The Hobbit movies was really that bad? I mean, It has good scores in sites and what would be the solution to its flaws...

The Hobbit movies was really that bad? I mean, It has good scores in sites and what would be the solution to its flaws? Turn the 3 movies in 2?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=85gVFD7Dqwk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Turn the 3 movies in 2?
Sure remove all the bullshit that aren't in the books could work, I also h8 the cast of the dwarfs

There's no way the 3 movies format could work?

Are you french, OP?

Brazilian XD

Turn the 3 movies in 1

its been done and a couple versions are really good

I really think they're on a similar level to the prequels, but maybe with better dialogue.

Star Wars prequels??

Del Taco fucked everything up by piking like a typical spic and Jackson had to step in at the last minute without the couple years of prep he had on LOTR for scripting, storyboarding and previz. Based Del Burrito ruining everything.

Not from source material of 300 pages.

This, the casting itself sucks balls, no way around it really, not matter how many shitty CGI scenes you cut.
Not a single dwarf is interesting, not a single one of them is likeable, and they can't act for shit.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo is really annoying as well. Not the worse casting, but definitely not the best either.

>what would be the solution to its flaws? Turn the 3 movies in 2?

I've seen the Bilbo cut which is ~4 hours where they cut 3 extended editions down.

I always thought, and people always speculated, that this would save the movie. That there's a core movie in there hidden by retarded videogame action and retarded love story and shoehorned elves, etc.

The cut succeeds in removing almost all of that and it doesn't feel disjointed or odd. However, it's not that big a lift for the movie either.

The sad truth is that there isn't a good movie in there. Could it have been done? Sure. I don't think Jackson and original cast should have been involved at all to make that happen.

A Del Taco dark fantasy thing might actually have worked, but he took a siesta instead.

Peter Jackson had no time to plan out the film. They were literally writing the script as the movies were progressing.

IIRC there's a fan edit out there that cuts the trilogy down to one movie. Apparently it's actually really good.

I liked Balin, and Thorin could've been cool if they didn't try so hard to make him the new Aragorn. I also liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I just think the writing was too shitty for him to salvage much.

So much CGI it felt like a vidya game.. I could never stay awake during that Trilogy, it took several tries to watch it all

>I don't think Jackson and original cast should have been involved at all to make that happen.
WB/Newline basically told jackson if he didn't make the movies they were going to giveitto brett ratner.
I also suspect he took the job as a pay day, after he got screwed out of money by the studio for LOTR.
If it hadn't been Jackson we would have probably gotten something even worse.
Most of the major problems are from the studio's end, not so much with production.

In my opinion
>too much CGI everywhere
>changing too much from the source material
>while Martin Freeman was enjoyable as a Bilbo he really didn't act like the Bilbo from the book
>why the fuck bring Azog in at all, especially why make him completely CGI, he looked retarded
>the Legolas jumping up a falling bridge scene

The second one is better than at least one of the LotR films.

Tauriel "falling in love" with the dwarf is some of the only actual character work in a series full of one-note cardboard cutouts. The scenes that are straight adaptations are largely bland and boring in comparison.

All the Dale shit makes a bit more sense when you realise it had to be rewritten (again) when Stephen Fry tried to kill himself. Shame he didn't succeed but it's nice to know the perverted old twat was suffering.

They're going to age better than the LotR films have. In 5 years they'll all be accepted as being roughly the same quality overall.

Friendly reminder to

WATCH THE MAPLE FILMS EDIT

WATCH THE MAPLE FILMS EDIT

WATCH THE MAPLE FILMS EDIT

WATCH THE MAPLE FILMS EDIT

>Cool as Bilbo
Wrong. His snark and smug attitude didn't fit a hobbit, it just didn't belong in Middle Earth. He was simply playing his character from Sherlock, whining and questioning everything, just tagging along for the ride, making sure neither he nor anybody else in the party ever enjoyed anything.

To me this was the first and most symptomatic mistake of the movie (s). Just cast someone who can pass as sympathetic, not your average stuck-up British posh garbage meme.

>If it hadn't been Jackson we would have probably gotten something even worse.

But the thing is, with another director we'd have gotten shit, it would have failed and been forgotten. It wouldn't have kept the same style or many of the same actors.

Isn't that better than tainting the LotR legacy with that mediocre bullshit? I really don't see the upside. What did we /gain/?

300 pages huh. Mine has just about 200 counting the covers, table of content and map of the narnia. i mean middle earth.

>just tagging along for the ride

Except this is Bilbo in the book. It's the reason it's a pain in the ass to adapt. Bilbo is the main protagonist and essentially a side character in his own story. He doesn't do much of note except some deus ex shit to keep the plot moving.

i liked them

nothing's been tainted m8 it's easy to pretend the hobbit mvies never happened

only prequel-like lore fuckery would be the question why sauron didn't use the worms to get into minas tirith

Honestly I feel like the first of the films captured the spirit of the book well enough. It was bloated, sure, but I saw it as a sign that the new trilogy had a decent foundation. It was needing to stretch the second half into 2 movies that really brought it down, plus all of the completely unecessary additions to the plot.

I have to at least give it credit for portraying elves as the true thots they are

Yeah well you’re wrong.

