Lord of the Rings vs. Hobbit movies

Part of it was all of the bloat of the second trilogy. In LOTR Jackson had to take three large volumes of literature and reduce them to scripts without cutting out too much. In "The Hobbit" he had the opposite problem. One relatively slim book expanded into three movies. It would have been better served as two movies with less filler.

What r1 said. A huge problem was creating three movies out of the The Hobbit which was not some long epic like Lord of the Rings was.

I think one movie would have sufficed. I was also a big fan of the LOTR movies, but only watched the first Hobbit movie because I was so disgusted by the blatant money grab.

I heard that there are edits out there made by fans which stay pretty close to the book. Can anyone recommend one, and tell me where to stream it?

Also, Jackson was only supposed to produce. Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct but dropped out late in the game. They should have halted pre-production to regroup, but proceeded anyway. Too big to fail I guess.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, ISTR there was a lot of bad blood and legal issues behind the scenes.

It was overindulgence. Having all the resources to inflate a short story to the size of Jackson's and Tolkein's true OPUS, which had interesting enough characters, sub-plots and unique fights to sustain 3, different films.

R3, I was hoping someone would do that, as I watched the three (yes, I did) I kept imagining getting some scissors and cutting huge sections out and putting what's left back into some semblance of the story.

Reams have been written about why the Hobbit movies were so terrible. Jackson only came in very late in the game, as shooting was starting. And it wasn't until after shooting started that they decided to expand it to a trilogy, which completely ruined the story flow as they had to chop things up, expand other things out, move things around, and worse.

Some actor has made a rather famous "one 3-hour movie" cut of all three films that those who have seen it say is actually pretty good. Of course, it's completely unofficial and so isn't something you can ever go see unless you're his friend I guess.

Read/Watch this:

Lindsay Ellis has by far the best breakdown of the failure of the Hobbit trilogy. Informative and hugely entertaining, with interviews from a few people who were there. Part 1:

Lindsay Ellis has by far the best breakdown of the failure of the Hobbit trilogy. Hugely entertaining, featuring a few interviews with people who were there. Part 1:

Yes, R9/R10, I posted that in R8. *cough*

Peter Jackson has just gone to shit. Heavenly Creatures is one of my favorite films. It baffles me that THAT and the shiteous Lovely Bones movie came from the same person. His brain has been rotted by CGI addiction

I hated the Hobbit so much that it soured Lord of the rings trilogy for me.

The Hobbit hasn't soured Lord of the Rings for me at all. They're so separate in style and execution despite the returning cast and crew. Those Hobbit films really are weak. They're like the Star Wars prequels, and they got worse and they kept going.

I will say that Martin Freeman, when focused on, was brilliant throughout. Very committed and effortlessly charming as he always is. Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job with Smaug, and he was well-rendered.

Thanks R8 (and 9/10). That was great. It perfectly summed up why I still love the LOTR movies and hate the Hobbit movies.

One huge continuity problem in The Hobbit trilogy:

At the end of the second movie, Smaug is covered with molten gold and flies off to attack Laketown. Ignoring the fact that the weight of the molten gold would make it impossible to fly:

At the beginning of the third movie - which starts just moments after the end of the second - Smaug is shown without a trace of the gold. What happened to it?

[quote]Smaug is shown without a trace of the gold. What happened to it?

He essentially shook it off, right at the end of the second one.

I watched the first Hobbit and thought it was okay. Gollum was the best part of it.

Made it to the barrel chase in the river on the second movie and had to turn it off. That was so silly and too much CGI.

Didn't bother watching the third. But over Christmas I caught a bit of it on tv and I did like the look of Luke Evans in it. Is it worth watching for Luke's character? Is he in it a lot? Is it better than the first two films?

I also thought Thorin was a total asshole and didn't give a shit about him.

Damn, just finished watching the extended versions of all 3 Lord of the Rings movies and a lot of the extras on the Return of the King discs. What a magnificent achievement. And it just reinforces how misguided the Hobbit trilogy was.

Who wants to watch Martin Freeman for 8 hours?

Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen and Orlando Bloom were purdy.

I've always wondered if Jackson lost a really good editor, some time between the release of "Fellowship of the Ring" and "An Unexpected Journey". Because the Hobbit movies are all godawful because Jackson had no clue when to stop, he just kept putting more and more and more crap on the screen because he thought it was cool, and completely lost the flow of the story, as well as any suspense or feeling.

