The dragon wants gold because Tolkien used old european mythology of dragons, European dragons loved gold because they represented the evils of sin and hell, breathing fire, loving gold and hoarding it was greed
Only thing I didn't like about the hobbit was how they split the battle between the end of the second and beginning of the third movie. Killing Smaug in the first 10 minutes of the third movie left the rest of it as an afterthought.
Unfortunately, the films' scripts are reworked from a script that was meant to be for two movies, which is really the right amount of films to do this. It's a short story, but it's also really condensed. That awkward cut between the second and third film is the result.
I agree that that was an odd choice but I think it serves a purpose. It lets the audience rest on Smaug's performance instead of "here he is and bam now hes dead" and also, it allows for the shift of focus. By killing off Smaug that quickly in the third, its like "Oh wow, this isn't about the dragon anymore. This is the Battle of the Five Armies. Its about to get real. Start kissing your favs goodbye."
This is one of the times that I hear Doug's opinion and although I can see where he's coming from, I just don't get it. But this is also why I love Sibling Rivalry, Doug Reviews, Nostalgia Critic and all the rest; none of them are full of shit. They like what they like, don't what they don't, and can give a reasonable assessment of why. This allows an opportunity for people to see things from a totally new perspective that they may not have heard before, and in some respects, enjoy a film that they like or don't like in a new way. Or, hell, if you agree with them, they show you reasons you may have liked something that even you didn't pick up on,
My eight year old son gladly sat through all three extended Lord of the rings films. He made it about a third of the way through the first Hobbit movie. So much for appealing to children, then
I've read the books multiple times. I own all six extended editions, I'm a hardcore Tolkien fan. And I like the Hobbit films. Bilbo is 10x more useful and an all around better character than Frodo
+Drakon66 killer I also read the Hobbit as a kid, and while I greatly enjoyed the movies, the Hobbit films are definetely not as good as the masterpiece that is Lord of the Rings in both the books and films.
But that is the problem of comparing the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings, one is essentially a fun treasure quest and the other is a quest to save the world
Here's why. Bilbo is the main character of the Hobbit. He has the adventures and the time devoted to him. Frodo is one of nine main characters, and gets 1/9th of the books devoted to him. And Elijah Wood's acting wasn't much help. I recommend checking out the animated version to see a better Frodo.
I liked how Jackson put those plot parts from the LOTR chronicles that were not in Hobbit (like the White Coincil). I read Hobbit after LOTR and thought 'hey what the hell where is my Tolkien this is so primitive'. Jackson fixed this like no one else would. Though I didn't like two things: the story arc with that elvish maiden and a dwarf could have been shorter and the Wereworms - they just showed up, said 'oh hey audience' AND THEN JUST DISAPPEARED IT WAS A BIG LIPPED SHAI HULUD MOMENT WHAT THE HELL. Also, I would love to see Jackson filming the history of the Northern Kingdom. Especially the scene with the Witch King vs. Glorfindel
The basic format of the book is that every chapter something tries to kill/eat Bilbo. That's it. It's more of an anthology told in the format of Alice In Wonderland, than just one epic story by itself. That isn't an accident. He wrote it that way to keep the attention of children. You're right in that the movie should have been marketed and filmed as such.
also, they should have had Guillermo Del Toro make the hobbit like the rumors said a few years ago. He's excellent at taking child-friendly stories and blowing them up bigger than life so much that it appeals to all age demographics. That and his monsters are just awesome.
Rob: Who is the weakest character in the lord of the rings? Doug: Gimli. Rob: Who do we have in the hobbit? Doug: like 12 gimlis i laughed wayyyyyyyyy too hard.
I felt so bad for Martin Freeman. The Hobbit is about Bilbo and his journey to discover that there is more to him than he knew. The dwarves' quest was just the vehicle that progressed Bilbo's journey, but they only focused on the dwarves. The main character became a barely existing supporting character in his own movie. And Martin Freeman was PERFECT for Bilbo!
I feel bad for the actor who played Gandalf because he cried during one of his performances, he had a green screen behind him and was alone. Luckily some of the actors came to Comfort him. (Just a FYI)
I'm totally siding with your brother on this one Doug... Loved the books, loved the LOTR movies, was quite angry about the Hobbit trilogy. There's barely any heart in it, and the little it has comes from the actor playing Bilbo who does a perfect job and actually seems to care about his character. Most of the rest of it was a theme park ride.
I believe Smaug used the gems for armour, by lying on the pile for so long they became embedded in his scales. Gold is a soft metal so it's comfortable for something so hot and heavy to lie on.
I enjoyed the films, despite all of their flaws and there are some MAJOR flaws...... Yet I do admire how Peter Jackson got these decent films out in such short time under a large amount of pressure. These aren't the best films on earth, but I like this prequel trilogy over the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Yeah I'm obviously with Rob on this one, but I loved Doug's point of view and the way he argued it. He often has opinions that really surprise me in some way.
Rob, you actually read The Silmerilian? Three times!? I was ready to completely disregard your opinion but I know hard core Tolkien fans that barely finished that book once. Bravo. Lets hope they make that a movie.
I enjoy the Hobbit movies despite the flaws. I loved the book so naturally I would like the movies. What I didn't like was how there wasn't much of a build up to Smaug. The whole dragon part of the second movie felt very rushed. I also didn't like the "romance" between Kili and Tauriel because they didn't build up enough chemistry. That whole plot of the elf/dwarf love story was way way too rushed to be believable. I might have enjoyed that love plot had they spent more time on it. But overall I really do enjoy the films. Obviously they aren't the best but I do find them entertaining.
You didn't watch the cartoons. Smaug was killed the exact same way with the arrow. No rush, they killed the dragon and in the end there was a war between three armies. On here, supposedly the orcs and gobblins are the enemies. But I have no problem with that because they're leading up to the Lord of the Rings movies and matches up almost perfectly. I honestly think that they could make one or two extra movies because the story is still not completely connected.
+LilPrince Killa I did watch the cartoon. I love it. And yes looking back I agree Smaug's part maybe wasn't rushed but I do feel it was lacking and that the trilogy spent some unneeded time like with Kili and Tauriel. Would loved to have seen more of the other dwarves or more of Smaug.
Dani Marie You do know that Romeo and Juliet does exist in real life right? Some of us do fall in love at first sight. And it's not like they just fell in love right there and then. Kili falling in love instantly right there is highly understandable. I haven't seen dwarve females but I heard (I don't remember where) that they have deep voices as dwarves naturally do and some of them wear beards proudly just like the men. Secondly, do you know how long it's been since any of them had pussy? Of curse he's gonna fall in love instantly, especially with an amazon. Tauriel, on the other hand, was more intrigued with Kili and found him fascinating. I'd describe it in a way as to seeing another race for the first time and seeing something difference. It's been stressed more than enough that she didn't share the same feelings with Legolas as he does so they were never gonna work. Plus, in a war when you're saving each other constantly or fighting along side each other you tend to develop feelings sooner than later. Guys develop bonds on teams and women and guys (hetero that is) develop feelings. So I look at that as them falling for each other quickly. Not to mention you'll be amazed at how quickly people become united once they're forced into the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario turns out, unless the other is too stubborn to change (which Dwarves are). But, overall, that's just my deeper look and speculation. The whole taking time to develop feelings is saved for the romantic movies and is repetitive and cliche. Overall, I like these movies better than the Lord Of the Ring Trilogy, but I still have a fascination place in my heart for the sequels.
