How is it possible these movies had zero cultural impact compared to the lord of the rings? Too much CGI? or just shit?
>>220289556just shit.. also the hobbit actor was pure shit .. and the gopro shots were pure shit and the final battle was pure shit .The only kino was when sauron started speaking in the flames..
>>220289556they looked like shit and were shit. way too much CGI and stretching it into 3 movies just doesnt work. its a 300 page book lmao you can casually read it in one day.
>>220289556They stretched a book that was one 3-hr movie, MAYBE two 2-hr movies, into three movies.
>>220289556They didn't do anything new the way LOTR did. The only sword & sorcry fantasy we had before LOTR was with garbage effects and acting, maybe some gay Harryhausen stop-mo figurine animation--itself appreciable as art, but looked like crap on screen. LOTR did it in a way no one had before.
>>220289556A combination of things. The filler added to stretch the book into 3 movies was probably the worst thing, like the stupid romance subplot with Kili and Tauriel. They lack soulful impactful moral themes and messages that Lord of the Rings had, about the value of courage and sacrifice and bravery coming from unexpected places etc. It tries and fails to replace them with shit like Thorin getting corrupted by the Arkenstone in the 3rd movie, where the message is "Greed is Bad." Gee, thanks... Also yes, too much CGI and a bad aesthetic in a lot of scenes where it's like the sun jizzed on everything
>>220289642It's crazy how he left looked like a younger Bilbo thoughever, they should've given him acting lessons.
>>220289995yep should've been two movies. can't believe jackson just said "fuck it" and phoned it in... wish he had stuck to the book as well as he did with LOTR
>>220292695100% agree
>>220289556>How is it possible these movies had zero cultural impact compared to the lord of the rings? Too much CGI? or just shit?It's because they never released the High Frame Rate 3D version on Blu-ray.
>>220293447
>>220289556The hobbit is basically an entire story Tolkien wrote in the style of the parts Jackson left out of LORT.Bombadil, the scourging of the shire, all the little songs here and there , the weird unexplained statues on the road to Gondor; all that shit Jackson left out because he couldn’t script it without cringing.The problem is the Hobbit is bassically all shit like that front to back. You can’t cut it all out so you have to either do it “”ironically”” or trim it down and put in shit that was never in the story to begin with.In a way though I do symapthies with Jackson; it would have taken some courage to just have movie where the elves are making fun of the dwarves beards and singing in the late summer night air for an entir evening with no conflict.Not sure modern audiences would actually accept a faithful adaptation.
>>220293682
>>220293682WTF was he thinking?
>>220293732I wonder what those green guys put on their resumes. "Green screen operator"? "Production assistant"?
>>220289556Because it tried to hard to be Lord of the Rings.The hobbit is a silly fun adventure story that doesn't take itself too seriously. Trying to plaster the tone of LOTR over the hobbit ignores that at its core the hobbit is a far more light hearted story with lower stakes.
>>220289556As time goes on, the dumb, silly, wrong stuff in the Lord of the Rings movies bothers me more and more.The Hobbit movies are all of that in a far more concentrated form.
>>220289556dwarves looked fucking ridiculous and the hobbit actor looked like he hated being thereit just didnt feel like the happy family that the fellowship was
>>220296424>the hobbit actor looked like he hated being thereBilbo was peer pressured into going on the adventure with the dwarfs by Gandalf
Smaug was cool.Not enough singing Dwarves.
>>220289556Main factor is the cursed feeling of being a cashgrabFeels like a "Aladdin 2:Return of Jafar" kind of dealThe main culprit in my opinion, is that they didn't trusted the source material and were too in love with lotr calling everyone they could from lotr to re-live the experienceIs less a product for me and an experience for you and it shows
>>220289556Mogged by the cartoon version from 1977. Even though a 78 minute runtime led to the opposite problem it's still better than adding a bunch of dumb filler.
>>220289556What I loved:>The Bombur barrel scene>The black ballista scene (even if they didn't use it)>The arrow-deflecting hammer the dwarves hadWhat I hated>The Azog shit>The love triangle>The dwarves trying to trap the dragonLet me know if (You) understand the difference between this things and why my opinion is correct
>>220289995this>>220296388and thisThe book is the length of half of The Fellowship of the Ring that they stretched into three movies. And they tried making it feel as epic and serious as LotR when it's closer to Farmer Giles of Ham in levity.
>>220289556They let a man with an elf fetish make a movie about dwarves. It's about as retarded as letting an Englishman make a Napoleon movie.
>>220289556It had no pre-production time and the first director left two weeks before shooting was about to start, Peter Jackson came in and did the best he could with no time to plan out a vision that was his own, everyone in this thread ignores the fact that guilermo del toro fucked the production of these movies, it's like they are purposely trolling
>>220289556the first half of the first movie is pretty good. i rewatch the dwarf dinner party sometimes
The Fellowship of the Ring had almost three years of pre production time before they started shooting and that quality shows with almost 45 nonstop minutes of the best cinema humanity has ever made
>>220289556it had less to work with than LotR, which means they had to pad out a ton of useless shit to get it to the 3-film length. the Hobbit book is also more juvenile than LotR, intended for a younger audience, and thagvibe permeates the films as well despite Jackson trying to age it up.
>>220293657>Not sure modern audiences would actually accept a faithful adaptation.They might have accepted it if the books had been adapted in chronological order. Instead LOTR was adapted first, and it shaped audience expectations for Middle-Earth at the movies: epic, the highest possible stakes, lots of battle-porn, lots of orcs, Sauron, dark riders, strident choral music from Howard Shore. Once that kind of Middle-Earth had taken root in the public mind, there was no going back. The majority of people who enjoyed the LOTR films didn't read the books, and looked forward to The Hobbit trilogy not as an adaptation of Tolkien, but as a prequel to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, with all that would entail. There was no chance of New Line following LOTR with a frivolous children's fairytale that would alienate a large part of the audience Jackson built, especially teenage boys.
