@@Evielicious To be honest, i didnt. I just came here to see critical opinions on the Hobbit. I can just enjoy a movie pretty easily. I mean there are things that can really piss you off, but i think the Hobbit trilogy is a masterpiece like LotR. I tend to just ignore small mistakes. Apart from the awkward romance i cant think of anything that bothered me while watching it.
The worst part is, the Hobbit was such a beautiful book, it was almost like Tolkien said "You don't need a huge issue threatening the entire world or a heroic, selfless always right hero to make a compelling fantasy story"
@@eliwiederhold4198 I know exactly what you mean, you overuse a serious issue and it reverts back to unimportant Give me a character with so many flaws I almost hate them, but give them difficult choices so I can empathize with them, give them a nice arc *NOT FUELED BY ROMANCE* (it's such a cop out for the story and arcs) And cherry on top, make it not the end of the world
@@eliwiederhold4198 unfortunately, good directors are always under pressure to not do anything exciting and make "the audience happy" with the same old shtick, when really the audience wants something very similar to what the director wants
...and (this might be the only chance I get to publicly be _this_ much of a Tolkien nerd so I'm taking it), while I 100% don't blame Cate Blanchett for not having read the Silmarillion - for all that I love having _once_ read it, it's almost exactly like reading the Old Testament for fun while actually you're doing it - wizards (or at least what they generally _are)_ and elves absolutely _can_ procreate. Two of Aragorn's ancestors are an elf and a very, _very_ powerful wizard/Sauron-type being. It's so, _so_ petty for it to bother me but it bother me it does.
I remember being mostly satisfied with the first installment of this trilogy, feeling it followed the book by about 80% or so. Sadly, the remaining two in the series were a huge letdown.
@Nademir yes and no! It's (of course) very well done and entertaining as hell. But there are some critiques to be in my opinion. They way Jackson portrayed the Gollum, Frodo, Sam saga was pretty bad and they left out some pretty cool and/or important parts of the book which led to some weird moments in the 2nd and 3rd part. The way he portrayed Faramir for example, King Theoden and the whole Rohan plot and also the way they chose to use Gimli, Legolas, Mary and Pippin as comedic relief. Which is fine, you could do that comedic relief stuff, absolutely granted but they way they did it was.... meh! But most of my points here are minor ones, so again.. You're kinda right and wrong at the same time.
Is this what you're thinking? --> Both the scene and the whole thing are... Surviving pointless, repetitive dangers without any kind of build of tension, or advancement in character development.
@@UTU49 it has the added parallel that, especially in Five Armies, Jackson was in his own words having to frantically lay down track in front of a speeding train. There was such loving and cohesive unity behind the production design serving such a rushed and money-driven approach to actually telling the story, and the stress of having to bridge those worlds and hold it together probably took years off of Jackson's life. It's genuinely saddening.
It sounds really stupid, but this was the one thing that made me watch the Hobbit films. I loved the LotR movies but had no interest in watching the Hobbit movies until someone told me about this scene - and I just had to see that.
That bit where you showed Christopher Lee talking about his motivation . . . that's Christopher Lee in a nutshell. The man has never turned in a bad performance even when he knows he's in something that's total crap because he believed it was what he owed the audience. They paid money to see the film and they deserved to be entertained by something, so even if nobody else cared, he would. He put his all into EVERYTHING he did and worked hard to craft a unique performance for every character he played. God, I miss Christopher Lee.
Rumor has it that most of the money spent on turning Benedict Cumberbach into a dragon was *_actually_* the money they had to pay to convince him to become human again afterwards.
The fact that the process of filming these movies brought Ian McKellan to tears will always leave a sour taste in my mouth. I also feel terrible for Peter Jackson, who I’m sure did his best with the extremely rushed timeframe he was given.
I believe Viggo Mortensen pointed out the downfall of Peter Jackson was his growing obsession with CGI. Much like the director of another beloved trilogy who also created a thoroughly disappointing prequel trilogy 🙄
It's kinda funny that rings of power actually did more justice to Tolkien's dwarves with their side characters than the hobbit trilogy where dwarves were in the center of the story.
Not a fan of this Kili/Tauriel relatioship... But... Romeo and Juliets timeline also displays a three day period and that is an amazing love story. So time is not of the essence here. It is not the lenght of the love but that they have no connection at all that makes it unbareable. And Maria and Tony from West Side Story only need 24 hours from their first meeting until their demise.
@@valandiln.418 Romeo and Juliet was never intended to be a love story. “Love” plays a role in it, but it’s first and foremost a tragedy about two TEENAGERS, one of whom is shown to be a bit...fickle when it comes to romance. This also applies to West Side Story since its an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.