+LilPrince Killa I do like Kili and Tauriel together , just in my opinion they didn't have that much screen time together. If they would have given Kili and Tauriel more scenes together I would have enjoyed that plot way more . The two actors did have good chemistry together. Just not enough movie time for the two in my opinion.
I have two words for this movie, Fuck CGI!!! LOTR had some CGI, but they used prosthetics for the uruk hai and such. And it made it look so much better, maybe I am the only whom feels this way.
That's why LOTR will always hold up. Yeah, the CGI for Gollum is sadly starting to look dated now but they didn't really have much of a choice but to use animation for him.
Yeah, I understand that they have to use CGI for some parts. But in The Hobbit its a bit too much for my taste. And I also have an issue with how the dwarfs look. I mean Gimli looked like a dwarf, but these dwarfs have fucked up faces. Looks like there has been some inbreeding.
In the BTS on the extended editions, they talk about the goblins and the use of CGI - they did actually try with the prosthetics for a bit but between the hot set, repeated takes, and non-breathable costumes a lot of extras we're overheating. It was actually getting to be hard to film because they had to keep stopping while everyone cooled down. CGI allowed them get the best performance out of the actors and to also play with the faces a bit more. Some CGI, though, could have stayed away. Lol.
as a dnd player, I love this movie. one of the things I've done for fun is kinda riff track it as a dungeon master setting up an adventure. "Alright let's see what characters you made up..." "Are you fking kidding me? ALL of you made dwarf fighters?!?" "Fine, but you at least need a rogue and some magic talent.. I've got a friend who is a new player I'll bring in.." "You meet an NPC wizard and he's going to introduce you to my friend playing a halfling rogue.. doesn't know as much so he's going to be learning through the first couple sessions.."
I know that I'm in the minority, but I liked the Hobbit trilogy. Granted, I watch the extended versions of both Hobbit and LOTR, plus I am a big fan of the books.
Morgil Doesn't matter. I just meant that it was released in 2012. A response to the original guy that most likely thought this video came out recently.
I honestly think this is my favorite LotR as well. I love all the backstories, I love the adventure, I love the the detour into the realm of the Goblin King (as should of been played by David Bowie).
my largest problem with the hobbit film was the approach to violence. the book was written for children, after Tolkien came back from the war. Bilbo's biggest character moments tend to involve his sword in some way. he becomes more and more uncomfortable about the idea of drawing or using his sword throughout the boo, because Toklien was writing a story for children that makes clear how awful violence is and that it is not glorious. Then jackson made a video-game movie where heroes heroically slice through hoards of faceless, nameless opponents.
My biggest problem with The Hobbit movies is just how inconsistent the tone all 3 of these films are. In each scene, it's starts off in a serious tone, but then in the next one it becomes straight up goofy out of nowhere and sometimes goes in reverse, which overall made me feel both miserable and sometimes insulted after watching them. And don't forget about The Hobbit movies' godawful CGI and 48 fps sequences that even made the Star Wars The Phantom Menace's scenes look pretty by comparison.
I loved the Hobbit films myself. Yeah, this book is my favorite book, so I'm all fine with making bigger and bigger. Could have used less Legolas IMO, but I really really liked them. Best movies of those three years. My opinions mirror Lewis' and Noah's
I haven't seen many sibling rivalry videos. The ones I did see, the two were in agreement most of the time. This is the first one I've seen so far where the "sibling rivalry" makes sense. Anyway, I personally like the Hobbit. I've never watched the book, but I have seen the animated version, and I'd say it was better than the animated version.
For me I LOVED the first hobbit. It covered everything I wanted it to and I enjoyed it. 2 and 3 ruined all my enjoyment by altering the story to focus on Legolas and a new elf.
I'm with Doug on this. Really liked LOTR but I loved the Hobbit. The simplicity of the book allowed for them to flesh out the characters and add in some real emotions that connect you to Middle Earth. I also think one could skim over the "too comical" parts (I enjoyed them lol) by it being directly told to Frodo by Bilbo. So it's possible that he exaggerated some parts, knowing how sad the ending turns out when he loses some of his friends.
If anyone's still wondering what a dragon wants with gold, I've got a bit of input on that. For one, dragons are typically personifications of greed, so... yeah. There's no logical reason except that they're meant to be greedy, and they want, purely and simply. For a more logical explanation, there's a certain RPG that explained the dragons' pathological love of gold as being purely practical; apparently, gold is a good conductor for their body heat and favourable for their nests; they could probably get similar substitutes, but gold still works best thematically because, again, greed. Now, I forget if this was in Dungeons and Dragons (specifically 4E) or if this was in Palladium Games' Rifts.
One of my favorite descriptions comes from Flight of Dragons. Dragons make nests of gold because it doesn't burn like wood, is softer than steel, and doesn't rust or tarnish.
***** Also true in worlds where dragons are made to be intelligent, and for a myriad of reasons, but the gold hoarding is a constant, regardless of a dragon's sentience, and that's the one we're wondering about.
An Unexpected Journey was my personal favorite of Hobbit movies while second was least. Biggest faults in first Hobbit movie in my opinion were how Saruman and most of the dwarfs were presented. The Desolation of Smaug did manage to show elven city of Mirkwood just like I imagined it but failed in many other parts like a romance between elf and dwarf and a character of Beorn.
What annoys me is that The Hobbit *is* flawed HOWEVER, calling it the worst ever is fucking retarded. Seriously, the biggest issues with the movie can be fixed with editing ESPECIALLY the later films. It also shot itself in the foot by trying WAY TOO HARD to be connected with the previous Ring films. A movie like Batman v Superman CANNOT be fixed in editing, when something requires extensive rewrites, recasts and reshoots THATS when a movie fucked up.
So he only read the first book. This explains a lot, as well as remove a great deal of his credibility. This is why Lindsey has the more valid analysis of the films and books in relation to each other.
I read the Hobbit, before I actually started watching the Movies. Holy Crap man, that thing is on ADHD more then the Catcher in the Rye, I actually felt the Movie was more coherent then the book, but I think it was the fact that it was trying to link, Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings brought it down. It was made with the prior knowledge of having watched the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that doesn't work out too well. I think the side stuff like the trolls to find the Elven blades, and the song they sing to show their plight but also nudge a meek Bilbo into wanting to help the dwarves, whiel the Other side of like the Dwarf Elf Romance and pretty much most of the Sauron talks were definitly unneeded.. I liked the few changes of like Thorin who in the book was a very merry dwarf that didn't seem like a leader or king into a more prideful and ill tempered character was a good change. While having Bilbo who in the book was very prideful and stern who went on an adventure just cause of a insult, to a bit more meek and humble character to show better growth. i think they did a good job with how they presented the ring giving that presence where yeah it is important and has a affect on Bilbo but keeping it secret that it was not connected in Sauron would have been a good choice, to give those who seen LotR a witty knowledge of what the ring is, while those who haven't seen the movie Lord of the RIngs but will soon see it a better reveal of it importance.
