Half in the Bag Episode 81: The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies

Jay and Mike talk about The third and final Hobbit film…. while sitting in a house on the bottom of a lake…

[@DanDoel]

Eagerly awaiting the more faithful fan edit, where Bilbo gets hit in the head by a rock, followed by 3 hours of blank video. Then Bilbo wakes up and goes home.

[@pixels7718]

"It's the darkest" "It's the best of the three" "It's a lot better and darker than the other two"

[@Apemopo]

it's so sparse; any frame there's nothing going on

[@ethansherman4158]

I think they wouldn't defend it as much if they were invested in LOTR and remembered more of the first two.

[@harbl99]

Wait a second. I recognise that particular flavour of damning with faint praise! ... Why, it was Old Man Lucas in a rubber mask all along.

[@TommyPKFire]

WHO THE FUCK CARES HOW DARK IT IS

[@Sh4DowKitFoxx]

My Stool is dark, and the doctor says that's bad. I don’t know why he thinks he knows so much about interior decorating though.....

[@greyman419]

I like how Mike is drinking GLBC Edmund Fitzgerald Porter - a tribute to a ship that sank to the bottom of the great lakes. Truly the deepest lore.

[@shaneireland8460]

Or a crazy coincidence ?

[@Lassenissen]

Truly an easter egg connosiour.

[@AgentXXSmith]

A beer bred for WAAAARRRRRRRR

[@shabut]

@@oddlookingduck twice, its a Minnesotan ghost ship

[@Flindo911]

its so dense

[@machazychaz]

my fave thing about the hobbit book was that bilbo was just fucking unconcious during the entire battle and because it was written in his PoV you only have to see the aftermath of the battle

[@TheMeanMongoose]

Exactly. He doesn't fight and laments that so many have died. That's the friggin point ("WARS ARE BAD Y'ALL"), but you can't get action scenes out of it I guess.

[@AveryMorrow]

"Fighting scenes are the best!" --Peter Jackson, who probably doesn't know anyone who has fought in war "WARS ARE BAD Y'ALL" --JRR Tolkien, after literally all of his friends died in WW1

[@Bloggerboy1000]

Same thing happened with the fall of Isengard, that was told in a flashback as well. The movie version of what was showed was glorious though and worth making. Haven't seen the third Hobbit yet though.

[@theg1903]

@@chazwallez1418 in the book he doesn’t get knocked out and fights in the battle-I assume he gets knocked out in the series is to save time

[@rowan-paul]

@@theg1903 it's because they didn't have the budget

[@KneelB4Bacon]

9:26 Legolas: _"These bats are bred for one purpose. For war."_ Unleash the BATS OF WAAAAAAARRR!!! (And congratulations to Orlando Bloom for saying that line with a straight face."

[@bingebammer9927]

If people knew that tolkien was active in the first world war and the books were showing that. Therefore the whole Wauuuurrrrrr spiel. But these guys dont really bother with history, just moviemoviemovies

[@zetetick395]

It's the only face he has....

[@Forumbug74]

Binge Bammer A movie should stand on its own as separate entities in spite of the source material. Even then it's still a stupid line.

[@jonathanbethards3689]

@@bingebammer9927 so go watch a channel where they juxtapose a movie with its historical roots. plenty of them, especially when they are about war.

[@HannahKayW]

@@cpmenninga That's also my biggest facepalm. It's the biggest evidence in my case that the Hobbit is just a grab for some shred of nostalgia but fails to deliver in almost every standpoint other then eye-candy and dramatic dialogue.

[@chopalmond]

the 5th army is the army of moviegoers fighting to stay awake

[@chopalmond]

lol but that's just me being critical

[@danielksletsplays2789]

chop almond Oh shit! hello fellow yub fan. I got so confused when I saw your little avatar here.

[@chopalmond]

>_< hey man ( I aim for confusion ) ... and Chinese fusion

[@mawbts530]

"These No-Doz are made for one purpose...WARRRRRR."

[@daddy_cool762]

I actually fell asleep watching this. I watched it as part of a Hobbit movie marathon at my local theater and I kinda prefer to not remember half of it.

[@DrCactus]

"How are we getting electricity down here?" "Ha ha ha, yeah."

[@unfa00]

[Never answers the question]

[@superfisto]

I liked the orcs more as men in makeup. CGI orcs are cartoonish.

[@superfisto]

I also hated it when Legolegs airwalked up the breaking bricks. LAME.

[@lenrat117]

Of course. Lurtz in the Fellowship of the Ring was far cooler, much more bad-ass than Azog and only spoke in short sentences.

[@Bloggerboy1000]

lenrat117 Lurtz was genuinely scary. Plus he killed Boromir.

[@patmos09]

lenrat117 The goblin extras in fellowship of the ring were more intimidating than Azog- even when they were meant to be somewhat comedically cowardly and pissweak.

[@lenrat117]

patmos09 I love the design of the armour and equipment of the Moria Goblins in LOTR. The attention to detail in all three of the movies is astonishing. Far better than CGI animating one orc and copying and pasting it over and over again.

[@B0Boman]

I like how they give the first two movies fairly positive reviews, then give this one a pretty negative one and call it the best of the three

[@davbooms]

They became a bit cynical in the meantime is my guess

[@kmichael9787]

​@@davbooms became?!?!

