The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I know this is super old, but I just watched these and I feel the need to talk about it.

I liked Lord of the Rings fine, but I'm not a regular rewatcher.  I never read those books.  I don't watch the extended editions, and I don't particularly care for Peter Jackson's directorial style.  The way he frames fantasy action is off-putting to me.  That said, they're still well cast, acted, have good set pieces and world building.  They're good movies, even if they're not my jam.

I watched the first of the three Hobbit movies in the theater and thought it was boring as hell.  It's really long, nothing really happens, and it ends in the middle of the story.  It just didn't work for me at all.  But also, the action is bad -- everything is so jarring looking and the camera is flipping and flailing all around in a way that doesn't look natural.  Like, you'll have a regular scene with two characters and then as soon as they start fighting something, the camera looks like it's on a roller-coaster.  Everything looks like a fake cut-scene.

Since I saw that first movie so many years ago, I have read the Hobbit with my daughter during COVID.  I watched the 2nd two movies over the last week on HBO Max.

The middle section was actually OK.  It has all the same problems as before.  There's way too much stuff in it.  For a movie that should focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves, it's constantly leaving its story to so side-missions for other characters, like Gandalf or Elves.   I am not even critical of stuff that was added, since I think there are elements of the book that won't translate to a movie well and you need other ways to relate to and differentiate your characters, but also because you need action beats and everything can't just be exposition dumps.

I thought the 3rd movie was also pretty boring.  It's all CG fighting.

This is just way, way too much movie for a 300 page children's book.  I mean...it's 8 hours long.  It's probably 3-4 hours longer than it really needs to be.  Like, it's so incredibly bloated that I can't comprehend how it got made.

Every character that can be a person in a mask needs to be.  The main villain Orcs are a CG mess.  Even if you want to make CG armies, at least make the recognizable guys a dude in prosthetics.  The camera needs to be dumbed down to look like it's being filmed, even when it's not.  The more fantastical the elements in the frame are, the more boring the shot should be.  Cut out most of the fat that's not related to the main quest.

I suppose this could be 2 movies....just Part One and Part Two like Dune was, recently, even if it just stops.

They do dishes for 20 minutes in the first movie.  It's crazy how bloated it is.

Normally I wouldn't care, but this just feels so much like it was a money-grab to turn something into three movies.  It's a shame that such a classic story will likely never be tackled again on film.

The Hobbit should have been one 3-hour movie.  It's WAY too bloated, and consequently, it's quite forgettable.

I saw all six movies in the theater.

I tried to watch the first one, but it was way too slow. 

I don't know if a 3 hour movie is the best format or not.  3 hour movies are slogs.  It's a lot to ask of an audience.  At its heart, the Hobbit is an adventure tale.  I think that 3 hours of adventure is a big ask.  I think you'd have to rush and it would still seem slow...almost the worst of both worlds.  I think that padding out some of the action beats like they did, but making two movies at 1:50 - 2:20 each might have been more palatable.

I just can't do them.

I loved the books, huge Tolkien fan, although I have to say I couldn't get through The Silmarillion.

The 3 Lord of the Rings movies were great -- perfect Xmas movies that I saw with my Dad and brother (and anyone else in the family who wanted to go). We did the same with the new Star Wars movies and The Hobbit. Basically 9 years right there, although I'm not sure my Dad was alive for the final Hobbit movie.

That said, The Hobbit movies were shit. In every way.

I see that there's a 4-hour (essentially one movie, but split into two parts with an intermission) cut made by a fan.

These fan edits are crazy.  ...professional level.  He digitally removes characters and effects from scenes in some places.

Like, Radagast is removed from the movie entirely, so he's digitally removed from the eagles when they fly over in the 3rd movie.  Also, the barrel escape sequence doesn't have orcs shooting bows, so he digitally removes all the arrows.  And the scene where Smaug is shot, the guy's kid doesn't help him, so he's painted out of the shot and replaced with a giant piece of wood that the guy uses to stabilize his shot.  You'd never notice it, though.

