I shared some thoughts a year ago in a two-part discussion that compared RoP with some other TV prequels (like Andor and Strange New Worlds). It's not exhaustive but I think it does capture a good bit of my feelings about it (the TLDR is I had my problems but enjoyed parts of it and hope it improves. That's a big advantage it has over The Hobbit trilogy: it's not finished yet and so there's still the hope it can correct course! haha)
I am surprised! I feel like most people who disliked the Hobbit hated ROP even more because they thought it felt even less like the world Tolkien originally created. It will be interesting to see what direction they take the new season. I'll definitely go read your post!
I think we've come to a place where movies are so bad (lame propaganda written by adults who cry a lot) that yesterday's bad movies seem kind of fun by comparison.
I don't think I'll get past the fact that *The Hobbit* has the wrong tone in nearly every single scene: dramatic and scary where it should be adventurous, or silly where it should be miserable (as when they enter Mirkwood). Not to mention about half of it is an advertisement for a trilogy I've already watched.
I just watched the documentary on Vice channel: Icons Unearthed: LOTR. The last 2 episodes explains a lot, that I didn’t previously know, to explain some behind the scenes reasons for why the hobbit movies sucked so much (TL;DW: Peter Jackson actually did NOT want to direct them and he had health problems, there was poor chemistry on set, and corporate influences led to the made up characters for “diversity” and to fill up 3 movies for profit). It’s worth watching if you haven’t seen it (plus, the first 4 episodes on the making of LOTR was very interesting!)
I'd also suggest Lindsay Ellis' video essay on Hobbit (Part 1: The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Autopsy; Part 2: The Hobbit: Battle of Five Studios) available on YT, on how much executive meddling there was and what a terrible effect it had and still has on NZ actors' rights, among other things.
I think fan-edits are the way to go with the hobbit. Some are really great at teasing out the good single movie within three overly-stuffed ones. There’s quite an active community round them as well.
Some focus on just scenes that are in the book and create quite faithful adaptations. I know it’s not how Peter Jackson intended, but similarly I never made it past Desolation of Smaug and this is a good way to at least get something enjoyable out of the trilogy.
(Fan edits also go a long way with Phantom Menace and some other Star Wars stuff. But like with all this stuff, mileage varies depending on what you’re looking for.)
I don’t know. I don’t think anything can reconcile me to the weirdly possessed Anakin of the final film or to Obi Wan slicing him to pieces and then walking away. I like his lover much more than I like him. But why do the Jedi have that stupid monastic rule anyway? What makes the idea of families so taboo?
That’s a good question as I actually haven’t searched for a couple of years now and it may have changed. Reddit is definitely going to be your friend though in that search. Plenty of summaries and comparisons which edits are the best. (I should imagine there are many by now.)
I have a much different take on the Hobbit films. I think they're far from perfect and suffer from at times a half-measure approach to going against fidelity. But very very underrated.
I hope to publish my defense later this year. Though I will say for certain - the extended cuts of Smaug and BOTFA are the best iterations of those movies and the ones that should've been in theaters. A whole bunch of scenes from the actual five army battle had to be cut only because there was no time to finish them and Jackson's proper extended cut was going to be 10 minutes longer but got scuttled.
I can't tell if these are not the cuts you've seen but - please watch them if you can. They do make a difference.
I agree wholeheartedly. One of the worst movie decisions of my life was when a friend and I went to a marathon of the three movies when the third film came out. By the time we got to Battle of the Five Armies at midnight, our brains were mush and the film didn't help resurrect them.
I agree that they did well with the first movie. I really enjoy watching An Unexpected Journey, but I rarely rewatch anything past that. I didn’t know that Del Torro was originally the director and Peter Jackson took over. I had thought Peter Jackson phoned it in this time. It makes sense though and reconciles some things for me.
I really think Jackson erred in making three movies when one would have sufficed. The animated adaptation of "The Hobbit" made by Rankin-Bass for American television in 1977 is a more successful adaptation, since it makes the narrative more concise for its format without compromising it. And it also has the advantage of some well-cast celebrity voice actors.
Bilbo is SO perfectly cast (like... you believe he walked right off the page) it's just maddening to see hints of the film we might have had which he deserved.
"This children’s story spread across three films feels thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."
This is my biggest complaint with the trilogy... It should never have been a trilogy. To stretch it into three movies they had to add so much that wasn't there in the books, and none of what they added felt truly meaningful. I think it could have been very good as two movies, but as three, just not worth it.
