The Hobbit Intervention

[@JesseTribble]

This was my first video essay, and it's a little amateur-ish in my opinion. So I have a new video on the Hobbit. Check it out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6PNlXVnf7Kkfdk

[@boo.hates.spiders]

I just discovered you and I really like your work. Good job.

[@ProjektBurn]

Dude, for whatever reason, this is the 1st time I've seen this one, and I bloody love it. Your insights and dissections of the movies is enticing and entertaining, the mix of which is bloody great.

[@chalonhutson]

I mean it’s obvious you improved your microphone, but other than that I think the content and your analysis is great in this one. Even if I didn’t agree with a point, you have a great way of explaining why you believe it. Your entire video is structured well, the pacing is great (it’s quick but not too fast). And you made an hour long video about stuff I’ve discussed and analyzed myself ad nauseam, keep my attention for a second viewing, while I’m tired at night but don’t want to fall asleep until I finish it. Very well done.

[@jesterssketchbook]

@@chalonhutson i agree

[@arthursandomine5464]

@@chalonhutson Hear hear! Especially the partwith the microphone ;)

[@HawkOfGP]

You got it absolutely right. Jackson was absolutely in too much of a rush, but even more than that, I think he lost the perspective completely with The Hobbit films. And as Viggo Mortensen well pointed out in his interview with the Telegraph, this process of over-reliance in CG had already started with the sequels to the Fellowship: "But it’s true that the first script was better organised,” he says. “Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10. "The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”

[@jesserochon3103]

"This process of over-reliance in CG had already started with the sequels to the Fellowship:" Perhaps an argument can be made against Return of the King (Although the only area where the film can be said to feature excessive CGI would be the Battle of the Pellenor Fields though I'm hard pressed to imagine how they could have effectively done it another way) I still maintain that the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is a consistently masterful balance of CGI and practical effects (CGI only where necessary) In fact, The Two Towers probably features the least amount of CGI. Only Gollum, the fell beasts and some wide shots at Helms Deep were rendered in CGI. Everything else in the entire film was practical or on location.

[@bbaerga121697]

MuikuliWander bro Jackson looked like he was about to drop any second.

[@drgrounder]

excellent comment, thanks for posting, i googled the interview and the rest is good too

[@DistractedGlobeGuy]

See I don't even mind the extensive use of VFX as long as the methods you use don't impede your ability to tell a decent story. Movies like *Interstellar, 2001 ASO, Alien(s), Star Wars,* and even the original *King Kong* feature bleeding-edge effects in almost every shot, but the fact remains that the actors know exactly what they're dealing with at any given moment, and are thus perfectly capable of acting like all the shit we see on the screen is also a part of the characters' world. It really comes down to planning your effects shots well in advance, and then communicating what those plans are to your actors so that they have a clear idea of what their characters are supposed to be seeing and acting against. This is mainly the job of storyboard artists and, of course, the director-to make sure all the different elements blend together, even though they may be shot separately. It's why directors like Del Toro and Cuarón excell, while directors like Lucas and Abrams fail-because directors like Cuarón and Del Toro understand how to make their actors understand the effects they're working with, while guys like Lucas and Abrams fail to adequately articulate the essence of a scene or shot without having a finished effects reel already prepared.

[@AG-lq5jo]

Lee Pace played Thranduil so well I forgot for a moment that he wasn't in the original trilogy, you said new character and I was like what until I remembered

[@andreraymond6860]

In one of the documentaries for LOTR someone says something revealing about the design of Rivendell. It is described as Autumn for the elves. The is a wistfulness in the music, set design and cinematography as the elves prepare to depart Middle Earth. IN creating a prequel to LOTR Peter Jackson puts too much emphasis on recreating that same tone, which does not match the source material. When they announced the production of the Hobbit I imagined a movie (singular) that would show us some of the timeless beauty and energy of Middle Earth before the arrival of Sauron, BEFORE the elves decide to leave and the elder races die off. A greening of Rivendell with celebration in song and dance in the first half or third of the first movie would have gone a long way towards distinguishing The Hobbit from its sequel trilogy ...

