Thoughts on the Final Hobbit Movie *Spoilers*

[Super Cyborg]

So yesterday I saw the final Hobbit movie. I liked it overall, but unlike the first two movies for me, I felt there were a number of problems making it something that could've been a great close to the series of movies based on this famous franchise. As a reference, I know most of the world from the movies, and know none of the lore. I'm looking at this from a movie perspective of what it gives. I don't care about deviations from the book, or if having knowledge of the lore would help it make sense, because that doesn't matter to me.

Spoiler

My first complaint is the rest of the stuff with Smaug at the beginning. It was well done, but I feel it would've been best for him to be defeated at the end of the last movie, and have the opening be with people trying to salvage stuff. It also would've given a good 20 more minutes to focus on other things that needed focus in this movie.

The build-up for the battle coming was good overall, though there were some things that were a bit jarring. The sickness of Thorin seemed really sudden and just seemed added to make the movie go longer. The whole thing with the elf gems was also just weird as well. I know they need to build tension, but throwing these things in to build it was just rushed, and didn't do much. Also really makes the elves that much more petty. Overall, this is a minor complaint. A more major one was how the Dwarves seemed to not mind how Thorin was acting, especially after initial complaints on how he was acting.

I did like the fight against the ghosts and everything that happened there, as well as showing the part where Saruman turned heels. While quick, it was a nice, quick scene. Even though Thorins sickness was thrown on us quickly, it was well done, and the part where he had Smaugs voice when talking gave me chills. Once again, Bilbo really shone with how he handled the situations.

The big problem for me was the war. I felt that it wasn't done nearly as well compared to the LotR movies. The bigger problem is that it just really felt out of place compared to the other movies. The first two were more adventurous, and having the over the top humor and action was fine, because it went with the theme and overall atmosphere it had. In the war where people are dying, having some of the same humor and action (Legolas jumping up falling rocks to get back to the tower bridge, the scene with the cowardly guy looking like a woman, among others) just really goes against what's supposed to be happening. The war overall just felt out of place considering everything else in the other movies.

If there was one other glaring problem though that would affect all the other movies, it was the eagles coming again. They are shown to be very effective, and really makes you ask why they didn't help in other battles in the LotR movies. I was fine with the first Hobbit movie using them, but overall it just makes you wonder why in the movie world, they didn't help other times in battles where they could just take out hordes of enemies.

While the love triangle thing was a bit akward at the end (seriously, the whole "why does it have to hurt" was so cheesy it hurt), I thought it didn't really ruin stuff overall, especially since it wasn't a huge focus. Also the whole "find Strider" thing was silly, especially considering where they first meet in the Fellowship of the Rings movie.

In the end, I liked the Hobbit movies, though the first two were vastly superior with the tone it was going with. While I never have been a huge fan of the movies (I like them enough), I am glad to have been around to be a part of history as this movie franchise has come to a close.

So for those of you in territories that it has already been released. What are your thoughts on this movie, the Hobbit movies as a whole, and the Franchise as a whole?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Mildly entertaining bubble-gum. So basically a missed opportunity, and a watered down cash-in on LOTR. What's disappointing is that we were originally going to get a different version of Middle-Earth, and that was a lot more appealing to me. Using the same sets and actors and filmmakers makes it feel very tired and weary. The tone was also way off, deciding to adopt the washed-out gloominess more appropriate for a horror film and not a fun children's adventure tale.

 

[sanquin]

There is one thing I have to mention. The director had problems even getting green lit for this last movie, and in the end had to do it with a FAR lower budget than with the others. (I heard less than half?) And in my opinion a lot of the problems can be attributed to that.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Spoiler

Oh for fuck's sakes, that bit about Saruman is going to piss me off. SARUMAN WAS CORRUPTED BY LOOKING INTO THE PALANTIR, NOT BY FIGHTING SAURON'S SPECTRE AT DOL GULDUR. At the time of the Hobbit, Gandalf did go to Dol Guldur, but it was a feint by the Necromancer to draw him away from the dwarves. Once Gandalf arrived there, the Necromancer vanished.

Later, after the Battle of Five Armies, the White Council did go to Dol Guldur and expunge the Necromancer, who at that point had returned to Mordor.

So the entire point of these Dol Guldur scenes appears to be an excuse to foreshadow Saruman's betrayal, as if looking into the Palantir wasn't obvious enough?

 

[Super Cyborg]

Spoiler

Oh for fuck's sakes, that bit about Saruman is going to piss me off. SARUMAN WAS CORRUPTED BY LOOKING INTO THE PALANTIR, NOT BY FIGHTING SAURON'S SPECTRE AT DOL GULDUR. At the time of the Hobbit, Gandalf did go to Dol Guldur, but it was a feint by the Necromancer to draw him away from the dwarves. Once Gandalf arrived there, the Necromancer vanished.

