Red Mosquito

stip is a piece of human garbage

A few thoughts:

There were a few things I didn't like about the third film.

The eagles are annoying. Not Jackson's fault, since Tolkien wrote him into a corner there, but they're too similar to the ghost army in ROTK. The battle writes itself into a corner and then some unstoppable super force comes to save the day. I also lost track of what army was where after a certain point. Why weren't the dwarves overrun at the gate? Where were the elves? How were the humans not obliterated. Unlike his previous huge set piece battles it was a bit hard to get your bearings.

Bard still felt like a flat character.

Otherwise I thought this was a great ending to the trilogy. Things I liked:

1. The opening confrontation with smaug was, I thought, very well done. He was huge and terrifying and seemingly unstoppable. He felt like a force of nature. The showdown with Bard on top of the tower with his son was tense, even knowing how it ended. And it served as a really nice opening sequence for the film.

2. Thorin's descent felt real, as did everyone's paralyzed reaction to it. It was the first real emotional character arc other than Bilbo's.

3. I really liked the White Council assault on Dol Guldor. it was nice to see all these mega important characters in Tolkien's world actually do something.

4. Jackson's roots in horror films were in fine form in both the Dol Guldor sequence and Thorin's descent. The way everything felt distant and disoriented.

5. I love that he expanded the world, and referenced places like Angmar.

6. The spectacle of the battle of the five armies was consistently exciting. It did feel a bit familiar in places, though

7. Some of the character deaths were genuine surprises, having read the books.

8. Bilbo and Gandalf were pleasures to watch, as always.

9. The entire final showdown between Thorin and Azog was a great end to Thorin's story.

10. I generally loved the effects (I did not see this in 3D)

I am conflicted about the Kili/Tauriel love story. On the one hand I can respect what he was trying to do. In the end the major problem with the hobbit is the sheer number of undifferentiated characters. After 9 hours of movie I only really know who 4 of them are (Thorin, Kili, Balin, and Dwalin), and I know Kili because of that story. And I thought the Tauriel character was a nice counterpoint to Jackson's interpretation of elves as aloof, and seemingly cold, as a logical outgrowth of their longevity (that passion will be measured when set against the backdrop of immortality/the reluctance to be invested). Plus it introduced a female character into this sausage fest. But I never really believed it.

Legolas is what he is. It is absurd at times, and I wish he was scaled back, but at least it's usually clever.


In the end I'm definitely glad Jackson went in the direction he did with these films. If the Hobbit was filmed more faithful to the book we would have needed a different filmmaker, since the Hobbit story and aesthetic is fundamentally different than LOTR. We also would have had way more of the bumbling dwarves, way more Radagast style moments (tonally), and a less interesting film. It is a children's story, and I have a hard time believing that that's what people REALLY wanted.

What we wanted was LOTR II (which is why I'm glad Jackson stepped up to make these films), and that was always gonna be a tall order. In part because Jackson already made LOTR, and so everything was going to be familiar. We couldn't discover Middle Earth for the first time. The Five Armies couldn't wow like Helm's Deep or Peleanor Fields. Even Gollum was a reprise. Smaug was the one thing that was completely new, and I think he was handled wonderfully in both films, both as something sinister and terrifying, and then as the force of unhinged destruction, claimed by the same sickness that almost got Thorin.

So Jackson didn't make the Hobbit. He made a series of films about an important time in the history of middle earth. He made a Lord of the Rings prequel and dropped the Hobbit's story into it. And I do love the new places in the world we saw (the cold wet feel of laketown, the haunted ruins of dol guldor, the burial prison of the nine, the fortress at angmar, and especially the depth of Ereabor). And he made the movie feel like the opening moves in a much larger story. I'm glad we got to explore parts of this world that may have otherwise been left untouched. Reading the books I always wished the story of what happened when the White Council confronted the necromancer, and now I got to see it.