[@QueenCloveroftheice]

The injuries sustained by the cast during filming The Lord of the Rings is interesting to me because injuries like that would absolutely happen to the characters in that world, so, in a way, it makes it even more realistic. The fact that the actors kept working through the pain, riding horses, and running over rocky terrain is amazing. And everyone who worked on the movie became very close. You can see that bond on the screen. That's what makes the reunion scene so gratifying. Idk, I just love learning about the behind-the-scenes stuff lol

[@Concetta20]

One of the best is Viggo Mortenson actually deflecting with his sword a dagger thrown at his face.

[@thechosen6436]

Anna Ferrara legendary

[@oscarstainton]

As someone who is pretty much on the same page as you regarding The Hobbit Trilogy, this is honestly my favourite video critique on the trilogy. Bringing balanced and respectful viewpoint and having the right critiques for the right moment makes it a much better video than any faux-Red Letter Media attempt by other reviewers.

[@juliuswaagHD]

56 minutes ? felt more like 20. This was very insightful video, i enjoyed it very much. I Would love to see what the original two movies would look like, perhaps one day in the future, there will be an alternativ version available. Thank you.

[@tarynestrada3760]

This was paced beautifully.

[@thechosen6436]

Holy shit I didn’t even notice it was 56 minutes long

[@mondomacabromajor5731]

The Lord of the Rings was an adult orientated '3 book' story - whereas The Hobbit was a children orientated 'single book' story ... so stretching The Hobbit into 3 films totally killed what could have been a great simple film.

[@phuctifyno1]

Buried, not killed. That great simple film exists, contained within it.... and it is good enough to proudly stand alongside LOTR. There are fan-edits out there that trim all of the extra subplots and cartoony extended action sequences, and whaddya know!?!?!... the movie is actually fantastic when stripped down to just the book's material (about 4 hours). I've made one myself, but I'm not here to advertise or post links. Seek one out (a quick google search or two should be all it takes, there are even youtube reviews with links) and you won't regret it. There is so much good in these films, I just hate seeing it go to waste because of the stupid studio-mandated decision to stretch it to three films.

[@mondomacabromajor5731]

@@phuctifyno1 I thought the Hobbit was awful - but you are right - maybe edited down it could be ok. I will check out the fan edits ... cheers.

[@BabyScatha]

I feel like Peter Jackson should remember one thing in particular. Sometimes less is more. The fact that CGI was limited when LOTR first came out is the best thing that could happen. All that hard work put into that trilogy shows and it's why people will remember them while the Hobbit leaves a bitter taste. While I don't hate the hobbit movies (other than the last one) I will be forever bitter about how they handled fili and Kili. They are young they are brothers and they are going to die. Why the hell wouldn't you deepen their bond?? The actors are so good but no don't give them anything.

[@AlienZizi]

del toro directing it would have been better, and one of the reasons would have been BECAUSE it would be so different from lotr. we dont need to constantly compare the two, and the hobbit was written entirely differently, for kids.

[@matthewellis8025]

I wonder if there's a probable universe where Peter was able to prep the movie properly, man I mourn for what this could have been.

[@Mistellesonn]

I just found you channel and oh my god your work is fantastic! I can't imagine all the research and time needed to put together videos like this, and your commentary is awesome to hear because your views are often my thoughts too but so much more eloquently put! When friends ask my why I don't love the Hobbit, for example, I usually just huff and say something vague like "It was just..... lacking something." Now I have shared your videos with some of my friends who are die-hard LOTRs fans and they love your work too! I I have watched a ton of your videos so far, and can't wait to see more!

[@JCArules13]

The shouldn't have tried to make the Hobbit a Lord of the Rings prequel. It should have been it's own story set in the same world. This is before war, so it could have been fun or creepy. Instead, they just made a crappier version of Lord of the Rings.

[@ethancollins4593]

Excellent analysis! This deserves so many more views!

[@ARGhostie]

This is my absolute favourite take on Tauriel I've seen in an analysis. Thank you.

[@ibrahimtall6209]

Great analysis. Love what you said about CGI vs practical effects, although I don't agree that The Hobbit fails just because it is in the shadow of LotR. It fails on it's own.

[@griflet1]

You really put the finger on sore spot, I really feel like everything you said was putting my doubts about the films into words... well done!

[@Kerwarsh]

I kind of wish they had foregone some of the Silmarillion add ins and fights in favor of more development of the characters and their relationships to each other.

