Jump to content

Worst Scene in The Hobbit?


Recommended Posts

As over-the-top and stupid as this design is, I'd much rather they reused it for Bolg than that... thing.

Azog-Version1C5.png

 

Somehow I have no problems with Azog, even though he was basically rushed for aUJ, he looks pretty good in most shots and it's not a bad design. Bolg is a mess. Maybe it was a rushed decision to have him, too? Azog was present at the River Gate in the trailer of DoS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Battle Of Five Armies EE   The Kili/Tauriel stuff is cringeworthy. Really awful stuff. Orlando Bloom looks distractingly nothing like himself 10 years ago. And he's really not a very goo

PJ had an impossible job. He had to retrofit a (arguably weaker) story on to a trio of well made, well loved films. Against all that, he had to create a sort of continuity through which he could

Despite being somewhat overlong, I absolutely love all the scenes in Bilbo's home at the beginning of the movie. Such a warm, cozy feeling sequence, and the interactions between Bilbo, Gandalf, and th

The original is the one I linked above, it was thrown away quickly after a week of refining, it's now the prison-keeper at Dol Guldur, Galadriel turns him into dust, his striking red blood is all washed out. Then most (or at least a lot) of Azog was shot with the design that now became Yazneg in the pickups, who's killed at Weathertop. Peter realised it wouldn't work but was at the point where he had to shoot it regardless, "we'll fix it in post". The third and final design which I like was locked down quite a bit into postproduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Holko said:

Knowing literally everything you see in Bad Taste he made with his two hands (OK, maybe a friend or two helped) does add a ton to it.

 

Still a personal favorite of mine.  I special ordered the DVD when I was 15 and my friends and I watched it over and over and over and over.  It was just what we put on when we hung out for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually doubt the process of filming them was harder and more intense than LOTR. 

I do think that Jackson probably had difficulties directing a trilogy he never intended on directing himself. 

 

After recently having read (via audiobook) The Hobbit again, I would say that intimately he probably dis this, very charming, children'sbook rather a disservice by turning it into a 3 movie juggernaut.

 

Tolkien was right when he abandoned his attempt to rewrite it in a more adult tone after the succes of LOTR. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I actually doubt the process of filming them was harder and more intense than LOTR. 

I do think that Jackson probably had difficulties directing a trilogy he never intended on directing himself. 

 

After recently having read (via audiobook) The Hobbit again, I would say that intimately he probably dis this, very charming, children'sbook rather a disservice by turning it into a 3 movie juggernaut.

 

Tolkien was right when he abandoned his attempt to rewrite it in a more adult tone after the succes of LOTR. 

 

Indeed. This is something I've been meaning to bring up regarding the decision to port the stuff from the LOTR appendices into The Hobbit, and make the films more tonally and thematically in line with LOTR...Tolkien tried that, realised quickly it was folly, and abandoned it.  

 

I admit when I first read Jackson & Co. were planning on doing this, I was excited. But the execution was ultimately clunky, and the material simply did not belong in The Hobbit. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

Indeed. This is something I've been meaning to bring up regarding the decision to port the stuff from the LOTR appendices into The Hobbit, and make the films more tonally and thematically in line with LOTR...Tolkien tried that, realised quickly it was folly, and abandoned it.  

 

I don’t know that he abandoned it: he just left it unfinished, like so much of his work. The only reason we have finished versions of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is that Tolkien was being urged to finish them by his publishers.

 

I like it as a serious film: it’s in the same world and of the same director and so it makes sense that would be in-line with the rest of the work; and - more importantly - once you make it about Thorin, there’s a reason in the story to present it this way. Because Thorin’s Journey is much more grand and grim (its essentially a tragedy) than Bilbo’s.

 

On rewatch, I will say that I do like that the first film is lighter: Gives it a different flavor in the prospect of the whole series, which is refreshing and gives the story a chance to escalate. The theatrical cut should have been much, much shorter, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think they “stopped bothering”. To my mind, it was intentional: starting light and Bilbo-centric, and than going darker and re-orienting towards Thorin. Like I said: there’s an escalation there.

