The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Chen G. 3,940]

It was, yes.

[A. A. Ron 1,736]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

The studio preferred it stayed "There and Back Again."

 

Having "war" or "battle" in a title is considered a turn-off to audiences.

 

Do you have any evidence at all to support either of these claims? Because the first sounds like hearsay and the second like nonsense.

 

For the record, here's how Peter Jackson described the decision to change the title at the time the change was announced:

 

Quote

When we did the premiere trip late last year, I had a quiet conversation with the studio about the idea of revisiting the title. We decided to keep an open mind until a cut of the film was ready to look at. We reached that point last week, and after viewing the movie, we all agreed there is now one title that feels completely appropriate.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/hobbit-battle-of-the-five-armies-name-change-2014-4

[Chen G. 3,940]

 

Quote

I remember saying to the studio: "I will be lobbying to convince you to change it to The Battle of the Five Armies." Warner Brothers were a little bit concerned because appearantly in Hollywood you don't release movies with the word "battle" in the title: appearantly, they don't do very well at the box-office.

 

[KK 3,307]

Studio interference or not, it's clear now that PJ was just trying to keep a sinking ship afloat. No one on these films were really working at their ideal artistic capacity.

[Bilbo 3,709]

2 hours ago, KK said:

Studio interference or not, it's clear now that PJ was just trying to keep a sinking ship afloat. No one on these films were really working at their ideal artistic capacity.

Perhaps understandable too. There was no pressure like there was with LotR. No unknown. They knew people wanted more Middle-Earth. Hard to be at your peak when you’ve got that safety net there. 
 

I don’t hate the Hobbit films. But they get rewatched a LOT less than the Lord of the Rings. 
 

Starting to worry that the Amazon series will be beneath the Hobbit though 👀 

[gkgyver 1,645]

On 12/3/2020 at 8:57 PM, Bilbo said:

Perhaps understandable too. There was no pressure like there was with LotR. No unknown. They knew people wanted more Middle-Earth. Hard to be at your peak when you’ve got that safety net there. 
 

I don’t hate the Hobbit films. But they get rewatched a LOT less than the Lord of the Rings. 
 

Starting to worry that the Amazon series will be beneath the Hobbit though 👀

 

Are you actually, really, seriously suggesting that producing a sequel to 3 of the best movies of all time is "no pressure"? 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Caught the last 20 minutes of Unexpected Journey on TV.  Even worse than I remembered.  Maybe it’s for the best if PJ stays retired from feature films.

[Bilbo 3,709]

On 3/12/2020 at 7:57 PM, Bilbo said:

Starting to worry that the Amazon series will be beneath the Hobbit though 👀 

I knew. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

5 hours ago, Bilbo said:

I knew. 

Some of us called this early on. Others retained hope.

 

 

 

 

[Jim Ware 525]

On 21/01/2023 at 12:26 AM, Disco Stu said:

Caught the last 20 minutes of Unexpected Journey on TV.  Even worse than I remembered.  Maybe it’s for the best if PJ stays retired from feature films.

The decision to make it a trilogy was not a good one.

[Bilbo 3,709]

54 minutes ago, Jim Ware said:

The decision to make it a trilogy was not a good one.

I think when they decided to make it a trilogy was the problem. If it has been conceived as a trilogy from the get go it would have been fine. There’s enough material there for three films. It’s just not as strongly thought out. 
 

The mess that was pre-production was the biggest issue. 

[Jay 37,249]

I agree with Bilbo Skywalker

[Chen G. 3,940]

Knowing what the two-film cut was like, I prefer what we have.

 

I like the finished article enough that I won’t consider it “the lesser of two evils” but if anyone here wants to consider it so…

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Given Jackson's intention to make a cinematic prequel to Lord of the Rings rather than simply adapting The Hobbit, I agree three films could potentially have worked. The Dwarf-centric approach to the story (which wasn't in itself a bad decision) along with adding the White Council/Dol Guldur stuff (which was) certainly provided enough material to this end. Structurally, it doesn't really work, but it wouldn't have worked as two films either.  The original ending point for AUJ was even worse than the faux one we got in DoS.

 

The Hobbit was always going to present a challenge in adaptation. Adapting it to be more in line with the LOTR films only added to this. While I don't think a straight up, faithful adaptation would have worked in this context, I do think a one-film, Dwarf-centric version that dropped the White Council/Dol Guldur subplots would have worked better. I'd prefer we'd have only gotten hints about the looming threat of Sauron's return, Smaug's connection to the wider darkness, etc. And even then, only at the end.

