• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I just saw the last Hobbit movie AKA The Hobbit: TBOTFA Spoiler Thread *SPOILERS*

Status
Not open for further replies.

tcrunch

Member
Reposting what I posted in the other thread here since I didn't know this thread existed:

Going to an IMAX trilogy showing today. If I don't post back by midnight MST tonight, assume my insides exploded from sitting in one place too long. Otherwise I will give you my thoughts bearing in mind that I saw the other 2 immediately beforehand. My viewing party also watched 1 LOTR a week leading up to this, except we're dumbasses and didn't start early enough so we left out ROTK. I look at it as: if this movie sucks we can still have a real ending later.

k. So my crew was split evenly on whether the 2nd or the 3rd movie is the worst. I feel like the CGI gets worse with each one, but I don't necessarily count that against the movie. My background: I read The Hobbit book when I was little and enjoyed it, loved the animated movie, loved the PJ LOTR movies, did not get past the first chapter of the first LOTR book.

Shout-out to the heavy breathing nerd behind me that bore the distinct unshowered smell of sour nacho cheese and rasped inane comments like what the power level of each color of wizard is. Bear in mind my seat location was perfect for viewing the film, but at the cost of having this guy behind me for 8 hours.

Here are my thoughts fresh off the fryer:

Are videogames becoming more like movies or are movies becoming more like videogames? This is a question that occurred to me more than once watching this film. Pretend the Helm's Deep or Gondor fights were a whole movie and that's pretty much TBOTFA for you. If you want to watch lots of CGI things fight each other and Legolas perform increasingly fantastical CGI stunts then this is the movie for you. Other reasons you may want to watch this movie:

-To see Tauriel's character evolve in pretty much the worst direction possible.
-To see random locations and creatures from the books(?) as visualized by PJ's concept artists. (I don't remember The Hobbit taking place on Middle-Arrakis.)
-To see Galadriel turn blue again. Have I mentioned that depicting powerful women as having "bursts" of extreme power followed by faint spells is an annoying trope. PS those other guys in G-Crew also kick some ass, but it's kind of like watching Yoda "kick ass" in the Star Wars prequels, aka really weird that a sorcerer goes for staff-jitsu over I don't know calling down a lightning bolt and setting everything on fire.
-To see a bear paratrooper.
-If you are tired of "Bombur is fat" humor and instead want to see "man dresses in women's clothing" humor.
-If you are deeply invested in the fate of the unibrow not-Wormtongue assistant to Laketown's master from the last movie.

Smaug dies in the first ~10 minutes so you don't have to worry about his death throes encroaching on the rest of the film's substance. His death scene is also pretty cool looking imho. All the leaders of the various armies now have an animal mount to represent them, you know like how Thranduil has his elk, Azog has his white warg, Bard has his thrush-not-appearing-in-this-film. I will let you guess what Thorin's animal ends up being. There are several "hey did you know this movie connects to Lord of the Rings" moments, which didn't really add anything to my experience. Sample paraphrase from one of these: "The rangers call him Strider. I will let you find out his real name for yourself."

So you know that idea "show don't tell". This somehow applies even to TBOTFA's emotional climaxes despite that most of them are showing you close-ups of the climaxing character's (sorry) face. There is about 1.5 minutes of Thorin staring into a pool of bad CGI gold while quotes from the previous movies play. In this case I think "show don't tell" means these emotional moments deserved scenarios/full scenes involving interactions with other characters over close-ups and overlayed dialogue. There are two moments that gave me serious chills at the beginning of the film: 1) "Welcome my sister's sons, to the kingdom of Erebor", beautifully spoken line combined with a wide shot of Thorin raising his arms like a wraith (or a dragon) over his piles of gold, 2) When a madness-addled Thorin confronts Bilbo about something in his hand, and when Bilbo reveals it is only an acorn, you visibly see Thorin return to his old self, smiling bright as day...until a few moments later, when he's informed of guests to his keep. The play of emotions across Thorin's face was wonderful and terrifying. Other than those, the film's attempts at emotional contact with the audience fell flat on me, with a possible exception of Bilbo's "look the eagles have come" moment, but YMMV, and to alter something said in the film, "death is cheap".

