A lot of Théoden fans, huh? 1. It might not have been clear in the video, but don't mistake 'least favorite' for 'dislike.' I love Bernard Hill's performance, and I actually like Théoden quite a bit, just not as much as other characters. A 95 may not be a 100 but it's still an A, right? 2. I understand that his character is meant to represent human fallibility. I just think it's a little thick sometimes. It's not bad writing or anything, it's just a little eye-rolling. 3. And that's the point of Part One of this video. The personal nitpicks you can find in your favorite media after watching it more than a hundred times are not the same as fundamental flaws like in The Hobbit.
Yeah, I think Theoden plays well into the theme of "sins of the father" that is prevalent in the lord of the rings, pretty much all of the Kings are highly flawed and some way have to pass the torch to the next generation (usually through death).
I think it was nice how they made him seem afraid, insecure. But that, with help from other characters, he becomes better (slowly but surely), in which he reaches the height of his character progression with the charge of the Rohirrim and his valiant death
Also, what exactly was the alternative to sending his people to Helm's Deep? He's outnumbered 33:1 in soldiers and he's got a huge number of civilians with him, going to Helm's Deep is completely logical. Marching on Isengard would be suicide, marching on Gondor would be suicide, wasting time trying to recall Éomer would mean being besieged in Edoras instead of Helm's Deep and he doesn't have time to rally his banners. The advice Theoden gets is illogical. You'll note that "What would you have me do? Their courage hangs by a thread" is actually a line intended for Aragorn's character growth, so he could learn better what it means to be King. Aragorn may understand the situation but he doesn't know how to lead an entire people out of it as he's bleeding the morale of the people around him by blurting out hard truths.
Theoden was the perfect fit for that role. I loved how he was portrayed in the films. Aragorn is the one who has to be a perfect king. Theoden is sometimes rational, sometimes emotional. But he is a desperate man in a desperate land. The character has many flaws and perfectly portrayed.
thanks to Lindsay Ellis that "why does it hurt so much" scene will forever be seared into my mind. it has reached a semi-meme status, a weird in-between place where I feel like it should've become a meme but I don't think it ever did.
Absolutely agree. That part of the video seemed super out of place. Like he was just pointing out good writing that shows Theoden is a flawed person, and contrasting it against how awesome Aragorn is? That's exactly what they were going for lol. And his arc is spread across two films, so...
Exactly. Theoden is there to show the flaws of the kings of men and why things have gotten so bad. He is meant to contrast Aragon who is genuinely heroic, compassionate and destined to become the King of Gondor.
You hit the nail on the head in regards to the characters. Bilbo, and by extension the audience, really doesn't get to know any of the dwarves. It's one of the big reasons why Hobbit feels more like "store brand Lord of the Rings" than anything. I mean, sure, The Fellowship has less characters with 9, compared to the 13 Dwarves in Hobbit (with Bilbo and Gandalf bringing the party up to 15). But The Hobbit Trilogy is about 9 hours in length and most Dwarves get less time to develop their characters than others. We spend more time with Bard, with Tranduil. Hell, we spend more time getting to know Galadriel and she wasn't even in the damn book. Watching the movie, you really get the picture that the studios and Jackson didn't really care to make a "The Hobbit" movie. What they really wanted was a prequel to Lord of the Rings. While The Hobbit does take place prior to the events of LOTR, it's not a prequel. The events don't really lead into the plot of the trilogy. The big piece that does, the one ring, wasn't even "the one ring" in the original Hobbit publication. Tolkien hadn't come up with the idea yet. It was just a magic ring that was useful.
Truth be told i had a talk with a friend after the last movie on the hobbit trilogy. It was around this point we talked about the pros and cons of the movie, but one thing me an him agreed i think the best way too do this was if the trilogy was more of a 3 season TV show. With 10 episodes each per season, they will have too cut down on the CGi a bit except on the dragons case. It would have given enough time too know the rest of Dwarven cast. An maybe expand on characters that were left out.
@felman87 I think its hard to go back and film a prequel trilogy using actors from the original series. In the LoTR, Gandalf tells Bilbo "you haven't aged a day", yet Ian Holm and Martin Freeman don't even look like the same charatcer, and even Ian's inclusion in the beginning he looks nothing like he did in LoTR. The only characters that look similar are Gandalf and Saruman.
nop idk think people have read the hobbit they just say it to be cool store brand lord of thr ings bruh did even read the hobbit they are literally the same chatrcaters god read book leaase
HOLY CRAP! You were right! I don't remember any of these scenes from the Hobbit and it just came out a few year ago while I remember EVERY scene from LOTR and it came out almost 20 years ago.. The Hobbit was so forgettable
The opposite for me... I remember more of the hobbit than any of lotr. maybe because lotr is just soo loong. but I love hobbit, ive always loved hobbit, there's something incredibly magical about it for me
It's weird, but I find the wizard fight in Fellowship badass. I'm not entirely sure why; perhaps it's the dialogue that builds up to it? It's just something about two of the most powerful players in Middle Earth having a wizard fight is very cool to me.
The only scene I truly remember from The Hobbit is the Acorn scene because it’s the only scene that really captured the feeling of the Shire portion of Fellowship which I interpreted as what the Hobbit (book) is supposed to be like: genuine, heartfelt and sincere.
I loved this video, but I have to disagree when it comes to Theoden.I loved Theoden. He is the human weakness and the weakness of the intristically good in the story, and he plays the part of "good but weak willed" very well. He is the more complicated contrast to so many of our noble, always right characters.
14:15 holy shit does this cut just completely obliterate Legolas's power level. This is the problem with trying to make the prequel bigger and badder than the original trilogy, because now the guy who bragged about killing 42 uruks at Helm's Deep could apparently waste like 200 orcs in 10 seconds 60 years earlier.
"The Lord of the Rings never uses titles for dates or settings" except for when the theatrical cut of Fellowship (not the Extended version) followed its prologue with "60 years later", which was paralleled by "60 years earlier" in Unexpected Journey.
Hey just wanted to say that your re-edit of the big action sequence with the dragon literally blew my mind. Something tells me that's how it was written until they split the movie.
I've made a personal re-edit of the movie and I can verifiably say that most of the late-game/re-shoot additions are really obvious. The scene in lakedown where Legolas and Tauriel fight a bunch of orcs inside Bard's house was never supposed to have Legolas at all - the elves are fighting six feet apart from each other in an enclosed space and they don't appear onscreen together for a single shot of it.
Yet another great video...they keep getting better! Great comparisons and re-edits. You make connections and so many great points about things I can't always put my finger on. And you do it all with an intelligent sense of humor threaded throughout. Not to mention the creative graphics and seamless transitions. Great Job!
Just saw this and went back to check out your Hobbit Intervention video. Wow! I've seen so many breakdowns and fan-edits of the Hobbit that I thought there was nothing left to say, but your observations are so fresh and on-point. Even with topics that have been discussed to death (like the failure to present the dwarfs as interesting characters) you presented the case for how they could have been grouped together better as family units, which I had never thought of before. I also appreciated the thoroughness of your editing. You backed up every one of your points with a relevant clip or comparison.
