Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

An anonymous reader writes: The final chapter to Peter Jackson's series of films based on The Hobbit debuted last week, and the reviews haven't been kind. Ars Technica just posted theirs, and it highlights all the problems with Battle of the Five Armies, a two-hour and twenty-four minute film based on only 72 pages of the book. Quoting: "The battles in Battle of the Five Armies are deadly boring, bereft of suspense, excessively padded, and predictable to the point of being contemptuous of the audience. Suspense is attempted mostly by a series of last-minute saves and switches. ... There are other problems. Everyone in this movie takes themselves way too seriously, which makes them even harder to sympathize with. Peter Jackson leans way too hard on voice modulation to make characters seem menacing or powerful. The movie's tone is still way out of step with the book's tone. ... There's one big thing that doomed these movies from the outset — the fiscally smart but artistically bankrupt decision to make a single, shortish children's novel into three feature-length prequel films." Other review titles: "Peter Jackson Must Be Stopped," "The Phantom Menace of Middle Earth," and "Lots of Fighting, Not Much Hobbit."

Comments

*sips pabst*

[Anonymous Coward]

I disliked hobbit movies before it was cool.

I'm not going to see Age of Ultron either.

Re:*sips pabst*

[Anonymous Coward]

The stories that age of ultron is based on are super hero comic books, so I go to the marvel movies expecting comic book over the top deus ex machina and soap opera love stories. With the Hobbit, I expect a low-key adventure with short periods of action, both serving as a pretext to just artistically show a world (Middle Earth). I expect a barrel-riding scene that exemplifies the resourcefulness of Bilbo and rewards him with what he desires: relaxation. I don't expect an action-packed run for dear life where serendipity is the hero. I also don't expect Legolas, since he isn't even mentioned in the Hobbit. As a friend said to me "if Legolas did half of the things he did in the movie version of the Battle of Five Armies, all of Middle Earth would have suggested he walk into Mordor with a retinue of quiver carrying hirelings and clean the place out before Sauron even reformed.

Re:*sips pabst*

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It's actually a tragedy and missed opportunity, that Jackson has so little talent as a director, and so little discipline in telling a story.

I was appalled by how little he regarded the audience - and proportionally insulted his actors - in "Desolation". Huge musical cues 'instructing' the audience of the drama or character development that was supposed to be on screen, at all times. This seems to be because he cannot elicit real performances from his actors.

I might muse that this is because to Jackson, they are not actors - but merely the armatures on which he templates his green-screen composited glory... But to assume that this is the root of his deficiency, rather than another symptom of of his artlessness, would be to succumb to curmudgeonly urges.

The lesson to be taken away is that Jackson should be designing games, not ruining popular cinema.

It appears that - despite the contempt it provoked in my teenaged self - Rankin and Bass actually produced the best ever adaptation of Tolkien, with the greatest respect and truth towards the source text in feel and substance. Perhaps, when we have destroyed the concept of copyright as a tool of corporate greed, another - more thoughtful - filmmaker might use this as a point of departure for a loving and well-crafted "Hobbit".

Re:*sips pabst*

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever self-important drugs you're on, I'd like some please. Jackson had already shown quite a lot of restraint and faithfulness in his acclaimed LotR adaptation, and it's painfully clear that he has plenty of directorial talent. Crucifying him over the Hobbit, of all things, is just as inane as all the claims you're making. If you want the source text, then read the source text. Adaptations are not about being utterly true to the source,they are about ADAPTING it to another medium. And he was adapting a silly children's book about hobbits and wizards and dragons, not exactly the highest of literature or most intellectually dense or easy-to-adapt of Tolkien's works. Clearly you wanted something else, that's fine; a lot of us did (a lot of wanted something else from the Rankin-Bass version as well). But attacking Peter Jackson for this, like he smeared BBQ sauce on the Sacred Parchment, is even less noble than what you claim he's done here.

Re:*sips pabst*

[electrosoccertux]

It's actually a tragedy and missed opportunity, that Jackson has so little talent as a director, and so little discipline in telling a story.

I was appalled by how little he regarded the audience - and proportionally insulted his actors - in "Desolation". Huge musical cues 'instructing' the audience of the drama or character development that was supposed to be on screen, at all times. This seems to be because he cannot elicit real performances from his actors.

I might muse that this is because to Jackson, they are not actors - but merely the armatures on which he templates his green-screen composited glory... But to assume that this is the root of his deficiency, rather than another symptom of of his artlessness, would be to succumb to curmudgeonly urges.