[@rkrokberg]

Things I think could have made the Hobbit better: *-It should have been two movies*. A lot of people say this, and I have to agree.Yes, the Hobbit is a short book, but a lot happens in it, so I don't think one movie would suffice. There would just be too much going on for one movie, so they would have to cut out important scenes and a lot of character development (just think about how little we knew about the thirteen dwarves after three movies!). The main problem with cutting it in two is knowing where to cut the story, which also admittedly was a problem with the real movies (that cliffhanger ending in Smaug and the disappointing Azog face-off in Journey). *-Remove the fucking love story*. I don't mind Tauriel, but I do mind the stupid love story she brought with her. It took way too much time that could have been spent on other, more interesting characters. Yes, I know love stories appeal to large demographics, and I know Jackson most likely wanted to make Fili's death more impactful that way, but it wasn't done well enough to earn its place in the movies. *-Kill Azog in the first movie*. What was really the point of keeping him alive all this time? Thorin should have killed him in the first one, and you could have Bolg leading the army in the third because he wants revenge for his father's death. Maybe they could have done something interesting by drawing parallels between Thorin and Bolg. Maybe they could have made us symphatize a little with Bolg, make us understand how much his father meant to him. Then in the end they would end up killing each other, sort of poetic if the whole parallel thing had been a thing. Having Azog be the villain of only the first movie would have been perfect. If it had been two movies, I imagine the first one could have ended with the escape from the elves and some kind of big fight with Azog, leading to his demise. You could also have the Sauron reveal at the end of the first, making it clear that even though Azog is dead, there's a much bigger villain to worry about in the second movie. *-Don't let the tone be all over the place*. Do I need to explain this? LotR had a pretty consistent tone, mainly because it was supposed to be a dark, epic fight between good and evil. The Hobbit book was intended for kids and was much lighter and there was much less at stake. The Hobbit movies tried to be the Hobbit and LotR at the same time, and that was very noticeable when it came to the tone of the movies and the pacing. When they're escaping from the elves, you have gruesome violence and childish humor at the same time. It just felt awkward and inconsistent. Jackson should have decided if he wanted to focuse on the darkness and violence and appeal less to the kids, or if he wanted to stay more true to the tone of the book and make it less similar to LotR in tone. But instead he chose a zigzagging middle road between the two. *-Less CGI*. There was just too much. A lot of the orcs and goblins ended up feeling a lot less real and imposing than in LotR. It oftentimes looked too clean and, well, videogamey. The CGI also allowed for a lot more ridiculous scenes like the goblin chase and barrel chase, which didn't feel or look real and made it seem like the characters weren't in any real danger. I liked it with the Uruk-hai looking orcs in the third instalment, at least they weren't CGI. They instantly felt a lot more real and imposing (until Bilbo figured out you could defeat them by simply throwing stones at them). The great battle itself looked like a videogame battle, it didn't look or feel as real as the LotR battles. But let's admit it, Smaug was awesome and the locations looked stunning. *-The battles are too long*. The Smaug fight, or whatever you can call it, at the end of the second movie just went on and on and on with so much ridiculous shit happening that it was hard to believe the characters were in any kind of danger. And the final battle between the armies was also too long. A battle is fun and games, but too much fighting makes it mundane and boring. In my perfect world Smaug would have died about halway through the second movie, then the second half would have focused on the aftermath and the battle. I am allowed to dream, am I not? I don't think the movies are awful, infact I quite enjoy watching them. But I can't help but think of everything that could have been done better.

[@KawaiiDansu]

Krokberg This all sounds fantastic, particularly the part about the Thorin and Bolg parallels. I never understood why Bolg wasn’t just the main Orc villain in general like in the book, why did they have to resurrect Azog when he was supposed to have already been killed years ago (and by Dain the future king who we never even met until the end of the film??? Could’ve used that to introduce him as a familiar face). I gradually realised that the reason seemed to be to give Legolas an enemy and something to actually do... what a total waste.

[@smb0621]

Krokberg I like your changes!

[@ryuoh6928]

Add some more cursing and a few random anecdotes and, if you read it in Mr. Plinkett's voice, you get a good chunk of review out of this.

[@sean7456]

Look up "The Bilbo Edition" fan-edit. All three movies, cut down to 4.5 hours to follow the book as close possible. Really great and very similar to your suggestions!

[@MrTonyBarzini]

Good comment

[@drakonlorek1430]

I would be so happy if Plinkett made a review of the Hobbit trilogy. I would seriously be willing to pay a good price for it.

[@joTheBonas]

Naaa there isnt enough to get made about

[@drakonlorek1430]

I was pretty fuckin mad after the third to be honest. And throughout the first one pretty disappointed.

[@joTheBonas]

Drakon Lorek on the third one I agree. I was very mad too. but the other 2 are ok

[@drunkdonutboy]

That and a Man of Steel review.

[@keithfilibeck2390]

maulCS that is still not a good way to review things filming a review like this and going "I don't remember what was going on, whats going on? who was that? where was this? what where they doing?" it makes them look incompetent and they fail to actually review anything but just sit there quizzically wondering about everything. and I personally thought they were rather bad in comparison to LOTR's, but watching Mike fumble around with every aspect of a movie because it isn't Star Wars is tiresome week to week.

[@JBrodo]

Seeing the clip of Martin Freeman in full Bilbo getup standing next to and being slightly taller than Peter Jackson was weeeeird!

