Official Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit thread

It's situations like this (and Godzilla) where I wish I had enough skill and motivation to make "viewer's cuts", where it works opposite of director's cuts, and takes out all the filler and results in punchier movies.

The first Hobbit dragged a bit in the middle, but I didn't think the second was too terrible - I'm glad Bard and Smaug got expanded roles, for example, and having a badass girl character would have been great if they didn't use her to hammer in romance. I'm sure actually showing the battle of five armies will also be an improvement over the book irritatingly skipping over it entirely, and the dwarves having involvement with the town attack should also make things feel more interconnected than when they just sat around in the cave like useless lumps wondering "hmm, where did the dragon go?" in the book (like how them going to help Bilbo was better in the second film than in the book, where they sat around in the cave like useless lumps wondering "hmm, hope he's not eating our burglar down there lol").
 
there was so much that could have been cut out of both movies that we honestly might have been able to just have one movie

ultimately in the desolation of smaug we didn't need to meet that bear guy, or travel through the forest with the spiders. that was just filler. they also probably could have sped up the rivertown parts tremendously, and we'd have a much shorter, much better movie that still keeps the good parts (barrel escape, meeting smaug) intact

you could also cut a ton out of the first movie, i mean all you really need are bilbo deciding to go with the dwarves, misty mountains, like one scene with the orcs chasing them, and meeting gollum. you'd probably have to retcon finding sting to fit in one of those scenes to save on time, but it would still work
 
I actually prefer the movies over the book. Looking forward to the last part. If they stick to the book though then I know the ending's going to be a bit sad.
Thorin dies :'(
 
Actually, making the Hobbit three parts is a smart idea. We want to be able to see Tolkien's whole works on screen. If they had added everything of the Lord of the Rings into the movie, it would have been like 3-4 parts! But of course, at the time they didn't know how much people were gonna like these movies, and plus budget issues. But the Movies came out fantastic! So, I am very glad they are able to add a lot of fillers into this movie, so that we can enjoy so much. But if you don't agree with me, totally cool with it. Please tell me what you think. :D
 
Luigidaisy1 said:
But the Movies came out fantastic!
Click to expand...
the reason the movies came out fantastic is because they had to cut so much stuff out. have you tried reading the books? there's so much lore there that's shoved in and gets in the way of the stuff that's actually happening (which is why i could never finish the books, i mean honestly)

some people like the lore, and that's fine, but it makes for an awful movie. the hobbit movies are basically a mix where now they have time to throw in as much lore as they want but they also have to adapt some things because it's a movie now and it's basically just a big mess because the pacing is absolutely horrible in all the hobbit movies. sure, you have great memorable parts in each of them (namely misty mountains, that flashback battle where throin fought the orc, the gollum part, the barrel escape, and meeting smaug), but the parts inbetween are just pointless or slow or both and aaaagghhh
 
INCOMING TEXT WALL, POSSIBLY FULL OF POSSIBLE SPOILERS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

the amount of detail that they would have to lose if this was one or two movies is huge

basically, one movie would have been shit, parts of the story, such as goblin town, Mirkwood, the barrels, lake town, Erebor, the battle of the five armies, all those scenes would have had to be over in seconds

in the book, Tolkien only really made mention of those parts. he didn't really go into much detail with them, except from Mirkwood. He didn't 't even talk about the damn battle. All he said was it was epic, noted people who died, and said that bilbo fell asleep for most of it. Granted each movie is around 2 and a half hours long, but that would still not be enough time to actually put in the amount of detail that is needed to justify this book.

so we go to two movies. that seems good, should be enough time to get just about everything, except for all the side stories that Tolkien added after the book was made, along with everything that Jackson was allowed to use by the Tolkien estate themselves. One of the biggest parts included in this is the siege of Mirkwood. Without this siege, Gandalf just randomly leaving would have made shit-all sense. There isn't enough time in these two movies to add in all the lore you can possibly add which surrounds one of the biggest plotholes in this one book - where did Gandalf go?