[@peterjoyfilms]

I'm not even a minute in but the Hobbit surely isn't only a failure when compared to Lord of the Rings. It's almost a masterclass in how to not make characters, how to not tell a story, how not to try and create tension, how not to adapt a book, how not to make action scenes etc.

[@josiahcmiller]

Peter Joy this guy gets it

[@paulwags662]

amen.

[@guyr3618]

It's not THAT bad. Hell, it even improves on LOTR in certain areas.

[@LordMangudai]

@@guyr3618 Gollum looks a bit better. That's it. That's the only improvement.

[@guyr3618]

​@@LordMangudai Martin Freeman is also a better lead actor than Elijah Wood. Though, I'll be honest - I *am* still a fan of The Hobbit films (well, I'm a fan of the fan-edit I've found of them), but my original comment here was posted 2 years ago, and I have no idea what I was thinking about at the time, other than Freeman's performance, lol. LOTR *does* do almost everything better.

[@odinseinherji9719]

I feel like they could have just had two Hobbit movies and remained accurate to the book, they could’ve still had Gandalf’s stuff with the necromancer and the white council and they could’ve used the opportunity to show the battle of the five armies since bilbo was knocked out during the battle. They had a perfectly good plot to follow, for instance, Azog should’ve stayed dead and Legolas could’ve just been a cameo. I wish they expanded upon the 13 dwarves as characters however. They could’ve stayed accurate to the book and filled the runtime without any useless love triangle.

[@Ben10man2]

A fantastic analysis 🤙 I'm also a massive fan of the trilogy, and I agree with all your points. I really love how you didn't demonize anyone and gave them the benefit of the doubt. FYI, the original first film ended with the shot of Bard's foot after the barrel sequence. Keep up the great work.

[@MajorFletch]

NEVER NOTICED THAT EOMER STUNT DOUBLE THING LMAO

[@vilwarin5635]

I thought it was made in purppse, as the book described all the men as very similar to each other xd

[@SociaCin]

I love the digital grading in the LOTR trilogy, the only problem is with the extended versions sometimes some of the newer shots don't seem to mesh with the scenes they're in. I have watched more Hobbit analysis videos than I care to admit, but it's always interesting to see the perspective that it brings. I think the sad thing with the Hobbit is that the dwarf actors definitely knew what their characters were meant to be, but it didn't show on film. I feel bad for Evangiline Lily.

[@stephengere3937]

This should be a required watch for all new filmmakers.

[@kseriousr]

Ok, the audio is bad but removing that annoying music or replacing those to less distracting ones till you get a better audio system will be a good improvement. Liked the analysis. I'm a sucker for long analysis videos I guess.

[@tarynestrada3760]

I think the poignant music from the films are perfect for carrying pace and emotional investment... Just a couple of the add'l songs early in this video threw the mood off (just barely tho).

[@KingBobXVI]

24:30 - on how they would have ended the movies had there only been 2: Movie 1 ending: The movie climaxes with Smaug, we get the battle of laketown, and the battle of five armies, movie ends with Bilbo returning home (or with the epilogue of iirc Balin and Gandalf visiting him a few years later). Movie 2 ending: The movie climaxes with Gandalf and the council breaching Dul Gul Dur for the rescue scene. Movie ends with them learning of Sauron's return, and making plans to search for the one ring. This was Del Toro's vision, from what I can gather. Movie 1 was "There And Back Again", and Movie 2 was, "Where Was Gandalf Fucking Off To All The Time?" The first movie has none of the council scenes, no Galadrial, no Saruman (except maybe a mention), and no stupid drawn out love triangle added in post. And during that film, Gandalf just kind of says, "ohp, gotta go, see ya" and sort of just reappears every once in a while. You wonder why that was, and then it's all explained in the second movie - these are two entirely separate plots, and mixing them in these movies was a huge mistake. I reeaallly wish Del Toro wasn't pressured out of the film, because Pan's Hobbit would have been an absolutely marvelous movie(s).

[@LordMangudai]

The only problem with that structure is I think it would be difficult to make an entire compelling film out of the Gandalf/Dol Guldur plot. Certainly a Hobbit duology billed as such would leave audiences wondering why they should bother seeing the second one if the entire story of The Hobbit is covered in the first. It would end up feeling like a filler midquel with low stakes and little point, and Tolkien didn't leave enough writing behind to flesh things out without taking serious license so you'd end up with the same "fanficy" feel that you have in the worst parts of the Hobbit films we did get.