@@valandiln.418 Romeo and Juliet is considered a love story by those who misread and misunderstand it. Point blank. I know it is misunderstood in mainstream media a lot, and misrepresented to be the ultimate love story. It's not, nor is it romantic.
Thranduil in the book was not a greedy jerk. After Laketown was destroyed, Thranduil went to help them and, after they reached the mountain, only supported the Lakemen’s claim to the treasure. Bard rewarded him richly afterwards, but Bard was the one who got most of the share. And Thranduil was the one who counselled restraint and patience to avoid going to war over gold. Thranduil in the book was interesting to me because he was an antagonist but not a villain.
I think he is a good character in the movie. Different for sure, but definitely not a villain. His character makes sense with the context of the jackson movies and demonstrates the growing distrust between dwarves and elves
@@JonathanSH I’m glad that the character works for you, but I personally am not a fan of how he’s portrayed. The thing is, I think Peter Jackson rather went out of his way to portray him as unlikable in the films. We see him show classism within his own community, and not be very well-liked by his own people. There’s also his relationship with Legolas that seems to have little warmth, and we see Tauriel criticising his every move, in a way that indicates that he’s a selfish and ineffective ruler. His antagonism with the dwarves is understandable based on their history, as is his decision to not fight the dragon, but him not doing anything to help the refugees is cruel in any context, and a rather large deviation from the book, because he treated even his prisoners well. We also literally have him inform Bard that he’s not helping his people for their sake. In the book, I feel that the mutual distrust between the races was portrayed well, since Thranduil thought that the dwarves possibly meant his people harm when they approached them, especially since they refused to divulge their purpose in coming there, and the dwarves didn’t want to tell the elves anything about their quest and weren’t very polite either. But, they never harmed each other, and neither side was eager to go to war with the other either.
I see where you are coming from. I agree he should treat his own people better, considering he is supposed to be strongly nationalist. Thats what I like about him in the movie. The growing evil in the mirkwood has made him distrustful and bitter to outsiders, and he is only concerned for the wellbeing of his kin. I think he would be a more consistent and understandable character if he was more caring for his people. I understand why you would want him to be a better person tho. He is definitely a strongly flawed character
@@JonathanSH Exactly. I wouldn’t have loved it, but I’d have found it a bit more redeemable if he’d been portrayed as a concerned ruler towards his own people, at least. But, he was shown to be willing to go to war for the sake of some jewels, so he obviously didn’t value their lives too much. He wasn’t doing it for the sake of the people of Laketown either, while, in the book, he was pretty reluctant to wage war over treasure.
Indeed. Some lines by Lindsay made me think that she either didn't remember the book too well, or didn't understand certain parts or characters. But hey, many characters had it even worse in the movie, starting with Thorin.
I get why Lindsay Ellis decided to quit, but damn, I miss her. This video essay trilogy is so well made. There aren't many video essays I like enough to rewatch just because I enjoy watching them, but this is my third or fourth time watching this.
@@Endru85x You never know, they never said they hate them _too_ much. Could be congratulatory. Seriously, though, the idea that you have to agree with a superbly-crafted and presented video essay to enjoy is just... sad. I _strongly_ disagree with a lot of Lindsay's (and other essayists') takes in her (or their) essays and I've watched them all several times because challenging your own views is far more enriching than simply having them comfortingly confirmed to you and a second or third watch can be worthwhile because your own views can evolve as you consider them. That and you can just miss or misinterpret stuff first time round.
@@Pineappolis when did i state you have to agree with everything in an essay? My point is that people can like Hobbit movies and i can live with that but i can,t stand those who cannot come up with a single point to defend the movie so the best they think of is considering someone a hater or writing shit like " Hey those movie could have been worse". No shit Sherlock, there are some things i like in Hobbit, does not change the fact there is so much unnecessary stuff and wasted potential.
@@Endru85x [Deep, beleaguered sigh at own, sadly predictable, stupidity] my apologies, the second, “they,” in my comment was supposed to read, “you,” and so the body was intended as a rebuttal of the comment previous to yours - but with a tongue-in-cheek little joke at the start that necessitated it be a reply to yours. Hopefully, with that correction, my comment will make sense on reread. Given how it started, though, this may be optimistic on my part. You really must have wondered what in God's name I was talking about, huh? EDIT: It gets worse - I only now noticed you and the OP were different people so my comment is _still_ wrong. The second, "they," should _actually_ read, "the OP." Also, I guess the following "hate" should now read, "hates." Seriously, to quote Scrubs, I need to replace the Captain of my Brain Ship because he's drunk at the wheel (which is almost impressive considering _I've_ been sober as a judge throughout).
grixisftw Most of the titular Battle of the Five Armies looks downright plastic; it's amazing that the effects seemed to get worse as the trilogy went along.