so they bring it up to three. yeah ok, the first hobbit had a slow start, apart from them battling trolls and the goblins, there's no real threat to them. let's add azog, he's not really dead, not so much of an oversight anyway. Admittedly a lot of this story is filler, and could just be moved around a bit more to make the movie enjoyable. Not Jackson's best work, but it's still working. Since this movie is over we're able to get to the more nitty gritty parts of the story. We actually have a reason for Gandalf leaving. We have a new female character, not sure about her love story with the frickin dwarf, but maybe it'll be justified by the next film, just wait and see. we also had a returning character, Legolas, who is well justified into this time line, purely by the fact that he was well documented as growing up in Mirkwood, and that thranduil is indeed his father. then we get to the barrels, minor change here but nothing story breaking. Then there's bard. Ok, he wasn't actually there to pick up the dwarves. oh wait his story is being expanded on that's good thanks pj. three of the dwarves are staying behind? it's alright, it's gonna add up to some good plot points. We finally see the dragon, yay, he's epic, and I'll have no "ooh technikully isent hee a wyvurn nao?!!1!1!one" cause dragons and wyverns are the same damn thing.

botfa is probably gonna be smaller in plot points, but really? you want more plot points at this part? the main plots we're gonna have here is for starters a giant fucking dragon burning the laketown down. bard killing the dragon. the massive bloody battle. the Mirkwood wizard battle. Legolas and the amazing Orc chase. thranduil's change of heart. the dwarves of the blue mountains. and of course, what Thorin and bilbo and that are up to in erebor. done right, this should add up to a good movie. you've also got the journey home, but do you honestly thing they'll waste a good ten minutes on a walk home? nope, it'll add up to around two minutes, and we'll get some sort of snazzy meaningful ending at the end with bilbo back in hobbiton, maybe they'll connect the hobbit and lotr then. the namesake battle, just think of that as Minas Tirith battle number two. we'll get a couple of minutes of thranduil changing his mind and bringing his giant army of elves and shit. Legolas and the fantastic Orc car chase or whatever will eventually, this is my theory, lead them to Mirkwood, where Legolas kills the Orc, rescues Gandalf, they share a kiss, Legolas joins battle with Gandalf and the other wizards, they fight, they win, they return to laketown on the eagles, which is where they join the others in laketown. All this taking place during smaug's attack. smaug's attack will be epic, spanning a good 25 minutes, while the Mirkwood thing will be with that attack, altogether spanning a good 35 minutes overall. and apparently we don't like long drooling filler, we just want people dying, so that should be enough for all you "diehard Tolkien fans" out there. Then we'll probably get some sort of bit where everyone prepares for war. that's alright, you can stand a little less action for about five minutes, yes? big battle, everyone's dead, what's for dinner.

we're all judging the last movie because apparently the other two aren't meeting up to our expectations. what were you expecting? something so like The Lord of the rings trilogy that it might as well be an exact replica? Everything that's been said against this movie is something along the lines that "this is all mindless filler, needs to make way for more action". that's stupid. You're stupid. if you want mindless action, fuck off to the expendables 3. this is the hobbit. There's really only two things they've changed from the original. Azog being alive, and the inclusion of Tauriel. That's it. Everything else is well justified and actually happened.

Dr. Javelin said:
there was so much that could have been cut out of both movies that we honestly might have been able to just have one movie

ultimately in the desolation of smaug we didn't need to meet that bear guy, or travel through the forest with the spiders. that was just filler. they also probably could have sped up the rivertown parts tremendously, and we'd have a much shorter, much better movie that still keeps the good parts (barrel escape, meeting smaug) intact

you could also cut a ton out of the first movie, i mean all you really need are bilbo deciding to go with the dwarves, misty mountains, like one scene with the orcs chasing them, and meeting gollum. you'd probably have to retcon finding sting to fit in one of those scenes to save on time, but it would still work
Click to expand...
a lot of the shit you just cut out was in the books and would be rather unfaithful to the story itself. while jackson adds in parts to the stories, the general consensus is that you follow the story. That means the old forest is a bloody big part of the story. So is meeting beorn.

