Agreed. Also, any problems they may have had were the fault of WB trying to screw Jackson over (look it up).I also love the hobbit films and I’m sick of pretending we should not say that. They’re fun! People just had too high expectations
It is more than fine if you enjoyed them. But expectations are not why people disliked them. That's an excuse fans tend to use when there is an overwhelming sentiment amongst a large group that they disagree with. There is a lot to dislike in those movies.I also love the hobbit films and I’m sick of pretending we should not say that. They’re fun! People just had too high expectations
I agree. The base expectations that people had for it were more or less met with most of the material that was directly from the book (Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo meeting Smaug, etc.). If anything it was the stuff that people didn't expect that was met with more hostility, like the unnecessary padding and rushed, borderline cartoonish CGI in a lot of areas.It is more than fine if you enjoyed them. But expectations are not why people disliked them. That's an excuse fans tend to use when there is an overwhelming sentiment amongst a large group that they disagree with. There is a lot to dislike in those movies.
For all of its faults, the Hobbit trilogy has a lot to like about it, mainly the performances. Even the most vocal haters of that trilogy admit that Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo. Richard Armitage was pretty good as Thorin as well and of course you can never go wrong with Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis. Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug was also a highlight.
Overall I do like them but I also recognize that the second and especially third films suffer a lot due to a lot of needless padding. It would have been better if they had stuck with the original plan of only doing two movies. IMO An Unexpected Journey is the best one because it's the one that feels the closest to the source material and doesn't add in a bunch of unnecessary padding. The only real big addition to it was the subplot with Azog which is nowhere near as big a distraction as what would follow later in Desolation of Smaug and Battle of the Five Armies. I've always hated that Scooby Doo scene at the end of the second film with the dwarves running away from and then tricking Smaug. But to their credit, Jackson and company nailed the two most memorable parts from the book, those being Bilbo meeting Gollum and his later encounter with Smaug in the mountain.
I think in order for the pacing to have been improved it needed to be truncated to two movies, regardless of whether Jackson or GDT was at the helm. There would have been a much tighter pace if the first movie had ended after they escape Mirkwood as originally intended.There is ugly CG and such, but really the biggest sin of The Hobbit films is they are criminally boring. Yeah, the iconic bits from the book are well realized. But in general they're incredibly poorly paced and just downright boring. Desolation of Smaug being for me the biggest offender of the boredom. I wish the GDT version had come to pass instead as it would have been more interesting IMO
I think GDT planned on it being 2, but in general I think GDT was more fitting as a director cause The Hobbit inherently isn't as grand or epic as LOTR. It's much more fairy tale like in tone, and that's something GDT excells at. It would have felt more right IMO as opposed to Diet LOTR it ended up trying to beI think in order for the pacing to have been improved it needed to be truncated to two movies, regardless of whether Jackson or GDT was at the helm. There would have been a much tighter pace if the first movie had ended after they escape Mirkwood as originally intended.
I think in order for the pacing to have been improved it needed to be truncated to two movies, regardless of whether Jackson or GDT was at the helm. There would have been a much tighter pace if the first movie had ended after they escape Mirkwood as originally intended.
I think Topher Grace edited all three movies into one 2-hour movie which is something I'd be interested in seeing. The thing that still blows my mind is that for all the added fat in those movies, the big funeral at the end of the third movie was left out of the theatrical cut.Yeah, there was no way it ever should have been stretched out to THREE movies. I know they were thinking "Hey, look at all the money we made with three Lord of the Rings movies!! Now we can do that again!!" but the story just couldn't support it without adding tons of stuff it didn't need.
Rankin / Bass was able to tell the story in ninety minutes. Sure they included songs and cut stuff out, but it still worked. And I think they told it better in ninety minutes than Jackson did in nine hours.
The thing that still blows my mind is that for all the added fat in those movies, the big funeral at the end of the third movie was left out of the theatrical cut.
And even HIS death was cut out of the theatrical version, as ridiculous as it was.Well, they couldn't lose that super crucial footage of Grima 2.0 - I mean Alfrid - dressed like a woman and trying to escape with a bra full of gold, could they? /s
It's not like the funeral was for anybody important. /s