It because it was extremely rushed and they had nearly run out of budget. I feel really bad for Peter Jackson. He took one of the greatest works of modern fiction, something that should have been unadaptable, and turned it into one of the greatest pieces of cinema in history, and because of that greedy Hollywood studio execs almost killed him by making him make the Hobbit and effectively ending his career. It's infuriating.
@@reek4062 this is a 2-year old comment, also don’t just laugh at other peoples’ opinions- there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons why someone might like the lotr films beside their mixed level of accuracy to the book.
Having recently watched a fan recut of the Hobbit, I can honestly say, there's a *lot* it does right, in individual scenes. The issue, I think, mainly comes down to a lot of the big action scenes dragging on way too long, and the side-plots being utterly irrelevant, tacked-on, pacing-killers. Pretty much all of the Hobbit's issues come down to poor pacing, and gratuitously long, or utterly unnecessary scenes.
And the over use of CGI! Felt like watching a video game viewing that trilogy. But those pacing issues are what happens when the studio and producers demand three long movies for nothing other than greed.
@@PMLNavarro nah the films were still great. My only problems with them were the overuse of CGI and pacing but the characters themselves were so lovable and the story itself was so engaging, I can’t NOT like it
@Coley Durham I've been happier when I'm not getting payed than when I am. And furthermore, amassing wealth has never been synonymous with finding happiness. That's something most people won't do, rich or not.
@@HamsterPants522 money is probably the main reason my life is in shambles im challenged enough that a regular job doesent work and is stuck waiting for official help to figure out what the hell we do i barely have money to pay all my bills having to try and keep from eating for as long as possible before it starts to hurt just so i can fit what i have left into a month and the list goes on so yeah i would say money can really make some people happy and is pretty damn important if you want a slightly nice life
@@gmoddude12 I empathize with your situation. I've been broke and homeless before, but what makes a person happy is all a matter of what their values are. One could be happy living on the streets, or surviving in the woods, and one could be miserable and suicidal while living a comfortable life in a nice house.
I loves this content. I do take serious issue with saying that Tolkien didn’t really care about Boromir. The fellowship and his family all mourn him multiple chapters, and Boromir is crucially important to understanding the power of the ring and the danger it represents. He cared very much about Boromir.
@@a_bagle not sure yet, I'm hoping to be done with them by next fall/winter. I'll post a trailer on my channel with the info once I figure it out and I'm ready!
Maybe like an 8-episode miniseries, each episode being about 30 mins? 1) Dinner at Bilbo's he joins the company 2) Trolls 3) Rivendell 4) Misty Mountains 5) Spiders, capture, barrels 6) Laketown, meeting Smaug 7) Death of Smaug, arrival of the relevant armies 8) Battle of 5 armies, denouement Collectively it's about 4 hrs of screen time, which feels about right, and each episode is itself a somewhat self contained story (though maybe ep 7 is a bit clunky, but that's inevitable for any episode that's mostly about setting things up for the finale) As for episode names, just use selected chapters of the book (though it wont be 1:1 since the book has 19 chapters many of which can be easily pushed together for an 8 episode series) An Unexpected Party, Roast Mutton, A Short Rest, Riddles in the Dark, Flies and Spiders, On the Doorstep, Fire and Water, The Clouds Burst, in that order
What I remember about audio mixing was the Goblin King scenes in the first, and having to strain to hear half the dialogue, and having the other half attempting to blow out my ear drums. The sound mixing was physically painful...
The montage of all of the things added to the Hobbit literally made me fall out of my chair laughing. The Galadriel & Gandalf hints were just SENDING ME.
After rewatching the goblin town scenes, particularly the dwarves escape with Gandalf, I became convinced that the entire hobbit trilogy was just someone making a live action Lego game. A lot of the hijinks and methods the dwarves use and the situations they get put in (the rock Gandalf splits from the ceiling and rolls to crush rocks, the dwarves using the pole, and the warg chase earlier) just feel like a mini objective from Lego games.
Makes me wonder what his film schedule was. Did they film all of his scenes for all the movies together? Or was he just not sure when they'd call him back or how often? He seemed not to care either way.
@@neptuneplaneptune3367 The implication to me is he wasn't aware what movie the scene they were filming was going to be in, not how many movies there were going to be. Not a huge deal, just figured I'd point it out regardless.
