The Lord of the Rings/ The Hobbit

[Chronicler]

@Matanui606

Do you think you could make a better Dragon using practical effects? Or perhaps you’d like to hire thousands of extras to get your army shots?

Obviously the dragon had to be CGI. But making ever Goblin into CGI? That’s unnecessary. They could have used extras. And don’t tell me they can’t afford them, because this is a big-budget film guaranteed success.

@Matanui606

but it was really all of Tolkien’s works of Middle Earth that aren’t LoTR.

Then don’t add it in something called “The Hobbit.” It would have been better to keep The Silmarrillion’s works in another film so they could get more money. Notice how in LOTR the worst things are the things they left out? It’s the opposite for The Hobbit.

@Matanui606

Peter Jackson put the effort in to show as much of that world as possible.

I don’t see that anywhere. All I see is unfinished CGI, unnecessary changes which helps the main plot of the book get lost in a pool of confusing plots. It’s insulting to make an adaption of a book and change so many things. It’s like saying the book wasn’t good enough for a film and needed extra fluff. Honestly The Hobbit films would have been good if they made it into two films and kept it faithful. There’s a lot of rich lore in The Hobbit alone.

Also, how do you explain Battle of the Five Armies? It was just a incredibly long action movie with all the dumb tropes and left Bilbo in the dust. In the book, Bilbo does some stuff, and the battle isn’t even the main focus. Sure in the film they show what he does, but the main character is overshadowed by returning cast members, awful CGI, and overall just absolutely forgetting why it was a suitable climax.

Also, if you expect me to like the over-abundance of CGI in this film, you are mistaken. How am I supposed to enjoy a movie when everything looks half-baked? The goblins look awful, the CGI structures look bad, and some of the magic effects from Gandalf aren’t very good. The only thing I liked was Smaug. Why? Because they put a ton of time and effort into him. Even when he breathes fire they add the detail of his belly glowing. That was neat.

Also, the colors in the film are so… Bland. It’s honestly not very visually interesting. Hobbiton is the only place that looked good. Laketowne, the forest, The Lonely Mountain, all of them feature simply one color, and it’s a bland one. Now you can say Mordor is grey too, and I’d honestly agree. I dislike how grey everything is in Return of the King. But Return of the King at least had different locations due to the books jumping around, which helps ease off the bland colors for a while and lets the eye enjoy the different surroundings. The Hobbit, due to it’s pointless extending, stays in a place far too long, and the viewer gets bored of it.

Honestly, I can’t think of much good in this movies. Many people say Martin Freeman does a good job as Bilbo, but I only partially agree. Freeman has tendency to over-act his awkwardness and it’s very noticeable in these films. When he’s not in awkward situations he does great.

Anyways, I’m done ranting now.

[Matanui606]

@Chronicler

But making ever Goblin into CGI?

Not every goblin was CGI. The goblin king? Yes. Tge swarms? Obviously. But not every goblin was CGI.

@Chronicler

And don’t tell me they can’t afford them, because this is a big-budget film guaranteed success.

Literally no one can afford enough extras for Battle of Five Armies.

@Chronicler

It would have been better to keep The Silmarrillion’s works in another film so they could get more money.

There is no way this would have ever happened. Most people haven’t ever even heard of the Silmarrillion.

@Chronicler

Notice how in LOTR the worst things are the things they left out? It’s the opposite for The Hobbit.

This is a subjective opinion, there’s nothing I can say here.

@Matanui606

Peter Jackson put the effort in to show as much of that world as possible

@Chronicler

I don’t see that anywhere

The fact that he incorporated the Silmarrillion is proof enough. He wanted to show more of the world, just because you don’t think he did it well doesn’t change that that was his goal. And you thinking that he didn’t do it well is once again a subjective opinion that I can’t really argue against.

@Chronicler

It’s insulting to make an adaption of a book and change so many things. It’s like saying the book wasn’t good enough for a film and needed extra fluff

You know, if it was just an adaptation of The Hobbit I’d probably agree with you. But in all honesty it wasn’t, it was an adaptation of all of Tolkien’s works that Peter Jackson could get the rights to. And you can argue that it shouldn’t have been called The Hobbit in that case, but had it been called anything else it probably wouldn’t have sold. I’m not saying it was the right choice, or that it’s completely excusable, but it is understandable.

@Chronicler

Also, how do you explain Battle of the Five Armies?

I’m not even going to try to defend this, it’s definitely the weakest film and does have numerous problems.

@Chronicler

Also, if you expect me to like the over-abundance of CGI in this film, you are mistaken.

@Chronicler

The only thing I liked was Smaug.

@Chronicler

Also, the colors in the film are so… Bland. It’s honestly not very visually interesting. Hobbiton is the only place that looked good.

@Chronicler

The Hobbit, due to it’s pointless extending, stays in a place far too long, and the viewer gets bored of it.

Oh Hey, more subjective opinions!

[Chronicler]

@Matanui606

Literally no one can afford enough extras for Battle of Five Armies.

Then don’t make it so large. It wasn’t even that huge in the actual book.