I love this guy. Best movie analysis out there. No one else goes this deep. I just love how you analyze movies like I analyzed novels in my AP English see class. It's such a cool idea. I wish we lived in a higher IQ society, where a LOT of people would have thought on films as deep and well thought out as your thoughts.
I can see why he wouldn't like him. He's an old man that got caught up in some nasty shit, but couldn't bring himself to adapt to it. So over time Aragorn had to drag him kicking and screaming into the current times. By the end, he did what he needed to do and redeemed himself, even in his own eyes. He's not the most likeable character, but he did have a hell of a character arc.
@@realK1 you fail to understand cinematography , you can have a excellent actor in a terrible role which in turn makes the character being portrayed terrible.
sam falling asleep during the smaug sequence had me dying lmfaoooo i love the hobbit trilogy but you made some really good points about its flaws. i really wish they'd had the same opportunities to make it as great as lotr...
Wait, one dwarf really had an axe in his head? I've watched all three films and didn't know. Was the scene where he removes it in the extended cut, because I could swear I don't know anything about it. EDIT: After seeing a few scenes from the extended cut, I'm just happy, I only watched the theatrical release.
Strong disagree on Theoden. I always felt that his main driving force was shame. He had failed to rule his realm well, his son had died, he was always a step away from giving in to despair. Most of this wasn't even his own fault, but he probably couldn't see that. So he was desperate for a chance at glory and to save his legacy. He chose Helm's Deep because it was a place of his people and his ancestors, something he knew and could cling to. He's almost a death seeker, wanting to die gloriously than live peacefully, which is why he says of his ancestors, "in whose mighty company I shall no longer feel ashamed".
It's kind of funny how the movie insists that going to Helm's Deep is a bad choice when in fact in the novel and the real world, getting yourself to a fortress is a far better way to defend yourself from an enemy that has a far bigger army than yours than risking battle on an open field.
i aim to be open towards criticism of films that i have cherished so dearly for years, but i still struggle to agree with a lot of the comments made by those who dislike the trilogy because, personally, i adore the films. of course, i can agree that ‘the lord of the rings’ was a cinematic masterpiece (being as perfect as the films still are, due to how well most of the content has aged) and to replicate their unique charm would be impossible. i am aware, even as novels, of how ‘the lord of the rings’ and ‘the hobbit’ differ - regarding target audiences and themes - so even then, comparing the two is unfair. it would be foolish to argue that ‘the hobbit‘ has the same “aura”, if you will, as that of ‘the lord of the rings’, but to mark the films off as disasters would be wrong. one factor that definitely separates ‘the hobbit’ from ‘the lord of the rings’ is the lack of nostalgia. i hope you’ll agree with me when i say that coming back to a film after many months (or even years) only adds to the love you hold for it, which is certainly the case with ‘the lord of the rings’. i find myself laughing harder at jokes, crying harder at deaths, and marvelling all the more deeply at the stunning visuals each time i return to the films. due to the connection i have to the plot and the characters, the films are even more enjoyable. on the other hand, this feeling is much less strong for me regarding the ‘the hobbit’ films. i’m certainly not disregarding the impact that ‘the hobbit’ had on my childhood, but the slightly dated, nostalgic feeling that ‘the lord of the rings’ holds is something special. although, of course, i believe this is not as much to do with the actual content that the films include, and rather how recently they were released. but why should you expect the two trilogies to have the same “aura”, anyway? the films were made a decade apart from each other, the film industry being entirely different at the times of release, so they are not going to be the same. but one point that many argue, and is mentioned in this video, is that the character deaths and other emotional scenes of ‘the hobbit’ feel confused and fail to move their audience. personally, i disagree, as the deaths of fili, kili and thorin shall forever pain me to watch and finishing the trilogy another time always leaves me as an unresponsive, bawling mess. i’m often reluctant to watch ‘the battle of the five armies’ because of this, but i’m definitely not marking that as a bad thing. in fact, if three films manage to gift me with such an immense love for its characters, i’ll regard that as a win. i can agree with how ‘the lord of the rings’ is much better at establishing bigger roles in the plot for its characters, and fleshing them out by explaining their backstories, to emphasise their deaths. but should a film be expected to spoon-feed sympathy for its characters to its audience? boromir is a good example, in contrast with fili and kili. but even though, as individuals, the young brothers had much less of an impact on their films than boromir, as a viewer i can understand that they were a part of thorin’s company and therefore losing them, yet also reclaiming erebor as initially planned, was a painful situation. moreover, the deaths of fili, kili and thorin discontinued the line of durin and passed the right to rule to dáin ii ironfoot. to me, this is genuinely saddening, and i don’t understand how another viewer can’t relate to how each and every dwarf contributed to the family-like bond the company had, and how losing some of them is heartbreaking.
Am i the only one in defense of the "choppy slow-mo" effect? I thought i gave a sense of a danger in the distance, as Legolas could feel their presence. It wouldn't have the same effect with normal slow-mo. But yes, that Frodo trippy fever dream was bad.
I would love to find a good re-edit, as I binged a lot of Hobbit videos (Jesse and Lindsay's specifically) before I rewatchd the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I felt SO much more invested in the first few minutes of Fellowship because of the "bond" with Bilbo I had accidentally absorbed from the discussions about him and the characterization he was *supposed* to have with Gandalf and the Dwarves. I'd love to include it in my watches but I really hate about half of the Hobbit trilogy and can't see myself rewatching them like I have LOTR
I watched a fan-edit a year or so ago and it was great until the third movie began. That film is such a boring, mind-numbingly boring disaster I honestly don't know if it can be fixed.
It's a shame what became of The Hobbit. Corporate greed won over artistic vision. I had once looked forward to watching The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings back-to-back, but today I have no desire to ever revisit The Hobbit trilogy again. Great video on the matter, it was far better than the trilogy itself.
Theoden is undoubtetly one of the great characters of the movie: -he has the most extensive arc and transformation (from a lesser of son of great sires to a victorious martyr) -he has the best speech/moment of the trilogy (ride of the rohirrim) -he has the best death scene (I go to my fathers. in whose mighty company I shall not now feel ashamed) When I was a kid characters like Theoden and Boromir grated on me a little. Now I know that has more to do with how their character flaws mimic my own than them not being good characters. Watching Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli is a form of escapism. it's an idealized, mythical version of what people are supposed to be. watching characters like Boromir and Theoden is like looking into a mirror. the fact that it grates on you, that it annoys you, is part of what makes their characters effective, and their redemption so satisfying.
Great job! I watched this immediately after you first version, both made great points but I appreciated that you clarified how you think of the hobbit trilogy trilogy in the beginning.