I don't get all the Star Wars prequel comparisons. The acting in The Hobbit is pretty damn good, motives of the characters make sense, the main character IS a highlight of the movie and not its biggest downfall like in prequels to SW, characters from the original trilogy weren't ruined by the Hobbit movies, actually, these movies add quite a lot to the weight of the original trilogy, sooo how is that the same? We must have watched different movies. I did not like Hobbit, I thought it was way too boring and silly, the love story was waaaay out of place and gnomes were way too uninteresting to be really involved in their deaths. The Battle of Five Armies was a goddamn mess and The worst LOTR universe movie. With that said, The Hobbit trilogy is not nearly as bad as the prequels to Star Wars, it's an overreaction to say the least.
I happen to like the Hobbit movies better than the Lord of the Rings movies, for a very simple reason. I liked Bilbo better than Frodo. I recognize that LotR was the better put-together series, but I never really got into Frodo as the main character. Bilbo was awesome. It was probably because of Martin Freeman.
Actually, you can still love the LOTR movies better than The Hobbit movies if you "pretend" someone else is the main character...I did, and that character is Aragorn. I got to the point after the 3rd or 4th time through LOTR I just fast forward through most of the hobbits/Golem/Treebeard scenes to get back to Aragorn and the other humans. It's awesome then! ;)
That seems to be a problem with book translations... the narrator is boring because he's just there to describe the more interesting characters. The "Watson effect" if you will, who better to overcome that problem, than Watson?
I think most people don't necessarily consider Frodo as their favourite character. I've heard that Tolkien considered Sam the main character but I don't know how true that is. LOTR had so much going on and was just much better portrayed on screen.
Yeah, I liked Frodo in the first movie, was starting to get annoyed with him in the second, but by the third I was completely over him. Everytime he was on screen I ended up yelling at my tv for him to get his shit together and just get it done already. Sam was the only saving grace. Martin as Bilbo was genius. He will always be the face of Bilbo in my mind's eye.
I loved the lotr books (after the first 40-100 pages of relative boredom). Love the films once I'd stopped complaining that it wasn't the same as the books. But I found the hobbit films so boring. They felt empty.
Been a long time, but I definitely remember laughing in this movie and enjoying the experience, though I could really tell it was way more goofy. But I don't mind that overly much in most films. I remember being a little sad about how the brown wizard turned out because I interpreted him waaaaay differently while reading and he was one of the few characters I really remembered. But it's always that way with book movies so nothing too bad
The meeting of the White Counsel scene never bothered me because it sets up Gandalf leaving the group in the second film. Gandalf goes off to discover if there is more to what he has seen so far, to establish if a greater threat has returned to Middle Earth. The book glosses over this so much, to the point where Gandalf just turns to them at the edge of Mirkwood and says "I have wizards business with the necromancer. I'm going." And that's it until he comes back. The problem is that up until that point, Gandalf is the one who did everything while most of the dwarves were just there and Bilbo was like an extra piece of baggage to be carried along, and you can't do that in a film unless the guy gets killed off. You really can't have a major character who does everything just up and leave halfway through.The film does a much better job of setting up why Gandalf leaves.
Honestly most people who didn't like these movies went into the theater with the thought "Oh boy more Lotr" and when it obviously wasn't Lotr they gave it no chance what so ever.
I like the original LOTR trilogy better than the Hobbit trilogy. I also read LOTR but not The Hobbit. However, as a movie on its own, I like The Hobbit better than any of the other movies. Everyone can hate me now
Richard The Chef No kidding. I was rooting for the Hobbit trilogy because of the first movie, but overall it's very disappointing compared to the LOTR trilogy. I don't let it taint my appreciation for An Unexpected Journey though.
I just recently watched the making of dvds of the extended versions and the first movie had a lot of problems shooting wise just like the other two and it shows, I enjoyed them but I admit they are not the best movies
XmetaI4everX Of course, for you and me. But he is making a living with this shit as he is saying over and over in his WTFU videos. If so, I do expect him to do his damn homework and do the minimal reading of the shit he is gonna talk about, otherwise he is just a fool like so many in the internet.
***** Not really, he's speaking purely from a moviegoer's perspective. You don't need to read the books and lore to understand the movie. Even his brother who is a Tolkien buff thinks the dragon-gold thing is silly.
dmaxcustom Doug is giving his opinions on the movie, not whether the book followed the movie. His brother gives you a Tolkien fan's perspective, so what's the problem?
So... let's see if I have this straight. According to Doug... Interstellar: Mediocre Zootopia: Mediocre Jungle Book: Sucks Jurassic World: Sucks Deadpool: OK Amazing Spiderman 2: Great Kick-Ass: Sucks Districk 9: Sucks Moulin Rouge: One of Doug's least favorite films Dark Knight Rises: Sucks The Matrix: Dated/Mediocre Big Hero 6: Mediocre Gladiator: Sucks The Hobbit: Doug's favorite of the LotR films.
I salute you reading the Silmarillion three times, that is a frickin' achievement!
8 ปีที่แล้ว +1
I read Silmarillion about 5 or 7 times... Three times from begining, and the rest picking it up to read a few stories, putting it down, rinse and repeat for several years. I think it's Tolkien at his best - building this huge mythos. Loving Beren & Luthiel story and Turin Turambar is the epitome of a tragic hero.
I like how different in tone The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are (talking about the books). You start off with a light-hearted children's fantasy that becomes darker over time with the introduction of the One Ring, and the raising of the stakes from a side quest with dwarves to the fate of the world actually in jeopardy. That's also why I think The Hobbit movies weren't as good as they could've been. They tried too hard to recapture the tone of The Lord of the Rings, when that's not what The Hobbit is.
4:06 my thoughts actually. Rob is my thoughts on this, i read the Hobbit. And my biggest issues, some Dwarves looked too metrosexual and didnt have that big Dwarf beard, i can deal with lack of coloured cloaks to make them look edgy, but no FULL BEARD! Blasphemy!!!
Kind of reminds me of the Harry Potter movies. The protagonist, antagonist, and the supporting characters were in slytherin or griffindor house. Ravenclaw and hufflepuff were all extras.
I liked the extended versions of The Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers, but the extended version of Return of the King was too sloppy. I could see where the prosthetics didn't fit well.
I'm a Tolkien fan. Saw all the LOTR movies in theatres multiple times, bought all the extended editions, read all the books, ect. I was thrilled when I heard there were going to be a cinematic adaptation of The Hobbit. Basically The Hobbit trilogy was a big disappointed for me. I saw each movie in theatre once and never felt compelled to buy the DVDs. I love The Hobbit book, and I wanted the movie to be just a fun adventure story. It turned out to be a bloated 9 hour "epic" that feels "thin... Like butter scraped over too much bread"
Personally, I think the hobbit movies should have deviated more from the book and treated the characters more seriously. The dwarfs were just a little too goofy for me, though I still love each and every one of them and the effort that went into giving them individual personalities and identities. There is so much potential in them and their culture, as well as the rest of Middle Earth. Can you imagine a gritty HBO show set in Middle Earth? Or a sitcom type show set in the Shire or in Rivendell? Maybe a fake documentary series with a David Attenborough type narrator talking about the magical wildlife or an Anthony Bourdain type of person taking us to the best travel destinations and the best food? That would be an entertaining way to play more in the Middle Earth universe.
They changed a lot of things in the LoTR movies, but it kept the feel. A friend of mine never even realized that they cut Tom Bombadil. WIth the Hobbit, they changed too many things, and it didn't keep the feel. Plus the houses in the last battle scene looked like they were from a diorama.