[@SultanSamet]

"I think this is the best of the three" - Star Wars Episode III

[@WilliamHaywardPainter]

How come he knows so much about interior decorating?

[@lemonlord0132]

I liked when it was over

[@derg6222]

it’s my favourite star wars movie. the originals are the better movies but 3 is the one I enjoy to watch the most. Much better than what Disney has been shitting out under the name of star was for sure.

[@jonathanbethards3689]

@@nmr7203 how. many. times.

[@woodsplitter3274]

So here's a question. What triquel (trilogy prequel) was more disappointing: Hobbit or SW 1,2, and 3?

[@r0bw00d]

You have to admit, though, that this was one of the best comedies of the past 20 years. "Why is it so painful?" "Because it was real."

[@andreainbody7003]

"I think this is the best of the three" Jay pls. The other two were at least watchable, especially Desolation of Smaug. This one was just.. Baaaaad.

[@adamfrisk956]

I liked the first one. Silly as it was, it was the closest one to the book. Book which I loved since I was 4. )

[@adamfrisk956]

Jake Sangria I don't get what you're trying to say.

[@AdamFunk]

FINALLY someone talking sense about this. The first two had at least some sense of gravity (excluding the second half of the first film) but there is no sense of anything here. Not adventure, not fear, not courage, not levity (even if done poorly), not happiness or inspiration. Nothing feels like it has any consequence, and so the endless battle scenes being dragged on forever feel like a burden, no matter how flashy.

[@nathaneskin3572]

I honestly hated Desolation of Smaug so much that I still haven't seen this one and probably never will

[@nathaneskin3572]

Adrijana Radosevic And yes #1 did have that, watch the scene where they fight the goblins, it's super dumb

[@RileyGoss]

More like "Battle of the Five Hours"

[@ian_b]

Why is the Elf guy called Legless? He has legs. Major plot hole, it's like nobody even reads the script before the film it.

[@vickyb7162]

Kevin Van Vooren r/whooooosh

[@dieppat]

His name’s not Legless omg do u even read the book. It’s Legoless because he has no LEGOs duh did u see any legos in this movie no.

[@TheKaiTetley]

jaxxstraw. He is drunk all the time. That is why they call him Legless.

[@TheKaiTetley]

Kev ZΔksor I don’t believe you.

[@maxmead077]

No, it's Leogless. Someone stole his Bionicles

[@AHersheyHere]

As much as the eye of Sauron was cool, it made the council of Rivendale not believing Gandalf, when he presents the Morgul blade, really f*cking stupid. “Remember when we fought the ring wraiths and saw Sauron?” “Oh Gandalf, you and your long bottom leaf!”

[@98Dreadboy]

It's just the necromancer * huffs copium*

[@codedlogic]

"I think when the devil came through the sky with the laser beams and the ghosts - I think that was Suron . . ." LMBO! Hit the nail on the head.

[@geofreycrow9663]

Jay says it's the best of the three, but he was so much more enthusiastic talking about the other two

[@Namfooodle]

Best of the three?? It was easily the worst.

[@derkaltefisch]

indeed

[@Spartan1853]

To be fair, they didn't remember the others. So, instead of it being best of the three, it is the best of one.

[@interlinkedMedia]

I would say ROTK was the worst of the LOTR films - however ROTK was still pretty great. Haven't seen the 2nd or 3rd hobbit.

[@ABX8]

EASILY big easily worst. super hard core mega agree i dno what crack they were smoking :D

[@thatchesterguy]

Watching these "out of order" and having zero context for the level of antics is a very trippy experience.

[@MutantAnomaly]

Even my parents, who loved the LotR trilogy and have no understanding of film as a medium or the elements that comprise a good film at all, were able to articulate why the Hobbit trilogy was a boring mess. We're given few real characters to latch onto out of a cast of way too many fluff characters, with a kaleidoscope of crazy shit happening every second that regularly shatters suspension of disbelief, all for a goal we're given no investment in. It just feels like pompous 9 hour slog when it could have been a great adventure. (this coming from someone who's top 5 favorite books include the Hobbit)

[@_Fornad]

***** Well in the Hobbit book, those characters were often just there in the background, whereas Jackson tried too hard to give each one of them a personality.

[@MutantAnomaly]

The thing is that in the book, almost everything concentrated on Bilbo's perspective and it was his story. He didn't get to know the dwarves too well so neither did the reader. The films make it largely the dwarves' story but don't add much meaningful characterization or substance to compensate for the shift in priority. It's not impossible to pull off a large ensemble of characters while still focusing on a core few like Thorin, but I feel the films poorly execute the concept so everything else suffers as a result. And when I mentioned fluff characters in my original comment, I was also including the many additions to the story taken from other Middle Earth related material that shoehorn in a lot of extra people and make things even more complicated.

[@TheMeanMongoose]

Yes, too many unimportant, undeveloped "characters". I hope someone makes an edit which cuts Alfrid, Legolas and Kate From Lost entirely. They feel out of place and are not needed. At all. Literally nothing would be lost if someone were to cut them completely.

[@naysebtc]

was this an amalgamation of both yours and your parents experience? cause thats the best fuckin breakdown ive ever read of this film. you fuckin nailed it square n centre. what a waste.