The lesson to be taken away is that Jackson should be designing games, not ruining popular cinema.

It appears that - despite the contempt it provoked in my teenaged self - Rankin and Bass actually produced the best ever adaptation of Tolkien, with the greatest respect and truth towards the source text in feel and substance. Perhaps, when we have destroyed the concept of copyright as a tool of corporate greed, another - more thoughtful - filmmaker might use this as a point of departure for a loving and well-crafted "Hobbit".

apparently you missed the memo where he was dragged kicking and screaming into directing it, having been assured during sign on he was simply there for consulting; after Guillermo del Toro left. After LOTR he said he was done. No more movies. Ever. And certainly not another Tolkien. Took too much out of him. You can blame the media companies, but honestly I'm not going to hate PJ for it. When you burn out in life, you'll understand.

Re:*sips pabst*

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair: LOTR and The Hobbit are the best movie-adaptions of Tolkien to date. Nobody here and no-one else has topped that. Anyone saying differently are not fair: just cold-hearted, miserable cynics who have never achieved anything worthwhile in their own lives and need to degrade other people's achievements to feel better about themselves.

LOTR 1-3 was great. It had soul and managed to tell the story mostly truthfully without sacrificing too much in the all too necessary conversions from dusty books to the big screen.

Hobbit movie 1 was also great. Not LOTR, but also full of soul, humour and attempts to be truthful to the book.

It's just that a children's book is not suitable to be dragged out into _3_ sequel movies! Hobbit 2 and 3 was passable, but in the end, it lost the humour and adventure that was in the book and The Hobbit 1 started to depict. The fascination of hobbits and their place, or lack of it, in the big world simply got lost.

Having worked on LOTR first may be a big disadvantage. LOTR is about war and huge armies. The Hobbit is definately NOT! Treating The Hobbit, a book meant to be a children's novel, as another war-story was a bad move (The Hobbit 3).

Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, and I might understand someone who read the books might feel cheated. But come on people. Don't ruin your lives by having too high expectations. Go watch the other Tolkien-movies for some perspective...

Jackson brought Tolkien to a wider audience, in essence, the whole world. For that he ought to be commended.

Re:*sips pabst*

[cheesybagel]

I disagree. Tom Bombadil was rightly cut as it served no practical purpose. I do agree that the second movie was kind of weirdly constructed, and in the last movie the ending seemed to drag on forever and ever. But the ending also drags on forever in the actual book so I cannot fault Jackson for that.

I think the LotR movies were well done. But he just did not have the material to turn the Hobbit from one book to three movies. That was an insane thing to do. He just watered down the plot too much and then had to change the story in stupid was to drag it on more.

If there is ONE book which I think could be done in two or three movies its Dune. The Hobbit? Not really.

i'm not going to see this

[unami]

part 1 was pretty bad and part 2 even worse. i feel pretty ashamed for having paid money for those two - and having encouraged bad, soulless, moneygrabbing filmmaking by that. sorry.

Re:i'm not going to see this

[Noah Haders]

Agreed the story isn't as sweeping, which is why they should have made one good movie instead of three

It looks like a friggin video game.

[Rinikusu]

I hate the way my friends' HDTVs make movies look like soap operas. I hated the last Hobbit which I saw in HFR/HD and the "look" completely ruined the film for me. The lighting used stood out like a sore thumb from the live action characters vs. the CG, the movement of the CG itself was horrible in many scenes.

And this film was no different. Ugh.

Re:It looks like a friggin video game.

[JaredOfEuropa]

You'll get used to it, it's just cultural bias. HFR movies and other content viewed on HDTVs that do motion interpolation look like soap operas because for a long time, soap operas were shot with video cameras with a higher framerate, whereas any serious production was shot on film stock (and most such productions are still shot at 24fps). The result is the "soap opera effect", in that we still associate the technically superior framerate with cheap-ass productions.

With that said, the CGI was pretty pad in "the Hobbit" at times, and some scenes got padded to incredible length ("when is that barrel riding scene going to end?!"). One movie wouldn't have done justice to the story, but 3 was too much.

Re:It looks like a friggin video game.

[JaredOfEuropa]

It doesn't by definition. But I fail to see how 24 fps is aesthetically better. Some movies work better in black & white, but only some. (Reminds me of a scene with an aspiring cinematographer sitting in a bar, fawning over some "artsy" B&W movie playing on the TV... until the barman whacks the old set on the side, and the screen snaps back to color). Likewise, some movies might be better at 24fps, but I suspect the "soap opera effect"will be gone with a generation or two, and the next generations will prefer the higher framerate once 24 fps is associated with "old people movies".

