Jan 7, 3:07pm
Watched that somewhat amusing video Ė anything can be made ridiculous when itís repeated over and over. However that makes it a misrepresentative and inaccurate sampling of The Hobbit movies.
The Hobbit novel is a light, funny, sometimes deliberately silly, almost fairy tale that suddenly turns epic and darker at Erebor. Unlike the more weighty and serious LotR films that are treated as history and only are leavened by moments of humour, The Hobbit movies, especially at first, are more intentionally humourous and are meant to be FUN. You know, fun. Many of the action sequences reflect that.
Of course all that changes abruptly once Fili is killed, and the already much darker tone of the films turns tragic, though humour creeps back in through the tears as Bilbo says goodbye to the Dwarves and returns home to the auction. But the bitter-sweet ending is definitely not as bitter as that of LotR.
I get it. One of the reasons that some here dislike TH movies is that they find at least some of the big action sequences in TH movies objectionable, because for them those sequences are too big, too silly, shouldn't exist at all or all of the above. Fair enough. But did anyone expect Smaug to be on set during his conversation with Bilbo? Of course Martin Freeman had to use his imagination and acting skills Ė as actors do - but he did it on a vast and beautifully dressed set with Smaugís dialogue performed by dialect coach Leith McPherson. She did a pretty good job. Elsewhere the actors were just off camera speaking their lines for their doubles or to their fellow actors. How should the film makers have created the Great Goblin? The trolls? The spiders? We can argue about stuff like people in suits versus digital Orcs forever; it is simply a matter of preference.
One of the few quibbles I had with Fellowship of the Ring the first time I saw it was how small conflicts in the book had been amped up, as in Balinís Tomb and Amon Hen, or invented altogether, like the wizardís duel. I soon came to understand and appreciate them and similar sequences in the subsequent films, and to recognize that this is PJís style. Many people dislike the confrontation between Thorin and Smaug in Erebor and it could have been done in many different ways. But a confrontation there was going to be because The Hobbit movie Dwarves are more like the Dwarves of LotR, like Gimli, than the cowardly weaklings of the Hobbit book. It would have been unsatisfying and unsympathetic if the former had behaved as the book Dwarves did.
Places like the Goblin tunnels, the Woodland Realm and Erebor had to be created digitally because they were too vast to be actual sets. There was no location in New Zealand that provided the exact geography that PJ wanted for the final battle. On the other hand, Bag End, Radagastís house, Rivendell, the Prancing Pony, Beornís house, Mirkwood, Dale, Laketown and parts of the Woodland Realm and Erebor were real, created in great detail and with great care by the design and fabrication people. All, whether real or digital, are amazing.
I love TH movies and though I have some quibbles and criticisms, the physical look of the films and the use of special effects are not amongst them.