Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Did anyone else think some aspects of The Hobbit films were superior to the LOTR trilogy?

OhioDude72
The Shire

Apr 16, 4:30pm

Post #1 of 24 (3956 views)
Shortcut
Did anyone else think some aspects of The Hobbit films were superior to the LOTR trilogy? Can't Post

I never understood why The Hobbit films got such a luke warm reception. In many ways I found the films superior, and enjoy them more. The rewatchability factor is stronger on them for me. I especially think the first film, an unexpected Journey was particularly brilliant, the opening 30 minutes including the back story of Erebor and the introduction of the Dwarves/party at Bilbo's were just brilliant filmmaking and show the passion, artistry and attention to detail that I love Jackson and Weta for. I also really liked the sequence where Azog feeds his henchman to the wargs, the camera work and lighting were great and it was very dark and gritty. There seems to be more personality and style to The Hobbit films, they are more colorful and artistic.

Like LOTR, however, as the trilogy progresses, it does indeed start to sag with some silly over the top action sequences and unnecessary filler. Bilbo's encounter with Smaug as well as his destruction of laketown and slaying by Bard were also brilliant.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 16, 7:40pm

Post #2 of 24 (3882 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

...the Hobbit movies do have the advantage of being able to expand on the story instead of having to compress some events and leave others out entirely. Not that Peter doesn't manage to compress a lot of the time anyway, particularly from the point where the company is taken prisoner by the Wood-elves through the Battle of Five Armies. If that reads a bit like a back-handed compliment then I guess that it is. Sorry!

The other things that I did like in the Hobbit trilogy, I didn't necessarily like them better than how they were done in the Lord of the Rings films.

"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 16, 7:42pm)


OhioDude72
The Shire

Apr 16, 10:56pm

Post #3 of 24 (3854 views)
Shortcut
Ahh [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...the Hobbit movies do have the advantage of being able to expand on the story instead of having to compress some events and leave others out entirely. Not that Peter doesn't manage to compress a lot of the time anyway, particularly from the point where the company is taken prisoner by the Wood-elves through the Battle of Five Armies. If that reads a bit like a back-handed compliment then I guess that it is. Sorry!

The other things that I did like in the Hobbit trilogy, I didn't necessarily like them better than how they were done in the Lord of the Rings films.


So there is nothing in The Hobbit that you find superior to LOTR?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 16, 11:07pm

Post #4 of 24 (3852 views)
Shortcut
Visually? [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit movies look very nice. And the Wargs resemble wolves and not hyenas.

"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 17, 3:25am

Post #5 of 24 (3832 views)
Shortcut
Probably not "superior," but... [In reply to] Can't Post

I rate them "Just as good as," which is higher than most people on this board go. I may have enjoyed some of the on-location scenes a little more, particularly Earnslaw Burn (the waterfall scene after the Dwarves leave Rivendell), but that's about it.

I'm not scared to be seen, I make no apologies - this is me!

from The Greatest Showman




Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens

Apr 17, 10:46pm

Post #6 of 24 (3791 views)
Shortcut
Welcome to the one ring! An interesting and curious place! [In reply to] Can't Post

And personally i think there where a number of areas where the Hobbit improved on Lotr. Firstly the Company. I dunno, but I felt that the Dwarves where more, almost human than the company of Lotr. They seemed to genuinely get on with each other more so than those in Lotr, which, apart from the Hobbits seemed more thrown together out of necessity rather than choice. Secondly and with a similar vain, I do think that Bilbo was my favorite Hobbit of the movies. Better acted for one thing and more adulty so. The lotr hobbits where pretty much goody/goodies just helping out from the good of their hearts it appeared, whereas Bilbo is willing to lie, cheat , steal if it is for the common good or even for his own good if he thinks it necessary. And I personnally preferred Bard over Aragorn. And I liked Radagast been back in!


Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens

Apr 17, 10:49pm

Post #7 of 24 (3791 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't be totally sure [In reply to] Can't Post

That most people on this board prefer the Lotr movies over the Hobbit ones. I just think that those that do keep quiet having said their peace. Its just a few with their sock-puppets that like to make a noise! Not to dissimilar as to when the Lotr movies came out.