when you want to reply to me, because I know some of you are going to be outraged by what I have just said, please don't quote this, just say @neptune or something. It's gonna suck for us to have to avoid 250 quote blocks, and it'll be painful for you to try and remove the Great Wall of text.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
Luigidaisy1 said:
But the Movies came out fantastic!
Click to expand...
the reason the movies came out fantastic is because they had to cut so much stuff out. have you tried reading the books? there's so much lore there that's shoved in and gets in the way of the stuff that's actually happening (which is why i could never finish the books, i mean honestly)

some people like the lore, and that's fine, but it makes for an awful movie. the hobbit movies are basically a mix where now they have time to throw in as much lore as they want but they also have to adapt some things because it's a movie now and it's basically just a big mess because the pacing is absolutely horrible in all the hobbit movies. sure, you have great memorable parts in each of them (namely misty mountains, that flashback battle where throin fought the orc, the gollum part, the barrel escape, and meeting smaug), but the parts inbetween are just pointless or slow or both and aaaagghhh
Click to expand...
No, I feel the Hobbit should be three parts. Now yes, I understand some people don't like tauriel and stuff like that, but it is a great trilogy (So Far). Also, the part at the beginning where you said Did I read the books? I am a HUGH Tolkien fan, and read the books. I clearly know the changes between the books from the movies. I know the hobbit was only one book, but that doesn't mean anything. Lord of the Rings could have added scenes like the Barrow Downs etc. But like I said earlier. (Which I don't feel like repeating) The Lord of the Rings was not fantastic because they cut so much, it was fantastic because they did such an amazing job on portraying Tolkien's Middle-Earth and his lore on screen. They went by the books very well, but of course, you have to make some changes because things that are interesting in a book might not be that interesting on screen. I understand that people don't like how there are 3 parts because they don't see how it would all fit in. But, there are so many hardcore Tolkien fans that I've seen that said after watching TDOS, they can see how there's going to be another movie. Gandalf still has to escape Dol Guldur and fight Azog and his orc army. Smaug still has to destroy Lake-Town, and there still has to be The Battle of Five Armies, which the producers said they want to make it epic, and Bilbo still has to go back home to the Shire (Unless the producers just end the movie were Bilbo is at Erebor lol). Also, they said this movie will be shorter then the other Hobbit movies. They still have to finish Bard's story, I know he doesn't have THAT much to him (Unless you read the Appendices), but still, we want to see more of Tolkien's works on screen (At least I do). So in the end, I am very glad they're making the Hobbit into a trilogy, and that we got so much Middle-Earth movies now to watch. I love Middle-Earth along with everyone else here that is a Tolkien fan. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was insulting someone because they didn't like how the Hobbit is a trilogy. I didn't mean any insults what so ever. Now if you'll excuse me, I think am going to be looking up Tolkien stuff. :D
 
Legolas kills the Orc, rescues Gandalf, they share a kiss
Click to expand...
Legolas x Gandalf OTP

We finally see the dragon, yay, he's epic, and I'll have no "ooh technikully isent hee a wyvurn nao?!!1!1!one" cause dragons and wyverns are the same damn thing.
Click to expand...
Well, technically Wyverns are a type of the more general "dragon" term, but yeah, it's the style in general these days in srsbsns fantasy (except HTTYD) to eschew the traditional European 4 legs + wings dragons for the more "realistic" 4 limbs only version, so w/e, he's cool either way. Best character in the film. And the book.

One of the biggest parts included in this is the siege of Mirkwood. Without this siege, Gandalf just randomly leaving would have made shit-all sense. There isn't enough time in these two movies to add in all the lore you can possibly add which surrounds one of the biggest plotholes in this one book - where did Gandalf go?
Click to expand...
I also like how they added Gandalf's behind-the-scenes stuff and made it link with LotR more. Legolas being in it is logical and cool too, I think, and it makes Thranduil the Elves' part more interesting than the batch of gold-grubbing partiers like the book sorta made them out to be iirc.

