# [Rant] The Hobbit Movies are an Abomination



## Mercurius (Aug 31, 2015)

I can't seem to avoid those monstrosities that Peter Jackson churned out as HBO keeps playing them, again and again. But as I write this I'm watching a few minutes of the bloated _Battle of Five Armies _and I could help but ask that cliche, but potent question: What would John Ronald Reuel think? I shudder to imagine. 

Where the flaws and excesses of the _Lord of the Rings _films were forgivable because it was so clearly based upon a love of the source material, aside from a few cringe-worthy moments (e.g. the infamous "imagine a queen, both beautiful and terrible!" Galadriel freak out, or the excessive sentimentality of "Oh Sam!") they were pretty good films to boot. They captured, as best they could, the feel of Middle-earth.

But the Hobbit movies...well, they are to the original LotR films as episodes 1-3 of Star Wars were to the original trilogy. A soul-less, materialistic, CGI mockery. A total travesty. Where the LotR movies were flawed but beautiful homages to Tolkien, the Hobbit films are like searching his grave-site for valuables people might have left.

I did kind of like the Lonely Mountain sequence, with Smaug being pretty good and the Dwarvish halls being visually stunning. And of course there were other visual thrills. But I couldn't help but feel like it was all just a paper-thin spectacle veiling a money-grabbing ruse. I would have rather have seen Jackson produce a single movie that was for younger people, that didn't try to dredge up the leavings of the earlier films.

OK, I'll stop, but I could go on...

For shame, Peter Jackson.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 31, 2015)

You shouldn't really blame only Jackson. He didn't really want to direct the Hobbit movies. He was kind of forced to do it.


----------



## Dioltach (Aug 31, 2015)

I enjoyed them. Granted, the extended editions of the first two at least are head and shoulders above the cinema releases, and hopefully the third will be too. But I liked how the story had been adapted to suit a movie-going audience of 80 years later. So it wasn't a literal retelling -- it was still a series of enjoyable, escapist adventure movies. And that's pretty much all I ask for.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2015)

The Extended Editions are indeed a distinct improvement over the cinema versions. Which is odd, since my biggest complaint in the cinema was that they were too long, and the EEs are, obviously, longer. But the pacing just works better with the extra material.

But the comparison with the Star Wars prequels is pretty apt, IMO - there's quite a lot of good stuff in the Hobbit movies, but it's buried under a lot of stuff that just doesn't work.

All IMO, of course.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 31, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I would have rather have seen Jackson produce a single movie that was for younger people, that didn't try to dredge up the leavings of the earlier films.



This. Or alternatively, I'd have been interested to see Guillermo del Toro's version of The Hobbit.

Imho, the biggest mistake with the Hobbit movies was that Peter Jackson tried to turn it into a sequel (prequel?!) of the LotR movies, rather than realizing the material would have been better served with a different approach that preserved the source's appeal for a younger audience. That, and inflating the (rather simple) story completely out of proportion.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 31, 2015)

I finally made it through the third movie, a while back, after having shut it off partway through. Horrible, bloated, CGI crap. "The Hobbit" is a nice, little story that could have been done well in a single movie. It's a story of coming to maturity. The movie added a bunch of garbage, to the original story, that could easily be skipped. It was remade into epic scale, where epic scale didn't exist in the original. 

I'm not one of the people who lamented the additions in "Lord of the Rings." I didn't go on about how Galadiel's dress was the wrong colour and the like, as did some of the Tolkien purists. I thought that they were good adaptations of the original books to screen. I would gladly see "The Hobbit" series erased from the collective consciousness.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 31, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> But the Hobbit movies...well, they are to the original LotR films as episodes 1-3 of Star Wars were to the original trilogy. A soul-less, materialistic, CGI mockery. A total travesty. Where the LotR movies were flawed but beautiful homages to Tolkien, the Hobbit films are like searching his grave-site for valuables people might have left.




