Man, who would have thought that the shortest film in the trilogy was the most bloated, "greed is bad greed is bad greed is bad" CGI blob of the three.
Even moar than bloated, I found it soulless and uninspired. Also, it took abou thirty minutes before a color other than blue and orange appeared.
Well... this movie... is on ONE FUCKING CHAPTER, two if you count "the way back".
It's like "Oh well we killed Smaug, let's finish it up with the epic battle."
And then one of the other guys said "Fuck no, we're going to milk this book as much as we can dammit."
No seriously, this was so fucking unnecessary. I can immagine the only reason why they did this, was because they didn't have enough money for more CGI at the end of "The Desolation of Smaug". So instead they decided to drag out this ONE chapter as long as they possibly could.
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit films! I refuse too! For multiple reasons:
1. I love the book, it is one of my favorite books of all time, it doesn't matter how many movies you make, you can't recreate the greatness of The Hobbit.
2. Multiple movies aren't even necessary, the single cartoon movie covered basically everything that people needed to understand, dragging it out into multiple movies is obviously just an attempt to make more money; it doesn't increase the quality of the portrayal, in fact it worsens it. Especially in this movie's case!
3. From what I've seen in the trailers, they even ADD stuff to the movies, just for the sole purpose of making them longer: for example Legolas was never in the original Hobbit.
4. Because I know that I will constantly be pointing out holes throughout the entire thing, most likely in the characters. From what I heard the movies try to make Thorin a likable person.... which is completely unlike his character from the book. The entire point of Thorin's original character was that he was an overconfident douche with his head up his ass; not only because he was greedy, but because he was narcissistic, ignorant of his own mistakes, and often completely unaware of his surroundings. The Hobbit tricks the reader into really hating Thorin, because it lets us know that Bilbo is the actual hero and Thorin doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about; suddenly, the ending battle happens, and Thorin turns into a badass, his eyes "glowing red" from enchanted armor and weaponry which he found in the pile of Smaug's treasure. Thorin's bravery and badassery is only made clear to the reader during the ending battle, so when Thorin dies, we actually care about him, and it actually sparks emotion within us. If what I heard is correct, then these movies flat out ruin that.
5. Because I feel like they'd be a waste of time, I already know the story, I don't need to watch a movie on it.
It's funny you should mention that about someone doing a fan edit that condenses it to two movies because that's exactly what I'm in the process of doing! :)
Good luck. These movies despartely need a fan edit, because there's a lot of quality hidden behind all the filler.
Good luck indeed, I think it's possible. For reference, Jackson originally wanted to end the first film with the appearance of Bard the Bowman, with the barrel sequence being the first film's climax. Don't know if that would've worked though, although it's interesting to see somehow try to make that. As for other things that should've been cut, at least from the second film (it has been a while since I've seen the first):
- The romance;
- The attack on Laketown. Has no influence on the story whatsoever;
- The nonsense with Stephen Fry's character;
- Most stuff with Radagast;
- Battle with Smaug can be trimmed somewhat.
"For reference, Jackson originally wanted to end the first film with the appearance of Bard the Bowman, with the barrel sequence being the first film's climax."
I knew that and that actually made for a big reference point.
And yeah, having seen the third movie today, all I can say about the romance is, I'm gonna do what I can.
And yeah, the attack on Laketown is definitely gonna get a few trims.
Radaghast and the Necromancer subplot are actually gonna be gone entirely.
That's about it.
I honestly think that the Necromancer thing can remain, but you can cut half of those scenes and it would be the same. I hope you manage to cut the Legolas and Tauriel parts so that they become basically only cameos, of course with no romance. Also, the first movie had a lot of pointless flashbacks, half of them can be cut, or at least trimmed.
You know, I just think the movie's fine without the Necromancer stuff.
Well, I can't promise them just being cameos but I can certainly give them less screen time.
You do kind of need them to capture the dwarfs, and to attack the Orcs (although you might actually be able to completely cut out Tauriel from the barrel sequence).
Yeah, you try and cut them out entirely, it screws up continuity. But now that I've seen the last movie, I know I can cut more.
I wonder if peter jackson will have another trilogy and will it be so drawn out
He already didn't want to do this one and it shows in the resulting product.
Also, I HIGHLY agree about Mad Max Fury Road. Hands down the best trailer of 2014. I've even see it more than the new Star Wars trailer,...and I've never even seen one of the Mad Max films! Looks like it isn't heavily dependent on CGI for the action scenes, which looks very refreshing.