Dr. Javelin said:
there was so much that could have been cut out of both movies that we honestly might have been able to just have one movie

ultimately in the desolation of smaug we didn't need to meet that bear guy, or travel through the forest with the spiders. that was just filler. they also probably could have sped up the rivertown parts tremendously, and we'd have a much shorter, much better movie that still keeps the good parts (barrel escape, meeting smaug) intact

you could also cut a ton out of the first movie, i mean all you really need are bilbo deciding to go with the dwarves, misty mountains, like one scene with the orcs chasing them, and meeting gollum. you'd probably have to retcon finding sting to fit in one of those scenes to save on time, but it would still work
Click to expand...
I think one film would have been way too draconian. Some parts could have gone faster, yes, and I'll admit, Beorn could have been cut without compromising much, like how they cut Tom Bombadil and stuff from LotR, but the troll scene and finding Sting is also pretty iconic: losing that sequence would be no good at all. And Mirkwood was not filler - it's when Bilbo really comes into his own as a hero by saving the Dwarves from the spiders (and then from the Elves). Plus, even if they didn't add the new Elf and Orc stuff, there's still be the aforementioned plot hols of Gandalf ditching them for no reason and very little connection to LotR, which would leave most fans deeply unsatisfied.

It's not perfect, but I'd still rather have an unnecessarily portly trilogy during which I can gloss my eyes over on occasion to a bare bones standalone that leaves me wanting more.
 
okay, so perhaps two movies would have been better. there's no reason for there to be three though

if they managed to somehow cut down longer books into the lord of the rings movies, i still think they could do the hobbit as well (which is 100 pages shorter than the lord of the rings). but either way, this definitely didn't need to be three movies
 
I was hoping that The Hobbit would have been two movies too. Like, I was really hoping to at least get a glimpse of Smaug in the first one (and then probably end for cliffhanger). I do think there is some filler. Like I judge it as medium filler level. And there is really not that much of the book let IIRC (and I am probably wrong, since it has been a couple years, I should reread it), so most of the next one will probably be fighting Smaug, which may add a lot of scenes too....honestly I am just in it for Smaug and nothing else.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
meh, any movie can be made to look good in a trailer

especially if you just steal music from lord of the rings
Click to expand...
oh my gosh isn't it wonderful Jav still has stuff to say about the hobbit being a bad series how wonderful isn't this brilliant wow thanks

ok that's over, now,

Martha's Sister said:

#fuckyeah #hype #freakinamazing #orgasm
Click to expand...
#hnnnnnnnng

so who's riding the sleigh being chased by wolves on that pack of ice? better be radagast
 
i just refuse to get hyped for this because i was so disappointed after desolation of smaug

fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me

(an unexpected journey was a decent movie though, so i wasn't too disappointed after that one)
 
Иeptune said:
...

dos was the one that disappointed you?




o-ho-kay
Click to expand...

Javelin is just a very stubborn guy that will be unreasonably nitpicky towards a well liked movie. I think he just wants to stand out from the crowd.

I think it'll be a good movie. Definitely will have a lot of action in it. I probably won't see it right away since it'll be towards the end of my semester though.
 
the problem with desolation of smaug was the lack of memorable scenes (at least to me). i can remember two parts of the movie - the barrel escape, and everything with smaug. everything else was just slow filler that didn't really add tension, and most of it was unnecessary (i'll concede that we needed to meet bard at some point, and he wasn't awful, but it didn't tie into the main plot of desolation of smaug at all)

an unexpected journey was full of memorable scenes that (in retrospect) make it better than desolation of smaug. there was the "blunt the knives" song, the "misty mountains" song, bilbo having to chase after the dwarves, the trolls, and gollum, all of which were fantastic scenes that tied into the main movie. it also had its dumb moments, like two warg chases and that stone giant battle thing? but overall it was just more entertaining

i guess if you like watching legolas and tauriel shoot orcs for a quarter of the movie then desolation of smaug was better, but it didn't do it for me
 
OMG the new Hobbit trailer is getting me so HYPED! Love the movies!
 
Yoshidude99 said:
Luigidaisy1 said:
OMG the new Hobbit trailer is getting me so HYPED! Love the movies!
Click to expand...
Me too. I also love the how the song in the trailer is the one from Return of the King.
Click to expand...
I agree! Fit so well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back