Thoughts on Peter Jackson's LotR and Hobbit films

Some time ago I saw the two released films of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit and found them very dissapointing and dull. They were mostly rollercoaster movies, with CGI battle scenes filling up what is a mostly uninteresting plot for way too many hours.

This let met to think that perhaps Jackson's Lord of the Rings films weren't as good as I thought, after all, I had not seen them practically since they were first released into theathers. And even if I were right, I was a kid back then and didn't really understand art or movies.

With this in mind I watched them again and tried to think more carefully about whether or not they were great movies and what was good about them and what was not.


The first thing I noticed is how they truly managed to represent Tolkien's world on the screen. Stop to think about it for a moment because it's incredibly easy to take it for granted, the orcs look like orcs. Gandalf looks like a whizard and Viggo Mortensen was a great choice for Aragorn. The castles, villages and costumes look amazing. There's a shot of the main characters going through a door full with careful carvings representing the history of Middle Earth and it's only shown for two seconds.

A mostly unknown director was given three movies of more than two and a half hours each and a budget of 250 millions and the production didn't implode. It worked out without any major problems. In that sense, they are extremely unlikely films.


The second thing I noticed, however, is that while the subject of the cinematography is enthralling, the cinematography itself rarely is. Most shots are fairly mundane, they don't draw you in with their composition or angles. I feel Jackson wanted to be fairly straightfoward in its adaptation and focus on the world and its events instead of adding himself into the movie through the use of the camera and while this is perhaps a noble goal it made some scenes far less powerful than they could have been.

The Hobbit is similar except it loves rollercoaster shots going up and down to follow the battle and make it seem more "tense". It looks very cheap and forced putting the cinematography more in line with other blockbuster films.


For a long time I thought the use of digital effects was one of the biggest problems with the films but looking back their use is more than reasonable. With the notable exception of Gollum which is rendered in a fairly believable way, most digital shots are either dark or distant making them much more bearable. The biggest problems are the Ents of the second film, some of the CGI beasts and that godawful Galandriel speech in which her corrupt power is shown through a negative filter so bad I could replicate with Microsoft Paint.

The Hobbit has shots of orcs talking made completely on CGI with mostly CGI backgrounds despite simple make-up being a better and probably cheaper option. Grey shots of grey forests are awfully common too which leads me to think that Jackson simply did not care about it.


One of my other old complaints was the dull "humour" and "badass" moments which don't quite fit the tone of The Lord of the Rings like Legolas attacking orcs while riding a shield down the stairs or Gimli's characterization. Even if they were well-made, funnier or cooler they are very post-modern ideas that don't fit such a traditional world even if it's a pop version of it. Of course the main problem is that they aren't well-made they are crass and shallow.

The Hobbit seems, unfortunately, seem to be comprised mostly of this. Practically every scene is either a cool action scene which CGI dwarves jumping in and out of battle, funny "haha dwarves are weird" jokes and often both (Raft Scene).

So yeah, that's mostly it. I wish I could write more but I have to go now. Thoughts?

I don't know... I keep hearing people bashing the recent Hobbit movies and it seems disingenuous in a way. Probably because of the comparison to LOTR, but the Hobbit is a much lighter work, so I think it's not entirely fair to compare the styles of the two with each other. But I also have to think that if the LOTR films never existed, we would all be mind-blown that such an epic film version of the Hobbit was available. I've had a lot of fun with the two Hobbit films. I wasn't expecting something as dark and serious as LOTR, and they've been very entertaining.

I only saw the first Hobbit film and was unimpressed. It was ok but not enticing enough to check out the second yet. Deciding to pull apart a single book into three movies and add in a bunch of filler is an awful idea, unless your goal is just to make money I suppose.

I liked the LOTR movies but the use of Gimli for comedic relief and the ridiculous Legolas ninja bullshit was a huge turn-off.

I also really hated the minor changes Jackson made which undermine the orginal material - stuff like having Elves show up at Helms Deep, turning Helms Deep (a chapter) into nearly an entire movie was a bit annoying, and also removing the actual ending of the series completely.

I think the Hobbit movies work a lot better when they are viewed as prequels to the previous movies, and not as an adaptation of the original novel. That sounds silly when we are talking about perhaps the most influential fantasy novel of all time, but that's pretty clearly how they were conceived.

The biggest disappointment is that they aren't really the final word on that novel. The original Lord of the Rings movies were good enough that they make all later adaptations feel redundant. It was just about perfect across the board. The Hobbit isn't as strong an adaptation because of how much it adds. I like the new movies quite a bit, but they don't feel nearly as definitive. By that measure they definitely fall short. It feels a lot more like background to The Lord of the Rings, not as a story unto itself.

But I'm not sure what other options they had. Since the original movies had such an impact, I suspect that a straighter retelling wouldn't have been as feasible with general audiences (it wasn't Tolkien fans who made the first trilogy a hit). No matter what, it was going to be the LotR prequel, if only in the minds of movie goers. I think it was a good move to choose to just write and film them that way, even down to making it another trilogy.

They do feel more like b-movies, partially because the source material is much lighter. I know a lot of people have complained about the length, but I confess that the only time I really felt bored was in the last third of Desolation of Smaug. I had a very hard time feeling any investment as Smaug chased the dwarves everywhere, and the Tauriel/Kili/Legolas love triangle just didn't work. I thought a second viewing might have helped, but it reinforced what I thought. I really loved the first movie though, and on balance I liked the second one too. I'm very excited to see the last one.

The Fellowship of the Ring: I was relieved that Tom Bombadil was left out, and surprised at how much Frodo cried. The ending section seemed too long, like Jackson wasn't quite sure how to wrap it up and erred on the side of extra action. Otherwise, I was very impressed.