[@stuckupcurlyguy]

***** To be honest, Tolkien wrote almost no characterisation for any of those fluff characters in The Hobbit. The actual "story" was entirely about Bilbo with splashes of Gandalf and Thorin, and the only otherwise distinguishable dwarf was Bombur, for being the "fat" one. There were a lot of characters in the same way that you try to keep a child's attention when telling them a story. They'll be saying "what happened next?" and you'll say "well, they met some trolls and then got caught in a big spider's web and there was a man who could turn into a bear and elves who were singing and they all got away in barrels on a river!" It's just flashing lights in terms of storytelling, but that's fine for kids. There is plenty of singing and riddling as well because kids love it when their parents sing to them. Tolkien also wrote a lot of ponderous stuff about the extended universe which is pretty boring on its own, but that's mostly because he didn't mean to publish any of it, he was almost just writing to himself. I guess that's how philology professors like to have fun. Frankly the stuff with the Necromancer should not have been put in the movie because it is also not at all part of the (children's) story.

[@travisfortune1038]

Mike drinking that gin & tonic killed me 💀🤣🤣

[@BrickToughneck]

The elves take out their lazer swords and really go to town

[@wescha]

In my opinion the first Hobbit was the best. It had a light tone (like the books) the songs were built in in a way that wasn't too stupid and all the scenes from the books were included. For me it went donwhill when they started building a Elf/Dwarf-love-triangle into the movie. That was effing stupid. Elfes should be mythical, half-godly creatures and when they say stuff like: "Why does my heart hurt so much" (true story) it feels stupid to me, very stupid.

[@alanpennie8013]

The first film was definitely the best. I would even call it good had it not been for the chase scenes in Goblin Town which were horrible.

[@NunYurbis]

I can heavily recommend the Tolkien Edit, all three movies slimmed down into one 4 and a half hour long movie. Aside from a few of Jackson's changes that were impossible to edit around, the movie felt like a much more cohesive story cinema wise, and stayed more true to Tolkien's vision.

[@EricRShelton]

Gods help me, I'm starting to enjoy the skits at the beginning and end of each episode. LOL. Thanks for all the videos, guys.

[@lucaszembrzuski]

I love all parts, but this got me even more interested for the next one. The Korean angle, the rocket and suspense at the end. Amazing script and great performances. And also i like how one of the actors has clearly Polish name, which makes me also proud of this great production. Not much to say about this Peter Jackson's movie clips edited in for some reason.

[@RegularCupOfJoe]

I finally watched RLM's Half in the Bag Hobbit reviews after years of putting it off. I held off because I love the world of Middle Earth and, to be honest, I've convinced myself that "movies about Middle Earth can do no wrong." Well, that's not true but I want/wanted to protect Middle Earth in my mind. Anyway, after watching all 3 reviews by RLM, I find myself in almost complete agreement with Mike and Jay. The three films are not bad, they just have problems. Those were my thoughts as I watched each movie as they came out. Peter Jackson serves these films as a 10-course meal plus dessert when the average audience has a stomach that can barely handle a 3-course meal and optional dessert. The nerd side my loves the richness of The Hobbit but the technical and analytical side of me notices the problems. Now, on to the fan edit.

[@hotlinetech151]

That fan edit was honestly great. 4 hours with a break in the middle, cut out all the dumb stuff. A much better viewing experience than the slog that is all 3 movies.

[@DPMusicStudio]

Bottom line. Peter Jackson had 3 years of pre production for the LOTR trilogy. He had 3 *months* for these films. Explains so much.

[@RegularCupOfJoe]

@@DPMusicStudio That's right. I had forgotten about that. Guillermo Del Toro was originally slated to direct. Well, then he threw himself out of the project and Peter Jackson was left to pick up the pieces.

[@lotus-prince]

"When the devil came through the sky, with the laser beams and the ghosts..." Holy shit, that sounds amazing, even if the movie itself isn't.

[@MrDotious]

“Where are you Topher Grace”? The funny thing he finally actually did it!

[@MetaI4Brains]

This was probably the worst of the trilogy. The first two movies weren't great, but they at least had some really good, memorable scenes. This last one was just forgettable.

[@politicallycorrectredskin796]

In its defense, Bilbo was unconscious in the book for pretty much all the material covered in this movie.

[@NealX]

Speaking as a lifelong Tolkien fan, I was disappointed overall. I know Peter Jackson can be indulgent and cornball, but I still respected the restraint and precision with which he made the first trilogy. None of that restraint was present in the final two films of The Hobbit trilogy. I expected great things from this film, but I found the delivery of expected plot points clumsy, needlessly drawn out, and cartoon-ey both visually AND from a story perspective. The characters are well portrayed and written, but they barely had time to breathe in a film cluttered to the gills with CGI gremlins of every description. The film was overindulgent and fan-wanky to almost Star Wars Prequel levels. When Bilbo returns to the Shire and my senses were no longer assaulted by the noise and video game graphics I finally felt I was watching a movie again, with a simple character-driven story I could immerse myself in. Bilbo was the bright spot in the film, and his scenes and his relationships with Gandalf and Thorin were the best parts of the film (not coincidentally, this was also the material that hewed closest to the book). That definitely saved the film for me, but I was still very disappointed by the lack of restraint. The two-hour long battle was a hopeless, dizzying maelstrom happening in about a dozen different places being fought by a dozen separate characters in a dozen separate fight sequences. Complete overkill.

