>No cultural impact
>No parodies
>No fun song remixes
>No lasting impressions
>No awards
>No comfy behind-the-scenes documentaries
>No-one had fun making it
>Instantly forgettable
What went so utterly wrong? Was it greed over passionate filmmaking? Was it made in the wrong era? Had Jackson gone full Lucas and lost his vision and integrity? Should it have been one movie instead of three?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
independent.co.uk
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>No cultural impact
numales must have wacky beards so I don't know about that
The big mistakes was trying to keep the same tone that tlotr had, but, the hobbit should have been a muchos light hearted movie, full of adventure and funny Moments, not the shit se got.
I liked the first one
I only partly blame jackson.
The guy didnt even want to make a hobbit movie at all. He was done with Tolkiens universe.
Hollywood wanted that easy franchise money and told Jackson they would do it without him if he didnt join and jackson decided to go with it.
He shouldnt have done it. Time constraints, a script that wasnt, scenes being written and sets being built on the spot for the days filming. It was a nightmare which is why the movies ended up so bad. Jackson should have stayed far away and let Hollywood fuck themselves. But now his name is on both the best trilogies ever made, and the worst.
>muchos
pendejo phoneposter
Hobbit movies are to LOTR, what Disney Wars will be to Star Wars.
They were really bad movies, none of them above 2/10. Hobbit 1 is legit 0/10.
Personally I though The desolation of Smaug was pure Kino even though everybody likes it the least apparently, the first and third were fine. It's good fantasy, not appreciated for what it is.
It's no "They Taking The Hobbits To Isengard".
Chupamela
>7-1
Someone post the PS2-tier CGI in river.
Sometimes directors just fuck up the second trilogy because they used all of their energy on the first and get too comfortable for the second.
The moment Jackson walked out, bit that carrot, and cameo'd in the first Hobbit movie... that's when you knew they were going to be sub-par.
Same story with Lucas, but instead of a cameo he gave everyone Jar Jar.
Uhh.. I'm pretty sure that cameo was in lotr.
Seems like they were rushed out. Special fx and CGI ruined it.
>those fucking rock people
>that song and dance number by the goblins
>all the orcs being cgi'd in
>the cgi being bad even by modern standards except for the main orc
>that secret order shit with galadriel, gandalf, saruman and elrond for no reason
>that shitty gold dwarf statue
>trying to capture the feel of lotr except the hobbit was supposed to be more lighthearted by comparison
I'm only partially blaming Jackson for it but damn you'd think they would have planned these better
preproduction on the lotr movies took years
The problem was not "try to capture the tone" of lotr or the one of the book. The problem was that they did not decide for one, and just one of these.
There are lotr-style scenes alternating with full-retard-funny-fat-dwarf.
There is no tension, only slapstick in the chases, in I and II, but then suddenly Sauron.
This ignoring big lore fuckups like the Nazgul Tombs. Who the FUCK cmae up with that?
>No-one had fun making it
I'm 100% positive Benedict had fun larping a Dragon and getting paid to do it.
Looks like it was in the second Hobbit one actually, now that I look it up.
youtube.com
@ 1 min
Watching An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition right now. Ask me anything.
Poor Peter Jackson :(
Some of the river shots look like someone just filmed a Go-Pro going underwater, you know what I mean? I actually think that's exactly what they did.
He didn't have the time to do that m8, Del Toro dropped out and (if i remember correctly) the studio forced Jackson into preproduction with less than a year or so in prep for all the movies.
He had to delay the third one because of how quick the pace was for him. If you can find the short behind the scenes stuff or youtube analysis they actually explain how little of it was his fault. Or at least it seems that way to me now.
Still wish Del Toro did it though.
>Hobbit movies are to LOTR, what Disney Wars will be to Star Wars.
arent the hobbit movies to lotr what the prequel trilogy is to Star Wars?
And it shows
The voice acting was the best in the movie and the Bilbo/Smaug scene was not as much a letdown as I expected.
Bilbo was good in general aswell, too bad he barely was in the movies
With the right editing you could make one movie that was as good as any of the lotr films but as 3 it sucked.
First one was okay but other two were complete garbage.
>No comfy behind-the-scenes documentaries
There's several hours of it on the EE blu-ray's
Not this shit again. Watch the BD version. They filmed tons of completely horrible action scenes for no fucking reason. He had more than enough time. He just completely fucked up.
this is what fight-scene kino looks like
Holy shit was this actually in the movie?
Haven't seen it since release.
...
>Dwarves singing (Cleaning and by the fire)
>River chase scene (fun and comfy)
>Bilbo and Smaug dialogue
>Riddles in the dark
These parts were pure fucking kino. The rest unfortunately was lack-luster. So disappointing, I had high hopes.
>Was it greed over passionate filmmaking?