“It’s a bad sign if I’m nodding of during exciting sequences”. You ironically said that as I woke up after nodding off during your video 😂 (No worries, I love to use video essays as background noise to fall asleep to., your work is not particularly boring)
I always enjoy a good video essayist, you are one of them. And on top of that i’ve never heard of someone with the same last name as me. But your videos are great, keep up the good work bro. 😊
i have a kind of love-hate relationship with the hobbit movies...hate, because in hindsight, i can recognize how fucking...weird and bad the stuff is that you mentioned in this video, and i kinda cringe at that now. but love, because these movies gave me so much joy when i saw them back when i was around 14, i met new friends bc of them, and i do love some of the characters...like, martin freeman as bilbo will always be great in my heart tbh. also ive read some great fanfics for the movie lmao. its complicated in my heart haha
Damn that Wilhelm scream. I blush every time I hear it and once you know it, it's impossible not to hear it. I would pay for someone to make a Wilhelm free LOTR edit. And that time it was used in the Hobbit for Thorin's father, I actually became quite angry. It's a cartoon effect. It's not a cute little movie maker inside joke. Playing a fart sound in its place would be more serious.
One mistake I noticed that bugged me. The Lord of the Rings did use one “60 years later...” title thing during Fellowship of the Ring after the prologue.
Ironically, I think every single reason you criticize Theodan are all the wrong reasons as to why he's flawed: Firstly, he definitely understands the situation that the Rohirrim face -- that's why he's so clearly unsure what to do, the magnitude of the danger and his duty are overwhelming him; if he didn't understand the danger, he'd be far more confident Concentrating in Helm's Deep is undoubtedly the wisest decision -- it forces Saruman to concentrate in turn, attacking his foe entrenched in a highly defensible position; to do otherwise would risk destroying the Rohirrim in detail as they would defend their sparse and separated settlements Additionally, I don't think he gets "cocky in battle," I always felt that scene was supposed to be him speaking to his men, bolstering their courage and morale; regardless, Theodan is anything but cocky at any point in the LotR Concerning the apparently suicidal charge at Helm's Deep -- to the Rohirrim, dying valiantly in a last, hopeless charge is effectively their ideal way to die; you're more or less quibbling with the different ways Aragorn and Theodan articulate their internal motives, as it goes back to the same place Him being reluctant to go to the aid of Gondor is completely within character, especially after narrowing surviving the battle with Saruman Finally, I cannot actually believe you think Theodan lacks the ability to rally his troops -- did we both watch the Battle of Pelennor Fields? For that matter, the people of Rohan clearly continued to revere and respect their King, even as he fell into despair and magically-aided madness; that surely shows the impact he has on the hearts and minds of his people He's undoubtedly a lesser son of greater sires -- the point is that he rises above his weaknesses and despair to become greater than he is, even in his last days
The problem with the hobbit is that there is too much "humour" in the film so you get emotionally confused if you should take the characters seriously or not. The dwarves are a band of bafoons in my opinion and you dont really care much for them because of that. The only dwarf you really care for is Balin who seemed more fleshed out and have his moments, and the lame attempts to make some of the other dwarves rememberable. The Hobbit is a kids book compared to Lord of the Rings. And lets not forget the disaster of Peter Jackson picking up the project from some other producer and having a bad time to plan the film in the first place.
As a tremendous fan of LOTR and The Hobbit, with the Hobbit book holding a special place in my heart, I wholeheartedly agree with this video. I understand that Thorin and Co. couldn't use their ancient armor/weapons, due to the inability to act properly or move, when they finally emerged from the mountain, and rallied the armies of the Free Folk. It was far less epic than when I viewed it in my mind's eye all those years ago while I read the books. You have my thanks.
This is all great criticism, don’t get me wrong. But everyone’s too hard on the Hobbit Trilogy for not reaching the mastery of the Lord of the Rings which is lightning in a bottle I would say. Instead of comparing the Hobbit Trilogy to the LOTR, they should be looked at on their own. There’s a beauty in these movies that is often overlooked, but it’s clearly there. They’re far from perfect, but they’re forgivable problems when the story is actually beautiful. I have a lot to say about these movies, things that I don’t see a lot of people really mention. Maybe I should make my own video essay.
Basically, what I consider a "bad" movie (or series) is if I'm not interested in watching it again after I finish it. If a movie makes you want to watch it again, then I think it did it's job, and I am really looking forward to watching the Hobbit trilogy again sometime.
Okay, so I got a soft spot for the Hobbit, even if The Battle of the Five Armies is my least favorite of the whole bunch, I mean at least the Extended Edition is a complete film instead of the mess the theatrical cut is. And rather than beat the dead horse into paste about all the flaws of the Hobbit and the failures etc. I guess in the end the reason LOTR works better in its trilogy compared to the Hobbit is because of all the detail Tolkien crammed into the books and appendices that Jackson and co were able to tap into during those what, 3 or so years of prep time they had before a single foot of film was shot, and even then more or less have very set guard rails in how far they could stray from the main plot of Frodo taking the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it so they could get away with not having Tom Bombadil and other things like that. But with the Hobbit, I'm re-reading it right now and while it's a great book, it doesn't have the depth of detail as compared to LOTR and is rather vague in a lot of things. And I think the major failure of the Hobbit is that they wasted too much time on everything else but the heart of the story which is Bilbo's heros journey with 13 dwarves to help them take their home back. Honestly I think had they had the same prep time LOTR had, without the studio interferences, they probably could have made 2 wonderful films to complement LOTR. One last thing, the fact it seems no one wanted to tell Peter Jackson some of his ideas were beyond stupid, and I'm not just talking about the Legolas stuff. I mean things like Radagast being a mushroom smoking hippy covered in bird poop or Alfred, just just Alfred.
27:50 I have a theory why so much screen time is given to the cringey comic relief characters like the Goblin King, the Master of Lake Town and Alfrid. Listening to the directors commentary a couple things seemed apparent: 1. the shoot was long, stressful and borderline studio-obligated. 2. Peter and Fran thought that guest-actors Barry Humphreys (Goblin King), Steven Fry (the Master) and Ryan Gage (Alfrid) were hilarious people to have around on set, and were always cracking everyone up. For instance, Ryan Gage auditioned to be Frodo's Father, and even though the role was cut from the script, Peter and Fran went out of their way to write the part of Alfrid for him just because they thought he was such a fun guy to have around. I think Peter couldn't resist using these actors as much as he could to liven up the spirit of the shoot, then self-indulgently left their material in the final cut. If one remembers that Peter Jackson's film making background is grotesque comedy/horror than so many of these creative decisions in The Hobbit start to make sense.
I just wanted to comment, that Theoden is one of my favorite characters in LodR and explain the reasons for it in broad details. Lucky for me some other great fellows already did it for me ;-)
Great video, finally the TH-cam algorith is doing something right! I always thought I hated The Hobbit because I loved LotR so much, and because they had to pull the whole "children book"-aspect over this masterpiece of a franchise. Now I know The Hobbit is just alot more flawed in many ways..
