The Hobbit Movies Tamil Download

The screenplays were written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro, who was originally chosen to direct before his departure from the project. The films take place in the fictional world of Middle-earth sixty years before the beginning of The Lord of the Rings and follow hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is convinced by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) to accompany thirteen Dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), on a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). The films expand upon certain elements from the novel and other source material, such as Gandalf's investigation at Dol Guldur which leads him to the Necromancer, and the heroes' pursuit by the orcs Azog and Bolg, who seek vengeance against Thorin and his kindred.

However, this incident received negative reaction from many Hobbit fans, who were angry at MGM for delaying the project. They also tried willing the studio to sell their rights to Warner Bros. On 27 July, del Toro responded to these angry fans, saying that "it wasn't just MGM. These are very complicated movies, economically and politically."[62]

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urlca.com/2y4y7T 🔥

My father in law is a big fan of the books and he doesn't like the LOTR movies because he thinks they deviated too much from the books. However, he loves the Hobbit movies because "we finally got movies that actually represent the book they're based on".

Now, I haven't read the LOTR books, but I have read the Hobbit, and I don't consider the movies to be very faithful at all. Even disregarding all the added elements that weren't in the books at all, they have a completely different tone than the book does.

Marisa (she/her) has covered all things parenting, from the postpartum period through the empty nest, for Good Housekeeping since 2018; she previously wrote about parents and families at Parents and Working Mother. She lives with her husband and daughter in Brooklyn, where she can be found dominating the audio round at her local bar trivia night or tweeting about movies.

Finally, at long last, my journey ended with poor Bilbo Baggins coming to terms with the fact that his journey had only just begun. I empathized with the poor hobbit but not nearly enough to see him through another six hours. Nothing The Desolation of Smaug had to offer me could possibly top the hilarious behind-the-scenes video of Benedict Cumberbatch mo-capping it, anyway.

But what do you do if you, after having watched and enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies, assumed that The Hobbit movies would be worthwhile as well? What if THEN maybe you told your kids who also watched and enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies that if they read the book (or you read it to them) they could watch The Hobbit? What then?

But The Lord of the Rings is a Big Important Story involving self-sacrifice and the triumph of good over evil and literally

saving the world, while The Hobbit is a fun adventure story about a fish-out-of-water hobbit who goes on a quest with some hapless, scaredy-cat, gold-crazy dwarves to get their treasure back from a dragon. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson, who did such an admirable job on his Lord of the Rings movies, has tried to make The Hobbit into the same sort of movie that those are, and in doing so The Hobbit has lost its heart AND its moral center.

Oh my goodness, The Hobbit was so very violent and way too long. My husband and son are big LOTR fans and I enjoyed the trilogy. But, I could not wait for The Hobbit to end. You could not pay me to go see the remaining 2 movies. Thanks for the honest movie review. Cindy

I had told my 7 year old son I would take him to see the Hobbit when it came out. Luckily, my wife suggested she and I see it first. As soon as Pale Orc and his minions were on screen, and the over the top violent battle scenes, I knew that I couldn't take my son, who still likes watching Thomas the Tank Engine. I've just begun letting him watch the old Star Wars movies, and he hasn't seen the LOTR movies yet. It will be a few years for those, and these new Hobbit films.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plays out over the next 2 movies, but I can see how at the drawn-out storytelling pace it will fill 2 more long movies: there is so much to cover from the book even after the dragon is confronted. (BTW, I'm looking to see how they actually show the dragon speaking without it seeming completely fake and hokey).

Thanks for the long comment Todd. I did enjoy the LOTR movies, as an adaptation, of course, and in a different way than I enjoyed the books. I almost wish that they would have just let Peter Jackson make a nine episode version of LOTR. Clearly his heart is not in The Hobbit. But, like you, I plan to see the next two. I'm wondering how in the world they will do Beorn's animals walking about on two legs and serving at table. It worked in Up, I guess!

I'm guessing that, even though Bolg is a casted character in the movies, Azog will replace him as the leader of the final Army which will lead up to a fantastic final battle scene between him and Thorin (and Fili & Kili) since that tension has been building for 3 movies.