And you can see that happening even in the theatrical release of "Return of the King", which is too long and includes a lot of meandering and stuff that isn't nearly as cool as Jackson thinks it is. Was there someone at WETA who could tell Jackson when to stop for the first two films, a "No Man" who was able to make him stop before he ruined the narrative? Someone who saved "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" from that kind of indulgence, but who wasn't around to save "Return of the King" or the entire mess of Hobbit films?

never watch any of this. ever.

Lord of the Rings impressed because it was just so astonishing that anyone was taking it on. In retrospect, though, there was so much of the 'spirit' of Tolkein that Peter Jackson just didn't 'get' that in fact I hated all 6 of the films.

This section, for me, sums up the awfulness of Lord of the Rings. Enya's faux-oirish-celtic-swirling mistiness.

For fuck's sake.

[quote]Mortensen thinks – rightly – that The Fellowship of the Ring turned out the best of the three, perhaps largely because it was shot in one go. “It was very confusing, we were going at such a pace, and they had so many units shooting, it was really insane. 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 Hobbit films were little more than a naked money grab. Martin Freeman was excellent, as he always is. But the addition of some ridiculous M/F forbidden romance, and more CG than a video game, made the series a complete betrayal of the source material and all but unwatchable.

Jackson gave up storytelling for CGI. I can't believe Heavenly Creatures and Lovely Bones came from the same filmmaker

If you have to add a elf-dwarf-elf love triangle to help pad the movie out, you might want to double think things.

I liked the LOTR movies, and liked the book the Hobbit, but the Hobbit movies were bad. The Hobbit was a much lighter (and shorter) story. It should have been more of a fun action-adventure movie. By trying to make it another serious LOTR epic trilogy they produced something that came off as bad fan-fiction.

I didn't think Martin Freeman was "pitch-perfect casting" as Bilbo. He was constantly fretting. There was nothing Tolkienesque about his characterization—but I blame the directing and the general dragged-outness of the whole shebang.

I feel like Freeman is basically playing himself all the time.

The Hobbit movies are ok if you just take it as a 3 episode TV mini-series. I watched it for free on TV, as it was hardly a cinematic event.

"But over Christmas I caught a bit of it on tv and I did like the look of Luke Evans in it. Is it worth watching for Luke's character? "

I really liked Luke Evans' Bard character, as well as Lee Pace as Elvenking Thranduil. Those two guys are always good, and managed to be totally enjoyable and watchable as the film crashed and burned around them. You really can't ask more of an actor than that.

But they have what, 45 min of screen time between them? It's not worth watching the last two films to see them, the films are unspeakably bad.

Bard is what make BOTFA actually watchable for me and I think his character is underrated. But god, BOTFA is a bloated CGI hell and the fact that the whole film takes place in one location is enough to drive the viewer insane

I wish someone would pay Jackson to edit the three Hobbit films down to one three-hour movie, taking out all the filler and nonsense that's not in the source material. That movie is there, it just needs all the fat trimmed away. Yes, it would be (another) blatant money grab, but we'd have something true to the original book. (Agreed with the above posters that Freeman, Cumberbatch, Evans and Pace are all very good and deserve better.)

What else does Jackson have to do anyway, another They Shall Not Grow Old?

Well R33, he made Mortal Engines, which was a massive flop.

Gawd, "The Fellowship of the Ring" was TORTURE to sit through for me, I really am not a Sci-Fi/Fantasy guy. All they seemed to do was run around, and chasing things and twee Hobbit words!

Ayyyiiieeeee! I was so relieved to know I would NOT be seeing the sequels, nor any Hobbit films. Bleccccch!

Hey, you're missing out on all the homorotic subtext.

Which makes me think, was there as much 'gay' in the hobbit trilogy like in the lotr trilogy?

Well, it is the cast with the most gays. Mckellen said that there are a total of 6 gay actors in the whole film of DOS, making it clear who is who except for one, calling him "Dwarf" but come on... we all know it's Richard

I think it's funny that theres one whole scene in BOTFA where it's only gay people in the shot until Martin Freeman walks in and ruins it. (Ruins the fact that there are only three gays in the room, not the scene. He actually made the scene better in my op)

R38 The tent scene, right?