After watching "The Fellowship", I thought Jackson had made the best possible movie of the "first book" (quotes because Tolkien never intended his book to be a trilogy). "The Two Towers" disappointed except for a highlight here and there. I thoroughly disliked "The Return of the King." (FYI, I've read everything Tolkien wrote, LOTR at least a dozen times and "The Silmarillion" at least eight times.) I swore off watching "The Hobbit" but was convinced by a friend to see it with her. I sat through the entire movie thinking one thing, over and over, "This is terrible." I did not see the final two movies. Absolutely hated it. Note that I do not mean "hated it comparison to (Jackson's) LOTR." I mean just hated it for its infidelity and lack of respect for the source material (which is also how LOTR unraveled for me - the further into the story Jackson proceeded, the more violence he did to the source material, especially that he took time to show things that weren't in the book instead of taking that time to show more of what was in the book, as well as unnecessary departures from the main narrative). I couldn't get past how awful "The Hobbit" was as an adaptation of Tolkien's work - I never even considered its production values, either on its own merits, or in comparison to Jackson's LOTR. To me, it was nearly unwatchable. The worst thing I can say about a movie is "I don't remember a thing about it." This is now my recollection about the actual content of "The Hobbit." I merely recall my reaction to it, but the movie itself did not mange to ensconce itself into my memory (as did, say, "No Country For Old Men," "Taxi Driver," or "Blade Runner). However the clips from the movie in this video remind of how truly bad the first movie was, and demonstrates how awful the second and third must have been. I'm glad I passed them up, and I regret having taken the time to see the first.
As much as I love the original trilogy, I like to hear honest reasons for disliking them. I agree with you that two towers and RotK took things too far in places to make it more cinematic but overall I think the care and hard work shine through. I think to truly love something you need to acknowledge and embrace its flaws. As for the Hobbit trilogy, which still feels strange to say for a short book, the lack of care shines through but the hard work does too. In a vacuum they are still better than 90% of fantasy films, but they come off worse because of how disappointing they are. At this point in my life there are very few franchises that haven't lost their way and of all of those I can at least separate the Hobbit from LotR enough for it to not ruin my enjoyment of that trilogy. I wish I could say the same for Star Wars and Game of Thrones.
I get your points, but I also think people are giving the Hobbit movies less credit than they deserve. I love the books, but I also understand the choices they made for the movies.
Wait? On the sword Gandalf is using at 2:18 does blood even stick on it? It's shining bright the whole time as if it was never used. So I guess that could be the "bright as daylight" thing.
20:55 I will gladly champion the existence of Smaug's 20 minutes of padding. I can't even deny that that's what they are, but I ONLY watched the entire Hobbit trilogy to see the dragon. Without those 20 minutes, Smaug literally may as well not be in the entire trilogy. You can probably total up his actual screen time better than I can, but I'd wager over half of Smaug's on screen presence is that 20 minutes of padding.
You are comparing Dialog spoken from completely different types of characters. You can't compare Denethor to the the Steward of lake town. Denethor was a once mighty honorable and respectable lord, the steward of lake town is a shlub who schemed his way to power
Don't forget Gandalf said "Well all good stories deserve embellishment" and that the stories are written by Frodo, Sam and Bilbo. The movies tell a story, not depict actual events. Hence, the over-the-top scenes.
Aight most of this I'm on board with, but Bilbo not changing? That for me, was one of the key points they actually showed throughout and still inspires me to go through a similar change.
You just said a lot of thing I had already noticed and didn't like about The Hobbit, but didn't know how to express, and you did pretty well.. Also let's have in mind that Peter Jackson set the bar too high with LOTR that not even himself can pass over it. Have that in mind, because horrible things are coming with "The Rings of power"..
When you really really get what he is talking about because you can feel your eyes water and heart ache when he just mentions Eomer's name or Theoden's mourning but you've been trying to get to the very rest of a chocolate milk with loud straw noises and unconventional ripping of the cartoon in the bus full of people while Fili and Thorin were dying. I guess building genuine emotional attachment and realistic authentic characters is the point, but not everyone can manage and a lot of movies these days are made as if the audience was just a bunch of lesser intelligence that has to be spoon fed and fanserviced all the time and that we wouldn't even notice if something was good or bad or give it any second thought anyway.
A lot of Théoden fans, huh?
1. It might not have been clear in the video, but don't mistake 'least favorite' for 'dislike.' I love Bernard Hill's performance, and I actually like Théoden quite a bit, just not as much as other characters. A 95 may not be a 100 but it's still an A, right?
2. I understand that his character is meant to represent human fallibility. I just think it's a little thick sometimes. It's not bad writing or anything, it's just a little eye-rolling.
3. And that's the point of Part One of this video. The personal nitpicks you can find in your favorite media after watching it more than a hundred times are not the same as fundamental flaws like in The Hobbit.
to be fair to Theoden, in the book a lot of his flaws you mention are not as big in the book.
Yeah, I think Theoden plays well into the theme of "sins of the father" that is prevalent in the lord of the rings, pretty much all of the Kings are highly flawed and some way have to pass the torch to the next generation (usually through death).
Theoden should have been played by Patrick Stewart
oh really so you read book uhu yeah no f you nitpicks they are stupid complaints get real
I never noticed he had an axe in his head
I NEVER NOTICED HE HAD AN AXE
IN HIS HEAD
I think I only noticed because the Extended version does something with it. Im not sure though since I never saw the theatrical release.
How...
Me neither lol, didn't know he had a speech impediment either..
Me either. Film making fail
Nor did I. I never noticed him beginning to speak English either.
I'm pretty sure that theoden was always meant to be an imperfect person. It adds to his character in my opinion
I believe he's Tolkien's idea of a Churchill of his time
I think it was nice how they made him seem afraid, insecure. But that, with help from other characters, he becomes better (slowly but surely), in which he reaches the height of his character progression with the charge of the Rohirrim and his valiant death
Also, what exactly was the alternative to sending his people to Helm's Deep? He's outnumbered 33:1 in soldiers and he's got a huge number of civilians with him, going to Helm's Deep is completely logical. Marching on Isengard would be suicide, marching on Gondor would be suicide, wasting time trying to recall Éomer would mean being besieged in Edoras instead of Helm's Deep and he doesn't have time to rally his banners. The advice Theoden gets is illogical. You'll note that "What would you have me do? Their courage hangs by a thread" is actually a line intended for Aragorn's character growth, so he could learn better what it means to be King. Aragorn may understand the situation but he doesn't know how to lead an entire people out of it as he's bleeding the morale of the people around him by blurting out hard truths.
Because he is human. I completely agree with all the people who have commented on this!
@@jasonharding3770 he acts like a Chamberlain than a Churchill
Theoden was the perfect fit for that role. I loved how he was portrayed in the films. Aragorn is the one who has to be a perfect king. Theoden is sometimes rational, sometimes emotional. But he is a desperate man in a desperate land. The character has many flaws and perfectly portrayed.
Completely agree.
thanks to Lindsay Ellis that "why does it hurt so much" scene will forever be seared into my mind. it has reached a semi-meme status, a weird in-between place where I feel like it should've become a meme but I don't think it ever did.
There are a few Lindsay Ellis bits like that, i think about the "TEEEEN YEAAARS OOOOOOOLLLLLDDD" thing every day
A dislike of Theoden isn't a criticism of LotR. His character isn't badly conceived or acted. He serves the story perfectly.
Hard agree. Every flaw brought up in the the video is intentional and part of the grander scheme.
Absolutely agree. That part of the video seemed super out of place. Like he was just pointing out good writing that shows Theoden is a flawed person, and contrasting it against how awesome Aragorn is? That's exactly what they were going for lol. And his arc is spread across two films, so...