The Hobbit is a three-part fantasy movie. These parts are The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014). The movies are based on J. R. R. Tolkien's book The Hobbit. The film series stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Stephen Fry, Orlando Bloom and other.

I left the theater more conflicted than before, if that is possible. Though I had found the key to enjoying the film, it meant eviscerating it of its heart and source. I left deeply saddened. I also left relieved, knowing this is the end of the movies, and thankful that the Tolkien Estate is vehemently (rightly so!) opposed to selling further film rights. It is sad our film journey has ended. But with the mauling The Hobbit has endured in this adaptation, I am glad it is over, so that minimally the compulsory cycle of one-up-manship which has occurred is halted.

For someone with that knowledge, however, such moves ring false. In the early Hobbit films, and definitely in the original Lord of the Rings film trilogy, the movies stood in tension with the text. Sometimes they faithfully followed the lead of the written word, sometimes shortened it, sometimes extrapolated from it, and other times followed flights of fancy. More often than not, where distortions, additions or changes occurred, however, they still were in service to the story at large (both cinematic and textual), challenging the viewer to more fully contemplate the choices made. This has worked so successfully though because the film-makers/writers never lost sight of either the film or the text, keeping the two in balance. That balance has been tipped further with each Hobbit film, and finally capsized with the final.

After the prologue proper, which deals with Thorin and the fall of Erebor, there is a short scene at a celebration of the Old Took, where a child-Bilbo playfully attacks Gandalf with a toy sword. It is a brief scene, which yet again does a lot of work. The later scene in which Gandalf questions where the adventurous young hobbit he once knew went is clearer. It also adds wonderful new meaning to the prologue of The Desolation of Smaug, where it is evident Gandalf has a burglar in mind.

I am unclear on how the theatrical version was cut, but it seems Bilbo here is much more visible to the goblins. He holds still, ducks down, and they pass him by. Is this to be further proof of the sneaking ability of hobbits? It felt pretty silly and implausible to me.

This level of conflict could have produced a far more detailed underlying political narrative if the social life of orcs and goblins and trolls were explained via the divinity of the world. For example, given the societal pressures for the goblins and orcs to assume the mantle of leadership on middle earth could have easily been explained via the machinations of Morgoth. However, this would also mean that at some point the movies would have had to address who the Airnur, Eru Illuvatar, or Morgoth were. Or, at some level we would have to learn who or what Sauron and Gandalf were in relation to the rest of the beings living in the 3rd age.

But I digress from the main point. Movies can be very faithful to the book, and one of the criticisms that my Harry Potter fan friends who had read the books before watching the movies complained about was that the movies were boring and predictable. They followed the books very closely (even while cutting out a bit of material).

Of all the movies adapting J.R.R. Tolkien's epic The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books, which are hotter than Mount Doom in summer, and which should be consigned to the Void alongside Morgoth? Released in 1937 to immediate popularity, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit introduced Middle-earth - the literary fantasy realm to rule them all. In 1954, Tolkien began expanding his mythology with The Fellowship of the Ring - the first part of his Lord of the Rings trilogy, finding even greater acclaim and enshrining the series as a culturally-defining body of work.

Peter Jackson's quest to turn Middle-earth into a cinematic behemoth redefined the fantasy genre, but the director didn't go out on a high note. The final part of his The Hobbit trilogy, 2015's The Battle of Five Armies indulges in lengthy battles, but having already spun a single book into two lengthy movies, runs out of steam in the plot department. The Battle of Five Armies' true strength lies in its quieter moments - the resolution to Bilbo Baggins' journey and the conclusion of Thorin Oakenshield's attempt to reclaim Erebor. Those relationships between Hobbit and dwarf give The Battle of Five Armies its emotional core, but the lack of focus too often draws attention elsewhere. Meanwhile, conspicuous CGI padding weighs Peter Jackson's final chapter down, yet again highlighting the folly of extending The Hobbit into a trilogy. e24fc04721