|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beorn's Bees
Lorien
Jan 1 2015, 2:40am
Post #1 of 23
(906 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR trilogy or Hobbit trilogy?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Which do you prefer?
|
|
|
Gianna
Rohan
Jan 1 2015, 2:56am
Post #2 of 23
(648 views)
Shortcut
|
The results of and discussion generated by this poll should be interesting!
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Jan 1 2015, 9:57am
Post #3 of 23
(639 views)
Shortcut
|
It depends what I am ranking each trilogy against.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Lord of the Rings are a better set of films, but The Hobbit are a better set of adaptations. But how does one make a judgement on what is (and is not) a good adaptation? Is it the tone, the amount of fabricated material, the quality ... and so on? There might be huge swathes of non-Tolkien material in The Hobbit, but we've got everything from the book *plus* more. You could almost read The Hobbit page by page and pick out where it appears in the movie. I don't think I could say the same for The Lord of the Rings movies. The Hobbit contains most of the book with (some might say) over-the-top additions (as well as non-canonical characters and timeline changes), yet The Lord of the Rings misses large chunks of the book and erases a number of characters (the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is almost unrecognisable). If we were being literal, The Two Towers movie is nothing like the book! I think the changes made to TH are more forgivable than some of the changes (and omissions) to the LOTR films. It also depends on what you compare it to. If I compare The Hobbit to the The Lord of the Rings movies then I think The Hobbit is a better adaptation. If I compare it to The Time Machine then The Hobbit is an amazing adaptation. Whereas if I compare The Hobbit films to To Kill a Mockingbird or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest then The Hobbit is a worse adaptation. It's all relative. Regardless of the above, I would always recommend the books over the movies.
(This post was edited by DanielLB on Jan 1 2015, 9:59am)
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Jan 1 2015, 11:15am
Post #4 of 23
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
I too consider LOTR to be a better set of films, but if I were to sit down and choose which trilogy I'd like to watch right now, I'd go with TH.
(This post was edited by BlackFox on Jan 1 2015, 11:16am)
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Jan 1 2015, 5:13pm
Post #5 of 23
(583 views)
Shortcut
|
Fortunately made before PJ succumbed to George Lucas Syndrome, although the signs were there.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Jan 1 2015, 5:31pm
Post #6 of 23
(586 views)
Shortcut
|
one must remember that LOTR is three times as long as The Hobbit, so it's no surprise that PJ had to cut stuff out. If he'd kept in Bombadil, it would have taken 20 minutes of screen time - to no purpose to the story except to get Merry the sword that would help kill the Witch-King. I don't have a problem with a film-maker cutting out stuff that doesn't serve the story - even though, as a diehard LOTR fan, I personally would have sat through 20 hours of film that followed the book exactly as written! On the other hand I do have a large problem with film-makers adding stuff just to pad out the story so they can make and profit from more movie tickets. The Hobbit could have been done in one movie; two would have been fine; but extending it to three movies meant, for me, having to sit through way too many scenes that were not only not in the book but took the emphasis away from the main story. Also, in LOTR I recognized all the places and the characters (with the exception of the Pink Potato Orc). In The Hobbit, PJ's penchant for excess made the Great Goblin ridiculous and the escape in the barrels a Disney thrill-ride instead of a clandestine operation. (I'm a whitewater kayaker and those dwarves would have drowned in seconds in a river like that.) His hyena-like Wargs were bad enough in TTT; the giant versions in The Hobbit were far worse. Ditto the amped-up versions of Uruk-Hai who did not exist before Saruman made them. Every time he went off the rails it took me out of the movie. And this from someone who never really cared all that much for The Hobbit, so you'd think I'd be more forgiving of a film-maker who took liberties with the story. He took too many, and the liberties were way too excessive.
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 11:41pm
Post #8 of 23
(562 views)
Shortcut
|
I love them both for different reasons.
