Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 06-15-2015, 01:40 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,423
LOTR film trilogy vs. The Hobbit film trilogy: why did the latter suck?

My subject line exaggerates. The Hobbit trilogy didn't suck, but neither was it awesome. Using Rotten Tomatoes as a gauge here to measure Peter Jackson's renderings of Tolkien's books, the movies in each trilogy received the following ratings:

LOTR trilogy: 91%, 96%, 95%

The Hobbit trilogy: 64%, 75%, 61%

I have to admit, I didn't care for the movies in the Hobbit trilogy as much as I did the LOTR trilogy.

So what's the deal? Same source author, same director, but two different end products held in very different esteem. Why? Were the books of vastly different quality to begin with? Did Peter Jackson himself change dramatically between 2001 and 2012? Did our expectations change during that same time period?
#2
Old 06-15-2015, 01:45 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,218
The Hobbit was about 1/3 of one of the LOTR books, so trying to expand that into a trilogy was JUST... TOO.... MUCH. IMHO. It turned into just a series of action scenes for the sake of action scenes.
#3
Old 06-15-2015, 01:45 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,099
LoTR was 3 long books made into 3 long movies.

The Hobbit was 1 short book made into 3 long movies.

That's why.
#4
Old 06-15-2015, 01:45 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
The LOTR was an epic trilogy of books with a serious tone spanning about a thousand pages. The Hobbit was originally written for children and was a third of the length of LOTR. LOTR lent itself easily to 3 movies, they had to really chop up the Hobbit to make it 3, including adding lots of things that the original books didn't have.
#5
Old 06-15-2015, 01:46 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 17,865
Edit: Ninja'd.

Last edited by Malthus; 06-15-2015 at 01:46 PM.
#6
Old 06-15-2015, 01:47 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 9,862
There are about 8 million reasons, but for starters - the LOTR trilogy was based on 3 books, each running some 300-400 pages, so Jackson was, for the most part, condensing or eliminating content from the books. Whereas the Hobbit is a single, 200ish page book, so he had to invent enormous amounts of content to pad it out to 3 movies.

Hah - ninja'd 4 times on preview!
#7
Old 06-15-2015, 01:47 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 11,968
I'm going with bloat. They had to stretch and pad The Hobbit to fill three movies. They had to pare LOTR down to fit into three movies.

The flensing of LOTR kept everything moving to cover all the important story. The inflation of The Hobbit kept everything in motion to fill the time.
#8
Old 06-15-2015, 01:48 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,099
That's most of it, but there was also the expectation that PJ would turn in another stunning masterpiece. Dont get me wrong, I loved the Hobbit, all three, but honestly they only get a 8 compared to the 10 (dare I say 11?) of LotR.

Now, I think adding in the backstory of what Gandalf did vs the Necromancer was a great idea. But they could have cut back some of the cray action sequences, and done it in two films.
#9
Old 06-15-2015, 01:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,892
Two things: in LOTR he condensed three fairly long books into three movies (which were long, but he still had to leave stuff out). He had to really focus on story and the important stuff in order to get as much in as he could. There's a lot more story density and much better pace. In the Hobbit he expanded one short-ish book into three movies, so he had to add lots of stuff that simply didn't serve the story except as filler.

Second, he went effects crazy. In LOTR, there's really very little in the way of CGI. The orcs were mostly actors in costumes and makeup, and most of the effects were camera and staging tricks. In the Hobbit we just did everything on the computer which makes everything really sterile.

Last edited by fachverwirrt; 06-15-2015 at 01:49 PM. Reason: Ok, seriously, I don't think I've ever been octuple ninjad before.
#10
Old 06-15-2015, 01:59 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,218
The Hobbit Production Diaries Show That Peter Jackson Is Tired and Old
Quote:
"This is a nightmare." -Peter Jackson

"I asked Peter Jackson if he was going to do The Hobbit and he said, 'No, I'm not interested in doing that.'" -Elijah Wood.

"[This movie] made me feel like I should stop acting." -Sir Ian McKellen
#11
Old 06-15-2015, 02:01 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,103
Although they did take some liberties, the making of the LOTR trilogy was a labour of love by many of the people involved, who respected the source material and tried to remain faithful to it and bring it to life on the big screen.

