Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
A Few Reasons these 2 Trilogies are SSOo..Different?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Bombadil
Half-elven


May 19 2015, 9:16am

Post #1 of 26 (2431 views)
Shortcut
A Few Reasons these 2 Trilogies are SSOo..Different? Can't Post

1. Richard said it quite succinctly..
LOTR ends in weddings..
TH ends in funerals...

OKAY,
1. Aragorn marries Arwen
2. Faramir marries Eowyn...even though we didn't see it
it is Implied in the "Houses of Healing" & the Coronation scene
& Finally..
3. Samwise marries Rosie Cotton.

ALL very Happy endings.

The Top Three Dwarves are buried @ the Funeral.
Ending the direct Line of Durin.
Leaving us to BE...very Un-Happy.

ALSO,
Frodo comes home {In the Movie} to the same old Shire &
savors some years in BagEND.

Bilbo comes home to Find BagEND emptied & wrecked.

In the Prologue of LOTR, we see the Battle of the Last Alliance!
which is a Victory since Sauron loses his Ring.

In the Prologue of the Hobbit, we see The Greatest Kingdom
thrown down by Smaug! with practically No Resistance;
abandoned by the Elves. {No Alliance there}

The upward Struggle in the LOTR is by 2 tiny little Hobbits
supported by Vast Armies trying to Hold on..
long enough to allow them the time to get to a Volcano?.

The Upward Struggle in the The Hobbit is to survive barriers in
their way to Reach the Lonely Mountain
{ANOTHER Mountain.?}

Interesting? since Bom is Convinced the Lonely Mountain
is a Extinct Volcano on the same Longitude as Orodruin,
only about 1000 miles North?

The Hobbit is a Tragedy.
The Lord of the Rings is a Triumph.

SSOoo glad we got the Tragedy.. out of our way?
SSOoo that the Triumph can happen.

Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


jtarkey
Rohan


May 19 2015, 10:59am

Post #2 of 26 (2282 views)
Shortcut
You're certainly right about The Hobbit films being a tragedy... [In reply to] Can't Post

The shire is a constant for both Bilbo and Frodo.

Frodos return is actually way more tragic, seeing as he knows he has to leave sooner or later.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.

(This post was edited by jtarkey on May 19 2015, 11:01am)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 19 2015, 2:20pm

Post #3 of 26 (2194 views)
Shortcut
3 Weddings and a Funeral [In reply to] Can't Post

I always thought the ship to the Grey Havens was kind of a funeral - they were leaving foreverUnsure But that will be nothing to how hard I'll cry during the three FuneralsPirate

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


AshNazg
Gondor


May 19 2015, 6:49pm

Post #4 of 26 (2100 views)
Shortcut
Here's a nice comparison of the two trilogies "Style vs Function" [In reply to] Can't Post

https://youtu.be/paIZIitI8iY


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 19 2015, 8:07pm

Post #5 of 26 (2054 views)
Shortcut
AN.. your Video does bring up some Interesting points [In reply to] Can't Post

But Old Bom would like to add:

LOTR started a Series of Epic Fantasy Films
Therefore What we get with the The Hobbit
does sound, & look like a bit "OLD HAT"
..after 15 years.

The Industry has gone places
it NEVER would have gone without LOTR
so, we... who DO love Tolkien's Books
as well as Fantasy in General
are enriched..

BUT that makes the
Hobbit
Harder to love.

WE will likely understand this Trilogy better as the years
go down that long & winding ROAD...

ESPECIALLY when he SEE & Hear the comments made
by the MASTER himself in the Commentaries this
NOVEMBER.

WHY? he is sitting their producing it, BUT also is sitting there
NAKED in the DARK...

...While people worldwide analyze & criticize what we've
we have seen so FAR?

Bom is convinced we have REALLY not seen the Movie
he was Destined to Make.
Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"

(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 19 2015, 8:10pm)


Morthoron
Gondor


May 19 2015, 9:30pm

Post #6 of 26 (2006 views)
Shortcut
We have seen the movie he was destined to make... [In reply to] Can't Post

Unlike a film such as Once Upon a Time in New York which was savagely edited down to a point that it was unwatchable in its original cinematic version, and was only deemed great when it was offered again in an uncut version several years later, The Battle of the Five Armies (which added in an excessive extra definite article to its title to make it longer, not to mention throwing an extra 6th army into the movie for the hell of it) does not suffer from deletions, but rather superfluous additions and fan-fiction addenda already present in the original film version.