Later, after the Battle of Five Armies, the White Council did go to Dol Guldur and expunge the Necromancer, who at that point had returned to Mordor.

So the entire point of these Dol Guldur scenes appears to be an excuse to foreshadow Saruman's betrayal, as if looking into the Palantir wasn't obvious enough?

Just out of curiosity, reading the post, did you expect everything to be accurate according to the books? Considering the other two movie which many like yourself complained about not being accurate, did you expect accuracy?

I just never understood people who wanted things to be 100% accurate from the books, even if it's event that are big from the source material. Sure, it didn't happen in the books, but if it makes sense according to the world the movies made, then it is fine. In this case, while it is different, still shows how it started and didn't contradict anything.

If you are talking about things from the other movies, then feel free to ignore this comment.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

There is one thing I have to mention. The director had problems even getting green lit for this last movie, and in the end had to do it with a FAR lower budget than with the others. (I heard less than half?) And in my opinion a lot of the problems can be attributed to that.

Care to elaborate how? Because from what I saw, the movie had tremendous production values. The problems I had with the film had to do with exactly the aspects that don't kill your budget: dialogue, character development and script.

Spoiler: My thoughts

The worst of the Middle-Earth films, 5/10. Huge chunks felt like a straight copypaste of Return of the King, the hobbit in the film was barely in it, the awful love story and Legolas were just as pointless as last time, Smaug was shamelessly wasted (they should have just made the beginning scene the finale of the second film), writing was dodgy all over the place, the battle between the elves, dwarves and orcs basically disappears once they fo after Azog, there's hardly any meaningful attachment or development to the characters save perhaps Thorin, and Holy Goatfuck was the humor ever forced and out of place. Yeah, just throw in a quick gag about crossdressing in the middle of a battle scene. Jesus.

On the other hand the direction they went with Thorin was quite interesting for the short time it was there, the action was nice brainless entertainment, seeing a big dwarf army for the first time was nice (though dwarves with spears is just WRONG!), and what little Smaug they had was fantastic.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Smaug was shamelessly wasted (they should have just made the beginning scene the finale of the second film)

But then we couldn't have had that stupidly out of place soft rock song playing over the credits.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Spoiler

Oh for fuck's sakes, that bit about Saruman is going to piss me off. SARUMAN WAS CORRUPTED BY LOOKING INTO THE PALANTIR, NOT BY FIGHTING SAURON'S SPECTRE AT DOL GULDUR. At the time of the Hobbit, Gandalf did go to Dol Guldur, but it was a feint by the Necromancer to draw him away from the dwarves. Once Gandalf arrived there, the Necromancer vanished.

Later, after the Battle of Five Armies, the White Council did go to Dol Guldur and expunge the Necromancer, who at that point had returned to Mordor.

So the entire point of these Dol Guldur scenes appears to be an excuse to foreshadow Saruman's betrayal, as if looking into the Palantir wasn't obvious enough?

Just out of curiosity, reading the post, did you expect everything to be accurate according to the books? Considering the other two movie which many like yourself complained about not being accurate, did you expect accuracy?

I just never understood people who wanted things to be 100% accurate from the books, even if it's event that are big from the source material. Sure, it didn't happen in the books, but if it makes sense according to the world the movies made, then it is fine. In this case, while it is different, still shows how it started and didn't contradict anything.

If you are talking about things from the other movies, then feel free to ignore this comment.

There's a difference between adapting scenes from book to film and just making shit up.

 

[freaper]

I liked the first two because it seemed like Peter Jackson understood they were their own thing, i.e. not LotR. This one felt super lazy in comparison: poor fighting choreography, too many drawn out scenes (dialogues[Kili-Tauriel, Bard-Alfrid]/fights/deaths), too much focus on secondary or superfluous characters and not enough on the main cast, really poor CGI, poor attempts to replicate scenes in the LotR movies, character design a five year-old would be proud of, etc.

I read the book years ago, and I could appreciate the dialogue surrounding the theme of greed and materialism, but for me it wasn't enough to redeem the movie.

 

[Stephen St.]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the Hobbit is nothing but a bloated hollywood action set piece trying to recreate the lightening in the bottle they had with the original trilogy. They don't even try to take advantage of the longer run time to adapt more of the content from the book, I'd go as far as to say almost half of the trilogy is filled with nothing but badly written fanfiction.

I actually found the first one decent, if not overly exciting, and the second one I really liked. A mix of humor and epic storytelling that was a bit different from the LOTR movies.

