|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Dec 31 2019, 7:50pm
Post #1 of 78
(4892 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"The Hobbit" films ranked as among the worst out of 5,000+ films of the 2010s.
|
Can't Post
|
|
Vulture.com has attempted to rank more than 5000 movies released over the past decade. You can read the entire list here. Any such project inevitably comes with a degree of silliness, but even I, no fan of The Hobbit films, think it is beyond ridiculous to rank them in (or near) the bottom one percent. Here is their entry:
5,254–5,256. The Hobbit Trilogy (but mostly just The Hobbit)
It’s not just that it was an utterly pointless project — taking J.R.R. Tolkien’s delightful, slim adventure and giving it the portentous, lumbering, interminable Lord of the Rings treatment, thereby somehow devaluing that earlier trilogy as well. It’s not even that ghastly high-frame-rate presentation that Peter Jackson tried to get away with, which made everything onscreen look like a washed-out making-of video. It was also just a *&^%$#@ terrible movie, with zero narrative momentum, thoroughly forgettable characters, and — since they chopped up a tight little narrative into three parts — no decent resolution. A case study in how not to make a movie.
For what it's worth, the film ranked in the absolute last position is Avengers: Endgame.
Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.
But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Lorien
Dec 31 2019, 10:55pm
Post #2 of 78
(4733 views)
Shortcut
|
that excerpt from the article is pretty on point. As far as worst movies of the past decade, I haven't seen all that many, but PJ's Hobbit certainly ranks up there on my personal list of worst movies of all time.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Jan 1 2020, 3:01am
Post #3 of 78
(4709 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Meh, stupid list based on your description
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would rank them as some of the worst I've attended but there were a lot of movies in the 2010s that I didn't even bother going to based solely on the trailers or what I saw of the descriptions. I preferred Avengers: Inifinity War to End Game but any list that ranks End Game at the bottom, below Captain Marvel, Terminator Dark Fate, and the 2016 version of Ghostbusters just isn't worth looking at.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Jan 1 2020, 10:52am
Post #4 of 78
(4673 views)
Shortcut
|
Stupid AND pointless list. The specific points raised against The Hobbit trilogy also seem to be merely parroted from around the dark places of the Web. 
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Jan 1 2020, 10:53am)
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Lorien
Jan 1 2020, 3:19pm
Post #5 of 78
(4635 views)
Shortcut
|
those particular criticisms are fairly common on nearly all mainstream platforms.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Jan 1 2020, 6:04pm
Post #6 of 78
(4623 views)
Shortcut
|
Smaug's animation, an Unexpected Party, Riddles in the Dark, Smaug and Bilbo inside Erebor, and Thorin's death ALONE should elevate it much higher in that list than that! IMHO, of course...that's simply my opinion.
Yeah, there are some things I REALLY would have done differently (Alfrid in BO5A, Legolas and Tauriel, and scrap that stupid love triangle). But to call it one of the worst out of 5,000 films is taking it too far, I think.
My writing and novels:
My Hobbit Fanfiction
My historical novel print and kindle version
My historical novels ebook version compatible with all ereaders
You can also find my novel at most major book retailers online (and for those outside the US who prefer a print book, you can find the print version at Book Depository). Search "Amazing Grace Amanda Longpre'" to find it.
Happy reading everyone!
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jan 2 2020, 2:35pm
Post #7 of 78
(4381 views)
Shortcut
|
Not really – it’s more “meh”.
I just glanced at the top and bottom of this list. I don’t go to many movies so I hadn’t even heard of, never mind, seen many of the first thirty of their best. Some of the films at the bottom may not have been great movies but could hardly be placed amongst the worst of the decade. So meh.
As for the Hobbit movies, it was just the same old stuff: Peter Jackson going back to Middle-earth, the change from two-to-three films, the 48 fps. Yawn. I’m surprised that “butter scraped over too much bread” wasn’t mentioned.
I’d say that what I saw of the list, both the best and the worst, reflects a good deal of prejudice and pretension as well as a desire to be edgy and kewl.