It all boils down to whether or not you still like the trilogy ironically titled "The Hobbit" after seeing the three cinema versions. If you liked it, you most likely will enjoy a 1/2 hour or more of additional Jacksonian minutiae. If you didn't care for it, adding an additional 1/2 hour of drivel is not going to make you dish out $40-some-dollars to wade through the excess.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on May 19 2015, 9:31pm)


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 19 2015, 10:05pm

Post #7 of 26 (1975 views)
Shortcut
Nice Opinion? Have anything more to ADD?// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"

(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 19 2015, 10:05pm)


Morthoron
Gondor


May 19 2015, 10:13pm

Post #8 of 26 (1975 views)
Shortcut
No, nothing further presently, however... [In reply to] Can't Post

I do thank you for not adding several lines of "Bomby-speak" in your reply.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



squiggle
Rivendell

May 19 2015, 11:43pm

Post #9 of 26 (1942 views)
Shortcut
One Trilogy was more epochal for it's time, the other is more for it's Genre [In reply to] Can't Post

is my guess.

They were both very succesful financially.

The EE sets of the Hobbit may in a way be abit like David Lynch's Dune except on alot bigger range as time roles on for people digging into this type of cinema & in that way i think the hobbit trilogy will re-cycle itself well for a following.

The differences of the trilogies will only serve to keep this movie verse of middle earth more alive in different people taking the time out to watch all six, especially the EEs, as it is more of a 'dive in' proposition.

Evil


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 20 2015, 12:30am

Post #10 of 26 (1911 views)
Shortcut
Well, "Thang YOU Berry BUCH..?"// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 20 2015, 3:05am

Post #11 of 26 (1876 views)
Shortcut
In a way? PJ invented? the GENRE... [In reply to] Can't Post

SPOCK would state..."INTERESTING!"
.............................

Now, we could go DOWN that rabbit-HOLE
LARGER ISSUE..

.{maybe, sorta, kinda}

interestin' TANGENT . . . . . . . .genre
Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


Istaris'staffs
Rivendell


May 20 2015, 5:49am

Post #12 of 26 (1872 views)
Shortcut
I refuse to admit [In reply to] Can't Post

that the reason TH is considered the lesser trilogy is because of the story written by Tolkien. It has been a common narrative among some to blame the "lacking" story of the TH, and its "simple" "one dimensional" characters as the reason the movies did not work as well. I think that's just plain wrong. The story is fine. The execution of the story by PJ and the choices he made with his portrayal is what was lacking.

"Are you mad? You'll never out run them, those are Gundabad warns!"
"And these are RHOSGOBEL rabbits! I'd like to see them try."


Eruonen
Half-elven


May 20 2015, 4:54pm

Post #13 of 26 (1758 views)
Shortcut
Along that that lline, The Hobbit is a single book and not a trilogy [In reply to] Can't Post

so telling the tale over three films, something I was quite pleased with, requires bringing in some additional content. I was very happy with the appendices content, and wanted more of the Dol Guldur mission.
Obviously, there is quite a split in opinion over the relative success or failure of certain additional material. The LOTR had some changes as well, particularly the arrival of the elves at Helm's Deep. But, upon hearing the rationale for including them, I at least understood where that decision came from. For me, the biggest issues are not created characters, but the over the top action scenes. Those always take me out of Middle Earth. Other changes in plot, like the Ravenshill fight etc. are at least understandable from a movie perspective. The other decision would have been to follow the book and have the characters fighting amongst the swirling, falling, screaming hordes. It is hard to focus on the key characters, though not impossible.

I was most disappointed with Radagast. Not Sylvester McCoy per se, just the character as wacky, hippy wizard.


(This post was edited by Eruonen on May 20 2015, 4:57pm)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 20 2015, 9:26pm

Post #14 of 26 (1706 views)
Shortcut
I can't agree [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ does have his excesses, to be sure - but not everyone loved the book. It was an underdeveloped story. Yeah, it was a children's book, but so was Harry Potter, and yet it had much more world-development, character development, and story than The Hobbit. And a film that made as much money, and has been seen by as many people as The Hobbt trilogy, cannot be called a "failure." All you can really honestly say is some people didn't like it - that's hardly the same thing.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Morthoron
Gondor


May 21 2015, 12:19am

Post #15 of 26 (1680 views)
Shortcut
I guess you are completely unaware... [In reply to] Can't Post

That the book The Hobbit has been loved by generations since it was published in 1937? That it is considered not only a children's classic, but one of the greatest fantasy classics of all time? As it was in my family and millions of others in the last 75 years, it is one of the first "real" books that are read to children, or that they read themselves. I'm sorry your mom or dad didn't read it to you, but perhaps when you grow up you'll read it to your children. One can hope.