And so in the end, I enjoyed the trilogy, especially the final act. The series dragged in places, and there were sequences I didn't like. It could have been shorter (although I really liked the pacing and how brisk this movie felt in comparison to the others). There are times watching it I have Middle Earth fatigue. But then again, Jackson has created an impossibly rich, supremely detailed, 18 hour epic story, and even though these films are a shadow of LOTR, they are still consistently solid, occasionally wonderful, and an additional 9 hours I get to spend in Middle Earth.

Christopher Tolkien can shut the fuck up. Peter Jackson brought the mythology of middle earth alive to tens of millions of people who would never read those books or care about this world. And Tolkien should find Jackson and thank him for making his father (and these types of stories) relevant to not only readers of fantasy novels, but to everyone

I agree with Burt about the final bit of love dialogue and the 100 goblin mercenaries. But these are minor little moments.

Time. Such a relatively short film. Time is all it has.

Why bother making an utterly unlikeable and irrelevant character, alfrid, a central focus.
He gets more screen time in one film than 10 individual dwarves do over three.

Why bother working up to Smaug over such a protracted period (two films!?!?) only to dispatch him with barely a mention at the beginning of the third?

And probably most importantly why pass up an opportunity to fill out a time line you established by not only not exploring the battle of dol guldur, not only exploring the relationship and establishing the relationship between your two main bad guys, but diminishing the main bad guy of your following trilogy in such an insipid impotent way.

We knew this was going to be a tricky film to take seriously after the rabbit power sled and gold rollercoaster debacle(the second of these films jar jar binks moments to give the kids a reason to like them.)

But this list isn't even nearly exhaustive.
As a piece of film existing as the final chapter, it is a total mess. Unfinished making massive assumptions and omissions of its predecessors but overall, it dies in the editing.
Two glacially slow films in which nothing happens for the most part leading up to one film that dies trying to suddenly be an action film and failing to resolve almost any of the scenarios and character arcs it set out to. A film with it's own case of Alzheimer's.

Alfred is there to help define Bard as his opposite, who is a central character. But fair enough he is disposable.

I am totally fine with the death of smaug serving as the prologue. It was an exciting way to start the third film. Barely a mention hardly seems right. His death triggers everything that follows. Did you want them to drag him out further? At least Tolkien didn't have him killed by the eagles.

I don't think sauron was diminished in any way. The next film takes place in like 70 years. Sauron is wounded but recovers. Galadriel has to use much of her power to even banish him, which also helps explain why she sits out the ring war.

The gold roller coaster reminded me much more of the mine cart chase in temple of doom then anything else. I liked it as a sequence in the running chase through erabor. And the shot that happens in five armies where thorin is walking across the gray hall with a golden floor was stunning.

I feel like every major character arc (not that there were that many) that existed was resolved well (even the love story was useful for helping us understand elves, if nothing else) I never sat through any of these films thinking 'man, I wish they spent more time exploring the relationship between sauron and azog. Especially since villains are so poorly defined in tolkiens world anyway. Evil for evil's sake, existing as negative space for heroes to define themselves in opposition to.

stip wrote:Also, the much maligned radagast sequences are, without a doubt, faithful to the spirit of the hobbit book

stip wrote:Everyone who writes a piece like this should be required to actually reread the hobbit

are you agreeing or disagreeing with both statements?

I think he's pointing out the contradiction in your posts.

i've decide i'm going to let this page ruin my christmas. jesus god.

thorin died?!?

They make such a big deal out of dragon sickness, but then the guy halucinates and is fine. Then he somehow rallies everyone to start fighting harder. so dumb.

Alfred is more than disposable, he's one of the most tedious characters I've seen in a movie in a long time. He really is Jar Jar bad. He is proof of Jackson's total incompetence when working outside of the book.

Nothing that happens after Smaug dies is remotely as cool as Smaug, so thats a fail too. Tolkien barely mentions the battle. Its a footnote. If Smaug is going to be the prologue, you should have something coming up that is better. And is Azog one of the worst villains ever? yes. yes he is.