From what I understand, it removes the most silly elements.  I'm still concerned at a 4 hour runtime, though.  That seems excessive.  There's also a 2 hour cut out there somewhere, but I think that might be too short.

The guy who made the 4-hour version said that he molded it in the same style as the LOTR extended editions.  I'd have preferred that he modeled it after the theatrical cut and gotten it closer to 3 hours.


I have seen several fan edits of the Phantom Menace and in many cases, they're better than the regular film.  Just cutting out goofy shit that undercuts each scene goes a long way.

I like the Phantom Menace fanedit where 1) all of the alien races (especially Jar Jar) speak alien languages with subtitles, and 2) Jar Jar thinks he is a Han Solo-style space pirate who continually has to save these bumbling Jedi.

Yes, I saw that one.

It fundamentally changes things too much for it to be an entry in the saga (like, you can't just swap it in to replace what's there).  But it's a better movie.

There are some simpler ones, like the Phantom Edit that just remove as much bullshit as possible without really making it a different story or different characters.  It's just a tighter movie will less redundancy and not as much stepping in turds and falling over.

I've never read the books, nor watched any of these movies; it's really not the genre I normal watch.  That said I recently noticed they were on Prime (I think Prime has a new related movie), so I was going to watch them.  But after seeing these reviews I'm thinking maybe not.  Perhaps if there is a rainy saturday or sunday I'll watch while doing laundry or some other chore.

Have you seen the Lord of the Rings movies?

As for the Hobbit, if you can binge them at home or start/stop and pick them up later if you want, the running time isn't as big a deal. 

It's not so much that the movies themselves are so incredibly terrible -- it's just that it's a weird decision that they were made this way.  I think they were just released at a time when that CG-style was prevalent and there was studio expectation to extend the franchise at any cost.

The new The Rings of Power show on Prime has been pretty good so far.  The effects and style are better -- it's the most expensive show ever created, but since it doesn't have a bunch of big name actors, the money is on the screen.  There's also less CG-jerk-off.

I've seen the movies at least a couple of times each. The running time was never an issue for me. I am really enjoying the new series "The Rings of Power" as well.  I am a bit of a Tolkien junkie though, and read all the books long before the movies started coming out.

Yeah, no I haven't seen any of the Lord of the Ring movies; I was thinking of watching them because they have them on Prime now; ostensibly because they have the new show.

Those original Lord of the Rings movies are good.  I'm not even a fan of that stuff, necessarily, but they're really well done.  The Hobbit movies seem to stick to the same template and style, but the material just isn't enough to fill three movies.

But yeah....I mean...that last LOTR movie won best picture.  It's no slouch.  Those have immense popularity for a reason.  You should definitely give them a go.  Also, I think that we take for granted what Elves, Dwarves, etc....what all that is.  LOTR pretty much made that stuff.  Dungeons and Dragons is essentially based off of it.  We owe a lot to it.

My wife and I are really enjoying The Rings of Power. We're watching the Game of Thrones show as well (House of the Dragon), but so far Rings has been much more captivating. It's also just awesomely shot and you definitely see where all the money went. (I am getting tired of having to subscribe to a thousand different streaming services, though.)

I'm watching and enjoying both of these, but I seem to be more invested in House of the Dragon, so far.  It's the one that I seem to get to faster.

The LoTR movies were epic in every way. Everyone should see them at least once. I've tried to get my wife to watch, but she won't watch anything that's fantasy. I had started to read the LoTR books but only made it about 1/2 through them, but fortunately I didn't need to have read the books for those movies.

The Hobbit on the other hand I think requires that you have some investment in the movies already to enjoy them. Maybe if you read the book for example. I had read the Hobbit and really enjoyed the movies. For what it's worth I LOVED the Bilbo character MUCH better than I liked the Frodo Baggins character and I also preferred that there was much less of Gollum's character in the Hobbit as he became annoying after a while in my opinion in the LoTR so I think there's a give and take to the two trilogies. Obviously LoTR is better, but Hobbit is not all bad. It's also not like there's no parts of LoTR that are bad, there's just a lot more good in those films.