Yup, this is the only point in the video that made me go "what? that's the whole point!"
Exactly. Theoden is there to show the flaws of the kings of men and why things have gotten so bad. He is meant to contrast Aragon who is genuinely heroic, compassionate and destined to become the King of Gondor.
I enjoyed how Shakespearean Theoden was.
You hit the nail on the head in regards to the characters. Bilbo, and by extension the audience, really doesn't get to know any of the dwarves. It's one of the big reasons why Hobbit feels more like "store brand Lord of the Rings" than anything. I mean, sure, The Fellowship has less characters with 9, compared to the 13 Dwarves in Hobbit (with Bilbo and Gandalf bringing the party up to 15). But The Hobbit Trilogy is about 9 hours in length and most Dwarves get less time to develop their characters than others. We spend more time with Bard, with Tranduil. Hell, we spend more time getting to know Galadriel and she wasn't even in the damn book.
Watching the movie, you really get the picture that the studios and Jackson didn't really care to make a "The Hobbit" movie. What they really wanted was a prequel to Lord of the Rings. While The Hobbit does take place prior to the events of LOTR, it's not a prequel. The events don't really lead into the plot of the trilogy. The big piece that does, the one ring, wasn't even "the one ring" in the original Hobbit publication. Tolkien hadn't come up with the idea yet. It was just a magic ring that was useful.
Truth be told i had a talk with a friend after the last movie on the hobbit trilogy. It was around this point we talked about the pros and cons of the movie, but one thing me an him agreed i think the best way too do this was if the trilogy was more of a 3 season TV show. With 10 episodes each per season, they will have too cut down on the CGi a bit except on the dragons case. It would have given enough time too know the rest of Dwarven cast. An maybe expand on characters that were left out.
@felman87 I think its hard to go back and film a prequel trilogy using actors from the original series. In the LoTR, Gandalf tells Bilbo "you haven't aged a day", yet Ian Holm and Martin Freeman don't even look like the same charatcer, and even Ian's inclusion in the beginning he looks nothing like he did in LoTR. The only characters that look similar are Gandalf and Saruman.
nop idk think people have read the hobbit they just say it to be cool store brand lord of thr ings bruh did even read the hobbit they are literally the same chatrcaters god read book leaase
HOLY CRAP! You were right! I don't remember any of these scenes from the Hobbit and it just came out a few year ago while I remember EVERY scene from LOTR and it came out almost 20 years ago.. The Hobbit was so forgettable
The opposite for me... I remember more of the hobbit than any of lotr. maybe because lotr is just soo loong. but I love hobbit, ive always loved hobbit, there's something incredibly magical about it for me
It’s irrelevant when it came out, it’s about when you watched it last
@@megasauruss it has something "magical" about it..... Yeah makes sense, haha
@@megasauruss it's the same for me
Both the trilogies are burned in my head forever
It's weird, but I find the wizard fight in Fellowship badass. I'm not entirely sure why; perhaps it's the dialogue that builds up to it? It's just something about two of the most powerful players in Middle Earth having a wizard fight is very cool to me.
It's so raw, I love it.
also, the breakdancing.
The only scene I truly remember from The Hobbit is the Acorn scene because it’s the only scene that really captured the feeling of the Shire portion of Fellowship which I interpreted as what the Hobbit (book) is supposed to be like: genuine, heartfelt and sincere.
Good video, agree with pretty much everything, accept I actually think Theodin is a great character, but that's a discussion for another time.
I loved this video, but I have to disagree when it comes to Theoden.I loved Theoden. He is the human weakness and the weakness of the intristically good in the story, and he plays the part of "good but weak willed" very well. He is the more complicated contrast to so many of our noble, always right characters.
Boromir is also like this and he is one of my favorite characters of the series.
14:15 holy shit does this cut just completely obliterate Legolas's power level.
This is the problem with trying to make the prequel bigger and badder than the original trilogy, because now the guy who bragged about killing 42 uruks at Helm's Deep could apparently waste like 200 orcs in 10 seconds 60 years earlier.
The battlespeech and the charge with the Rohirrim at the Pelennor fields is the best most epic scene in movie history.
"The Lord of the Rings never uses titles for dates or settings" except for when the theatrical cut of Fellowship (not the Extended version) followed its prologue with "60 years later", which was paralleled by "60 years earlier" in Unexpected Journey.
I feel like I'm the only one who likes the wizard duel in fellowship
Nope
I loved it.
No
I like it, just not a fan of the camera angles.
It made me uncomfortable since I watched it at a young age
The LOTR dialogue was poetry, the HOBBIT dialogue was just a school play tbh
"And Rohan shall answer." Theoden literally announces the turning point for his character arc. He's a top 3 character in LOTR. What the crap
there was an axe in a dwarfs head????
I've seen the trilogy about 4 times goddamnit
Gosh, you know they did something right when Boromir is my favorite character from all of literature.
28:45 - Ok, yes - but the old "Down Down to Goblin Town" was amazing and you know it :P
9:07 THANK YOU! Fili was thrown under the bus in this series. It makes me angry to think about.
Hey just wanted to say that your re-edit of the big action sequence with the dragon literally blew my mind. Something tells me that's how it was written until they split the movie.
I've made a personal re-edit of the movie and I can verifiably say that most of the late-game/re-shoot additions are really obvious. The scene in lakedown where Legolas and Tauriel fight a bunch of orcs inside Bard's house was never supposed to have Legolas at all - the elves are fighting six feet apart from each other in an enclosed space and they don't appear onscreen together for a single shot of it.
“WhY dOsE iT hUrT sO mUcH?”
“ B E C A U S E I T W A S R E A L . “
-hobbit battle of 5 army’s and Lindsay Ellis
I actually really like that exchange. At least out of context
I love the scene where Thorin leads the dwarves out of the mountain for battle. It gave me chills just watching it here!
The Hobbit looks really glossy and while I like both I just find that while the lord of the rings is older it looks better
LOTR is grittier, especially the first one.
Yep, his contrast with the Uruk Hai and the orcs in the hobbit is a great example.
@Alexander Supertramp yeah they got a little too literal on the "lighter tone" comparison between the 2 books.
@Sam Conroy That’s because it’s shot in 48fps rather than 24fps, which makes it look like a video game
Yet another great video...they keep getting better! Great comparisons and re-edits. You make connections and so many great points about things I can't always put my finger on. And you do it all with an intelligent sense of humor threaded throughout. Not to mention the creative graphics and seamless transitions. Great Job!
Just saw this and went back to check out your Hobbit Intervention video. Wow! I've seen so many breakdowns and fan-edits of the Hobbit that I thought there was nothing left to say, but your observations are so fresh and on-point. Even with topics that have been discussed to death (like the failure to present the dwarfs as interesting characters) you presented the case for how they could have been grouped together better as family units, which I had never thought of before. I also appreciated the thoroughness of your editing. You backed up every one of your points with a relevant clip or comparison.
Theoden is fucking awesome, thats the only bad thing i can say about this video!
I love this guy. Best movie analysis out there. No one else goes this deep.
