Why The Hobbit Sucks

The Lord of the Rings is simply one of the best film trilogies ever committed to filming a brilliant adaptation of one of the best fantasy novels ever written. It's a moving and moving exploration of the power of friendship and loyalty, hope, sacrifice and the temptation and corruption of power combining it all in the most epic of adventures to decide the fate of an entire world, yeah, it's like five different endings, but what happens when you're so good that you've earned every single one of them? the formative cinematic experiences of my adolescence and a real pleasure to see one of my favorite books so faithfully adapted, but all good things come to an end and with the return of the king it seemed that we had said goodbye to the world of Middle Earth. but the only thing more powerful than the one ring is hollywood's desire to milk a popular franchise, so ten years later we received the announcement that peter jackson had returned to direct the film adaptation of tolkien's novel, the

hobbit

s, a prequel to El Señor de la Suena and it was going to be a trilogy.

Are you serious? I'll be honest with you. I had doubts about this from the beginning. It didn't really seem like there was enough story to justify an entire trilogy, but really nothing. could have prepared me for the coming shit storm, the

hobbit

trilogy is basically everything that the lord of the rings was not, it was simplistic, contrived and ridiculously over the top, combining the worst excesses of insipid hollywood action movies with weak plots and characters that make your average CW show seem complex and multifaceted now, I could probably spend hours analyzing each and every movie, laying out all the ridiculous creative decisions, one by one, but honestly, there's not enough alcohol in the world to overcome something like that, so instead, I'm going to keep this short, if not particularly sweet, and give you five key reasons why the hobbit

sucks

.

Ready, no, neither of us, anyway, let's get this reason in motion. The first, the plot, the hobbit plot could best be summarized as follows. Recruited by Gandalf to accompany a group of dwarves to the lonely mountain where they plan to kill a dragon that drove them from their homelands, they reach the mountain, but then the dragon leaves to fly for a bit and allows itself to be killed, thus that now everyone wants. a piece of treasure inside the mountain but the dwarves don't want to share it but then a group of orcs show up and there's a big battle and the good guys finally win oh yeah and Bilbo finds a magic ring that can turn you invisible I'm sure he'll never come back appear.

If this little summary seems a little short for a movie trilogy that runs almost eight hours, then you're starting to see the problem here: the Lord of the Rings novel clocked in at almost 1,200 pages, which is what I like to call a goal-rich environment; In fact, the biggest challenge they had with the film trilogy was deciding what to cut, but The Hobbit barely clocks in at 300 pages, it was basically a children's book without any of the dark themes, complex relationships, and extensive world-building. of the sequel, so how can you turn something like that into three full movies?

If you're a lazy screenwriter of dubious skill, you fill your script with more filler than a Twitch streamer's bra, like extended flashbacks and chase sequences for a pointless side character who's barely mentioned in the book and has no impact whatsoever. into the larger story, introducing entirely new characters and clichéd romantic subplots that make no logical sense in the context of the universe singing a generic antagonist with a manufactured grudge against the hero of the story clumsy attempts to tie this story into fan service shameless lord of the rings more singing from those eagles again throwing our heroes hundreds of miles from their destination for no obvious reason obnoxiously long cgi action sequences that go on forever and destroy any sense of tension, what i mean is that at least 50 parts of this trilogy are nothing more than meaningless filler, and like anything that doesn't add to the story, it all feels empty and unsatisfying, like you're watching someone play. a video game rather than a well-structured movie in The Lord of the Rings, every encounter felt meaningful, helping to advance the plot or expand the world's rich history or provide some sort of insight into the characters, their perspectives or motivations, the best even.