I don't feel Thorin and Bilbo's relationship got enough expansion on the material from the first film even with both the second and third films put together, and they're the only two characters I think anyone cares about in an emotional investment sense. Thorin's descent is cheapened, and the film attempts to resurrect him into an Aragorn-style hero, but because the scene in which this happens is so poorly done it feels just as abrupt as his original hair-trigger change in DOS. IIRC the book does not offer much leeway in its depiction of Thorin, but since most of the events in the film were made up for the sake of having a third movie anyway, I feel it could have safely deviated on the matter.

Overall pretty entertaining, but maybe not something I feel compelled to watch in the theater a second time.

PS Tip for any Hollywood producers reading this thread: having contacts that don't allow the actor's pupils to naturally constrict and dilate makes them look weird.
 
Great post.

I forgot to mention that Gandalf's last line to Bilbo might be one of my favorite lines from all six movies. I assume it's a book quote, but I haven't read the book in ages.

Edit: it is - "And why not? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies just because you helped them come about. You don't really suppose do you that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck? Just for your sole benefit? You're a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I'm quite fond of you. But you are really just a little fellow, in a wide world after all."

MacKellen's delivery is spot on.

Just as an aside, I went to an early screening of ROTK in Palm Springs with Ian in attendance prior to its release in 2003. He spoke before the film, did some Shakespeare scenes and entertained the fuck out of us. What a great guy and enormous talent.
 

RoKKeR

Member
Welp, that's that then. Our last journey into Middle-earth
for now
on the big screen.

Pretty underwhelmed, to be completely honest. The entire trilogy I would label as "good, but not great". I also feel that with each film in this trilogy the quality dropped, I rank them UJ > Smaug > BOTFA.

It just felt like there was something missing in this last film, a sort of sense of urgency or any sort of excitement. Everything just felt so telegraphed. Cheeseball moments (Galadriel/Kili (?)) that were awful, really bad looking CG, (was Thorin's cousin seriously all CG?) way too many "Orc about to stab someone until somebody else jumps in and stabs the orc", and pacing that was thrown from the start with the weird way the film opens with what should have been the ending of the last one. And the whole thing just felt so inconsequential, which is perhaps why I came away feeling so "meh".

That being said, it's not a bad film at all. I loved the stuff at Dol Goldur, any scene with Bilbo in it (which were severely lacking in number for a movie entitled "The Hobbit") were consistently great, and the homages and nods to the original films put a smile on my face.

All in all I will remember this trilogy primarily through a lens pointed at the first film... a hesitant and nervous Bilbo, the sense of a new adventure, sweeping shots of Middle-earth as the company makes their way towards Erebor, and with some interesting implications to the original trilogy. (Gollum, ring, Sauron, etc.) I think the first movie captures really well what The Hobbit was about, and sadly it only told half the tale in that manner.

Nonetheless, I'm really happy we have these movies and even though I'm a casual fan of the series, I'll probably splurge on the ultimate boxset they will inevitably release.
 
I just got back and I must say I am damn satisfied.

It's not without it's faults but has far fewer than the other two Hobbit movies.

The ending absolutely ruined me and could have balled my eyes out if I wanted to.

I think that Thorin is a perfect metaphor for The Hobbit films. Jackson didn't want to do the films initially but essentially did them out of honor and because no one else could or would and of course, that sweet, sweet gold. The two eventually right the ship and get things back to where they should be at and that's how this movie felt for me.

The things that made LOTR so good was they are generally filmic, pace themselves well, and don't go out of their way to call attention to themselves. That's what I've hated most about The Hobbit films as a whole, instead of character and relationship building moments, they've spent their time on spectacle. While this movie has some ridiculous ass scenes, i.e. Legolas' bat-flight and Bard's cart kill down a hill, on the whole, it's focus is on character.

In short, it's this series of prequels' Revenge of the Sith but with a far more satisfying aftertaste. I will always be fond of these movies despite their flaws, but like the Dragon's sickness, I will always stew on the fact of what could have been with some sharper writing and better decisions in the first two films.

