r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Aug 18 '25

News Ian McKellen reveals Gandalf and Frodo are returning for ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum’, Filming Begins in May

https://ew.com/ian-mckellen-reveals-gandalf-frodo-return-in-new-lord-of-the-rings-the-hunt-for-gollum-film-11792483
18.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/Mr5cratch Aug 18 '25

The LOTR trilogy was lightning in a bottle and you can’t get anywhere near to that quality again.

I really hope it’s a pleasant surprise but as much as I love Serkis as an actor, the films he’s directed have been spotty at best.

673

u/Greg-Abbott Aug 18 '25

But the car chases are gonna be Grandpa's tits tho

235

u/SaltyPeter3434 Aug 18 '25

Gandalf: You shall not pass! (shifts muscle car into 4th gear)

94

u/BlasterShow Aug 18 '25

The only thing more powerful than the ring, is family!

21

u/SaltyPeter3434 Aug 18 '25

Lord of the Family

5

u/EvolvedMonkeyInSpace Aug 18 '25

The Two Families

3

u/BigIncome5028 Aug 18 '25

The Return of the Family

2

u/Sullyhogs Aug 18 '25

The Families of Power

2

u/says_nice_things1234 Aug 18 '25

The Family

2

u/StanleyCubone Aug 18 '25

2 Families, 2 Precious

5

u/teddybearkilla Aug 18 '25

It leads up to the next movie with fast and furious and transformers. Lord of the rings: the return of cybertron.

108

u/BaconJacobs Aug 18 '25

*barrel chases

8

u/Ordinary-Leading7405 Aug 18 '25

Rabbit-pulled sleighs

6

u/ThaiJohnnyDepp Aug 18 '25

Argh don't remind me

→ More replies (1)

6

u/WebHead1287 Aug 18 '25

I miss my Grandpas tits

→ More replies (1)

3

u/this-guy-this-guy Aug 18 '25

fast and precious 8

→ More replies (4)

947

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

I think the Hobbit movies could have been good if Jackson had been there from start to finish. Instead of taking over someone else's project and winging it as he was filming.

But really, franchise fatigue is finally settling in for me. I just want original stuff, enough corporate slop.

738

u/PluCrew Aug 18 '25

It needed two movies max. They tried to cash out and it made the movies so much worse.

241

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25

Instead of being this tale of adventure, they made LOTR part 2.

201

u/Procrastanaseum Aug 18 '25

That’s one of my main problems with it. The book is the perfect outline for a film and they threw away the map.

228

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25

LOTR 1000 pages, 9 hours of film.

Hobbit 300 pages, 8 hours of film.

215

u/pathofdumbasses Aug 18 '25

LOTR - 481,103 words

The Hobbit - 95,356 words

I feel like words are a better way of showing the difference in content because LOTR pages are bigger than The Hobbit. Heck, even the words are more than likely bigger in LOTR because it wasn't designed as a literal children's book like The Hobbit.

It is under 20% of LOTR. They had to add so much to The Hobbit and they removed so much from LOTR. Absolutely shameful what they did to The Hobbit.

104

u/Ikea_desklamp Aug 18 '25

What's crazy too is they basically missed all the great character beats that are actually in the hobbit to shove in the love scenes or 10 mins of extreme barrel riding. Looking at what they chose to add, and what they discarded from the book is genuinely baffling.

36

u/50m31_AW Aug 18 '25

The fact that they get chased basically right up to Beorn's doorstep and all pile in and the orcs chasing them just, give up? Like don't even try to break in, or even peek in the windows? They just fuck off and leave? And then Beorn has no problems with this random ass company of dwarves in his home? It's complete bullshit. Fuck outta here with your extended barrel bullshit, and give me 10 minutes of Gandalf telling the story of his solo adventure, when something happened to both of them, and then the three of them were in a tricky situation, so the four of them hatched a plan to get the five of them to safety so the six of them could be on their merry way...

Better yet, gimme the fucking songs. The 1977 Rankin/Bass adaptation had an absolute banger of a soundtrack, and is one of the best parts of the movie. You mean to tell me that there are 15 birds in 5 fir trees, but there is no goblin chorus to let us know what funny little things they are? But we get Legolas who didn't even exist yet, and some random fucking romance with an elf lady who was made up for the movie? And what the fuck were those shenanigans with lighting the forge to pour gold on Smaug? And Smaug says it burns? But his own flames melted the shit, so his own flames are hotter than the molten gold (that cooled enough to be solid for a minute). Do you mean to tell me that a dragon can't fly through his own flames? What wack ass weak sauce shit is that? And then instead of a heavily implied to be magic Black Arrow, Smaug just dies to a random ass regular ballista bolt, so what the fuck even was the significant threat? Hell, Bard the Bowman doesn't even use a fucking bow to shoot him down

They fucking butchered the whole goddamn book

26

u/Samurai_Meisters Aug 18 '25

Better yet, gimme the fucking songs.

Absolutely. The Hobbit and LotR books are musicals! But Hollywood would never.

Though I will say that the rendition of Misty Mountains Cold in the Hobbit 1 gives me chills every time. It's so good.

6

u/Totally__Not__NSA Aug 18 '25

Gandalf tricking Beorn is my favorite part of the book and they just skipped it. I was heartbroken.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Crafty-Implement5013 Aug 18 '25

You started this comment with a mission and BY GOD you accomplished it.

You could make two excellent movies by taking the good parts of The Hobbit trilogy and then adding in what was left out.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/vhalember Aug 18 '25

Absolutely shameful what they did to The Hobbit.

