What was the last movie you've seen?

[MrPopo]

The dwarves outside of Thorin actually have characterization in the movie trilogy.

[Sano]

Ninja Turtles! Great movie, at least I thought it was.

[Ack]

Battle of Five Armies = letdown

I can't really endorse the Hobbit trilogy. Too much fluff from what was in the books, too much hamminess in the acting, too much of the same action over and again in each film. The Battle of Five Armies had its moments, but most of them were contrived moments of fanservice.

As much good as I think Jackson did by Tolkien in the LOTR trilogy, which I found to be really quite strong, he did just as much harm to the original work with the follow up trilogy. It is a shame that this will be The Hobbit that most people know.

While I have also had my issues with content cut out or shoe-horned in to both trilogies, I see them aimed at two different audiences. The Lord of the Rings films felt a lot more mature in their story and presentation, and the Hobbit films felt more like they were for a younger audience, like they were for children in order to prep them for the more adult themes of the LotR trilogy.

In short, it comes across to me like Star Wars episodes 4-6 versus Star Wars episodes 1-3. Both are family friendly, but one set is much more geared towards kids than the other.

[samsonlonghair]

Ninja Turtles! Great movie, at least I thought it was.

I agree. 1990s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was a great movie.

Thank goodness that Michael Bay never made a remake of this. Now I'm going to close my eyes and put my fingers in my ears.

[Sano]

Ninja Turtles! Great movie, at least I thought it was.

I agree. 1990s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was a great movie.

Thank goodness that Michael Bay never made a remake of this. Now I'm going to close my eyes and put my fingers in my ears.

I agree the very 1st movie and 2nd movie were awesome. Third movie, not so much. I did mean that I watched the new Ninja Turtles; the one with Megan Fox. I enjoyed it personally.

[KalessinDB]

Yeah the love triangle thing and addition of Tauriel is meh, and some of the over the top and at times goofy action can feel out of place, but there are also a lot of great moments as well. The Hobbit had an uphill battle to begin with as I think it isnt as movie friendly as the LotR.

The Tauriel subplot was really the only wholly manufactured addition, and it's for the same reason Arwen was ramped up in LotR, taking over Glorfindel's part and whatnot: Tolkien didn't write female characters. Half a century ago, that was well and good, but there's no reason for it these days, so in my opinion they're not only permissible but to be welcomed.

As to the other "fluff" added... As noted, it all draws from source material. And really, had he conceived the entire universe at once, I imagine it would run fairly similar to the way the movies are. Going back and re-reading Hobbit, it's painfully obvious it was his story for his children written down - the language was plainer, it was less clunky, there was more fantastic for the sake of fantastic (ie Beorn... who I was very glad to see appear in the actual Battle, offhand. Could have easily seen that being excised), Gandalf disappears with no explanation whatsoever...

I would like to get my hands on a first edition of Hobbit to read the original version where the ring was given freely. I should probably just track down an ebook of it.

While I have also had my issues with content cut out or shoe-horned in to both trilogies, I see them aimed at two different audiences. The Lord of the Rings films felt a lot more mature in their story and presentation, and the Hobbit films felt more like they were for a younger audience, like they were for children in order to prep them for the more adult themes of the LotR trilogy.

Absolutely, and absolutely intentional. If it seems that way in the movies, it's 10 times as apparent in the books. The Hobbit is an easy read intended to be a child's book, LotR trilogy is much more similar to the type of book a historian would write... and The Silmarillion is a damned textbook, period. Practically unreadable but so rich in setting.

The dwarves outside of Thorin actually have characterization in the movie trilogy.

Yeah we discussed that during the trilogy. In the books, there was "The fat one, the kids, 9 more dwarves, and Thorin"... I could actually identify most of them by sight and personality in the movies!

[MrPopo]

You summed up my feelings on the additions quite well. Its interesting just how much the especially fantastic stuff that's still left in sticks out compared to the rest. The three trolls feel incredibly weird next to the rest of the trilogy since they differ so much from every other instance of troll we see, not to mention the rest of the movies mostly removing the silly fantastic stuff. Can you imagine them faithfully adapting Rivendell from the novel of The Hobbit? Reread that part again.

I especially liked when Galadriel banished Sauron while calling him "servant of Morgoth." She's basically telling him she stood up to his far more powerful boss and survived so she wasn't afraid of him.

[dsheinem]

Tolkien didn't write female characters. Half a century ago, that was well and good, but there's no reason for it these days, so in my opinion they're not only permissible but to be welcomed.

There's no reason to shoehorn women into the thing. The absence of female characters wasn't just "well and good" but was a pretty key component to the feel of the book. Shoehorning not just a female character but a cross-species romance as a major plot point into the Hobbit trilogy is just fucking horrid, as is the bevvy of LOTR cameos and what not (Legolas being the most grievous, obviously).

As noted, it all draws from source material.