Perhaps they are a souless money grab, but comparing them to Eps 1-3 is going too far, IMO. Now, I am not a die-hard fan of Tolkien (I actually enjoy more swords and sorcery pulp action) but I have been around the books a number of times. The movies certainly took an "action movie" approach to slower paced childrens book (and perhaps lost its soul), but its not the abomination that is Eps1-3 for Star Wars. 

If taken on their own (ie, ignore the book), the movies were OK. I think if they would have moved all the Necromancer stuff to the 3rd movie that would have worked much better. They could have focused a bit more on the Hobbit story that most people "know" in the first two. Then all the other stuff "say, where was Gandalf, and what is the consequence of all this loot?" would have flowed better. The Necromancer/5 Armies story would have blended very nicely if paced right.

While they did shove a few elves in there that were not in the story, at least it was not kids in pod racers /Jar Jar Binks/Space Jesus. You could very well infer that Legolas would have been part of that story (he was from that Elven kingdom, right? My lack of Tolkien cred here) so while its annoying from a canonical perspective it has a fun connection to LoTR given the immortality of elves. The Necromancer stuff was in the story but not detailed. They had a nice build up, but it sorta fell flat as it went in the 3rd movie (again, I think if it would have been self contained in 3 it would have flowed better).

SW Eps1-3 are just BAD. I cringe to watch them. There just seems to be something cringe-worthy in about every scene. I have probably seen more of these movies that I should have based on their value due to the very entertaining Red Letter Media reviews of them. Even with the Machete viewing option, I really wonder if I will ever show my kids any of Eps 1-3. Its in the Ewok Christmas special bucket - its out there, but it does not exist. Now the Clone Wars animated series on the other hand - excellent. It will likely fill in the Eps1-3 hole.

The Hobbit - I can watch them. The first two plus the first 10 minutes of the 3rd (but maybe minus the gold dwarf thing) are decent enough. They are below the LoTR but maybe on par with Jedi - pretty good, but still weak in places. They are not banned from viewing. But I would have my kids read the book first for sure.

You can grab some of my money if you at least entertain me. Hobbit has some entertainment value. SW Eps 1-3 is just garbage.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 31, 2015)

Find the David Killstein fanedit, which condenses the whole trilogy into three hours. I watched it this past week, and yeah, it is pretty good. There are some flaws that are unavoidable since the editor had to use existing material, but it comes together amazingly well. (The final battle is done in a montage, to capture the feeling of a tragic, hours-long battle without you actually having to watch that tedious crap.)


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 31, 2015)

[MENTION=26651]amerigoV[/MENTION], I hear you and basically agree - it isn't an exact match, but it is close, imo. My point was mainly that the relationship of the Hobbit films to the LotR films was isomorphic to the relationship of eps 1-3 to the original trilogy.

But I do agree with you that if you take way any connection to Tolkien, the Hobbit films are passably entertaining. But it is hard to do that. But I do agree that it isn't quite the abomination that was eps 1-3 in that the Hobbit films don't damage the legacy of Tolkien, or even of the LotR film trilogy. It is hard not to feel that the eps 1-3 damage the Star Wars legacy - which is compounded by the CGI that was placed in later versions of eps 4-6. 

Not to threadjack my own thread, but I do wonder how eps 1-3 would look with a simple re-casting of Anakin Skywalker, and the removal of the infamous "Noooo!" shriek of Vader at the end. Hayden Christiansen almost single-handedly ruined one of the greatest villians in cinematic and science fiction history with his ham-handed acting ("I hate you!"). A simple replacement of him with, I don't know, a young Tom Hardy, could have really changed the movies - Jar-Jar Binks, metaclurians and excessive CGI aside.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 31, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Not to threadjack my own thread, but I do wonder how eps 1-3 would look with a simple re-casting of Anakin Skywalker, and the removal of the infamous "Noooo!" shriek of Vader at the end. Hayden Christiansen almost single-handedly ruined one of the greatest villians in cinematic and science fiction history with his ham-handed acting ("I hate you!"). A simple replacement of him with, I don't know, a young Tom Hardy, could have really changed the movies - Jar-Jar Binks, metaclurians and excessive CGI aside.