I just love how you analyze movies like I analyzed novels in my AP English see class. It's such a cool idea. I wish we lived in a higher IQ society, where a LOT of people would have thought on films as deep and well thought out as your thoughts.
I literally gasped when you said Theoden was your least favorite character in the trilogy.
I can see why he wouldn't like him. He's an old man that got caught up in some nasty shit, but couldn't bring himself to adapt to it. So over time Aragorn had to drag him kicking and screaming into the current times. By the end, he did what he needed to do and redeemed himself, even in his own eyes.
He's not the most likeable character, but he did have a hell of a character arc.
@@KingHoborgBernard Hill is a treasure. Every speech he gives is 10/10.
@@realK1 you fail to understand cinematography , you can have a excellent actor in a terrible role which in turn makes the character being portrayed terrible.
sam falling asleep during the smaug sequence had me dying lmfaoooo
i love the hobbit trilogy but you made some really good points about its flaws. i really wish they'd had the same opportunities to make it as great as lotr...
none of them are good points in my mind
I HATED the love triangle
Wait, one dwarf really had an axe in his head? I've watched all three films and didn't know. Was the scene where he removes it in the extended cut, because I could swear I don't know anything about it.
EDIT: After seeing a few scenes from the extended cut, I'm just happy, I only watched the theatrical release.
Jesse, my dude. Your videos are absolutely fantastic. Your opinion feels fair and really well thought out! Keep on rocking man! ❤️🤙
Strong disagree on Theoden. I always felt that his main driving force was shame. He had failed to rule his realm well, his son had died, he was always a step away from giving in to despair. Most of this wasn't even his own fault, but he probably couldn't see that. So he was desperate for a chance at glory and to save his legacy. He chose Helm's Deep because it was a place of his people and his ancestors, something he knew and could cling to. He's almost a death seeker, wanting to die gloriously than live peacefully, which is why he says of his ancestors, "in whose mighty company I shall no longer feel ashamed".
It's kind of funny how the movie insists that going to Helm's Deep is a bad choice when in fact in the novel and the real world, getting yourself to a fortress is a far better way to defend yourself from an enemy that has a far bigger army than yours than risking battle on an open field.
i aim to be open towards criticism of films that i have cherished so dearly for years, but i still struggle to agree with a lot of the comments made by those who dislike the trilogy because, personally, i adore the films. of course, i can agree that ‘the lord of the rings’ was a cinematic masterpiece (being as perfect as the films still are, due to how well most of the content has aged) and to replicate their unique charm would be impossible. i am aware, even as novels, of how ‘the lord of the rings’ and ‘the hobbit’ differ - regarding target audiences and themes - so even then, comparing the two is unfair. it would be foolish to argue that ‘the hobbit‘ has the same “aura”, if you will, as that of ‘the lord of the rings’, but to mark the films off as disasters would be wrong.
one factor that definitely separates ‘the hobbit’ from ‘the lord of the rings’ is the lack of nostalgia. i hope you’ll agree with me when i say that coming back to a film after many months (or even years) only adds to the love you hold for it, which is certainly the case with ‘the lord of the rings’. i find myself laughing harder at jokes, crying harder at deaths, and marvelling all the more deeply at the stunning visuals each time i return to the films. due to the connection i have to the plot and the characters, the films are even more enjoyable. on the other hand, this feeling is much less strong for me regarding the ‘the hobbit’ films. i’m certainly not disregarding the impact that ‘the hobbit’ had on my childhood, but the slightly dated, nostalgic feeling that ‘the lord of the rings’ holds is something special. although, of course, i believe this is not as much to do with the actual content that the films include, and rather how recently they were released. but why should you expect the two trilogies to have the same “aura”, anyway? the films were made a decade apart from each other, the film industry being entirely different at the times of release, so they are not going to be the same.
but one point that many argue, and is mentioned in this video, is that the character deaths and other emotional scenes of ‘the hobbit’ feel confused and fail to move their audience. personally, i disagree, as the deaths of fili, kili and thorin shall forever pain me to watch and finishing the trilogy another time always leaves me as an unresponsive, bawling mess. i’m often reluctant to watch ‘the battle of the five armies’ because of this, but i’m definitely not marking that as a bad thing. in fact, if three films manage to gift me with such an immense love for its characters, i’ll regard that as a win. i can agree with how ‘the lord of the rings’ is much better at establishing bigger roles in the plot for its characters, and fleshing them out by explaining their backstories, to emphasise their deaths. but should a film be expected to spoon-feed sympathy for its characters to its audience? boromir is a good example, in contrast with fili and kili. but even though, as individuals, the young brothers had much less of an impact on their films than boromir, as a viewer i can understand that they were a part of thorin’s company and therefore losing them, yet also reclaiming erebor as initially planned, was a painful situation. moreover, the deaths of fili, kili and thorin discontinued the line of durin and passed the right to rule to dáin ii ironfoot. to me, this is genuinely saddening, and i don’t understand how another viewer can’t relate to how each and every dwarf contributed to the family-like bond the company had, and how losing some of them is heartbreaking.
i like this comment lol you actaulluy read the books more so than any of these people
I am shaken and shocked at how good this video turned out to be, wow. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
A flawed character does not a bad character make inherently.
WHY DOES THIS NOT HAVE MORE ATTENTION this was such a good video essay, really made me see the flaws in Hobbit and how brilliant LotR was
23:09. The CGI is definitely not dated.
Love the shout-out to Lindsay Ellis :)
Am i the only one in defense of the "choppy slow-mo" effect? I thought i gave a sense of a danger in the distance, as Legolas could feel their presence. It wouldn't have the same effect with normal slow-mo. But yes, that Frodo trippy fever dream was bad.
Maybe, but every time I rewatch the film, that section hurts my eyes.
What frodo trippy fever dream?
Any chance of you doing a fan edit of The Hobbit?
I would love to find a good re-edit, as I binged a lot of Hobbit videos (Jesse and Lindsay's specifically) before I rewatchd the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I felt SO much more invested in the first few minutes of Fellowship because of the "bond" with Bilbo I had accidentally absorbed from the discussions about him and the characterization he was *supposed* to have with Gandalf and the Dwarves. I'd love to include it in my watches but I really hate about half of the Hobbit trilogy and can't see myself rewatching them like I have LOTR
There’s a great fan edit by Dustin Lee titled “Jrr Tolkien’s The Hobbit.
I watched a fan-edit a year or so ago and it was great until the third movie began. That film is such a boring, mind-numbingly boring disaster I honestly don't know if it can be fixed.
It's a shame what became of The Hobbit. Corporate greed won over artistic vision. I had once looked forward to watching The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings back-to-back, but today I have no desire to ever revisit The Hobbit trilogy again. Great video on the matter, it was far better than the trilogy itself.
In the book Frodo was stung in the neck so the mithril would not have protected him, but yes, at least in the movies it is a problem.
That was pretty good. very comprehensive, and the edits were well done.