You already answered your own question
...
The Hobbit was like fapping again after too little time. I think it stemmed from good intentions, but while doing it, you realize its not nearly as good as the first time.
but.. this does not explain stuff like the bunny sled or add new shit never seen...
Or choices in the characterisation like Radagast the Retard?
Man, the combat ideas they pulled in this movie... even anime doesn't go that far.
Fuck. Genuinely one of the best analogies I've ever read.
the pain is real
No. The analogy is more obvious to anyone else, but the prequels are untouchable sacred cow territory to the contrarian hipsters on Sup Forums who grew up with them.
No matter what the franchise, the most beloved entries on Sup Forums are the most hated elsewhere while the most hated on Sup Forums are the newest.
>says it's shit
>posts webm proving himself wrong
Shhh we all have to pretend that the prequels are good here because memes and manchildren I guess.
>gopro river scene
Why are you not watching The Fellowship of the Ring instead?
The first movie was okay. A bit slow, completely over the top occasionally (mostly Goblin Town) but the Riddles in the dark scene was great
The second one amped up the ridicolousness, added unnecessary plots (Tauriel, anyone) and while the scene where Bilbo first talks with Smaug is great you forget it completely after the retarded actionscene with the dwarves inside Erebor
Third one is just straight shit, over the top action, shitty "comedy" incredibly forced references (find the ranger)
Movie should have been 2 movies, at most, or just one really long movie. Some people try to defend Jackson, and while I don't think it's his fault alone he should have keopt his integrity and refused to do it.
I'm curious on what del Toros version would have looked like..
It basically suffered from the same disease that's been common in most modern movies these days. I call it the Marvel disease.
The Hobbit is a movie that didn't take itself seriously, constant quipping and winking to the audience, went from one action scene to the next with no room for world/character building with each action scene becoming more and more over the top.
You might as well watch some guy's parkour montage with Linkin Park music to get the same amount of cultural enrichment.
I think the talk with Smaug was way better than the talk with Gollum. Not sure why, but I never got on the Gollum bandwagon. I don't give a shit about him, and if it was up to me there would be no such character, and Bilbo would just find the ring in another context.
Because I haven't seen the Hobbit movies yet.
>Was it greed over passionate filmmaking?
pretty much
This is correct
This is contrarian
Fuck the contrarians. The prequels were shit. Same for the Hobbit movies
True. Sup Forums is contrarian for being contrarian.
>Was it greed over passionate filmmaking?
Yes.
>Had Jackson gone full Lucas and lost his vision and integrity?
Yes.
>Should it have been one movie instead of three?
One movie would have been a bit rushed. Two could have worked. Three was terrible.
Jackson had very little time. Pre-production was like 6 months.
The studio also meddled A LOT. I know for example he didn't want to make it 3 movies.
So I don't really blame him for the most part.
I DO blame him for:
Inconsistent tone
Tauriel
Fucking elves
The fucking comedy in the third one
The problem was not Jackson. The problem, was that LotR did well. And WB execs wanted to stretch the Hobbit and make it liek LotR
It should have been one movie. But Jackson was under pressure.
It really should have been done by Del Toro, according to his vision.
But to be fair to Jackson, he wasn't a hack like Lucas. The Hobbit 1 & 2 had great cinematography.
To answer your questions:
Yes
No
No
Yes
Guillermo del Toro fucked off and left Jackson in charge with no time to prep at all. They were laying the tracks in front of the train the entire time. Basically what said.
I'm really glad they got Cumberbatch to do Smaug's lines. He has a lot of chemistry with Freeman from their time together on Sherlock and it shows.
One 4 hour movie could have told the story that needed to be told. The tolkien cut that some guy did clocks in at about that. The film has a lot of fat to cut through. It's sad how little of the films are actually about Bilbo when Bilbo is terrific.
It wouldn't even need to be 4 hours.
If you can tell FOTR in 3 hours, you can easily tell The Hobbit in 2,5 hours.
Jackson had a cameo in every LOTR movie. He was in Bree in fellowship, he was at the battle of helm's deep in two towers and Idk where his cameo was in ROTK probably in Minas Tirith somewhere.
>too much CGI
>BAD CGI
>Sauron
>Legolas and the girl
>elf and dwarf romance
>should've been one or two movies only
GOBLIN TOWN WAS PURE KINO AND ALL THE SINGING AND THE TROLLS AND BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN BAG END AS WELL
Actually no. While prequels are bad, they are not as bad as Disney Wars.
Hobbit 1 is the best one you cuck.
The reason the worldbuilding felt much more sterile than LOTR's is because that's how it also is in the source material.