[@stuckupcurlyguy]

Dude, absolutely. Martin Freeman I think was a perfect Bilbo, he nailed it, far better than Elijah Wood in LOTR actually. The riddle scene and the Smaug scene I thought were great. A shame this wasn't the single great movie it could have been.

[@politicallycorrectredskin796]

@@@stuckupcurlyguy Honestly, ian Holm was the perfect Bilbo. Freeman was alright, but not even a close one to me.

[@meangreen320]

A big reason these movies were separated into 3 , ridiculously long movies was the fact that the studio needed as much income as possible from a well respected director with an already established franchise. Jackson probably didn't want 3 movies , but in the business when the studio has 10 other financial and critical flops , it needs to make back that money somehow . And that "somehow" is to take a guaranteed thing from a guaranteed director and squeeze the damn thing for all it's worth

[@opposite_hedgehog_753]

Jackson should do the Last Airbender. Think about it he can do book one in 3 separate movies, cast actors who fit the part, AND PLEAST DO PRACTICAL OVER CGI. He doesn't have to do all three books but as long he takes his time to make then i am happy.

[@TrueIronMaidenFan]

Paymon Khaleghi That is actually a great idea but I would prefer it if he would rely less on CGI.

[@Carnage899]

I've never noticed the background music before and now I can't unhear it!!

[@dararohan1209]

"Well the elves cut them Down like butter..."

[@bigbake132]

I noticed that too. Lol

[@michaelrobinson4266]

The M4 Hobbit fan edit is indeed a much better way to watch this story.

[@MollyWinter]

That's a gin and tonic.

[@davidchrysostom695]

He used Vodka ... outrageous !!!! lol

[@burst_ch.]

@@davidchrysostom695 New Amsterdam gin is actually one of the best ones out there because it's not heavy on the juniper is more of a sweet, citrus blend. Also it's only $10 for a fifth. Excellent for gimlets and GnTs

[@burst_ch.]

Howesenberg we were probably separated at birth

[@Largentina.]

@@burst_ch. Fellow bartender, I take it?

[@pheenmachine]

The intro jingle alway makes me start humming "Fly me to the moon"

[@geneparmesan8748]

I think that comparing the Hobbit trilogy to the prequel trilogy is a VERY fair comparison, given that they both make the same "prequilitis"-style mistakes: 1.) They both shoehorn in a bunch of fanservice characters for no reason (Legolas, namedropping Gimli and Aragorn). 2.) They both take a lot of shortcuts with CGI. 3.) They both have a serious shortage of fleshed out characters with fleshed out motivations (12 dwarves, and I can maybe name 5. I can only actually describe 2 by their personality without mentioning physical features. Speaking as a pretty big fan of the original films, too). 4.) They both have silly, over the top, overly choreographed action sequences which are so outlandish that they dissolve all tension in the scene. All this, plus the Hobbit had the benefit of hindsight from seeing the Prequels make all these mistakes.

[@thomasmartin4281]

I would say the Hobbit had to deal with a ton of studio infighting, so it was a miracle it was as good as it was. Plus, the casting and acting choices mostly work. So it sets it apart from Star Wars but still has bad prequelitis

[@moscanaveia]

To be honest Tolkien's rendition of the thirteen dwarves is also very bland. Didn't need to be that many. That's something that's always bothered me about The Hobbit, which frankly was the book that started it all but was simply a child's book at the time, so maybe there's no great depth required for the characters other than Bilbo and Thorin. One thing the movies did right was add a little more taste to some of the characters - particularly Balin, and his relationship and fondness for Bilbo.

[@morgancejouvin7755]

Thank goodness this is finally up here! I miss my fix and can't seem to ever load videos at the host you use for the RLM site anymore.

[@brovold72]

The editing/comedic timing on these is so great. I really notice after I've seen a few minutes of something like 'Blue Bloods' with high production values but poorly executed production.

[@ethans2647]

I'm about to listen to this series for a 2nd time soon. I love these guys and really wish them the best

[@1fastben]

Wow, this was really surprising. I thought you guys would tear it apart for all it's dizzying, unintelligible, poor cgi'd battle sequences and it's feeling of complete and utter pointlessness from beginning to end. Not to mention the STUPID predictable "eyes open" cliche under the ice. They had a chance for a really clever final boss death, with him slipping below, but wasted it with that.

[@Buboes1]

ITS WORKING! ITS WORKING! lol nice dropping that in there.

[@Milesamanjaro]

Ep. 1 reference or something else?

[@drkilledacat849]

That's a quote from Star Wars Episode 0.5: The Phantom Giggaloo

[@Milesamanjaro]

***** But not The Phantom Edit?

[@Buboes1]

Milesamanjaro its ep. 1 when the kid is trying to get the pod started. lol

[@krapfantasy]

***** I love it! it's a line that's followed with me all my life, and I still drop it when it seems fitting :D

[@ElectricSlevin]

Hahah I remember when I went to the cinema to watch the first hobbit film with some friends, I brought some vodka-cola in a cola bottle hidden in my bag. I fell asleep at the first 10 minutes and woke up when the film was over, no joke that is what happened xD

[@CallMeGIANT]

TOOK YOU GUYS LONG ENOUGH. I was getting withdrawal symptoms...

