The only reason I've ever wanted a live action Silmarillion is too see Earendil vs Ancalagon in the scale Tolkien imagined

Unfortunately most of the movie fans do not have the intellect to read "The Silmarillion" so won't understand how massive Ancalagon was!

@@mikelarsen5836 Man, 6 people in all of human history have read that book and understood all of it 😅 that's what happens when you publish an unfinished book 🤷‍♂️

I feel like we can put together the whole musics if we all put our brains to it.

😂😂😂 Happy to provide this public service.

It's a little more nuanced than that. Tolkien actually said that it can be argued that it would have been impossible for Frodo not to claim the ring for himself, given that Sauron has his eye fully on Frodo at that point, and he was in a very weakened state. Tolkien didn't think it was really appropriate to call it a failure when it was something impossible to succeed at.

Agreed, although compared to the heights of LOTR, they’re disappointing

there is no pretending. theyre not good movies.

@@tomfitton4775 they aren’t LOTR, and were never meant to be. The book of The Hobbit itself has an entirely different tone and texture than the LOTR trilogy. These films are meant to be more whimsical and more fun, but the fans can’t see that and remove the stick from their you know where long enough to sit and enjoy it for what it is, a good adventure story.

@@Rikrik1138 Yes, they were exactly meant to be Lord of The Rings, which is why del Toro was fired and the movies were stretched out to three three hour movies. And they failed miserably in the process.

Ah ok, thanks

Dude worked his ass off and did the best he could with what he had to work with. Plenty of 20 - 21 hour days on top of being hospitalized for a short period. Upsets me when people hate on him and the films so much, especially after knowing all of the problems behind the scenes.

@@josuke4448 the fact that they threw out most of del Toro’s work and rushed a whole new pre-production phase makes me think the studio was not feeling his stuff and that’s what led to his departure. “Scheduling issues” is always code for some big dust up behind the scenes.

@@jessaandalexwatch Possibly, but I feel that if that were the case it would have come out by now, one way or another. Considering MGM were already 2 years behind schedule, I believe why Del Toro would have left when he did.

@@josuke4448 You can hate the films and not hate the man. At the end of the day he did direct the Lord of the Rings films, and we should be gratefull for that, but the Hobbit is just not a very good set of films. Call it studio interference, call it burn out, or call it giving into his own directoral flaws, but at the end of the day the Hobbit is rubbish, and it shouldn't upset you if people voice that opinion.

@@dernwine People can dislike the films sure, even If i personally love them and even if the hatred is ridiculously over the top sometimes. It's when people say no effort or passion went into it or that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about them that it becomes upsetting, because it just isn't true. And the amount of people who think that way is a vast majority.

Yes! We did briefly discuss.

It’s what she deserves

That makes sense really. He’s a diminished dragon coming after his great ancestors

Aren't there only 2 named dragons though? The other one being the big one Glaurung that Morgoth kept at Angband.

@@mnomadvfx Gandalf mentions Ancalagon the Black in “The Shadow of the Past” in a way that suggests he was the greatest dragon in history.

@@mnomadvfx Smaug, Anclagon, Glaurung, and Scatha are the named ones as far as I can remember. -Smaug is obviously the Dragon from the Hobbit. -Glaurung is the father of all Dragons, the first, and primary anatgonist of the tale of Turin Turambar, who defeated the elven and dwarven armies at the Battle of Sudden Flame, but sometimes not counted as a "true" dragon because he could only walk not fly, probably based on Fafnir from German Mythology since *SPOILER* Turin kills him in the same way as Fafnir is killed by Sigfried. -Anclagon the Black the largest of all dragons as Jess and Alex said, was defeated by Earendil in the War of Wrath when the Gods fought Morgoth, and was so large that when he fell he crushed the towers of Angband beneath him. -Scatha is a wyrm who lived in the Grey Mountains in the Third Age and was slain by one of Theodens ancestors, after a long career of stealing and hording dwarf gold. May have been smaller than Smaug since he lived in the Third Age, but we know nothing of his slaining besides that it was done by Fram so we don't really know. But in fairness just because there are only four named dragons doesn't mean there aren't others who are greater than he is, during the Siege of Gondolin (where Thorin and Gandalfs swords come from) there are "many dragons" present and even in the Third Age Gandalf remarks that "There are no longer and dragons in whom the old fire burns hot enough to melt the one ring." suggesting that there are dragons whose fire doesn't burn hot enough (possibly including Smaug, we don't know if his fire counts as "hot enough" to destroy the one ring).