I read The Hobbit when I was 12, the Alan Lee-illustrated edition, and it made me a Tolkien fan for life. This film was a chore to sit through in the theater. I really got the impression that Jackson just kept stuffing shit in there, extending action scenes, just so that he could end up with three looooong movies. I got bored during many of the scenes, especially the one with the stone giants, who were only mentioned in passing in the book, because it's so unnecessary! It reminded me of the container crane fight in Tintin, one of many ridiculous action scenes in an otherwise good film, where the things happening are so beyond the laws of physics, it just ends up being... boring. You never get the impression that these characters are ever in any kind of danger, so it never draws you in. It's impressive, but it's also hollow. Kind of like the Star Wars prequels, where you have all these visually impressive things happening, but you're struggling to really care about what's happening on screen. I always thought The Hobbit could be a great movie, and I do hope one gets made some day. This bombastic trilogy is in no way comparable to the flawed but ultimately satisfying LOTR film trilogy, and I don't think it will be seen as the definitive version the way the other is.
I would love to see an old vs new on this with the animated Hobbit. might be interesting to see how some of the issues, like pacing, are looked at. (To me the animated one moved WAY too fast as it goes from "Hi I'm Bilbo" to "i set out with some dwarves" and I'm just like O.O ) Also - as a Tolkien fan I HATE the argument that the Hobbit is a children's book. Yes..yes it was. It was also a book where Tolkein had NOTHING fleshed out about the world that later became LOTR. Bilbo's ring was not originally the one ring but when he wrote LOTR he made it that. The dark magic and scary necromancer were included later but are meant to occur round about the same time as the Hobbit. Jackson realized this and said if we're making the Hobbit films as a prequel to LOTR (not just a stand alone side movie) then they need to be better tied together through tone, style, and narrative. But he also could not get rid of the entire tone of the Hobbit which is a bit lighter than LOTR so he made it lighter in the sense that this is the peak of a time of peace. We get that sense because even the monsters (trolls and goblins) aren't as scary as they become in LOTR when they are corrupted and coerced by Sauron. Anyway - that's just my 2cents. In all, I liked the Hobbit movies. I liked LOTR a little bit more. I own the extended editions of all 6.
I'm a guy who likes movie series as a whole (except Home Alone 3 and 4). I like all Star Wars movies, including the prequels and the Force Awakens. The same goes for Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. I like both trilogies. But I must admit: The Hobbit movies were a better prequel trilogy than the Star Wars prequels.
The dragon [Smaug] wanted the gold because he was POSSESSED by it - it was *cursed* in a way (hence Thorin's "sickness" once he obtained/got back his kingdom, and the mention of his grandfather having the same... problem). This is pretty obviously a metaphor of the EVIL that *greed* generates. "Money in itself is not an evil → it is the *LOVE* of money that creates evil..."
I do have to remember that the Hobbit was written with kids in mind, that said, it makes sense why The Hobbit movies seemed so childish. As an adult LOTR fan though, I've only seen the series once. And that seems to be enough for me.
I feel like I'm in the minority for actually enjoying these movies. Obviously they're not as good as the LotR trilogy, but they weren't awful. The only parts I didn't enjoy in the trilogy were Tauriel, the fact that it was a trilogy and not 2 movies, and the fact that there was TOO MUCH CGI.
to explain why smaug wants all that gold is because Dragons are simply greedy by nature, and that combined with an inability to "make a thing for themselves" has apparently driven them to horde precious items made by others.
Also, Trolls in the Lord of the Rings can talk. Return of the King, I don't know if it was the troll that Aragon was fighting or not, but if I can recall, he did say his name as he was whooping Aragon's ass.
totally agree with Rob. i wasn't thrilled with the Hobbit but i kinda let it go bc i knew the original was meant for children and the film honoured that. but i freakin hate the fact that they created a new character just to appease the pc crowd.
+GodsRainOfHell It was just an orgy of CGI creatures that no one cares about smashing into each other. It should have been 1 movie. 2 at most, but definitely not 3!
They were forced to do three because Warner Brothers wanted that, I saw the making of of the movies and they were all suddenly under increadible pressure because Peter Jackson suddenly needed more time to make up entire scenes to please WB
I mean he was a great character. They elongated everything else in the book and added things that weren't in the book, so they should have done the same for Smaug. He is there for 45 minutes and then dies, so we can move on to more stupid CGI orgy battles.
I think I more or less agree with Rob that this movie should have been a kid oriented adventure through the world of Middle Earth. In addition though, I think it should have been something to introduce said world and make the kids comfortable with it so they can later watch the LoTR trilogy and get more out of it.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
The dragon wants gold because Tolkien used old european mythology of dragons, European dragons loved gold because they represented the evils of sin and hell, breathing fire, loving gold and hoarding it was greed
Gold is also a symbol of greed.
Only thing I didn't like about the hobbit was how they split the battle between the end of the second and beginning of the third movie. Killing Smaug in the first 10 minutes of the third movie left the rest of it as an afterthought.
Yeah that was my issue. It was weird
Unfortunately that's kinda how it was in the book.
Unfortunately, the films' scripts are reworked from a script that was meant to be for two movies, which is really the right amount of films to do this. It's a short story, but it's also really condensed.
That awkward cut between the second and third film is the result.
+FoxhoundAK74 I know right I think it should had been the battle then kill Smaug.
I agree that that was an odd choice but I think it serves a purpose. It lets the audience rest on Smaug's performance instead of "here he is and bam now hes dead" and also, it allows for the shift of focus. By killing off Smaug that quickly in the third, its like "Oh wow, this isn't about the dragon anymore. This is the Battle of the Five Armies. Its about to get real. Start kissing your favs goodbye."
This is one of the times that I hear Doug's opinion and although I can see where he's coming from, I just don't get it.
But this is also why I love Sibling Rivalry, Doug Reviews, Nostalgia Critic and all the rest; none of them are full of shit. They like what they like, don't what they don't, and can give a reasonable assessment of why. This allows an opportunity for people to see things from a totally new perspective that they may not have heard before, and in some respects, enjoy a film that they like or don't like in a new way. Or, hell, if you agree with them, they show you reasons you may have liked something that even you didn't pick up on,
I'm always baffled by Doug's taste in movies, I'll leave it at that.
My eight year old son gladly sat through all three extended Lord of the rings films. He made it about a third of the way through the first Hobbit movie. So much for appealing to children, then
I've read the books multiple times. I own all six extended editions, I'm a hardcore Tolkien fan. And I like the Hobbit films. Bilbo is 10x more useful and an all around better character than Frodo
+Drakon66 killer I also read the Hobbit as a kid, and while I greatly enjoyed the movies, the Hobbit films are definetely not as good as the masterpiece that is Lord of the Rings in both the books and films.
But that is the problem of comparing the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings, one is essentially a fun treasure quest and the other is a quest to save the world
Here's why. Bilbo is the main character of the Hobbit. He has the adventures and the time devoted to him. Frodo is one of nine main characters, and gets 1/9th of the books devoted to him. And Elijah Wood's acting wasn't much help. I recommend checking out the animated version to see a better Frodo.
Tadicuslegion78 True. The Hobbit is more of children's story than the more serious Lord of the Rings,
I liked how Jackson put those plot parts from the LOTR chronicles that were not in Hobbit (like the White Coincil). I read Hobbit after LOTR and thought 'hey what the hell where is my Tolkien this is so primitive'. Jackson fixed this like no one else would. Though I didn't like two things: the story arc with that elvish maiden and a dwarf could have been shorter and the Wereworms - they just showed up, said 'oh hey audience' AND THEN JUST DISAPPEARED IT WAS A BIG LIPPED SHAI HULUD MOMENT WHAT THE HELL.