Isn't heavily dependent on CGI? Yeah right, I'm sure all of those fire tornadoes are practical effects
Well, relatively speaking, ofcourse. Real cars, real explosions, real stuntwork, real desert. The fire tornado is only a tenth of the trailer.
fire tornado is like 5 minutes of the movie. dont be petty.
The tornado is one brief scene, explosions are real and layered in, real wire work, real wrecks, everything.
if you're gonna bitch about at best 5 minutes of a movie said to have 80% of its shots to have no cgi, and most of that 20% is distant environment shots, then why bother seeing any movie?
Minor correction for Dave, one Tolkien geek to another: The pale orc was named Azog, and he was not made up for the movies. In fact, the flashback sequence in the first movie is pretty accurate to the source material: Azog was the one who killed Thror at the mines of Moria. However, he was NOT alive at the time of Bilbo's journey: he was killed years before by Billy Connolly's character, Dain, as revenge for killing his father, Nain. So, they still made a bunch of crap up for the movies, just not all of it.
They just needed a recurring villain for all 3 movies, a old nemesis for Thorin. Quite fitting and heavy handed that they made him look like a humanoid version of Moby Dick.
It's such a disappointment that they couldn't have the mocap actor, kiwi, half-Maori Manu Bennett (yes, Slade Wilson from CW's Arrow) play him in makeup. They can do amazing things with prosthetics, but going full CGI for your focal villain is just dropping the ball and is one of my biggest gripes about the trilogy. Manu is bloody Deathstroke for fuck's sake. You can't tell me he wouldn't be intimidating enough.
How was Christopher Lee's scenes in the movie? I remember watching a video of him saying he was happy to play a more sympathetic Saruman in the final movie.
I've like these movies fine, but I really agree that it should have stayed two movies. The pacing is really off compared to Lord of th Rings For every moment of brilliance there's too much shit that doesn't belong and would have been better off cut. But l've enjoyed these movies and they got enough good shit in them that I'll probably revisit them in their extended editions and such and in the future. They're also miles above a certain other trilogy of prequels.
I think the reason for an over abundance of CGI can be very easily explained. Time and Greed. They wanted to get these movies out fast and they wanted to split the movie into 3 movies at the last minute (the battle sequence with Smaug and the dwarves was filmed in a month and a half about 4 months before the premiere of the 2nd movie. In order to film all that stuff quickly instead of setting up lights, cameras, building sets, etc. They opted to split a team of people working on various scenes for the movie and Peter Jackson oversee it. So instead of just filming a couple scenes a day you could have a staff working on creating at least 10 or so scenes a day using computers while Peter focused on the live action scenes.
Billy Connolly's character being CGI probably had something to do with Billy's failing health, but that still begs the question why Ian Holm and Christopher Lee could still appear.
Well, the thing about the role of Dain is it would require a lot of make-up and the costume is a heavy set of armour, add to that the fact that it is predominantly a physical role, all in all making it a bit too much for a 72 year old cancer patient in the early stages of Parkinson's to handle.
Dol Guldur sequence notwithstanding (say hello to Saruman's stunt double!), Sir Christopher and Sir Ian's scenes were mostly just dialogue, and were all actually filmed in Pinewood Studios back in England.
Did they even do facial recognition mocap? Dain looked exceptionally cartoony and stuck out like a sore thumb. Him buddying with Thorin gave a very strong Pete the Dragon vibe.
This is the one I was looking forward to. A of of family and friends were involved in the production and there's always the National pride at being host to such big films.
Filmwise it was ok, there's so many parts in the Hobbit that I wish were not in there. And there is nothing in the original LOTR Series that I wish wasn't in there.
By the way, I hope we get Snob Episodes on Sir Peter's early films, Braindead, Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles. They are perfect for a Snobbing.
This doesnt have to do with the video but are you guys going to do a review for The Interview?Hopefully they didnt cancel it at your theater in Springfield.
It's not released yet. Christmas is the release date.
I don't know what other theaters are in Springfield that would should The Interview. I have just finished reading that AMC has pulled it. The 4 other top chains have pulled it along with a few other smaller theaters. Sony still is going ahead with distribution so at worst it could go either direct to home video or just go vod.
Sony cancelled it according to Bloomberg. So don't hold your breath.
My favourite part of the movie was seeing Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman come together like they were Middle Earth's version of the Super Friends.
