari show with a lion named Clarence. Don’t know the name but I loved it - as fair as I can remember.
Love all, but Some.
You must log in or register to comment.
Martin Freeman was tremendous as Bilbo. And if you don’t compare to LOTR it’s a very good adaptation.
But there are two main criticisms that I agree with.
-
it was too long and they added too many subplots that didn’t exist in the book
-
it used too much CGI and not enough practical effects
As a LOTR nerd it doesn’t bother me too much because I’m happy to get more content. But as a film, I think it could have been executed better. There was never enough book to fill 3 whole movies.
Try to track down a copy of the “Tolkien edit”. It’s a fan made recut that clears up a lot of the same grievances I had with it
Oh boy, fan edits! I think I only watched the M4 edit, might have gotten the name wrong. Was pretty good and only one or twonthings are a bit weird because of cuts.
This is the one I watched and enjoyed it. It’s really crazy how much was added. The only glaring thing for me was Thorin’s teleporting sword, and only a fan watching would really notice.
I know, wouldn’t usually mention one but TE was reasonably clean for what it set out to achieve.
I just bought the extended editions…
Gimmee more time in MiddleEarth!
I just wish the Dwarven song in Bilbo’s hobbit house went on for more than 2 verses.
Regarding subplots I think they managed to get a nice rhythm of different scenes. Inwould argue that the book specifically targeted the story of Bilbo where as the film tries to bundle some more story to the available characters. The CGI didn’t bother me negatively. It was done pretty well! Though no CGI would have been best, jepp.
-
I think when they were released, everybody brought the expectations they had from tLotR, which kinda doomed it from the start. That was lightning in a bottle, you can do EVERYTHING right and not get that same kind of success.
The Hobbit Trilogy is good when you remove those expectations.
It’s partially why Jackson didn’t want to try to repeat, it was a unique experience. Credit as well to New Line Cinema for taking the risks of LotR that no other studio wanted to touch. And Jackson did the best he could to save the dropped Hobbit project, I’d rather have the combo of excellent scenes and messes of a plot than nothing.
Admittedly I watched cam rips with bad sound and formed a premature opinion. And I loudly declared that the imdb rating was off. I’m sorry about my actions.
// edit: they may even be able to conquest the throne of tLotR. They are thought through very much.
If they’d just stuck to the book, not shoehorning in subplots and characters for fan service, like Legolas, and made at most 2 films it would have been great. The pacing just isn’t there for 3 films, and it’s clearly obvious.
The Hobbit is shorter than any of the LoTR novels, and the studio demand for a trilogy is the biggest core issue. The base that nearly every issue comes back to.
I’ve find a fan-made edited version online who cut away the whole elf-romance arc and it feels way better to watch.
M4’s Book Edit for me.
i find the site: https://fanedit.org/
Where did the spare barrel come from?
The first film and a half is rather good. It starts going downhill at the river barrel scene.
Then there was the dragon fight in the third one, oh dear was that terrible.
The whole Gandalf knocking off for a bit is cannon though, so I am fine. It kinda explains why the eye returned to Mordor after so long time.