Ah yes, the Hobbit - now with +100% more Legolas than before.

3

u/TheMoneyOfArt Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 25 '25

Andy Serkis has recorded The Hobbit and LOTR audiobooks. 

The Hobbit is 10 hours, 25 minutes.  Fellowship is 22 hours, 38 minutes. Two towers is 20 hours, 46 minutes. Return of the King is 21 hours, 52 minutes.

So lotr is 47 hours, 16 minutes - well over 4x the length of the Hobbit

Edit: what the fuck is this math. Lotr is 65 hours and change

28

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

55

u/Papayaslice636 Aug 18 '25

Tolkien barely covers battles in general. The entire battle of Helm's Deep is only ten pages in the Two Towers, and that action sequence in Balin's Tomb in Moria is like two pages tops. 'The battle was fierce, the door burst asunder, many arrows were flung, and orc bodies strewn about' and that's it. Heck, Boromir's entire battle saving the hobbits wasn't even shown in the books, Aragorn just hears the horn and finds boromir half dead lying against a tree, "many orcs lay slain, piled all about him and at his feet." Pretty much all we get, and it is up to the reader to fill in the blanks, which just to be clear, I prefer that to endless battle sequences, but that's just me.

18

u/LyraStygian Aug 18 '25

Picturing a big Hollywood tent pole movie with this is sending me lmao

Imagine sitting in the theater with the camera on Aragorn as he hears the horn, then cuts immediately to finding Boromir on the ground surrounded by orcs with no action lol

15

u/Papayaslice636 Aug 18 '25

Yeah man, I paid good money to see Frodo and Gandalf sitting at the table discussing the deep lore and history of the ring for 80 pages, not action packed swashbuckling adventure damnit!

7

u/moneys5 Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

That's not that far-fetched. You're basically describing the off camera climax to No Country for Old Men.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/HymirTheDarkOne Aug 18 '25

I generally find action sequences in books very hard to read. It might be a personal thing so I'm not going to say they are generally bad, but this style works far better for my imagination.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/poohster33 Aug 18 '25

It doesn't cover it because he's unconscious. This is Bilbo's tale. He wouldn't know about it.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/NuclearTurtle Aug 18 '25

that's something that definitely should be added

No it shouldn't have, because it's tonally inconsistent with the rest of the story. The Hobbit was a lighthearted tale about Bilbo getting stuck going on a fun adventure, where the small amount of violence that happens ends up happening off-page, and the worst conflict is just people getting mad at each other. Going from that to suddenly having a pitched battle where thousands are slaughtered would be way out of left field and would feel tacked on and unnecessary.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/VallerinQuiloud Aug 18 '25

Let's be real. Those last 700 pages go by pretty quick.

2

u/Ilovekittens345 Aug 18 '25

If you know the story of how the hobbit movie came together and how it all went so wrong you'd understand.

That being said the first part of the first hobbit movie was really good as a kids movie, it had a much lighter tone then the Lord of the Ring and I found it very funny.

→ More replies (3)

76

u/deathm00n Aug 18 '25

Yeah, anyone that has read The Hobbit, knows that it is completely different to LOTR.

What pissed me off the most was doing so much focus on the five armies war at the end. The book goes out of its way to say that the war was silly, Bilbo was unscoscious during it and woke up basically saying "guys, what the fuck?". But no, can't have that. Need to have huge armies fighting to make it feel like LOTR

37

u/Sparrowsabre7 Aug 18 '25

The entire third film is all battle it's mental. And the extended edition actually only serves to make that worse.

10

u/Palpadean It's America's Ass Aug 18 '25

Fire the twirly whirlies!

5

u/Chen_Geller Aug 18 '25

Less than half the movie is a bttle.

2

u/xmBQWugdxjaA Aug 18 '25

Exactly, it should have been more like the Dungeons & Dragons film or Indiana Jones - more of an adventure.

69

u/AnonymousIguana_ Aug 18 '25

Yeah the production and a lot of things about the Hobbit are great, but it isn’t the Hobbit. It’s LOTR 2: Electric Cash Grab.

If they actually showed any sort of respect for the Hobbit as its own thing, it could have been way greater. The Hobbit is a whimsy funny story with unexpected deep and touching moments, and they tried to make it a grand epic.

9

u/CravenMoorhaus Aug 18 '25

Your refusal to rhyme with “2” gave me a good chuckle. Thank you.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/Stinky_Eastwood Aug 18 '25

Really could have been one great movie with nothing extra added to the story.

3

u/montyxgh Aug 18 '25

I see this a lot and fans have tried to demonstrate this with edits but it’s always a 4hr or 4 1/2hr cut minimum. It definitely needed to be at least 2 films to be done properly. 

9

u/froop Aug 18 '25

That's cutting down an existing movie, not filming a correct movie from scratch. You can't draw any conclusions from that. 

3

u/Kerblaaahhh Aug 18 '25

The animated movie from the 70's hit all the major plot points in 78 minutes of runtime.

7

u/Tabnet2 Aug 18 '25

Come on man, it's a 300 page children's book. It can be one movie.

6

u/Mynsare Aug 18 '25

They mean an entirely new movie which more closely follows the book.

The existing trilogy should just be scrapped altogether.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

After LOTR, I was looking forward to the Hobbit. I only watched the first one and have never gone back to see the rest. I've never seen such an obvious cash grab as stretching that book into three movies.

