Thoughts on the Final Hobbit Movie *Spoilers*

[Albino Boo]

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.

In the book both Denethor and Saruman are entrapped by looking into their palantírs. Saruman was corrupted and fell under the domination of Sauron but Denethor rejected Sauron. However Sauron showed Denethor only what he Sauron wanted and this led to Denethor into thinking that defeat was inevitable causing him to fall into despair. When Pippin looked into Saruman's palantír its clear the Saruman was in direct contact with Mordor. The is no single bit of exposition but various things Gandalf says and events surrounding the palantírs make it reasonably clear that they are the source of Saruman's downfall. They also serve to confirm Aragorn's legitimacy because as their true master he was able to wrestle control of the palantirs from Sauron

 

[Silvanus]

In the book both Denethor and Saruman are entrapped by looking into their palantírs. Saruman was corrupted and fell under the domination of Sauron but Denethor rejected Sauron. However Sauron showed Denethor only what he Sauron wanted and this led to Denethor into thinking that defeat was inevitable causing him to fall into despair. When Pippin looked into Saruman's palantír its clear the Saruman was in direct contact with Mordor. The is no single bit of exposition but various things Gandalf says and events surrounding the palantírs make it reasonably clear that they are the source of Saruman's downfall. They also serve to confirm Aragorn's legitimacy because as their true master he was able to wrestle control of the palantirs from Sauron

Ahh, fair enough, I haven't yet come across the stuff with Denethor. I was aware that Saruman was in direct contact with Mordor via the Palantir, though it seemed in The Two Towers that Saruman still held his own distinct agenda: he gave his Uruk orders against Sauron's wishes, and he was quick to suggest betraying Mordor in FotR.

 

[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.

Yeah, that's honestly Jacksons biggest weakness and strength as a director.

To elaborate, after watching LotR behind the scenes, one bit that struck my mind was when they were filming the Rohirrim charge in the third movie, arguably the best moment in the entire trilogy by quite a bit, and the thing is Jackson was gushing all over how much he wanted to make it, he was all "this is the fucking thing I've wanted to do as a kid, I'm excited as all hell". Same way I get the feeling he was fucking hyped about doing Smaug as well, and wouldn't you know, Smaug did turn out to be pretty great (well, not in the third one, but his dialogue was Bilbo was great). I feel that Jackson only really makes great movies if he actually really wants to make them, which results in great scenes but a few really strange parts, that makes you wonder what the hell he was up to.

In LOTR, I can't find any fault with Fellowship, Two Towers ending bothered me a bit because it jarred the tone the books set up (Shelob "killing" Frodo would have been a better ending) though I understand the movie ran long as it was, and Return didn't really depart too much from the source for me to be mad. Hell I liked the extended Mouth of Sauron thing a lot.
However in contrast the whole stretch of the Hobbit trilogy and adding in Legolas and such felt so... unnecessary. They could have done it as 2 movies without having to put in the extraneous Gandalf/Sauron stuff, which was absolutely inconsequential to the plot. It would have worked so much better to end the first movie with a glimpse of the mountain, have the second movie half the Bilbo/Smaug dialogue and the other half the rise and fall of Smaug and the subsequent battle.
What really bothers me though is that this was supposed to be Bilbo's POV story and it worked well like that in the book so why they felt they needed to change the overall tone is absolutely beyond me.

 

[madwarper]

In LOTR, I can't find any fault with Fellowship,

You can't? That's odd, because there's little I don't find fault with after the birthday party ended.

Two Towers ending bothered me a bit because it jarred the tone the books set up (Shelob "killing" Frodo would have been a better ending) though I understand the movie ran long as it was,

I'll agree, that it should have been included in the second.

and Return didn't really depart too much from the source for me to be mad.

Really? I mean... Really?

Fauxramir falling under the sway of the ring and parading Frodo and Sam in front of the Wraiths at Ostgiliath wasn't a departure from the source? The omission of the Grey Company wasn't a departure from the source? The omission of the last battle in the War of the Ring wasn't a departure from the source?