@@dernwine I love this. Thank you for this dragon history. I really really gotta read The Silmarillion at some point

totally agree, especially for the third movie. theres some scenes in the EE for that one that i have NO idea why they cut from the theatrical version, some parts of it almost dont make sense without them

@@raypragman9559 well if we know movie studios especially WB, they like making money especially through aesthetics. LotR established those cuts naturally, they weren’t trying anything shady. Their first cuts were too long so they shortened it, pretty well to be honest. Was still cohesive. But with the Hobbit they established what people expected and followed that in order to profit instead following the story itself. It didn’t have to be a trilogy, but there was something pleasing in making a trilogy to mirror their originals.

Like, why. I don’t need it! They can just be scruffy beardy dudes!

Totally agree. I also have a feeling - based on what we’ve learned about the handling of the DCEU - that Warner’s is a hot mess of a studio with terrible leadership, so they were probably getting all kinds of frustrating interference.

"nailed my Bilbo" Hehehe I'm sorry; that was very juvenile.

@@jessaandalexwatch Its my understanding Peter Jackson wanted to do two films. With the second film being partially about what happened between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. But right before or right after filming started the studio decided they wanted three films. Jackson said OK give me a few months to re-orient because I am really prepared for two films. The studio said no you have to get it done by the original date and you are contractually obligated. So on that alone I think people are way too hard on Peter Jackson. They aren’t bad movies. Are they as good as LOTR? No. But I think they could have been if the studio would’ve left him alone.

I want one so bad now!!!

And the corpse with the book is Ori.

But did it have antlers? That's the important question

I was prepared to dislike the added character of Tauriel, but I think she actually turned out great. Love the White Council stuff too. I’m actually much kinder to this series now than I was when it first came out. It’s difficult to follow up something as intensely-loved and as groundbreaking as LOTR.

I wish they would have added Tauriel without the love story. Just because you add a female character does not mean they need to be in love with someone. I'm also disappointed with the addition of Legolas. I understand that technically he would have been present while the dwarves were in his father's Kingdom, however they already over glorified him in The Lord of the Rings. They did not need to make him a super being in The Hobbit as well. A nice Cameo like they did with Frodo would have worked just fine

@@toddjackson3136 I absolutely agree, and Jackson's obsession with impossible physics (which rears its head in LOTR but even more so in King Kong) are also way too prevalent. I will never claim the films are beyond reproach, just that they get enough right that for me I can overlook the problems. Even a certain name drop in the end of the Battle of Five Armies stretches credulity in the name of fan service (being vague to avoid spoilers).

Agree completely! Spoilers... I knew the moment I saw her that people would bitch about Tauriel (I read the book so I knew she wasn't in it), but, let's face, it Tolkien's world is a sausage fest! I couldn't bring myself to hate them adding a female character who does besides stand around looking pretty, or in the case of The Hobbit, exists at all. But, you know, even in LOTR people bitched that Arwen had the little bit of action she did compared to the book in that she rather than Glorfindel rode Frodo to Rivendell, so I knew people would with a character like Tauriel. And while we're on the subject, Galadriel had a lot more action in the movie than the book. If there's any part that I felt was a little unnecessary and was kind of just a call back to that scene in LOTR where she goes dark, it was that one. And the forbidden love element between Tauriel and Kili. Again, I knew from the moment he first started flirting with her that people would bitch about it and I was "supposed" to hate it, but I didn't. I just didn't. It was interesting. The one thing that I kind of got tired of in The Hobbit movies was that, by the third film, all of the references to the LOTR movies were starting to just feel like too much. Like they could have had 10-20% less and still gotten the point across. Same for the GCI. It was fine in the places where it was necessary like with Smaug and even Azog. But that absurd popping out of the barrel that Bombur did in the second movie. That was where they lost me. However, I didn't hate Kili and Tauriel because I'm shipper trash apparently, and the characters of Radagast and Tauriel...I loved both! I don't care. They were fun.