The whole thing is rather broken, IMO. I know same fans have recut it, but it just misses in so many places. If you have never watched http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/ reviews, give it a shot. It really hits home just how badly made those movies are. Its script, direction, setting, and just stuff does not make sense.

And it just not have to be that way. Clone Wars animated series proves it. And its not like CWaS is the best thing ever, but a good 80-90% of it was done right IMO.

I do get your broader point and I know its hard to divorce the literature from the movie wrt the Hobbit. Both sets of movies failed against high expectations established by their predecessors. But that is why I kinda cringe at the EPS 1-3 comparison. Hobbit has a direct comparison in another media that worsens your enjoyment of an otherwise "meh" set of movies. That is what it is and I have no issue with that (your opinion, I at times I share it). But SW Eps1-3 is just horrible on its own. There is no media analog to suggest they did it wrong. Its just clear that they did it wrong .


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Aug 31, 2015)

I'm still pissed that the 3rd movie didn't include the line "Azog, we have wormsign the likes of which even Sauron has never seen."   That would have made it all worth it.


----------



## darjr (Aug 31, 2015)

Its bugged me since I saw them. I hope a recut of the extended editions helps.


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 31, 2015)

So, if the Hobbit films are an abomination, which abomination(s) are they?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say, "Anaxim" -- the _Ill-conceived constructs crafted by gods of the forge_ -- but tastes may differ.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 1, 2015)

They were entertaining, but I was still a bit disappointed -- I was looking for something more true to the essence of the book. So I'd love to see a "Tolkien edit" that's just the book stuff.

Still, they aren't Ep 1-3 bad, though those movies are entertaining in their own way.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 1, 2015)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> They were entertaining, but I was still a bit disappointed -- I was looking for something more true to the essence of the book. So I'd love to see a "Tolkien edit" that's just the book stuff.
> 
> Still, they aren't Ep 1-3 bad, though those movies are entertaining in their own way.




The 1977 Rankin-Bass "The Hobbit" animated movie is rather good.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The 1977 Rankin-Bass "The Hobbit" animated movie is rather good.




Surprisingly, yes.  Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, after all.


----------



## MechaPilot (Sep 1, 2015)

I actually enjoyed the recent Hobbit trilogy.  I also don't mind that additional material was added to make it into a trilogy and to further connect it to LotR.

There are some things about the films that bug me.  For example, Legolas running across falling rock in the third movie is sort of cringe-worthy, not necessarily because of the concept, but because the execution with the CGI was so flawed.  However, every movie has something wrong with it if you look (Lando wearing Han's clothes at the end of Empire, etc).

As far as comparing the Hobbit trilogy to Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars, I don't see it.  I will also say that Episode One is not so bad; it's far from great, but it's not so bad.  It has pieces that suck (midiclorians), a racist stereotype character that we all could have done without (Jar jar), a child actor that could have been replaced by a better one, and a podrace that felt like it existed more for the sake of comic relief and selling merchandise than actually being dramatic and furthering the plot.  That said, the CG was pretty good, the lightsaber fights were head and shoulders above the original trilogy, the musical score was good (especially for the Darth Maul battle), and it was interesting to see the Jedi in their role as peacekeepers and to see how Palpatine ascended to power.

The second one was certainly downhill from the first.  The love story failed and the detective part of the story had no gravitas.  The best parts of that movie were 1) seeing Yoda fight for the first time, and 2) the post-slaughter scene.

The third one felt like a step up from the second, but not enough to salavage it.  We have a great lightsaber fight and we get to see the payoff as Anakin becomes Vader, but the corruption didn't feel pervasive enough.


