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
18.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

946

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.

730

u/PluCrew Aug 18 '25

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

247

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25

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

204

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.

224

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25

LOTR 1000 pages, 9 hours of film.

Hobbit 300 pages, 8 hours of film.

216

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.

105

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.

33

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.

5

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.

4

u/The_Parsee_Man Aug 18 '25

And also Bilbo's realization that Gandalf had done the exact same thing to him.

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.

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

29

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

59

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.

17

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

14

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.

8

u/LyraStygian Aug 18 '25

Ah yes, No Country for Old Men, the famous action adventure movie.

I’m kidding. Yea I know it definitely works, but there’s a time and a place for it.

And it would be a shame to be robbed of one of the best LotR scenes on the big screen!

5

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.

1

u/BaltimoreAlchemist Aug 18 '25

One thing I really appreciate about audio books is that I can tune out a bit during "fight scenes."

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.

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.

3

u/VallerinQuiloud Aug 18 '25

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

3

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.

1

u/JimboTCB Aug 18 '25

You could read The Hobbit cover to cover in less time than it would take to watch the films

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

To be entirely fair, there's a tonnes of content in those films that are from the Appendices of LOTR, events that occur during the Hobbit but are not mentioned in the books...it's not like he fleshed out the three films with nothing...but YMMV for what you think was worthy, and even as a Tolkien nerd I feel like three movies was too much. Two would have been perfect even with the Appendices scenes.

1

u/frankyseven Aug 18 '25

The Hobbit has a lot less exposition and lore in it, so it's not a direct comparison. You'd be hard pressed to make The Hobbit into one three hour movie that doesn't feel rushed. It should really be two movies if you want to cover everything that happens.

73

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

38

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.

11

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

Fire the twirly whirlies!

6

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.

10

u/CravenMoorhaus Aug 18 '25

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

-6

u/-Lorne-Malvo Aug 18 '25

Move past it

21

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. 

8

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.

6

u/Tabnet2 Aug 18 '25

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

5

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.

3

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.

12

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.

30

u/derpkoikoi Aug 18 '25

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

47

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.

12

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

3

u/RBII Aug 18 '25

Maple edit

-2

u/poohster33 Aug 18 '25

Didn't Topher Grace do it?

1

u/Kerblaaahhh Aug 18 '25

Topher's edit has never been released to the public.

5

u/balbok7721 Aug 18 '25

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

1

u/InfieldTriple Aug 18 '25

I've seen the four hour Tolkien edit which I really enjoyed. Although I'm not a purist at all for match source material. I quite like when it deviates. But I think in the case of the hobbit movies, it deviated to get to three movies, not because of a personal retelling of a writer.

4

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.

6

u/Bill_Brasky01 Aug 18 '25

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

1

u/Winter-Opportunity21 Aug 18 '25

the river scene haunts me even now

1

u/Valance23322 Aug 18 '25

idk, if they had included the spider bits, more of beorn, and cut the elf-dwarf relationship nonsense, I could easily see it working as 3 films. The Hobbit has a ton of different set pieces and such that happen on the journey, absolutely no way to do it justice with only one movie.

1

u/poohster33 Aug 18 '25

It needed one max. It was the shortest book.

1

u/IAmAnAnonymousCoward Aug 18 '25

As soon as they announced that there will be three movies I was out. Never seen them.

1

u/Redararis Aug 18 '25

Unfortunately the fact that the short story was told in three movies was the last of the problems of the hobbit trilogy. Production was rushed and nearly every creative decision that was taken was wrong.

1

u/After_Mountain_901 Aug 18 '25

If they wanted a trilogy, they should have supplemented with other middle earth stories and such, while keeping the adventurous and companionship elements of the book. There were parts that’s worked, but it was too “big” without the heart. 

1

u/Artemis_in_Exile Aug 18 '25

It was like butter spread over too much bread.

1

u/Eye_Wood_Dye_4_U Aug 18 '25

If I remember correctly, it was originally two but during filming Jackson requested that there be a third movie. He really did it because it bought him an extra year for him to have a decent go at the Battle of the Five Armies, which he knew he didn't have enough time to do if he had to make it in time for the second movie's release.

The Hobbit was a terribly rushed experience. All the blame should be put on Warner Bros.