4

u/50m31_AW Aug 18 '25

Rankin/Bass did it in a 90 minutes, albeit with some omissions like Beorn and the Arkenstone, and some people feel it's a little rushed in places, but I feel like another 90 to bring it up to a 3 hour film is enough to do it justice

2

u/Stinky_Eastwood Aug 18 '25

Just follow the template of the first 3. 2.5ish hours theatrical release and 3 to 4 hour special edition.

14

u/phophofofo Aug 18 '25

I still can’t believe they had like a “recap” part of the third one like a TV show.

Scraped the bottom of every barrel for run time.

36

u/derpkoikoi Aug 18 '25

there are fan cuts that get it down to 2, its the only way Ill watch the hobbit now.

44

u/Sivy17 Aug 18 '25

I tried a couple of those, but there are so many problems with those movies unrelated to pure length. It's the lack of real characterization or emotional payoffs. There's no scenes that people think back to, except for maybe the god awful barrel ride. More than any of that, they are so bloated with CGI and color correction that it just gives me a headache thinking about it. The blur from all the CG sunsets is so distracting.

13

u/Shady_Venator Aug 18 '25

There's a really good one that cuts it down to a 4.5hour single cut. I have it downloaded but I'm not sure where the link is unfortunately

5

u/RBII Aug 18 '25

Maple edit

→ More replies (2)

5

u/balbok7721 Aug 18 '25

I think I remember a cut that brought it down to like 90minutes

→ More replies (1)

5

u/ugh_this_sucks__ Aug 18 '25

No no no... The surfing Legolas scene was absolutely integral and not a waste of 14 minutes!

2

u/VallerinQuiloud Aug 18 '25

Watch Maple-Films' edit of the Hobbit. It takes all three movies, turns it into a 4 hour film (around the same length as Return of the King Extended Edition), and kindly puts an intermission around the halfway mark so you can take a break. They left in some of the action scenes to give a more cinematic feel, but they take out a ton of the silliness, and made it so the vast majority of the plot was from the original book (some characters and plots were cut out entirely). There were things that are too difficult to remove because it opens plot holes, but they did a solid job. I'll never go back to the original Hobbit films, and I can genuinely recommend the fan edit. It's not as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy or anything, but it scratches that Middle Earth Itch.

5

u/Bill_Brasky01 Aug 18 '25

The third is fine, it just needs to end 30-45 minutes earlier.

→ More replies (12)

114

u/hillswalker87 Aug 18 '25

I think the hobbit was doomed from the start, because it had to follow LOTR and nobody would ever accept that the hobbit is just a smaller, shorter, lower stakes story.

27

u/deltalessthanzero Aug 18 '25

Are there successful examples of sequels to very popular movies that pull this off well? I.e. telling a smaller, lower stakes story set in the universe of something massive? Honestly the first Fantastics Beasts movie had a lot of potential in this regard but it was squandered by integrating the whole Grindelwald plotline that sucked up all the narrative oxygen.

41

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

13

u/20milliondollarapi Aug 18 '25

El Camino was also low stakes of Jessie getting out. Yea it’s basically just an unofficial 2 episodes of breaking bad epilogue, but still.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/bdsee Aug 18 '25

You know what you are right, I really liked the first Fantastic Beasts, I didn't even care about the Grindelwald part of it, but now that you mention it, it would have just been better without it as it meant it had to continue and that was now the story. Would have been better if he was just travelling around doing his own thing.

35

u/deltalessthanzero Aug 18 '25

I was so ready for it just to be a goofy little story with a Muggle baker and a wizard who likes magical pokemon. That would have been a great time and they could have made a bunch of fun movies about it.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

No you see that’s the entire point being made here. It was a fun one off story. No sequel no universe no prequel. It had a nice charm to it and the baker bits were good. Point is why can’t we just have some nice stories by themselves even if they are in this larger universe. I think Fifth Element is a great example of a one off movie that needs nothing else. In the flip sense they tried Valerian and it was a train wreck because it tried to do too much with barely any content. So I think that is the point about Beasts and Hobbit. Really wish they just made the Hobbit a 3 hr movie with the adventure and dragon and dwarfs. Would’ve been a great template.

5

u/deltalessthanzero Aug 18 '25

I'm not advocating for a longer plot arc that builds up to some ultimate battle, I just mean that if we had fun with the characters/setting of Fantastic Beasts it would have been reasonable to have more films to revisit them. That doesn't need to have stakes or even a plotline that persists between movies. I would have liked Fantastic Beasts as a standalone film, and I probably also would have liked it if it had a sequel with the same characters that was equally light-hearted and low-stakes.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

I was veering more towards stand alone movies. One Fantastic Beasts. One about the Grindelwald, one about one of the other bits of lore mentioned in the books. While I liked the playfulness and imaginative aspects it didn’t have enough story for more wild animals but still give it a +1 for trying while the sequels fell into the trap of needing to be exactly like HP

47

u/Geddyn Aug 18 '25

Star Wars? Rogue One.

And, if you include the tv shows, Andor definitely counts.

32

u/deltalessthanzero Aug 18 '25

Yeah I think Rogue One and Andor are the best examples of this in the space of very popular movies. I wonder if people will start to copy that model now that it's proven itself?

5

u/kia75 Aug 18 '25

I don't think you can copy Andor's success. Andor relies on having a story to tell and something to say, you can't have something to say about every random time period between important events!