Re:It looks like a friggin video game.

[Sloppy]

There is a difference though, the 24fps frames makes up for the low frame rate with motion blur. If the new digital HFR doesn't have that it will always feel like you're watching a baseball game instead of a swordfight.

Wait, am I watching the sword fight live, or recorded on obsolete media? And does the same go for the baseball game?

You inadvertently put your finger on the truth: that a sword fight should look like a baseball game.

Re:It looks like a friggin video game.

[Scarletdown]

This. LOTR was pretty much flawless...

It would have been flawless if they had shortened the extended good bye scene, and wrapped up the business with Saruman and Wormtongue, which resulted in the Hobbits effectively becoming heroes of The Shire.

Re:It looks like a friggin video game.

[Goetterdaemmerung]

I hate the way my friends' HDTVs make movies look like soap operas. I hated the last Hobbit which I saw in HFR/HD and the "look" completely ruined the film for me. The lighting used stood out like a sore thumb from the live action characters vs. the CG, the movement of the CG itself was horrible in many scenes.

And this film was no different. Ugh.

Your experience is due to the TV settings. Most TV's out of the box have the "soap opera effect" set to maximum and the sharpness set to maximum. Brightness adjusts the black level and contrast adjusts the white level. These are all set to make it look good in the bright store but are generally not desirable for home movie viewing to a discerning viewer. Perhaps your friend is open to adjusting his picture - however be aware that a lot of people believe they like the super sharp picture because they are used to it and might dislike the softer, more natural picture. Ask him to try it for a couple of weeks before making a decision to go back.

This is the first thing I did on my Panasonic plasma TV (after the burn-in) was to turn that shit off and calibrate the display. The picture is incredible.

Not all bad, some middling to good-ish reviews

[Sesostris III]

Three stars in the Observer and four stars in the Guardian.

I'll still be going to watch it with friends between Christmas and the New Year.

Re:Not all bad, some middling to good-ish reviews

[mythosaz]

watch it with friends between Christmas and the New Year.

It won't take quite that long.

Re:Not all bad, some middling to good-ish reviews

[jez9999]

It will feel that long.

It was dry, but not BAD like Phantom Menace

[Saysys]

It was dry, but not BAD like Phantom Menace. Phantom Menace was horrendous on numerous levels and, if taken seriously, reduces the quality of the previous movies. This LOTR prequel finally was dry, unless you have some reason to be emotionally invested in the characters because of the book. But it was not a BAD movie, it was not poorly acted, it was not poorly written, and while it could have done with more meaning when it came to the acton (and I personally hate action) every last bit of the film-shooting and editing was done as spectacularly as can be done in a film.

This was not a BAD movie; it just wasn't the movie it could have been. And honestly, you'll never please the fan-boys anyway.

Re:It was dry, but not BAD like Phantom Menace

[roc97007]

Oh bull. It would have been fine if he'd stuck to the story rather than trying to make his mark.

Which story? This is a serious question. Only the words in The Hobbit, or The Hobbit plus the materials in the appendicies to Return of the King (which, for instance, includes Gandalf's meeting with Thorin in Bree, which was in the film) or The Quest of Erebor, the rewrite that more closely matched the tone and happenings in Lord of the Rings, which Tolkien didn't get to complete?

How much to include is very much a matter of opinion. My own is, include as much as possible, and where possible, go with Tolkien's later, darker tone. But that's just me.

Re:Blah

[Hognoxious]

It's like Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird, there's a really good five and a half minute song in there somewhere.

Honestly the size of the book means nothing.

[gurps_npc]

Book length does not translate into Movie length.

Movies are about the visuals. That's why a good director means more than a good screen writer. The better the visual, the more time on screen. All movies need an inciting incident, an escalation, then a crisis and resolution. You can easily do a fantastic movie without much dialogue or voiceovers. In fact, the best way to do dialogue and voice overs is to let a good actor improvise. Works better than having the screenwriter do it - who should be creating potentially amazing scenes.

Books are about the dialogue and thoughts of the character. You can delve deep into their motivations and what they say. But book visuals are all in the mind of the reader. If a book has really good descriptions, it doesn't matter that much. But good words - said and thought by the characters, that makes the book.