Also, I would love to see Jackson filming the history of the Northern Kingdom. Especially the scene with the Witch King vs. Glorfindel
The basic format of the book is that every chapter something tries to kill/eat Bilbo. That's it. It's more of an anthology told in the format of Alice In Wonderland, than just one epic story by itself. That isn't an accident. He wrote it that way to keep the attention of children. You're right in that the movie should have been marketed and filmed as such.
also, they should have had Guillermo Del Toro make the hobbit like the rumors said a few years ago. He's excellent at taking child-friendly stories and blowing them up bigger than life so much that it appeals to all age demographics. That and his monsters are just awesome.
+DeadpanTurtle He actually left the project. Midway through.
Rob: Who is the weakest character in the lord of the rings?
Doug: Gimli.
Rob: Who do we have in the hobbit?
Doug: like 12 gimlis
i laughed wayyyyyyyyy too hard.
That was funny, but couldn't agree less. Legolas is the weakest character
I felt so bad for Martin Freeman. The Hobbit is about Bilbo and his journey to discover that there is more to him than he knew. The dwarves' quest was just the vehicle that progressed Bilbo's journey, but they only focused on the dwarves. The main character became a barely existing supporting character in his own movie. And Martin Freeman was PERFECT for Bilbo!
I feel bad for the actor who played Gandalf because he cried during one of his performances, he had a green screen behind him and was alone. Luckily some of the actors came to Comfort him. (Just a FYI)
I'm totally siding with your brother on this one Doug... Loved the books, loved the LOTR movies, was quite angry about the Hobbit trilogy. There's barely any heart in it, and the little it has comes from the actor playing Bilbo who does a perfect job and actually seems to care about his character. Most of the rest of it was a theme park ride.
I believe Smaug used the gems for armour, by lying on the pile for so long they became embedded in his scales. Gold is a soft metal so it's comfortable for something so hot and heavy to lie on.
This episode should be called Sibling Rivalry: Rob Interrupts Doug. XD
I enjoyed the films, despite all of their flaws and there are some MAJOR flaws...... Yet I do admire how Peter Jackson got these decent films out in such short time under a large amount of pressure. These aren't the best films on earth, but I like this prequel trilogy over the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Yeah I'm obviously with Rob on this one, but I loved Doug's point of view and the way he argued it. He often has opinions that really surprise me in some way.
Rob, you actually read The Silmerilian? Three times!? I was ready to completely disregard your opinion but I know hard core Tolkien fans that barely finished that book once. Bravo. Lets hope they make that a movie.
I enjoy the Hobbit movies despite the flaws. I loved the book so naturally I would like the movies. What I didn't like was how there wasn't much of a build up to Smaug. The whole dragon part of the second movie felt very rushed. I also didn't like the "romance" between Kili and Tauriel because they didn't build up enough chemistry. That whole plot of the elf/dwarf love story was way way too rushed to be believable. I might have enjoyed that love plot had they spent more time on it. But overall I really do enjoy the films. Obviously they aren't the best but I do find them entertaining.
Yea, there was a few too many things which ended up rushing the more important parts
You didn't watch the cartoons. Smaug was killed the exact same way with the arrow. No rush, they killed the dragon and in the end there was a war between three armies. On here, supposedly the orcs and gobblins are the enemies. But I have no problem with that because they're leading up to the Lord of the Rings movies and matches up almost perfectly. I honestly think that they could make one or two extra movies because the story is still not completely connected.
+LilPrince Killa I did watch the cartoon. I love it. And yes looking back I agree Smaug's part maybe wasn't rushed but I do feel it was lacking and that the trilogy spent some unneeded time like with Kili and Tauriel. Would loved to have seen more of the other dwarves or more of Smaug.
Dani Marie You do know that Romeo and Juliet does exist in real life right? Some of us do fall in love at first sight. And it's not like they just fell in love right there and then. Kili falling in love instantly right there is highly understandable. I haven't seen dwarve females but I heard (I don't remember where) that they have deep voices as dwarves naturally do and some of them wear beards proudly just like the men. Secondly, do you know how long it's been since any of them had pussy? Of curse he's gonna fall in love instantly, especially with an amazon.
Tauriel, on the other hand, was more intrigued with Kili and found him fascinating. I'd describe it in a way as to seeing another race for the first time and seeing something difference. It's been stressed more than enough that she didn't share the same feelings with Legolas as he does so they were never gonna work. Plus, in a war when you're saving each other constantly or fighting along side each other you tend to develop feelings sooner than later. Guys develop bonds on teams and women and guys (hetero that is) develop feelings. So I look at that as them falling for each other quickly. Not to mention you'll be amazed at how quickly people become united once they're forced into the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario turns out, unless the other is too stubborn to change (which Dwarves are).
But, overall, that's just my deeper look and speculation. The whole taking time to develop feelings is saved for the romantic movies and is repetitive and cliche. Overall, I like these movies better than the Lord Of the Ring Trilogy, but I still have a fascination place in my heart for the sequels.
+LilPrince Killa I do like Kili and Tauriel together , just in my opinion they didn't have that much screen time together. If they would have given Kili and Tauriel more scenes together I would have enjoyed that plot way more . The two actors did have good chemistry together. Just not enough movie time for the two in my opinion.
i hope someday to see an old vs new of the hobbit. I AM GANDALF, AND GANDALF MEANS ME!
Rob really was quiet "assy" in this sibling rivalry, he interrupted Doug so much X)
I have two words for this movie, Fuck CGI!!! LOTR had some CGI, but they used prosthetics for the uruk hai and such. And it made it look so much better, maybe I am the only whom feels this way.
CGI is great, as long as it's used right
That's why LOTR will always hold up. Yeah, the CGI for Gollum is sadly starting to look dated now but they didn't really have much of a choice but to use animation for him.
Yeah, I understand that they have to use CGI for some parts. But in The Hobbit its a bit too much for my taste. And I also have an issue with how the dwarfs look. I mean Gimli looked like a dwarf, but these dwarfs have fucked up faces. Looks like there has been some inbreeding.
In the BTS on the extended editions, they talk about the goblins and the use of CGI - they did actually try with the prosthetics for a bit but between the hot set, repeated takes, and non-breathable costumes a lot of extras we're overheating. It was actually getting to be hard to film because they had to keep stopping while everyone cooled down. CGI allowed them get the best performance out of the actors and to also play with the faces a bit more.
Some CGI, though, could have stayed away. Lol.
Trust me, you're not the only one✊🏻
as a dnd player, I love this movie. one of the things I've done for fun is kinda riff track it as a dungeon master setting up an adventure.
"Alright let's see what characters you made up..."
"Are you fking kidding me? ALL of you made dwarf fighters?!?"
"Fine, but you at least need a rogue and some magic talent.. I've got a friend who is a new player I'll bring in.."
"You meet an NPC wizard and he's going to introduce you to my friend playing a halfling rogue.. doesn't know as much so he's going to be learning through the first couple sessions.."
I know that I'm in the minority, but I liked the Hobbit trilogy. Granted, I watch the extended versions of both Hobbit and LOTR, plus I am a big fan of the books.