----------



## Sialia (Sep 1, 2015)

Agree agree with post that started this thread. The first was unbearable and I refused to watch the other two.

Just re-read the book with my 7 year old as a bedtime story (over several weeks), and it was everything it should have been just that way.

Also, we made seed cakes for bedtime snack to go with it, and they were darn good.


----------



## delericho (Sep 1, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> However, every movie has something wrong with it if you look (Lando wearing Han's clothes at the end of Empire, etc).




Lando had just had to walk away from his entire life. And the Rebellion probably didn't have access to huge quantities of stylish clothing. So it's not all that unreasonable he would borrow a few items from a friend - especially since Han's wardrobe would have been right there on the Falcon waiting for him.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2015)

tuxgeo said:


> So, if the Hobbit films are an abomination, which abomination(s) are they?




This kind?

[video]https://youtu.be/xNj1XTnXc_M[/video]


----------



## MarkB (Sep 1, 2015)

I didn't see the third film at the cinema, but finally caught up with it a couple of weeks ago after it showed up on Netflix. I shouldn't have bothered.

I will say that the one redeeming feature of the Hobbit movies is, well, the Hobbit. Even in the third film, Martin Freeman's performance shines through the dross, and his scenes are a pleasure to watch.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 1, 2015)

There some bright spots, I agree, particularly Martin Freeman. But overall - I have yet to bring myself to watch any of the Hobbit trilogy, other than the first one, more than once. They were a tremendous disappointment, though not an unexpected one.

I'd rather watch *Meet the Feebles*.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2015)

Peter Jackson pretty much admits he didn't have a script and didn't know what to do with the Hobbit films. http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9764016/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-movies-terrible-explanation


----------



## darjr (Nov 19, 2015)

There is a "Tolkien" cut of the movies out there.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 19, 2015)

darjr said:


> There is a "Tolkien" cut of the movies out there.




And it cuts 3 movies that total 7.9 hours down to just one, 4 hour long movie by removing the extraneous material.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 20, 2015)

Think the George Lucas reason can apply here:

“You go to make a movie and all you do is get criticized,” Lucas told Vanity Fair when prompted about why he left the series. “And it’s not much fun. You can’t experiment.”


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 20, 2015)

Well, if Lucas is such a wussy, he'd really better stop doing anything that might be observed by the public. It's okay to experiment, but as the experimenter you have to realize that it's in the nature of an experiment that it might go wrong. Having recently re-watched Episode I to III, I'm also not sure what of it he believes to have been experimental. Perhaps the cringe-worthy 'romantic' scenes in Episode II? *yuck!*


----------



## delericho (Nov 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Peter Jackson pretty much admits he didn't have a script and didn't know what to do with the Hobbit films. http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9764016/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-movies-terrible-explanation




That explains an awful lot.



Hand of Evil said:


> Think the George Lucas reason can apply here:
> 
> “You go to make a movie and all you do is get criticized,” Lucas told Vanity Fair when prompted about why he left the series. “And it’s not much fun. You can’t experiment.”




His evidence doesn't support his conclusion - someone would need to make some good Star Wars prequels to be sure.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> Think the George Lucas reason can apply here:
> 
> “You go to make a movie and all you do is get criticized,” Lucas told Vanity Fair when prompted about why he left the series. “And it’s not much fun. You can’t experiment.”




Well yeah, you do. That's why they actually have people called "critics", who watch movies and then criticize them. When you do something that is meant to be presented to the public at large they'll criticize it, both positively and negatively. If he doesn't want comment on his product, maybe he should stick to making home movies?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 20, 2015)

Ya, give me a critic that has made a movie.  Sorry but people whine and complain because they can't do it themselves, bunch of backseat drivers moaners and want-to-bees if you ask me.  The movies would not have made as much if they sucked, criticize as much as you want, money talks and it says these are good movies.  You may not like them but there are a lot of people who seem to.

When you decide the series is bad, why go to the next release?  Fool me once...