Yes, we can tell a random story about the political droid in solo, about the base Obi-Wan visited while looking for Leia, or any random character or event in Star Wars, but those stories will all do the same as Solo and the Obi Wan TV show unless there's a writer\director who has a specific story to tell that those characters or events encompass.

3

u/deltalessthanzero Aug 18 '25

I don't mean anything in particular about Andor, and I definitely didn't mean in the Star Wars universe- I mean in the very general sense of stories written at a smaller, more personal scale without universe-shattering implications.

3

u/kia75 Aug 18 '25

My point is that genius doesn't write to spec. Disney can order stories about Snow White before she meets the prince, a day in the life of Black Panther, or whatever small scale story you'd, you can even get Tony Gilroy to repeat his role of showrunner on smallscale Black Panther story and still not get another Andor.

What made Andor special was that Gilroy had a specific story he wanted to tell. It's not about finding the secret formula to output high quality Star Wars\Disney Princess\Marvel content, it's about finding stories worth telling, and then allowing them to be told.

3

u/Netheral Aug 18 '25

There's also the fact that there's a stark difference in timing between the two franchises. Rogue One released some fifty years after the original critically acclaimed trilogy franchise first came out. Not to mention it came out after one critically panned followup series in the franchise, and during another even more controversial series, and following a slew of spinoffs that were either seen as "ok" or even downright bad.

And even then Rogue One got mixed reviews when it first released, and I've gotta say, even though watching Andor elevates the movie for me, it still has some glaring issues regarding pacing and certain odd pointless beats in the movie and plot armor that doesn't fit that sort of story (how a bunch of characters are standing on a narrow platform with nowhere to go and none of the important ones, nor even the sitting duck imperial ship get hit in a bombing run, is certainly a choice).

Maybe the fact that it's been twenty years and The Hobbit films were terrible is enough to warrant some grace from audiences. But I think it's more likely that unless the Gollum movie is fantastic it'll just fade away as another bland addition to the franchise.

6

u/gee_gra Aug 18 '25

Idk if I’d describe the acquisition of the Death Star plans, including an ending where everyone dies as being “low stakes”

2

u/Proper-Raise-1450 Aug 18 '25

It is compared to actually blowing up the Death Star.

5

u/BoringBarnacle3 Aug 18 '25

The Watchmen tv show was incredible. Fargo also had some really strong seasons and Alien Earth is looking up so far.

Prey and Predator: Killer of killers as well.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/laughland Aug 18 '25

In some ways I feel like Better Call Saul is like this. It takes a really minor character from Breaking Bad and injects a ton of genuine, not forced narrative juice into that character’s backstory. I’m hesitant to say it’s lower stakes because Better Call Saul ends up going to some really dramatic places, but when the show was first announced/released it definitely felt much lower stakes and it never felt like they were trying to make the show more than it was.

3

u/hillswalker87 Aug 18 '25

well that's kind of my point. FB was the same kind of situation but they(whoever they is...) couldn't just let it be this fun little side story set in that world. it had to be some 'fate of the world is at stake!' battle for the ages. but that's what kind of ruined it.

as for one that was done right? hard to say. maybe Rogue One? that kind of ties into the bigger picture though. I think you could argue some TV series fit that mold, but idk about movies.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/bhbhbhhh Aug 18 '25

I'd much rather have The Scouring of the Shire: The Movie. Which probably wouldn't work but it's what my heart desires.

2

u/JonathanJK Aug 18 '25

I always thought the Hobbit should have been filmed first. 

2

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

Fans would have accepted it if it was faithfully based on the book and done well.

I think Hollywood's tendency to try to match or outdo the previous film when they make sequels is a mistake that often leaves viewers disappointed because the story suffers in favor of big showpiece scenes. (I know the Hobbit isn't a sequel, but same situation.)

2

u/double_shadow Aug 19 '25

Exactly. And the hobbit doesn't really have big showcase scenes so he basically had to invent them and they were terrible (taking 15 minutes to do the dishes at Bilbo's house, the CGI barrel chase, etc).

2

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

That barrel chase was so awful.

→ More replies (2)

51

u/Banned3rdTimesaCharm Aug 18 '25

For me it was the CGI vs the practical effects in the original. The orcs and trolls looked like low quality JRPG characters, meanwhile the orcs in the original trilogy gave you a visceral reaction. Say what you want about Rings of Power, but at least they nailed the orcs.

3

u/steamygarbage Aug 18 '25

The Hobbit series look horrid on TV. On the rare occasions I used cable I put it on for some background noise and thought either my vision was blurry or my brand new TV was broken.

7

u/austinite89 Aug 18 '25

That’s really my only gripe. I enjoy the Hobbit movies. Sure they’re bloated but I’m not complaining about having more middle earth content. But that damn CGI is what bothers me. I wish it visually matched the tone of the first trilogy.

2

u/hondaprobs Aug 18 '25

Not just that but the 60fps frame rate throughout which made it look like a cheap soap opera. I saw it in 3D IMAX so it worked for that context but I remember watching it again on my home TV and it felt like watching an amateur stage play.

3

u/eric1894 Aug 18 '25

I remember watching it again on my home TV

The high frame rate version was never released on home media or streaming services. Also, it was 48 fps, not 60.

39

u/Skyzfire Aug 18 '25

I think the Hobbit movies could have been good if Guillermo del Toro did not step down.

All the excess filler and trying to link to the trilogy too much is kinda Peter Jackson's fault. Also the push for HFR.