[@CoolSmek]

It's too bad the Hobbit trilogy ended on such a weak note. Remember the Hobbit blog? How much the emphasized the kinship of the Dwarfs and all their personalities being fleshed out? Well, past the first movie, we never really see much of that again. 90% of the Dwarfs become lifeless movie props by this third installment. It just feels like they lost sight of what the heart was of the Hobbit as each movie was created. The first one is still my favorite to watch overall. Also, Bilbo is horribly underwritten in this movie as well. He's the main character and he has at most 3 interesting scenes. This trilogy is all over the place.

[@Rudofaux]

The next episode: the torpedo bounces off & looks sad as it just now floats there.

[@drake8050]

I think the problem is the spectre of Lord of the Rings is looming over these movies, and you see this in the attempt to make The Hobbit trilogy ridiculously epic (because sequels/prequels can only go bigger according to Hollywood law, always bigger) over a pile of gold, and because there are so many scenes dedicated to reminding us that the big evil from a greater trilogy is on the way. It could've worked out better if The Hobbit had been a smaller more contained story, but is that even possible? Lord of the Rings changed cinema. That's difficult to ignore.

[@shaunwatson6354]

I nearly choked on my drink laughing when it was pointed out how many times the word WAR was said in a dramatic way. Thanks for pointing that out, Mike; I will never watch the Battle of the 5 Armies the same way again. Also: "WORRRRRRRR...."

[@squeebro]

Smeug. I fuckin lost it jeez louise I'm crying 06:18

[@raistlinmajere5550]

Mike is so right like i remember i watched the film in the cinema i know i watched it on bluray and yet i dont remember a single bit of the film yet i can quote most of the lord of the rings films

[@BBBHuey]

It had a Dwarf army. Fully armed and filthy! Best part of the Hobbit trilogy :) And it had Christopher Lee in his final role as a heroic Saruman. R.I.P. Christopher Lee

[@mattwaldren]

the hobbit trilogy are the most common dvds you see in thrift stores. I think that says everything about these movies.

[@Nash9r]

For me, it is the worst of the three. Way worse than 1 and 2 which were also bad.

[@jonslade17]

+Marvin Nash I agree. I hated the second one the most

[@CarlSlime]

No, the movies are shit because Peter Jackson forgot how to edit a movie. The story would be just fine as a single film, that isn't s four hour fan edit

[@alanpennie8013]

@@jonslade17 It's not the worst because nothing could be worse than the second movie but it's still very bad.

[@honda6353]

27 years ago, you had me freaked out for a second.

[@bul13ts]

Whoa, Mike! You sure you didn't overdo it on the tonic? At that rate, you won't even taste the gin!

[@DmitriyPoot]

- How are we getting electricity here? - Yeah!

[@SeanTBarrett]

when Rich drops the Vaio laptop at 19:22, Mike and Jay both look down at it on the ground at the corners of the screen. either they'd planned to use a wider shot, or that was a real laptop and wasn't supposed to get dropped.

[@shitwagon6015]

bilbo passes out for the whole battle in the book making him not needed to much in a third movie

[@MovieMentality]

I've been working on a fan edit myself so that those can be the versions I watch from then on. It will be a 2 movie series, with the first film getting rid of the Goblin chase for pacing (although I love that scene) and ending with the originally intended ending of Bard's silhouette on the river bank. When the extended cut of Battle of Five Armies is released the second film will begin with the resolution to the Bard cliffhanger and then move through the rest of the movies. The best way I can describe this Hobbit trilogy is in the words of Bilbo himself. It 'feels thin. Sort of stretched like butter scraped over too much bread.'

[@MarkHatlestad]

I'd be interested to see if the trilogy could be reduced into a single 4 hour film that actually makes Bilbo's arc coherent...

[@MovieMentality]

Mark Hatlestad I honestly don't think it can be done. The movie will move far too fast with no breathing room for character development. Some things unfortunately cannot be removed, such as the whole Azog backstory as that is too firmly integrated into the narrative of the films. I tried cutting it down as best as I could and currently have the first film from the opening up until Bard is introduced at 2 hours and 35 minutes. As one 4 hour film the structure and pacing of the movie would be all over the place. For example, the first film is very rampant with encounter after encounter and so to then move into the next two movies, there would be many instances where you would think the movie is ending but would then go on and on. A 4 hour movie would feel like 6 hours. But I will see if it can be done. I agree with you in that Bilbo too often just blended into the background and wasn't the main focus, which of course, he should have been.

[@MarkHatlestad]

Yeah, the whole Azog thing is quite a conundrum. The first movie would have been SO much better without him. And I can see what you say about the narrative needing a break... and I would hope that since it was originally written as 2 movies, the plot lines will work out. Looking forward to seeing your final work!

[@MovieMentality]

Mark Hatlestad I need to look into how you go about uploading fan edits. Especially the Hobbit films as there are definitely some absolute gems in there once all the fat has been cut and I'd like to share them. The main problem I've found whilst editing them is pacing. I've had to get rid of some scenes I love or that are in the book (for example I've cut the Blunt the Knives song because tonally it doesn't match to the rest of the other films) and the Goblin chase had to go for pacing despite that being one of the most awesome scenes out of all three of the movies. I actually didn't mind the whole Azog subplot in the first movie. Otherwise the first movie doesn't really have any antagonist or opposition. The problems came in with Desolation in my opinion and by that point the damage was already done to Battle of the Five Armies.

[@MovieMentality]

Jack Coleman So you've removed all of the Necromancer scenes from the first two movies including the White Council, but will condense them down into a 5 - 10 minute prologue? That's actually not a bad idea. They were kind of randomly peppered throughout the movies really. I removed all of the High Fells sequences. Just have him leave from Mirkwood and head straight to Dol Guldur.