Silmaril
Rohan


Apr 18, 8:12am

Post #8 of 24 (3768 views)
Shortcut
Quite the only thing that they did right in The Hobbit was... [In reply to] Can't Post

Martin Freeman.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 18, 4:09pm

Post #9 of 24 (3739 views)
Shortcut
I will agree about Martin [In reply to] Can't Post

Not saying that Elijah Wood can't act, but yeah, I think maybe the character came more naturally to Martin, or maybe it's just his acting experience. Ian Holm was good, too, but they were playing Bilbo at different ages, so I can't really say that one was better than the other. I suppose Sam was my fave LoTR Hobbit, maybe because he had more to work with - especially in RoTK. That scene where he carried Frodo, I mean WOW! Hmmm, you prefer Bard to Aragorn, interesting? Evangeline vs Liv Tyler or Miranda Otto? Tough call for me, but I wasn't crazy about Arwen as a character so I'd not really be able to answer that. I've said many times, PJ sure knows how to cast his movies. I think all the actors are great, even if I'm not crazy about the characters (Alfrid) they play. Of course, I do have a slight crush on ThorinHeartEvil, but I can't say that Richard is any better than Sean Bean's Boromir, who was also very good. Okay, maybe Richard is slightly better, but I may be a little biased hereWink


Yeah, the Dwarves certainly had some camaraderie, but that was what the bootcamp experience was all about. And it's wonderful when the actors go to those ComicCons and reunite like old friends that miss each other, so maybe that wasn't really acting???




I'm not scared to be seen, I make no apologies - this is me!

from The Greatest Showman




Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea

Apr 19, 3:32pm

Post #10 of 24 (3702 views)
Shortcut
The company is more reliable [In reply to] Can't Post

You see them together, the most part of the time, passing trough a lot of things together, and also you have the focus on Bilbo, the movie feels more hearted because of this, I think. It“s easier to hold on that party.

The FSX in some parts are way better.

And the music, I think the music in some parts as well is very good, at the same level.

LOTR music is better, but sometimes is so melancolic and sad, that you prefer a bit more the hobbit music.

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true

Survivor to The Battle for the Fifth Trailer

Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero

There and Back Again Traveller



OhioDude72
The Shire

Apr 19, 3:54pm

Post #11 of 24 (3696 views)
Shortcut
Interesting [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You see them together, the most part of the time, passing trough a lot of things together, and also you have the focus on Bilbo, the movie feels more hearted because of this, I think. It“s easier to hold on that party.

The FSX in some parts are way better.

And the music, I think the music in some parts as well is very good, at the same level.

LOTR music is better, but sometimes is so melancolic and sad, that you prefer a bit more the hobbit music.


Which FSX were way better do you think?


Noria
Gondor

Apr 20, 11:40am

Post #12 of 24 (3659 views)
Shortcut
A sense of fun [In reply to] Can't Post

I love almost everything about the LotR movies and they have many funny and warm moments but for sheer good humour I think the Hobbit films have them beat.

For all that the Hobbit movies are based on a horrific tragedy, the spirit of these films is still less weighty and lighter of heart until, as in the book, it all turns deadly serious

Also, in ways that I can't really define, the Hobbit movies seem to me to be more polished than the LotR trilogy, which might be because everyone involved was much more experienced, both with making epic films and with Middle-earth.


Jim
Rivendell


Apr 24, 1:58pm

Post #13 of 24 (3527 views)
Shortcut
Comparison [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the Hobbit Movies, unfairly in my opinion are criticized more because they will always be compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It had a very high bar to reach but didn't quite make it.

There are far more positives than negatives and if the Lord of the Rings were never made the Hobbit movies I believe would have got higher ratings.

Looking back I was really excited when this project got going but looking in hindsight I now wish Warner Brothers gave Jackson and co another year of Pre-Production to iron out the story line because you can tell it was rushed. Going from two movies to three movies in such a short amount of time did more harm than good in my opinion.


OhioDude72
The Shire

Apr 24, 2:06pm

Post #14 of 24 (3525 views)
Shortcut
Yeah [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think the Hobbit Movies, unfairly in my opinion are criticized more because they will always be compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It had a very high bar to reach but didn't quite make it.

There are far more positives than negatives and if the Lord of the Rings were never made the Hobbit movies I believe would have got higher ratings.

Looking back I was really excited when this project got going but looking in hindsight I now wish Warner Brothers gave Jackson and co another year of Pre-Production to iron out the story line because you can tell it was rushed. Going from two movies to three movies in such a short amount of time did more harm than good in my opinion.


Interesting, what specifically do you think was harmed in the storyline by the rushed deadlines?


Jim
Rivendell


Apr 24, 2:15pm

Post #15 of 24 (3525 views)
Shortcut
The filler material [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem was going from two movies to three movies means you have to find extra material somewhere. For example the ending of Desolation of Smaug wasn't in the original scripts so they had to make an action sequence to set up the ending with Smaug going to Laketown.

I just think with an extra year under their belts they would've had a clear path/road of where the story line was going for all three movies before they started filming. With the Lord of the Rings they had this less so with The Hobbit.