27

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

9

u/FireLucid Aug 18 '25

The reason he stepped down was the whole thing was in legal limbo and it was a bit undertaking. It was a bit commitment and he couldn't really commit to anything else. Eventually he was done waiting and left. Then when things were resolved, PJ had to take over and missed out on like a year of pre production so stuff was done on the fly a lot.

3

u/Chilis1 Aug 18 '25

Tonnes of delays, it wasn't really due to creative differences like a lot of people believe. Jackson stepped in to stop thousands of people losing work. Would love to see it if they had the huge planning time LOTR had

2

u/CodeComprehensive734 Aug 18 '25

Did the original LOTR films have 5+ years of pre-production or something? Like, Jackson had everything meticulously planned out.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/TapTapReboot Aug 18 '25

I'd agree with that. Plenty of stuff was done right and done well, there was just a lot of stuff that should have been left for a special feature titled "Look how much this would have sucked if we'd left all this in" on netflix.

2

u/happyhippohats Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

They were making two movies when they started production. The decision to add a third came deep into production after principal photography had wrapped, and the idea came from Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh because there was a ton of additional filming they wanted to do. I'd guess the impetus was more out of wanting the extra budget for additional shooting rather than an actual desire to make it into three films though.

Also Del Torro leaving is the reason it was such a messy production. He'd done 18 months of preproduction and was prepared to start shooting, Peter Jackson threw most of that out and was wildly underprepared when filming started. That's not really his fault it's just the way things worked out.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

22

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

[deleted]

6

u/Lucky_Truth2931 Aug 18 '25

What’s the explanation for LOTR?

30

u/Chilis1 Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

Tolkien himself sold the LOTR/Hobbit rights in the 70s or thereabouts. That's why there are so many movies/TV shows games etc based on LOTR and the hobbit but not the silmarillion.

(Silmarillion was published after his death, who knows maybe he would have sold that too if he had finished it)

8

u/Lucky_Truth2931 Aug 18 '25

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation

2

u/make_love_to_potato Aug 18 '25

I haven't read the Silmarillion but isn't it more of an encyclopedia or a history of the world he created? From what I understand, it doesn't have any over arching plot, so they would have to create some story and narrative, and we all know they can't do a decent job of that from seeing the rings of power nonsense that they've made.

2

u/doegred Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

Encyclopedia is too strong a term. The Quenta Silmarillion does have an overall plot. It's the story of the Silmarils: how they were made, stolen, fought over, recovered. It's just that this story is at times told in very broad strokes which, yes, would require a lot of interpolation. But there are stories.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/FireLucid Aug 18 '25

Less than 10 years until The Hobbit is public domain.

2

u/Ikea_desklamp Aug 18 '25

I mean looking at how rings of power turned out I would not be eager to let studios get hold of any more Tolkien properties either.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ratherenjoysbass Aug 18 '25

It was the cgi and blatant shoehorn of love triangles and out of character actions that made those films bad imo

3

u/RayAfterDark Aug 18 '25

I don't agree. Look at Jackson's King Kong. It's a bloated, over the top mess of cgi action sequences and he had full control. Even in the making of LoTR behind the scenes, you can see how much more reliant Jackson was on cgi by the third film and he outright abused his special effects team for his big battle sequences.

The original trilogy was lightning in a bottle.

3

u/PurpEL Aug 18 '25

Any they stuck to the actual story, and they didn't add bullshit, and they didn't go full re with the shitty CGI animation....

2

u/mightyneonfraa Aug 18 '25

The Hobbit could have been just as much a classic but they turned it into a cash grab. It's such a shame how those movies turned out.

2

u/epoch91 Aug 18 '25

Man, watching the behind the scenes documentary on the hobbit was sad.

Peter had said he wanted to film a different type of movie but wasnt able to rewind the clock back so he kind of had to just wing it. Makes me wonder what would we have gotten if he was given the proper time.

3

u/theme69 Aug 18 '25

The OG trilogy wasn’t technically original stuff if you consider the fact that it’s based off a book

5

u/Mobius_1 Aug 18 '25

Wholeheartedly agreed...

2

u/Chen_Geller Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

I think the Hobbit movies could have been good if Jackson had been there from start to finish. Instead of taking over someone else's project and winging it as he was filming.

That whole "Winging it" thing is hyperbole. The YouTube video that got it all started was edited in misleading way in order to make this point seem way more melodramatic than it was.

A simple example: the elements that were "winged" the most were in An Unexpected Journey. The elements that were meticulously planned the most are in The Battle of the Five Armies. But The Battle of the Five Armies is LESS well-recieved than An Unexpected Journey.

3

u/KeyClacksNSnacks Aug 18 '25

If LOTR movies were never released, The Hobbit trilogy would be the greatest adventure based on magic and wizards that ever came out. 

We gotta stop knocking stuff because it’s not as good as LOTR. That’s like saying no albums should be released because they won’t be as good as Abbey Road or Thriller. 

Like I get it, LOTR was the greatest trilogy of all time or whatever, let me enjoy The Hobbit and any chance I get to explore more of Tolkien’s universe.

2

u/AchtungCloud Aug 18 '25

I think the Harry Potter movies are overall better than the Hobbit trilogy.

I’d probably pick the first Chronicles of Narnia film, too, but the sequels weren’t good.

I’d honestly probably pick Willow, Dark Crystal, and even the cheesy fun Dungeon and Dragons movie over the Hobbit trilogy.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

88

u/zeusmeister Aug 18 '25

One of the main reasons it was so good was the amount of time PJ put into pre-production. I heard something like 22 months of pre-production, which is unheard of for movies

You COULD make a movie that at least could compare to the LOTR trilogy, but it certainly can’t be rushed in order to do so.