R39, the orgy scene of course

R40, totally on the same poll page here

*page, not poll wtf

Well depends. In LOTR you got genuine love coming from alot of characters to another, you could EASILY mistake it for romance. Literally. Whereas in TH, its shit that Tumblr can cry about, unrealistic "slow burn" pairings. The most popular ofc is Bilbo/Thorin and tbh yea I see it but it's weak as hell. Anything else is just aesthetic shipping or horny shipping (the Thranduil ships, you know the ones)

R43, Barduil, Thorinduil, yea we know.

Also another thing LOTR is better in, the fandom. Cus' geez, The Hobbit fandom literally is Thranduil horny 15 year olds thinking he's going to top them (Which, I have to laugh about. Him topping? Have you seen how he sits... that's a whole cumslut fag)

And let's not forget the majority of them don't even come from a LOTR stanning backround, they just swormed in because they're BBC Sherlock stans called in by Martin leading a franchise, plus Benedict playing a dragon and both of them interacting

I really want to see what The Hobbit films could have been if Guillermo Del Toro stayed paired to the project... imagine

R46 well first things first it wouldnt have been a trilogy

Would have worked so much better as one start off film and an ending sequel

Everyone's just going to ignore the atrocities they did to our 2000s gay icon, Legolas

What they did to Legolas was homophobic.

They MADE Legolas homophobic.

And he was also fuckshit ugly

They made Legolas into something he was not. They had Orlando deepen his voice for some reason, they put him in all that armour hoping he'd look buff, they made him all mysterious and edgy and mean when really he's just some twink who fights like a sissy in 1v1 battles. And I am chosing to ignore the love triangle. Why'd they have to do our fag character like that

Hobbit Legolas is the type of gay to call other gays faggots

R54 I'm p sure LOTR Legolas does that too

Hobbit Legolas hates gays

Okay, question; who's hotter? Fili or Kili?

Fili. Kili is fucking overrated, the guy who plays Fili is sexy

To think of it, i would have not been bothered by a dwarf/elf romance if it was fili tryinto fuck legolas

R59 we know legolas loves manlets

If you want legolas to bend over for you make sure you're a scruffy dirty looking man who probably hasn't showered in 9 weeks or a guy shorter than 4'5

No doubt Legolas wouldn't ride that dwarf. Muscles? Hot face? Has weapons hidden in every part of his body? Woo chile, Fili would fuck the anger out of him. No more fake deep voice, he'll go back to his teen movie protagonist voice in no time

I hate this thread 😂😂😂

I definitely preferred Kili with his BDF.

Legolas is a dick craving whore just like his daddy 💕

R64 I'll let him cut me open and fist his whole arm into me

Maam, this is a McDonalds-

[quote]And you can see that happening even in the theatrical release of "Return of the King", which is too long and includes a lot of meandering and stuff that isn't nearly as cool as Jackson thinks it is.

Thank you, Captain Short Attention Span.

[quote]I really want to see what The Hobbit films could have been if Guillermo Del Toro stayed paired to the project... imagine

His Hollywood movies are shit too. Well, the stories are. He's great a evoking imagery but terrible at telling stories.

Jackson started out in moviemaking with those insane low budget horror movies with way OTT effects and humor. He basically revels in that sort of thing. People were EXTREMELY worried that he would spaz out on LOTR as well, but he went for the job of director with a very serious intention to do the story straight up.

And at first that worked, but even by ROTK the amazing success of the series gave him more leeway and you could see him going over the top, like with that ridiculous mace the Lord of the Nazgul uses in his final battle with Eowyn. He actually wanted Sauron to embody and figh Aragorn in the final battle before the Black Gate -- he had the live actions scenes shot and was working on the CGI for the embodied Sauron, when basically EVERYONE told him that it would be an enormous betrayal of the entire point of the story (that Sauron COULD NOT EMBODY without the ring). Eventually he was basically coerced into taking Sauron out and putting a huge black troll in the scene instead.

But by the time the Hobbit was made, he was The Legend, the King of All Tolkien Movies. And the leering snickery boy who made those fun, silly horror movies was back. And it shows in the Hobbit movies. So many silly, jokey OTT action sequences, it just gets so boring. And the Battle of the Five Armies is unwatchable.

Actually we got a hint in his King Kong from 2005 that he was already semi-out-of-control. There are flashes of incredible brilliance in that movie but too much hijinks. WAY too much. And so overindulgent.

