Welcome to Our Fellowship

Join our growing fellowship! Check the News Feed to see all the latest!
Below, find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community.

Forums Forums Movies, TV, and More Remind me again why people hate The Hobbit films (most of them)

  • Remind me again why people hate The Hobbit films (most of them)

     elisha updated 2 months, 1 week ago 12 Members · 22 Posts
  • nat808

    Citizen of Imladris : 22 posts

    So I saw somewhere that some (I think) people do not like The Hobbit films. I’m just curious why they don’t like it. Come and discuss why you think you or other people did not enjoy the films!

    Feb 22, 2021 at 11:25 pm
  • Otaku-sempai

    Citizen of Imladris : 73 posts

    A lot of viewers did not like the romantic subplot with Kili and Tauriel, finding it either nonsensical or underdeveloped. Similarly, many felt the new character Alfrid was annoying, especially in The Battle of the Five Armies. Many did not like how Radagast the Brown was depicted in the movies. Some were bothered by the crude humor injected into the films by Peter Jackson. There were also objections to the almost cartoon-like physics that allowed the company to survive falls that should have killed them or caused serious injuries and also enabled Legolas’ more outrageous stunts (like his Mario Bros. impersonation on the crumbling bridge).

    Feb 23, 2021 at 6:57 am
    • jake

      Petitioner to the Council : 13 posts

      What everyone was thinking.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chR0mNL4-Vs

      Jun 5, 2021 at 5:09 pm
      • Otaku-sempai

        Citizen of Imladris : 73 posts

        You’re not the first to make that comment and you won’t be the last!

        Jun 5, 2021 at 5:32 pm
      • jake

        Petitioner to the Council : 13 posts

        I only just got here!

        Jun 5, 2021 at 9:33 pm
  • elengil

    Citizen of Imladris : 40 posts

    My personal but intense dislike for The Hobbit movies is that they were not The Hobbit – they were trying to be many, many things, and failed to be the one thing they claimed – The Hobbit.

    They were trying to be a Lord of the Rings movie, they were trying to be a comedy, they were trying to be “more modern” with romantic sub-plots and heavy-handed action, and they failed to be all of them, and they utterly failed to be The Hobbit.

    Oh yes, it contained a lot of content from the book The Hobbit, but it also completely changed a fair amount of the books, and contained far, far more than was in the books – and I don’t just mean the stuff they shoehorned in from other Tolkien sources.

    I get that there are valid reasons to need to cut parts of a book out when adapting, I get that there may be some changes needed to properly adapt a written medium to a film medium.

    But I have never understood why they feel the need to shove more things in that were never in the original and don’t actually help the story in the slightest, because if that is the story you want to tell, then tell that story.

    Because that story isn’t The Hobbit. That story changes The Hobbit into something else.

    As an example, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the movie Willow was made after they failed to get the rights to make The Hobbit (or maybe it was LotR?). I love Willow – it’s a fantastic movie IMO. It isn’t The Hobbit and most importantly it doesn’t try to be, it is a different fantasy story entirely and it works. And it doesn’t require taking a source material, then just ignoring the source material and doing whatever you want.

    If you want to do whatever you want then just do that and leave the book out of it.

    If you are going to adapt a book, adapt the d*** book and stop trying to shove irrelevant and incompatible story elements into it.

    And this isn’t even a comprehensive “everything wrong with The Hobbit films”. This is just the distaste that is left permanently in my mouth without even having to think about it.


    *Full disclaimer, I couldn’t even bring myself to watch the third movie, the second was so bad.

    Feb 23, 2021 at 9:21 am
    • nat808

      Citizen of Imladris : 22 posts

      👏👏👏

      Feb 24, 2021 at 12:05 am
    • Arassuil

      Citizen of Imladris : 28 posts

      There is nothing more that needs to be said. As much as the Lord of the Rings was a Peter Jackson fanfic, he did show some restraint with that trilogy, most likely due to the fact he had no idea they would be a “hit” or not. With the Hobbit movies, PJ took some aspects of the book and blew it out into the bloated pile of his fanficcyness, and it seemed he really didn’t care at all. Unwatchable really, and I don’t think I paid a cent to see them (got premiere advance screening passes somehow)

      Mar 14, 2021 at 2:50 pm
    • Lalaith-Elerrina

      Citizen of Imladris : 68 posts

      Yep! I agree absolutely with you. And in my opinion, the addition of Tauriel made a poorly planned movie(s) even worse.

      P.S. I love Willow, as well! Such a great movie!

      Jun 26, 2021 at 9:00 am
  • Otaku-sempai

    Citizen of Imladris : 73 posts

    elengil wrote:

    As an example, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the movie Willow was made after they failed to get the rights to make The Hobbit (or maybe it was LotR?). I love Willow – it’s a fantastic movie IMO. It isn’t The Hobbit and most importantly it doesn’t try to be, it is a different fantasy story entirely and it works. And it doesn’t require taking a source material, then just ignoring the source material and doing whatever you want.