There are some scenes I would've cut altogether and some scenes needed to be cut for the Extended Edition. Though I do feel Jackson and co weren't in control of what scenes needed to be put into the Movie to draw average movie goers. The studios certainly had a unwarranted influence on the process I believe. With Lord of the Rings, New Line pretty much gave Jackson and co the freedom necessary to tell the story.


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Apr 24, 2:19pm

Post #16 of 24 (3524 views)
Shortcut
Editing [In reply to] Can't Post

If they had been developed and scripted as three movies, they would've looked completely different. What we have now is a bunch of long scenes that play out like theater sequences. If it had been scripted as a trilogy, there would have been much more opportunity for character development, and the pacing wouldn't be as problematic.

Specifically, I think we would've gotten a lot more of the dwarves, perhaps delving into their own different thoughts and feelings about Thorin in BOFA. Some that Bilbo could trust, others that he could not. I imagine that Kili and Fili could've been extremely loyal to him up until Thorin refuses the fight. As it stands now, with a script that was largely the second and third act of another film, the dwarves are given the shaft more and more as the story goes on.

I also think the dynamic between Kili, Fili, and Thorin would have been much more fleshed out as well, starting in AUJ.

Beorn would've had a greater role in the Dol Guldur subplot, which would be more fleshed out. We might've had the chance to see Gandalf chase Sauron to the Sea of Rhūn as was storyboarded.

The dwarves and Beorn I think were harmed by the move to a trilogy. With two films, Beorn as a cameo in the battle might make sense, but with three films, it's inexcusable. With the dwarves, I think there just wasn't time to write and flesh out sequences for thirteen different characters in the time they had to write, so they just wrote them as a herd instead of the groups and individuals that they had developed for AUJ.


(This post was edited by skyofcoffeebeans on Apr 24, 2:20pm)


Jim
Rivendell


Apr 24, 2:28pm

Post #17 of 24 (3523 views)
Shortcut
Totally agree [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit is about Bilbo and the Dwarves, the focus should've been on them. Having the secondary characters is important of course but characters such as Legolas, Tauriel, Azog were given too big of a role to play.

In fact I wouldn't even had Azog, he should've died outside of Moria and you could've had Bolg trying to seek revenge on Thorin instead. You could've even had Bolg capturing and torturing Beorn in Dol Guldur which was in the original script. This then gave Beorn motivation to go to the Battle of Five Armies and kill Bolg.

It's decision like these where I think they went astray. They ended up over complicating the story.


(This post was edited by Jim on Apr 24, 2:29pm)


OhioDude72
The Shire

Apr 24, 2:52pm

Post #18 of 24 (3517 views)
Shortcut
Yeah [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The problem was going from two movies to three movies means you have to find extra material somewhere. For example the ending of Desolation of Smaug wasn't in the original scripts so they had to make an action sequence to set up the ending with Smaug going to Laketown.

I just think with an extra year under their belts they would've had a clear path/road of where the story line was going for all three movies before they started filming. With the Lord of the Rings they had this less so with The Hobbit.

There are some scenes I would've cut altogether and some scenes needed to be cut for the Extended Edition. Though I do feel Jackson and co weren't in control of what scenes needed to be put into the Movie to draw average movie goers. The studios certainly had a unwarranted influence on the process I believe. With Lord of the Rings, New Line pretty much gave Jackson and co the freedom necessary to tell the story.



Which scenes specifically? I thought the Dwarves' fight w Smaug and the barrell scene were over the top and unnecessary.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 24, 3:41pm

Post #19 of 24 (3510 views)
Shortcut
What ifs. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
There are far more positives than negatives and if the Lord of the Rings were never made the Hobbit movies I believe would have got higher ratings.


Realistically, though, if the LotR movies were never made (or made afterward) a Peter Jackson-led Hobbit adaptation would have been very different from the films that we actually got. Remember, under Miramax (I think) Jackson would have probably only been able to make a single Hobbit film. It is hard to separate the movies from the context in which they were made.

Without the previous films, Jackson wouldn't be competing with himself or trying to make so many connections between The Hobbit and the War of the Ring.

- probably only one movie, maybe two.
- no Tauriel
- the White Council and the Necromancer because we still have Gandalf leaving the company, but different then what we got
- cameo of 10 year-old Aragorn in Rivendell?
- maybe Legolas
- no Nazgūl tombs? (I can only hope.)
- only the one army of Orcs led by Bolg?
- no need for Were-worms?
- no room for a family for Bard?
- no Tauriel/Kili romance?

"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 24, 3:55pm)


Noria
Gondor

Apr 25, 12:18pm

Post #20 of 24 (3411 views)
Shortcut
Otaku-sempai has it right, I think [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
There are far more positives than negatives and if the Lord of the Rings were never made the Hobbit movies I believe would have got higher ratings.