----------



## delericho (Nov 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> Ya, give me a critic that has made a movie.  Sorry but people whine and complain because they can't do it themselves, bunch of backseat drivers moaners and want-to-bees if you ask me.




I don't need to be able to make something in order to tell the difference between a good version and a bad one.



> The movies would not have made as much if they sucked




Ah. You've never heard of 'marketing', then?



> criticize as much as you want, money talks and it says these are good movies.




Yep, and Budweiser is a great beer, Dan Brown is a literary genius, and "Furious 7" is twice as good as the original "Star Wars".



> When you decide the series is bad, why go to the next release?




Because hope springs eternal.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Nov 20, 2015)

I really wish we could've seen del Toro's take on it. There are glimpses of it in the designs, I think.

While I won’t say no to more dwarves and dragons on the big screen, the series definitely felt like it could’ve done with being just two films or so. 



Jhaelen said:


> This. Or alternatively, I'd have been interested to see Guillermo del Toro's version of The Hobbit.


----------



## delericho (Nov 20, 2015)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> While I won’t say no to more dwarves and dragons on the big screen, the series definitely felt like it could’ve done with being just two films or so.




I've never seen a case where splitting one novel into more than one movie has worked well. Usually, you get a crappy first half and a good second (Harry Potter 7, Hunger Games 3 - though don't know about part two yet).

And that's probably a structural weakness: a good novel will have a clear beginning, middle, and end, and a good film will also have a clear beginning, middle and end. Splitting a novel therefore means you're trying to force a clear B/M/E structure into B/M/E/B/M/E, which is problematic at best.

TL;DR version: should have been _one_ movie.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> I don't need to be able to make something in order to tell the difference between a good version and a bad one.
> 
> Ah. You've never heard of 'marketing', then?
> 
> ...




1) yes and don't buy into it.
2) Star Wars: A New Hope is number 2 on adjusted movie list vs number 158 for Furious 7
3) Hold on to that dream of a good D&D movie.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> 1) yes and don't buy into it.
> 2) Star Wars: A New Hope is number 2 on adjusted movie list vs number 158 for Furious 7
> 3) Hold on to that dream of a good D&D movie.




How many wine tasters have their own wine? How many art critics paint? Education and comprehension of a medium do not necessarily translate into skill within that same medium. You know what movies you like. You don't need a producer, director, nor actor to tell you whether you like it or not.


----------



## delericho (Nov 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> 1) yes and don't buy into it.




You might want to reconsider that.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 21, 2015)

Geeks/Nerds are the hardest market segment to please....


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 23, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> The movies would not have made as much if they sucked, criticize as much as you want, money talks and it says these are good movies.  You may not like them but there are a lot of people who seem to.



Err, what? Since when are ticket sale the criterion for a good movie - except for the movie companies, obviously.

This reminds me that I've seen a listing of 2015's top 20 of the most popular tv shows in Germany. It was abominable. There were two shows in the ranks 15-20 that I'd consider 'watchable', the rest was utter crap.

And don't get me started about music charts... I consider it an unfortunate fact that the majority has absolutely no clue what's good and what isn't - and most also don't care.


----------



## Dioltach (Nov 23, 2015)

I realise that some purists hate the movies for not being identical to the books, but I like them. They tell the same story, but updated for a new medium and a new audience 75 years later. The Extended Editions are much more balanced than the cinema releases, and much more enjoyable. The EE of The Battle of the Five Armies is out now, and I'm inviting some friends round for a Hobbit marathon.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 23, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> Err, what? Since when are ticket sale the criterion for a good movie - except for the movie companies, obviously.
> 
> This reminds me that I've seen a listing of 2015's top 20 of the most popular tv shows in Germany. It was abominable. There were two shows in the ranks 15-20 that I'd consider 'watchable', the rest was utter crap.
> 
> And don't get me started about music charts... I consider it an unfortunate fact that the majority has absolutely no clue what's good and what isn't - and most also don't care.