My take on this final installment (Spoilers)

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Peter Jackson,

You and I have journeyed far together. You brought Frodo's task to destroy the One Ring to life a mere decade ago, and with such verve and respect that myself and the world over could not turn a blind eye and fail to hail such an inspiring, thrilling, and (mostly) faithful adaptation. In those days it was clear your appreciation and understanding of Tolkien's most beloved work was paramount, and although some liberties were taken to accommodate the film medium, those liberties could be mostly forgiven in the wake of such illuminating entertainment.

Today is a far different day, and the lens I view your Middle Earth through now is not the same as when all was good and new. Time appears to have jaded your approach to the wonders of Middle Earth.

While some berated An Unexpected Journey for being slow, plodding, and somewhat uneventful, it still held much of the magic of yesteryear. Many great moments were found, and liberties, though present, were for the most part welcomed. Perhaps some moments in this first leg of the journey were a portent of what was to come, with Dwarves and Hobbit alike being immune to falling rocks, and Goblin Kings being so inept and vulnerable to attack by an aging wizard that one slice of a sword offers a silly comedic moment and death with little true peril. I held out hope here, however, as Thorin truly suffers in the mouth of Azog's Albino Warg.

Desolation of Smaug, in its extended cut, also held moments of magic, though it fell victim to much of the same shortcomings, peril-wise, as An Unexpected Journey. While there were some true moments of dread, found in Mirkwood and Smaug's Lair, there were moments of silly nonsense, particularly in the Forge of Erebor with an ineffectual dragon, but also with liberties taken by unnecessary fabricated characters such as Tauriel, cheapening elvish magic and Arwen's importance in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I still held out hope, even in this, because in the extended cut you brought us a better sense of pacing, more interactions with actual book characters such as Beorn and Thrain, and I couldn't help but hope you would do the rest of the book justice with proper emotional heft to go along with the bloody conflict that was soon to shake Middle Earth after its long peace.

After such a long journey, traveling through mountain, forest, valley, river, lake, and town, there were but some small matters to wrap up. A dragon threatened a town on the water. Armies of all manner awaited the opportunity to strike at Erebor should the threat of the dragon be eliminated. The characters we have traveled with required proper sendoff and emotional moments.

Certainly, the dragon threatens Laketown, burning and pillaging at whim. However, the witty, sadistic dragon I had hoped for instead functioned more as a flamethrower than a character. To this end, could Smaug not have tormented the denizens of Laketown a bit before reducing it to cinders and ash? A simple "Flee, flee for your lives! I will find you no matter where you hide and devour you as sheep." would have been very effective.

Certainly, the hero destroys the dragon, though in perhaps the most ridiculous way possible and within just a few moments. Smaug is further cheapened as a complete imbecile, ignoring the fact that the one weapon that CAN pierce his hide is pointed at him (and don't say he doesn't know what it is, because he had many of them fired at him the last time men had strength).

Certainly, Dol Goldur falls, but why does Galadriel appear so weak at particular moments throughout? It feels rather convenient that she falls to the ground weakened while the men (including the aged Saruman) fight it out amongst the Nazgul. While she may cast out Sauron from Dol Goldur, her appearance here felt very highly inconsistent, cycling between frail elf maiden and "beautiful and terrible as the dawn" elf queen.

A few more scenes before Kili and co. arrive from Laketown's ruins would have been nice, showing Thorin beginning the descent into

Second hand view from a teacher

[RogueyWon]

Before anybody points it out - all of the post below is anecdote - usual caveats apply.

A friend of mine is a teacher - he generally works with the 10-11 age-range (which in the UK at least, is unusual for a male teacher). This is, as is documented in any number of official and unofficial studies, a particularly critical year in the education of boys; it's when many of them start to fall behind the girls in their year group in academic terms (not catching up until the 18-21 age range). The individuals who start falling behind at this point generally never catch up.

Now, just a few weeks ago, and spurred by the impending release of this movie, I had a long conversation with said friend about childhood literacy, academic achievement and the Hobbit.

See, his view is that the big problem with the UK education system and boys is that they lose all interest in reading for pleasure right around that 10-11 age range. This is, in part, because the generally approved reading materials in schools have a heavy female tilt (lots of teddy bears and thinking about feelings, not so much on the swords, dragons and robots), but there's not actually a mandatory reading list at this age and teachers (if they're willing to stand up to the senior management in their school if needed) have quite a lot of leeway.