I wonder where LotR would have placed.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 2 2020, 7:40pm
Post #8 of 78
(4342 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not sure why "the same old stuff" shouldn't apply in restrospect.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Surely in December 2029, people will be listing Cats as one of the worst films of the 2020s, and the reasons they give will be the very same reasons that Cats is being savaged right now.
Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.
But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Jan 2 2020, 10:14pm
Post #9 of 78
(4337 views)
Shortcut
|
strikes me as meaning no more than that there is a critical consensus about them.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 3 2020, 7:00am
Post #10 of 78
(4293 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I haven't seen enough acclaimed 2010s films.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Too few to be confident of my favorite of that decade, certainly, though I might pick The Death of Stalin or Arrival.
For the previous decade my choice would probably be The Son's Room, from Italy.
Today I was thinking about my favorite film of the 1990s: Life and Nothing More, aka And Life Goes On (the original Farsi title is Zendegi va digar hich), an Iranian faux-documentary directed by Abbas Kiarostami in 1991. It's the middle installment of his unplanned "Koker Trilogy" (which recently has been released on DVD and Blu-ray by the Criterion), book-ended by Where is My Friend's House? (1987) and Through the Olive Trees (1994). It's about a filmmaker who returns to the remote village where he filmed a children's movie in order to learn whether his amateur cast survived the devastating 1990 earthquake that killed 30,000 people.
Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.
But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Jan 3 2020, 7:11am
Post #11 of 78
(4288 views)
Shortcut
|
I have never seen those before, at least:
''somehow devaluing that earlier trilogy as well'' -- this objection doesn't even make sense if you think about it.
''It’s not even that ghastly high-frame-rate presentation that Peter Jackson tried to get away with, which made everything onscreen look like a washed-out making-of video'' -- this one may have been throw around before, but it's not popular AFAIK.
''thoroughly forgettable characters'' -- never seen this either. Couldn't they give an instance?
''no decent resolution'' -- no idea where this has come from either, and it also doesn't make sense.
Plus, the ''popular'' points are mostly made by trolls such as certain members here from the past, who seem to have some grudge against the idea of someone even daring to like these movies, which I personally find wonderfully made and with deep respect for the source material (plus I paid 300 bucks for all of the six, so obviously I will defend them to death) -- in my experience, at least. The casual audiences seem to have much more favourably views of the trilogy as well, so the ''Hobbit haters'' crowd are a minority, ''universally'' speaking. It's mostly on the Internet that we such this kind of buffoonery.
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Jan 3 2020, 7:15am)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Jan 3 2020, 7:20am
Post #12 of 78
(4288 views)
Shortcut
|
they are tired and long-refuted arguments made ages ago. Hence his statement. Also, Cats is actually, technically, from 2019.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Jan 3 2020, 7:24am
Post #13 of 78
(4290 views)
Shortcut
|
these particular movies are polarizing, there's no ''consensus'' by a long shot.
Aaaaaand a ''consensus'' means nothing because the number of people who hold to an argument has no effect whatsoever on whether it's true or even valid in the first place.
* * *
(Sorry for the triple posting, by the way. Too lazy to multi-quote, if that's possible in this board's platform).
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Jan 3 2020, 7:26am)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Jan 3 2020, 8:46am
Post #14 of 78
(4274 views)
Shortcut
|
It's mostly on the Internet that we such this kind of buffoonery.
It should have read ''[..]that we see this[..]'' I typed an extra ''such'' -- dunno why.
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Lorien
Jan 3 2020, 2:41pm
Post #15 of 78
(4243 views)
Shortcut
|
anyone with an opinion that is not complementary towards PJ's movies is a buffoon? And of course the vast majority of opinions on movies (and basically everything else) will be on the internet...positive or negative. However, I have to say, most people who I have spoken to outside of the internet who had an opinion on PJ's Hobbit, were disappointed in how it turned out, for various different reasons, and some more than others, and now that being said, I have never met a PJ Hobbit superfan out in the wild.