It is not about money but seats; money is about the only thing kept track of a common denominator, what appeals to the largest block of people (insert political joke here) and fills the seats.  People are herd animals, this is where marketing comes into play, it is people trying to tell you the grass is greener, another word for it is propaganda, a lot of people buy into that.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 23, 2015)

Dioltach said:


> I realise that some purists hate the movies for not being identical to the books, but I like them. They tell the same story, but updated for a new medium and a new audience 75 years later. The Extended Editions are much more balanced than the cinema releases, and much more enjoyable. The EE of The Battle of the Five Armies is out now, and I'm inviting some friends round for a Hobbit marathon.




For me, at least, it's a little more nuanced than them just being 'different' from the books. I wouldn't refer to them as being updated for a new time, for example. If they were then they would have been altered to pass a Bechdel Test. There clearly weren't enough female characters to even come close and the only one of any substance was the target in a love triangle. Given that "The Hobbit" is a nice, relatively brief story it could have been told in a single one of Jackson's 3 hour long versions. 

My problems with the movie are with the unnecessary padding of the story. We were given extraneous action-adventure elements, that were unconnected to the original story. The existing story elements were amplified to mythic proportions well beyond what the original story contained or what was required to tell the basic story, even given an "updating" had taken place. I would categorize it as 'splosions over story. In other words, at least from my point of view, there wasn't really enough substance to fill three almost 3 hour long movies. They were bad.


----------



## megamania (Nov 26, 2015)

The series could have been worse..... Michael Bay could have directed it


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 26, 2015)

Exploding orcs, exploding dragons, exploding elves, exploding Gollums, exploding Gandalf...


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2015)

megamania said:


> The series could have been worse..... Michael Bay could have directed it




Given the fight in the goblin "tunnels" I could easily believe that he was an uncredited 'creative consultant.'


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 26, 2015)

About 95% of the second move either never happened or happened differently than was put forth.  I almost poked my eyes out during it.  Hated that one.  The first one was just kinda sorta bad.  It didn't fabricate nearly as much as the second movie did.  The third a kinda sorta liked.  It changed a lot, but it was fun.  It reminded me of the LotR movies.  Not really Tolkien, but a good fantasy movie.

As an interesting note, my wife who had never read Tolkien and didn't know the story, came out of the second move and said, "This movie seemed like it had a whole lot of filler that really didn't make sense with the story."  Even she recognized what had happened and she didn't have a clue how much had been borked by it.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight (Nov 28, 2015)

Sorry new to this thread, but the more I read it, and based on my in-cinema experience of the films, the more I'm starting to think that these should be remastered as seasons 1 through 3 of a Netflix release (6 episodes per season)

I mean, add more slow scenes, wax a bit more philosophical and sprinkle a few more landscapes and setting-oriented sequences and you've got a TV show... (instead of a frantic, 3-movie out of breath marathon...)


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight (Nov 28, 2015)

(for instance, I thought for sure there would have been several discussions / temptations between Gandalf and Sauron, etc.)


----------



## delericho (Nov 28, 2015)

"Battle of the Five Armies" is the first of the trilogy, indeed the only one of the six films, that isn't improved in the Extended Edition. It does have one key improvements, in that Dain gets quite a few more lines, but other than that it's mostly Baysplosions in that already far too long battle scene.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 29, 2015)

Seems an appropriate place to drop this little three part audio play courtesy of Brian Lewis, Scott C. Brown, Andy Dopieralski, Tiffani Pike Schmidt, and Steven Wolbrecht: "Bilbo's Quest for Clarity."

Part 1: https://soundcloud.com/briantothelewis/bilbos-quest-for-clarity-part1

Part 2: https://soundcloud.com/briantothelewis/bilbo-quest-for-clarity-part2

Part 3: https://soundcloud.com/briantothelewis/bilbos-quest-for-clarity-part3


----------

