I’ve only seen the first Hobbit film, and was dismayed with all the rubbish tacked on the stretch things out.
If someone did a ruthless edit of all three into one film, as **Gretchion ** suggests, I’d be keen to buy it.
Yes, the hobbit movies have made me swear off Peter Jackson films all together. The absurd fight scenes in the first Hobbit movie made me think of another movie that I hate, hate, hated for the same thing - King Kong. So I looked up who directed that and guess who?
Was forced to go to the second Hobbit movie and it was even worse. As Sauron is my witness, I shall not watch any other Peter Jackson films ever.
Agreed. Maybe I’ll watch one more Jackson movie if that happens.
I agree. I watched the first movie, then re-read the book for the first time in 30 years, and then decided that I’d just wait for the next two to be available on cable, because they were likely to be bloated and have a LOT of extraneous garbage not included in the films.
I knew Jackson directed KK going into it, and hesitated because he’d effed up RotK so badly. But Kong isn’t bad; the fight scenes actually redeem it. And Naomi what’s-her-name’s legs.
It was LOVELY BONES that put me completely off Jackson. He’s too in love with special effects. Supernatural elements or not, that movie didn’t need to be so FX-y. Irt’s fundamentally a story about grief & healing, not an action adventure or a look-what-we-can-do-with-CGI! fest.
I like the Hobbit movies, with the exception of the Smaug chasing the party through the lonely mountain, which is just bizarre. But I don’t see how anyone who didn’t want a long movie with a lot of diversions could possibly like it. It is something only a true fanboy could like, and not all true fanboys are going to want a movie this long.
I liked Fellowship, and felt “meh” about TTT and ROTK.
So far, I really like the two Hobbit movies, especially the added stuff.
Jackson’s “King Kong” was a disaster, turning a 90 minute story into a three hour fan wank. Not nearly as good as the original, which is still one of the best “monster” films ever made.
Do you mean the scenes where T-Rexes were swinging from vines while fighting, for what seemed like hours, or the scenes where tiny seaman run amongst tumbling dinos (for what seemed like hours) without so much as mussing their hair? There are limits to what Naomi’s legs can make up for.
I’m certainly enjoying the Hobbit movies.
They may not be quite as good as the LOTR movies, but they’re still plenty of fun, with lots and lots of really good realizations of scenes from the book. The additional material is fine.
Definite applause for Orlando Bloom reverting Legolas to the version of that character before his enlightening experiences with Gimli. It must have been a bit tough on him to have played the character through such growth and improvement…and then have to have gone back to the hampering role of “old” cranky Legolas.
Huge applause for the artistic designers, who delight us with no less than four completely different architectural styles – nay, five! – Dol Guldur, The Kingdom under the Mountain, Lake Town, the city of the forest elves, and Rivendell. This is a very beautiful set of movies, at least visually. (Barry Lyndon, cough cough.)
I don’t know, I thought The Two Towers was the best movie by far. It felt the most relaxed and reverent.
I have no interest in seeing The Hobbit as I knew it would be dogshit.
I’ve enjoyed both the Hobbit movies. I mean, I don’t think they’re timeless classics or anything, but I’ve enjoyed them.
Probably about as much as LOTR, as a matter of fact. The LOTR movies didn’t match my internal picture of the book, and the Hobbit movies don’t my internal picture of *that *book either. Therefore I’ve felt perfectly free to sit back and enjoy all of them for themselves. That is to say: OTT and a bit too padded in paces, like all Peter Jackson movies, but also stirring and/or moving in plenty of places as well, and still fun.
I have enjoyed both Hobbit films and own* the extended versions of each. But I can totally see where people are coming from with some of the criticism. I watched DoS this week over several days on the bus (on my iPad), and there were still bits I tweaked the slider on.
Fact is, there was just no way to do this right by most anyone after LotR was filmed. The same audience would expect similar, epic grown up films, which is pretty much what they got. But that’s not what the book is. The book is a children’s tale with silly characters that only became important after becoming back story for his more serious tale. I don’t think it would have been either possible, or a good idea, for anyone to make a 90 minute children’s movie out of it maybe for at least the next 15 years.
No, because I reject the premise of the question. He mucked around plenty with the LOTR movies too. Certainly there’s no reason why the Hobbit needed to be more than one part, but as off book as he’s gone, it’s not like I spend my time watching them not enjoying them. Would I have liked a more straighforward direct adaptation, probably, but I would have liked the LOTR movies to have been that way too, and I still like them and still like these.
I enjoyed the longest versions of LOTR very much, primarily because of the stuff that had been filmed but cut from the theatrical release version (the presentation of gifts to the company by Galadriel, for instance*.)
As mentioned, above, though I think Jackson could have made a fantastic 3 hour version of the Hobbit but went overboard for some reason.
*(NOTE: The only think I guess they didn’t film, that I was looking forward to, was the Hobbits frolicking in the field naked when they went to see Tom Bombadil.)
