This film is not a masterpiece, I admit that though I enjoyed it even though I preferred a more faithful version of the storyline I decided to seperate the books to the films and saw it as something on its own. Maybe thats why I don*t have no problems with it.
shareI think some of the bad reputation of this film is because of expectations and potential. With a great creative team, solid cast, and the time and budget to make the movie however they wanted, it's just baffling that they delivered something so slipshod and subpar. This is particularly noticeable with the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films set against the Hobbit trilogy. With the former so good and the latter so ho-hum, the disappointment overrides what quality there is.
The Hobbit films have a lot of problems: they're uneven in pacing and plot, they stick in a bunch of extraneous material, they invent material that doesn't work, they over-rely on CGI and other "lazy" filmmaking techniques, and they don't have the meticulous care that makes things like action scenes and character development work.
This video explains that last point really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFq3VGVA8_Y
But people do ignore good points in these movies, like Freeman's performance and some excellent production design, and I think a lot of that has to do with expectations and potential. If we see a small-budget movie from unknown/disliked filmmakers and it's good, we're impressed. When we watch The Hobbit, we're disappointed. We can't see any good in the films because we're so busy being let down from what might have been.
With that said, The Hobbit films were messy and not well-done. They would only ever be "okay," and that's just because of the sheer amount of money thrown their way - it was almost impossible for the sets and costumes to look bad, especially with a lot of the preliminary design work being grounded thanks to the impeccable job done on LOTR. I think you get the same thing with the Star Wars Prequels and Sequels: they're not good movies, even if they are actually better than a lot of other dreck that comes out. They look smoother, they have better effects and production value, and their plots aren't "the worst," but they are woefully subpar. That gets overlooked in lesser movies (ie, films with fewer expectations placed on them and less potential), but with the OT (for Star Wars) and LOTR (for the Hobbit) we have a high bar to hit. To only achieve "Meh," with those comparisons takes the movies from "kinda subpar" to "really bad" in the minds of most fans.
In my opinion, these are films that grow on you. I saw An Unexpected Journey in the theater, was disappointed in it, and then didn't even catch the other two when they were released. However, a few years later I decided to go through all three and, while I had mixed feelings, I didn't hate them.
A couple of weeks ago I felt the urge to watch them again and that is when I knew that, even if I had some misgivings about the trilogy, I had come to like it overall. So I bought the Extended Edition box set.
I just rewatched An Unexpected Journey and now am watching the film again with Peter Jackson's commentary. I do think that some things could be done better in the film--for instance, there are a few plot points where things happen that are just a little too convenient to the advancement of the story--but it's quite enjoyable to go back to Jackson's vision of Middle-earth, the film has a great cast and is well-acted, it's often very beautiful to look at, and the story is broadly enjoyable. And I have to say that listening to Jackson talk about the film on the commentary, and understanding his reasoning and motivation behind certain decisions, and understanding the attention to detail in certain matters, causes me to appreciate it even more.
It's correct that the Hobbit movies do not fare well when stacked up against the Lord of the Rings films, but to be fair, that is a comparison against what is perhaps the greatest trilogy of movies ever made. And furthermore, you have to consider that the source material for the Hobbit films also is lesser in comparison. I think that, if judged on their own merits with no comparison to LOTR, ultimately the correct conclusion is that they are pretty good fantasy films in their own right, even if they are not excellent.
P.S. You said that the Star Wars prequels are "not good movies" and "woefully subpar." While I think that that you possibly can lay that charge on The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, I definitely do not think you can say the same about Revenge of the Sith. In fact, ROTS may be the best Star Wars film ever made.
They might get better with repeat viewings, but I haven't revisited them that much, mostly because I find them to be very flawed.
Now, if you like it, more power to you. They're not abominable movies, just messy and they fail to live up to their potential - which I find kinda frustrating.
I think the comparison to LOTR is fair. Yes, LOTR is one of the greatest film trilogies of all-time (I'd rank the Three Colours Trilogy higher, personally, but that's just my opinion), but The Hobbit is a prequel, so I think comparison is inevitable, even if unfair. But, I would argue that it does not do as good a job at capturing the big picture and essence of its original novel. Now, I agree that LOTR is the better book(s) than The Hobbit, but if the fun, rollicking adventure had been translated to screen with the same dedication that Jackson & Co. had with LOTR, I'd have liked it a lot better.
I did say that these films would be regarded better without the comparisons, and would be considered better than a lot of other action/fantasy films, but I think you'd still get complaints about the rambling story arcs not coming together, the fact that Bilbo gets lost in his own story, etc.
As for Star Wars' Prequel Trilogy, yes, I am also talking about these films' disappointing compared to their potential and the fact that they are comparable to the rest of Star Wars (now far too oversaturated for this to matter, really). So, yes, I do agree that they are not absolute rubbish. The effects are spiffy. The action scenes are fun. But I have fun action scenes and cool F/X in the original trilogy, plus I get much better stories, characters, themes, and ideas played out in a better way.