(This post was edited by 2ndBreffest on Jan 3 2020, 2:52pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Jan 4 2020, 10:33am
Post #16 of 78
(4130 views)
Shortcut
|
anyone with an opinion that is not complementary towards PJ's movies is a buffoon?
In my experience at least, yes they are. Maybe they are not like this the whole time, but they display lack of basic critical skills and attention when commenting on these movies.
And of course the vast majority of opinions on movies (and basically everything else) will be on the internet...positive or negative.
At least where I live, a lot of people don't express their views online, and many are largely indifferent to PJ's Hobbit -- especially now, more than 5 years later.
However, I have to say, most people who I have spoken to outside of the internet who had an opinion on PJ's Hobbit, were disappointed in how it turned out, for various different reasons, and some more than others
We have different experiences then, and both of them should be respected. I have met both people who like and dislike PJ's Hobbit, but not a single person for reasons that are usually given here (i.e., fidelity to the book, etc.).
, and now that being said, I have never met a PJ Hobbit superfan out in the wild.
Well, somebody I saw back in 2014 on the way to the movie theater had a copy of Tolkien's book on the hands while about to enter the room, during a marathon of the first 2 movies before the final release of TBOTFA. So, a ''superfan''? Of both mediums, by the way. There's fanatics and fanatics. 
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Lorien
Jan 4 2020, 11:38am
Post #17 of 78
(4125 views)
Shortcut
|
ok, thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 4 2020, 3:06pm
Post #19 of 78
(4090 views)
Shortcut
|
I do think that critics should be able to acknowledge the high production values displayed in the Hobbit films even if they found the processes utilized as displeasing to them. I realize thatt the high frame-rate coupled with the 3D was disconcerting to some people. It actually worked to the advantage of my wife, who normally is susceptible to headaches brought on by 3D movies. My own problems with the films stem from story-telling decisions and from how the films work as adaptations; sometimes those issues cross over into both categories.
The love story between Tauriel and Kili has been one of the most contentious issues in the fandom. I don't think it's really fair to call it a love triangle; any potential romantic feelings between Tauriel and Legolas are never made explicit, and are actually vague enough that I've seen some posters deny that the films even hint at them. Legolas' feelings for Tauriel could be presented as brotherly concern and it would not change the movies one bit. Any blooming love between the Elf-maid and the Dwarf-prince remains in its infancy and is not given time to develop. Personally, that doesn't bother me too much as the pairing never really worked for me and I thought it was more distracting than anything else. However, I"m not about to attack anyone who liked those aspects of the films.
Do I think that Peter Jackson's penchant for physical comedy went too far at times? Yes. I didn't need to see smoke coming out of Radagast's ears or Dain riding a comically small pig. Yes, I would have liked dwarfier-looking Dwarves, but at least Thorin and Company didn't look like they had sneaked out of the universe of Time Bandits (with maybe an exception or two).
I do not want to turn this into a rant, so I'll stop here. It's not like I haven't made my opinions know over the years.
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jan 4 2020, 4:27pm
Post #20 of 78
(4080 views)
Shortcut
|
But not only do I disagree with those criticisms, I’m bored by them.
I had thought the other criticisms too inane to mention: the 48 FPS is a matter of opinion and taste (I liked it), there were many vivid characterizations in TH movies and there was certainly resolution to the story.
As for somehow devaluing the previous trilogy – I have long been mystified by book fans claiming that the movies had ruined the books for them, but the LotR trilogy? Did the Star Wars prequels devalue the original films?
As Okatu-Sempai said, at the very least critics should appreciate the high production values, which match if not exceed those of LotR. Maybe not the special effects or even the writing and direction, if they are not to one’s taste, but the cinematography, sound, music, sets and locations, costumes and accoutrements and, not least, the acting are outstanding.