[Holko 9,491]

The book still has too much stuff happening for one film, it's just very compacted.

[Bilbo 3,709]

It would never work as one film. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Rankin/Bass did it in 78 minutes.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Just now, Nick1Ø66 said:

Rankin/Bass did it in 78 minutes.

A perfect example as to why it doesn’t work as one film! 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

I've heard the argument that it couldn't work as one film quite a bit, and while I understand the argument, I just disagree with it. Certainly it would be a long film, but no longer than one of the LOTR EE's. Even speaking theatrically, Avatar 2 runs almost 3.5 hours. That's two standard run-time films. If you can't tell the story of The Hobbit, dense as it may be, in 3.5 hours you probably need to find a better screenwriter.

 

I mean, I've seen one-film fan edits of PJ's Hobbit, bloated as it is, that work quite well. I think given the right screenplay, it's very doable. 

[Chen G. 3,940]

Oh, you can make it as one film, if your approach is "lets make it the shortest, most fleet-footed version of itself possible", which is of course a perfectly fine choice. I don't, however, think that's necessarily the best approach: I like it when movies take their time with telling their story - certainly, if we look at it purely in terms of the amount of plot mechanics that take place in it - and I'm fully aware that I'm going to mention works of incomparably greater caliber than The Hobbit, but still - Titanic has no reason to be anywhere near the 186 minutes that it is, Lawrence of Arabia would probably be 150 minutes and a performance of Parsifal would take around ten minutes...

 

I think it would have also worked fine as two movies! But ultimately I personally look at the trilogy and - apart from the inordinate amount of time it takes An Unexpected Journey to really get going - I'm pleased with the rate at which the plot unfolds. Generally speaking, things are always happening and each of the three films has more than enough plot mechanics to justify being a film unto itself, and more-or-less the length that it is.

 

I personally am really, REALLY fond of The Desolation of Smaug in particular, and would hate to see it chopped-up with the other two.

 

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Structurally, it doesn't really work, but it wouldn't have worked as two films either.  The original ending point for AUJ was even worse than the faux one we got in DoS.

 

That's what I think, too. It sounds like a really lame ending, whereas I quite like the abruptness of Smaug's cliffhanger.

[Richard Penna 3,664]

3 hours ago, Bilbo said:

It would never work as one film. 

 

It could work as one RotK (EE) length movie if you cut out a lot of extraneous material from all 3, as well as trimming and tightnening.

 

We don't need half an hour of Dwarf nonsense in Bag End, nor futher Dwarf nonsense on the world's only (Lava-included) mine-based theme park ride, nor that stupid stone giants scene. I'm not a big fan of these films   I also had a cold while I saw Smaug and developed a major headache during the mine scenes, wishing it would just be over.

[A. A. Ron 1,736]

I think it’s ridiculous to say that the biggest problem with these movies is that there are three of them. I think it’s every bit as silly to say that a single film approach couldn’t work either. 1, 2, 3 films — any of these forms could be perfectly valid. But you have to have a good screenplay.

[Monoverantus 363]

I'm sure I've ranted about this before, but I've never understood the argument that the length is the problem. If you trim down the bloated stuff (White Council, Smaug vs Dwarves, Azog and Bolg, the Battle of Five Armies), cut out all the bullshit (Legolas and Tauriel, Sauron, Bard's family, ALFRID!!!) and replaced it with more scenes of the Dwarves and Bilbo, I guarantee they'd be significantly better.

[Chen G. 3,940]

To me the issues - and they're largely at the fringes of the experience of watching the movie - are: one, the pacing on An Unexpected Journey and ONLY on An Unexpected Journey: its the most lighthearted, most comedic of the entire cycle, very much the satyr play, and that lighter tone clashes with the slow pace. Its a double whammy, because if this is to be taken as the first film of the cycle, it should be all right do a better job of making you go "I want to watch the next film NOW!" and the slow pacing just doesn't allow for that: if it could have a been a two-hour-ish Star Wars/Indy type movie in terms of excitement-per-minute, that would have been great, but the way its structured, it ultimately can't be.

