which trilogy was worse?
>>216953662Fantastic Beasts by far, the first one was barely watchable and the others were just godawful right from the start. The Hobbit started off fine or even good and went to stupid but even the worst of it wasn't as bad as that.
>>216953662the first hobbit movie is decent, but all of the fantastic beasts movies are horrible
>>216953662the first two hobbit movie are alright and have some good scenes, especially if you cut out the CGI action hijinks like Legolas jumping on the dwarves, the goblin city escape and the Home Alone fight with Smaug. don't think any of the Fantastic Beast Movies are redeemable whatsoever.
>>216953662Fantastic Beasts. Only Battle for Five Armies is actually bad, the first two are okay. Fantastic Beasts, the first film is okay but then the next two are utter shit. The third one I guess was better than the second one (which didn't even feel like a coherent film and had that crazy Santa Barbara shit reveal in the end) but was still ass.
I think I only saw the first Hobbit movie but I really liked it. The lead was charming and funny, I thought everyone was fucking lame and gay in lotr, remembered Hobbit having more action. I generally dislike fantasy and think it's a homosexual genre so after I divorced the bitch I was with who liked that shit I never watched the others, but never got the hate for it, way better than lotr
>>216953726Yeah I'll say that about the Hobbit movies, for all their faults Freeman's Bilbo is a more active and charismatic protagonist than Frodo.
>>216953662What a silly thread lol. Do you really think the Hobbit movies are THAT bad?
>>216953662Eddie Redmayne in FB acts like he's still portraying Hawking
1 and 3 of both trilogies are garbage. 2 are decent in both cases. I’d say Crimes is a bit superior than Desolation, so Animals win.
>>216953662Fantastic Beasts easily was worse. That being said the Hobbit was also trash.
Hobbit 1 was good, 2 was good in the Extended Edition. 3 just could have been handled a lot better.I still think that the Hobbit woulda been fantastic if they left it in the original 2 film structure, especially as that would have made it so they didnt have to stretch out so much shit and add in stuff and change the orc villains with new CG ones etc
>>216955144>I still think that the Hobbit woulda been fantastic if they left it in the original 2 film structureI still feel like people give Jackson way too much shit personally for The Hobbit when so many of its issues are external ones like these.
>>216955201feels like at this point people acknowledge he was mostly just fucked over by the studio who wanted to recreate LOTR with half the time and source material clearly not suitable for such a scale
>>216955201True. This poster that was released before they announced it'd' be 3 movies, shows where Part 1 was supposed to end. Movie 2 would have been kino as itd have the entirety of Smaug AND the battle in it.
>>216953662Hobbit by far, no one expects fucking Harry Potter slop to be good in the first place
Hobbit aged pretty good. There's a lot of cringe moments, the dwarves look barely like dwarves in some cases, but it has good action, even if there's too much obvious CGI, and it feels like a fantasy movie. Disappointing on a first watch after watching LOTR, but better on a rewatch a few years later. I just wish they were more in line with the novel than with LOTR. I want my talking weapons lolFantastic Beasts don't feel like HP movies to me. And the magic is all weird. Even as stand-alone movies, they are below average.
>>216953662Of all the franchises that tried to cashgrab with a new trilogy sequel/prequel, the Hobbit is easily the best.
>>216953662Hobbit. First movie is completely unwatchable. Never bothered with the other two. Fantastic Beasts sucks and is pointless, but actually watchable.
>>216954189Crimes is unwatchable garbage with one of the most braindead final acts in the past decade. It's easily the worst film here.
>>216955201Jackson deserves a shitload of blame and here's why:1) The studio may have mandated that they get another trilogy out of it but there is 0% chance they insisted on a 3+ hour runtime for all of them. They would have been more than fine with 3 2 hour or eve 90 minute movies. That means a shorter overall production schedule *and* more screenings per day. The films did not need to be this bloated, horribly paced pile of shitty fanfiction trying desperately to out-epic the OT. That was a creative decision on Jackson's part. No studio has ever, EVER gone to a director and said "yeah, it's too short, add an hour to the runtime." If a film is 3 hours it's because the director wanted it to be.2) The primary reason for all the horrible fucking bloat and very un-Tolkien like plot and dilaogue is because Jackson refused to tard wrangle his wife, and her writing partner, who inexplicably won academy awards for not butchering the OT books *too* badly and suddenly thought they were geniuses. The LOTR films are like 60-70% straight from the book and all the worst parts are the bits where they added or condensed something and the writers had to substitute their own writing for Tolkien's. The Hobbit films are like 30-40% from the book and the rest are just Fran Walsh and Phillipa boyens reading a footnote from an appendix and writing entire scenes around it, or worse, just making shit up when it wasn't even necessary. Almost everything that happens in laketown and the whole elf /dwarf love triangle is pure fabrication. And for what? It was just there to fill time. You could drop both those subplots, make the movies shorter and better, and lose nothing from the canon plotlines. But Jackson couldn't or wouldn't separate the wheat from the chaff. He just let them add whatever they fucking wanted no matter how retarded, anachronistic or unnecessary it was. And again, this is not a studio decision. Jackson just didn't want to tell his wife her ideas were shite.