    It’s funny. When Willow came out, I thought of it as The Hobbit Lite.

    Feb 23, 2021 at 2:49 pm
  • Jonathan

    Servant of the Secret Fire : 46 posts

    *Full disclaimer, I couldn’t even bring myself to watch the third movie, the second was so bad.

    I watched the extended edition of the 3rd movie, and have regretted it ever since. The nonstop cgi, the superfluous battle, so much noise signifying absolutely nothing.

    Feb 23, 2021 at 4:03 pm
  • earendil

    Citizen of Imladris : 65 posts

    As far as I’m concerned I boycotted the movies when they came out, something my husband was very surprised about since he knows me to be a huge LOTR and Tolkien nerd all in all.

    My reasoning was that if you feel the need to make 3 movies out of a book that is barely half the size of the first book of the FOTR it means you’re going to shove so much stuff into the story just to make money that I’m not interested in knowing how badly you’re going to treat the original material.

    I eventually saw the movies because again my beloved got them for me. I barely watched; it was worse than seeing TTT the first time around. The overdone CGI, the disconnection to the book, the need for sentimental subplot that failed to bring anything to the story… and while they redeemed the nuclear Galadriel of FOTR in ROTK they brought her back again…

    It’s hard for me to articulate how much I disliked these movies… I tried to like it – because my husband paid for it really 😛 and because I loved the Middle Earth Jackson created with LOTR – but nope.

    As Elengil said why bother pretending to adapt a book if you’re going to ignore most of the material and write a new story anyway.

    Mar 11, 2021 at 4:40 am
  • kevenstar

    Petitioner to the Council : 9 posts

    For me, I felt that the love was missing that was evident in the Lord of the Rings, the care, the attention to detail. I feel as though Jackson felt the pressure to make another LotR, out of much slighter source material. Sure, The Hobbit (book) is faster-paced, speeding through some scenes so fast that you can scarcely have time to catch your breath, and as such, a case could be made for making two regular-length films to spend more time getting to know each character and setting a little bit better. But not three longer-than average films to cover about 6 chapters each! The second film was very disappointing to me, racing through Beorn’s chapter and then filling the last section with so much padding I didn’t even know what was going on any more by the end!

    I also was annoyed by the interspecies romance and love triangle. I’d rather have no female characters at all than have them shoehorned in badly. The Hobbit is one of the only books I can think of with adult characters with absolutely no romance whatsoever, and as a long-single woman it’s just refreshing to have a story that is complete without romantic relationships. (I also subscribe to the Terry Pratchett dwarf mythology and was sorry they hadn’t put beards on some actresses to even out the gender balance, though I can see why it might be distracting.)

    Also, the increased use of CGI was very obvious. In LotR, it was easy to forget Gollum was Andy Serkis in a green leotard covered in dots. He looked real and you believed. Not so the goblins in The Hobbit. You could practically see the edges! And I noticed a lot of recycled music from LotR. Felt like they were cutting corners, making three films because they were expected to, for the studios and not for the love of the story. And it showed.

    Mar 25, 2021 at 7:16 am
    • Otaku-sempai

      Citizen of Imladris : 73 posts

      Jackson’s Hobbit films did put facial hair on the Dwarf-ladies, but it was much more sparse than the beards on the male Dwarves. I liked Tauriel as a character and as a balance to Thranduil’s prejudices; I did not buy into the under-cooked romance between her and Kili. It was just a bad idea from the get-go.

      Mar 26, 2021 at 7:11 am
  • This content has been hidden as the member is suspended.
  • jake

    Petitioner to the Council : 13 posts

    – All the additions to the story, yes, ALL of them.

    – The awful filming format

    – Everything was way more excessive than described in the book – Erebor and it’s pile of gold and jewels, the Stone Giants, the escape from Goblin Town

    – Forced diversity in Lake Town

    Jun 5, 2021 at 2:47 am
    • Otaku-sempai

      Citizen of Imladris : 73 posts

      I’ll agree with most of your criticisms. Not so much on the last one. Esgaroth was depicted as an important trading center in the North. Though Tolkien didn’t specify this, it is reasonable to think that a few foreign merchants/traders might have settled in Lake-town over the years. We might expect to see at least a little diversity in Lake-town.

      Jun 5, 2021 at 5:57 am
      • jake

        Petitioner to the Council : 13 posts

        Oh, and I forgot.

        – The mostly hapless Dwarves of the book “tinkers and toymakers” are elevated to ninja-esque fighting machines (escape from Lake Town in the barrels). It’s been a while since I read it but I don’t think they were the super-warriors in the books.