The battle itself was boring and confusing (and don't give me any confusion of battle excuses). How were the humans not completely wiped out? Where did they get those rams and how did they get out? Where did those worms go? Where is everyone? Why should I care about any of these CG abominations?

Contrast it with the LOTR battles and they don't compare:

In Two Towers and ROTK, every move and counter move felt like a huge swing in momentum, every action had impact. Here its just noise. The good guys kill some dudes for awhile, then the bad guys kill some dudes for awhile. None of the actions really matter. Everyone is just running in random directions. They are just going through the motions until the eagles show up.

Dangerous creatures were dangerous in LOTR. Remember when the trolls used to be a threat? In this movie they are just a bigger target. And somehow the orcs are 8 feet tall and heavily armored in this one, but die when breathed on. On no! the bats are here! What did they do exactly? Provide a mild annoyance?

The characters were fleshed out before hand, so you cared about them, there was real drama. This is an ambush of characters we barely know and don't care about. Who the fuck is this uncle guy and why should I care? The elves are there for what? a few jewels? Who cares? Repeatedly, large swaths of the various groups are slaughtered, yet in the next scene there is more of them, and it doesn't really matter anyway.

Its just an unnecessary sequel. Could have been added to the second one, or dropped altogether. There isn't enough in the book to justify this story, and Jackson fails to come up with anything.

Alex wrote:i've decide i'm going to let this page ruin my christmas. jesus god.

Christmas is ruined!

I read the Hobbit about 20 years ago. And it was a fucking boring book filled with awful storytelling and uninteresting histories about a place that was a sketch of something that could have been interesting if I could -- or rather, if I had any inclination to -- track it.

Until Riddles in the Dark. Then the book got fucking great! But then it fell apart again. Ultimately it became a sort of boring, unfinished work that left me wanting more, but not more necessarily told in the same way.

Then TLotR movies came out. And they first one was awesome. So I started reading the LotR books. I didn't finish them. Because same thing as The Hobbit, except more interesting and fantastic world building.

Then the second LotR movie was really good but didn't make me want to reread or revisit the books.

Then the third movie came out and it was a piece of garbage.

Then the first Hobbit movie came out and it was 10 time worse than the worst LotR movie. AND worse than the book.

That rabbit guy is NOT in the spirit of the book. And is worse than anything in the book.

I guess, what I'm saying is MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS.

dimejinky99 wrote:I think he's pointing out the contradiction in your posts.

I stand by my claim. An absent minded wizard riding a rabbit powered sled would have fit in just fine

stip wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I think he's pointing out the contradiction in your posts.

I stand by my claim. An absent minded wizard riding a rabbit powered sled would have fit in just fine

i'm fine with it.

I don't agree with all of them, but fair critiques all around, burt, and nothing I am saying here should be interpreted as me claiming these films hold a candle to LOTR - though few films do.

Although Martin freeman gives the best performance in either trilogy

stip wrote:Although Martin freeman gives the best performance in either trilogy

yeah he owns every scene he is in.

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I think he's pointing out the contradiction in your posts.

I stand by my claim. An absent minded wizard riding a rabbit powered sled would have fit in just fine

i'm fine with it.

Speaking of this guy, it seems like the biggest criticism of the first one was that it was too light. I guess since Jackson approached these as a prequel to LOTR, they kinda have to be the same sullen tone, but am I the only one who wanted to see something lighter and bouncier? I kinda enjoyed the sillier aspects of the first one, but people seemed to want more dourness. eh...

I wanted the dour tone for sure, though in retrospect the problem with making the prequel second is that many of the characters and events are smaller versions of what will happen in LOTR

Bard -> Aragorn
5 Armies -> Pelenor Fields
Dol Guldor -> barad dor

But in terms of audience expectations there is the need to try and top them, or not make them feel inferior, even though they are. It would have been better to build into LOTR, rather than the other way around