Thoughts on Peter Jackson's LotR and Hobbit films

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.

Dragonslayer still holds up.

Ladyhawke isn't too bad (if you could delete Broderick).

Green Lantern wrote: 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.

Alright, hold the phone. Here is one of the things I absolutely despise about modern discourse. The false dichotomy that you must be entirely for something an entirely opposed to something. (In some cases this is true. Such as rape. Not a lot of room for compromise there. But art, story, and film is not like that)

Just because I am unwilling to proclaim the Hobbit films and even the Lord of the Rings trilogy to be flawless does not mean that I hate and revile them as failures. They are not perfect, they have glaring and irrefutable flaws but they have shining moments of transcendent achievement and grandeur.

This is, in effect, the worst part of the films. You can see Jackson and Co. are capable of greatness and they achieve greatness but not for long before they succumb to self indulgence and loss of focus.

I'd watch Dragonslayer three times before I'll watch The Hobbit Part One again.

Love the LOTR movies, hate the Hobbitses. Still love the Rankin Bass animated Hobbit.

Love Dragonslayer.

And dammit, I love Beastmaster, too.

"I am a... pilgrim."
"You fight well for a... pilgrim."
"Even... pilgrims... must defend themselves."

You know what I'd rather watch than Peter Jackson's version of the trilogy/Hobbit?



The effect they used for the Orcs and bad guys is excellent. These films had a surreal, otherworld feel about them that enthralled me when I was younger.