Not really *that* telling though, in my opinion. Movie schedules are notoriously chaotic, and it is not uncommon with trilogies to film multiple movies at the same time. I don't think it's that uncommon for actors to be confused about where exactly in the story the current scene is supposed to fit.
@lennon 41 Nice opinion... But I'd rather put all three LotR films into one. Therefore the intro and the ending is consistent in length with the entirety. Besides, Two Towers isn't terrible as long as it is relative to the trilogy. -Frodo understanding Smeagle which plays into why Frodo chooses Gollum over Sam. -Samwise's ending speech to his suffering friend, which makes things hurt when he's told to leave before Shelob's Lair. -Introduction of Faramir, and the family dynamics between him, his brother and his father. -Fate playing a part through Gandalf, how he cannot die until his purpose of instilling hope is complete. -Legolas and Gimli, their friendship and rivalry growing despite being opposing races. -Aragorn's true leadership for man showing, and not just for those of his allies in the Fellowship. -Merry and Pippin, showing the simplicity of the Hobbit race. Known to be a race that's smart yet very simple. Making it even more understandable in how the Ring has a harder time corrupting them. -Saruman's betrayal of more than just joining Sauron, but by going against the purpose given to him just like all the other wizards of Middle Earth. The ents showing the consequences of his folly. Which also plays a part in why the Eagles will no doubt help Gandalf when needed. -Theodin being a great and flawed king of the common man who's worth following. -Also, Orc/Uruk-hai/Goblin tactics are first shown here in the Battle of Helm's Deep. How they rely on a battle of attrition to compensate for their lack of intelligence and discipline. This is further expanded later, in how they also rely on instilling despair among their enemies... In which makes Gandalf's role as a harbinger of hope even more prevalent. So I'd have to disagree that The Two Towers is a terrible film. Because in the end, it still plays an imperative role to the entire narrative of the trilogy.
@Foxglove Nope, your friend is right. Galadriel and Gandalf have a *huge* amount of respect for one another and are definitely friends, but their relationship was never romantic in the slightest. Just like your friend said, very old friends with a great deal of respect for one another. Edit: And the thing about Galadriel being married, I have a really hard time believing that Tolkien, a devout Catholic, would ever write one of the most morally good characters in his entire mythos as going behind her husband's back.
@@ryanwalters5290 I've noticed them giving each other looks even lotr. I never got anything sexual from it though, Idk what I'm missing that other people are seeing.
This is great but 20:42 - 21:50 "Gandalf she's married" comment had me almost crying from holding in my laughter while trying to be politely quiet. I am really enjoying this
19:02 "Are dwarves heat resistant?" I thought this same thing when recently rewatched the Hobbit movies. But, since then I had watched a video about the history and legacy of dwarves in Tolkien's legendarium, and they do actually have a resistance to heat, as well as the cold.
Well, for dwarves that spend 90% of their lives blacksmithing in super hot environments, you would think that they develop a resistance to heat (The forges of Erebor must ATLEAST be half as hot as smaug's fire breath)
They have the hardest resistance to almost anything, when aule created them he thought of Morgoth and wanted them to be as resistant to anything as possible
..and imagine how powerful it would have been if they had used to build more tension by burning their clothes but letting the dwarves endure the threat! I still can not believe how messed up "The Hobbit" was!
@@obiwankenobi9141 right? Like lol I get banter and whatever but that comment is just straight disgusting and not really charming at all. Not even in like, a lovable rogue way.
@Brah I was talking about the line he says to Tauriel when he's locked up, the line being. "Aren't you going to search me? I could have anything down my trousers." which is a really gross line
For me the CGI was the most irredeemable part. LOTR looked realistic and used the natural beauty of New Zealand, The Hobbit used CGI so much that it was almost an animated movie.... Even the characters played by real actors like the dwarves appeared animated
It's incredibly sad that the tension in the movie is so pitiful with million dollars of CGI, when they basically made the scariest scene in the trilogy back in 2001 just by filming in the woods with a costumed dude on horseback.
The problem is that the CGI is far too pretty. In LOTR also partially because of technical limitations it looks rough and dirty which makes it blend in far better. Also a lot of things are purely CGI. In the original LOTR while things like the massive army of Rohirrim was CGI almost all the close-up shots and tracking shots were actors. Even some of the shots of the Mumakill were models and puppets. My biggest issue is towards the end where I usually lose track. Just what is happening, where are the shots, who is where. It just becomes a blur. It does make me appreciate just how well cut and directed the battle of Minas Tirith truly is. There is just as much stuff going on at once and I never feel lost or confused.