I like them pretty well too. But I hated the book so much that I never read past the first 1/4th so I have no idea what’s invented for the movies other than the stuff people bitch about.
I think it’s like when you see an actor giving a brilliant performance in a movie and you think how great their acting skills are. But then you see them in other movies and they essentially give the same performance in all of them, regardless of whether it fits the character. And you realize what you had taken as great acting was just perfect casting of an actor who can play one role into a movie in which that role fit perfectly.
And I think we’ve found that Jackson is the directorial equivalent. He was the perfect director for making the Lord of the Rings movies. But that’s the result of those movies being a perfect fit for his skill set rather than he being a great director. We’ve now seen him direct other movies and try to use the same direction on them even though it doesn’t fit them.
So Jackson may make other great movies in the future. But he’ll have to be careful to pick the right projects to work on and make his type of movies.
I like The Hobbit movies. I think they’re fun.
The Hobbit movies did not destroy my love of the LOTR movies.
Deciding to watch all three extended editions of LOTR, back to back, destroyed my love of the LOTR movies. It probably didn’t help that we started drinking about halfway through the first film. 
My problem with both the Hobbit and the LoTR movies is that nothing really ever happens to any of the stars. No matter who they face they always get saved at the last minute. You never feel like they’re ever in any real danger.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, Thorin Oakenshield is going to buy the farm in the last movie. so R Fili and Kili, so Legolas and his girlfriend will be able to have their Pon Farr on schedule.
Jackson did a porn version? :dubious:
I loved large parts of the LOTR movies, and hated small parts of them. I have the extended edition of all 3 movies, and re-watch them periodically. Because despite their flaws, the dedication of the cast and crew is awesome, and I believe this is the closest we’ll get to Middle Earth.
I love small parts of the Hobbit movies, and hate large parts of them. The flaws are amplified and magnified, and while still fun to watch (I’ll probably wind up owning all the Extended copies of these as well), they weren’t the (flawed) epic that LOTR was.
In my humble opinion, the fundamental problem is that Peter Jackson feels the need to “modernize” or “adapt” or “put his own stamp on” or whatever the ridiculous justification is that he’s using for his changes.
In the LOTR movies, based on the documentaries in the extended editions, PJ would have strayed even further from the books but several of the actors (most notably Ian McKellen) tried to rein him in and remind PJ to be more respectful to the source material. There was the Arwen at Helm’s Deep fiasco, where a leaked photo sparked internet outrage and led to the pulling of the scene. There were thousands of people on the cast and crew that were dedicated Tolkien fans who tried to keep PJ on track. The scenes that did stray (Aragorn falling off the cliff, Gimli humor, Xtreme Dewd Legolas) were mostly small scenes with few people that could have been done quietly with a minimum of people and even passed off as “gag reels” or whatever the term is now (the stew scene between Aragorn and Eowyn for example). There was also more material to cover than they had room to film, so it was a problem of what to squeeze in rather than what to leave out.
In the Hobbit movies, perhaps because of PJ’s previous success, no one seemed willing to reign in PJ and suggest that he stick closer to the script. There are a number of possible reasons that I can speculate. I wasn’t on the set and don’t have inside information, but here’s some possible reasons the Hobbit movies sucked compared to LOTR:
After the success of LOTR, according to An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition documentaries, Peter Jackson was tired of filming the same movie and wasn’t supposed to direct. He was on a shorter schedule (mentioned in the docs) and the movies feel rushed. The short schedule and new technology (they invented a number of new ways to make the hobbits and dwarves seem smaller than everyone else), plus Jackson’s reluctance to direct, could mean that they were more focused on the effects and getting it filmed than accuracy.
Sure, a number of the “senior” actors (Cate Blanchett, Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving) returned, but there were a lot of new actors in the mix (everyone else). Maybe the newer actors were reluctant to argue with a seasoned director who’d already made an epic trilogy in the series. “Oh, you think so? Well fuck you, I’ll get someone else to play that Dwarf!”.
There was a lot of space to fill by making the Hobbit (a 200ish page book) a trilogy. That’s space they didn’t have in LOTR, where each book was more than twice the length of the Hobbit, yet needed to be crammed into one movie. Hence, they were looking to add material and stretch the film rather than “what can we cut and what do we absolutely need to have”. Maybe there was a feeling of “we can take a few more liberties with this one”.
As much as PJ was lauded by some for the LOTR movies, there were a lot of people out there who were completely or partially unhappy with him. There are a number of quotes from PJ in the Hobbit documentaries were he refers to these people as “the purists” in a disparaging tone. The impression I got was “ok, these people are going to be unhappy no matter what so fuck them, I’m making this movie the way I want to”.
Then there’s the fact that the story for the Hobbit is very different than LOTR. LOTR was epic in scope and breadth, featuring a cast of dozens of different people all across the continent. The Hobbit is the story of 13 dwarves, a hobbit, and a wizard who vanishes for long stretches of time on unknown business. And that’s pretty much it. Sure it’s still a great story, but it’s a more personal, intimate story that features far less people.