Theoden is undoubtetly one of the great characters of the movie:
-he has the most extensive arc and transformation (from a lesser of son of great sires to a victorious martyr)
-he has the best speech/moment of the trilogy (ride of the rohirrim)
-he has the best death scene (I go to my fathers. in whose mighty company I shall not now feel ashamed)
When I was a kid characters like Theoden and Boromir grated on me a little. Now I know that has more to do with how their character flaws mimic my own than them not being good characters. Watching Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli is a form of escapism. it's an idealized, mythical version of what people are supposed to be. watching characters like Boromir and Theoden is like looking into a mirror. the fact that it grates on you, that it annoys you, is part of what makes their characters effective, and their redemption so satisfying.
also, the melodramatic way he says, "The fortress is taken. It is ouvugh"
Great job! I watched this immediately after you first version, both made great points but I appreciated that you clarified how you think of the hobbit trilogy trilogy in the beginning.
“It’s a bad sign if I’m nodding of during exciting sequences”. You ironically said that as I woke up after nodding off during your video 😂
(No worries, I love to use video essays as background noise to fall asleep to., your work is not particularly boring)
I always enjoy a good video essayist, you are one of them. And on top of that i’ve never heard of someone with the same last name as me. But your videos are great, keep up the good work bro. 😊
I love the Gandalf vs Saruman scene! Best magic fight scene ever. No flashy CGI or special effects, just camera work and stunts.
i have a kind of love-hate relationship with the hobbit movies...hate, because in hindsight, i can recognize how fucking...weird and bad the stuff is that you mentioned in this video, and i kinda cringe at that now. but love, because these movies gave me so much joy when i saw them back when i was around 14, i met new friends bc of them, and i do love some of the characters...like, martin freeman as bilbo will always be great in my heart tbh. also ive read some great fanfics for the movie lmao. its complicated in my heart haha
The fakeoute where they give up and start to go home bugs me so much. And yes, the A to B with the dragon going for Lake Town is so spot on!
Really enjoyed this - up there with Ellis' videos. Keep at it.
i much prefer your small edit of the Bilbo and smaug bit more than the Dustin Lee and the original edits tbh. felt way more natural
I haven't seen any of these movies but I'm watching just to support because you make great points and I wanna hear them lol
Damn that Wilhelm scream. I blush every time I hear it and once you know it, it's impossible not to hear it. I would pay for someone to make a Wilhelm free LOTR edit. And that time it was used in the Hobbit for Thorin's father, I actually became quite angry. It's a cartoon effect. It's not a cute little movie maker inside joke. Playing a fart sound in its place would be more serious.
33:00 I remember when I saw this in theaters. I immediately was caught off guard by just how on-the-nose and redundant this moment was.
One mistake I noticed that bugged me. The Lord of the Rings did use one “60 years later...” title thing during Fellowship of the Ring after the prologue.
Ironically, I think every single reason you criticize Theodan are all the wrong reasons as to why he's flawed:
Firstly, he definitely understands the situation that the Rohirrim face -- that's why he's so clearly unsure what to do, the magnitude of the danger and his duty are overwhelming him; if he didn't understand the danger, he'd be far more confident
Concentrating in Helm's Deep is undoubtedly the wisest decision -- it forces Saruman to concentrate in turn, attacking his foe entrenched in a highly defensible position; to do otherwise would risk destroying the Rohirrim in detail as they would defend their sparse and separated settlements
Additionally, I don't think he gets "cocky in battle," I always felt that scene was supposed to be him speaking to his men, bolstering their courage and morale; regardless, Theodan is anything but cocky at any point in the LotR
Concerning the apparently suicidal charge at Helm's Deep -- to the Rohirrim, dying valiantly in a last, hopeless charge is effectively their ideal way to die; you're more or less quibbling with the different ways Aragorn and Theodan articulate their internal motives, as it goes back to the same place
Him being reluctant to go to the aid of Gondor is completely within character, especially after narrowing surviving the battle with Saruman
Finally, I cannot actually believe you think Theodan lacks the ability to rally his troops -- did we both watch the Battle of Pelennor Fields? For that matter, the people of Rohan clearly continued to revere and respect their King, even as he fell into despair and magically-aided madness; that surely shows the impact he has on the hearts and minds of his people
He's undoubtedly a lesser son of greater sires -- the point is that he rises above his weaknesses and despair to become greater than he is, even in his last days
If you watch the all together at once they actually are perfect.....
I like the scene with the death of killi
The problem with the hobbit is that there is too much "humour" in the film so you get emotionally confused if you should take the characters seriously or not. The dwarves are a band of bafoons in my opinion and you dont really care much for them because of that. The only dwarf you really care for is Balin who seemed more fleshed out and have his moments, and the lame attempts to make some of the other dwarves rememberable. The Hobbit is a kids book compared to Lord of the Rings. And lets not forget the disaster of Peter Jackson picking up the project from some other producer and having a bad time to plan the film in the first place.
As a tremendous fan of LOTR and The Hobbit, with the Hobbit book holding a special place in my heart, I wholeheartedly agree with this video.
I understand that Thorin and Co. couldn't use their ancient armor/weapons, due to the inability to act properly or move, when they finally emerged from the mountain, and rallied the armies of the Free Folk. It was far less epic than when I viewed it in my mind's eye all those years ago while I read the books. You have my thanks.
I love this type of content
Yep!
This is all great criticism, don’t get me wrong. But everyone’s too hard on the Hobbit Trilogy for not reaching the mastery of the Lord of the Rings which is lightning in a bottle I would say. Instead of comparing the Hobbit Trilogy to the LOTR, they should be looked at on their own. There’s a beauty in these movies that is often overlooked, but it’s clearly there. They’re far from perfect, but they’re forgivable problems when the story is actually beautiful. I have a lot to say about these movies, things that I don’t see a lot of people really mention. Maybe I should make my own video essay.
I actually really like the goblin's song, Goblin Town. It sets a very particular mood that fits the Goblins and their strangeness.
I should really watch the extended editions of these films, because I don't know half of these scenes.
It's particularly difficult for me to even compare Fili to Éomer, especially because of how awesome Karl Urban is.
Rey187 I'm just not sure how he found someone in middle earth to wax his eyebrows
does anyone else not remember a bunch of scenes that jesse used in this video
Basically, what I consider a "bad" movie (or series) is if I'm not interested in watching it again after I finish it. If a movie makes you want to watch it again, then I think it did it's job, and I am really looking forward to watching the Hobbit trilogy again sometime.
Yall support my man on Patreon! He can't keep giving us this amazing content for free!
Okay, so I got a soft spot for the Hobbit, even if The Battle of the Five Armies is my least favorite of the whole bunch, I mean at least the Extended Edition is a complete film instead of the mess the theatrical cut is. And rather than beat the dead horse into paste about all the flaws of the Hobbit and the failures etc. I guess in the end the reason LOTR works better in its trilogy compared to the Hobbit is because of all the detail Tolkien crammed into the books and appendices that Jackson and co were able to tap into during those what, 3 or so years of prep time they had before a single foot of film was shot, and even then more or less have very set guard rails in how far they could stray from the main plot of Frodo taking the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it so they could get away with not having Tom Bombadil and other things like that. But with the Hobbit, I'm re-reading it right now and while it's a great book, it doesn't have the depth of detail as compared to LOTR and is rather vague in a lot of things. And I think the major failure of the Hobbit is that they wasted too much time on everything else but the heart of the story which is Bilbo's heros journey with 13 dwarves to help them take their home back. Honestly I think had they had the same prep time LOTR had, without the studio interferences, they probably could have made 2 wonderful films to complement LOTR.