[@fornamnefternamn1532]

I'm glad there is a shortened fan version. It took all the shit away.

[@CarlSlime]

And it still feels too goddamn long at four hours.

[@nintendolegoboy]

+S̶u̶b̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶I̶n̶s̶a̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ I strongly agree

[@Scroogs]

+S̶u̶b̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶I̶n̶s̶a̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ There's a few different fan edits out there. I saw one that was 3 hours long instead and was OK.

[@fornamnefternamn1532]

It's a marketing trick. They want you to pay as much as possible. I'm never going to see the extended version of BotfA.

[@Oldgames1000]

Where is the shortened version?

[@SteveRudzinski]

I really dug the first two Hobbit films, the first one especially was a really fun adventure film. But I didn't care for this one at all for most of the reasons stated here.

[@itsVilu]

They did not fight for the gold (not all of them anyway). The elves fought to get their heirloom back that was in there. The dwarfs fought to help Thorin that was in there and didn't want to give it to the elves. The humans were there for their share of the gold that was promised. And the orcs fought to gain strategic location and to end the dwarves with some human and elf slaughter as a added bonus. All this was explained in the movie, btw :P

[@Casual_Cthulhu]

All I remember about the movie is trying not to fall asleep.

[@JohnGreer]

That Phantom Menace reference at the end was just fantastic

[@aceofhearts8036]

"How are we getting electricity down here?" "yeah"

[@mr_gl00m32]

My favorite actual part of the Hobbit is when Bilbo gets knocked out and he wakes up to discover that the war is over. Lol.

[@RisqueBisquet]

I think you guys were waaaay too nice to this film. No, it's not Star Wars Prequel bad, but it's pretty damn terrible. For me, the only likable character was Smaug and he got killed in the first half-hour of the film. The battles were boring and completely unnecessary. The romance was contrived and also necessary. I lost track of the sheer number of plot holes. And more than anything else there just wasn't anyone likable. I could do my own Plinket-length review of all the things I found wrong in this movie. Maybe I will!

[@sindurgoku8022]

It really would make more sense if they had killed Smaug because he couldn't pay the rent for the mountain and it was filed for foreclosure and the dwarves were only representatives of the state/bank/whatever.

[@sindurgoku8022]

It really would make more sense if they had killed Smaug because he couldn't pay the rent for the mountain and it was filed for foreclosure and the dwarves were only representatives of the state/bank/whatever. However, I liked when they tried to drown him in molten gold. I mean... this was spectacular to watch.

[@derg6222]

Smaug is killed after like 10 Minutes. Surely this movie is much worse than Episode 3. no doubt about that

[@politicallycorrectredskin796]

Yes, well, that is when Smaug in fact dies in the book. Not a lot they could have done about it.

[@BlackStripePro]

Seven years later... " How do we get electricity down here? " ...... " Yeah " Brilliant!

[@Ozolz]

How can a movie have 3x THE in the title? most important thing nobody talks about...

[@stevesb97]

Jay is word for word voicing my thoughts on these movies

[@johnnycage6729]

lord of the rings: the hobbit: the return of the five armies: an unexpected king

[@MrDuneedon]

Agreed on Jay's "no emotion" comment...this series as a whole fell SO short of the LotR trilogy. I didn't expect it to be as good, of course...but it wasn't even 1/50th as engaging. I felt completely detached watching these films. I mean, I guess as a "popcorn" movie it is OK...but I expected a little more than that from Pete Jackson.

[@politicallycorrectredskin796]

And that is why prequels are always a bad idea. We know where the story goes from here and it gets much better. You should flash yourself with a memory stick and then watch all six movies in chronological orderand see if it seems better then. I really think it would.

[@kuhaku9587]

The moment where Legolas begin to walk on the falling bricks because of the stuck tower in the air begin to break.. holy shit that was a ugly 3D effect or special effect. I kind of just accidently throw a HAHAHAHAHAHA WTF while watching it ^^

[@_Singularity_]

The third movie in a trilogy shouldn't have to explain what's going on. I saw the first and second ones once when they first came out and I had no trouble understanding what was happening. Also, the Goblins don't want gold, they want the mines as a base. This is clearly explained in the movie.

[@SgtClueLs]

It's like you unpacked my brain and made a video of my thoughts about the film.

[@Tomiply]

It's easily the worst in the trilogy for me. It's just a bloated battle scene that goes on for way too long. The first two movies are much better. Honestly, The Hobbit should've just been one long movie, if you ask me, not three long ass movies that drag on forever. I mean, I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, but The Hobbit movies were some slow moving garbage. Well, the first two were entertaining, but the third is literally the king of bloat. Would I recommend the trilogy? No, not really. Give the first movie a try. If you like that, then watch the second movie and just let it end on a cliffhanger. Just read what happens in the third movie.

[@vannk73]

"...movie theaters are already filled with bombs." Brilliant!

[@evervigilant1576]

Jay drinking that Troeg's Mad Elf. You're gonna need that 11% to get through this one.

[@choreomaniac]

It seems there are three groups of people who watch these movies: those who love the books, those who love the LOTR movies and the rest. The first group generally disliked this these movies. The second group likes it more because it brought them back to that Jackson LOTR world. The final group judges it on its own merits (or lack thereof) and some,like Jay, thought it was pretty good.