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Jan 2 2015, 12:17am
Post #9 of 23
(551 views)
Shortcut
|
I sort of see them all as one entity, not two. They really go together for me. I loved LOTR for so many reasons. The richness of the stories, the sets, the whole quest to destroy the Ring of Power. The world so greatly created by Jackson. I love the Hobbit because of the focus on the characters, Bilbo and Thorin. The friendship there which to me was the heart of the films. I love the simplicity of the Hobbit and Bilbo's sparing of Gollum which led to the whole Lord of the Rings conclusion. To me they are entertwined. I love both of them for different reasons.
|
|
|
BoromirOfWinterfell
Rohan
Jan 2 2015, 4:49am
Post #11 of 23
(539 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe more out of nostalgia - not that I don't have nostalgia for the Hobbit already. I watched LotR when I was 11 and haven't turned back since. I have fond memories of marathons with my aunt and sharing the movies with my friends. I visited many filming locations in NZ which strengthened my love for the trilogy even more. Especially Mt Sunday. It's a beautiful place. I prefer LotR because it has less CGI - one of the things that annoys me about The Hobbit is the wonderful CGI at certain parts and the shoddy CGI at others. I find the obvious scale doubles, ridiculous PJ moments and innovation charming. I love The Hobbit trilogy and it appeals to my inner child, but LotR will always be the trilogy for me.
|
|
|
Misto
Lorien
Jan 2 2015, 9:15am
Post #12 of 23
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
LotR, by a lead of about a mile
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Having recently rewatched the LotR-trilogy I must say: the Hobbit is nice as far as your average entertainment movie goes, but it doesn't even come close to the first trilogy. Neither in story nor in looks.
|
|
|
Mikah
Lorien
Jan 3 2015, 5:29pm
Post #13 of 23
(507 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that excessive probably sums up my feelings on The Hobbit. While LotR was just epic, it seemed as thought The Hobbit tried very, very hard to be epic, but somehow missed the boat. For whatever reason, I just did not connect with the characters. I really wanted to, but just didn't. It was so overdone and so many liberties were taken with it, that for me it lost part of the charm of the book.
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Jan 3 2015, 10:31pm
Post #14 of 23
(500 views)
Shortcut
|
The LOTR are better films and better film adaptions. The Hobbit tried hard but failed.
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Jan 4 2015, 1:12pm
Post #15 of 23
(472 views)
Shortcut
|
Always LotR. But I do love more of the characters in the Hobbit.
|
|
|
Gwytha
Rohan
Jan 5 2015, 3:28am
Post #16 of 23
(456 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR but really its too soon to tell
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My feeolings about the LOTR films have evolved over the years and my feelings about TH triology will too. Each movie has i my view been imrpved substantially with the extended edition. Incidentally, I much prefer the way Bilbo's character was interpreted in TH to Frodo's in LOTR films.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 5 2015, 6:22am
Post #17 of 23
(454 views)
Shortcut
|
set of insights. Some of my favorite bits from LOTR went totally missing (like most of Legolas' actual character, and the elvish way with all good beasts, and as you mentioned, much of TTT). I like the additions to The Hobbit films. I was never a fan of the book as much as I was of LOTR the book. Hobbit was too simplified... until the films.
|
|
|
Longbottom Leaf
Lorien
Jan 6 2015, 12:46am
Post #19 of 23
(447 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR by a considerable margin.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I do enjoy The Hobbit films very much but in my opinion LOTR just blows them away. There are parts of TH movies that I just don't enjoy at all whereas with LOTR I can watch any scene at any time and love it. That being said, I thought the acting was fantastic in TH and Martin Freeman gave one of my favorite performances of all 6 movies.
|
|
|
BofurTheDwarf
Registered User
Jan 7 2015, 4:41pm
Post #20 of 23
(422 views)
Shortcut
|
but I really enjoyed the Hobbit trilogy.
|
|
|
Rineth
Registered User
Jan 10 2015, 4:46am
Post #21 of 23
(431 views)
Shortcut
|
First let me say I really enjoy both trilogies and thought they were both well done but LOTR just pulls at my heart strings more. It was those movies that made me want to read the books and thus fall in love with Tolkien's world, so I guess you could say I have a major sentimental attachment going on. There was also something about them that seemed more 'real'...maybe less CGI, I'm not sure, but I felt as though Middle-earth could be a real place. With TH, not as much the case, but still visually stunning. But the things a lot of people complain about in regard to TH I don't mind. I thought a good job was done with the additions and I enjoyed both Tauriel and Legolas. And I do have to say I prefer Bilbo over Frodo. So I'm really a fan of both but yeah, going to have to go with LOTR on this one.
|
|
|
Lindarielwen
Bree
Feb 3 2015, 12:43am
Post #22 of 23
(388 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy, or else it's a double-trilogy, because of the six books... But if you mean as in movies (which I'm sure you do...) then it's definitely going to be LOTR.
|
|
|
|
|