To say it is an "underdeveloped story" is missing the point of the story so completely that it is bizarre to see it mentioned. Underdeveloped for whom, the pre-WWII British adolescent audience for whom it was originally intended? Perhaps someone in need of beheadings and exploding things to stay focused? Maybe cats who like sudden movements and jerky motions to keep their attention when playing with string fails to amuse? Or teenage fan-fiction writers who will have Tauriel carry Kili's love child and birth a Dwelf, who will then ride off to Erebor on a little pink pony? Oh, excuse me, a little pink ram.

Equally out of context is comparing The Hobbit to the Harry Potter series, because if you are referring to world-building, The Hobbit plot is a small instance in a single year of a complex world with thousands of years of chronology, cosmology and history, and yet The Lord of the Rings would not exist without The Hobbit, and more than likely neither would Harry Potter.

Yes, the films have made money, but then so have The Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Twilight and Fast & Furious franchises. Are you saying that these are on par with The Hobbit? If that is a mark of distinction then Miley Cyrus trumps Wolfgang Mozart.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on May 21 2015, 12:22am)


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 21 2015, 1:00am

Post #16 of 26 (1659 views)
Shortcut
MOST Excellent post! [In reply to] Can't Post

Sometimes Bom doesn't get your sarcasm...
BUT Certainly DID this TIME!

*snicker* ..*snicker*

Right ON! Morty!
CrazyCrazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


squiggle
Rivendell

May 21 2015, 1:40am

Post #17 of 26 (1652 views)
Shortcut
Looking at an object purely via the lens of another, is it more useful 'what is' rather than 'what is not'? [In reply to] Can't Post

as little distinction between a book from 1930s and major film production 2012s-15s seems to be taking place.

Then if the 'what is's are ooutweighed by the 'what isnt's in enjoyability, just perhaps one of those things of luck of the draw? Unimpressed

This is in some degree, subjectively, what the situation is always going to be when there is more than one work of the same specific object. When looking at the what is and what isn'ts, there is often depending on how fortunately made something is, also the 'what is' giving different forms to the what isn'ts in relatability to each other.

I dont' know if this approach would give someone's disappointment over the Hobbit trilogy films relative to the 1930s book alone, a different outlook that is useful in enjoying the films, but it is an option.


arithmancer
Grey Havens


May 21 2015, 1:55am

Post #18 of 26 (1646 views)
Shortcut
I would imagine complaints about "development" [In reply to] Can't Post

Are not about the lack of OTT action but about, well, the character development in the book. AS a 6 year old reading this classic for the first time I did not care; as a 45 looking back on nearly 4 decades of loving Tolkien's Middle Earth, I think there is a reason I so much prefer LotR (while still liking TH, naturally!). And the characters in the latter are an important part of that. Aside from Bilbo there is no other character than made a big impression. (LotR on the other hand has lots of characters that did).

For me the films handled this aspect well. I find several of the film characters vivid and interesting and appealing in their various ways. And it was done in part by expanding and/or changing things from the book. They also address a niggle that bothers me about the two books, namely what strikes me as a rather different Gandalf. Some of the additions,plot changes, and explanations of backstory make LotR Gandalf's interest in Thorin's quest more reasonable to me.



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 21 2015, 11:52pm

Post #19 of 26 (1516 views)
Shortcut
Don't be so condescending [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't appreciate it - and don't say "when you grow up" to me like I'm a teenager; I am 55 years old and have a really good idea of what I do and do not like. I simply disagreed with you, I don't think I said ANYTHING about your character or taste, only expressing my own. Let me be clear: I DID NOT like the book, okay? This has nothing to do with the movie, I am talking about the book. Tolkein mentions the Necromancer and then does nothing with that. Gandalf leaves for no reason and just shows up unexpectedly. We have a bunch of barely distinguishable Dwarves with different colored hoods. Yes, I felt it was underdeveloped, and I didn't like that Tolkein killed off both nephews. I am ENTITLED to my opinion, and who the HECK do you think you are, running me down for it? I don't have to be a teenage fanfic writer or a cat that can't pay attention to like the movies. I'm not saying they were perfect, only that I approve of MOST of the additional material PJ & Co added because it did fill out the story, and from what I can gather (being no Tolkein expert) they did do a great deal of research into the canon before writing these additions.

