Thoughts on Peter Jackson's LotR and Hobbit films

The LOTR films are one of the crowning achievments of genre filmmaking. The ambition, scope and _humanity_ of those films makes all other fantasy films- even some really good ones- look pretty paltry in comparison.

The Hobbit movies are patchy and bloated. The problem is that they are not directed by the LOTR Peter Jackson. They are directed by King Kong Peter Jackson.

But they are still better films than Ironmaster, Deathstalker, Yor and so forth. I love the old 80/ sword and sorcery stuff too but let's face it, most of those movies were pretty bad.

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.

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.

I don't hate the LotR movies. I enjoyed seeing them in the theater, and intend to re-watch them at least once in my life. I didn't enjoy them enough to want own the dvds or otherwise re-watch them a bunch like some fans, because the movies were overly long and had some flaws.

I don't hate the first Hobbit movie, but there were too many problems with it for me to like it. I agree that Martin Freeman has done a great job, and I don't blame him for the dumbass decision to make Bilbo more of a conventional action hero than a reluctant adventurer. I disagree with the idea of elevating Thorin into a more heroic figure. I suppose that criticism of greed may be unacceptable in our consumer-driven culture, but in the books, Thorin's negative qualities of greed, nationalism and stubbornness nearly brought him all-out war with humans and elves. I will be curious to see how this is addressed in the third movie. But I did skip the second movie for now, and will not be rushing to the head of the ticket line for the third movie.

Am I the only person who genuinely loved PJ's King Kong?

San Il Defanso wrote: Am I the only person who genuinely loved PJ's King Kong?

There he is!!! GET HIM!!!!!

Gregarius wrote: 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."

To this very day I refuse to use gel toothpaste because it too closely resembles the ear-monsters that they put in the slaves' heads to turn them into ultraviolent things.

I think there is plenty of room to criticize the original LotR trilogy. Arwen, the lack of Bombadil, some fight scenes becoming overly long, etc.

But that is from the perspective of a person who prides themselves as an amatuer scholar of the middle earth body of work as a whole, including Tolkien's works that never made it into the canonized books themselves as well as the languages he created (I'm a big language buff).

For example, how the necklace of the nauglafring is a condensed version of LotR trilogy, and what changes were made to that core idea in order to fashion LotR. A story which I think is actually superior to LotR itself. When one is so immersed in the lore, it is difficult to impress them when their knowledge of Morgoth's ring and the Ainulindale which created it is so deep.

That said, I think the movies in isolation are damn fine works. I found them engaging for the most part, and if I had known nothing about bombadil, I wouldn't have missed him.

The Hobbit has so far compared itself poorly to the LotR movies. Despite the Hobbit being a childrens book, there are some liberties taken in the Hobbit that make the liberties taken in LotR pale in comparison. How Beorn is handled is a big one for me. The dwarves being a constant source of comedy (of which most is a failed attempt imo) being the biggest. Legolas should be there as he is Thranduil's son afterall, yet his acrobatics strain all sense of credibility. How many elements were cut out, only to make other rather unimportant scenes be dragged out, in order to pad the length and justification to make three movies. Its less entertainment, and more blatant cash grab.

Had I known then what I know now, I would have avoided the hobbit altogether. But I am two movies deep, and am curious how they will handle the battle of five armies. So I'll watch the last one. But for completions sake, and not because I am excited to see it.

repoman wrote:

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.

That...wasn't even remotely my point. The point was before LOTR and Hobbit the offerings in the fantasy/S&S genre were paltry. Never did I utter an argument that this forgives any faults with Peter Jackson's take on the Tolkien books.

I think for me part of the problem is that I'm more impressed with Tolkien's writing style than the stories themselves. That can't come through in a film. I saw the 2nd and 3rd LotR films on Tv and they were fine. Good fare. But they didn't feel related to the book to me. Almost two different works.

I liked Dragonslayer a lot. Just resaw it with my kids and it holds up.

Ladyhawke had Michelle Pfeifer in it.

You're all missing the true classic though -- The Perils of Gwendolyn. A visually stunning film, especially the nude scenes.

S.

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

I'd rather Roshambo with the Goblin King three times before watching Dragonslayer again, and I'd let him go first.

Shellhead wrote: I don't hate the first Hobbit movie, but there were too many problems with it for me to like it. I agree that Martin Freeman has done a great job, and I don't blame him for the dumbass decision to make Bilbo more of a conventional action hero than a reluctant adventurer.

Bilbo is portrayed as a reluctant hero in the movies. When did he act like a conventional action hero?

Shellhead wrote: I disagree with the idea of elevating Thorin into a more heroic figure. I suppose that criticism of greed may be unacceptable in our consumer-driven culture, but in the books, Thorin's negative qualities of greed, nationalism and stubbornness nearly brought him all-out war with humans and elves. I will be curious to see how this is addressed in the third movie. But I did skip the second movie for now, and will not be rushing to the head of the ticket line for the third movie.

Oh, I can see the cracks in his armor and if you've seen the trailer for the third Hobbit movie you know he's going to make the wrong decisions. I'm loving it. In fact, that's another reason I love Fellowship of the Ring and how Boromir was characterized. In the books his death is off-screen and largely inconsequential, but in the movie we get to see him bond with the hobbits and struggle with the temptation of the ring. When it pushes him over the line the movie does a fantastic job of showing his last stand in defense of Merry and Pippin, trying to salvage his honor and make the ultimate sacrifice for his hobbit buds. That look he shares with Merry and Pippin after that second arrow still gets me, man.