Realistically, though, if the LotR movies were never made (or made afterward) a Peter Jackson-led Hobbit adaptation would have been very different from the films that we actually got. Remember, under Miramax (I think) Jackson would have probably only been able to make a single Hobbit film. It is hard to separate the movies from the context in which they were made.

Without the previous films, Jackson wouldn't be competing with himself or trying to make so many connections between The Hobbit and the War of the Ring.

- probably only one movie, maybe two.
- no Tauriel
- the White Council and the Necromancer because we still have Gandalf leaving the company, but different then what we got
- cameo of 10 year-old Aragorn in Rivendell?
- maybe Legolas
- no Nazgūl tombs? (I can only hope.)
- only the one army of Orcs led by Bolg?
- no need for Were-worms?
- no room for a family for Bard?
- no Tauriel/Kili romance?


If PJ and company had been able to follow their original plan and make a single Hobbit movie before moving on to LotR, that movie surely would have been very different. Smaller and more like the book.

As it was, they had to film TH in light of what had gone before and meet studio and general audience expectations. The time had passed for that smaller movie.

After the LotR trilogy, they needed, IMO, to open up the world of the Hobbit to fit with that of LotR and its larger geo-political structure. Jackson could have made different choices about subplots and characters but he didn't. Would longer prep time have resulted in different decisions?

I don't believe that more time would have fundamentally changed that much about TH. Even while del Toro was there, Itaril/Tauriel was part of the two-film structure. Legolas was going to be there. PJ loves his big action sequences and silly humour so those were inevitable, and so on.

Perhaps more time would have led to an earlier decision to go with three films, making the transition easier. However PJ really makes his movies in the editing room.

For me TH movies do pale a little in comparison with the LotR trilogy, but that's not surprising because I love LotR the book far more than The Hobbit novel. When I consider TH movies on their own, I'm quite satisfied.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 25, 4:13pm

Post #21 of 24 (3370 views)
Shortcut
That's understandable. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
For me TH movies do pale a little in comparison with the LotR trilogy, but that's not surprising because I love LotR the book far more than The Hobbit novel. When I consider TH movies on their own, I'm quite satisfied.


You're preference for the Lord of the Rings and movies is reasonable. The Hobbit was not written with the same sophistication as it's intended sequel and was crafted as principally a children's bedtime story. Even Tolkien himself later thought that it, in places, was too precious (so to speak). Jackson brought the Hobbit movies closer in tone to the LotR films, but that sometimes feels like an awkward fit and makes them something of a frankenstein.

"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock


Noria
Gondor

Apr 25, 8:36pm

Post #22 of 24 (3359 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit was a disappointment to me the first time I read it. [In reply to] Can't Post

I was a young teenager and just wanted more Lord of the Rings, which I had already read. That's not unlike a lot of LotR movie fans decades later.

If TH had come my way earlier and become a beloved icon of my childhood as it is for many, I likely would have felt differently about it. I might feel differently about PJ's movies. Regardless, as I grew up a little I came to love The Hobbit for itself.


Chen G.
Lorien

May 12, 9:09am

Post #23 of 24 (2259 views)
Shortcut
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post

The "James Bond opening" to The Battle of the Five Armies is much better than Fellowship's or the Two Towers', because its part of the linear chain of events, unlike Fellowship's; and a whole sequence, rather than a single scene, like in The Two Towers.

The color palette on An Unexpected Journey and some parts of The Desolation of Smaug is relatively ungraded and very lush, which was a nice change of pace to the heavily stylized color palette on Fellowship of the Ring, which at times feels very soft.

Its not "better" so much as "different", but from a directing point-of-view, Jackson decided to film The Hobbit using longer takes: the longest of the series, touching 1:30 minute, is in the Bag End sequence. Naturally, the camerawork becomes more lively through the trilogy, but there are still impressive long takes: In Bree, Beorn's House, Laketown, Dale, etc...

More on the "different" categorty, the story of Thorin and the Dwarves are both very unique to this trilogy: Thorin's story feels like a great Greek tragedy in the best sense; whereas that of the Dwarves almost feels like a patriotic story. Both are very relatable, and very different to anything on the Lord of the Rings.

Just as importantly, as noble as the Dwarves' goals are, they are much more provinicial than The Fellowship's, so the filmmakers can challenge the morality of the quest (through Bard) in a way they couldn't with The Fellowship.


Chen G.
Lorien

May 12, 9:25am

Post #24 of 24 (2257 views)
Shortcut
And Azog [In reply to] Can't Post

For a villain, Azog is much more tangiable than Sauron; and, unlike Saruman, he is the antagonist through all three films, and has a much more understandable motivation.

 
 

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.