|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOBBITFAN13
Lorien
Feb 21 2016, 1:26pm
Post #1 of 24
(1179 views)
Shortcut
|
The ultimate test. Lord of the Rings vs the Hobbit. What say you?
(This post was edited by HOBBITFAN13 on Feb 21 2016, 1:29pm)
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 21 2016, 1:38pm
Post #2 of 24
(1109 views)
Shortcut
|
Both LOTR and The Hobbit are great, they are equally good so you should have one poll for equally good, but I take the hobbit on this one.
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Feb 21 2016, 4:48pm
Post #3 of 24
(1109 views)
Shortcut
|
The Hobbit is a children's book; LOTR is a much deeper and better-written story without any "twee." And the movies made from the Hobbit did not honor the source and keep the tone of the book; had it (should have been only one) been made first, it might have, but having made LOTR Peter Jackson, who always has to outdo himself every time, lost sight of the source material entirely and instead made three "prequels" to LOTR.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 21 2016, 5:05pm
Post #4 of 24
(1113 views)
Shortcut
|
And the movies made from the Hobbit did not honor the source and keep the tone of the book;
So the good morning scene, riddles in the dark, inside information, the songs, the trolls, Introduction to Beorn, Mirkwood, Rivendel, the spiders, a thief in the night, Thorin's death, the return journey, the auction, on the doorstep, the eagles, fire and water, dealing with the arkenstone at the gate is not true to the source material? The Hobbit trilogy is faithful to the source material.
|
|
|
lionoferebor
Rohan
Feb 21 2016, 7:34pm
Post #5 of 24
(1080 views)
Shortcut
|
Overall I like LOTR, in fact there is nothing I do not like about the films. And while there are parts of The Hobbit I like, there are equally parts I do not like to the point I find these moments intolerable. (Maybe some day I'll be able to watch DOS and BOFA without fast forwarding through half the scenes).
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Feb 21 2016, 8:52pm
Post #6 of 24
(1080 views)
Shortcut
|
it is based on it, with many, many unnecessary additions Tolkien never dreamed of. And the whole tone is unlike that of the book.
(This post was edited by Annael on Feb 21 2016, 9:03pm)
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Feb 23 2016, 11:14pm
Post #7 of 24
(1042 views)
Shortcut
|
to do a fan edit and keep the parts you have mentioned, I think I could have a movie I would love. But it would be one movie. I did love 'Good Morning" and the scene of Smaug flying over Laketown, and much of the visual look. But I got lost in the over-the-top action scenes (which always make me sleepy in any movie.)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Feb 24 2016, 4:08am
Post #8 of 24
(1011 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I expect LoTR will win, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I didn't vote. IMO, both trilogies were great, but what LoTR has going for it the most is that it was FIRST. And 9 times out of 10, the first movies will be the best. Best Star Wars movie? The first one - A New Hope. Best Back to the Future? The first one. Best Highlander movie? The first one - in fact, there SHOULD be only one!
IMO, The Two Towers is the best of all six, but An Unexpected Journey actually beats Fellowship, which I never thought any movie would do. Given a choice between AUJ and DOS, I'd have a hard time telling you which I like best - I like them both for opposite reasons. But then again, I like all The Hobbit movies better than the book, which IMO wasn't very good. So this is actually the main reason I didn't vote - I probably would have said LoTR, but don't misinterpret that to mean I hated The Hobbit. I don't hate The Hobbit movies, I LOVE them!
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Feb 24 2016, 8:00am
Post #9 of 24
(999 views)
Shortcut
|
The first part of AUJ was wonderful. Gollum was wonderful. The first part of Smaug was wonderful. The rest, totally over the top and forgettable. So sad.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Feb 24 2016, 8:00am)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Feb 24 2016, 8:04am
Post #10 of 24
(1000 views)
Shortcut
|
The problem is, they were such a small part of the overall, overstuffed, over-the-top, excess that they got utterly lost.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 1:57pm
Post #11 of 24
(983 views)
Shortcut
|
An option like "The whole set is amazing," but barring that, "LotR" easily. For one primary fact alone: it is profoundly stirring, emotionally.
By necessity (tone, nature of quest/conflict, etc.), "The Hobbit" does not aspire to those heights and so, never fully reaches those heights. There are chosen moments where it does, but for the most part, is executed as straight adventure (which I'm happy with - I do NOT feel as though P.J. tried topping himself in this regard, as he understands the intrinsic differences in the two stories).
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 24 2016, 2:22pm
Post #12 of 24
(974 views)
Shortcut
|
Love them both.
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Feb 24 2016, 3:28pm
Post #13 of 24
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
There was a good movie there under all the bloat. Jackson is not without skills. He just needs a firm editor/co-writer.
(This post was edited by Annael on Feb 24 2016, 3:30pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 24 2016, 3:52pm
Post #14 of 24
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
While indeed containing the basic elements of Pride and Prejudice, a Jane Austin fan might be more than a bit put off by the addition of zombies.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 25 2016, 12:28am
Post #15 of 24
(940 views)
Shortcut
|
And its not even like they were minor changes...they were HUGE changes that altered important moments in the story, and took the focus away from the central character. And Thorin had a pathetic beard.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 25 2016, 8:23am
Post #17 of 24
(919 views)
Shortcut
|
And its not even like they were minor changes...they were HUGE changes that altered important moments in the story, and took the focus away from the central character. Do you mean LOTR or the hobbit because both had huge changes that altered important moments in the story.