@@toddjackson3136 trust me, I will have a LOT to say once we get there! But Alex hasn’t seen past the first one yet so I don’t want to spoil all the added material for her

Correct 😂

Ha! I forgot that it was so random that the eagles came by. Probably a good call to bring back Radagast the Moth.

@@jessaandalexwatch Radagast is the wizard. the Moth doesn't have a name that I know of. :) Maybe we should call it Rupert.

@@samswords9993 oh, ha, I know. It’s an old LOTR message board joke to call the moth “Radagast” back in the day.

@@jessaandalexwatch apparently, my life long allegiance to LotR has not overlapped that information before! thanks for the info. Keep up the reactions.

Yeah, the ears are different too. They went with a more foam latex design than those delicate gelatin ears from the original trilogy. It really stands out to me. I never saw the movie in the high frame rate, but I imagine they looked even faker there.

@@jessaandalexwatch I thought hobbit ears in LOTR were foam latex? Certainly for the four leads anyway. I'm pretty sure Galadriel (in LOTR) had gelatin ears that would melt if it rained, but not the hobbits.

@@hazelangus mmm, you could be right. I might have just assumed that all the ears were made from the same material when the hobbit ears were actually different.

Thanks!

Did you like it? I feel like every review of the high frame rate was super negative.

It wasn't bad, but it was kind of weird on my eyes, the way it moved. It just took time to get used to it.

The dol guldur scene in the final film is arguably the best in the entire trilogy.

Oh yeah, I remember people freaking about that. I really don’t mind it though because it’s part of the whole design that makes Radagast part of nature. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are earlier designs of him that make him far less human than he ended up in the movie

We went on so much longer trying to figure out the physics of that root system. 😂😂 It was ridiculous. I was thinking that maybe the earth on that cliff top was really shallow causing the roots to spread more laterally than - never mind. It’s a movie, Jessa! Let it go!

What??? This has just made my day.

I did! It was super cute. Love them.

I keep meaning to watch that cut.

@@jessaandalexwatch definitely recommend it, weirdly fixes a lot of issues around the story structure, and character arcs. As someone who is a sucker for the LotR extended editions I'd never think to argue "less is more" but in this case it's weirdly true. Only down side is some of the scene transitions are a bit... odd, you can tell in places things have been cut (though you'd never guess how much at times). (Odly off all the things to cut out of the film, why did Peter Jackson cut out the Eagles talking?)

I LOVE that series, and Alex hasn’t seen it, but every time we try to watch it together it doesn’t seem to be streaming anywhere!

Jessa and Alex Watch oh noooo!

That’s a really good point. The fact of the matter is they tried to fit the hobbit story into a mold it had no business being.

I totally agree. The endless chase scene with Rhadaghast/wargs/Thorin’s party in this movie is just terrible. It feels like “we need an action sequence here!!” studio notes to me.

And the appendix mentions that Kham, second of the Nine, returned at some point until the Nine were needed together

I totally get that. The first one is definitely the strongest of the three.

Haha, I cut the part of the video where I pulled out The Hobbit and The Fellowship and compared the book thickness, so I feel you!! Also I love the Riddles in the Dark section of the Rankin Bass movie.

You mean when they added a lot of details from the legendarium?

Excuse me, but why are you here if you don't like their reactions?

Indeed

Although strictly not following the rules, the fact that Gollum tried to answer the question, made it reasonable that the question stands. I believe it's something along those lines it's stated in Lord of the Rings.