One last thing, the fact it seems no one wanted to tell Peter Jackson some of his ideas were beyond stupid, and I'm not just talking about the Legolas stuff. I mean things like Radagast being a mushroom smoking hippy covered in bird poop or Alfred, just just Alfred.
27:50 I have a theory why so much screen time is given to the cringey comic relief characters like the Goblin King, the Master of Lake Town and Alfrid. Listening to the directors commentary a couple things seemed apparent: 1. the shoot was long, stressful and borderline studio-obligated. 2. Peter and Fran thought that guest-actors Barry Humphreys (Goblin King), Steven Fry (the Master) and Ryan Gage (Alfrid) were hilarious people to have around on set, and were always cracking everyone up. For instance, Ryan Gage auditioned to be Frodo's Father, and even though the role was cut from the script, Peter and Fran went out of their way to write the part of Alfrid for him just because they thought he was such a fun guy to have around. I think Peter couldn't resist using these actors as much as he could to liven up the spirit of the shoot, then self-indulgently left their material in the final cut. If one remembers that Peter Jackson's film making background is grotesque comedy/horror than so many of these creative decisions in The Hobbit start to make sense.
I just wanted to comment, that Theoden is one of my favorite characters in LodR and explain the reasons for it in broad details.
Lucky for me some other great fellows already did it for me ;-)
how dare you ship Legolas with someone else when Gimli is right fucking there? square up, we have to fight now
Now hold on just one fucker fucking minute....
that wizard battle was not lame.
Glad you think so.
The way movies have been going, books may be making a comeback. A good thing.
We need new ideas and blood.
Not rehashed............
Dammit, bro! I'll never be able to look at the Frodo drinking water scene the same way again! 😂😂😂
Thanks for mentioning the wilhelm scream during the Gandalf scene and the Eye. That has ALWAYS bugged me.
i walked out of the theater when azog re-appeared.
screw these movies.
Good for you.
Great video, finally the TH-cam algorith is doing something right!
I always thought I hated The Hobbit because I loved LotR so much, and because they had to pull the whole "children book"-aspect over this masterpiece of a franchise. Now I know The Hobbit is just alot more flawed in many ways..
Peter Jakcson never wanted to do a Hobbit movies. That's why It feels so different than LOTR films.
But any way, i love that movies!!!
i liked the wizard duel scene, and i liked theoden.
After watching "The Fellowship", I thought Jackson had made the best possible movie of the "first book" (quotes because Tolkien never intended his book to be a trilogy). "The Two Towers" disappointed except for a highlight here and there. I thoroughly disliked "The Return of the King." (FYI, I've read everything Tolkien wrote, LOTR at least a dozen times and "The Silmarillion" at least eight times.) I swore off watching "The Hobbit" but was convinced by a friend to see it with her. I sat through the entire movie thinking one thing, over and over, "This is terrible." I did not see the final two movies. Absolutely hated it.
Note that I do not mean "hated it comparison to (Jackson's) LOTR." I mean just hated it for its infidelity and lack of respect for the source material (which is also how LOTR unraveled for me - the further into the story Jackson proceeded, the more violence he did to the source material, especially that he took time to show things that weren't in the book instead of taking that time to show more of what was in the book, as well as unnecessary departures from the main narrative). I couldn't get past how awful "The Hobbit" was as an adaptation of Tolkien's work - I never even considered its production values, either on its own merits, or in comparison to Jackson's LOTR. To me, it was nearly unwatchable. The worst thing I can say about a movie is "I don't remember a thing about it." This is now my recollection about the actual content of "The Hobbit." I merely recall my reaction to it, but the movie itself did not mange to ensconce itself into my memory (as did, say, "No Country For Old Men," "Taxi Driver," or "Blade Runner). However the clips from the movie in this video remind of how truly bad the first movie was, and demonstrates how awful the second and third must have been. I'm glad I passed them up, and I regret having taken the time to see the first.
As much as I love the original trilogy, I like to hear honest reasons for disliking them. I agree with you that two towers and RotK took things too far in places to make it more cinematic but overall I think the care and hard work shine through. I think to truly love something you need to acknowledge and embrace its flaws.
As for the Hobbit trilogy, which still feels strange to say for a short book, the lack of care shines through but the hard work does too. In a vacuum they are still better than 90% of fantasy films, but they come off worse because of how disappointing they are. At this point in my life there are very few franchises that haven't lost their way and of all of those I can at least separate the Hobbit from LotR enough for it to not ruin my enjoyment of that trilogy. I wish I could say the same for Star Wars and Game of Thrones.
I get your points, but I also think people are giving the Hobbit movies less credit than they deserve. I love the books, but I also understand the choices they made for the movies.
These trilogies are my favourite. I just needed to put that down.
love your vids man
your videos are criminally slept on. hope you get some major growth soon!!!!!
My biggest and only complaint of the lord of the rings series is that the witch king didn’t get enough screen time.
Wait? On the sword Gandalf is using at 2:18 does blood even stick on it? It's shining bright the whole time as if it was never used. So I guess that could be the "bright as daylight" thing.
Awesome video man!
20:55 I will gladly champion the existence of Smaug's 20 minutes of padding. I can't even deny that that's what they are, but I ONLY watched the entire Hobbit trilogy to see the dragon. Without those 20 minutes, Smaug literally may as well not be in the entire trilogy. You can probably total up his actual screen time better than I can, but I'd wager over half of Smaug's on screen presence is that 20 minutes of padding.
You're doing excellent work. Glad to be here early before your channel takes off big time. :)
You are comparing Dialog spoken from completely different types of characters. You can't compare Denethor to the the Steward of lake town. Denethor was a once mighty honorable and respectable lord, the steward of lake town is a shlub who schemed his way to power
Don't forget Gandalf said "Well all good stories deserve embellishment" and that the stories are written by Frodo, Sam and Bilbo. The movies tell a story, not depict actual events. Hence, the over-the-top scenes.
Aight most of this I'm on board with, but Bilbo not changing? That for me, was one of the key points they actually showed throughout and still inspires me to go through a similar change.
You just said a lot of thing I had already noticed and didn't like about The Hobbit, but didn't know how to express, and you did pretty well.. Also let's have in mind that Peter Jackson set the bar too high with LOTR that not even himself can pass over it. Have that in mind, because horrible things are coming with "The Rings of power"..
When you really really get what he is talking about because you can feel your eyes water and heart ache when he just mentions Eomer's name or Theoden's mourning but you've been trying to get to the very rest of a chocolate milk with loud straw noises and unconventional ripping of the cartoon in the bus full of people while Fili and Thorin were dying.
I guess building genuine emotional attachment and realistic authentic characters is the point, but not everyone can manage and a lot of movies these days are made as if the audience was just a bunch of lesser intelligence that has to be spoon fed and fanserviced all the time and that we wouldn't even notice if something was good or bad or give it any second thought anyway.