Chip the glasses and crack the plates. That's what Robert Walker hates!
"Okay, but here's why!"
"Nooooo"
Wait, The Hobbit was released 4 years ago... Where did all the time go?
More like 3.5 years ago.
Video was originally released 2012.
+Tomtenisse Powercool
_December_ 2012
Morgil Doesn't matter. I just meant that it was released in 2012. A response to the original guy that most likely thought this video came out recently.
Tomtenisse Powercool I didn't get that at all
I honestly think this is my favorite LotR as well. I love all the backstories, I love the adventure, I love the the detour into the realm of the Goblin King (as should of been played by David Bowie).
my largest problem with the hobbit film was the approach to violence. the book was written for children, after Tolkien came back from the war. Bilbo's biggest character moments tend to involve his sword in some way. he becomes more and more uncomfortable about the idea of drawing or using his sword throughout the boo, because Toklien was writing a story for children that makes clear how awful violence is and that it is not glorious.
Then jackson made a video-game movie where heroes heroically slice through hoards of faceless, nameless opponents.
My biggest problem with The Hobbit movies is just how inconsistent the tone all 3 of these films are. In each scene, it's starts off in a serious tone, but then in the next one it becomes straight up goofy out of nowhere and sometimes goes in reverse, which overall made me feel both miserable and sometimes insulted after watching them. And don't forget about The Hobbit movies' godawful CGI and 48 fps sequences that even made the Star Wars The Phantom Menace's scenes look pretty by comparison.
I loved the Hobbit films myself. Yeah, this book is my favorite book, so I'm all fine with making bigger and bigger. Could have used less Legolas IMO, but I really really liked them. Best movies of those three years.
My opinions mirror Lewis' and Noah's
As usual, I disagree with Rob LOL
I liked part 1. I thought part 2 and 3 were more disappointing than the Star Wars prequels.
Well, I liked the Star wars Prequels, so maybe that's why I liked all three Hobbit films :)
I liked how they included songs from the book in the movie.
I haven't seen many sibling rivalry videos. The ones I did see, the two were in agreement most of the time. This is the first one I've seen so far where the "sibling rivalry" makes sense.
Anyway, I personally like the Hobbit. I've never watched the book, but I have seen the animated version, and I'd say it was better than the animated version.
The lord of the rings was a action movie with a fantasy theme with adventure the hobbit was a fantasy adventure themed movie with action
I have every Tolkien book and derivation here...and Rob just said, "...too much Tolkien"...
Rob...you don't get to talk anymore...
For me I LOVED the first hobbit. It covered everything I wanted it to and I enjoyed it. 2 and 3 ruined all my enjoyment by altering the story to focus on Legolas and a new elf.
I'm with Doug on this. Really liked LOTR but I loved the Hobbit. The simplicity of the book allowed for them to flesh out the characters and add in some real emotions that connect you to Middle Earth. I also think one could skim over the "too comical" parts (I enjoyed them lol) by it being directly told to Frodo by Bilbo. So it's possible that he exaggerated some parts, knowing how sad the ending turns out when he loses some of his friends.
If anyone's still wondering what a dragon wants with gold, I've got a bit of input on that. For one, dragons are typically personifications of greed, so... yeah. There's no logical reason except that they're meant to be greedy, and they want, purely and simply. For a more logical explanation, there's a certain RPG that explained the dragons' pathological love of gold as being purely practical; apparently, gold is a good conductor for their body heat and favourable for their nests; they could probably get similar substitutes, but gold still works best thematically because, again, greed. Now, I forget if this was in Dungeons and Dragons (specifically 4E) or if this was in Palladium Games' Rifts.
One of my favorite descriptions comes from Flight of Dragons. Dragons make nests of gold because it doesn't burn like wood, is softer than steel, and doesn't rust or tarnish.
*****
Also true in worlds where dragons are made to be intelligent, and for a myriad of reasons, but the gold hoarding is a constant, regardless of a dragon's sentience, and that's the one we're wondering about.
Is it really that hard to understand why the dragon likes gold? It's a metaphor for man's lust for greed..
An Unexpected Journey was my personal favorite of Hobbit movies while second was least. Biggest faults in first Hobbit movie in my opinion were how Saruman and most of the dwarfs were presented. The Desolation of Smaug did manage to show elven city of Mirkwood just like I imagined it but failed in many other parts like a romance between elf and dwarf and a character of Beorn.
What annoys me is that The Hobbit *is* flawed HOWEVER, calling it the worst ever is fucking retarded. Seriously, the biggest issues with the movie can be fixed with editing ESPECIALLY the later films. It also shot itself in the foot by trying WAY TOO HARD to be connected with the previous Ring films. A movie like Batman v Superman CANNOT be fixed in editing, when something requires extensive rewrites, recasts and reshoots THATS when a movie fucked up.
I agree with Doug in liking thing to take their time so many movies now just feel like they fast forward through everything
I see where Doug is coming from but I side more with Rob on this one. As a Tolkien fanatic myself.
Dang. I miss the Hobbit trilogy so much :(
Heh, I saw RotK in the theatre.... All those fake out endings had my bladder screaming
It was worse than when you get within a foot of the toilet and then your bladder goes on floodgate mode.
Paul Trahan Well, that happened when I was like ten and we were camping, they wouldn't let me go before checking the trout lines.
RotK?
Justin Bayless Return of the King
Never again did I see a full cinema hall go to the toilet at once. It was glorious. Nearly pissed my pants.
The Hobbit got nothing on LotR, but you gotta admit The Hobbit is a special movie
So he only read the first book. This explains a lot, as well as remove a great deal of his credibility. This is why Lindsey has the more valid analysis of the films and books in relation to each other.
I read the Hobbit, before I actually started watching the Movies. Holy Crap man, that thing is on ADHD more then the Catcher in the Rye, I actually felt the Movie was more coherent then the book, but I think it was the fact that it was trying to link, Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings brought it down. It was made with the prior knowledge of having watched the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that doesn't work out too well. I think the side stuff like the trolls to find the Elven blades, and the song they sing to show their plight but also nudge a meek Bilbo into wanting to help the dwarves, whiel the Other side of like the Dwarf Elf Romance and pretty much most of the Sauron talks were definitly unneeded..
I liked the few changes of like Thorin who in the book was a very merry dwarf that didn't seem like a leader or king into a more prideful and ill tempered character was a good change. While having Bilbo who in the book was very prideful and stern who went on an adventure just cause of a insult, to a bit more meek and humble character to show better growth.
i think they did a good job with how they presented the ring giving that presence where yeah it is important and has a affect on Bilbo but keeping it secret that it was not connected in Sauron would have been a good choice, to give those who seen LotR a witty knowledge of what the ring is, while those who haven't seen the movie Lord of the RIngs but will soon see it a better reveal of it importance.
Wait, the critic has never read The Hobbit?! "SHAAAAAAAME!!!!"
I don't get all the Star Wars prequel comparisons.
The acting in The Hobbit is pretty damn good, motives of the characters make sense, the main character IS a highlight of the movie and not its biggest downfall like in prequels to SW, characters from the original trilogy weren't ruined by the Hobbit movies, actually, these movies add quite a lot to the weight of the original trilogy, sooo how is that the same? We must have watched different movies.