LOTR have just as many changes as the hobbit has.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 25 2016, 8:58am
Post #18 of 24
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
|
More than likely, "The Hobbit" has *less* changes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"LotR" (film) had entire chapters scrapped. "TH" has just about everything + extra material.
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Feb 25 2016, 5:56pm
Post #19 of 24
(896 views)
Shortcut
|
|
we must remember that LOTR is HUGE compared to The Hobbit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and judicious editing was required to make even three movies possible. I didn't mind the loss of Tom Bombadil or Ghan-Buri-Ghan; they weren't necessary to the story, and I like it when a book has MORE than the movie.
Not the other way around. I could have done without any of these additions:
Rhosgobol Rabbits & the sled chase (Radagast is barely mentioned in the book, but I don't mind him being included - up to this silly scene)
Grinnah and super-giant Great Goblin, scaffolding crash
Azog and super-giant Wargs pursuing the dwarves
Tauriel & Kili love story. Don't mind her being in movie (or Legolas for that matter), but that was too much.
Alfrid.
Nuclear Galadriel. She's not even in the book. I don't mind her & Saruman being at Rivendell and fighting at Dol Guldur, but this was overboard.
the dwarves leaving when they can't open the back door to the Lonely Mountain. Seriously? All those years and they just GIVE UP after five minutes?
Gandalf turns out to be a wuss at the battle of Dol Guldur.
Extended death battles for Thorin, Kili, and Fili.
Imprisonment of Bard.
Beorn chasing the dwarves in bear form.
I could go on but I think that's enough examples of PJ bloat.
I didn't like the things he added to the LOTR movies either, but he didn't go as overboard there.
This is MY opinion by the way. You may not like it, you may disagree, but you won't convince me that I am "wrong" to have it.
(This post was edited by Annael on Feb 25 2016, 5:59pm)
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Feb 25 2016, 9:45pm
Post #20 of 24
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
They are just much superior films i.m.o, less faithful to the source material, but i.m.o more respectful to the tone and themes of the book, whilst Jackson took necessary (and unnecessary) liberties with the plot, I definitely got the sense he loved and respected the book and poured his heart and soul into every frame of the films, a true labour of love.
The Hobbit trilogy though superficially more faithful to the novel, and displaying a huge amount of technical skill and artistry, doesn't 'feel' very much like the tone or spirit of Tolkien's book most of the time i.m.o, and after a promising start (I like AUJ very much for the most part) I personally felt the trilogy got bogged down with a series of increasingly bloated subplots, over the top actions sequences, ill judged 'comedy' and weightless, confused CGI spectacle...I've only seen TBOTFA once and I can't really remember much of it to be honest...
I'll admit that I have a somewhat different relationship with the book than many-I actually read The Hobbit several years after reading and watching LOTR multiple times, yet have come to prefer the fairytale charm of the earlier book over the depth and weight of LOTR, as such I had always appreciated The Hobbit more as a stand alone prelude to LOTR rather than a prequel to the big event, so I wasn't very interested in many of Jackson's fabrications and additional side plots either way, I was worried much of it would feel like needless padding... and all too often, for me at least that held true...Bilbo increasingly felt like a sidekick in his own story, and I for all the depth they tried to give Thorin in the films I ended up still much preferring the character in the book.
In short, for me personally The Hobbit trilogy is often frustrating as an adaption, and fairly disappointing as a LOTR follow up, there's certainly things about it I like, even love (and in some cases prefer to the earlier trilogy) but overall I'd certainly choose the first trilogy any day...
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 25 2016, 11:39pm
Post #21 of 24
(860 views)
Shortcut
|
If you would take a look at the last sentence of my post, the one you conveniently didn't include in the reply, it will become obvious I was referring to the Hobbit movies. Nice try though. 
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Feb 26 2016, 4:40pm
Post #22 of 24
(813 views)
Shortcut
|
I've only seen TBOTFA once and I can't really remember much of it to be honest...
. . . I had always appreciated The Hobbit more as a stand alone prelude to LOTR rather than a prequel to the big event, so I wasn't very interested in many of Jackson's fabrications and additional side plots either way, I was worried much of it would feel like needless padding... and all too often, for me at least that held true...Bilbo increasingly felt like a sidekick in his own story, and I for all the depth they tried to give Thorin in the films I ended up still much preferring the character in the book.
(This post was edited by Annael on Feb 26 2016, 4:41pm)
|
|
|
Riven Delve
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2016, 8:07pm
Post #23 of 24
(796 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll have both, please. 
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Feb 27 2016, 7:59am
Post #24 of 24
(773 views)
Shortcut
|
The LOTR are very good movies which although have changes from the book which i don't think are for the better, still has the tone of the book and overall is very good. I used to re-watch the dvds all the time, now i will watch them maybe once every couple years.
The Hobbit movies on the other hand, as others have mentioned have some great scenes but overall are terrible films - getting worse with each one as well. For these, i don't even have the dvds as i gave AUJ away and never bought the other two, only watching the last one once it was that bad. In my mind the hobbit trilogy kinda didn't happen and someone will come along one day and make a much better, more tightly edited but faithful movie of the hobbit.
|
|
|
|
|