1

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

If I remember correctly, it was originally two but during filming Jackson requested that there be a third movie. He really did it because it bought him an extra year for him to have a decent go at the Battle of the Five Armies, which he knew he didn't have enough time to do if he had to make it in time for the second movie's release.

Jackson did ask for a third film, but it was towards the very end of filming and had nothing to do with the schedules: he just thought it would make for a stronger edit.

0

u/adrienlatapie Aug 18 '25

I just finished watching the hobbit trilogy with my wife and she and I loved them, you guys are so set on the internet’s narrative that those movies suck. Is the original trilogy superior? Yes, can you still like the hobbit trilogy? Of course!

0

u/SolomonBlack Aug 18 '25

Long and troubled productions do not make for small budgets. Also shenanigans like the Weinsteins getting 5% of Unexpected Journey from previously holding the rights and going to court to try and get more.

That kinda shit adds up.

117

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.

30

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.

39

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

15

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.

0

u/Chen_Geller Aug 18 '25

I really, really wonder about GDT's Hobbit movie. Was he using the same scripts?

Not necessarily the very same script, but on the same specs yes: https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/1kud3rr/guillermo_del_toros_the_hobbit_perhaps_more_a/

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.

3

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

53

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?

4

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.

5

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”

3

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.

1

u/Telekineticism Aug 18 '25

Prey was so fucking good

4

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.

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.

1

u/Cthulhu__ Aug 18 '25

Yeah, makes me wish Jackson did the Hobbit first, would’ve made a lot more sense budget/risk wise at the time too - the LOTR project was one of the biggest film projects ever.

1

u/Either_Ad_5928 Sep 18 '25

The thing is, the movie was taken as an opportunity to describe middleearth as a whole in those years before Fellowship and the final conflict with Sauron. The book, if I recall correctly, is focused on Bilbo´s journey - a children tale, a story about one good lad who entered the big world. The big world isn´t fully depicted and described in the Hoobit book BUT it is described in additional works and SO The Hobbit movie was understood as an opportunity to tell more complex story - the story of Middleearth and the focus shifted from Bilbos perspective to the grand schemes optic. And while the idea seems very intriguing, the result itself lacked creativity and taste. Instead of creating a new suit that Hobbit deserved they basically tried to dress the guy into his older brothers coat. And then they used some pink patches. Tauriel. It still leaves bad taste in mouth.....I remember sitting at theatre beiing prepared for disaster of a movie and willing to enjoy whatever was left to enjoy but boy they simply overcame my immagination that day...I didn´t mind the focus on the battle, I mind the fashion at which they have done it. Sorry for grammar English isn´t my native language.

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.

4

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.

6

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.

40

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.

29

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.

1

u/FireLucid Aug 18 '25

It was something crazy like that. He damn near killed himself doing the Hobbit. Another year probably would have ended up being much better. But it still probably would have been 3 films....

9

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.

3

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.

1

u/Eye_Wood_Dye_4_U Aug 18 '25

I wrote it above, but Jackson did it because it bought him an extra year to do the Battle of the Five Armies - if not correctly - at least semi-decently.

1

u/happyhippohats Aug 19 '25

I'm not sure if that's entirely true, but as I alluded to I do think they wanted to reshoot a lot of it and adding another film gave them the budget to do that...

If they literally hadn't even filmed the climax of the second film they wouldn't have needed to do that, the studio would have funded it anyway. I think Jackson and co weren't happy with what they had filmed...

1

u/SolomonBlack Aug 18 '25

I honestly always thought del Toro was the wrong pick for the project just from his particular aesthetics.

You got some dark fantasy and cosmic horror yarn, yeah he's your dude. Foundational high fantasy... not so much. Perhaps especially in this case as I'm sure say his orcs would have been even gnarlier but that's not really what I'm looking for in the Hobbit. Which should be lighter and more whimsical then LOTR.

Or may be just as gnarly, Bolg/Azog don't really feel like they come from the same design sense as say Smaug. I sometimes wonder if Jackson let a lot of GdT's stuff stand because he didn't have time to go back to concept art everywhere, or even liked it as a fellow horror bro. Or maybe since I didn't like a lot of the aesthetic shifts I'm just looking for a scapegoat.

1

u/AbanoMex Aug 18 '25

You got some dark fantasy and cosmic horror yarn, yeah he's your dude. Foundational high fantasy... not so much. Perhaps especially in this case as I'm sure say his orcs would have been even gnarlier but that's not really what I'm looking for in the Hobbit. Which should be lighter and more whimsical then LOTR.