I'm going to miss Middle Earth and hope I am able to see a re-imaging of it in my lifetime.
 
LOVED IT!!!!!! I did not like Desolation, by far the worst of all Middle Earth movies, this is an absolute return to form. The first ten minutes of the movie is better than the last one.

Now I am a fan of the ridiculous action, the hobbit's story is a kids story, the entire trilogy has a certain undertone of lightheartedness that LOTR obviously should not have. So I find it ok to have some badass fighting for the sake of badass fighting.

And the ending, perfect. Everything I wanted out of the finale.
 
I enjoyed it. Editing is definitely it's weak point. Some plot threads were left dangling while certain character moments required watching the EEs to completely understand. Still solid overall.

In another thread I wrote that Biblo could be an unreliable narrator and the ring is actually telling the story. The last shots of this makes that fever idea a pretty decent possibility so yay me.
 
I liked it.... though I wouldn't say I loved it like the other AUJ and DoS.

Smaug's attack on Laketown was a bit underwhelming after the DoS cliffhanger. Then everything between there and the beginning of the titular Battle was a bit boring. And then even once the battle starts, it's mostly just a lot of armies running into other armies and you can't really tell what's going on.

The climax with everyone on the mountain fighting Azog and Bolg was pretty great, though. RIP Fili and Kili. :( It's been so long since I read the book, I thought I remembered some of the dwarves died, but I couldn't remember who.

Overall though, it's a satisfying ending to the trilogy despite my complaints. I'll definitely see it again. And I can't wait for the extended edition.

I think I'd rank the Middle-Earth movies as follows:

FotR = RotK
AUJ
DoS
BotFA
TT

I don't really like Two Towers... I always want to fall asleep halfway through.


Now the question I have is, which do you watch first, Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit? I could see some good arguments for either way. I wish I could make a thread on it to get some actually discussion on the matter, but of course it would be filled with "LOL DON'T WATCH THE HOBBIT" replies and no actual discussion would be had.
 

huxley00

Member
Saw it today, my review is basically...I guess it's not as bad as the other two movies? It had some decent parts but the video game deus ex machina style battles were ridiculous. Not to mention all the blatant tie in references to The Lord of The Rings trilogy, completely takes you out of the moment. I don't regret watching it though.


For the trilogy as a whole, I would say to watch it once if you're a Tolkien fan, I know I'll never watch any of them a second time though.
 

huxley00

Member
I thought it was exceedingly disappointing. Am I the only one who thinks the CGI is awful too? Why was Billy Connolly seemingly entirely CGI? He's not dead. A shame they rely on it so much considering Weta's amazing talent for making real things.
I think one of the big issues is they had too much cgi. The original trilogy had a ton of natural backgrounds and practical effects mixed with cgi which made for a better viewing experience.
 

WaffleTaco

Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
I thought it was very meh. Watched the first two hobbits today as well, and the quality really dropped in the third film, but that's probably because it doesn't really have any pacing and is just an entire battle. They also were in my opinion missing one of the musical scores from the first movie that could have made it a lot better. The best action scene still is in the second movie, when they are going down the barrels in the river.
 
I'll start off by saying that in 2012, I went to see the first Hobbit movie not because I was a LOTR fan (I still to this day have yet to see the first trilogy), but because I wanted to see the fancy technology and HFR's blow my mind. Both previous viewing experiences left me liking the movies enough, but still thinking about the tech. "I can't wait to get my fix next year," is, retrospectively, what was on my mind.

Two years later, I can say that the tech is still amazing, but I actually really got into it this time. I consider myself a fan now. I want more. This is the first time that the story and the things happening on screen really felt impactful. I wanna go watch the other movies now.

The HFR, the 3D, all of that took back seat, partially due to the fact that it was so sublime this time that it felt better than amazeballz: it felt natural.

Good god, Blilbo and Gandalf's moment together right after everything ended. Bilbo's thousand mile stare was unreal.
 

Plasmid

Member
Better writing for Gandalf this film. Film 2 gandalfs line were lacking. He always had dramatic zingers to end his sentences. Very fleshed out this time.