I did not like Hobbit, I thought it was way too boring and silly, the love story was waaaay out of place and gnomes were way too uninteresting to be really involved in their deaths. The Battle of Five Armies was a goddamn mess and The worst LOTR universe movie. With that said, The Hobbit trilogy is not nearly as bad as the prequels to Star Wars, it's an overreaction to say the least.
I'm w/Doug on this one. The Hobbit is an awesome film. So what if it's a bit slow? You wanna spend time w/these characters.
I happen to like the Hobbit movies better than the Lord of the Rings movies, for a very simple reason. I liked Bilbo better than Frodo. I recognize that LotR was the better put-together series, but I never really got into Frodo as the main character. Bilbo was awesome. It was probably because of Martin Freeman.
Actually, you can still love the LOTR movies better than The Hobbit movies if you "pretend" someone else is the main character...I did, and that character is Aragorn. I got to the point after the 3rd or 4th time through LOTR I just fast forward through most of the hobbits/Golem/Treebeard scenes to get back to Aragorn and the other humans. It's awesome then! ;)
That seems to be a problem with book translations... the narrator is boring because he's just there to describe the more interesting characters. The "Watson effect" if you will, who better to overcome that problem, than Watson?
I think most people don't necessarily consider Frodo as their favourite character. I've heard that Tolkien considered Sam the main character but I don't know how true that is. LOTR had so much going on and was just much better portrayed on screen.
Yeah, I liked Frodo in the first movie, was starting to get annoyed with him in the second, but by the third I was completely over him. Everytime he was on screen I ended up yelling at my tv for him to get his shit together and just get it done already. Sam was the only saving grace. Martin as Bilbo was genius. He will always be the face of Bilbo in my mind's eye.
Aragorn but I rather like Sam all said and done. He's the real hero!
YES I'M AM NO LONGER ALONE! I LOVE THE HOBBIT
Dragons like gold because it’s a soft metal, which makes it comfortable to sleep on.
I loved the lotr books (after the first 40-100 pages of relative boredom). Love the films once I'd stopped complaining that it wasn't the same as the books.
But I found the hobbit films so boring. They felt empty.
Rob is not interrupting Doug so much. Good.
Been a long time, but I definitely remember laughing in this movie and enjoying the experience, though I could really tell it was way more goofy. But I don't mind that overly much in most films. I remember being a little sad about how the brown wizard turned out because I interpreted him waaaaay differently while reading and he was one of the few characters I really remembered. But it's always that way with book movies so nothing too bad
Gollum = My precious
i love Rob's hat so much
The meeting of the White Counsel scene never bothered me because it sets up Gandalf leaving the group in the second film. Gandalf goes off to discover if there is more to what he has seen so far, to establish if a greater threat has returned to Middle Earth. The book glosses over this so much, to the point where Gandalf just turns to them at the edge of Mirkwood and says "I have wizards business with the necromancer. I'm going." And that's it until he comes back. The problem is that up until that point, Gandalf is the one who did everything while most of the dwarves were just there and Bilbo was like an extra piece of baggage to be carried along, and you can't do that in a film unless the guy gets killed off. You really can't have a major character who does everything just up and leave halfway through.The film does a much better job of setting up why Gandalf leaves.
I kinda miss the days when the Walkers fought more. :)
Honestly most people who didn't like these movies went into the theater with the thought "Oh boy more Lotr" and when it obviously wasn't Lotr they gave it no chance what so ever.
I like the original LOTR trilogy better than the Hobbit trilogy. I also read LOTR but not The Hobbit.
However, as a movie on its own, I like The Hobbit better than any of the other movies.
Everyone can hate me now
I think the first movie in the trilogy had problems, but overall it was done very very well...shame it all goes downhill from there
Richard The Chef No kidding. I was rooting for the Hobbit trilogy because of the first movie, but overall it's very disappointing compared to the LOTR trilogy. I don't let it taint my appreciation for An Unexpected Journey though.
I just recently watched the making of dvds of the extended versions and the first movie had a lot of problems shooting wise just like the other two and it shows, I enjoyed them but I admit they are not the best movies
It always amuses me how Doug pretends to talk with property about something without having read the source material.
You don't need to read the Hobbit to comment on the Hobbit movie though.
XmetaI4everX Of course, for you and me. But he is making a living with this shit as he is saying over and over in his WTFU videos. If so, I do expect him to do his damn homework and do the minimal reading of the shit he is gonna talk about, otherwise he is just a fool like so many in the internet.
***** Not really, he's speaking purely from a moviegoer's perspective. You don't need to read the books and lore to understand the movie. Even his brother who is a Tolkien buff thinks the dragon-gold thing is silly.
dmaxcustom Doug is giving his opinions on the movie, not whether the book followed the movie. His brother gives you a Tolkien fan's perspective, so what's the problem?
So... let's see if I have this straight. According to Doug...
Interstellar: Mediocre
Zootopia: Mediocre
Jungle Book: Sucks
Jurassic World: Sucks
Deadpool: OK
Amazing Spiderman 2: Great
Kick-Ass: Sucks
Districk 9: Sucks
Moulin Rouge: One of Doug's least favorite films
Dark Knight Rises: Sucks
The Matrix: Dated/Mediocre
Big Hero 6: Mediocre
Gladiator: Sucks
The Hobbit: Doug's favorite of the LotR films.
For fucks sake, all Doug said about the Dark Knight is that it has a few problems, but it's still one of his favorite movies!
+Peter Cahill The Dark Knight Rises
Please read again.
The Matrix is DATED?! Fuck you!
The Archaic Scroll Please note the "According to Doug" I put at the top. I love The Matrix.
the vlog style is just fine but we appreciate the effort lol.
Rob sounds a lot like Doug, like they're siblings or something.
I salute you reading the Silmarillion three times, that is a frickin' achievement!
I read Silmarillion about 5 or 7 times... Three times from begining, and the rest picking it up to read a few stories, putting it down, rinse and repeat for several years. I think it's Tolkien at his best - building this huge mythos. Loving Beren & Luthiel story and Turin Turambar is the epitome of a tragic hero.
I've only read it once all the way through, but I have re-read the stories on their own. Maybe I should re-read it all the way through.
Wow Rob. I only read the Silmirillion once. I need to reread it.
I like how different in tone The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are (talking about the books). You start off with a light-hearted children's fantasy that becomes darker over time with the introduction of the One Ring, and the raising of the stakes from a side quest with dwarves to the fate of the world actually in jeopardy. That's also why I think The Hobbit movies weren't as good as they could've been. They tried too hard to recapture the tone of The Lord of the Rings, when that's not what The Hobbit is.
Wow, just posted this one after so long a hiatus/MIA. Cool to see it up online again but now on Channel Awesome.
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is my favorite of the Middle-earth films.
4:06 my thoughts actually. Rob is my thoughts on this, i read the Hobbit. And my biggest issues, some Dwarves looked too metrosexual and didnt have that big Dwarf beard, i can deal with lack of coloured cloaks to make them look edgy, but no FULL BEARD! Blasphemy!!!
SHAWSHANK is based on a short story
Kind of reminds me of the Harry Potter movies. The protagonist, antagonist, and the supporting characters were in slytherin or griffindor house. Ravenclaw and hufflepuff were all extras.
I liked the extended versions of The Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers, but the extended version of Return of the King was too sloppy. I could see where the prosthetics didn't fit well.
