[ SECRET POST #6509 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6509 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 06 secrets from Secret Submission Post #930.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/Dot6hhM.png

[(Anonymous)]

TBH, I don't think they made even good popcorn movies. The pacing felt really off to me, there was some seriously unfunny additions (more Master of Lake town and Alfrid) and some of the big action sequences didn't really land. The battle scene in Battle of the Five Armies was particularly rushed and shortchanged. I don't mind a good popcorn flick, but... that wasn't it.

[philstar22]

I really enjoyed the first two. But the third one did feel really off. There were some great scenes, but on the whole it was just rushed in some ways and slowed in others and just didn't really work.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like there's a pretty good duology trapped in a mediocre trilogy. Which makes sense considering from my understanding Jackson wanted to do only two movies and the studio made him do three.

[philstar22]

I agree. I don't think one would have been enough time to really care for the characters and make the ending have the emotional impact the same. But three was too much. Two would have been ideal.

[(Anonymous)]

What? You weren't impressed by Legolas Mario-jumping his way through the battle?

Honestly, I think they could have made one good Hobbit movie that was about the length of RotK, or two more easily digestible ones, if they'd just stuck to the plot of the original book with maybe a little foreshadowing/fleshing out of characters. What we didn't need was a love triangle. Or Legolas. Or Alfrid. Or, frankly, a 20-minute council scene where everyone pretends that Saruman isn't going to grow up to be Darth Vader while Galadriel circles the room like a pointy-eared Jaws.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. There are a few scenes I enjoyed, like the misty mountains song or the admittedly stupid callback (call forward?) to Galadriel's dark lady bit from Fellowship, but on the whole they're a tonally inconsistent, bloated mess.

As far as I can tell, a lot of people who do find enjoyment in the movies were into Bilbo/Thorin or Kili/Tauriel. I wasn't, so even the fandom side was no fun for me.

[(Anonymous)]

I had my fun with them, and still do, but they unfortunately do have their shortcomings, especially the theatrical versions that cut truly bizarre scenes to make room for the unfunny Alfrid and Master stuff. I like the extended versions of the movies a lot more but I still think the fight scenes overstay their welcome and Legolas should not have been more than a funny cameo beyond Mirkwood.

But they still have a fond place in my heart and I love Thorin's death scene as much as it hurts my heart as a fan of his character and a big Thorin/Bilbo shipper. I like to watch these movies along with LoTR every year in the winter as they're all comfort movies for me, even if I do think The Hobbit films could have been better overall I adore what I do like about them.

[(Anonymous)]

I knew from the LOTR movies that I prefer it when Jackson and Co. reign in their sense of humor before it gets too sophomoric and doesn't fit with the tone of the movie (example: an orc getting hit in the balls during a battle scene) but even knowing that, the amount of Master and Alfrid scenes were truly baffling. Like... god, why. There's already so much material to cram into this movie, you had to add extra stuff AND it's painfully stupid? It was even worse than the inserted love triangle nonsense.

[(Anonymous)]

ARYT.

Yeah it's a weird thing where the overall length of the movies isn't short, and yet it still feels like they're overfull in ways that don't make sense? The extended versions at least add some more dwarf scenes in BoFA and Fili actually gets more than a single line of dialogue, but the fact that they were cut from the theatrical versions to begin with is boggling. I also was flabbergasted with the Durin funeral being cut from the theatrical cut too, as if that wasn't something to show.

I know there was a lot of studio meddling in the making of these movies so I wonder how much of that played a part in some of the odd choices, I do know it took what was 2 movies into 3 which didn't help things.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't watched the extended versions of the hobbit movies, and honestly, I'm not sure I can bring myself to sit through all of that again unless I was certain the final outcome would be waaaay better than the theatrical cut. The theatrical cut seemed like a mess, and the BotFA was the messiest of all. It made sense to give Bard more backstory, screen time and overall development because he's barely anything in the books. But rushing through every character death except Thorin's was... a choice.

I think studio meddling did a lot of damage and frankly, Peter Jackson just seemed so stressed and stretched thin in making the films. I don't think the same level of time and care was put into pre-production the way they were with the LOTR trilogy, and it shows.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT.

That's fair, I wouldn't say whether you should or not as that's a personal choice, it's just for me my love for them outweighs my annoyance and I wanted to see what was cut and whether the last two movies are a bit more coherent with the added scenes. And to me they are but they're still movies that are stretched thin in odd ways.

They didn't get the same time and that's fairly clear from the appendices as well as some cast interviews where many of them weren't even sure the films would get made. It's a shame because what's good in these movies imo is good, but they jsut got bogged down with studio interference and not being given the same space that they did with LoTR.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I get it, I'm curious to see if the added scenes help, too. I'm just... kind of drained right now in terms of attention span. Watching the extended hobbit movies is on my "someday" list. But yeah, I'll never watch them without thinking what a shame and what they might've been. That prevents it from being even a popcorn flick for me.

[(Anonymous)]

Same, same. I enjoy watching them, I love the shipping, and I don't need them to be master pieces.

[(Anonymous)]

They were 8 fucking hours long. Eight!

[(Anonymous)]

That's a lot of popcorn!

[(Anonymous)]

For me the issue was too much tone whiplash, going suddenly between crass comedy and serious moments. It felt jarring in ways that I don't think it was meant to be, or at least the tone it created didn't work for me personally.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought they were fun, too! But they aren't as rewatchable as the first trilogy. I can sit and watch Lord of the Rings anytime, anyplace. I have to be in the mood for The Hobbit movies.

[philstar22]

Same. Honestly I'm more likely to just rewatch favorite Hobbit movie scenes rather than rewatching the whole trilogy. Whereas I will happily rewatch all three LOTR extended any time.

[epicurean]

Same but they should have been two movies instead of stretching it to three. They tried to make it the next LotR trilogy so hard and failed.

[(Anonymous)]

+1
Still I do enjoy them

How high were you?

[(Anonymous)]

Seriously, were you on a mix of ketamine, peyote, and medical grade opium when you saw them? I'd need to be on such to rewatch them...