 

Ultimately, if I have to try and analyze why the pacing on that film - and, again, for me only on that film - is so lackluster, its not on the whole because of the 44 minutes that it takes to get the quest going: its no longer than it took The Fellowship of the Ring or that it takes many fantasy films of any length. Rather, the issue is with the first leg of the journey: when they set-out with Bilbo, you expect the reins to be let go of, but instead we cut to a flashback of the Moria battle (which I like a lot) and cut away to the setup of a separate (but intrinsically connected) storyline with Radagast. Then we do get to the first setpiece of the adventure itself, Trollshaws, and while it does setup things important to the quest going forward, it ultimately doesn't feel like its getting us any closer to the mountain. Things do pick up when the Wargs show up, but soon we're plunged into another slow exposition dump courtesy of the white council. When the company leave Rivendell, the film finds its footing pace-wise, and the other two follow from there.

 

The other problem is that, yes, some of the beats in the action definitely stretch credulity a little too far. I don't mind some of that: in action movies, characters almost always survive things they shouldn't: Batman and Rachel really shouldn't be able to walk away from landing on that car in The Dark Knight, and Jaguar Paw really shouldn't be able to keep outrunning his assailants in Apocalypto after he's been pierced by an arrow to the shoulder. Still, it would be facetious of me to say that those examples are quite comparable to Bombur's Barrel Bonanza, or Thorin floating in a small tunnel right over molten gold (sidebar, but I'd place both still a notch below what Indy survives in both Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but some would say that's a low bar) and while I always enjoyed Legolas' Superhero Moments^TM, I think that in The Battle of the Five Armies - not particularly in The Desolation of Smaug, my favourite - they definitely go overboard: I actually think that in isolation, the fight on the tower would be pretty cool, but to have it as the cherry ontop of Legolas having riden upside-down on a bat (!), dispatched a hundred Orcs in the proccess (!!), leapt unto a tower to shoot at some more Orcs (!!!) and then dive unto a Troll's head while guiding it with Orcrist into the tower (!!!!) is more than a little bit much. Still, on the whole those beats are miniscule in the great scheme of things: if you keep the entire barrel chase, as is, but without the 25 seconds of Bombur's Barrel Bonanza, its honestly a pretty fun sequence with some amazing shots.

Those are my two main issues - there are other small ones, too: I don't mind Alfrid so long as he acts as the Master's counterpart. When he's on his own in The Battle of the Five Armies...I mean, he's in 151-minutes of movie for 5.5 minutes, so its a fairly small issue in the grand scheme of things, but I'd be lying if those 5 minutes are not three minutes too many. I also find some of Radagast's antics when he's relating the events at Dol Guldur to Gandalf to be too much, but that's REALLY miniscule. The love story falls into a similar category: I don't mind the early stages of it in The Desolation of Smaug, but in The Battle of the Five Armies it really suffers, and it suffers in part because there's so little of it, but at the same time that means its very minor.

 

At the same time, like I said the pace works for me on both the other two entries: generally speaking plot-point follows plot-point in due time, but its also never breathless (grunts in the direction of The Rise of Skywalker, or Bakshi's Rings for that matter), many of the setpieces work like gangbusters (my favourite being Mirkwood), it has Jackson's eye for blocking, there's some pretty clever writing, and those Dwarves that are focused upon - like Dwalin, Balin, Bofur, Thorin and even Kili to a lesser extent - are great characters. Some moments, including many of the climactic ones, I find deeply stirring and moving.

 

Came out a little verbose, but that's where I'm at with it all, basically

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

I could have done without the Goblin King’s song. 

[Chen G. 3,940]

Well, it is the series' satyr play...

[Schilkeman 951]

I re-watched these in my covid induced stupor the past few days. Some thoughts:

 

AUJ

Having Bilbo write a book for hours only to start Fellowship with "where to begin" doesn't work. Ian Holm was always the best Bilbo, but he is noticeably older. The whole frame should have been changed. I do love the transition into the younger Bilbo. The Phantom Ring. It's good stuff. Frodo shouldn't be there at all.

 

The Moria Flashback is indicative of a lot of my issues with this trilogy. It goes on too long, has too many unearned dramatic beats, has clumsy, affected writing, and is not dramatically interesting. It's a protracted intro for Azog, and otherwise doesn't deliver any information we don't learn elsewhere. It's also in a bad place in the film. 