[@Erockin820]

Love your stuff man. Just found it. Keep it up

[@spacefox4684]

Azog was so unnecessary. They didn't need another antagonist next to Smaug.

[@politesse3914]

This is a good analysis; I've had many of these thoughts myself, but I really liked your well-voiced, well-edited synthesis of it all. I wonder if we'll get another try at a Hobbit somewhere down the line? Something a bit more low-key and strange? I love the cartoon version exactly because it feels more like the vague and threatening world of childhood, and this is after all a children's story in origin. I don't demand that the movie be also, but I'd enjoy a film that captured a few more beats of that kind of magic.

[@ryangilbert1733]

I have a HUGE soft spot in my heart for The Hobbit Trilogy

[@alexwatson7068]

Dang man, this is pretty good. I'm late to the party, but I just found this and I love how thorough it is.

[@fgdj2000]

Perfect review! This is pretty much exactly how I feel about these films.

[@callumjupp8894]

Great analysis. One of the few I actually agree with on here. Keep it up dude! Subscribed!

[@greengoombastomper]

Fantastic! I too love all the movies to death, but this really sums up my feelings with The Hobbit!

[@milamochel930]

another great analysis, watched every minute and wasn't bored

[@Faygris]

Great analysis! Why doesn't this have more views?

[@kai_johnsonn]

This is spot on. Bravo! 🎩🚀

[@pf7578-p8o]

This video deserved far more likes!!

[@valmarsiglia]

The CGI made the battle scenes look like something out of a video game.

[@piotrdabrowski6338]

good stuff, and thanks for mentioning the music you used

[@erik95056]

Fantastic analysis. Keep it up.

[@Concetta20]

I totally agree with the view of practical effects vs. cgi. “It’s a kid left alone with nothing to eat but ice cream.”

[@pf7578-p8o]

Thanks for your work, man!

[@Sinewmire]

At 51:37 Reminds me of penny arcade's take on Star Wars dialogue in the original vs the prequels. "Mos Eisley space port. It is a bad place, and bad people live here."

[@SociaCin]

Watching again, still love it. Need to point out that Legolas never exchanges lines with Frodo beyond 'and you have my bow'.

[@XxjeffersonDkidxX]

"No man can kill me" "I'm no man" *Slash* I remember laughing first time i saw it.

[@Mrdevs96]

Thank you for your excellent video ❤

[@georgewalker9381]

Man I love your videos

[@typerexc]

Very well done review, I enjoyed it a lot. (It's a shame more people haven't seen this yet - it definitely deserves recognition - but I'm very glad it came up in my suggestion pane.) Most of the same things that "clanged" for you are what I have felt also, and you pointed out other reasons that really help define my own thoughts on it better. A few minor things you mentioned didn't bother me so much, but I was with you on the big points - you're spot on. There were so many elements in the movie that I loved. Even some of the things they changed I didn't mind, but there was a moment in the first movie it went so far off the rails it simply stopped being The Hobbit to me and became a somewhat fun, rather mindless action movie that dragged a bit in places. I'm not a strict purist regarding books turned into movies (slavish adaptations can be dead boring); as long as the soul and intent of the story remain, I think some changes are an improvement. Aside from some scenes sprinkled here and there though, a large part of the story turned into a bloated, sidetracked mess that stole so much of the meaning and distracted from the parts that were good. The comparison of language and prose near the end was wonderful - and extremely painful to watch. Words matter so much, and this illustrated one of the key differences perfectly. The Hobbit dialogue was so divorced from the prose of Tolkien in places and dumbed down to sound, as you said, "so bland, and modern." Wow. Yeah, I didn't really think about it specifically before, but I do remember cringing at some of the clunky exchanges. In LOTR, that scene with Elrond describing Arwen's fate still devastates me. I could barely read it in the book (appendices, I think? I forget at the moment.) without feeling the sorrow and loss and love - it was so powerful, and they absolutely nailed it. And Grima Wormtongue's delivery of those words "...a hutch to trammel some wild thing in." makes me shiver. They are touchstones to the heart and match the mood and soul of one of the things I love so much about the books themselves. As I've read and reread the books over the years, one of the growing appreciations I've found, aside from the adventure itself, and something that gives the work such depth (and makes it hold up to so many re-readings), is Tolkien's skill with language. Not everything in LOTR was word-for-word of course, but there were enough key beats where they dropped his prose in, and were skilled enough to maintain the tone in between. I think one issue in The Hobbit is the story line bloat of too many scenes that Tolkien never wrote meant they simply didn't have his words to fall back on in a lot of places, and unfortunately the fabric of words just got a little too thin. And as you said, they CAN write - they did do it in LOTR, but maybe clunky scenes breeds clunky lines. Anyway... Thanks for putting this video together!