My main issue with the Hobbit trilogy was how it was unnecessarily chopped up into three separate movies. Thus, a singular tale that would normally take maybe three and a half hours to tell, devolved into an elongated saga necessitating the invention of one major character (Tauriel) who was never in the book, the inclusion of a member of The Nine from LOTR (Legolas) added as an unneeded bridge from the trilogy, a requisite three-sided love affair to tie it together, and other embellished parts and characters. So you’re looking at a stretched-out story, not unlike Gollum and Bilbo themselves. I’m surprised Peter Jackson jumped in without full editorial control. Too bad, because the production values were excellent.
My guess is that the industry standard makes it okay to make a book into a movie without reading the book. But couldn't they at least have looked at the map?
Watching the ‘making of’ docs on the Hobbit Ex Eds gave the distinct sense that everything was rushed, as PJ recounts. Compare with the LotR, where there was a long pre-production phase and ideas could really be thought out. Hobbit suffered from much more corporate/studio meddling, while PJ was [relatively] left alone to pursue his vision in LotR.
Thanks for watching "The Hobbit" trilogy for me and reconfirming my belief that I didn't miss out on anything! They had bad buzz from the time they came out, so I never sat down to take them in. Also, it seemed like a cash grab to blow out a 300-page book into 3 movies. Not a good look.
I rate LOTR as my favorite movie of all-time, so I'm hesitant to see anything like "The Hobbit" or "The Rings of Power" that could potentially taint my appreciation for this classic and masterful work of art.
I agree that the love triangle adds an awful and needless component to The Hobbit. And I don’t see the necessity for so much broken furniture. But I do like the music, especially the dwarves’ song at Bilbo’s house. And the death of Thorin feels sadder than in the books. But, yeah, too many added complications. Then again I don’t like any of the Anakin films except the first. No, I still don’t care for Ja-Ja, but young Ani is so cute!
If anything, I would have been more open to an expanded role for Beorn, rather than the Legolas/Tauriel arc.
Now I’m curious to hear your thoughts on Rings of Power…. 🙃
I shared some thoughts a year ago in a two-part discussion that compared RoP with some other TV prequels (like Andor and Strange New Worlds). It's not exhaustive but I think it does capture a good bit of my feelings about it (the TLDR is I had my problems but enjoyed parts of it and hope it improves. That's a big advantage it has over The Hobbit trilogy: it's not finished yet and so there's still the hope it can correct course! haha)
Here's the link to the first part:
https://www.jrrjokien.com/p/the-problems-with-prequelsepisode
I am surprised! I feel like most people who disliked the Hobbit hated ROP even more because they thought it felt even less like the world Tolkien originally created. It will be interesting to see what direction they take the new season. I'll definitely go read your post!
I think we've come to a place where movies are so bad (lame propaganda written by adults who cry a lot) that yesterday's bad movies seem kind of fun by comparison.
I don't think I'll get past the fact that *The Hobbit* has the wrong tone in nearly every single scene: dramatic and scary where it should be adventurous, or silly where it should be miserable (as when they enter Mirkwood). Not to mention about half of it is an advertisement for a trilogy I've already watched.
But hey, at least it isn't about Trump.
I just watched the documentary on Vice channel: Icons Unearthed: LOTR. The last 2 episodes explains a lot, that I didn’t previously know, to explain some behind the scenes reasons for why the hobbit movies sucked so much (TL;DW: Peter Jackson actually did NOT want to direct them and he had health problems, there was poor chemistry on set, and corporate influences led to the made up characters for “diversity” and to fill up 3 movies for profit). It’s worth watching if you haven’t seen it (plus, the first 4 episodes on the making of LOTR was very interesting!)
I'd also suggest Lindsay Ellis' video essay on Hobbit (Part 1: The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Autopsy; Part 2: The Hobbit: Battle of Five Studios) available on YT, on how much executive meddling there was and what a terrible effect it had and still has on NZ actors' rights, among other things.
I think fan-edits are the way to go with the hobbit. Some are really great at teasing out the good single movie within three overly-stuffed ones. There’s quite an active community round them as well.
Some focus on just scenes that are in the book and create quite faithful adaptations. I know it’s not how Peter Jackson intended, but similarly I never made it past Desolation of Smaug and this is a good way to at least get something enjoyable out of the trilogy.