Rhovanion (the region east of the Misty Mountains) wasn't as fleshed out by Tolkien like Beleriand and Eradior were. There are many vague areas, there isn't much written about Greenwood, there isn't much written about Dale and Laketown, there isn't much on Erebor either, etc. When it comes to Third Age history, Tolkien poured all his juice on the Shire and Mordor. There is a lot of backstory for Gondor and Rohan in LOTR's annex, but most of Rhovanion's history is second age / early third age, and it's all in "The Lost Tales" book, with the origin of hobbits and unificiation of Rohan against eastern invaders, Isildur's fall on the Anduin, etc.
The big thing of Tolkien is elves, the Silmarillion, the First Age, and Beleriand. That's the core of the iceberg. Because LOTR was such a huge success, it seems otherwise though.
>If you can tell FOTR in 3 hours, you can easily tell The Hobbit in 2,5 hours.
They cut like 25% of FOTR with dropping the Old Forest and Bombadil, though. The hobbits are in the Shire for a long friggin' time in the book.
Only the third one was prequel-tier bad.
Both the first and the second one had some great moments to them.
The Misty Mountains song was excellent.
youtube.com
But that's what you need to do when you make a movie. You trim the fat.
Not everything that works in book form works in movie form.
And while I do think those early chapters are comfy as fuck, they really add nothing and have a completely different tone to them.
Hobbit 1 was so bad, i didnt even pirate the rest. I never saw them.
It was one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Bilbo and Smaug first scene in the 2nd movie is okay, but yeah, the rest isn't worth your time.
The 3rd movie is a 2h20 action sequence, with muh-bloom pumped up to 11, and the scenes added by the EE are laughably bad, like the kind of shit 8 years old boys imagine after watching anime.
Also.. at the end, Thorin is empaled by Azog, and we see the blade come out on the other side of him, and there is no blood, which to me is just a sign of how rushed this movie was.
>muh-1-minute-of-lore-scene
youtube.com
This
I know Tolkien's son or whatever said no, but do you think there will ever be a Silmarillion movie?
The problem was that they set out to squeeze a nine-hour trilogy out of a tiny book.
Yes, but this time Jackson is just going to pull the entire thing out of his ass.
MGM doesn't have the rights to it. So unless Tolkien jr changes his mind or dies and one or his kids decides to sell it, no.
All of the above.
>do you think there will ever be a Silmarillion movie?
Not the whole thing. Maybe a Narn i Hin Hurin movie. They could sell it as Game of Thrones in Middle-Earth.
Don't think so. It's not really a narrative work. There are hundreds of characters, but only a handful have any dialogue (and that dialogue is very bible-like, quite sterile thing), and like 10 people at most are ever described physically, beyond the common traits of their race. You'd have to add so much more for it to be movie compatible, and the little drama you'd find is not at all what your 21st century viewer is appealed by. They'd have to add someone cheating in there or something, or having problems with their dad, or having low self esteem (most characters of that book are fucking stoical survival machines that are serious all the time). At that point you might as well create your own original story.
Children of Hurin could be done, I guess.
There never should have been a third movie, as Bilbo wasn't even conscious for the final battle in the novel.
No that's stupid. You must run the battle, just not the shitfest we did see.
Probably, WB will probably buy the rights for 50-100 million. If not, they are going to remake LotR once it hits 20-25 years, which isn't that far away.
Jackson confirmed Lucas-tier, complete with pissy prequels
He was pirate captain I hear
Bilbo was always my favorite part. Its just too bad he wasnt the main character after the 1st one anymore.
tired meme
I love what they did in the Rankin-Bass animated Hobbit. When the battle starts Bilbo just says "Fuck this" and puts the ring on and waits it out.
Watching The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition right now. Ask me anything.
how big is your dick
I don't get why people shit on Peter Jackson.
He literally did not want to even make the movies. He was only roped in at the very last minute when Del Taco decided to quit immediately before filming was supposed to begin. Jackons then, reasonably, asked to have pre-production time so that he could make sure that everything was set up and in order so that he could have a unified, coherent film like LOTR. Instead the studio said "lol fuck you" and made him film immediately with barely any pre-production whatsoever. Jackson was basically forced to make everything up as he went along, and had to deal with constant producer meddling.
If anyone should be blamed it should be the fucking studios trying to churn out a cash cow without putting any serious effort in and fucking everything up in the name of speeding up production.
Probably like 6 inches. Maybe smaller. I don't really remember.
If hobbit 1 is a 0 the others must be negative
that's some devil may cry tier shit right there
Why was he such a cuck in this situation? He was in a good position to demand more pre-production time, like who else is the studio gonna get if he says no?
anyone else? he wasn't even the first director of choice, they asked him just because he directed the OT, but if he refused a lot of people would have gladly taken the job
It's not a question of whether other directors would be willing, but bringing in someone new and giving them no prep time would be an absolute disaster
I think post production is the last of these movies' problemm. The script is 90% pure garbage.