[@smashlee5459]

This was a great breakdown of the Hobbit films. I’m kind of indifferent to them myself. Part of me was hoping to fall in love with them like I did the first time I watched each of the Lord of the Rings films. Sadly, the Hobbit films just didn’t have that same magic in them. Loved your breakdown though. Also-during the Thorin segment at 36:02 I recognized that you used a Radiohead song in the background. Been wracking my brain but I can’t recall the name of that song. Any help would be appreciated!

[@JesseTribble]

Thanks for the love! The song is "Hearing Damage" by Thom Yorke :)

[@fingolfin3439]

Ólpp00000

[@loserscorner6746]

I just realised the music in the back is Kaneda's theme from Akira and made the video hit even harder.

[@seregons]

*awkwardly raises hand* i like the rabbit sled

[@EvanSol919]

To quote Lindsay Ellis on Tauriel, "Hollywood doesn't like women because writing them is hard. But they like women because they have money. And there's this idea in some studios that women won't go see your movie if there's no women. But women in movies need a justification for BEING women or they may as well be men, am I right? So better give her a love interest or several."

[@bradwoods8221]

Fascinating and insightful review. Jackson and Boyens said that before adding film 3, film 1 was to end with Bard finding the group after the barrel chase.

[@bowtiefox]

Tauriel would have been a MUCH better character without any of the love triangle bollox, Legolas should have been a small bit in a scene or two and then thats it

[@amandasnider2644]

Or removed completely. I utterly hate the character because she feels so unnecessary and kinda insulting to women how she's too pretty and of course she essentially boils down to being an unnecessary love interest

[@theproplady]

In a way, I'm glad Guillermo del Toro's version of "The Hobbit" was never made. The scene where he had Bilbo fucking a fish man would've been a bit too controversial for a movie based on a children's book.

[@niallreid7664]

I thought you were serious at first lol.

[@souloftheage]

@@niallreid7664 You were actually imagining Bilbo having sex with a "fish-man"?. LOL! That's: Lord of The Cock Rings.

[@April04]

Congrats for this analysis !! You make an amazing point with the dialogues. So true ! It is so sweet in the Lord of the Rings !!

[@maef7026]

The part where Legolas is jumping on the rocks of a fallen bridge looks like a part of a videogame that I would hate because it's unnecessarily hard.

[@LorenzoDoesntExist]

There's been a tonne of behind-the-scenes released since that give us a better look at how chaotic the production was. I agree with everything change that you asked for, but if you see that footage, you'll understand how they literally had no time. Jackson had a rough idea of how he'd make a Hobbit prequel but had already stepped aside for Del Torro. When WB wouldn't respect Del Torro's vision, they told Jackson that either he directs it or they'll find someone executive-approved, which would ruin all the work that everyone put into it. Jackson had already went through hell directing LotR and King Kong for WB, and the put him through it again. It was supposed to be a 2-parter, but they couldn't finish in time and broke off the end of the 2nd film into a 3rd. I'm really surprised how good it turned out, all things considered. Jackson saved a $725 million production basically by improvising.

[@Blue.Diesel]

Azog the defiler sounds eerily like something i would see in a world of warcraft mob, hastily named by a developer in a rush before lunch on a Tuesday.

[@nickobergshow]

very well done essay!

[@ismata3274]

having done the eating ice cream all day thing once, i agree that wanting bests having, if you have everything about something. the thing whatever it is dies there.

[@michaelt.5672]

One fundamental thing that I think didn't translate well onto the big screen was the episodic nature of the book. It was a children's story, meant to be read to children one chapter at a time. You can see a "leftover" from that style in the first LotR book, particularly with Tom Bombadil and the hill graves. They are pretty drawn out sequences that do not seem to further the story much. And that was wisely cut out of the movie, because such a format doesn't lend itself well to cinema. A movie needs plot arcs that span the whole runtime, not five or six in succession. So the movies had to turn multiple plot arcs into larger ones, with meager success in my opinion. I wonder how this would have turned out as a limited-episode, high-end TV series. Somewhere between GoT and Sherlock in terms of runtime and episodes per season. That way, they could have stuck closer to the narrative pattern of the book without it feeling out of place.

