[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[Pachycrocuta]

Go look up some reviews where people actually give reasons why it is a bad movie, and try and ignore the reviews that sing it's praises just because it's related to LoTR and you will find all the points I listed there and more. I'm sorry that you might like LoTR and that gives the Hobbit a free pass for you, but it's not like that for everyone.

And if I wanted to be INCREDIBLY blunt about the matter, he's a pretty good quote.

"This was a terrible, boring movie with all the awful comic relief, one-liners, and cartoonish, over-the-top retarded action typical of brain-dead Hollywood blockbuster garbage. The magic of the original trilogy is gone."'

(When you're not watching important characters in Rivendel.)

I wonder how many of the reviewers never read the books, and are basing this ENTIRELY on their experiences with the Lord of the Rings movies? I would hazard a guess that 94% are doing this.

[Arrowstormen]

I applaud him for staying close to the source material, but only to a point. Building a series as large as his previous work, even with supplemental source material, can't be done unless he adds considerable material himself. Unfortunately he opted for more battle and action scenes to show off his technicality, which is something I wish he hadn't done.

EE might add some? Probably? Possible? Just a little?

[Badpaladin]

I wonder how many of the reviewers never read the books, and are basing this ENTIRELY on their experiences with the Lord of the Rings movies? I would hazard a guess that 94% are doing this.

He's off-point about reviewers. Most that dislike it seem to understand that the source material is not as mature, but they feel this was a letdown due to how well Jackson directed the LotR series (for a number of reasons).

[Arrowstormen]

I'm interested to see if Thorin actually grows and changes through the films more. He was pretty much a greedy jerk in the book for the most part. He was stoic and brooding in the first, but acknowledged he was wrong about Bilbo, so perhaps we'll see some growth over the three films.

My disappointment in Thorin was...c'mon, he's your lead dwarf. You call THAT a dwarf beard? He looked more like a human ranger or something.

Since Thorin will get captured by elves, and refuse to share the gold from Erebor with the humans and elves, I'd say he probably does grow.

[Deleted]

It was a good movie apart from the whole Azog plot. Why did they add that?

Also I cringed at the Goblin King's last line.

[Deleted]

I wonder how many of the reviewers never read the books, and are basing this ENTIRELY on their experiences with the Lord of the Rings movies? I would hazard a guess that 94% are doing this.

So is that it? It's just to be commonly accepted that the next Peter Jackson movie is SUPPOSED to be utter crap because it's from a kids book?

Consensus from people that like the movie:

Kids book = free pass. It's okay that it was terrible.

[Kasierith]

I don't see where the Appendix Movie thing is coming from. For me, it's pretty clear the third movie will be largely focused on the Battle of the Five Armies, building it up, and the aftermath. There isn't too much bridging in the future I feel.

Not according to what they've said on a few sources.

Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[140][141] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.[142] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012


The reason why he's doing that is he doesn't have the rights to a number of supplemental works by Tolkein.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 11:36 PM ----------

It was a good movie apart from the whole Azog plot. Why did they add that?

Also I cringed at the Goblin King's last line.

To put a face to the orc leaders before they become united at the battle of 5 armies.

[Faroth]

I've seen people claiming the third movie is from additional material. I don't think it is. The appendices from Lord of the Rings are being worked into all three movies. The Witch King, White Council, and Necromancer were barely mentioned at all in The Hobbit, but we've already seen more detail in the first movie than the whole book. Gandalf's departure to deal with that wasn't detailed in The Hobbit, he just mysteriously came and went to deal with other matters.

I expect the second movie, The Desolation of Smaug, to cover Mirkwood, escaping the elves, more discovery of the Necromancer, the White Council readying to deal with it, the company reaching Lake Town, getting to the Lonely Mountain, Bilbo infiltrating it, Smaug awakening and his attack on Lake Town as well as his death from Bard (I think that's his name, I'm forgetting right now).

There and Back Again I expect will detail the Battle of Five Armies as well as Bilbo's return to the Shire afterwards.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 10:38 PM ----------

Not according to what they've said on a few sources.

Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[140][141] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.[142] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012
.

He has the rights to the LotR appendices though which is where most Hobbit supplemental material is, I believe.