 

I enjoy The Peter Jackson Interpretation (the PJI if you will) of Radagast the Brown

 

The entrance of Elrond/The White Counsel (minus the Galadriel/Gandalf scene)/ The trip through the mountains/Bilbo's escape from Goblin Town/The whole fight at the end/Thorin's bullshit after the eagles put them on that stupid rock: see Moria above

 

Seriously, the production this movie puts on for Elrond’s introduction is unintentionally comical.

 

Let's talk about Gandalf for a moment. I know there is an interview somewhere with Sir Ian where he talks about the transition from Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White, and that when Gandalf the Grey "died" he lost the character and couldn't find him again. His acting in this trilogy feels like he's doing an impression, a very good impression, but an impression still, of himself playing Gandalf the Grey.

 

Things I liked in this film are the prologue, Radagast's introduction, and the Gollum riddle scene. "Why the Hobbit" is the best non-Tolkien material in the whole series. A thesis for its very existence. 

 

To not make this post too long, I'll do the other two separately when I get a chance.

 

[Faleel 5,326]

3 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

To not make this post too long, I'll do the other two separately when I get a chance.

 

Why a trilogy? Why not just two posts?

 

 

[Schilkeman 951]

2 minutes ago, Presto said:

Why a trilogy? Why not just two posts?

 

 

The last one will just be me repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

and they fight
and they fight

and they fight

and they fight

holy ass balls they’re still fighting

 

Oh, I guess that’s that one done. Of all the films, this is the one I feel Tolkien would rage against the hardest. To quote The Nerd, what a shit load of fuck. It, like The Dark Knight Rises, is so poor at sticking its landing, it ruins the trilogy for me.

[Chen G. 3,940]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

The last one will just be me repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

Less than half the film is the battle...

[Faleel 5,326]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Less than half the film is the battle...

Which is an event, not exactly the same as fighting, which is an action.

[Chen G. 3,940]

My point is taken nonetheless, I trust.

 

And, in general, I can only imagine the fool (of a Took?) who goes into a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie NOT expecting an action film. They're all action films. Doesn't mean their drama is diminished for it in the least.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Chen, you’re The Hobbit’s Luca Brasi.

[Faleel 5,326]

45 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Chen, you’re The Hobbit’s Luca Brasi.

Are you saying he is slow-witted and brutish?

[Schilkeman 951]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

My point is taken nonetheless, I trust.

 

And, in general, I can only imagine the fool (of a Took?) who goes into a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie NOT expecting an action film. They're all action films. Doesn't mean their drama is diminished for it in the least.

I expect action, but the battle barely exists in the book. There’s just too much of it in the film. It’s completely disproportionate to the story.

Jackson, a consummate, if over indulgent, filmmaker, must know this.

For a man who makes three hour films in his sleep, this film is clawing to the two-hour mark. My only conclusion is that this trilogy did not have three films worth of material, but was made to have three films worth of material. By who, I don’t know and don’t care. It was a poor decision. 

[Chen G. 3,940]

7 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

For a man who makes three hour films in his sleep, this film is clawing to the two-hour mark.

 

I never felt that. The only entry of the three that I felt was, not so much clawing for screentime but rather moved at fits-and-stops, is An Unexpected Journey. After that, I think the films find their groove, pacing-wise.

 

The Battle of the Five Armies does have a very pensive, methodical, gloomy first half, but that's the nature of the material: the whole central irony is that the Dwarves had fought to get to the mountain, and now that they are there they find themselves cornered within it, and a sense of stagnation falls over the proceedings as Thorin loses his mind: its basically Anti-Climax: The Motion Picture. Very often, while watching that part of the film, I find myself thinking: "You know, this is actually the strongest of the trilogy!"

 

And when the battle itself starts...lets just say, I appreciate that Jackson didn't just deliver on a clone of the battles of the Hornburg and Pelennor. What we basically have are three different battles: the manuevering armies in the valley, the street fighting in Dale, and then a series of duels on Ravenhill. If you want to talk about a sense of geography in a large-scale battle, this is as good a specimen as any: its always clear which of the three arenas we're watching, where they are in relation to each other, and - very significantly, and this was also very true of the climax of the previous film - rather than intercut through all three throughout, pretty much the moment the characters set foot on Ravenhill, we stop cutting back to the other fronts.