And his big antidote to "losing" boys at this age has, for close to a decade now, been "The Hobbit". Indeed, he's of the view that it's one of the finest children's books ever written; short enough not to be off-putting, gripping pretty much from the first page and written with an authorial voice that strikes a good balance between not being condescending and not being too advanced for the age-range in question. It is also a damned exciting story, with wizards, dragons, goblins and magic rings. The girls don't hate it and the boys absolutely lap it up.

So from his point of view, the movies have been a bit of a disaster. He'd been hoping for something he could take classes along to. Instead, the movies, are dark, brooding, serious, dark and extremely violent in places. They're absolutely not suitable for the age range the book is pitched at and, in any case, they miss the fundamental quality of what makes the book so great.

It's not a disaster for him - the book is still there and always will be there. But his view was that it was a missed opportunity to give the "best children's book ever written" a proper adaptation.

I've not read The Hobbit for many years myself, but this does chime with my own memory of it.

Re:Second hand view from a teacher

[Sir_Eptishous]

That is the truth.

I read The Hobbit when I was about 8-9, and LOTR when I was about 12-13.
It is one of the things that got me into reading for sure.

Re:Blah

[Sir_Eptishous]

The all-to-common formula

I'm usually not the grammar/spelling nazi type, but I'm REALLY getting tired of people not knowing the difference between to and too.
WTF?!?

Let the Hobbit hacking begin

[fma]

If history doth repeat itself, then we will see a tightly cut single movie version of Jackson's Hobbit as soon as amateur film makers can get a good digital copy of all three films. Anyone who saw the Star War's prequels refactored into well paced and well cut movies knows that compressing three Hobbits back into the original book will be a treat. There is plenty to take out, good acting, and with skill the story can be made right again.

Like butter spread over too much bread

[DrXym]

The Hobbit moves weren't bad - indeed some of sections were expertly done. But god were they padded out. The entire story could have been told competently in 2 movies without missing out anything of significance. I expect there will be an even more extended edition in time but really there should also be a reduced edition. But that would be admission that commercial interests outweighed artistic ones.

But Phantom Menace bad? Nowhere close.

Re:Blah

[TheGavster]

Given that a large portion of what he did was turn the children's stories into epic battle sequences, I'm not sure that those elements "jive" with the gritty action as "were turned into gritty action". Every instance where the party fled or used intelligence to escape overwhelming odds, Jackson simply turned them into superheroes who blasted their way out.

A particularly pungent example would be the escape from the wood elves' fortress; in the book, this was when Bilbo finally became a fully trusted, contributing member of the group as he used stealth to sneak the dwarves out in barrels. In the film, the dwarves conduct a battle from barrels they ride like boats. The central lesson that there is something to be learned from the meekest among us is completely overtaken by the desire to have yet another CGI battle-fest.

print fans

[roc97007]

Rabid fans of the movies, vs "Peter Jackson is satan incarnate and must be stopped". The latter is left over from print-fan memes during the original run of LotR, who would hate the movie no matter what he did, not because it's a movie, but because it's not the book. Print fans come in all shapes and sizes, and have all sorts of justifications for their views. I find it interesting that, back in the day, of the print fans that believed Lord of the Rings should be made into a movie, it was generally believed that only a 20 hour miniseries would be enough, in order to capture every scene and every song and poem, and the elves should be CGI because people weren't beautiful enough, and today we have print fans that are saying that three movies was too long. What the hell make up your mind.

Then there are the print fans who would be absolutely against any film, generally justified as "it substitutes Jackson's imagery for the reader's own" or somesuch, and from there leads to a place of madness, where calendars, posters and even cover art are forbidden, and the only way to read the stories should be on loose leaf paper from Tolkien's own typewriter.

I digress. Anyway, for those who need a more faithful light hearted Hobbit, there's still the Rankin-Bass film from 1977. They even set some of Tolkien's poems to whiney music sung by people with terrible singing voices, so, like, cool. It made me want to gouge my eyeballs out and use them to plug my ears, but your mileage may vary.

