My biggest problem with this film


I found it extremely stupid that instead of using the killing of the dragon scene as the climax for this film, the people making it chose to shove that scene into the next movie, and show that ridiculous chase through the mountain, where the dragon plays cat-and-mouse with the dwarves. I thought it was a real waste of time, and frankly, the dragon didn't actually need that as motivation to go attack Lake Town. Just being outwitted by a Hobbit in the book version was enough.

reply

They unnecessarily stretched the fuck outta this "trilogy".

reply

They really didn't need to shove the "slaying of Smaug" scene into the third film. We already had the Battle of Five Armies to entertain people. To be fair, I agree that it could have been made into a duology, considering how far into the story they got in the first film.

reply

Hadn't read the book when I first saw the film. So when I got to the end of the second film & all the dwarves work together & Bath Smaug in gold, I was like,

"Oh wow, that's a pretty fitting ending". But nah, it does fuck all & he just flies away & it ends.

I was like, what the fuuuuck? And then not only did Desolation of Smaug end in like the first 10 minutes of the next movie but everything after that was so damn boring & forgettable.

Battle of the 5 armies is one of the most forgettable movies I've ever watched.

reply

Yeah, they tried really hard with the Battle of Five Armies, but frankly, we'd already seen combat like that before in The Two Towers and Return of the King. The only noteworthy parts were Legolas's Super Mario Brothers' stunt, Billy Connelly being very entertaining on the battlefield, and Thorin finally having a showdown with Azog on the ice.

reply

It is basically the same as in Return of the King, Saruman only dies in Movie 3. But yes, it should have happened in 2, but then likely the producers feared no one would go into the third movie. I had actually liked it, if movie 3 had focused on the aftermath and the battle as climax.

reply

I take comfort in the fact, despite its flaws, it feels like a trilogy of Middle-Earth films that can fit in okay with the first trilogy, and it wasn't woke. Compared to that stupid "Rings of Power" show, these films look like masterpieces by comparison, though only second to the actual masterpieces, the Peter Jackson trilogy.

reply

The extended version of the Hobbit trilogy is in its Extended Edition over 8 hours, you can here easily cut out 2 hours, more likely 3 hours and get a better experience. The Lord of Ring is over 11 hours and I hardly want to miss a minute, but even if we cut out here 2 hours, it would be still longer as the Hobbit trilogy and definitely the better movies.

I am usually not a big fan of cutting down movies, but the Hobbit had already in the original edit so many scenes not necessary for the full experience.

reply

When my family watches the extended editions, we always just do 2 hours a night, giving each part the same treatment as a regular 2-hour film, and just watch over a period of a few nights.

reply

I agree, it should have just been two films. The studio got greedy.

reply

It's got the sa.e pacing issues we saw with King Kong, the references to the LOTR were awful time wasters, and the overall experience is boring.

Plus Elves are annoying characters.

reply

You mean that horrible King Kong that came out in 2004? I hated that film. It was really dark for a monster film that was supposed to be kinda silly and fantastical. But then again, King Kong never had a good ending no matter how many times it's retold on film.

I happen to like Middle-Earth elves, but it did bother me to see what kind of a dick Legolas's father was.

reply

I just showed my wife the scene where they came I. To finish off the spiders. It's so bad you almost wonder why there's any evil creatures in middle earth. They mug for "awesome" poses after insane acts of acrobatics and you wonder why the hell they had not just destroyed all orcs.

That's why I hate Elves. They're Mary Sue characters who are way overpowered until the writing comes up with stupid deaths to take them out. It's bad writing in the movies (they're better in the books).

reply

Elves actually aren't as perfect as you think. For one thing, they can still die if stabbed through the heart or their heads are cut off. They're only immortal so long as nobody goes out of their way to kill them first.

Second, the elves of Mirkwood actually have kinda sucked when it comes to leadership. I mean, that forest you saw the spiders in used to be a beautiful, green haven with travelers going through all the time. And yet over the centuries, King Thranduil and his predecessors did little to stop the darkness from coming in and corrupting the forest. He also suffers from extreme bigotry, though his animosity towards the dwarves is understandable, considering how Thorin's grandfather screwed him over some centuries ago.

(Keep in mind that not all elves in Middle-Earth are like the ones in Mirkwood, and as you saw with Legolas and Tauriel, not all of them have the same viewpoint as their king).

Another area elves are not perfect is, they don't always win battles. There have been times in Middle-Earth's history when they lost against an enemy, though it was usually due to the elves' poor choices and overwhelming numbers on the enemy's part.

Elvish magic also isn't that powerful. While they're good at some magic, much of it is limited to subtle stuff like medicine, healing, enhancing a skill like combat or making something, stuff like that. In fact, one reason they started heading to the Undying Lands of the West was because their power was fading over the centuries.

But the worst weakness elves have suffered, is that they are prone to magical corruption just as much as any other humanoids when it comes to relics such as The One Ring.

So I wouldn't exactly call them "Mary Sue's" per se, but it's easy to be blinded by their beauty and awesome weapons, fashion, and architecture.

reply