I managed to do all three at the same time, but here it feels like the movie is treading water trying to make each scene an event that lasts as long as possible because, first of all, there is so little material to work with and , of course, seasoning everything. with ridiculous, over-the-top action sequences that clearly lead me to my next point number two, the action, since there is very little story to work with, these three films are packed with boring, heavy, tensionless CGI action scenes that go on forever. and doing nothing but wasting time, Lord of the Rings had its share of action too, but believe it or not, it was usually pretty grounded and restricted, aside from legless surfing that shield down a flight of stairs, the characters might have lived in a world of magic and monsters, but it was still a world governed by rules like ours, rules like gravity and physics and the limits of what the human body can realistically survive, jump off a cliff of 500 feet in Middle Earth and you will die no matter how fantastic. who lives in the world with you when the characters were put in dangerous situations in The Lord of the Rings, you actually felt tension because for the most part they were given realistic limitations on what they could endure and when they exceeded those limits, guess what, but Now take a look at the so-called action scenes of the Hobbit movies and ask yourself a serious question: could any of this happen?

Could anyone hope to survive? I mean, this fall alone should have killed each of them a dozen times over. But there they are like rain, with barely a scratch outside the film. The problem with all of this is that it not only looks ridiculous but also breaks the audience's suspension of disbelief once you realize that your characters can easily survive falls. deadly impacts and situations that would definitely kill a normal person, so it's hard to feel concerned when the movie puts them in danger because, well, they're not, as a filmmaker you can conjure up the most fantastic worlds imaginable, but you still have to set rules . for those worlds to be respected and you have to stick to them, break them too much or too often and your audience will tune out your story because there is nothing left to believe in reason number three, the dwarves, let's be honest here in the great pantheon of the fantasy.

The dwarf creatures really got the end of the stick, they are short and chubby and look a little ridiculous on screen if handled poorly. Gimli from The Lord of the Rings showed us that it was possible to create interesting and multifaceted dwarf characters, yes, Movies sometimes make the occasional joke at their expense to provide a little levity in difficult moments. Nobody lets a dwarf fall, but they also gave him scenes of genuine pathos and drama. I thought he would die fighting side by side with the house. And how about side by side? on a friend's side, the message here was clear, this was a character you were supposed to take seriously, but the hobbit completely goes off the map with his dwarves to begin with, there are 13 of the things, I mean, I know that there are 13 in the book, so I can't exactly blame them for being faithful, but there's just no way to give 13 characters distinct personalities and perspectives, never mind anything approaching an arc, in fact, I doubt most of them people can identify more than four of them, there is the leader, the old man. the wise one, the big angry one and the fat one, the rest just blend into a generic mass that gets lost in the background because most of the time they have all they can do and, worst of all, they are treated like a silly comedy and clumsy.

Comrades, they're always falling over each other or falling into silly traps or singing shitty songs and it's like the script wants you to make fun of them, I mean a group of hardened warriors who go on a one-way mission to reclaim their homeland, It's a pretty solid relationship. As a basis for a dramatic story, a lot could be done to explore the mentality of men willing to sacrifice their lives with the slightest hope of success, but no, the film simply resorts to this instead of films number four, the antagonists, There is no other way to say this.

The antagonists in this trilogy suck, none of them have any real threat, charisma or interesting qualities that made me want to learn more about them, like everything else, they are treated more like cartoon characters than believable dramatic vessels for you to tell your story. story first. smaug the dragon who drove the dwarves out of his home why because he really likes gold apparently what a fascinating motivation! mountain of gold because I guess food and water aren't considerations for such a huge creature and he only reacts when people bother him, then walks off and someone else kills him.

Great, are you serious? Azog the Defiler is basically a generic orc who likes to fight and kill, he's not much different from that big Urak Hai in the ring community, I mean, he holds a bit of a grudge against Thorin for cutting off his arm, but he's not exactly a complex motivation and don't even get me started on Stephen. fry jesus christ i have seen better villains in christmas pantomimes let's not forget that it was gilliam lord of dale your ancestor who couldn't kill the beast what kind of ridiculous argument is it that your dad couldn't do something that was almost impossible that's why we should ignore your obviously intelligent, pragmatic and logical advice.