@Matanui606

Most people haven’t ever even heard of the Silmarrillion.

The make a movie so people can learn about it.

@Matanui606

The fact that he incorporated the Silmarrillion is proof enough. He wanted to show more of the world, just because you don’t think he did it well doesn’t change that that was his goal.

So what about the scene with one of the dwarves having to be healed by an elf? Or introducing Bard so much earlier for no reason? It’s unnecessary fluff and makes a proper telling of the book lose focus.

If Jackson wanted to make something showcasing the richness of Middle Earth’s lore, then he shouldn’t have stuffed it in an adaption of a beloved children’s book. He should have made something like a documentary or maybe even another film showcasing all of that. It doesn’t fit in the Hobbit and it’s distracting.

@Matanui606

Oh Hey, more subjective opinions!

That’s not wrong to have regarding why I think a movie is awful. Most reviewers use these.

[Matanui606]

@Chronicler

So what about the scene with one of the dwarves having to be healed by an elf? Or introducing Bard so much earlier for no reason? It’s unnecessary fluff and makes a proper telling of the book lose focus.

I’m not saying that all of the changes were made to show the world, just the lion’s share.

@Chronicler

The make a movie so people can learn about it.

A movie that no one would but because they have no idea what it is?

@Chronicler

He should have made something like a documentary or maybe even another film showcasing all of that. It doesn’t fit in the Hobbit and it’s distracting.

@Matanui606

but had it been called anything else it probably wouldn’t have sold. I’m not saying it was the right choice, or that it’s completely excusable, but it is understandable.

Also, studios don’t generally fund fictional documentaries, they find theatrical movies.

@Chronicler

Then don’t make it so large. It wasn’t even that huge in the actual book.

@Matanui606

I’m not even going to try to defend this, it’s definitely the weakest film and does have numerous problems.

This.

@Chronicler

That’s not wrong to have regarding why I think a movie is awful. Most reviewers use these.

Yeah, but there’s no point in me trying to refute it. It’s your opinion. It’s highly unlikely to be swayed by some dude on the internet.

[Chronicler]

@Matanui606

A movie that no one would but because they have no idea what it is?

How was Lord of the Rings so successful then? Not a lot of people read the books at the time, although it was considered a classic. Yet they made a movie about it and it was successful. Plus, I doubt once people heard The Silmarillion was part of the LOTR movies they would just say “huh”? No, it would get money.

@Matanui606

Also, studios don’t generally fund fictional documentaries, they find theatrical movies.

But Peter Jackson was a producer at one point. He could literally do it himself.

@Matanui606

Yeah, but there’s no point in me trying to refute it. It’s your opinion. It’s highly unlikely to be swayed by some dude on the internet.

I suppose so. Although, that makes me wonder why you even decided to bring it up in the first place.

[Matanui606]

@Chronicler

I suppose so. Although, that makes me wonder why you even decided to bring it up in the first place

That’s very simple:

@Chronicler

The Peter Jackson ones sucked.

First you insulted something I liked,

@Chronicler

You clearly have no idea man

Then you insulted me,

@Chronicler

The Hobbit films felt like a cheap cash grab and it’s insulting.

And then you said something I think is wrong.

And this is the internet, so… yeah.

[Chronicler]

@Matanui606

First you insulted something I liked,

That was opinion, first of all.

@Matanui606

Then you insulted me,

I did not intend it to be, and for that I apologize.

@Matanui606

And then you said something I think is wrong.

That’s literally the point of debate, and as such I can understand that.

[Matanui606]

@Chronicler

That was opinion, first of all.

I know.

@Chronicler

I did not intend it to be

I figured.

@Chronicler

That’s literally the point of debate, and as such I can understand that.

Pretty much.

[PekekoaOfJungle]

@Matanui606

First you insulted something I liked,

People do tend to insult bad movies.

@Matanui606

There are many things that can only be done in CGI.

Yeah, Orcs and environments aren’t on that list. The Orcs and Goblins could have, and should have, been done practically, and they shouldn’t have relied so much on greenscreen and instead made actual sets.

Oh and speaking of CGI Orcs, something I think is absolutely stupid,

Azog was practical, and actually looked like an Orc before they changed his design and CG’ed over the practical one.

[Matanui606]

@PekekoaOfJungle

People do tend to insult bad movies.

eye twitch

@Matanui606

This is a subjective opinion, there’s nothing I can say here.

eye twitch

@PekekoaOfJungle

Yeah, Orcs and environments aren’t on that list.

There are only two orcs (with the exception of the giant armies of orcs) that were CGI, those being Azog and Bolg, why they decided to do that I don’t know. It was a design choice they made and never really explained. As for the environments, they are largely practical, particularly when it comes to the landscapes. The exceptions to this rule are places where it would be impossible/unsafe to film (like a cliff) or that are just too big to build (such as Erebor).

[ThatGuyAtTheEndOfTheRoad]

You know what makes the first LOTR movies so good?
I mean besides obvious stuff, If you were to say one is the best, no matter what you said, I would agree.