 

No, I'm not going to sit here and pretend its perfect by any means: the Legolas Superhero Moments^TM, which I typically enjoy, have gone way overboard here. Alfrid, though he's only in five minutes of this 151-minute movie, is in it for easily three minutes too many. The look of the film - no doubt intended to somewhat blur the transition to The Fellowship of the Ring - is much too drab for my liking, and a lot of the footage itself just doesn't look as good as it should.

 

But for me, this film while not the best of the three (that honour surely goes to Smaug) is the gloomiest of all six, but also among the most poignant, the most affecting and most riveting. We get a lot of martyrdom in these films - characters laying their lives down for the cause. What we don't get as much of are these more Aeschylian characters, who basically bring doom upon themselves, as Thorin does here. The denoument, with the camera pulling away from the Dwarves, and then the return to the unadultered landscapes of New Zealand as Middle Earth, is a cinematic Karfreitagszauber.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

I was thinking about why prefer BOTFA more than DOS (and much of AUJ) and decided it must all be about expectations.

 

Whereas I agree with most of the choices Jackson made in adapting LOTR, that wasn't the case with most of The Hobbit. A lot of it made me cringe. I quite like AUJ until they leave the Shire, Riddles in the Dark and...other than a few other bits and beats, that's about it. Mirkwood is good enough in DOS, as is Bilbo's interaction with Smaug (the less said about the Dwarves cat and mouse game with Smaug the better), but I HATE the depiction of Laketown and its denizens. 

 

But I really enjoy most of BOTFA because there's not much Tolklien left to adapt at that point, most of the iconic bits from the book are behind us, and it's just Jackson making an effective and dramatic fantasy film. And it mostly works. For all its reputation of just being a big battle film, there's actually some excellent character stuff going on here, probably the best in the trilogy. Thorin's nobility, tragically undermined by pathos and obsession is really paid off. The interpersonal conflict is done quite well and dramatic, and gives context to the conflict on the battlefield, which almost feels secondary. Conflict between the Dwarves themselves, Thorin and Bilbo, Thorin and Bard, Thorin and Gandalf, Thorin and Thranduil (well, Thorin and everyone), etc. There's the tension between Gandalf and Thranduil, and even Gandalf and Bilbo. In fact, Bilbo has a great character arc, and really comes into his own, rather than just being a tool of Gandalf's, and you can see Gandalf, like Thorin, really come to respect him. 

 

There's also lots of competing motivations going on here...Gandalf, Thorin, Bilbo, Thranduil & Bard all have their own reasons for being involved in this war and their own things they're fighting for. It's all quite compelling and effective stuff, IMO. And most of this only exists, as subtext at best, in Tolkien's book. All this drama mostly comes as payoff to stuff laid out in the first two movies, and from the pen of Boyens, Walsh and Jackson. So on its own, and not judged as an adaption of Tokien, it works. IMO, the other two films, especially DOS, aren't as effective as adaption or stand-alone cinema.

 

As an aside, massive respect for Richard Armitage, who really poured everything he had into the role of Thorin, and, despite being nothing like the book Thorin, he (mostly) pulls it off. He's incredibly effective, and delivers among the best performances in all six films, and certainly the best in The Hobbit (even better than McKellan's cosplaying, at times, his own Gandalf, IMO).

 

Of course, the Gul Dulgur stuff is rubbish, and the Laketown survivors trying to murder Alfrid is the worst scene in all six films, but they're not a part of any version of the film that I watch. 

[Schilkeman 951]

16 hours ago, Chen G. said:

but also among the most poignant, the most affecting and most riveting. We get a lot of martyrdom in these films - characters laying their lives down for the cause. What we don't get as much of are these more Aeschylian characters, who basically bring doom upon themselves, as Thorin does here.

My biggest gripes with Thorin in this movie is that A: we don't get a clear idea of what "sickness" lies on the gold or exists in the lineage and B: his obstinate behavior throughout the series does not tell me when he's being merely that, or is under some kind of effect. His "cure" seems to be to stick around long enough for it to wear off. Like most "decent into madness" movies, it doesn't go far enough to sell me, and seems to come and go arbitrarily. 

 

I believe Stephen King when he writes "all tragedies are stupid," and Thorin is profoundly stupid, but not in an engaging (and certainly not in a poignant, affecting, or riveting) way for me. He's simply mad, until he isn't, and then dies--and in between he's an asshole. But not before we get the Big Fight that, again, goes on for a comical amount of time. Azog is an even less compelling character than the dwarves.