"Draw" is a bit of a rough term. Take, for instance, the characters Stephen Fry and Ryan Gage portray in Laketown. In the book, neither is mentioned much at all. When they are, it's basically in passing. Fry's character is a friend to Bard and Bard reciprocates in how he rebuilds post-Smaug. Gage's character isn't named other than that there's a line that the master and his councilors happily bid adieu to the dwarves. Yet each character has EXTENSIVE screen time, LARGE personalities, etc. They detract from the focus on the story, on the central characters, etc. There's just FAR too much of this in the Hobbit films, it shifts the focus and ruins the tightness of the original narrative. I mean, Bilbo may as well have been absent from the third film

And really, had he conceived the entire universe at once, I imagine it would run fairly similar to the way the movies are. Going back and re-reading Hobbit, it's painfully obvious it was his story for his children written down - the language was plainer, it was less clunky, there was more fantastic for the sake of fantastic (ie Beorn... who I was very glad to see appear in the actual Battle, offhand. Could have easily seen that being excised), Gandalf disappears with no explanation whatsoever...

What's so bad about it being a children's story? Why can't that be what we got on screen? The disappearance of Gandalf, etc. is fine - that creates some mystery and allows the other characters to grow. The Dol Guldur stuff was handled so horribly in the films (such cheesy acting and overblown effects) that it can hardly be seen as a valuable addition, even if it has its place in the appendices and what not of the LOTR.

The Silmarillion is a damned textbook, period. Practically unreadable but so rich in setting.

Fighting words! The Silmarillion is hardly a textbook, but it is a collection of ideas and fragments used in world-building and, frankly, can't really be judged fairly as a novel so much as a collection of disparate writings that were posthumously put together and added to by Christopher.

[KalessinDB]

Tolkien didn't write female characters. Half a century ago, that was well and good, but there's no reason for it these days, so in my opinion they're not only permissible but to be welcomed.

There's no reason to shoehorn women into the thing. The absence of female characters wasn't just "well and good" but was a pretty key component to the feel of the book. Shoehorning not just a female character but a cross-species romance as a major plot point into the Hobbit trilogy is just fucking horrid, as is the bevvy of LOTR cameos and what not (Legolas being the most grievous, obviously).

For better or for worse, modern sensibilities wouldn't, on the whole, take well to a movie with no female characters at all. I can agree with you that Legolas was certainly unnecessary to the movie (other than to facilitate Tauriel's existance), but I don't really feel he detracted from it. With the lifespan of elves there's no reason he couldn't have been alive a mere 60some years before the start of LotR, so he could easily have been there. And other than the Ian Holm/Elijah Wood bookend cameos (which I personally thought gave it a nice feel, it drove home the idea of There and Back Again being The Red Book of Westmarch), I'm struggling to think of other cameos.

"Draw" is a bit of a rough term. Take, for instance, the characters Stephen Fry and Ryan Gage portray in Laketown. In the book, neither is mentioned much at all. When they are, it's basically in passing. Fry's character is a friend to Bard and Bard reciprocates in how he rebuilds post-Smaug. Gage's character isn't named other than that there's a line that the master and his councilors happily bid adieu to the dwarves. Yet each character has EXTENSIVE screen time, LARGE personalities, etc. They detract from the focus on the story, on the central characters, etc. There's just FAR too much of this in the Hobbit films, it shifts the focus and ruins the tightness of the original narrative. I mean, Bilbo may as well have been absent from the third film

Agreed, the characters are greatly expanded. And frankly, I also agree that it could have easily been a two film adaptation, although the breakpoints they chose seemed the most logical to me (thus making the three film adaptation the most logical).

And really, had he conceived the entire universe at once, I imagine it would run fairly similar to the way the movies are. Going back and re-reading Hobbit, it's painfully obvious it was his story for his children written down - the language was plainer, it was less clunky, there was more fantastic for the sake of fantastic (ie Beorn... who I was very glad to see appear in the actual Battle, offhand. Could have easily seen that being excised), Gandalf disappears with no explanation whatsoever...

What's so bad about it being a children's story? Why can't that be what we got on screen? The disappearance of Gandalf, etc. is fine - that creates some mystery and allows the other characters to grow. The Dol Guldur stuff was handled so horribly in the films (such cheesy acting and overblown effects) that it can hardly be seen as a valuable addition, even if it has its place in the appendices and what not of the LOTR.

My tone may have been misconstrued -- I wasn't trying to claim the fact that it was a children's story was a bad thing. Simply that I feel had Hobbit been conceived at the same time as LotR trilogy, the writing may have been very different. Because the Hobbit movie is being adapted after the LotR trilogy was adapted, it lends itself to that.

The Silmarillion is a damned textbook, period. Practically unreadable but so rich in setting.

Fighting words! The Silmarillion is hardly a textbook, but it is a collection of ideas and fragments used in world-building and, frankly, can't really be judged fairly as a novel so much as a collection of disparate writings that were posthumously put together and added to by Christopher.

Where you say it can't be judged fairly as a novel, etc etc... is essentially what I was getting at by referring to it as a textbook. Perhaps not the clearest phrasing, I admit.

Really, it comes down to preference, nothing more. We just have to agree to disagree on much of it I think.

[dsheinem]

Really, it comes down to preference, nothing more. We just have to agree to disagree on much of it I think.

Well there's a difference between having a preference and making arguments for a preference. Since I saw you were offering the latter, I engaged...

The best way I can explain the problems I have with The Hobbit trilogy as compared to the LOTR trilogy of films is that the changes from the book were reasonable and well-thought out in the LOTR films as they contributed to making three very good films. In the Hobbit films, the changes from the book seem inane at best and like cash-grabs at worst, and pretty much all of them contributed immensely to the three films all being fairly mediocre.

This is a fairly good take on it, I think.