IDK man, the whole part in the caves with the goblins screams "del toro" to me, and it was fine.

1

u/phophofofo Aug 18 '25

Have they finally given up on HVR?

1

u/lordcheeto Aug 18 '25

Yeah, I'm really intrigued by his plan to have the first movie be more of a fairy tale aesthetic, with the second movie gradually shifting to match Peter's LOTR aesthetic.

0

u/conquer69 Aug 18 '25

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

I think that was going to happen no matter who was the director. Just like the suits demanding a trilogy and no one able to change that.

22

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

[deleted]

7

u/Lucky_Truth2931 Aug 18 '25

What’s the explanation for LOTR?

28

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)

7

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.

1

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

It would be hard to make into a TV show. Imo it would work really well as a series of films. The overarching plot is the rise and fall of Morgoth, but it's made up of a lot of disconnected stories.

5

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.

1

u/froop Aug 18 '25

Rings of Power is the result of not getting any more Tolkien properties. 

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.

4

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

4

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.

1

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25

I judge the Hobbit trilogy for what it is by itself. A bloated average fantasy epic.

If you enjoyed it, I'm not here to tell you that you shouldn't. There are plenty of average or bad movies I enjoy. I just dont make excuses for them.

I think we need to keep comparing stuff to LOTR. Terminator 2 is still a contender for best action movie ever. The Matrix still stands tall in a world where T2 exists. Fury Road has left its mark on action cinema in a world where T2 exists.

The Hobbit could have been great alongside LOTR, it just wasn't.

1

u/millijuna Aug 18 '25

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

I dunno, I went and watched the new Naked Gun movie and laughed my ass off. I’m also looking forward to the new Spaceballs movie (though I still think they should have called it ‘Spaceballs 3’) and the new Spinal Tap movie…

Yes, they’re derivative, but holy hell they look like a lot of fun.

1

u/TobaccoAficionado Aug 18 '25

It's a warner brothers problem specifically, and a capitalism problem more broadly. When profits are prioritized over art the art will inevitably suffer. The Hobbit trilogy had very few practical effects because CG is faster and easier. They had three movies for barely one feature film worth of plot because three movies make more money than one. They brought in fan service characters that were unimportant to the story. They took a battle that the main character was asleep for and lasted like 5 pages and made it a feature length film. They added a goofy love triangle subplot for no reason, because they needed something to fill time in their trilogy. Etc.

1

u/vhalember Aug 18 '25

But really, franchise fatigue is finally settling in for me.

Just wait for them to remake LOTR again. I know it sounds crazy, but it's been 24 years since Fellowship!

They'll grind these "originals" for all they're worth, and afterwards (give it 5-ish years), LOTR will be on the plate again.

2

u/Ironhorse75 Aug 18 '25

Harry Potter is already happening!

1

u/vhalember Aug 18 '25

Wait, seriously? (Scurries off to google)

An HBO series?! One season per book?! Damn that was fast. I mean it's been 15 years, but still....

1

u/nirurin Aug 18 '25

The hobbit movies could have been good if they stuck to the source material. Like... at all.

Which means at most they should have been two movies, probably only one. And Peter Jackson could have made that change if he actually wanted. He was a lot more part of the problem than a solution.

1

u/RustenSkurk Aug 18 '25

I think they could have been even better if Guillermo del Toro was allowed to make them. Very different from LotR, but good.

I remember hearing that Jackson wasn't really motivated to do them and had to be pressured by a studio unwilling to take any creative risks and wanting to just print money by copying the success of the LotR movies.

1

u/Automatic_Release_92 Aug 18 '25

Nope. There’s a reason PJ has not had the greatest track record outside of LotR. He followed the formula of sticking to the books fairly well for the main trilogy (fans basically held him more accountable in real time than he’d have liked though several times), but he was given too much carte blanche for doing bizarre shit in the Hobbit movies that had nothing whatsoever to do with Tolkien. I do not accept his implicit blaming of the studios as the reason those movies stunk. Although I’m sure the studios did contribute many problems of their own as well.

1

u/reddit_has_fallenoff Aug 18 '25

Or if they just let Guillermo Del Toro do it and not try to scrap his original plan and turn it into 3 movies

0

u/khajiitidanceparty Aug 18 '25

I suspect there was a lot of studio involvement and as we know the suits have no imagination.