In the books, Radaghast was mentioned in The Hobbit and appeared in person (albeit in a flashback) in Fellowship.
I'm a Tolkien fan. Saw all the LOTR movies in theatres multiple times, bought all the extended editions, read all the books, ect. I was thrilled when I heard there were going to be a cinematic adaptation of The Hobbit. Basically The Hobbit trilogy was a big disappointed for me. I saw each movie in theatre once and never felt compelled to buy the DVDs. I love The Hobbit book, and I wanted the movie to be just a fun adventure story. It turned out to be a bloated 9 hour "epic" that feels "thin... Like butter scraped over too much bread"
Personally, I think the hobbit movies should have deviated more from the book and treated the characters more seriously. The dwarfs were just a little too goofy for me, though I still love each and every one of them and the effort that went into giving them individual personalities and identities. There is so much potential in them and their culture, as well as the rest of Middle Earth. Can you imagine a gritty HBO show set in Middle Earth? Or a sitcom type show set in the Shire or in Rivendell? Maybe a fake documentary series with a David Attenborough type narrator talking about the magical wildlife or an Anthony Bourdain type of person taking us to the best travel destinations and the best food? That would be an entertaining way to play more in the Middle Earth universe.
They changed a lot of things in the LoTR movies, but it kept the feel. A friend of mine never even realized that they cut Tom Bombadil.
WIth the Hobbit, they changed too many things, and it didn't keep the feel. Plus the houses in the last battle scene looked like they were from a diorama.
Wait, the first Hobbit came out in 2012?
yeah, you're old.
Ikr
I'm having a mid-life crisis before i'm an adult
holy FUCK i feel like it came out in 2014.... what??? How does time work????
Yes, what a the dark day that was.
I'm pretty much on Robs side here.
Rob looks so nice as well! He's lost quite a bit of weight and it accentuates his face better.
+Saint Ronan this is old
+Saint Ronan Look at the description
I wonder if Doug's opinion has changed after the rest of the ad-libbed trilogy.
I read The Hobbit when I was 12, the Alan Lee-illustrated edition, and it made me a Tolkien fan for life.
This film was a chore to sit through in the theater. I really got the impression that Jackson just kept stuffing shit in there, extending action scenes, just so that he could end up with three looooong movies. I got bored during many of the scenes, especially the one with the stone giants, who were only mentioned in passing in the book, because it's so unnecessary! It reminded me of the container crane fight in Tintin, one of many ridiculous action scenes in an otherwise good film, where the things happening are so beyond the laws of physics, it just ends up being... boring. You never get the impression that these characters are ever in any kind of danger, so it never draws you in. It's impressive, but it's also hollow. Kind of like the Star Wars prequels, where you have all these visually impressive things happening, but you're struggling to really care about what's happening on screen.
I always thought The Hobbit could be a great movie, and I do hope one gets made some day. This bombastic trilogy is in no way comparable to the flawed but ultimately satisfying LOTR film trilogy, and I don't think it will be seen as the definitive version the way the other is.
It was a bit overwrought, but I still love it despite its glaring flaws.
I am 100% with Rob on this one
I would love to see an old vs new on this with the animated Hobbit. might be interesting to see how some of the issues, like pacing, are looked at. (To me the animated one moved WAY too fast as it goes from "Hi I'm Bilbo" to "i set out with some dwarves" and I'm just like O.O )
Also - as a Tolkien fan I HATE the argument that the Hobbit is a children's book. Yes..yes it was. It was also a book where Tolkein had NOTHING fleshed out about the world that later became LOTR. Bilbo's ring was not originally the one ring but when he wrote LOTR he made it that. The dark magic and scary necromancer were included later but are meant to occur round about the same time as the Hobbit. Jackson realized this and said if we're making the Hobbit films as a prequel to LOTR (not just a stand alone side movie) then they need to be better tied together through tone, style, and narrative. But he also could not get rid of the entire tone of the Hobbit which is a bit lighter than LOTR so he made it lighter in the sense that this is the peak of a time of peace. We get that sense because even the monsters (trolls and goblins) aren't as scary as they become in LOTR when they are corrupted and coerced by Sauron.
Anyway - that's just my 2cents. In all, I liked the Hobbit movies. I liked LOTR a little bit more. I own the extended editions of all 6.
I love the Hobbit, and I love LOTR
But Fellowship will always be my favorite
I enjoy all the movies, although granted they do have flaws, the last hobbit movies especially, but I just love the world they make.
I'm a guy who likes movie series as a whole (except Home Alone 3 and 4). I like all Star Wars movies, including the prequels and the Force Awakens. The same goes for Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. I like both trilogies. But I must admit: The Hobbit movies were a better prequel trilogy than the Star Wars prequels.
I love all the Hobbit movies.
The dragon [Smaug] wanted the gold because he was POSSESSED by it - it was *cursed* in a way (hence Thorin's "sickness" once he obtained/got back his kingdom, and the mention of his grandfather having the same... problem).
This is pretty obviously a metaphor of the EVIL that *greed* generates.
"Money in itself is not an evil → it is the *LOVE* of money that creates evil..."
I do have to remember that the Hobbit was written with kids in mind, that said, it makes sense why The Hobbit movies seemed so childish. As an adult LOTR fan though, I've only seen the series once. And that seems to be enough for me.
even though not as good as the original trilogy i still loved the new movies
There were 13 dwarves
I loved all 6 movies
Thx for uploading on my b-day
I feel like I'm in the minority for actually enjoying these movies. Obviously they're not as good as the LotR trilogy, but they weren't awful. The only parts I didn't enjoy in the trilogy were Tauriel, the fact that it was a trilogy and not 2 movies, and the fact that there was TOO MUCH CGI.
to explain why smaug wants all that gold is because Dragons are simply greedy by nature, and that combined with an inability to "make a thing for themselves" has apparently driven them to horde precious items made by others.
Also, Trolls in the Lord of the Rings can talk. Return of the King, I don't know if it was the troll that Aragon was fighting or not, but if I can recall, he did say his name as he was whooping Aragon's ass.
totally agree with Rob. i wasn't thrilled with the Hobbit but i kinda let it go bc i knew the original was meant for children and the film honoured that. but i freakin hate the fact that they created a new character just to appease the pc crowd.
I would love to see an Old vs. New of these Hobbit films and The Hobbit from Rankin/Bass.
I think Doug is right on this one. I share all his ideas.
Smaug was completely wasted in the Hobbit movies.
+GodsRainOfHell That's what I mean. The most bad-ass character in the series gets less screen time than Azog, who is just boring.
+GodsRainOfHell It was just an orgy of CGI creatures that no one cares about smashing into each other. It should have been 1 movie. 2 at most, but definitely not 3!
They were forced to do three because Warner Brothers wanted that, I saw the making of of the movies and they were all suddenly under increadible pressure because Peter Jackson suddenly needed more time to make up entire scenes to please WB
To be fair, he did a lot more than he did in the books. *Bilbo scene, die in a few pages* Topkek
I mean he was a great character. They elongated everything else in the book and added things that weren't in the book, so they should have done the same for Smaug. He is there for 45 minutes and then dies, so we can move on to more stupid CGI orgy battles.
I think I more or less agree with Rob that this movie should have been a kid oriented adventure through the world of Middle Earth. In addition though, I think it should have been something to introduce said world and make the kids comfortable with it so they can later watch the LoTR trilogy and get more out of it.