Well, it definitely

sucks

who wrote this script. The Lord of the Rings had a wide variety of antagonists with different motivations and goals, some were brutally glib, some cunning and seditious, and others tragically damaged beyond repair. Some harbored grandiose plans for conquest and domination as rising powers sought to take advantage of the situation, and in some ways the greatest antagonist of all was a small gold ring that could turn you invisible, a ring that exposed the weaknesses of all. that potentially touched him. turning anyone into an antagonist the point is enemies and the lord of the rings explored interesting ideas about the corrupting nature of power the eternal temptation to use it for good intentions the dangers of arrogance ambition and pride and the power of friendship Trust and loyalty were complex and multifaceted and the fact that most of them started out as good people gave the story an extra layer of pathos and pathos, but what do we have here?

A dragon that burns entire cities to the ground because he likes to do it. An ark that kills. people because he likes war a corrupt city leader who is only in power because his people are too stupid to get rid of him is vapid, dumb and shallow as a puddle of urine and has nothing worth saying number five bilbo bilbo is annoying in part because like every other hobbit character, he is written as a complete caricature, with no depth, no personal history, no facets to his personality, and, worst of all, no personal growth. Frodo really went through the mill in The Lord of the Rings developing inner strength, maturity and wisdom through his long adventure, but also losing something in the process, in the end you could tell that he was no longer a complete man and that the destruction of the ring had left a void in him that could never be filled, so you understood his eventual decision to leave.

Bilbo of Middle Earth doesn't really learn anything about himself or undergo tests like Frodo did, other than being richer and traveling better he's basically the same person at the end as he was at the beginning, there's none of the tired pride that comes up upon completing a difficult quest without feeling like he is stronger, wiser or better for what he has been through, he just goes back to his normal life as if nothing had happened and in the end I found myself wondering what the point of all this was, there is also something about Martin Freeman, that really bothers me, first because he's basically a small-time actor who somehow fell back into major movie roles without any of the magnetism or charisma necessary to dominate the big screen and second because he's basically been playing the himself awkward and socially tense. uncomfortable for the last 20 years and what started out as fun and endearing is starting to wear thin now and really this just reinforces my belief that like seth rogen and kristen wiig, he's basically made a career out of playing himself, now this video en I'm getting long and I'm starting to forget what I was talking about, but I feel like I've barelyscratched the surface of the hobbit's problems.

I haven't even mentioned the irrelevant subplot about Gandalf investigating the return of Sauron and the ringwraiths. featuring a bunch of older Lord of the Rings actors in a desperate attempt to make these movies seem more legitimate or Legolas' unnecessary fan service cameo or the totally forced and unbelievable romance between an elf and a dwarf, right? ? counts as interspecies relationship or the 4k 60 frames per second viewing experience in the cinema that made everything seem fake, like I was watching a dodgy play or something. For goodness sake, I just missed the standard frame rates and film grain. It's a lot to ask that my movies feel like real movies, like I said this is all basically filler to pad out the runtime and make these movies seem like there's more going on than there really is, the emotional tone also swings wildly from ridiculous humor to epic conflict and heavy, sinister drama in a matter of minutes, without any sense of structure or coherence.

On the one hand, it wants to be a fun light. A heartfelt adventure with plenty of jokes to keep the kids entertained, but it also wants to be an epic dramatic saga to rival The Lord of the Rings and well, you just have to pick one and run with it. I think this review is particularly telling when If you look at the broader context of these films, when The Lord of the Rings came out, there really wasn't much else to compare it to with the market for big-budget fantasy novel adaptations that was deader than life. Bob's movie career on YouTube, but by the time The Hobbit came out, the landscape had completely changed, Game of Thrones was reaching the peak of its creative and cultural popularity, and compared to a ram full of tits, swear words and violence, the hobbit seemed childish and ridiculous, a relic of a different time combined. put together by four different screenwriters trying to recapture the magic of a decade earlier and directed by a man who really should have gone ahead and done it all because they knew that no matter what it was like, the name alone would be enough to make them money and I guess That's my big takeaway from The Hobbit trilogy: it's a series of films that feel unnecessary as they fill in the blanks of a story that's already been told and told extremely well, a modest little adventure that probably would have worked well as a standalone movie, but instead it was filled with unnecessary filler and expanded into a wacky, clunky, bloated movie trilogy that no one really asked for, but hey, at least it'll probably be better than Amazon's TV series Anyway, that's all I have for today, go now.