Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, thoughts on the last of the Peter Jackson flicks?

Richard Armitage done the hammiest over acting with his dragon sickness I've ever seen in a big budget movie in my life. It's distractingly bad. The scenerscene where Gandalf is rescued by Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond is the high point of the trilogy. The opening of the main battle is also pretty epic but it kind of fizzled out after that.

Is it me, or does it look like Peter Jackson wanted to make Galadriel take Gandalf out on a date. Or even have an affair. Worth remembering Galadriel's married, ya know.

Originally posted by jaden101
The scenerscene where Gandalf is rescued by Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond is the high point of the trilogy.
truth! that scene was awesome!

Personally think that the Nauglamir references are possibly the most Tolkien thing about Jackson's saga. Despite the fact that it has no place in the Third Age nevermind Erebor.

These were mediocre big budget films, a poor prequel, and an absolutely atrocious adaptation.


Did not like any of these movies.

These movies were pretty damn good. Quit hating.

These were pretty damn lousy. Start hating.

Honestly, I wasn't particularly impressed with Bo5A barring the rescue of Gandalf and that was just pure fanservice for me as a Chris Lee fanatic.

These films are nowhere near the quality of LOTR in my opinion, to the extent it almost feels like Jackson is a different man entirely.

He seems to be. He didn't want to do these films, but the studios said it was him or someone else. Can hardly blame the guy for not wanting to lose the franchise he made so popular. That he didn't want to be 3 films either...


The movie felt like a by-the-numbers generic action/fantasy. I knew the story, I knew the lore, I knew the characters, and I could spot a shitty adaption pretty easily. Barring the source material, it's also just not a very well structured trilogy. The tone was a mess, the characters were... bad is the kindest summary I have. And the story was just silly at best, annoying/frustrating at worst. Genuinely didn't like these movies, and I really wanted to.

Still better than the book they're based on though.

Yeah, to an extent. There's a lot more characterization in the films--Bilbo doesn't get a whole helluva lot on the book, and the Dwarves are just a moving backdrop. The novel felt more like the journey was the point of the story and what we should focus on, not the people in it. The movies at least attempted to do both. Problem is though that it did neither very well. The people felt too cartoonish at times, or two epically serious at others (the exception being Bilbo himself, I think he was rather well done, at least comparatively).

And "epic" is the problem. The source material was far from epic, but since the LotR movies were, the Hobbit had to be as well. And the source material just didn't lend itself to an epic adaption. It tried. Oh lord how it tried. And it ended up being all the worse for it. It's a bad sign when your "epic" trilogy elicits nothing more than a "huh" from the viewer. Which is the reaction I've heard from a lot of watchers. It was just too big and clunky to take seriously, and the lighter moments felt too shoehorned in to appreciate the levity. Again, the tone was a mess.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
These were pretty damn lousy. Start hating. Nah, just unrealistic expectations. The stakes were not as high as the Lotr and because it didn't live up to the original trilogy Iyo it is awful. I loved them and welcome more if they ever sort of the mess with the remaining Tolkiens.

Actually it was because it tried to live up to the originals that I disliked it so much. It should have been it's own self-contained thing instead of trying to re-live the "ZOMG Epicness!" of the LotR. It wasn't an epic story and it was a terrible attempt at making it so.

Isn't it possible that PJ was "restraining" the Hobbit movies in an attempt to keep them from overshadowing the LOTR films since the stakes are at their highest in LOTR?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Actually it was because it tried to live up to the originals that I disliked it so much. It should have been it's own self-contained thing instead of trying to re-live the "ZOMG Epicness!" of the LotR. It wasn't an epic story and it was a terrible attempt at making it so. It was epic. We see how it all built up to that. We saw Sauron beat Gandalf and what not. We also saw the most formidable Orc ever in Azog. The first three films had fodder orcs by the scores. Smaug was also well done. Plenty of things about these films to celebrate.

Sure. And even more to be crestfallen about.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sure. And even more to be crestfallen about. Well you seem like a very negative type person. I feel bad for pessimists. It'll make a ton of money and I'm glad as the films were quite enjoyable.

Galadriel calling Sauron a "servant of Morgoth" left me fangasming. Loved that whole sequence.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film. It seemed to be taking a big turn for the worse when the BoFA started but then if thankfully became more personal when it focused on Thorin and Co.

Originally posted by ares834
Galadriel calling Sauron a "servant of Morgoth" left me fangasming. Loved that whole sequence.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film. It seemed to be taking a big turn for the worse when the BoFA started but then if thankfully became more personal when it focused on Thorin and Co. That line alone seals the deal he is no true dark lord. As soon as I heard the word servant aka Morgoth's ***** that sealed the deal for Sauron.

Of course he is.

All Maia are 'servants' of their respective Valar.

Gandalf (in his Olorin incarnation) is the servant of Manwe, for example. Saruman was the servant of Aule (before he turned...) Radagast was a servant of Yvanna. And so on.

Bad ending of a mediocre trilogy. Alas...

I don't get why some people here like the Sauron 'fight". It was confusing as anything. What was going on? This felt as such a forced tie in with LOTR in such a way it didn't make any sense.

Why did Galadriel turn into a Dark Witch like she did in LOTR (which was a moment of temptation where she overcame that dark side)? Now her dark side is used to fight Sauron? And why the heck did we need the whole LOTR anyway when Galadriel could defeat Sauron herself? Weird weird weird and contradictive.... seems like Jackson, Boyens and Walsh were clueless in forcing this stupid incomprehensible scene.

And another thing they did with The Hobbit: they made the Uruk Hai of LOTR completely useless. Saruman created the Uruk Hai to bypass orc weaknesses: physical strength and the inability to walk in daylight. But what do we see in The Hobbit: thousands of big, muscular orcs that walk and fight in daylight!! WFT????

They're not very well thought out movies. They're action packed (for Joe Blow), stuffed with references to the originals (for the J.J. Abrams Star Trek enthusiasts), and loaded with Tolkien lore (for the gullible nerds). This was a single movie stretched in to a trilogy, and all the filler that had to be injected was clumsily, often lazily shoehorned in for the sake of tricking the audience that there was any substance.


When Galadriel burst in to full on cartoon colors I laughed my ass off to keep the disappointment from overwhelming me.

l87Ddn-_CQI

I was embarrassed by that scene, completely and utter nonsense.

Originally posted by queeq
I was embarrassed by that scene, completely and utter nonsense.

Scene? I was embarrassed by the whole trilogy.