[@nherrer98]

I love that you used Devotchkas music.

[@Concetta20]

“I don’t get caught up in the minutiae; as long as it feels right and isn’t arbitrary.” Well put. I agree. If it serves the story well, I got no problems. Yeah, I was up for Tauriel x Legolas.

[@deandrejackson5228]

underrated video

[@matthicksxx]

Is that Punch-Drunk Love soundtrack in the background of some bits? Love that movie!

[@ARGhostie]

*_Imagine Aragorn in a burlap sack._*

[@souloftheage]

Agreed. And Jackson ha said on LOTR making he states; human actors, sets, intricate models and finally CGI, in that order of filming. And that's why the movie worked.

[@emmetthowell899]

Great example of how tied together merry and pippin are is that it’s strange to hear “pippin and merry”. “Merry and pippin” almost become a single noun like Mac and cheese instead of cheese and Mac or black and white instead of white a black. I was so mad the dwarves were split how they were because dwarves have very strong family groups and even in the books they stick together and close family groups interact with each other the most (setting aside they’re all cousins even if very distantly). In the book Ben though they aren’t all fleshed out they still have distinct individual personalities you can pick up on, I’ve watched each hobbit movie twice and other than bombur and thorin I could not name them off the top of my head

[@Punki80]

Brilliant video! The only thing I might disagree with is Martin Freeman´s perfect Bilbo. To me it was Ian Holm who captured Bilbo´s character to perfection. Freeman, though he is a very good actor, lacks some of Bilbo´s typical sly wit and complexity, in my opinion. Or maybe it is just drowned in some exaggerated other traits: He comes across very angry and even aggressive in some ways, and that feels strange and a little misplaced to me. Where is the timid little Bilbo from the book (who then evolved into the self-assured older Bilbo we know from LOTR)? Instead we keep seeing a Bilbo who shows his anger quite openly throughout the journey, starting right at his own front door when the dwarves come in. Feels wrong to me. Hobbits are polite and quiet folk. Just my opinion. But we saw far, far too little of Bilbo in the Hobbit trilogy anyway. Another thing among many, many others that bothers me about the Hobbit trilogy is Beorn. He looks like some werewolf. That is really not how I imagined him. When I was reading the Hobbit as a child, I strangely imagined him looking a lot like famous alpinist Reinhold Messner :)). But this, to me, is still what Beorn looks like.

[@EddieBeaumontThomas]

On the subject of Bilbo; wouldn't the fact that Freeman's Bilbo was venturing out for the first time. Whereas Holm's Bilbo was seasoned and experienced in the ways of the world. I'm not saying that this was deliberate from the director's view but I could live with it as a reason.

[@metal87power]

I love how you use Khan's character as an example. It's so illustrious because he's so unexplained.

[@katielaeger6174]

Love you review! All the flaws and comparisons really just make LotR even better.

[@TheKatieLea]

You watched this trilogy 10 times? A new level of masochism that I wasn't aware was possible

[@Concetta20]

Thorin is a leader and cool, but he’s arrogant, stubborn and shortsighted, too. Just like the book. They should’ve just stuck to the source material.

[@zomish13]

thank you for articulating what the Hobbit movies got right and what the got wrong. Disappointing is the perfect desceiption.

[@jommysalami227]

Nice use of the akira ost

[@patricklush4363]

Part of the problem with the CGI that I have is not even necessarily that there is stuff there, but it’s that the amount in film that is unnecessary. Seeing the behind the scenes shots of the actors fighting, I find those images more appealing because not only are there not digital characters everywhere, but the screen isn’t all glossy and shiny. The rougher look helps to keep things grounded. When everything is glossy and digital looking, I find it hard to be invested, since I’m wondering if the gloss is to cover something up. Gloss on a film is like makeup on a woman. Just enough and it looks perfect. Too little can work if the cinematography on its own is great. Too much makes me wonder if there is a deliberate attempt to hide something.

[@Nimbasa180]

The Akira soundtrack? Ight, you're pretty cool.