I've honestly lost track how many times I've watched this docu-series. It's so well done and really illustrates how "just a movie" can have such massive real life consequences.
OK, when I saw Spock sing about Bilbo, for a moment I thought I was on drugs. Then I remember I don't do drugs. Then I thought, "yeah but maybe I'm on a drug that makes me forget I take drugs". Then my brain crashed, rebooted and I continued watching.
Commenting a year late to say for anyone who might stumble upon it: there is an amazing version of Lee reading Poes Raven. I regularly go back to that and listen to it thinking about what an amazing man Christopher Lee was and how much he is missed.
Why doe people have to swear in the name of Jesus or Christ? Suggestion- just for fun, spend a month swearing in Muhammad's name. On a summer vacation in Saudi Arabia.
This made me laugh lol. Especially the part about bilbo rushing an orc like a linebacker. He’s not a linebacker he’s a hobbit (chuckles through a short commercial) he’s the hobbit lmao 😂
Omg that ending at the airport. I know it's supposed to be a comedic bit, but that almost got me legit teary eyed. I can't watch anything with that hobbit theme without feeling the emotional weight behind the score.
Welp, I've officially found something worse than Anakin/Chewbacca and the Snape/Hermione (like, first year Hermione) fan fics from back in the day. Jesus Christ.
I actually liked that detail, despite not liking the movie overall, since I could see a parralel between Thorin and the Ring Wraiths, both were good once but corrupted by greed and lust for power. I thought it was a nice touch.
@@TehNightfallen In the context of this video? I think there in particular the more basic, dumb and hilarious sounding phrase fits better to what Lindsay wants to express.
@@crimsondynamo615 I really wish he at least stabbed the bastard... makes no sense ugh. Or perhaps just get in front of him, to stall for time while the bad guy monologues...
Did anybody else got as emotional as I got by Lindsay's "I'm going to NZ alone"? A short scene but still gave me chills and made me smile and cry. Wasn't expecting that, but I loved it.
As an 13 year old growing up in Wellington, New Zealand LOTR changed my entire life, and my country. I met Peter Jackson on the red carpet and he was so kind to me, I cried during ROTK, knowing it was over, I did all the Hobbit tours, went to Hobbiton, I made friends with people from all over the world who only came because to New Zealand because of LOTR. Seeing these changes in my country made me want to get into film. 10 years later my dream came true, I got to work on all the Hobbit movies. But this childhood dream of creating worlds, basically turned into my grown up stressful work life, and this dream movie, The Hobbit, turned from 2 movies to 3 and it was never going to be the movie I had in my head. I was a tiny cog in a huge machine with no power over anything, and I could never distance myself from it. As much as these films weren't what I wanted, they still carved who I am now. So thank you for this, this made me cry, maybe I can find home again, it's been 5 years, maybe should re-watch over Easter! Enjoy New Zealand xx
The whole “faithful adaptation vs Lotr prequel” idea reminds me of how, according to *History of The Hobbit*, Tolkien attempted a full revision/retelling of the Hobbit in 1960 that would fit tonally with lotr and fix all the continuity mistakes, but abandoned it because it had lost all the charm of the original version.
Bilbo stealing the ring from Gollum is a retcon. In the first edition, Gollum gives up the ring voluntarily after losing the riddle contest. It was changed more than fifty years ago, so no one remembers.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that chemistry between Gandalf and Galadriel in the movie, I watched it in the theater and was like oh wow that was hot and my friend - big Tolkien nerd - said y'know, she's married. :DD
I don't know what it is, but there is something about these video essays that's like comfort food. I just put them on and tune out (after watching several times intricately of course). I love them.
You know The Silmarillion is almost entirely ignored when I find an almost mint 1st edition on a dusty shelf of a giant used book store for 5 bucks in the middle of Detroit.
Even at 90 years old, Christoper Lee was still a boss. At least the bizarre Necromancer subplot allowed him another chance to shine as Saruman and reconnect with Peter Jackson before he passed away.
It was in the Appendices of LOTR. Yes, they are canon, and yes, they were used to great effect to enrich certain narrative arcs in the LOTR films. But IMO there was too little to build like 45 minutes of The Hobbit movies out of with the Necromander, it's unevenly done, and anyway thematically it doesn't fit with the book's much lighter tone. Jackson tried too hard to connect The Hobbit to LOTR using the Necromancer scenes and I wish he had ignored it entirely. Then we could have easily gotten two, three-hour films, which is just about right.