[Vanamman]

Go look up some reviews where people actually give reasons why it is a bad movie, and try and ignore the reviews that sing it's praises just because it's related to LoTR and you will find all the points I listed there and more. I'm sorry that you might like LoTR and that gives the Hobbit a free pass for you, but it's not like that for everyone.

And if I wanted to be INCREDIBLY blunt about the matter, he's a pretty good quote.

"This was a terrible, boring movie with all the awful comic relief, one-liners, and cartoonish, over-the-top retarded action typical of brain-dead Hollywood blockbuster garbage. The magic of the original trilogy is gone."'

(When you're not watching important characters in Rivendel.)

You do realise its based off a book right? A book that was written for children. It's supposed to be exactly like the movie. Maybe if you had read the book, you would have realized this, but I guess reading books is too much work for phony internet review writers to do. Watching a movie without knowing the history of the story and reasoning for how it was written is why lazy reviewers have been written off as idiots for years. I only use rotten tomatoes anymore to look and see if a movie is good or not. Reviewers are paid off and uninformed.

[Arrowstormen]

Not according to what they've said on a few sources.

Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[140][141] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.[142] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012


The reason why he's doing that is he doesn't have the rights to a number of supplemental works by Tolkein.

Largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films.
I think the appendix stuff is closer to a minority than a majority of the movie.

[Deleted]

To put a face to the orc leaders before they become united at the battle of 5 armies.

Can you elaborate? It was ages ago I read the book but that Azog dude sure as hell wasn't in it.

[Kasierith]

Can you elaborate? It was ages ago I read the book but that Azog dude sure as hell wasn't in it.

He was mentioned in the backstory of Thorin Oakenshield, although in the books he died in the battle for Moria.

[Arrowstormen]

Can you elaborate? It was ages ago I read the book but that Azog dude sure as hell wasn't in it.

His son is, getting revenge for his father is the very reason the orcs and wargs are even there.

[SirRobin]

And so it crushed me when I realised The Hobbit was a bad film.

Now I don't think Hobbit is anywhere near "that" bad. I didn't think it was really that bad at all. Now there were various bits that just didn't "fit" for me, but its PJ's movie. I wasn't terribly impressed with the first LotR one either, but the second two got better. My main issues with Tolkien's books in general have usually been Tolkien. Not the various interpreters that followed.

My issues with this movie have all been really minor. Radagast being a bit too brainless. The pointless chase. Saruman being a bit too lethargic. The goblin town goblins looking too inbred. The orcs and goblins now having an almost slimy "sheen." Adding a whole new plotline, Azog and Thorin, to the story. Just annoyances really. Overall I don't think the movie is bad at all.

[Deleted]

He was mentioned in the backstory of Thorin Oakenshield, although in the books he died in the battle for Moria.

Ah yes. But can you explain why they need him in the movie? Something about the battle of the 5 armies.

[BHD]

So is that it? It's just to be commonly accepted that the next Peter Jackson movie is SUPPOSED to be utter crap because it's from a kids book?

Consensus from people that like the movie:

Kids book = free pass. It's okay that it was terrible.

More like:
We liked the book, and movie is following it closely, while adding things that happened in the same timeframe of The Hobbit that isn't explained in the actual novel (but in other works) so we get a bonus. And we like it.

Ah yes. But can you explain why they need him in the movie? Something about the battle of the 5 armies.

Instead of having an army of unknown goblins we will have a leader we recognize from the earlier movies.

Edit: If Bolg really shows up, I guess Azog is there as new Lurtz, in a way. Only he gets more spotlight.

[Deleted]

His son is, getting revenge for his father is the very reason the orcs and wargs are even there.

So why is he there instead of his son when he's supposed to be dead? Doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Anathaema]

Just the thread I was needing!

So 3 of my well educated friends saw it before I could (still haven't) and they gave it a somewhat 6-7 out of 10.
I know it's a trilogy and the story unfolds, but is it really a 6-7?

No spoilers please, just rate it (subjectively, of course)

[SirRobin]

His son is, getting revenge for his father is the very reason the orcs and wargs are even there.

Here is stuff about Azog and Bolg.

[Arrowstormen]

Ah yes. But can you explain why they need him in the movie? Something about the battle of the 5 armies.

He creates a main villain and a sense of "something being out there to get them" while on the road for the first movie. Without Azog, things would have seemed much more... peaceful, in some ways I guess.