The third part, though, was pretty awful imho. I left the theater sorely disappointed. It did not work well with the lore, and it did not work well as an individual film. The humor was terribly out of place. Where the film would have required a more sombre tone, similar to the LOtR movies, it instead went with over the top humor that made me think I was in a martial-arts B-movie. Many parts of the battle were so ridiculous they threw suspension of disbelief right out of the window. Everyone either died in the fray or was some absurd superhero that can kill orcs with headbutts or is the perfect swordfighter in addition to being the best archer. Hell even a little child can somehow just kill two heavily armed orcs who, according to the film, are "bred for war". And the trolls are either unstoppable war machines or they are killed with one arrow. I get that this was, to an extend, always the case in the Middle-earth movies and that this is not all out of tune with the source material, but in this case it was too much. Azog's death scene was the crowning moment of stupid in the movie, seriously. Completely predictable and completely absurd.

There was also no proper focus. Thorin's band, Smaug, and the battle at Dol Guldur would have been much to focus on, but then there is also Bard and his family, there is Tauriel's love story, there is Legolas fighting the other super-orc. Too much going on to make any of the things feel meaningful. Then there was this weird sub-sub-plot with the old kingdom of Angbar, which is a nice reference to the lore, but adds nothing to the film and is unintelligible for people who only know the films. It's also really unclear why Galadriel is portrayed as so very powerful in this movie. If anything, Gandalf should be the most powerful of the three ring-bearers, assuming he already has the ring at this point (which I am not sure about). But why Galadriel? And why does it make sense to take her to Lothlorien? Lothlorien was a powerful place because of Galadriel and her ring, wasn't it?

 

[RedDeadFred]

Every time I think about this series, I think of the tremendously wasted potential. The first one was okay, the second one dragged a lot, and now I don't even think I want to see the third movie.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

If anyone wonders why the Hobbit trilogy (still hurts my brain to even think it in that terminology) feels like LOTR's idiot cousin, its because Pete Jackson had no desire to make them. Especially compared with the love and energy he put into LOTR. Don't take it from me, Pete Jackson even stated how much he hated revisiting Middle-Earth. All thanks to Del Toro bailing on the project and the studios tapping Jackson despite his absolute reluctance.
Plus it was a story that was never meant to be spread like butter over too much bread.

 

[Michael Wagg]

If there was one other glaring problem though that would affect all the other movies, it was the eagles coming again. They are shown to be very effective, and really makes you ask why they didn't help in other battles in the LotR movies. I was fine with the first Hobbit movie using them, but overall it just makes you wonder why in the movie world, they didn't help other times in battles where they could just take out hordes of enemies.

In the context of the Hobbit book, The Eagles coming back to help in the battle made sense (really liked that part as a kid, was mad at Bilbo for being knocked out, wanted to see the battle!) I will admit its weird the Eagles don't help out more in Lord of the Rings, guess they are picky bastards.

 

[wizzy555]

Spoiler

Oh for fuck's sakes, that bit about Saruman is going to piss me off. SARUMAN WAS CORRUPTED BY LOOKING INTO THE PALANTIR, NOT BY FIGHTING SAURON'S SPECTRE AT DOL GULDUR. At the time of the Hobbit, Gandalf did go to Dol Guldur, but it was a feint by the Necromancer to draw him away from the dwarves. Once Gandalf arrived there, the Necromancer vanished.

Later, after the Battle of Five Armies, the White Council did go to Dol Guldur and expunge the Necromancer, who at that point had returned to Mordor.

So the entire point of these Dol Guldur scenes appears to be an excuse to foreshadow Saruman's betrayal, as if looking into the Palantir wasn't obvious enough?

Depending on the accounts from wider materials that's not entirely true

Spoiler

Saruman had intentions to find the ring himself and was watching where Sauron searched to see if he knew where it was.

 

[Guffe]

Spoiler: I'm putting this in spoiler brackets even if there will only be shortly about my thoughts, no actual spoilers

As OP said, I think the Smaug "episode" should've been done in the second film.

Overall the movie had too much action in it. That's it, I thought it was pretty much an Expendables movie set in midle earth. I like those films in their own way, this movie was not supposed to be in that way.
A bit too much CGI, even if some scenes were very well done and awesome (Saruman/Elrond/Wraiths scene). But overall way too much action. The Hobbit was an adventure thing, sure there was the battle at the end, but this was a bit too much in my taste.

 

[Silvanus]

There's a difference between adapting scenes from book to film and just making shit up.

I've read the first two LOTR books, but not the third. Does RotK go into more specific detail about Saruman's fall? Because so far, it doesn't seem conclusive that that's how he fell from grace. We just have some Gandalf speculation at this point.