While I personally completely agree with you regarding the plotlines of Dain and Azog as they take away from the mythos of Dain and changes the history of the world that I love, I have to disagree that they ruined the history in the movie. I hated it and was screaming "He's dead, dammit" inside my head the entire first film but it did not break the lore of the films. Azog lived in the films, and that's that, and Dain never had much to do with him. Events still transpired in the same way as in the books in regards to who was dead and alive when the last movie ended and Dain was lord of Erebor and the Iron Hills. I have to correct a few things though, it's never been stated why Dain was called Ironfoot, he chopped Azog's head of with a red axe (quite hard to come back from that one) by the eastern gate of Moria. His feet are not mentioned in any way that I am aware of. He's also the son of Nain, not Thrain, making him Thorin's second cousin (Nain and Thrain were cousins). So Thrain's dying or not at the battle had no impact on Dain's lordship over the Iron Hills as long as Nain still died in the battle.
The fleshed out Boromir and the way Aragorn responded to it also allowed Aragorn to step into his role without the "hey everyone, Aragorn is this book's Jesus stand in" exposition from the book
@@thanoseid2883 Me too... sort of. Tolkien's prose is so damn glorious that you really buy into his descriptions, especially if you read them young. I remember thinking Prince Imrahil was an awesome character but could I tell you one damn thing he said or did (besides be in the vanguard of the sally forth onto the Pelennor Fields, which, fair play but so were a lot of other people)? No, but Tolkien's words _are_ spell-binding. If they'd adapted Tolkien's Aragorn straight onto film without fleshing him out and without being cloaked in the images Tolkien could paint with words (contrast with that shambles of a metaphor), there'd have been nothing to him, while Jackson and co.'s Aragorn is every bit as memorable a character as Sam, the real beating heart of the novel, and Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of him is _staggeringly_ brilliant.
Yeah! Being more invested in him, makes his fall to the dark side and sacrifice all the more tragic. Plus it further highlights the danger and corrupting force of the Ring early on. If even someone who is a solid dude and admittedly had noble motives for wanting that power (love of and fear for his home and family, wanting to make his father proud) wasn't immune from being turned towards the dark side just from being NEAR it, that shows how nobody is immune from this thing and it must be destroyed. (It also highlights how strong Frodo truly is to be able to resist so long, but the fact that many fans miss that, can't be helped and isn't the narratives fault lol) A shame the same care and development wasn't shown to movie Faramir and Denethor too (some of the only aspects of those movies I truly dislike xD) but. You can't get everything you want
Nostalgia is like the Elder Days of Middle Earth. Filled with magic and wonder. But as we get older that magic fades and we are faced with the harsh truth and age of men. We, like the Elves, long for those Elder Days, but we can’t go back and eventually those memories sail away and fade from the Earth
_"If you add a glassful of wine to a barrelful of sewage, you get a barrelful of sewage._ _If you add a glassful of sewage to a barrelful of wine, you get a barrelful of sewage."_
@Elly van den Brink Even movies deserving of valid criticism are not “sewage” nor do they “suck.” The Hobbit was great even despite it’s flaws. A few creative alterations and the occasional pacing issues doesn’t take anything from the totality of the quality of the movies, which I feel they still held true to the original works.
Okay, can I just say, it is a fucking testament to how goddamn good the LOTR trilogy was, that your little skit at the end recreating Sam and Frodo heading to Mordor *actually* made me tear up. A fucking joke recreation was still enough to hit me in my emotion zone. 10 points.
She got into this twitter "scandal" about a movie then all these trolls started sharing threads about her and she made a video about it ( recommend you watch it ) anyway it really sucked
@@Helenoula It sucks for us but if she's making enough money to forgo the horrors of RU-vid you mention, I mean, good luck to her I suppose. Thanks for the info.
No problem, luckily she has left her videos up so you can still check them out, forgot to mention she is currently making videos on a platform called nebula, you have to pay for a subscription though. Anyway hope this was helpful :)
When I was little my stepmother read the hobbit to me as a bedtime story, and it's one that I wanted to hear again and again. When the film was announced after how wonderful the Lord of the Rings movies were I was so excited! And then I was so disappointed I never even bothered to see the second and third movies...
well what the hell is he supposed to do exactly...throw a carrot at him. the reason he tackles him is jackson's trying to show that he's really giving his all...... even though he knows he physically cant fight the Orc. He's sacrificing himself....for his friend. I didn't like that scene or those movies either..but this girl clearly hasn't read the books...hence you having her saying things like Tolkien didn't care about Boromir's character.......WTF???/ As well as slighting Tom Bombadil which is blasphemous cause his chapter was a masterpiece.