[@katepro5451]

Quality video . Thank you .

[@youshallnotpass3937]

I actually love the vibrant colors, it really fits the goofy and adventuorus tone and lotr's grey and brown colors wouldn't fit.

[@fbussier80]

When you realise, in Days of future pasts, that when both Professors speak "face to face" , they both have different eye colors..

[@gordongecko1975]

Great review! I could come up with a whole bag of things i don't like about the Hobbit Trilogy but i would just like mention one thing. The tip of the iceberg for me: in LOTR we got the idea it was Bilbos own decision to spare Gollums life. But in the Hobbit Trilogy (specifically AUJ) Gandalf hands Sting to Bilbo and says the stupid line: "True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one." :-( So Bilbo does everything Gandalf told him, but nothing by himself. Just think about all the stuff Gandalf does within the Hobbit Trilogy and then remember his line from 'Fellowship': "If you're referring to the incident with the Dragon, I was barely involved." ... ... [insert-favorite-line-of-Nelson-Muntz-here] ... ... It's so dissapointing when a Prequel diminishes the emotional impact of the original Trilogy.

[@MateyKo-rh1yi]

Wow

[@gamethingstuff]

i NEED to see this interview between Keanu Reeves and James Cameron

[@sparroni]

It's from a documentary called: 'Side by Side.' It's a documentary about this point in history when movies are made in varying combinations of practical elements and digital elements. It's a great documentary and they talk to a ton of filmmakers.

[@AlexanderJansen]

The Lord of the RIngs was an amazing set of movies. If only they could get the same people to make the Hobbit… wait… shit.

[@AnthonyAvon]

6:15 This was my first question when I saw the movie.

[@QueenCloveroftheice]

Also, holy shit I would pay good money to see Thranduil doing backflips like Legolas does!

[@simoncroudace624]

Probably one of the best analysis ive seen and is on par with red letters mr plinkett analysis videos for phantom menace, crystal skull and ghostbusters.

[@jamesanthony5874]

Watched this after watching the newer video. Now I really want to see what you'd do with a fan edit of The Hobbit trilogy.

[@Ben10man2]

Just for the folks in the comments, here are the more defined roles of the dwarves that were so subtle almost nobody noticed, but they are there. Additions for comedic affect: Balin: Advisor, counselor, badass santa Dwalin: Thorin's bodyguard Oin: Medic, deaf old boi Gloin: Treasurer, stingy Scrooge Fili: Future leader, mini Thorin Kili: Stealthy archer, teen heart throb Bifur: Toy maker, grunty boi Bofur: Toymaker, scout, funny hat man who gives you feels Bomber: Cook, resident fat boi Dori: Compassionate dad, metrosexual Ori: Artist, shaggy look-alike Nori: Thief, triangle head man

[@MajorFletch]

The hobbit shouldn't be about living up to lotr. some cameos and throwbacks should have been important but not over done. IT also needed to separate itself from lotr. I agree with almost everything you said. Pros and cons in the hobbit but overall it is stretched thin and not executed correctly.

[@AlwaysDecent]

the hobbit only has too much filler in it if you trim the fat it's great that's why I watch fan edit's.

[@OdileOdile19]

Watching Fan edits it’s on par with lotr

[@KingBobXVI]

50:00 - "They should have taken the time..." That about sums up the entire trilogy...

[@Concetta20]

The first Hobbit feels closer to the book and consistent to the LotR movie.

[@Stangil1]

The Hobbit wasn't a failure compared to LotR, it was a failure on its own. It didn't need 3 long movies to tell this story. Its funny how LotR took a lot of stuff out of the books story and the Hobbit added stuff.

[@neutrallynonsensical3477]

Brilliant video. Really good! Also - is that the song from ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ playing in the background of your video?

[@kuziokundera]

Good Video. It’s unfortunate because Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first, so it’s not a Prequel. But I suppose for films it will be considered a Prequel, but the story really is the beginning of the story.

[@sagerose888h6]

I thoughts rabbits are awesome! fits with radagasts mushrooms lol

[@mgd8867]

They could have made a reference to the Norse mythology and had his sled pulled by goats like Odin's chariot. Just like they did with Dain. Goats way more believable than rabbits lol

[@rowanmilestaco4797]

I hear that The Life Aquatic ost