Heck, if I were making these movies, I would have the first two films be the plot of The Hobbit and the third film be all about the Middle Earth Super Friends finding and defeating Sauron. And then I would make more Middle Earth Super Friends movies because watching Christopher Lee fighting Nazgul will never get boring.
Brad no Jurassic World trailer analysis? haha
What's to say? CGI is SyFy territory and it looks dull and stupid as fuck.
I'm curious as to what he thinks too.
I'm with Dave, I have little hope for the next Terminator film -outside of the girl who's playing Sarah Connor- but I do love a good trainwreck. Same goes for Batman v. Superman. Mad Max looks like a fucking crazy good time. 2015 is gonna be a fun year for blockbusters.
Billy Connolly was actually having trouble with his lines due to Parkinsons, so he was sent back home to record his lines for his scenes. That's why there was so much CGI makeup on his character.
I'm surprised you guys didn't talk about arthur. He was easily the most weaselly character i've even seen in a film.
Minor spoilers: He leaves in the middle of a battle, disguised as a woman with as much gold as he could carry stuffed down his dress. I don't think this guy is even in the book.
We did. We may not have said his name, but we talked about him. I liked his shenanigans, and Dave didn't.
did you guys get the trailer to Star Wars The Force Unleashed and/or Jurassic World? if you did, what did you think about it? considering the fact that the screening I went to had the audio unusually louder, I could feel the sound of the Falcon from the seat as well as the Raptor roars piercing my eardrums. It was so loud that I literally still have a slight headache from it. I personally think these movie theaters needs to lower the sound a little bit so we won't go def by hearing it, especially if a film still had the THX sound attached to it.
I'm also on the same page as Brad, I don't prefer 3D films and I would rather go see a movie in 2D. you don't need to see a film in 3D to be entertained. I originally wanted to see this film in 2D, but due to a few problems from the advanced ticket to the actual theater is was playing it, I ended up seeing it in Imax 3D. and while I can go on a rant all day long as to why CGI is getting less effective and just down right bad, I do think that the 3D is another major problem if not an even bigger problem due to how much 3D films costs now at the box office. it's way too much money to spend on a 3D film. which would make seeing it in 2D less expensive and, in my opinion, far more effective. hell, normal ticket prices are just far too expensive now a days to the point where it's getting a little out of hand. at my local theater, the price for a matinee ticket is $9. for the local discount theater, it's only $4.50 (I could be wrong on this). however, the price for a regular movie ticket on discount Tuesdays at the discount theater is $3. the amount that me and my father paid last night to go see Fury at the discount theater was $6 in total. plus, the popcorn is far better than the regular screenings, and the theater itself feels more like old movie theaters. squeaky seats, better tasting popcorn, large rooms, 90's arcade games in the lobby, plus it had ads and commercials instead before the trailers and the film itself instead of the first look bullshit. plus, much like older theaters, it has trivia games which I have not seen in any other movie theater in such a long time. I'd say if you can't stand the high prices, track down a discount theater if you can find one. if Brad and the gang ever come to Frederick MD, come check this place out. $3 for a movie ticket on Tuesdays, you can't go wrong with that.
Like Brad, I really enjoyed the second Hobbit movie. Unlike him, I didn't even see the first one, and won't see this one.
I don't know what the hell I will see this weekend. Top 5, I guess.
Yeah, Dave, doesn't it suck when everyone universally HATES a movie you just happen like?
As a Godzilla fan, I'm jealous of the Kong remakes. I love the 70's remake for the simple fact it wasn't a straight remake, they actually had an original story & characters. My only disappointment is the only creature he fights is a snake, but the suit was great, thank you Rick Baker. Jackson's remake is pretty good. . . 2 hours in. But hey, at least when Kong finally shows up they don't cut away every chance they get, as if they're ashamed to show the title character!
I ended up seeing the 3d version with the higher frame rate. I got to say that I think the CG looks a lot better at the higher frame rate then it does at the normal frame rate. I have yet to see it at a normal fps but I think that more care was put into the higher frame rate.
Dave, The Return of the King almost brought me to tears in the theatre. Sean Astin nearly made me cry with his speech before hoisting Frodo on his back climbing up Mount Doom. Damn you, Samwise Gamgee!