The Two Towers: This was the weak party of the trilogy, even in the original books. Two many characters introduced. In the movie, the Battle of Helm's Deep gets blown up into a much bigger deal than it was in the book, including a slow half hour buildup and an extra dose of action involving wargs that felt like it was tacked on in the editing room after minimal debate.

The Return of the King: I was disappointed that the end section in the Shire was left out, but it was an understandable decision given the length of the movie. Instead, there was a series of final goodbye scenes that added an unnecessary 20 minutes to the movie. Otherwise, this was a great movie.

The first Hobbit movie left me with very mixed feelings. I would have accepted a two-part adaptation, but as a trilogy, Jackson needed to drag out too many scenes and the pacing suffered. Bilbo was too much of an action hero. The Goblin King had huge testicles on his face, and Radagast was hilariously spattered with a great deal of birdshit, reminding me of the birds scene in High Anxiety. There were all kinds of other things that bothered me. My girlfriend had never read The Hobbit, which might explain why she enjoyed this movie more than I did. We both skipped the second installment. Might watch it on Netflix some day.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it here: I feel that the LOTR movies are the best LOTR movies they could have made. Even The Two Towers, supposedly the weakest in the trilogy, is still by far better than any other fantasy movie out there, and that hold true to this day.

I can't say the same for The Hobbit movies.

I saw the first Lord Of The Rings movie in the theater and that was it. The rest didn't make the cut. Granted, I'm not the target market for these films.

Don't know why, but it didn't seem epic enough for the subject matter. Not sure how he could have done more.

S.

Two Towers is the weakest? I think the opposite... Gandalf's plummet with the Balrog, Helm's Deep, the powerful Sam speech at the end. A lot of great stuff in there.

I'll agree with Shell that making the Hobbit a two-parter, as originally planned, would have made it a little tighter and better overall.

I've been to see the two Hobbit films in theaters (I have a son of the right age).

I'm waiting for the anti-directors cut that trims those things back down to a normal story.

The extended dragon chase was one of the dumbest things I've watched in a long time, and the conclusion to that was mind-bogglingly stupid. You made a Jell-O mold? Good plan, guys.

I liked Fellowship quite a lot, but felt all of the other films, including the Hobbit movies were ok. I don't either love, or despise them. I probably prefer the animated Lotr to them actually.

I love the LoTR movies. I also like the Hobbit movies.

I'm not an over-analytical person, though. I just want to be entertained, and the movies did that. I'd argue that the Hobbit films are a little slower paced, but I'm OK with the pacing.

Great films, and I'm looking forward to the last installment.

I'm one of the few nerds who doesn't get moist over Tolkien. I didn't read LOTR until I was in my late 20s and it didn't do much for me.

The LOTR movies I enjoyed, and my wife will watch them from time to time, but I don't have a strong love affair with. I admire the production that went into them, but I don't love the story enough for 9 hours of it repeatedly.

I have more affection for The Hobbit, which I did read as a kid and I loved the Rankin-Bass cartoon version of from 1977. I had the record album of it and listened to it repeatedly, which is why I still know lines from it like "Reeeetreeeeeet! Weeee are no match for Steeeeeeeeng!" and "What exactly ARE...runes?" Brother Theodore's Gollum is my Gollum and dog-faced Smaug is my Smaug. I watched it not long ago and it still holds up, moving the story along in 77 minutes, even with songs.

We saw the first Hobbit movie and were underwhelmed. What should be a lighter, brisker story was ponderously dull and weighed down. It added length without much purpose; as much as I liked seeing Sylvester McCoy as Radagast, I didn't see the value of having him there.

If I were Jackson, which I'm certainly not, I would have had The Hobbit be old Bilbo telling his story to some Hobbit kids, and making it clear he's exaggerating some things and making up some details and generally having fun with it. To get the story, and have it be of a set with the LOTR movies (which merit the darker tone), but have a reason for it to take a much different tack. Instead a fun adventure story with trolls and goblins and dragons is turned into a morose affair where we all gravely intone the name of Thrâgnók of Glòphrágùn to give the Tolkien fans a thrill for the mention.

As I say, we saw all the LOTR movies, and my wife watches them on DVD. Neither of us bothered with the second Hobbit movie.

The criticisms of the Hobbit movies are valid. They are long, with padded out material, and in Desolation of Smaug, the love triangle, the attack on Dale, and the Scooby Doo chase seen inside the Lonely Mountain are really bullshit.

That being said, the bringing to life of some of the settings is near perfect. The look of Mirkwood and the Elven King's caves are breath taking. And the visual of a golden Smaug exiting the Lonely Mountain was pretty cool.

I will always feel cheated at the total fucking up of the conversation between Bilbo and Smaug. How they came to the decision to alter the very best part of the Hobbit I have no idea.

“My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!”

Radagast is the poster child for nearly everything wrong with the first Hobbit movie. Manic, rambling, ugly, frantic, and covered with shit.

Seriously? There are geeks and gamers that hate on Hobbit or LOTR movies? Did you guys honestly prefer the days of Ladyhawke, Beastmaster, and Deathstalker? If so I've got some Marc Singer posters to sell you.

I LOVE the Hobbit films, mostly because they took a bunch of generic dwarves with random scrabble-bag names and made them unique and interesting. On top of that the movies focus on themes of brotherhood and cultural/national pride. When I read the Hobbit all I got from Thorin's quest was an overhwhelming sense of greed, like all he cared about was getting back his pile o' loot. He's still got a bit of that in the movie version but they also layered him with a paternal instinct to take care of his dwarven brothers and that makes him noble. There are cracks in his nobility but I am fascinated with his portrayal in the movies along with the quirks that make the others distinct.

Plus, Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins has been masterful and watching him bring Bilbo to life and playing out his integration into Thorin's band of dwarves has been entertaining and heart warming.