@@culturevsman5024 The only reason why the scene is there, is because we need a climax and Jackson decided last minute, to split 2 movies into 3. So rather than getting a well thought out climax and Bilbo earning Thorins respect because of it, we got a generic action scene. It could have been SO MUCH BETTER, thats all Lindsey is saying. And dude, she has obviously read the Hobbit, don't be that guy. You have got to have better arguments than that
@@larslundandersen7722 I think it was the studio who made the decision to make 3 instead of 2 movies. Jackson clearly didn't wanted to go through the stress of making a trilogy again.
On the subject of Atticus, I think half of the reason so many people liked him is because...Consider when the book came out. 1960. Smack dab in the middle of the Civil Rights era. Speaking as someone who lives in the South, we've always been kinda..apart from the rest of the country. Ever since the days of Thomas Jefferson, The South has been very deliberately "macho" and distinctly "old-fashioned". The South's identity has been distinguished from The North mainly on the fact that, in The North, wealthy elites took the form of "uncouth" grimy city-slicker businessmen, whereas the archetypal Southern Elite, is the Plantation Owner. A well-spoken conservative in a suit, who used the trappings of "good manners" and "family values" to mask his true evil. "Southern Politeness" was, in a sense, set-up as a contrast to the "uncouthness" of the North, (See: The classical "Rude New Yorker" stereotype), but it was also a defense mechanism. A way to mask the ugliness going on just out-of-frame. This gave The South a weird fetish for stuff like "chivalry" and "good form", being as polite as possible so as to make people ignore the whole "owning humans as property" thing. After the Civil War, that attitude took a big hit, as you can see in the works of Mark Twain, which are pretty much all about him trying to reconcile his deep love of the Pre-Antebellum South with his hatred of Slavery, but it remained, as you can see in stuff like The KKK's hierarchical trappings and fancy titles, or Gone WIth The Wind, which is very much a nostalgic throwback to that era. However, if the end of Slavery, the moment the ugliness of the American South became too much to ignore, hurt Southern Chivalry, the end of segregation killed it. Again, The South had been judged by the rest of the nation, and come up lacking, on the wrong side of history once more. I love The South, but I won't deny, Racism is, if not the core of the Southern identity, a big chunk. With Black people's social mobility no longer restricted by legally-sanctioned discrimination, Southern White Men were forced to face facts: They weren't superior to anyone. and if they weren't, what was their place in this new world? Then, along came Atticus. Atticus presented, to many white men in The South, as being their ideal. A man who embodied everything good about The South - Polite, well-spoken, chivalrous - but not a Racist. He was, in a sense, the Southern Man: Version 2.0. A way to keep the parts of the "Old South" that remained, while ditching the bad. When he turned out to be a Racist, people were shocked. Reading things written by native Southerners about Go Set A Watchmen, there's this deep sense of betrayal. He was their idol, their ideal of masculinity. The idea that he was secretly a monster this whole time...Just didn't compute. I've heard it compared to the ways lot of Black people felt after Cosby's allegations came to light, particularly ones who grew in the 80s, for whom he was their first depiction of someone like them being portrayed as an well-off intelligent family man. Just this deep pervading sense of betrayal by someone who had shaped their cultural image.
I am quite sure Gollum never intended to give Bilbo the ring. He wanted the ring for himself and if I remember correctly the riddles where there to give Gollum some time to get the ring and kill/eat Bilbo. He thought he still had the ring back on an island or so. Bilbos last riddle was "What do I have in my poket?" Gollum accepted and failed this "riddle". He had no idea Bilbo had the ring at this point.
The first film is a masterpiece from end to end, and you can't convince me otherwise. Fits the tone of the Hobbit novel perfectly - Tolkien loved music and singing, and scattered it throughout the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. It's something that was mostly missed in the first trilogy, but the almost musical-style direction and quantity of singing in An Unexpected Journey was wonderful. Ditching the music and childlike adventure for the next two films was a disastrous decision in favour of a bland and predictable tragedy/love story. I never thought I'd see Orlando Bloom reprise Legolas and single-handedly kill an entire trilogy by his mere presence, but here we are. When almost half the dwarves of Thorin's Company - our main cast - have ZERO speaking parts in the final theatre release of the trilogy (Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, none of them speak a word) , you know something has gone awfully wrong.