I actually just got back from seeing The Hobbit along with Dumb & Dumber To, in which last night I was able to see Fury. 3 movies in just 2 days. it's funny because the projector in the theater I was originally going to see it was not working, so they gave the audience free pass for another movie. the screen came back on, and it was the wrong theater. apparently, the advanced ticket I ordered was not the correct theater. so, I had to talk to the manager because I was in the wrong theater. they allowed me to see it in Imax 3D free of charge (which I originally paid for a 2D screening) and I was able to use the free movie pass to see Dumb & Dumber To due to Brad & Jake's review winning me over to give the film a try. and while it was pretty busy in The Hobbit, not to mention loud, I was the only person in the entire theater of Dumb & Dumber To. not since 30 Days Of Night did I have the entire theater to myself. I liked Fury, I thought Dumb & Dumber To was just ok, and I thought The Hobbit was pretty good. the only issue I seem to have is how loud the theater was. dear god they could of turned it down a tad.
I was the only person in that theater who experienced hearing the First Look without ever seeing it. no screen, just sound for what seemed like 10-15 minutes.
Man, I tried to give the movie a serious look as a die-hard Tolkien fan. But when Legolas straight up turned into Kratos (Riding the troll) and then doing that ridiculous jumping on the falling stones part, I just lost my shit and genuinely laughed out loud in the theater.
I'm too much of a LotR fan not to go see this but I can't muster up any enthusiasm for it (it's already been out here for a week). LotR was a big commercial series and all but it had creative drive and tension to it. People trying stuff that wasn't guaranteed to work. With the Hobbit it was the same people doing the same thing for the same audience.
And as much as I like LotR I really didn't need any more of it. Like no matter how good the food is at some point it'll make you sick. Halfway through the third movie I always want to be done with it. Even without its flaws the Hobbit trilogy is just redundant to me when it's trying so much to be like the first one.
On a creative level it could've been one movie, like damn near every other novel adaptation. Cut a few things, but mostly keep it small. Don't translate every event into a big setpiece, don't put in Middle-earth stuff just because you can. But on a business level it was inevitably going to be franchise first and movie second. Which to be fair could've turned out a lot worse, especially concidering how much they rushed it.
BTW I totally hear Dave about colour in movies. All this washed out, dark, monochrome shit is a drag to look at.
So I'll get a ton on flak for this... but you know what? I kind of hate the book, and I kind of loved the movie... is it too long? not by much, I like the fact that they extended the story rather than put it as the clumsy compacted mess it is on the book.
So yeah, I like the hobbit movies, a lot, waaay more than the book... from the book I basically expected to just meh it, but I really did like it.
i loved these movies more than lord of the rings.
i hated that the group split up, and we kept jumping
between 4 groups; especially the retarded hobbits.
the hobbit movies feel so much more focused.
i also hated that 2 of the original 3 movies were
just boring war shit and noise.
I didn't mind the CGI at all
In fact, it reminded me a lot of Hellboy 2, which ain't a bad thing to be reminded of.
Brad, you're both saying this movie looks like shit because it looks and feels like a video game CGI.
Just tell me honestly, Brad, are you going to destroy the upcoming Warcraft movie for this exact reason? Because, ya know...it IS a video game CGI all way through, from the very fist second and to the very last. The upcoming Warcraft movie...it's one, big, massive, juicy, Blizzard CGI. Warcraft 3's CGI cut-scene, but stretched to 2+ hours of screen time and with slightly better graphics/animation since technologies obviously different/better now than they were back then.
So, are you gonna do it? Are you gonna trash Warcraft movie for being 100% video game CGI? Because that movie will actually be just a video game CGI cut-scene stretched to 2+ hours of screen time, so by going to it you're already should understand that you're deliberately going to sit in a cinema theater and watch a "2+ hours"-long video game cut-scene and nothing else but just that.
I obviously say this with very heavy sarcasm applied, but still...tell me, Brad.
Well consider LOTR isn't a videogame and Warcraft IS, I'm sure they wouldn't slam a video-game movie for looking like a videogame. LOTR on the other hand...
What is wrong with you?
I didnt mind the comic relief character either
allthough his final scene could really have used some better resolution
All I am interested in next year are Jurassic World, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, and the new Gamera movie.
CGI lacks real spectacle. If you watch something old like Waterloo there's an innate spectacle to just having thousands of extras and real horses on screen
The real masterpiece would have been the version DelToro was going to make...
I would rather watch the parts of his version they filmed than the mess Peter Jackson vomited out.
Peter Jackson used to be in tune with Tolkien. Now, Peter Jackson is in tune only with himself, to the point of re-writing Tolkiens work.