Some films I like because of their potential, even if they missed the mark. Other films, I can't help but watch them and think, "What if...?" and it's detrimental to my viewing enjoyment.
Finally, Revenge of the Sith. It is the best of the Prequels. It's been a while since I've seen it and I would like to revisit it at some point, to see if I feel the same way, but to be honest, I mostly remember it being a bit boring. There were moments I enjoyed (Mace attempting to arrest Palpatine) but a lot of it suffered from the same problems the other prequels suffered from. It certainly didn't hit the heights that the original Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back hit. I don't even think it rivals Return of the Jedi.
But, to each their own, and if it's your favourite, I won't say that you're wrong, only that I disagree.
Regarding The Hobbit, perhaps it is a unique ability I have, but once I have come to terms with the fact that a film is what it is, and that's not going to change, I can often put away my criticisms and focus instead on the things that I like. So sure, when I first saw The Hobbit films, I was disappointed over what could've been. But it's not like Jackson is going to go back and re-shoot the movies, so I know that I can either focus on the positives and enjoy them for what they have to offer or I can sit in a huff and wish they were something else.
Since the movies are not offensive to me--especially considering we're in an era when more and more films and shows ARE offensive--then I choose to find the good things about the movies, focus on those things, enjoy the journey back to Middle-earth, and be thankful that I have more adventures that I can experience there rather than fewer.
That's a very positive way to approach films that are disappointing.
I definitely believe in giving films the benefit of the doubt - rewatching with an open mind, for instance - but the flip side is that, regardless of how generous I am, at the end of the day, if I don't like something, I don't like it.
But I think more viewers could do with some of that positive attitude.
If I just outright dislike a film, then I can't trick myself into thinking that I enjoy it. To provide one example, I know that I will never like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I saw it in the theater, disliked it, and then tried it again several years later, at which point I think I disliked it even more than the first time. I will always despise that movie.
But I don't think of The Hobbit films as being anywhere close to the same realm as Crystal Skull in terms of being disappointments. Crystal Skull is an outright bad film. The Hobbit films, on the other hand, are good films. They're just not AS GOOD as they should've been.
To provide another example of a film series that I have misgivings about but still have found a way to enjoy, the Resident Evil films are very disappointing on a certain level but I nevertheless own the series box set and have successfully found the level upon which I can sit and enjoy them.
So yes, I do understand that some films are simply beyond one's capacity to enjoy. But perhaps if you give the Hobbit movies another try, you will find that they don't actually fall into that category.
I do know that I could rewatch the Hobbit movies and still enjoy them. Just Martin Freeman as Bilbo is such perfect casting that there is something to enjoy. I just don't feel the need to revisit them because if I have three hours to spare, I'd rather fire up a LOTR than a Hobbit.
Actually, LOTR has some subpar moments for me, too (I'm not a fan of how they handle Faramir, for one - there are others) but would be a perfect instance of where the power of those films overrides any disappointments for me and I can just watch them for the masterpieces they are; I recognise them as being about as close to perfect as we're likely to get in a LOTR adaptation, particularly given what companies seem to be getting up to like Amazon and HBO. They clearly don't care about Tolkien and Arda; they only want to crank "content" until they've milked as much money out of it as they can get. It's pathetic.
Sorry - bit off-topic there.
I never even bothered with Crystal Skull. It had that bad stink all over it. I just thought, "I don't think this will work," and maybe that means I can't pass judgement, but I think basically everybody else did that for me.
I think one reason I am willing to go easy on The Hobbit is because, frankly, I didn't love the book. I read it in high school and, while I thought it was a fine novel, I wasn't over the moon about it. Certainly other assigned reads like The Count of Monte Cristo and Fahrenheit 451 overshadowed it during those teenage years of mine. And so, my expectations are more modest for The Hobbit because I know what Jackson is working with in terms of source material.
In regard to Amazon and their take on Tolkien and his work, I have to say that, while Season 1 of Rings of Power was pretty sketchy, Season 2 has proven to be much better, at least in my estimation. After Season 1 I wasn't even sure if I would continue with the series but I'm glad that I did. I feel like Amazon took the fan feedback to heart and made a real effort to course-correct for the second season.
As for Crystal Skull, as an Indiana Jones super-fan, I was really, really hoping that it would be good. But it just wasn't. Honestly I have no idea how Spielberg messed that film up so badly but he did. I'm sure Lucas is largely to blame--I heard that he insisted upon story elements that just did not fit in the Indy universe--but Spielberg still made some really bad decisions (like going with CGI over practical effects, when the Indy films have ALWAYS been about great practical effects).
See, and I love the Hobbit as a book but I'm not as big into Indie. So, maybe that's my greater disappointment with the Hobbit films and my total disinterest in Crystal Skull or Dial of Destiny. I like Indiana Jones 1 (love that one) and 3, but I'm not that keen on Temple of Doom.