 

In the commentary of An Unexpected Journey, Jackson says (aptly enough) that the kind of comedy which is prevalent in that film is going to go away in the second and third film. By the midpoint of The Desolation of Smaug (the original second film) it’s gone entirely, which honestly is a good thing.

 

Its still a hit-and-miss sometimes, but because it’s Thorin’s story, the tonal choices are for the most part motivated and, to me, satisfying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I don’t think they “stopped bothering”. To my mind, it was intentional: starting light and Bilbo-centric, and than going darker and re-orienting towards Thorin. Like I said: there’s an escalation there.

 

In the commentary of An Unexpected Journey, Jackson says (aptly enough) that the kind of comedy which is prevalent in that film is going to go away in the second and third film. By the midpoint of The Desolation of Smaug (the original second film) it’s gone entirely, which honestly is a good thing.

 

Of course.

 

InfamousActiveAlligator-size_restricted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

InfamousActiveAlligator-size_restricted.

 

I didn’t say it doesn’t resurface later. In fact I did say its sometimes still a “hit-or-miss” But thankfully Alfrid’s screentime is brief enough (about four minutes in a nearly three-hour film) that it’s a minor issue for me, however horrible his “comedy” is. Not to mention that he does meet his end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, it resurfaces. It’s far from gone entirely. And resurfaces again in Alfrids death. In fact in anything to do with Alfrid. Even the Laketown refugees attempt to murder the loathesome character is played for laughs.  Is there anyone who thinks Alfrid is a character Tolkien would have written?

 

The Mayors death is played for stupid laughs. And I’d submit that Smaug’s cat and mouse with The Dwarves is high comedy as well (albeit unintentional).

 

I’m sure if I watched again I’d find more.

 

They knew how to use the  humour in LOTR....it was generally well timed and and appropriate (and more or less limited to one character). So its not that comedy doesn’t have a place in these films, it definitely does. Even moreso The Hobbit, which should have more humour than LOTR. But it’s just another example of how these films are tonally all over the place. It's mostly broad, embarrassing comedy, particularly in the second two films. Why go there if your intention was to get "darker"? (which again, is a questionable decision anyway given the source material).

 

AUJ is the best, and most true to Tolkien’s spirit, especially the first half. But even that film has its problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching An Unexpected Journey now. Even 20 minutes in, you can feel its padded. There's scenes in the theatrical cut that should have been reserved for the EE, and probably were.

 

Good looking though. Andrew Lesnie really captures New Zealand wonderfully.

The lighter tone is great. Freeman has fantastic comic timing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Freeman has fantastic comic timing.

Martin Freeman is by-far my highlight of The Hobbit. I love the character he provides Bilbo and the little quirks (face twitch, one which I can resonate with). The Hobbit makes Bilbo a lot more heroic than he is in the original book, at least in my perception, but his arc makes a lot of sense the way it is presented in the film.

8 minutes ago, John said:

Despite being somewhat overlong, I absolutely love all the scenes in Bilbo's home at the beginning of the movie. Such a warm, cozy feeling sequence, and the interactions between Bilbo, Gandalf, and the Dwarves are just perfect. Best part of the movie, imo.

Agreed, although it feels stretched, like butter spread over too much bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jerry said:

Martin Freeman is by-far my highlight of The Hobbit. I love the character he provides Bilbo and the little quirks (face twitch, one which I can resonate with). The Hobbit makes Bilbo a lot more heroic than he is in the original book, at least in my perception, but his arc makes a lot of sense the way it is presented in the film.

Quote

Despite being somewhat overlong, I absolutely love all the scenes in Bilbo's home at the beginning of the movie. Such a warm, cozy feeling sequence, and the interactions between Bilbo, Gandalf, and the Dwarves are just perfect. Best part of the movie, imo.

Agreed, although it feels stretched, like butter spread over too much bread.

 

I've said my piece about the later two films (which I, not unlike many others, happen to like better) but with regards to the Bag End sequences in An Unexpected Journey I'll say this: I don't think the film's pacing issues lay there.

 

Generally, long first acts aren't the cause of pacing issues. think The Fellowship of the Ring takes about as much as An Unexpected Journey (around forty minutes), Star Wars taken 47 minutes, Braveheart takes just over an hour; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly even longer, which is to say nothing of the old epics of the sixties.

