Its what Amazon would have made if they weren't woke. Its soulless and stretched so far that the skeleton of the original good book means little.
There is a reason why all anyone talks about from it is Benedict Cumberbatch (which was just them hiring the biggest actor at the time), the action scenes (because that's what the Hobbit was known for), and Ian McKellen literally having a breakdown on set because of the level of CGI (where most scenes was him alone in a full greenscreen room talking to robots with pictures taped on them).
That's the point. He realized he wasn't an actor anymore. I doubt they told him beforehand it was going to literally be that sheer level of CGI to were he spent most of his time trying to act at robots and empty air.
Especially as the budget for the films was literally more than double LotR (the exact opposite of what happens with bad sequels) and everyone was riding the high of knowing "we did it once, let's do it again."
Ironically, its one of the few problems that has nothing to do with the trilogy stretch, which is what caused nearly every other problem with the movies.
Ian McKellen literally having a breakdown on set because of the level of CGI (where most scenes was him alone in a full greenscreen room talking to robots with pictures taped on them).
OK, someone has finally pitched a non-Tolkien LOTR film I'd watch!
I gave up after the first one. No it didn't need to be a trilogy and it's just a bunch of goofy fight scenes. Though I'm sure it's still leagues above Rings of Power.
There's a re-cut that's either one or two movies instead of three that's supposed to be good.
The Bilbo Edition is the recut I watched, which was decent enough I think. Comes in at just over 4 hrs, so still long, but cuts out a good amount of the added stuff (including the inexplicable dwarf/elf romance arc)
It probably would have been best as two movies. Honestly I never had as much of an issue with the hobbit as most people and I actually quite enjoyed it. I remember looking at a list of differences between the books and the movie, and other than the added scenes most of the differences to me were not taht huge of a deal. Oh not saying there were not issues, but eh worked good enough for me. I get the issues with it sure and I would even agree with some, but I hardly think it was the travesty people act like.
When people go so over the top like they did with the hobbit, it undercuts when the real garbage comes out like rings of power.
I have yet to see The Hobbit. I love the book but don’t get how you get 3 movies out of it
Its what Amazon would have made if they weren't woke. Its soulless and stretched so far that the skeleton of the original good book means little.
There is a reason why all anyone talks about from it is Benedict Cumberbatch (which was just them hiring the biggest actor at the time), the action scenes (because that's what the Hobbit was known for), and Ian McKellen literally having a breakdown on set because of the level of CGI (where most scenes was him alone in a full greenscreen room talking to robots with pictures taped on them).
Lmao at the last one, what did he think he was signing up for? He's been an actor long enough to know sequelitis at a glance.
That's the point. He realized he wasn't an actor anymore. I doubt they told him beforehand it was going to literally be that sheer level of CGI to were he spent most of his time trying to act at robots and empty air.
Especially as the budget for the films was literally more than double LotR (the exact opposite of what happens with bad sequels) and everyone was riding the high of knowing "we did it once, let's do it again."
Ironically, its one of the few problems that has nothing to do with the trilogy stretch, which is what caused nearly every other problem with the movies.
OK, someone has finally pitched a non-Tolkien LOTR film I'd watch!
I gave up after the first one. No it didn't need to be a trilogy and it's just a bunch of goofy fight scenes. Though I'm sure it's still leagues above Rings of Power.
An accurate summary.
But you missed the not-in-the-books mixed race (elf-dwarf) romance subplot.
Aaaand that's about it. Goofy fight scenes, weird shoehorned subplot, drags on way too long, still better than Rings of Power.
There's a re-cut that's either one or two movies instead of three that's supposed to be good.
The ones that were actually made - those I can say are not good, and I can definitely see how cutting out loads of fluff would improve them.
The Bilbo Edition is the recut I watched, which was decent enough I think. Comes in at just over 4 hrs, so still long, but cuts out a good amount of the added stuff (including the inexplicable dwarf/elf romance arc)
If they had done it in 2 movies it would have been fine I think.
that was the plan, Guillermo del toro wanted to make only two films but the studio executives demanded 3 because they wanted another trilogy
It probably would have been best as two movies. Honestly I never had as much of an issue with the hobbit as most people and I actually quite enjoyed it. I remember looking at a list of differences between the books and the movie, and other than the added scenes most of the differences to me were not taht huge of a deal. Oh not saying there were not issues, but eh worked good enough for me. I get the issues with it sure and I would even agree with some, but I hardly think it was the travesty people act like.
When people go so over the top like they did with the hobbit, it undercuts when the real garbage comes out like rings of power.
I plan on watching eventually. I love the book but I was just surprised they couldn’t do it in two movies at most.
Yeah, that is just it.... they totally could have and probably would have been better as such.