From what I've heard, Jackson's next movies are going to be the second Tintin movie and a steampunk adaptation called Mortal Engines. I think there was also an adaptation of a fantasy book about Napoleon's soldiers riding dragons or something like that. Either way, I know what you mean by wanting Jackson to do something else besides the Tolkien books. It may not be smaller scale per say but I'm definitely up for Jackson to do some adventure and science-fiction films. I think that's kinda why his version of King Kong keeps sticking in the back of my mind, even I'm not that big a fan of the King Kong story anyway, but because I love period films like that and Jackson did it so well. Plus, I have the two DVD version of the film with all the bonus features and that stuff is awesome!
Another great period piece that he did, even though it was more of a TV special than a movie was Forgotten Silver, which was a mockumentary about a fictional forgotten New Zealand filmmaker who created an epic biblical film in the jungle and also did some "firsts" like accidentally creating a tracking shot on a bicycle or filming a guy who flew an airplane before the Wright Brothers. The thing was though that Jackson did such a good on the film that people thought it was the real deal and got ticked off when it was revealed to be a hoax. I think tis my favorite of Jackson's films so far.
The only "scary" film of his that I've seen is The Frighteners but I guess I wouldn't mind seeing Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, or Dead Alive but I have a feeling its not going to be my cup of tea.
If you get to see a version of 'The Hobbit' that is condensed into one movie, please make a video talking about it.
Screw You Peter LUCAS
Well, I never! >:(
Well i like that's its three movies. Maybe because out of all the five books it was my favorite and they really had no character execpt for Thorin and Bilbo even Gandalf didnt really have a character in the book.
The Taruiel love triangle was not part of the original script. Eva Lilly agreed to play Tauriel under the agreement that there would be no love story. But when they came back for reshoots, she was informed that the studio had added in the love triangle. I thought it was bullshit for both movies, but I feel less angry with it knowing its not Jackson's fault.
So does this mean we may get a snob episode of the mad max movies by the time may roles around?
This is my problem with most movies these days. I'm so sick of CGI. The only movie maker that comes to mind when I think practical effects and amazing make up jobs recently is Guilliarmo Del Toro. I mean, yeah he made Book of Life but his character designs were so fresh and different from literally every other CGI family film in circulation. LIke... Rumors of Hellboy 3 are going around and I am psyched for that for all the creatures he has to make!
Did you two watch the same movie I did? That was 2h20m that felt like at least 3h. This felt like it was written and edited by a 5 year old. Let me try to enumerate my problems with this, most of which are independent of any changes from the source.
* Tauriel I actually liked in the 2nd film, as I thought that might allow them to make some changes, such as having her save Fili. Instead, nope, she's a pointless part of a love triangle.
* Legolas. Again, I didn't mind his inclusion per-se, but bloody hell every fight he in was so obviously CGI and so preposterous that it was distracting.
* The names. Look, I get that Tolkien liked his made-up languages, and in a book that can make sense. In a film, I don't care. Two armies of orcs are attacking, each from different directions. The names of where they're coming from I don't care about, nor the backstory to those places -- it's superfluous to the plot and adds nothing we need to know.
* Arthur was as annoying as Jar Jar every time he appeared.
* Galadriel's and Thorin's freakouts were just bizarre. I was trying to keep from laughing.
* Especially after Lake Town burned, the editing was peculiar. Oh, the dwarves seem to be doing something... nope, we get a 10 second shot of Gandalf to remind us he's there, and now to the humans, nope back to the dwarves, no, the humans... arg, make up your mind!
* Take a shot every time someone says WAR and you'll be drunk in no time.
* We get it, greed is bad, advance the plot. No, still going to beat this point into the ground, eh?
* Were the damn sandworms really necessary?
* How long does this fight between Thorin and the head orc have to be? Actually, that same comment can apply to MOST of the fights here (see Legolas again).
* What was the POINT of that scene with Gandalf smoking his pipe? GET ON WITH IT!!!
That's all I feel like ranting about right now.
Has Anyone mentioned how Dave looks kind of like Sean Astin yet?
I absolutely love The Lovely Bones.
Finally saw this movie, so I can watch this.
Everything they complained about was right. I still like the movie, but there was too much padding, silly CGI, etc. etc.
The first Hobbit is the worst of the 3, but it's still way better than any of the Star Wars prequels.
Does anyone know what the funky music is at the very beginning of the video?
Though for the most part I did enjoy this part of the Hobbit. However I got massively bored off and on throughout the film. Having this segment be just one LONG battle sequence didn't add a ton of substance. I totally agree that The Hobbit didn't need to be three films. Two would have been okay, but not three.