 

I think audiences will be willing to sit through a lot of slow set-up, if they have good reason to think that its going to get more exciting when it kicks off. This is especially true of films that feature a strong cold opening like this one (again, not unlike The Fellowship).

 

It helps that the Bag End sequences are among the most beautifully-shot parts of the series: the longest take of the series, at a minute-and-a-half, is is here; and the introduction to the individual Dwarves (its their story just as much as it is Bilbo's) is very economical indeed.

 

The real issue is when the second act begins and time after time fails to get off of the ground. The company has taken to the road, the audience expects it to get more interesting...and it doesn't. The Azog bits have to be in there, as do the Radagast stuff although I would have tried to shorten the latter considerably for the theatrical release. I think the issue is a sequence that's actually from the book: the three Trolls.

 

Its not that its redundant - there's plenty of set-up there (Bilbo's sneaking skills, the swords, the Dwarves' fighting skills, the idea of a "darker power") - but I think this first leg of the journey where not only is the mountain still too remote a prospect but the chase with Azog isn't on yet - should have been breezed through as quickely as possible for the theatrical release.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I've said my piece about the later two films (which I, not unlike many others, happen to like better) but with regards to the Bag End sequences in An Unexpected Journey I'll say this: I don't think the film's pacing issues lay there.

 

Generally, long first acts aren't the cause of pacing issues. think The Fellowship of the Ring takes about as much as An Unexpected Journey (around forty minutes), Star Wars taken 47 minutes, Braveheart takes just over an hour; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly even longer, which is to say nothing of the old epics of the sixties.

 

I think audiences will be willing to sit through a lot of slow set-up, if they have good reason to think that its going to get more exciting when it kicks off. This is especially true of films that feature a strong cold opening like this one (again, not unlike The Fellowship).

 

It helps that the Bag End sequences are among the most beautifully-shot parts of the series: the longest take of the series, at a minute-and-a-half, is is here; and the introduction to the individual Dwarves (its their story just as much as it is Bilbo's) is very economical indeed.

 

The real issue is when the second act begins and time after time fails to get off of the ground. The company has taken to the road, the audience expects it to get more interesting...and it doesn't. The Azog bits have to be in there, as do the Radagast stuff although I would have tried to shorten the latter considerably for the theatrical release. I think the issue is a sequence that's actually from the book: the three Trolls.

 

Its not that its redundant - there's plenty of set-up there (Bilbo's sneaking skills, the swords, the Dwarves' fighting skills, the idea of a "darker power") - but I think this first leg of the journey where not only is the mountain still too remote a prospect but the chase with Azog isn't on yet - should have been breezed through as quickely as possible for the theatrical release.

 

Now in this I can find nothing to disagree with.

 

The comment about slow first acts generally not being the cause of pacing problems is astute...though I'll just add that a bad, slow first act can kill a movie before it begins.  That's not the case with AUJ, however.  The first act is generally fine (and IMO the best part of the trilogy).

 

I also agree about the troll sequence. Not that it shouldn't be there, clearly it should. It's one of the most iconic bits from the book, and it harkens back (or forward, if you will) to LOTR. The movie also needs an action beat there. But...the sequence is too long and drawn out. Some more discipline in editing (which Jackson sorely lacked in The Hobbit) is in order here.

 

Radagast doesn't belong in these films at all, but that's another issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the should have called it “The Hobbit” tbh. I don’t think that did them any favours. “The Quest for Erebor” might have been better. An adaptation of the Hobbit but not solely of the Hobbit is what it was and it stopped really focusing on Bilbo about half way through so yeah. Title wouldn’t fix the films but might have refocused them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! Either that or “Durin’s Folk”. It’s a Dwarvish story much more than it is Bilbo’s, which I prefer. I don’t need every tentpole blockbuster to churn out the Hero’s Journey.

 

But honestly I don’t put much stock into titles. They’re more a marketing tool than they are a testament to the content of the film: they’re part of the brand. If they were an indication of content, Infinity Wars would have been called ”Thanos”; Same here: “The Hobbit” is just a more recognizable title.

 

Hell, even “The Lord of the Rings” isn’t about the actual Lord of the Rings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...