No, I did not read the book to my daughters, they were advanced readers at an early age, reading books like "The Oddesy", Steinbeck, and even LoTR all by themselves - and yet they loved Harry Potter. I guess you will think less of me for that, too.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 21 2015, 11:54pm

Post #20 of 26 (1503 views)
Shortcut
Thank you for that [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm glad SOMEBODY gets that!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 22 2015, 12:31am

Post #21 of 26 (1498 views)
Shortcut
You think it's great that he ran me down so badly? [In reply to] Can't Post

Sarcasm can rub people the wrong way.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 22 2015, 4:25am

Post #22 of 26 (1479 views)
Shortcut
I sort of get it. [In reply to] Can't Post

Honestly, I never suspected that you were about the same age as myself (I turn 55 in August). I had the impression that you were, maybe, in your twenties. Tongue

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 22 2015, 8:10am

Post #23 of 26 (1471 views)
Shortcut
A reminder... [In reply to] Can't Post

to be courteous in your disagreement with others. People here will have wildly divergent opinions, but just because someone's point of view is very far separated from your own is not a reason to accuse them of having all other qualities you dislike.

For the record, I'm pretty lukewarm on The Hobbit book too, certainly by comparison to Lord of the Rings. When I heard how the films were to be expanded, my reaction was "That'll be interesting. Maybe I'll like them more than the book". In the end, it probably comes out about even - I have affection for much about the book, but I also quite enjoyed much of what they put in the film, despite some quibbles. By contrast, I deeply love LOTR and adored the movies, despite a few quibbles. For me, the style of The Hobbit does indeed mean that any movie, no matter how faithful, was unlikely to match LOTR. Because I just like the second story better. Always have, always will. Had LOTR not existed, I would not have become a dedicated Tolkien fan on the strength of The Hobbit alone. But that doesn't mean that I need despise those who love the "younger" story best.

I read both TH and LOTR in quick succession when I was in my teens, a quarter century ago, and have read them both many times since. And also for the record, I am not at all a fan of beheadings and exploding things, I have a quite long attention span, I don't read teenage fan-fiction (and rarely any fan-fiction at all). But I do not love the "children's book" tone that the Hobbit is written in, and it certainly does not go into the sort of depth and detail that draws me in to The Lord of the Rings. I am, however, reading The Hobbit to my niece and nephew who are at the right age to be excited by it. Who knows, maybe when they grow up they'll still love it as passionately as you do - or maybe they'll be like me and prefer LOTR. That will be up to them and their own tastes.

Silverlode

Roads go ever ever on
Under cloud and under star
Yet feet that wandering have gone
Turn at last to home afar.
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known.




Noria
Gondor

May 22 2015, 6:42pm

Post #24 of 26 (1388 views)
Shortcut
Silverlode says it for me [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
For the record, I'm pretty lukewarm on The Hobbit book too, certainly by comparison to Lord of the Rings. When I heard how the films were to be expanded, my reaction was "That'll be interesting. Maybe I'll like them more than the book". In the end, it probably comes out about even - I have affection for much about the book, but I also quite enjoyed much of what they put in the film, despite some quibbles. By contrast, I deeply love LOTR and adored the movies, despite a few quibbles. For me, the style of The Hobbit does indeed mean that any movie, no matter how faithful, was unlikely to match LOTR. Because I just like the second story better. Always have, always will. Had LOTR not existed, I would not have become a dedicated Tolkien fan on the strength of The Hobbit alone. But that doesn't mean that I need despise those who love the "younger" story best.

I read both TH and LOTR in quick succession when I was in my teens, a quarter century ago, and have read them both many times since. And also for the record, I am not at all a fan of beheadings and exploding things, I have a quite long attention span, I don't read teenage fan-fiction (and rarely any fan-fiction at all). But I do not love the "children's book" tone that the Hobbit is written in, and it certainly does not go into the sort of depth and detail that draws me in to The Lord of the Rings.


Except that I first read LotR and then TH almost fifty years ago and I've lost count of how many time's I've read these books, The Silmarillion and the rest since. Also, I never read any sort of fan fiction, and I'll readily admit that occasionally I enjoy seeing things explode.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 22 2015, 9:49pm

Post #25 of 26 (1367 views)
Shortcut
Hm, not sure what to think of that [In reply to] Can't Post

Under normal circumstances it would be quite a complimentTongue Peace out!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.