Peter Jackson directs "The Hobbit"

Having recently rewatched the original trilogy, I have to agree that most of the effects there still hold up. Partially because they were a lot more restrained. The invented stuff not from the books was generally a bit more over the top gonzo, and there's a lot more invented stuff in the Hobbit trilogy.

On missing the point: One of the themes of the Hobbit is the tragedy of war. One of the themes of Middle Earth, arguably: Tolkien started working on it in the battle lines of World War I. The films kind of miss that.

I think the film, especially the 3rd installment, depicts PLENTY of the tragedy of war!!

I have been holding off one rewatching any of the Hobbit movies until the three Extended Editions come out then I plan on watching them.

As my memory fades of the movies I think my opinions have rose, probably because I only remember the really good parts (Riddles in the Dark man, damn that was good).

Gremlin wrote:

The films kind of miss that.

I didn't get that impression at all.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

The films kind of miss that.

I didn't get that impression at all.

Compared to the book? I'll freely admit that I'm currently going off of my memories of not having read the book in a few years and only having seen the Hobbit films once.

(And that I thought the films were alright alternate-universe Middle Earth films, perfect for inspiring your next D&D campaign.)

The films go about it in different ways, because they're films, but generally speaking, I feel like the films are suffused with a sort of melancholy about the old world dying and the tragic futility of war. It goes about it in the same way the books often do: worship of the heroes and their martial exploits, but how sad that this had to happen at all. Some of the more obvious bits about the consequences of war are replaced with more character-focused versions (the Scouring of the Shire, for example), but those themes are very much present in all six films.

There is a "Truffaut was right" aspect to how the film series treats war, which is pretty unavoidable. But I think Battle fumbled particularly badly, mainly and probably because pounding home that the battle was pointless and wasteful at the end of a two and a half hour movie named for that battle risked a whole bunch of the audience saying "Yeah, no sh*t."

I have been thinking a lot about the third movie and I think part of the problem I have has nothing to do with any lofty discussion about battles and whether or not they are good or bad or worthless or unavoidable.

I really strongly dislike how detached the Battle of the Five Armies feels from the more intimate action up on the mountain. They essentially have nothing to do with each other, which makes the large action feel worthless because it doesn't even play a role in the final climax of the story we have been following all along, the journey or Thorin and the company.

This isn't something that happens in the previous trilogy. There is definitely a focus on our heroes during the battles but it is always couched very firmly within the actual battle. Aragorn and Gimli at the doors of Helm's Deep, Faramir in Osgiliath, Gandalf and Pippin in Minas Tirith, etc. etc. The only instance where it truly feels apart is, I guess, the Eowyn v Witchking confrontation, but during that you can literally see the battle happening back behind. All of these instances make it very clear that our heroes are performing actions essential to the battle as a whole, they aren't a sideshow.

I am working off of several month old memories but all I remember about the lead up to the Thorin v Pale Orc confrontation is taking our entire cast of heroes and running them away from the battle to pursue a vendetta.

I realize this is a very particular complaint, but it has spent far too much time in my head today so I had to write it down.