I’ve never understood why fans and critics embraced the use of cutting edge technology in making LotR but rejected the more advanced tech on The Hobbit. Maybe it has something to do with the current fashion for retro technology.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Jan 4 2020, 9:54pm
Post #21 of 78
(4049 views)
Shortcut
|
the "more advanced" tech in TH wasn't as good, or didn't produce as good a result. LR was shot mostly on actual sets; Ian McKellen was actually driven to tears on TH, trying to "act" with a tennis ball on a stcik on a bare soundstage in front of a green screen. Nor did the CGI measure up, ten years of 'advances' notwithstanding: the Azanulbizar sequence and the 5A had none of the weight and heft of the CGI hordes of the LR prologue or Helm's Deep: they falt fake, weightless, like videogame enemies.
I will maintain that practical effects look better than CGI and should always be used except where flatly impossible. Programmed animation almost inevitably loses its tether to physical reality and produces cartoon physics, no matter how 'lifelike' the static models and lighting effects are.
Which was better: the OT muppet Yoda, or the prequel CGI Yoda?
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Lorien
Jan 4 2020, 10:15pm
Post #22 of 78
(4036 views)
Shortcut
|
"Newer" doesn't automatically equal "better". The higher-tech CGI in TH just looked ugly and not nearly as convincing as that used in LotR...and it was way overused. I get that they were trying to push the envelope and go for something new, but it just didn't work here.
|
|
|
kzer_za
Lorien
Jan 4 2020, 10:27pm
Post #23 of 78
(4035 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Worth noting that the beloved "baby Yoda" from Mandalorian
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is mostly a real puppet.
But I do think the critiques of CG in The Hobbit, while valid, is sometimes exaggerated. Yes it does go overboard at times such as goblintown or stupid Smaug chase, but there are still a number of gorgeous landscape shots and some impressive elaborate sets such as Laketown and Dale (which they fully built for 30 seconds in the prologue and then destroyed for the ruins set). Admittedly B5A really pushes to absurd heights in some sequences, like that infamous Legolas shot.
(This post was edited by kzer_za on Jan 4 2020, 10:41pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jan 5 2020, 5:05pm
Post #24 of 78
(3932 views)
Shortcut
|
All this stuff about CGI versus is a matter of personal taste and opinion and mine are different from yours. The Hobbit movies look good to me – beautiful in fact. I've always thought that viewers' feelings about individual elements of the films were much influenced by their overall feelings about each movie as a whole, positive in my case, negative in others.
I’m well aware of Ian McKellen’s difficulties on the green screen stage, and similar, if less extreme, issues for Mikael Persbrandt, especially because I just finished my most recent rewatch of The Hobbit and all its appendices a couple of weeks ago. I’m well aware of the use of real sets and locations versus green screen, people in suits versus digital Orcs , the extensive use of motion capture and so on.
Does anyone complain about the cave troll in FotR or Gollum being created digitally, or Shelob or bear Beorn or Smaug? Is it just Orcs? Green screen was used often in LotR for set and location extensions, at Helm’s Deep for instance. One of LotR’s big innovations was the development of software, now widely used, to create huge armies.
That being said, I’ve never been really able to make up my mind whether I prefer Orcs as people in suits, who are so obviously people in suits, or digital orcs which appear less human but are so obviously animated despite the use of motion capture for many of the characters. Perhaps I’m good with both.
Much as I love the landscapes of New Zealand as we see them in both trilogies, given the huge problems caused by the county’s changeable and sometimes extreme weather when both LotR and TH were shooting on location, I could hardly blame Peter Jackson if he never left the studio.
If I cared what critics think, I wouldn’t have been a lover of Tolkien’s books for almost thirty-five years before FotR was released, because I knew few other fans in those days. Come to think of it, it was just around this time of year in 1967 - the Christmas holidays - that I first read LotR, loaned to me by my high school English teacher.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Jan 5 2020, 5:19pm
Post #25 of 78
(3934 views)
Shortcut
|
For Gollum, Andy Serkis was on set, as Gollum, wearing a mo-cap suit and acting the scene. That's vastly different from the TH approach of "pretend there's somebody there while a grip shouts lines from off-camera."
|
|
|
|
|
1