I estimated the page count to be honest and rounded up to give myself a margin of error since I'm shitposting over my lunchbreak and don't have the book with me to verify.
Still, way to short of a story to make a trilogy from.

okay thanks :)

It has good score on IMDB 7,9-7,9-7,4 I think

>What did we /gain/?
I genuinely liked an unexpected journey and about 25% of Desolation and Five Armies.

I just rewatched all 3 extended editions and it's an interesting study of a man slowly giving up on his project.
(reminder that I haven't read the book)

Hobbit 1 is still solid. Jackson had energy and I guess confidence on what he was doing. Bilbo (titular character) and the dwarves are still the focus of the story and even if it's told badly, there is definitive character development. The movie is all about going on a magical adventure and it works, it's lighter tone honestly mashes well with the more mature stuff later. The Dwarves sing, Bilbo meets great locations, fanservice is kept to a minimun and the Sauron stuff is a C-plot as it should be.

Hobbit 2 has a solid first third, with the bear man, the spiders, and the elf prison. It's still about going on a crazy fun adventure, there's an exciting prison break and a daring escape with the barrels, it's great stuff. The minute they get to Lake Town it goes to shit and never picks it back up, Bilbo and the Dwarves are out of focus for a while, there's about 20 characters we don't care that they spend time on and it's just mediocre stuff. The saving grace is Bilbo's encounter with Smaug, and I even kinda like how the final battle is about outwitting him, but the retarded stuff is just too much. Also they don't fucking sing in this one, why?

By Hobbit 3 Jackson has completely given up on saving this shit, it's a Prequel-tier mess. Bilbo has relatively small screentime and disappears for half the film, the Battle is shit because we're not fucking rooting for anyone, Thorin's gold-madness and cure comes out of fucking nowhere (at least he gets a scene for his cure) and all the great potential that the conflict between the Dwarves had is squandered because Bilbo's relationship with them is barely explored. Also why is Thorin's cousin entirely CG?

All the credits songs are GOAT tho, Last Goodbye makes me cry everytim.

I think it's 90% pure shit, but that said the Gollum scene is great and I think it was the first thing filmed.

If that was a flashback in LotR I'd be happy.

Tauriel fell for the dwarf because he was a filthy peasant, and she met him just after being called a filthy peasant by the father of a guy she liked. The connection she is able to make with F/Kili as he reaches above himself is twinned with her own belief that she can break the glass ceiling of Thranduil's court.

No warfare but class warfare.

>Also why is Thorin's cousin entirely CG?
actor had cancer, couldn't do his scenes properly, no time to get someone else

I never got the impression he was Bilbo. I always seen it as fucking Martin Freeman talking with Gandalf.

People knock them too hard, and sure they're nowhere close to the spirit of LotR, but its a solid trilogy that's very enjoyable. Should've been one movie though

I agree with you user. It didn't feel like he was Bilbo, it felt like he was playing himself.

Bombur's barrel scene is great.

>imdb ratings

This guy nailed it, he removed all the fanfic-tier shit and somehow still kept a solid pacing, soundtrack and everything.
HD and including important deleted scenes like Thorin's funeral.
Turns the trilogy into an 8/10 four-hour movie.

youtube.com/watch?v=85gVFD7Dqwk

The Hobbit book doesn't have the same spirit as LotR either. I've seen people complain that the films are too silly, or have too much tonal whiplash, but that's all true to the spirit of the book.

And then they also whine that the films weren't 100% word for word adaptations, when LotR rewrote very nearly everything as well.

I think people are being honest when they say they don't like The Hobbitses, but are generally really really bad at understanding and articulation why they don't like them.

CGI and CGI

I always find it weird that Kili and Tauriel, the characters everyone hate, are one of the few that get dedicated screentime to a small scene that's not about the plot and just character.
The scene where he talks about the runestone and she sits down to listen his story of the large star is a nice little scene, almost reminiscent of the original trilogy.
It's a shame they followed the love triangle route imo, if Tauriel and Kili were just good friends (Like Gimli and Legolas for pottery) it would have been more impactful than what we got.

Honestly the problem with these fucking movies is characters, they don't spend enough time with them. Bilbo had 2 and a half movies to develop a relationship with all 13 dwarves and in the end you can only feel he's friends with 3 (Nesbitt, Thorin and Balin).
It overstuff itself with needless shit to make the story epic and gigantic and fanservice-y and it loses itself.
The Hobbit is a large-scale story but it's told through the eyes of a little guy, and that's never felt in the films.

>Bilbo had 2 and a half movies to develop a relationship with all 13 dwarves and in the end you can only feel he's friends with 3 (Nesbitt, Thorin and Balin).

How many of the Fellowship would you say Frodo is actually friends with, based on what we see on screen?

The fact that Bilbo is still an outsider to the group at large isn't quite a plot point but it's not far off.

I still think if PJ had the same time of pre production he had on LotR, the movies would be better.

There would have been even more CGI.

If the technology had been available Fellowship would have looked very different (the black riders would have all been cgi for a start).

yes and it's not just that they're bad movies they look fucking awful too like almost episode 2 level of awful

you can clearly see the prosthetics in the bag end scene for example