Frankly, after seeing how Peter Jackson butchered the LotR, I never had any interest in seeing how he'd manage to butcher the Hobbit. Better to not watch them and think they're awful, than to see them and remove all doubt. I'm just glad that as long as Christopher is alive, I can rest assured that he'll never let anyone get the movie rights to the Silmarillion.

 

[rorychief]

The plot was what it was. I won't talk about the plot. The majority of the film people were battling, but they were battle scenes where I felt confused by the stakes and actual to and fro of battle. A series of charges from sequentially introduced classes of monster, with no real geographic knowledge of where the battle lines lay and what was considered advancing or retreating by either side. There was Dale, but I felt like that went from Dale without orcs to Dale crawling with orcs from all sides instantly, without any reason to consider the physicality of Dale, how it is defended from as a fortress, what choke points can be exploited, what major routes of access have to be blocked, what is the absolute last line of retreat, where is cornered in and where will the final stand play out.

Its just a backdrop, not really an element of story so much as an alternative aesthetic. Whereas for me helm's deep is remembered as a historic solid place that accrued devastating damage in key dramatic stages of exponential significance to every character involved. The siege of helms deep was a battle scene where the placement of soldiers was telling of the narrative, who's holding down what, what has been lost, etc. And as the characters fell back through Helm's Deep this allowed for a real sense of 'just lasting through the night' in the a hope of a Pyrrhic victory because relief and rescue aren't counted on coming. As each new wave of troop or siege machine turned up, what it achieved outside of killing people was perhaps make it easier for future troops and siege weapons to kill people. Every successful demonstration of a ballista or berzerker or bomb meant something to the characters and their morale and exhausted them further on this long endless night. They weren't just exciting props dumped into a disorienting meat grinder like the five armies pit brawl.

I mean the orcs had dune worms. Nope, not gonna make the fact that the merciless villain could have released fucking dune worms and chose not to a point of insight into his psyche and code of honor. No no, my dune worms have shown off once for the cameras, I have no more use of dune worms. I guess the plot wouldn't have worked had the baddies tried their hardest. Their job is to just generally be everywhere and get slashed in passing as the good guys travel freely between landmarks.
These bats have been bred for but one purpose. To reuse assets from King Kong.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

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.

I actually thought that the Witch-King was suddenly going to appear, because to be honest everyone had by that point ... But I agree, the reference makes little sense to audiences who don't know the lore, and didn't give any pay off for those that do.

 

[Albino Boo]

In the book both Denethor and Saruman are entrapped by looking into their palantírs. Saruman was corrupted and fell under the domination of Sauron but Denethor rejected Sauron. However Sauron showed Denethor only what he Sauron wanted and this led to Denethor into thinking that defeat was inevitable causing him to fall into despair. When Pippin looked into Saruman's palantír its clear the Saruman was in direct contact with Mordor. The is no single bit of exposition but various things Gandalf says and events surrounding the palantírs make it reasonably clear that they are the source of Saruman's downfall. They also serve to confirm Aragorn's legitimacy because as their true master he was able to wrestle control of the palantirs from Sauron

Ahh, fair enough, I haven't yet come across the stuff with Denethor. I was aware that Saruman was in direct contact with Mordor via the Palantir, though it seemed in The Two Towers that Saruman still held his own distinct agenda: he gave his Uruk orders against Sauron's wishes, and he was quick to suggest betraying Mordor in FotR.

At various points throughout the last two books Uruks, orcs and other assorted evil characters betray their superiors and follow their own agenda. Saruman is no different and like the others, sows the seeds of his own destruction.

 

[Spacewolf]

Didn't really mind it to be honest the main bits that bothered me where the Legolas runs up rubble scene which had people in my cinema laughing and not in a good way and having the charge of the Company be kept closer to the book where it was much more impactful I felt. Not a bad movie at all really.

 

[Stephen St.]

We could talk about the good parts. I liked the "Thorin fights his inner dragon" bit, although the exectution wasn't perfect, I liked the idea, and the visuals were pretty cool.

I really liked the armored mountain goats too. Even though they were conjured out of thin air, and were, like so much else, rather jarring to the tone, I found them really cute and kind of cool. Same for the boar, that was a cool idea.

And the ending was good. Nice return to the cozy shire, and the transition to the start of the first LotR movie was well done.