 

I know this whole affair was given a great deal of post hoc weight by Tolkien in the appendices, and I can buy that the stakes are bigger here than in the book, but they are not Pelennor big, or even as big as the business in Rohan. But it wants us to think they are, which is the trilogy's biggest problem, because there isn't enough plot, or philosophical weight to drive the Epic, and there sure as shit isn't enough to drive the runtime. It’s a symphony played too slow with too little counterpoint.

 

I think there's a really good dualogy hiding in this trilogy. It's a shame we didn't get it.

[Chen G. 3,940]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

e don't get a clear idea of what "sickness" lies on the gold or exists in the lineage and B: his obstinate behavior throughout the series does not tell me when he's being merely that, or is under some kind of effect. His "cure" seems to be to stick around long enough for it to wear off. like most "decent into madness" movies, it doesn't go far enough to sell me, and seems to come and go arbitrarily. 

 

I personally believe the "Dragon Sickness" is like the love potion in Tristan: it may well have been cold tea. All the traits that are characteristic of Thorin under the scourage of the "sickness" are incipit in his personality from the outset: isolationism, neuroticism, obstinance, you name it, and we see them intensify the closer he gets to achieving his goal. Its his resolve to see the quest fullfilled - no matter what - that gradually sends him spiraling.

 

As for the thing that actually makes him snap...when do we first see Thorin (well, after the credits) in The Battle of the Five Armies? We see him in the treasure hoard, and what is he muttering? "Gold beyond measure. Beyond sorrow and grief." Then he sees Fili and Kili and he's very visibly taken aback. Why? There's a deleted scene of Thorin - still in Laketown garb - that appeared in the trailer: "Everything I did, I did for them."

 

In other words, he thinks that Fili and Kili - who we've learned not long prior are his heirs - had died in the attack on Laketown. So do the other Dwarves, judging by Ori's surprised "You're alive!" This grief is exacerbated by two factors: one, we know Dis made Kili swear he'd "come back to her" and we can assume she made Fili (whose visibly very protective of Kili) and Thorin likewise swear to bring him (and themselves) back safely; AND Thorin must surely think its his fault for leaving them in Laketown AND unleashing Smaug upon the town: "Revenge?" Smaug bellows: "I will show you revenge!" So its his grief that takes him over the edge, and he takes comfort in the one single heirloom he has left: his grandfather's gold.

 

And, for all his flaws, Thorin is an exceptionally aspirational and moving character, I find. In the prologue alone, he shows moral fiber (he visibly disapproves of the stunt Thror pulls on Thranduil), cleverness (being the first to notice the approaching dragon), self-sacrifical bravery (saving Balin, Thror AND Thrain at great risk to himself), leadership (rallying the defenses from the front line and then leading the exodus). He goes on to show valiance in battle at Moria, he takes menial labours to provide for his people, and we're told he had "built a new life for us in the blue mountains." He's a profoundly noble character.

 

There are very, very few characters in any of these films, about whose psyche you can write so much.

[Schilkeman 951]

Weird, because about 1200 pages were written about Frodo, Sam, Pippin, Merry, Boromir, Faramir, Gandalf, Aragorn, and the duo of Legolas and Gimli, all of whom are bringing more to the table for me than Thorin, and are better represented in their films.
 

The fact that Thorin’s apparent motivation was left on the cutting room floor makes my case for me. There’s a better version of these movies somewhere.

[Chen G. 3,940]

[Schilkeman 951]

When you have to cite deleted scenes in trailers to make a case for a film being good, you have left the realm of criticism for fanboy land. I get you like the films. I get why you like the films. I’ve made my case for why I think they’re subpar. I find very little compelling about the dwarves, and I would dare say Tolkien didn’t either, and no amount of trying to can make up for the structural problems I find in these movies. For me, they don’t work mechanically, and the don’t work as art, and feed into my growing belief that maybe Middle Earth doesn’t translate as well to film as I once thought it did. I’ve given these films a fair shot at convincing me. I’ll debate it no further.

[Chen G. 3,940]

6 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

When you have to cite deleted scenes in trailers to make a case for a film being good, you have left the realm of criticism for fanboy land.

 

I'm citing it to reinforce a point that, to me, is clear enough from the film itself.