The hobbit movies should have fleshed out the dwarf characters better with all that extra time, give each of them a substory spread out over the trilogy so they would be more memorable. They did that with only one of the dwarves and it’s a silly love triangle that barely goes into the character of said dwarf. With the movie we got, ask any average person directly after seeing the movies to name the dwarves, i bet hardly anyone can.
Not only does the love triangle not make sense, but it really only serves to erode the significance of friendship of Legolas and Gimli. They were supposed to be first friendship between an Elf and dwarf in a long time
Warner Bros didn’t want to make the Hobbit. They wanted to make another Lord of the Rings movie, and had to use the Hobbit for it. The Hobbit is very much NOT a Lord of the Rings story, despite the shared setting. Square book, round movie.
Also, they knew there wasn’t enough content, but Warner Bros had to split the profits of the first movie five ways. They didn’t have to do that for the second movie, and then they added a third to squeeze out even more.
Full CGI ruined the hobbit for me. The costume and make up work was so good in LotR. That and the whole movie operated as if in a physics-free zone. Nothing made sense.
I never watched the other two, I imagine they are just as bad.
See, I think the high frame rate would look great if what you were looking at was real. But what you’re looking at is a room of actors in nylon beards and Martin Freeman in rubber feet.
Spare barrel? Bear in mind I have only actually seen the first of the Hobbit trilogy, and then later I watched the Tolkien Supercut, that cut out anything not at least alluded to in the book.
I think it’s in the second one. It’s hard to be sure when you’re vaguely remembering a 300 page children’s book inexplicably squeezed into three movies.
It’s the much hated GoPro barrel ride bit. All the dwarves have a barrel, there are no spares, Tim from The Office has to hang onto the side of one. The fat dwarf breaks his, and then after bouncing around like prequel Yoda, jumps into a spare that comes from nowhere.
I would think the version you saw just shows them all going into the water and coming out at the other end. It’s been a long time since I read it (close to 30 years), but I don’t remember any massive river battle going on.
In defense of The Dark Tower… it isn’t an adaptation of the books. It’s a sequel. It continues the story in a way in which Roland finally breaks the loop.
Removed by mod
The hobbit movies should have fleshed out the dwarf characters better with all that extra time, give each of them a substory spread out over the trilogy so they would be more memorable. They did that with only one of the dwarves and it’s a silly love triangle that barely goes into the character of said dwarf. With the movie we got, ask any average person directly after seeing the movies to name the dwarves, i bet hardly anyone can.
Not only does the love triangle not make sense, but it really only serves to erode the significance of friendship of Legolas and Gimli. They were supposed to be first friendship between an Elf and dwarf in a long time
Grumpy, Doc, Sneezy, I definitely forget the rest though.
IIRC the crushing of the Actors Union in NZ is what sidelined the dwarves.
Warner Bros didn’t want to make the Hobbit. They wanted to make another Lord of the Rings movie, and had to use the Hobbit for it. The Hobbit is very much NOT a Lord of the Rings story, despite the shared setting. Square book, round movie.
Also, they knew there wasn’t enough content, but Warner Bros had to split the profits of the first movie five ways. They didn’t have to do that for the second movie, and then they added a third to squeeze out even more.
Full CGI ruined the hobbit for me. The costume and make up work was so good in LotR. That and the whole movie operated as if in a physics-free zone. Nothing made sense.
I never watched the other two, I imagine they are just as bad.
See, I think the high frame rate would look great if what you were looking at was real. But what you’re looking at is a room of actors in nylon beards and Martin Freeman in rubber feet.
And where did the spare barrel come from?
Spare barrel? Bear in mind I have only actually seen the first of the Hobbit trilogy, and then later I watched the Tolkien Supercut, that cut out anything not at least alluded to in the book.
I think it’s in the second one. It’s hard to be sure when you’re vaguely remembering a 300 page children’s book inexplicably squeezed into three movies.
It’s the much hated GoPro barrel ride bit. All the dwarves have a barrel, there are no spares, Tim from The Office has to hang onto the side of one. The fat dwarf breaks his, and then after bouncing around like prequel Yoda, jumps into a spare that comes from nowhere.
I would think the version you saw just shows them all going into the water and coming out at the other end. It’s been a long time since I read it (close to 30 years), but I don’t remember any massive river battle going on.
They lost me at what they did to my boy Radagast.
Have you seen the early 90s Finnish Hobbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gzWA4Euzck
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=4gzWA4Euzck
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Well of course I have! I put it on my Plex server, lol.
Those didn’t happen. Go back to the animated movies.
The 1970s animated The Hobbit is a good adaptation, also the Tolkien Supercut version of the live action movie is watchable.
In defense of The Dark Tower… it isn’t an adaptation of the books. It’s a sequel. It continues the story in a way in which Roland finally breaks the loop.