        – Beorn, there was no suggestion he looked like that as human – again, with an endless bucket of money and new technology directors tend to go over the top with everything, especially CGI (i.e. A New Hope vs Phantom Menace). It’s like the old adage, artists produce their best when they are poor and hungry.

        I DID think the general look of everything was spot on. I liked the Dwarf aesthetic, Smaug was great, but everything else was overkill and over the top, bascially like watcing someone else play a video game based on the book.

        I often argue with people that the Hobbit is as bad as LOTR could have been, again a director glutted on endless funds and CGI.

        Which I have absolutely no faith in what Amazon is going to do with it, especially when you consider its 20 years later and the demands for so called “inclusion” and “representation”.

        https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-hobbit-review-peter-jacksons-overstretched-tolkien-classic-blends-hokum-and-extravagant-spectacle-20141223-12cmzb.html

        Jun 5, 2021 at 5:05 pm
      • Otaku-sempai

        Citizen of Imladris : 73 posts

        – Some of the Dwarves should have been reasonably proficient fighters since some of them lived through the War of the Dwarves and Orcs. Some of the fighting scenes in the Hobbit films are quite cringe-worthy though: The fight in Goblin Town; the river escape (especially Bombur); some of the sequences in the Battle of Five Armies.

        – Beorn was okay. He was about as large as Tolkien described him.

        – Smaug was much larger than he was depicted by Tolkien; that’s probably why the black arrow was turned into a ballista bolt.

        Jun 5, 2021 at 5:30 pm
      • jake

        Petitioner to the Council : 13 posts

        Yeah, like I said, everything got turned up to 11.

        There was probably more gold and Jewels in Erebor than is in circulation. If you think about basic economics and things like the gold standard, having an absolute ocean of it would devalue it in whatever economy it served. From memory it was just enough for Smaug to sit on, not swim in like an ocean. Oh gawd, and don’t get me started on that dumb smelting scene/giant gold dwarf.

        Jun 5, 2021 at 9:32 pm
  • omnigeek

    Petitioner to the Council : 5 posts

    Everyone else has pretty much mentioned my reasons but they can all be summed up in one phrase: respect (or lack thereof) for the lore. I understood most of the changes PJ did in the LOTR trilogy while all the changes in the Hobbit trilogy seemed to be driven by the writers’ (or director’s) ego. I didn’t mind the addition of material from TLOTR’s appendices to add context.

    – The forced love triangle between Kili, Tauriel, and Legolas was not only unnecessary, it breaks the special nature of the friendship between Legolas and Gimli.

    – The story’s focus on the dwarves — this should have been entitled “Thorin and Company” or “The Quest for Erebor” instead of “The Hobbit”.

    – The dwarves in Thorin’s company — especially Thorin! — didn’t have beards, they had scruff and their costuming was abysmal.

    – Resurrecting a long-dead orc to create an unnecessary foe and increased “tension”.

    – Beardless dwarves dressed like “Time Bandits”.

    – Bard was a guardsman in the books, not a proletarian activist.

    – Beardless dwarves.

    – Too much ridiculous comedy. The whole falling sequence in Goblin Town made me think they were bumbles instead of dwarves. The barrel riding sequence was ludicrous. Bard and the dwarves understanding thrushes was too silly to include but potty humor was okay?

    – Beardless dwarves.

    – Inconsistency in the portrayals: the dwarves have superhuman reflexes and dexterity in the “Chip the glasses” sequence but nothing like that later in the movies (including their capture by the trolls). Super-Legolas can do anything, including bounding from falling rock to falling rock.

    – Alfrid.

    – The entire Battle of Five Armies sequence including sand worms from “Dune” and trolls out in broad daylight (to be fair, they portrayed that too at the Fields of Pelennor but you could almost convince yourself it was okay because the sky was completely overcast at Pelennor).

    – Thorin’s dragon-sickness sequence and the dwarves’ fight against Smaug inside the Lonely Mountain.

    – Thranduil’s execution of the orc.

    Jun 7, 2021 at 8:08 pm
  • elisha

    Petitioner to the Council : 7 posts

    I agree with everything that has been said here. Especially overuse of and horrible CGI, Tauriel (the love triangle and just her inclusion in the story), Azog was cool but was dead, the Great Goblin and the whole Goblin Town scene, I love Legolas but he’s not invincible, and the smelting scene where they attempt to kill Smaug. A few things that I did like very much however was Smaug’s portrayal even if it differed from the book a bit, I believe the ocean of gold was a nice touch even if unrealistic, and my favorite part- Riddles in the Dark with a once again spot on Gollum portrayal.

    Jul 20, 2021 at 7:17 am
Viewing 1 - 11 of 11 replies

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now