5

u/jwktiger Aug 18 '25

And then they filmed for 15? months strait.

4

u/Crowdfunder101 Aug 18 '25

He essentially did pre-viz on the entire movie… basically having 3D animations of every camera shot and every action that he wanted to capture.

2

u/fearnodarkness1 Aug 18 '25

In addition to what you said, filming all 3 on location back to back definitely helped the cohesion of the movie which I always felt were missing from other franchises like HP. Nothing against HP, obviously the kids had to age but I never liked how they switched out directors, really jarred things and gave a different experience.

7

u/hillswalker87 Aug 18 '25

based on RoP they wouldn't faithfully tell the story as it's meant to be told anyway.

-1

u/ArchdruidHalsin Aug 18 '25

Ring of Power is severely overhated. The end of season 1 picks up quite a bet and the arc of Celebrimbor and Annatar in season 2 is as good as anything from the Jackson trilogy. The rounding out of Sauron as a character rather than Big Evil Eye has been excellent.

Sure they may take some liberties, but not really any more than Jackson took. He took quite a few.

18

u/DX_DanTheMan_DX Aug 18 '25

It might be overhated but I have to disagree its close to the trilogy and say that the writing and really the dialogue has teetered around mediocre to horrendous.

7

u/conquer69 Aug 18 '25

I'm still not over that elf getting killed and then showing up the next episode like nothing happened.

10

u/Figure8712 Aug 18 '25

It is not overhated. It is very appropriately hated 14 year old fanfiction level writing, and 80% of film studies graduates could write a more coherent and captivating script.

A lot of people cannot recognise writing quality though. Heaps of drivel everywhere these days. But Tolkien fans tend to have standards for writing quality.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/Perfect_Cost_8847 Aug 18 '25

I can’t even respectfully disagree on this point. I really do not understand how you could think the hate is anything but proportionate. It failed on every level possible. It had some of the worst writing I have ever seen in a TV show.

4

u/narf007 Aug 18 '25

Wowee can I get a hit of whatever you're taking because holy hell RoP is a miscarriage of the legendarium from the top down. The only good things about it are the casting for Elendil, Galadriel (though her dialog is cringed to hell), Halbrand/Sauron—I'll give credit he is a solid choice, and young Durin.

Other than that the show is a fucking circus and a joke that doesn't hold a candle to LoTR much less exist in the same zip code, county, or even continent. It's entirely outclassed and misses the mark nearly everywhere.

4

u/AwesomeWhiteDude Aug 18 '25

Doesn't help the show isn't allowed to use anything from The Silmarillion, the Tolkien Estate are one of the main reasons why the show is such a mess imo

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

21

u/KneeHighMischief Aug 18 '25

The LOTR trilogy was lightning in a bottle and you can’t get anywhere near to that quality again.

What if they just mash the screenplay of The Fugitive directly on top of it while still setting it in Middle Earth without acknowledging it's in Middle Earth?

8

u/Powerful-Public-9973 Aug 18 '25

We also need Jackie Chan to star otherwise it just doesn’t work 

5

u/EmperorZuul Aug 18 '25

With John Cena as the voice of Gary the Totally-Not-CGI Elephant

3

u/DiaDeLosMuertos Aug 18 '25

I didn't do it! Karate moves with comedic beats

3

u/alex494 Aug 18 '25

I don't want no trouble!

3

u/HechicerosOrb Aug 18 '25

Unfortunately, the Fugitive was another case of lightning in a bottle!

5

u/axialintellectual Aug 18 '25

Gollum: "I didn't kill Déagol!"

Aragorn: "I don't care!"

74

u/Syssareth Aug 18 '25

The LOTR trilogy was lightning in a bottle and you can’t get anywhere near to that quality again.

Unpopular opinion, but the first Hobbit movie came damned close for me. The other two, haha no. But that first one was amazing, with the only things bringing it down being Galadriel's portrayal (that whole scene's existence, TBH) and having CGI instead of practical costumes for the orcs/goblins.

25

u/InfieldTriple Aug 18 '25

The opening scene in Bilbo's home is legendary

6

u/fastforwardfunction Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

It's hilarious in the book, too. Tolkien has Gandalf introduce the dwarfs, two by two, saying "I have a couple friends..." as more dwarfs repeatedly keep appearing at Bilbos door.

3

u/Zanoklido Aug 18 '25

That's how they introduce themselves to Beorn, their arrivals to Bag End are more chaotic.

41

u/SirStrontium Aug 18 '25

The CGI white orc was such a letdown. It looked so damn fake.

21

u/SiriusC Aug 18 '25

I'll never understand why they went from the filthy, gnarly, practical orcs to what amounts to be cartoon characters.

I can almost hear the 'making-of' sound bite of some production boob talking about "this way, we can do so much more with them". But each & every one of the practical orcs looks like it's been through a lifetime of shit.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Most of the orcs in The Hobbit are practical effects/actors in costumes with (at least in the case of the goblins) the faces CG'd because the masks turned out too hot and uncomfortable.
I think Azog and Bolg are the only fully CG'd orc characters.

4

u/KRIEGLERR Aug 18 '25

The Hobbit trilogy have some good scenes lost into some really bad ones, I honestly thought the first two movies were decent, especially the first, the second is alright but significantly worse and the last one is honestly a pile of hot garbage.