@A Catalan Liam For a representation of what the Hobbit is supposed to be, I don't deny a word of it. The woeful next two films only enhance how good the first one is by comparison, while at the same time tainting it for many loyal Tolkien fans
No. The first film had some good moments, but the parts with the orcs and the rock trolls were absurd. I thought Pete pissed away a good start on unnecessary crap- soaked filler, without capturing the child-like charm of the source material. The first one is merely better than the others; it's like claiming a puddle of vomit smells much better than two splats of skitters.
Fellowship of the Ring is a masterpiece, the first Hobbit film is barely acceptable, Radagast, the wizard with literal shit on his head, fart jokes, random and the escape from the goblins are just a couple of notably bad things in the first film. I think calling it a masterpiece is way too far
@@Gwaihir-The-Windlord You're correct; Fellowship is the best of the three, although it has its flaws. Portions of the Hobbit films (the canonical portions that focus on Bilbo) are okay, but it's mostly a computer game train-wreck and shit show. The orcs are appalling, and the sensibilities and character motivations are all 2005-2008, not Tolkienian.
Growing up is only optional in the absence of proper rites of passage (not rights!) to *test* for both intellectual and emotional maturity of sufficient levels *before* the adulthood of the individual (and the freedoms and responsibilities which come with it) is vested upon the individual by the community. If being vested as an adult rests on no more than having an arbitrarily numbered birthday, almost no-one will grow up before they get hit by the vicissitudes of the intellectual-child's exploitation and the consequent regrets and resentments of middle age. And the so-called "karen" phenomena is the sad spectacle of this very western failing.
@@greenyawgmoth I would love for it to be a massive tv series instead with more artistic freedom. So many storylines in that book that I think it would feel messy in a movie.
I find myself back at this video almost four and a half years later, because the second episode to the Game of Thrones prequel series House of the Dragon came out a couple of days ago. When I sat down all excited to watch it and the intro started playing with the Game of Thrones theme, all I could think of was 31:17-32:44 of this video. “Things mean things! Musical motifs especially mean things!” This is the perfect video.
I personally feel the animated Rankin/Bass version of "The Hobbit" encapsulated the story perfectly, and had just the right amount of child like whimsy yet still gave portent of greater things to come.
This dissection is fine, Lindsay. However, we feel it would be more...compelling? Yes- compelling. We feel it would be more compelling if you extended it out into 3 parts instead of 2 parts. ~_~
Saw the first one, was so desperate for Middle Earth again I felt good. Saw the second one and wanted to kill myself, it was so bad and full of holes I could easily pick apart. I saw the third and was just bored, the only thing of any interest was Bagginshield, I'm not ashamed to say that.
I didn't mind that at all, people should stop naming some tracks because they were used for some guy. "Ringwraith theme". Imagine paying for/making a soundtrack just for people to get angry for reusing it for something else. This was one of the smallest problems in the trilogy.
@@UmarAli-tq8pl some themes are exclusive to certain scenarios or places, such as "the shire theme" plays an important part throughout lord of the rings, the further Frodo gets from the shire and closer to mount doom the theme gets weaker and weaker, the ring wraith theme is to signify some inescapable threat that has to be confronted, so it being played at the moment Thorin escaping doesn't fit at all.
@@the98themperoroftheholybri33 I don't ever recall it being used for an escape? It was used when Thorin charged towards Azog who was an inescapable threat because of the dead end they were surrounded at.
@@the98themperoroftheholybri33 Yea the way you describe it actually makes it seem like a good use of the theme. Thorin is aggressing towards Azog while the theme plays.
Incredible video content, really, also because what you talk about can basically be applied to most of the movies that have been produced in the last years (unfortunately). This analysis really denotes amazing skills not only in understanding the issues, but also in exposing them. Thanks!!
22:34 "Heat-resistant dwarves": this is actually canon. Here's a quote from the Silmarillion: "Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the Dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim [dwarves] withstood fire more hardily than either Elves or Men, and it was their custom moreover to wear great masks in battle hideous to look upon; and these stood them in good stead against the dragons."
There are amny things that were added to the Hobbit films that were neither in the book nor in the Silmarillion, but they were in some notes Tolkien wrote throughout the years. It really isn't that bad.
The issue isn't that it isn't canon, the issue is that the scenes use the fire to create tension where there isn't any. If they can withstand the heat, why should we as the audience be worried about them?
Watching this again now and hearing Lindsay talk about how if they wanted a direct prequel to the Lord of the Rings they should have used the Silmarilion to "set up the universe, how the rings worked, how they came to be, who Sauron is and why he had control over the Rings of Power..." and thinking... they... they did... in the future. Your future. My past. And it was... well it was a whole thing.
What a delightful story that was ... and the end was a worthy end! Thank you for taking me on this journey through your memories that are so similarion to mine!