[@steveknott4255]

A wonderful children's adventure written by Tolkien for his son Christopher as interpreted by money driven sociopaths

[@DustinBarlow8P]

3:45 Good job ruining your drink guy!!! I mean it's like all club soda! Geez...

[@Russlem]

The problem with the Hobbit trilogy was that Peter Jackson paid lip service to the books at all. He should have taken extremely limited snippets of the Hobbit book and focused completely on the shit that happened around it. By the third movie it felt like he just wanted to do fan service. Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman and Gandalf get into a knockdown dragout with the Nine while Sauron watches? Yeah... that shit never happened. Some people loved it, I couldn't get over how ridiculous it was. What should have happened was Jackson focused on everything around the Hobbit. Why was the Lonely Mountain important? Because of it's defensive position in relation to Angmar. Why did the Orcs want Erebor? Because it was the gateway to Angmar and the northern flank of the northern free peoples from Rivendell to Mirkwood to the Grey Havens which would allow Sauron to siege these nations from two fronts. Why was Erebor important in Lord of the Rings? Because they routed the army of Rhun, saving Gondor during the Battle of Pelleanor Fields. The strategic importance of Erebor cannot be overstated. It's situated perfectly as a supply line between Moria and Rhun, putting pressure on the Iron Hills, Lorien, Mirkwood and Rivendell simultaneously. These are things you can make a movie about. Was Dol Guldur important? Yeah, that's why Thranduil sieged it from the north while Galadriel sieged it from the south. That was a huge, decisive military victory the Elves did that directly caused Mordor to return and the War of the Ring to actually begin. This is something that should have been in the movie. Jay and Mike are right: no one gives a shit about the Dwarves and their gold. Jackson shit the bed when he forgot where Tolkien moved the Hobbit after he wrote his trilogy: the most significant military defeat in the War of the Ring. The shit that happened in the Hobbit was more significant to the Lord of the Rings than any of the events that transpired in the actual books.

[@moscanaveia]

I quite disagree with you. PJ's mistake was hanging too much on his glorious past, and thinking that The Hobbits should be about The Lord of the Rings. It never was. And that is a big reason this movie adaptation fails horribly at attempting to convey the atmosphere of the book at all. PS. for a nerd correcting another nerd. The orcs from the Battle of the Five Armies came mostly from Mount Gundabad. It's closer to Angmar than Erebor. They were there for revenge, because the dwarves roflstomped them silly in the War of the Orcs and Dwarves, where the real Azog got on the wrong end of Dáin's axe after murdering Thorin's grandfather and kick-starting the war. Now Gandalf's strategic interest in assisting the dwarves was because he knew Sauron was out and about, and he feared that Sauron might wish to extend his arm towards Smaug and the orcs in the Grey Mountains and direct those towards the ruins of old Angmar, and against the unprotected Eriador.

[@DrFroggen]

It wasn't just gold it was a tactical position for territory

[@NekoMouser]

Man, if only it had been 2 2.5-hour movies...

[@ShroudedWolf51]

"Why do the orcs even wear armor?" Merchandising, of course. You can sell way more of them when they have the same body and different clothes.

[@awandererfromys1680]

And they all ended up as peg warmers...

[@daxlucero2437]

“It feels like the bigger story’s already been told” Mike, you said that in the Solo movie review you had wanted to get away from the big story, and see something on as a small scale.

[@silentlamb21]

thats a single movie though. If you make a story over 9-12 hours, you better have something worthwhile to tell.

[@MrTonyBarzini]

This is a small story on a big scale. It’s the inverse.

[@eschel2155]

You know these revieuws are about 5 years apart right. Mike's got the right to change his mind. In any amount of time actualy.

[@TheCrazeebee]

The episodic structure of the hobbit movies is a mess too because they couldn't have equilibrium restored at the end of the film. They instead rely in a cheap cliffhanger because making you feel obligated to see the next film was the only way to make sure people would buy tickets for the next film because they knew they were making a bad movie.

[@HouseClarkzonian]

"IT'S WORKING, IT'S WORKING!" Didn't some little blonde kid say that before, oh....

[@SaltySparrow]

When Smaug died in the first 5 minutes I thought it was a joke and he would get back up. He didn't.

[@CristianLopez-xi4rt]

3:30 Good times I wish I didn't quit drinking.

[@embodimentofgreatness5514]

same bruv

[@oneoyster6174]

Mike making a gin and tonic is the he best!

[@skyhop]

I think the whole problem with the hobbit movies is that they just cram too many things into the movies so that there's never any driving central force. It's like the entire amusement park at once instead of just a solid roller coaster. A 9 hour trilogy should feel like there's something important going on overall, and it just doesn't. Almost every scene feels like it needs an entire movie dedicated to it to make it work. I suppose these are the best examples of why books are generally better than a movie.

[@literallydarheel3234]

Love the Tropico song.

[@matthewbyrne2972]

The episode Jay's hair reached its final (and much nicer) form

[@olliebadrick7287]

On the topic of day edits, the maple edit of the honor films is really good. It takes it everything that wasn't in the book (cutting the film down to 4 hours) and takes out a lot of the dumb stuff. It also is very smooth, and it doesn't really feel like you are watching an edit. It turns three mediocre movies into one great one.

[@matthewrouge]

You need ice in that drank.