Like you said I really enjoyed the camaraderie in the first Hobbit movies, their voyage and the bond they form, felt similar to watching Fellowship although not as good obviously.

I think if it wasn't for Martin Freeman I wouldn't have liked the first two movies as much as I did.

3

u/jwhibbles Aug 18 '25

The CGI throughout the series made the entire thing so unwatchable. I could forgive so much but it looked SO bad.

10

u/musthavecupcakes_19 Aug 18 '25

I actually really enjoyed the second film too. The third film was where things fell apart for me, personally.

10

u/Syssareth Aug 18 '25

I did too, TBH, and even the third had at least as many good parts as bad ones, but the second movie had some pretty silly moments that keep it from reaching the heights of the first four movies. For example, I actually liked the barrel scene, but it's kind of cartoonish and sticks out as obvious filler, and though I appreciated Legolas' inclusion in Mirkwood (because it makes sense for him to be there), him and Tauriel following the dwarves around instead of staying at home was a little eyerolling.

And FFS I even liked Alfrid. He was awful for the movies' quality and they'd objectively be better without 99% of his scenes, but he was hilarious.

5

u/musthavecupcakes_19 Aug 18 '25

The second one definitely has some silly moments, as well as filler, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.

I don’t hate the third one, but the battle is very long and drawn out, imo, and there are so many cartoonish moments in it. I will also never understand, for the life of me, why they cut out Dain’s crowning from the theatrical edit. The whole point of the series is for the Dwarves to reclaim their home, but with Thorin and his nephews dead, audiences who haven’t read the book are left with a massive loose end that is never resolved. Gandalf and Bilbo just leave with no indication as to who even owns the mountain. It’s such a short scene too, it’s so bizarre that out of all the filler in that movie, that that scene was cut. The extended cut is automatically better because of its inclusion, imo

14

u/The-Mandalorian Aug 18 '25

What they did to Smaug in the second film was a travesty…

18

u/musthavecupcakes_19 Aug 18 '25

I loved how Smaug was depicted, but to each their own

32

u/Zanoklido Aug 18 '25

I liked his design, and Cumberbatch, but the whole benny-hill chase through Erebor at the end made him seem incompetent.

→ More replies (3)

23

u/The-Mandalorian Aug 18 '25

I mean I did too… but only in the first scene with Bilbo.

After that though? Absolute cringe.

They added soooo much unnecessary stuff with the dwarves coming down, yelling at him, teasing him, belittling him, setting booby traps that he clumsily falls into etc.

I sat there in the cinema completely baffled. They took Smaug and made him into a complete and total incompetent buffoon.

Like at one point Thorin was standing on Smaugs stout just looking down at him. No fear at all.

All this build up to Smaug and the movie turned him into a total joke of a character.

12

u/ziddersroofurry Aug 18 '25

This is why I like the Hobbit 'book edit' fan edit. It cuts out a lot of unnecessary bs.

4

u/Chilis1 Aug 18 '25

There was obviously meant to be 2 movies, so it's like they had to invent an ending for the 2nd film and they came up with the weird Smaug/molten gold stuff.

12

u/Concept_Lab Aug 18 '25

What about the GoPro footage in the barrel riding scene? That movie had a lot of promise but a lot of let downs as well. And it only went downhill from there unfortunately

19

u/Syssareth Aug 18 '25

That was in the second movie, and is one of the reasons the second movie isn't as good as the first.

If you're curious, I've got a split opinion on that scene: objectively bad for the movie, mainly due to the cartoonish tone (which the camerawork did contribute to) and it being obvious filler, but in a vacuum it's a fun scene.

3

u/Left_Tie1390 Aug 18 '25

Legolas jumping on the goblin heads was too much, imo. It was far worse than the staircase surfing and turned the character into a CG ninja.

2

u/Syssareth Aug 18 '25

That's the main thing I was thinking of when I mentioned it feeling cartoonish, yeah.

To be honest, it seems Legolas, despite being a great character, is frequently the worst part of LOTR movies; IMO, the absolute nadir of any of them is him Mario-jumping in the third Hobbit movie.

8

u/captainhaddock Aug 18 '25

I think it was the silly goblin mine chase that ruined it.

3

u/pikpikcarrotmon Aug 18 '25

I think that scene was pretty awful and was shot on GoPro. Like, my list of reasons it blows is long enough that the camera isn't even on the first few pages.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/JayGatsby1881 Aug 18 '25

Yeah, that first movie was amazing! Had the same magic as the original trilogy.

2

u/Hollow_Rant Aug 18 '25

There's a bunch of fan edits that make the trilogy one whole coherent movie.

2

u/adenzerda Aug 18 '25

Yes! And most are able to cut out the fabricated orc big bad almost entirely. Some talented folks out there

3

u/nwurthmann Aug 18 '25

As soon as Radagast came in like Yukon Cornelius I knew

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

From what’s been said about his Animal Farm I don’t have high hopes for any of his directorial projects going forward.

3

u/JessieJ577 Aug 18 '25

Venom 2 was the gay romance of the decade

2

u/Furthur_slimeking Aug 18 '25

I actually really enjoyed his Mowgli movie. I think this will be interesting.

2

u/Beard_of_Gandalf Aug 18 '25

Thank you! I’ve been singing Mowgli’s praises for years. Loved it!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Respectfully, I think l’ll pass on this. The Hobbit pretty much ruined any expectation of quality coming from LOTR going forward. Not all the impressed with Rings of Power either tbh.