(Fan edits also go a long way with Phantom Menace and some other Star Wars stuff. But like with all this stuff, mileage varies depending on what you’re looking for.)
I don’t know. I don’t think anything can reconcile me to the weirdly possessed Anakin of the final film or to Obi Wan slicing him to pieces and then walking away. I like his lover much more than I like him. But why do the Jedi have that stupid monastic rule anyway? What makes the idea of families so taboo?
I've been trying to find the fan edit single-hobbit film. Where do you go for them?
That’s a good question as I actually haven’t searched for a couple of years now and it may have changed. Reddit is definitely going to be your friend though in that search. Plenty of summaries and comparisons which edits are the best. (I should imagine there are many by now.)
I would watch a fan edit right now!
I have a much different take on the Hobbit films. I think they're far from perfect and suffer from at times a half-measure approach to going against fidelity. But very very underrated.
I hope to publish my defense later this year. Though I will say for certain - the extended cuts of Smaug and BOTFA are the best iterations of those movies and the ones that should've been in theaters. A whole bunch of scenes from the actual five army battle had to be cut only because there was no time to finish them and Jackson's proper extended cut was going to be 10 minutes longer but got scuttled.
I can't tell if these are not the cuts you've seen but - please watch them if you can. They do make a difference.
I agree wholeheartedly. One of the worst movie decisions of my life was when a friend and I went to a marathon of the three movies when the third film came out. By the time we got to Battle of the Five Armies at midnight, our brains were mush and the film didn't help resurrect them.
I agree that they did well with the first movie. I really enjoy watching An Unexpected Journey, but I rarely rewatch anything past that. I didn’t know that Del Torro was originally the director and Peter Jackson took over. I had thought Peter Jackson phoned it in this time. It makes sense though and reconciles some things for me.
I really think Jackson erred in making three movies when one would have sufficed. The animated adaptation of "The Hobbit" made by Rankin-Bass for American television in 1977 is a more successful adaptation, since it makes the narrative more concise for its format without compromising it. And it also has the advantage of some well-cast celebrity voice actors.
Bilbo is SO perfectly cast (like... you believe he walked right off the page) it's just maddening to see hints of the film we might have had which he deserved.
"This children’s story spread across three films feels thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."
This is my biggest complaint with the trilogy... It should never have been a trilogy. To stretch it into three movies they had to add so much that wasn't there in the books, and none of what they added felt truly meaningful. I think it could have been very good as two movies, but as three, just not worth it.
My main issue with the Hobbit trilogy was how it was unnecessarily chopped up into three separate movies. Thus, a singular tale that would normally take maybe three and a half hours to tell, devolved into an elongated saga necessitating the invention of one major character (Tauriel) who was never in the book, the inclusion of a member of The Nine from LOTR (Legolas) added as an unneeded bridge from the trilogy, a requisite three-sided love affair to tie it together, and other embellished parts and characters. So you’re looking at a stretched-out story, not unlike Gollum and Bilbo themselves. I’m surprised Peter Jackson jumped in without full editorial control. Too bad, because the production values were excellent.
My guess is that the industry standard makes it okay to make a book into a movie without reading the book. But couldn't they at least have looked at the map?
Watching the ‘making of’ docs on the Hobbit Ex Eds gave the distinct sense that everything was rushed, as PJ recounts. Compare with the LotR, where there was a long pre-production phase and ideas could really be thought out. Hobbit suffered from much more corporate/studio meddling, while PJ was [relatively] left alone to pursue his vision in LotR.
Thanks for watching "The Hobbit" trilogy for me and reconfirming my belief that I didn't miss out on anything! They had bad buzz from the time they came out, so I never sat down to take them in. Also, it seemed like a cash grab to blow out a 300-page book into 3 movies. Not a good look.
I rate LOTR as my favorite movie of all-time, so I'm hesitant to see anything like "The Hobbit" or "The Rings of Power" that could potentially taint my appreciation for this classic and masterful work of art.
I agree that the love triangle adds an awful and needless component to The Hobbit. And I don’t see the necessity for so much broken furniture. But I do like the music, especially the dwarves’ song at Bilbo’s house. And the death of Thorin feels sadder than in the books. But, yeah, too many added complications. Then again I don’t like any of the Anakin films except the first. No, I still don’t care for Ja-Ja, but young Ani is so cute!