The battles were great, up close mid range and big open shots.

Did anyone see the CGI elven men? They looked super wonky.

Absolutely loved the film, can't wait to see it a 2nd and 3rd time.
 

Giolon

Member
Just got back home from seeing the film. Loved it. Didn't feel like it was stretched thin, and didn't feel like it overstayed its welcome. Didn't feel like it had the multiple fake endings of ROTK. The deaths hit me harder than I thought they would even though I knew they were coming.

Really, really thoroughly enjoyed. Liked it more than the 2nd one, not sure if I like it more or less than the 1st one.
 

rexor0717

Member
Movie felt like fanfic, but it was enjoyable. Lots of battles, and they spared no "what if". My favorite part was also the worst part where Ronan tells Legolas that he should go meet Strider. When the Fellowship theme played, I was all smiles.
 

sinxtanx

Member
Like butter spread over too much bread

I felt like the movie was split 50/50 between characters bickering and quick time events.
 

Kaswa101

Member
I'm a bit confused on Aragorn being alive already during the Hobbit story? Isn't it set like 60 years before LOTR? How is Strider born already? :p

Or am I crazy?
 

ascii42

Member
I'm a bit confused on Aragorn being alive already during the Hobbit story? Isn't it set like 60 years before LOTR? How is Strider born already? :p

Or am I crazy?

Aragorn ages slowly. In the extended version of Two Towers he says he is 87. He lives to be 210, I think.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
I'm a bit confused on Aragorn being alive already during the Hobbit story? Isn't it set like 60 years before LOTR? How is Strider born already? :p

Or am I crazy?
Peter Jackson's timeline is different to Tolkien's. Aragorn in the Legendarium is 10 years old during the events of The Hobbit (TA 2941). In the films he is 27 years of age. He was born in TA 2931 in the Legendarium.
 
In the long run my only real qualm is that I think the Smaug attack and death absolutely should have happened at the end of the last one. It was fantastic, but that year gap and then it being over and feeling less "epic" than the really long confrontation at the end of the last one made it feel watered down a bit. I loved how it was handled and how it played out, but that should have been the second film's climax, not the opening of this one.
 

huxley00

Member
Movie felt like fanfic, but it was enjoyable. Lots of battles, and they spared no "what if". My favorite part was also the worst part where Ronan tells Legolas that he should go meet Strider. When the Fellowship theme played, I was all smiles.
At my showing, people were laughing out loud at that moment, it was ridiculous and completely unnecessary IMO. Some of the worst things about this trilogy are the painful additions they added to really make sure people knew it was related to LoTR.
 

FeD.nL

Member
So I saw it last night with my dad, had to let it sink in but I left really disappointed. I thought the first two films were decent and fun to watch, even though they looked more like an animated film with real actors in it most of the time. Well I won't try to echo what most of you have said already but the thing the bothered me the most is that the man who made audiences care when Gandalf fell to his 'demise' handled the death of the three dwarves so poorly.

I know everyone saw it coming from a mile away with Tauriel being introduced but what is wrong with Fili and Kili dying to protect their mortally wounded King out of loyalty and love for family. I really cannot fathom how Peter Jackson missed so many emotional beats while they were right there in front of him. Instead they (Jackson, Boyens, Walsh) made up stuff and failed miserably. It's not even that I hate Tauriel or anything it's just that she was so pointless and just ruined what should have been a beautiful moment.
 
Can someone explain something to me?

At the end of the film, the elf lord tells legolas to seek strider. But even within the peter jackson universe, given the age of bilbo at the start of fellowship, it should be 30 years or so till aragon is even born right?

Did they just mess up the writing or am I missing something?
 

Vashetti

Banned
Can someone explain something to me?

At the end of the film, the elf lord tells legolas to seek strider. But even within the peter jackson universe, given the age of bilbo at the start of fellowship, it should be 30 years or so till aragon is even born right?

Did they just mess up the writing or am I missing something?

Aragorn is 87 in PJ's LOTR, which takes place 60 years after The Hobbit. Aragorn would be 27 in the Hobbit.
 