Peter Jackson is capable of making brilliant movies precisely because he can inject so much excitement and virtuosity into the story telling. But he needs to be kept on a leash. The obvious constraints of telling the stories of the Tommys on the Western Front in WWI is an example. He is definitely capable of making amazing movies again.

Tauriel picked the wrong brother

R70 nah we all know fili is the gay masc bro, she picked the tasteless straight one

R69, never ever said PJ sucked, his films are revolutionary, but I'm only saying that I would of loved to see what Guillermo could of brought in terms of visuals because the whole Hobbit trilogy felt like some cooperate generic dated CGI fest

Okay okay, if you're here to talk about the FILMS stay, if not GO HOME YOU THIRSTY BITCHES

I didn't say that you said that either, r74. I was just saying that GDT would not have been much better IMO.

R75 homophobe

R76 in terms of story, I guess but we can agree PJ might have needed some partnering and help, they're also very good friends. Could have brought the love element missing from the trilogy into the story

R73 PJ missed out on making him the thirst trap of the trilogy because truly he makes me thirsty for a whole lake

Alright children. Be horny for your blonde BOY dwarf. But I want Thorin Oakenshield to severly rearrange my entire gut system

R80 Thorin's voice made me pregnant with twins and there is no uteris in me

The throne scene between Thran and Thorin was pure powerplay

R82 p sure richlee was also dating at the time which just adds a bonus

R83 Don't say r*chlee or you'll summon the fangirls

R84 it's true. One time I stood in front of my mirror and said richlee richlee richlee and i summoned an asian girl from 2014 telling me im heterophobic

You think Thorin can fuck the anger out of Thranduil

R86 Thorin can't even reach Thranduil's knees

6'5 bottoms man....

R88 thranduil would pick you up and set you on a flat surface to suck your dick

R86 nah, bards doing that

R90 i dont think bards strong enough

R91 not strong enough?! He took down a whole fucking dragon

Bard's a whole MAN and a father of three. I know he can fuck him silly

Bard will fuck the anger AND the ability to walk for 8 years out of him

I want Bard to slay my dragon

R86 Thorin's too busy making Bilbo squirm

Bilbo def got his ass fucked by Thorin off camera throughout the trilogy

He probably got it real rough too, got fucked to a point of keeping his mouth shut and behaving

This thread is so wrong on so many levels

I just reread the three LOTR books for the first time in decades and then decided to watch all 3 extended versions of Jackson's LOTR movies. I have to say that I was blown away by how perfectly Jackson and his two cowriters adapted the books. They left out a lot of stuff (Tom Bombadil, to name just one character that a lot of people like, and the scouring of the Shire, a major plot development in the books) and moved dialogue from one character to another, but none of that mattered. I remember thinking that ROTK had too many endings when I saw it in the theater, but watching the 3 extended movies in 3 days, I thought the extended finale was just right. As for the Hobbit movies, they were painful to watch (that extra-fast camera speed or whatever it was that made the movies look like video games) and hopelessly bloated. I second the call for an one-movie edit of the three movies, but I guess Jackson will never do that because it would be admitting that he made a mistake expanding the book too much.

Jackson expanded it? Or was it some exec who thought let’s try and get Some more $$$$ out this franchise?

No, apparently it was the studio that demanded three films, not Jackson. According to the excellent documentary "A Long-Expected Autopsy"/"The Battle of Five Studios" that's been linked several times in this thread, one of the main reasons the story was bloated up to three films was that FIVE different studios owned a piece of the rights to the first "Hobbit" film. So the studio that was funding this mess wasn't going to make much money on one film, but would keep all the profits from a second film, or a third. So, they insisted on a third film, and apparently did so well into the production process.

Really, Lindsay Ellis did a fantastic job on this one.

That video was great. Thanks, R102.

Overindulgence and thin source material ruined THE HOBBIT movies.

And yes, the video looked cheap and the sets and lighting looked dingy.

Did this thread finally go off the rails ... or did it finally jump ONTO them?

If Jackson made Heavenly Creatures today, he'd kill the mother in a drone strike. I hate seeing truly talented filmmakers become pussywhipped by technology.

I think Jackson himself is put off by Hollywood politics. I bet most people in Hollywood are, but they still play along, because the alternative (of being shunned) is even worse to them.