As for Rings of Power, I'm afraid the culture goblins have got into my head on that one. All I can think about when looking at anything RoP is the debate between the woke people and the anti-woke people about whether or not the show is any good based on the number of black people in it. Once those voices are ringing in your ears, it's hard to get them to shut up. So I haven't watched it partially because I know I can't silence those arguments and give it a fair shake. With that said, "Season 1 is iffy," is almost always a "pass" from me. I'm not sitting through a whole season for things to pick up. Not when I can watch something like Blue Eye Samurai and have it rule from minute one.
Being a staunch conservative, I was certainly not unaware of the culture war surrounding Rings of Power. There are definitely some decisions in season 1 that seem motivated by a woke sensibility, such as the inclusion of black elves and dwarves when none are found in the books, and the fact that Galdariel in that season is also written as something of a girl boss who is capable in every situation and rarely if ever makes a mistake. For me, though, this was not enough to totally turn me off and I enjoyed it JUST enough to keep going. (Now, if they had put gay elves or a trans dwarf in it or something to that effect, that would have definitely been enough to tip me over the edge and say "fuck this show" and be done with it.)
In Season 2, however, Galadriel not only fades a bit in terms of her prominence in the story but she also comes off as a much more human--for lack of a better term--character. Other story lines have gained in strength and all the actors are doing a great job in their roles. The production design of the show is also top notch and I feel like, visually, this second season especially does a fairly good job of blending well with the vision of Middle-Earth that Peter Jackson created. (Probably about as good as could be expected when you consider that this team is not only totally different from Jackson's but also is working with a TV budget rather than a feature film budget.)
But what can I say, I am predisposed to WANT to like the show. Seeing Fellowship of the Ring in the theater in 2001 was one of the most amazing movie-watching experiences I've ever had and I have wanted more filmic adventures in Middle-earth ever since. So as long as whatever is done doesn't totally disrespect Tolkien and his work, and insult conservative audience members such as myself, then I will be interested in seeing what filmmakers come up with.
I'm also a huge Middle Earth fan, but I'm a bit wary of the motives of the filmmakers and showrunners these days. Jackson's song was always, "We serve Tolkien!" and even if he didn't always hit the mark, the love shone through. These days, creators of these shows and films are more often singing the song of, "Updated for modern audiences!" and that makes me a bit nervous.
I'll take your word for it that Rings of Power has a rocky, but decent first season and picks up in the second, but again, as much as anything else, I really don't want to wait a whole season for a show to get good.
I certainly understand your concern. Things have gotten so bad that I wish I had a service that would pre-watch movies and shows for me so that they can scope out any wokeness and warn me ahead of time so I know which productions to avoid. But at least so far, I don't think Rings is a terrible offender on this front, especially after what I've seen of the second season. Maybe give the show a few episodes before making a final judgment on it.
shareWho else's opinion would your comments be? L0L Sorry, but I need to report you to "The Dept.Of The Redundancy Dept." ASAP! :P I DO agree that LOTR/The Hobbit is THE BEST film series, I've ever seen, and I why I keep watching them over and over again! It helps having a 65" SONY HDR TV, and a nice Dolby Atmos HT.
shareThey're imperfect, certainly, but they're still pretty enjoyable to watch imo. If perfect adaptations are your thing, yeah, these might be for you, but as a film watching experience, I have no complaints.
shareThe scenes they did well were very, very good. But the dreck was the dreckiest, dreck that ever did dreck.
I don't know why the tone of this series varied so insanely.
After seeing what kind of absolute dog shit that horrible "Rings of Power" tv series brought us, the Hobbit film trilogy looks like a masterpiece by comparison.
shareThere was a series of underlying problems that hurt the Hobbit movies by contrast with LotR. I got most of this info from the DVD features years ago, so some of the following is a bit short of specifics.
Jackson & crew had originally wanted to do The Hobbit first, followed by LotR, but although they were able to secure filming rights for the latter, they hit a snag with the former, which they were not able to overcome quickly, so they finally went ahead and did LotR first.
They nevertheless had enough time to do a proper job on LotR. For example, the costume for one of the kings included hand-embroidered underwear! Though it never showed on screen, and a lesser production would have had him wear his own undies, they figured the royal undergarb would inspire the actor to exhibit more gravitas, and they may have been right.
After they finally started pre-production work on The Hobbit, not only did they change directors and need to redo some work due to the differing overall viewpoint, but also right about the time Jackson took over, he became seriously ill, which delayed things further. By the time they finally got all the pieces together for The Hobbit, they simply didn't have the time to do meticulous detail work (as they'd done for LotR), because their filming rights would have expired.
On the positive side, the overall 11 or 12 year delay is, of course, the reason that Martin Freeman was even thought of for the role of Bilbo. He had not only become better known, he had achieved the physical age, the maturity, and the experience to play the part so beautifully.
As for the third Hobbit movie in particular, it's my personal opinion that Jackson occasionally indulged himself to the detriment of the film. For example, how did those sand worms get from the planet Dune to Middle Earth? That bit of cutesy popped me right out of the story. Indulging oneself is of course allowed, but it's also important not to distract one's audience.