Iceman

Member
(not looking it up) but I thought Aragorn was 100ish in fellowship/two towers, placing him essentially in Bilbo's generation - maybe 10 - 15 years younger?

Oh and frikken loved this movie. The opening scene (before the titles even) was worth the price of admission alone.. probably worth the $200 million it to took to shoot the whole film. Heck, the Dol Goldur stuff was nearly as good. Everything up to the battle itself was gripping. Battle fatigue and stakes-dilution taxed me - but all was forgiven when the climactic final battles began. So good on IMAX. Manly tears. Can't wait for the bluray/ee.
 

Kurdel

Banned
Edmond Dantès;143692282 said:
Peter Jackson's timeline is different to Tolkien's. Aragorn in the Legendarium is 10 years old during the events of The Hobbit (TA 2941). In the films he is 27 years of age. He was born in TA 2931 in the Legendarium.

whaaaaaaat this is hilarious, did not know this.
 

Onyar

Member
The best of the three, but it remains bad.

Also the lack of blood is something really shocking when some one is decapitated or pierced by a giant sword.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Ah, I assumed he was a normal human. Is this some royal blood thing? Haven't read LOTR in decades...
He's a descendant of the Numenoreans who were gifted with longer lives than that of Men. This stems from Elros, the brother of Elrond, who chose mortal life and thus became the first King of Numenor.
 
I finally saw DOS for the first time last night. I didn't think it was too bad. There were lots of scenes I really enjoyed but FFS that ending...I don't know what to think. It just felt incomplete. I can understand why they may have wanted to keep him around but it just feels so off. Once the dwarves show up, it feels like a great build up to and ending that you just don't get.

Can't wait for the eventual fan edits.
 

Kain

Member
Edmond Dantès;143730499 said:
The altered timeline is due to the omission of Gandalf's 17 year quest for knowledge in the films. Frodo was 33 at the time of Bilbo's 111th birthday. He was 50 when he set off on his quest.

Shit, I didn't remember that huge time skip from the books.
 

Deadly

Member
I haven't, unfortunately. What does that explain extra?

Thanks for the replies though, guys. Clears it up. :)
In a scene, while they travel to Helm's Deep, Eowyn asks him if it's true that he fought alongside her grandfather and she finds out he's 87 since he's of the Dunedain, descendants of Numenor.
 
So who became king of Erebor since Thorin died? What became of the treasure? Did the people of Laketown get the money to rebuild? Did the elves get their white diamonds back?

And what became of Tauriel? Surely she wasn't allowed back into Mirkwood after being banished and then threatening Thranduil?

The movie kinda left some stuff hanging.
 
Edmond Dantès;143730499 said:
The altered timeline is due to the omission of Gandalf's 17 year quest for knowledge in the films. Frodo was 33 at the time of Bilbo's 111th birthday. He was 50 when he set off on his quest.

I thought the 17 year gap was part of the films, but never had attention called to it. I remember a promotional book the year FOTR came out that said Elijah was excited about playing a 50-year-old.
 

Rootbeer

Banned
I can't believe how much time kept getting devoted to Alfid. What a completely useless character with no arc at all. And Bard kept giving him important tasks to do... Just fuck off.

Bilbo literally leaves right after Thorin dies... Everything about it just felt so off around that point.

It's been in the tea leaves for a long time that it wouldn't hold a candle to RotK, and I don't mind that exactly, but at times I could barely believe this was brought to us by the same team. Even the score felt way inferior. Phoned in even.

Had its moments, liked the ice battle a lot.
 

this_guy

Member
I liked seeing Elrond showing up and being a bad ass, but Saruman should have fought like a wizard with spells and not like a ninja. But as others have mentioned, Legolas was ridiculous and the Elf/Dwarf romance was just filler that didn't need to be there.
 
Where? Must've gone over my head.
The won't they think of the children line.


Also wtf, I went to the cinema and they had the trailer for this and it had a scence with the rams pulling a cart with dwarfs?!? And one of men on horses charging down a mountain?

Why is that in the trailers but not the film, so they just appear from nothing.

Weirdly the trailer is better than the film
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom