How do you feel about the Hobbit trilogy now?

[Tacit Ronin]

It's been almost four years since the release of Hobbit 3. Enough time to absorb the trilogy and form a settled opinion.

Do you find them as inconsequential as I do? How the feeling that the whole enterprise was bloated beyond reasonable limits is inescapable? There is a taut little adventure story screaming to get out from the rolls of fatty tissue. A story about Bilbo Baggins the little Hobbit. But it's buried under poorly written tripe about a Prince reclaiming his honor and a cringeworthy love story. The action is weightless. It so tries to recapture the sprawl of the LOTT trilogy but doesn't have the narrative depth to justify it.

Ultimately an uneventful trilogy. It never reaches to the lows of Star Wars PT. The actors try their best. It's not totally tone deaf. It's just forgettable.

 

[Greens]

The same as I did when they came out: underwhelmed and annoyed.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I felt exactly like in OP when it came out and nothing changed since then.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Liked it then, like it now, not as epic or as powerful as LOTR but frankly, was it ever going to be, given how 'fresh' those three films were and the impact they have had on film making in general over the years, but I enjoyed each of the Hobbit films and particularly the third. An 8/10 from me for an average over the three, and very glad Jackson came back to direct.

 

[Boom]

I'm counting down the days until I see another live-action film adaptation of the book. Let's just put it like that.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Still trying to get into the lord of the rings trilogy

 

[Abudefduf]

Same way as I felt after I finished watching Battle of the Five Armies for the first and last time... very, very disappointed. Not as annoyed though.

 

[nite-owl]

Still sucks.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

I like them, not as much as LotR but still.

 

[Galactus123]

I haven't had a desire to watch them again. They weren't very memorable and The Lord of the Rings trilogy was so much better.

 

[Kirmit]

I haven't had a desire to watch them again. They weren't very memorable and The Lord of the Rings trilogy was so much better.

I think I'm the same as this. Although I did enjoy them, don't think they’re as bad as some people make out, if I want to get my middle earth fix I'm never going to turn to them.

 

[Fincher]

I actually haven't gotten to the third one. The first two were entertaining, the second more so than the first, but not as good as the Lord of the Rings films. They also didn't feel much like how I remember the book, although it has been a long time since I read it.

 

[C. Lee]

Rewatched them again about a month ago. I still like them.....not as much as TLOTR...but I like them.

 

[Finarfiniel]

I actually quite like An Unexpected Journey, it's the only one that comes even remotely close to capturing the spirit of the book in it's early scenes in particular (the 'Blunt the Knifes' and 'Misty Mountain Cold' songs are great), and I have to admit I get a little bit of a vicarious thrill at seeing the White Council in live action, especially the tiny amount of screen time that Gandalf and Galadriel have together. But the other two films are bloated and messy and pay a complete disservice to the book. Don't even get me started on that whole pathetic, cringe-worthy love triangle.

Martin Freeman was perfect casting as Bilbo though, it's a real shame that they couldn't have cast him in a more faithful adaption.

 

[Brother Jack]

Overall, it was a failure. I think there are some good, even great elements (Freeman is perfect as Bilbo) that are swallowed up by excess and poor choices all around. I really wish Guillermo Del Toro had remained on board. Peter Jackson was not given enough time to do it right nor did he have a clear, concise direction with it.

 

[Marvolo]

Rewatched them again about a month ago. I still like them.....not as much as TLOTR...but I like them.

I feel the same way.

 

[Brother Jack]

I actually quite like An Unexpected Journey, it's the only one that comes even remotely close to capturing the spirit of the book in it's early scenes in particular (the 'Blunt the Knifes' and 'Misty Mountain Cold' songs are great), and I have to admit I get a little bit of a vicarious thrill at seeing the White Council in live action, especially the tiny amount of screen time that Gandalf and Galadriel have together. But the other two films are bloated and messy and pay a complete disservice to the book. Don't even get me started on that whole pathetic, cringe-worthy love triangle.

I agree, the first one is by far the least egregious, even if it does stretch the material. The second is the nadir of the whole thing. Not just because of the insipid love triangle; there's also the action sequences that are padded out beyond belief, the insistence on giving Legolas a role larger than a cameo, and the BS non-ending.

It's a testament that the two sequences where Bilbo is just in conversation with another character, Gollum and Smaug respectively, are two of the best in the entire trilogy. The lesson is that less is more. All the excess consumed the story until there was nothing left but CGI.

 

[Doctor Jones]

They're largely forgettable. And this is coming from a gigantic fan of the LOTR films and Jackson as a director. The first film is the only one that feels like an actual movie. The narrative is guided by solid characters arcs for Bilbo and Thorin and there are some great scenes and moments. It has the fat, but it doesn't get anywhere near as indulgent and fat like the next two films do, though I do enjoy the second film.

The third film? I couldn't ****ing believe what I was watching.

One day make a two and a half hour Hobbit film where it strips out the fat. Make it a fun adventure story. It's about a Hobbit helping dwarves stop a dragon.

At least Jackson owned up to his mistakes.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The first one is adventurous and fun. The second one has its moments but is too obese for its own good. The third one is a torturous tour of badly conceived effects work.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

I like them, particularly the first one, I don't love them, they're nowhere near the level of what Jackson achieved with LotR, but I feel they get far more crap than they deserve, I'd love to see a two film cut like Jackson had intended before WB's stubborness over deadlines forced him to make it a trilogy.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Jackson was the one who proposed a trilogy, no?

 

[OutOfBoose]

I think the first one is the best of 3. It gets progressively worse.

 

[marvelrobbins]

it should have remained two films.jackson added too much unnesary stuff.the grey council subplot is fine and it helps connect it and lord of the rings but other addations didn't work.

 

[sueb1863]

It's a bloated, CGI-sodden mess, with Bilbo shoved in the background and most of the dwarf actors relegated to little more than extras while Thorin and Kili get all of the attention. It was a terrible adaptation of the book with way too much pointless material added in. PJ squandered a perfect cast and massive resources to put out a boring, noisy nine-hour slog that could have done its job in half the time.

Hard to believe the 1977 Rankin/ Bass version got a lot closer to the spirit of the book when it was only 90 minutes long.

 

[LaughterLives]

It's been almost four years since the release of Hobbit 3. Enough time to absorb the trilogy and form a settled opinion.

Do you find them as inconsequential as I do? How the feeling that the whole enterprise was bloated beyond reasonable limits is inescapable? There is a taut little adventure story screaming to get out from the rolls of fatty tissue. A story about Bilbo Baggins the little Hobbit. But it's buried under poorly written tripe about a Prince reclaiming his honor and a cringeworthy love story. The action is weightless. It so tries to recapture the sprawl of the LOTT trilogy but doesn't have the narrative depth to justify it.

Ultimately an uneventful trilogy. It never reaches to the lows of Star Wars PT. The actors try their best. It's not totally tone deaf. It's just forgettable.

I loved them then, I love them now. I think they're better than the original Trio overall, except Fellowship.

I prefer them cuz they're less sappy and less homo-erotic than the original trio is to me and Overall, I just like the characters better. They're more entertaining for me. The action scenes are less gritty but more exciting, I find.

I don't agree with you at all. They're total Popcorn entertainment at its finest. Nothing Oscar Worthy but a fun ride.

Star Wars absolutely Sux. I feel your description better suits those movies.