As to whether any or all of the Hobbit films are the best films ever or a travesty that requires that the director be tarred and feathered and ridden out on a Grond, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, three movies were probably excessive. No, one movie would not have done it. This is because it's not a matter of just telling the story in The Hobbit's measly 300 pages, but also giving the backstory that was in the appendicies to LotR (to which Jackson had the rights) and maybe approaching what might be a full telling of The Quest of Erebor, the story Tolkien later started to write, essentially re-writing The Hobbit to better fit into the tone and pagentry of Lord of the Rings. (Published posthumously by his son Christopher in Unfinished Tales.) Unfortunately, Jackson did not have access to Tolkien's writings other than what was in the appendicies and The Hobbit, and Christopher Tolkien absolutely refused Jackson the rights to Tolkien's other notes. So in order to make it fit with Lord of the Rings, Jackson had to make some of it up in order to not be sued by the Tolkien estate.

So, did he make stuff up that Tolkien didn't write? Of course he did. Did he make up *too much* stuff? Maybe. Did he put in too much filler? Yeah, probably. Should he have kept it to one movie and only filmed what was in The Hobbit? Absolutely not. There is more story there, (Specifically, why Gandalf felt Erebor was so important to the coming war) and Jackson told as much of it as he was allowed to. Three films *was* excessive, but to say it shouldn't be filmed because it wasn't in The Hobbit is to show ignorance about all the backstory and detail surrounding the Quest of Erebor that wasn't in what was essentially a children's book. And besides, The Hobbit was already filmed, in 1977. (I didn't like it much. It made my teeth hurt.)

Footnote, after all these years, having read the novels multiple times, once to my daughter before the films first came out, I just recently had an in-story epiphany. It always seemed curious and whimsical that Gandalf was so adamant about Bilbo being included in the quest. But think -- that simple decision set in motion a chain of events that after many years leads to the destruction of the One Ring -- something that probably could not have happened otherwise. How did Gandalf know?

Re:Blah

[MightyMartian]

The first one had its moments, but the second was jaw droppingly dull, and worst of all Jackson mutilated the escape from the Elf king's tunnels. They took the barrel rider scene and turned it into a video game.

I have no desire to sit through the third.

Re:Blah

[anagama]

Anyone who don't write publikation ready matarial for slashdot, holly devoid of errers or types, are obvioulsy a rediculous jock who shuld have his iPhone (feckin' fanboi) sumarily shoot with a HERF gun.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

And Smaug. Instead of mistaking Bilbo's riddle to mean Bilbo is a Lake-Man and leaving immediately to destroy Lake-Town, Smaug fruitlessly fights the dwarves then just decides to leave for no apparent reason. WTF?
And Gandalf *knows* that the Necromancer is Sauron, then does nothing about it for decades and forgets until Bilbo's 111th Birthday Party. W. T. F.

Re:Blah

[PsychoSlashDot]

There's only about 190 pages. It's actually quicker for the average reader to read the whole of the hobbit than to watch all 3 films.

Just some numbers. The average person reads at between 250 and 300 words per minute. Let's call it 275.

Hobbit is 95,356 words long. That's 347 minutes of reading.

The first two Hobbit movies combined are 330 minutes long.

So basically an average reader will plow through the book in the time it takes to watch two of the movies plus some trailers before the third. Forget the extra 144 minutes of the actual movie!

Re:Blah

[plopez]

And Beorn, the most interesting and mysterious character in "The Hobbit" much like Tom Bombadil in FOTR, was never developed. Or how Gandalf used trickery and mind games to get Beorn to accept dwarves. Now that would have been interesting. The eagles could have also been explored as a race and characters. Instead we get an elf and dwarf falling in love. WTF? And an escape scene that looked like a Disney ride or an abomination out of the "Pirates of the Caribbean".

Re: It's how fantasy heroes are written

[jfengel]

This is very true, but one difference is that the battles took up more "screen time" in the films. Tolkien's battles were epic but abstract. Jackson's aimed to humanize the characters but the outlandish stunts contradicted that.

It worked better for LOTR than Hobbit.

miscreation

[Tom]

I've seen the first two so far and they didn't convince me for the 3rd. I'll probably go because my GF wants to.

The problem is that The Hobbit is an entirely different book compared to LOTR. It's a childrens book, a soft introduction to Middle Earth, not an epic fantasy tale. It should've been dealt with in a different way, not as a "we made a shitload of money, so let's make more LOTR movies" prequel. It basically fell into the same trap as the Star Wars prequels - the attempt to replicate a success by doing more of the same, completely missing the idea that maybe the first was a success exactly because it was not more of the same, but stood out from what else was on offer at the time.

And omg were they filled with crap that had nothing to do with story or book and was only added to complete some Hollywood recipe.

They should've made it one move, for a younger audience, made by a different director, without trying to make it a prequel and "foreshadowing" everything we've already seen.