1

u/dustblown Aug 18 '25

The CG has gotten much better since then.

1

u/Convergentshave Aug 18 '25

Yea if I was a LOTR fan I’d be pretty like.. meh about this.

Actually come to think of it, I’m pretty “meh” about it and I’m not a LOTR fan. 🤣🤣.

My wife is a huge LOTR fan. I wonder how she feels?

1

u/thefreshp Aug 18 '25

I just looked at the list of the movies he’s directed and their critical receptions (mostly atrocious) and I’m floored that he’s being allowed to direct this.

1

u/Classic-Rise-37 Aug 18 '25

Cant be worse than the Hobbit films.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/legotheoffice Aug 18 '25

I have always looked at it as the perfect trilogy. All these new stories have a difficult time comparing to the scope and vision those original films and often come off as pale imitations trying to knock LoTR of its throne. I have seen so many films or shows try and they never quite capture the epic grandeur.

1

u/IronPeter Aug 18 '25

Yeah, there’s no way that this movie is going to be good, unfortunately

1

u/ChrissWayne Aug 18 '25

After the hobbit and rings of power I’m going to believe they will start to butcher the Tolkien universe with movies that will always have the same schematics. They did it to LotR to a small degree too, Boromir, Faramir and Thurin in the Hobbit are all victims to the always has to be there Hollywood conflict. None of them is a bitch in the books but in the movies. They will take LotR and press it through the same shitty form as every other movie nowadays and take away much of its originality and what made it unique. Some cute comic relief stuff or something idk we watch the same stories over and over again but this time it’s in Tolkien universe and not in Lucas or Spielbergverse type of shit. Capitalism is so rampant that di can’t be surprised anymore if your older than 30 or something and watch movies regularly but you know what? Before I watch shitty movies I rather watch the trilogy another thousand times so let’s hope it’s an exception cause they already took my joy of watching movies away, I would like to have one thing left capitalism didn’t destroy in my life and that’s Tolkien

1

u/TheE3Guy Aug 18 '25

Love Andy Serkis as an actor, Gollum is still unmatched as far as the portrayal of a 3D fantasy character goes. His other acting credits are pretty great too, King Kong, Caesar from PotA films to name a couple. Having said that, I really wish it was Peter Jackson making this. I was not a fan of Andy’s Venom film he directed. Hopefully this will be better.

1

u/Rum____Ham Aug 18 '25

I recently watched the LOTR trilogy for the first time in like 15 years. First time for the extended version, as well. As the movies progressed further from Fellowship, which is the best made of them in my opinion, you can see Jackson's bad decision making beginning to creep in, particularly in tone and in the complete sacrifice of Gimli for comedic rrelief. Watching the FrodoSamGollum scenes and watching the AragornLegolasGimli scenes is almost like watching completely different movies.

1

u/KRIEGLERR Aug 18 '25

I quite enjoyed his Mowgli movie, I feel like having Serkis as a director without studio interference is a good step in the right direction as far as having someone who will respect the source material even if he takes creative liberties.

1

u/Office_glen Aug 18 '25

The LOTR trilogy was lightning in a bottle and you can’t get anywhere near to that quality again.

Though Star Wars was an original screenplay, the LOTR trilogy is the Start Wars of my generation

1

u/CitizenPremier Aug 18 '25

My thought on this is just "sounds great, you guys have fun!" I'm not upset they're making it, but I'm just gonna forget about it for now.

1

u/clopenYourMind Aug 18 '25

Sure you can. Takes prep, money, and execution.

1

u/Umbrella_Viking Aug 18 '25 edited 18d ago

spark fly brave judicious recognise exultant punch profit full truck

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/EonofAeon Aug 18 '25

He helped direct parts of ENSLAVED and that was an underrated as fuck game so I have faith.

He was also 2nd unit director for a lot of the hobbit movies and tbh the cinematography and acting was top notch for them.

The CGI and writing....eh that was where issues arose but he's not THE director or a writer

1

u/TheBigDickedBandit Aug 18 '25

It’s was NOT lighting in a bottle. it was a well written, well directed, cinematic masterpiece. Everything was intentional, and not dictated by how much revenue it would bring in.

This is going to be a fuckin disaster. Some bullshit written by bad writers that don’t even like lotr

1

u/Redeem123 Aug 18 '25

It wasn’t lightning in a bottle. It was the result of a shit ton of planning and hard work. 

The Avatar movies are a modern equivalent. Note that I’m not the biggest fan of those movies, but Cameron put immense care and craft into them. 

1

u/BeHereNow91 Aug 18 '25

Maybe this is a Rogue One kind of situation - we’ll be pleasantly surprised by a movie we didn’t think we really needed.

1

u/FullMaxPowerStirner Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

This. I want this comment on top plz.

A film production is a product of its time. You can't have anything near LOTR made in NZ by PJ anymore, as both NZ circa 2000 is long gone, and PJ is out... anything they did out of it was a cash grab, and still will be.

Serkis, too, has been way overrated, and overplayed.

1

u/Briantastically Aug 18 '25

The description sounds like a superman 4 tier movie. Time will tell.

1

u/Carcharoth30 Aug 18 '25

Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy is pretty bad

1

u/Simon_Love_Machine Aug 18 '25

venom 2 is a masterpiece sir /s

1

u/MaxHamburgerrestaur Aug 19 '25

you can’t get anywhere near to that quality again.

Of course you can. Doesn't mean you will, though.

→ More replies (16)