The attitude that they took toward making the Hobbit movies seems to me quite different: they used the source material as a starting point to try to make a fun, blockbuster series of movies. I don't think this was necessarily a bad choice, but I have mixed feelings about the results.
#12
Old 06-15-2015, 02:07 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,951
"I feel thin, sort of stretched, like one book made into three movies...."
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
#13
Old 06-15-2015, 02:51 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
The Hobbit was about 1/3 of one of the LOTR books, so trying to expand that into a trilogy was JUST... TOO.... MUCH. IMHO. It turned into just a series of action scenes for the sake of action scenes.
A nitpick, but if you go by word count, the ratio is closer to five to one. Trying to fill all the screen time with so much less content threw off the pace of the movie. There were so many scenes that just didn't work but Jackson couldn't edit them out because he needed the minutes.

I agree the action scenes were poorly done. For some reason, Jackson decided to cartoon them up for the Hobbit trilogy. Actions scenes in the first trilogy looked epic; actions scenes in the second one looked like video games.
#14
Old 06-15-2015, 02:52 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 10,440
Where Jackson made changes to the LotR storyline for the movies, the changes generally made sense for the pacing of the films, and (IMO) fit with the spirit of the story.

The changes which Jackson made to the story of The Hobbit for the films often wildly diverged from the book (and even diverged from the "additional material" from the LotR appendices, like the Necromancer subplot). Things like the albino orc, the huge role of Legolas, the Legolas / Tauriel / Kili romantic triangle, leaving half of the dwarves back in Lake Town, the dwarves' attack on Smaug (with the silly molten gold idea)...all of these were so far removed from the book story that it felt, to me, vanishingly like the original story.

Add to that the over-the-top, thrill-ride action sequences (which were almost always invented from whole cloth), and the repeated Big Dark Foreshadowing to the events of LotR (despite the fact that, in the books, those events wouldn't happen for another 80 years or so, whereas the tone of that foreshadowing in the Hobbit movies implied "Sauron will be back, any day now"), and I felt that the movies strayed much, much too far from the original story.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 06-15-2015 at 02:54 PM.
#15
Old 06-15-2015, 02:56 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
So what's the deal? Same source author, same director, but two different end products held in very different esteem. Why? Were the books of vastly different quality to begin with?
The two source books were both great. But they were very different books. The Hobbit was a short light-hearted fairy tale. The Lord of the Rings was written as a serious historical epic.
#16
Old 06-15-2015, 03:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,681
Well, I thought the Hobbit films sucked, and from a storytelling perspective, a big difference is the sense of urgency in the story.

In LOTR, we're talking about the world ending, essentially. Good vs. Evil.

In the Hobbit, some dwarves want to reclaim something and there's lots of motivation that's just historical backstory and Middle Earth legacies and blah blah blah blah. Yes, Bilbo is entitled to an adventure and grows as a character, but that arc is mostly lost with all the bloat. The padding is at the expense of his story.

So while everything in LOTR seems to very naturally build and develop the action to the final climax at Mordor, most of the things in the Hobbit are just incident after incident, with very little relationship to the end result. It's more diversionary, which makes you notice how unnecessary or inconsequential things are in such a long set of films.
#17
Old 06-15-2015, 03:10 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 13,233
There was a lot of good in The Hobbit movies that really complemented the book. Working in Gandalf's necromancer efforts, and his vision of needing to deal with Smaug before the shit really hit the fan, was a nice touch. But there was just enough filler--the ginger elf for no good reason, the bunny sled, the dwarves facing the dragon in any way at all--to offset the good. For me, there were just to many story elements, and thus too many films, for what was otherwise a fairly straightforward adventure.

In contrast, LOTR was a much more complex story that dealt with ancient fictional history as well as the timeless struggle of good v. evil, the dangers of pride balanced against the pitfall of inappropriate humility, other stuff. The more you go on about those things, the better your understanding of the central plot and the more enriching the experience is.
#18
Old 06-15-2015, 03:18 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
"I feel thin, sort of stretched, like one book made into three movies...."
Bazinga!
#19
Old 06-15-2015, 03:29 PM
SDSAB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
I loved the LOTR movie trilogy (despite some nitpicks). Far too often, though, the Hobbit movies were more like a videogame than a Middle-earth adventure: loud, frantic, pointless and empty. The combat scenes went on and on and on. The Elf/Dwarf romance was laughable, and Thorin running across the teeth of Smaug was unforgiveable.

I'd love to see a heavily-cut edit of the Hobbit movies that left out so much of the padding Peter Jackson added, and got closer to Tolkien's original vision.

Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 06-15-2015 at 03:30 PM.
#20
Old 06-15-2015, 03:30 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Over on the left
Posts: 13,186
I haven;t even seen the third of the trilogy yet. But besides the bloat, besides the cartoonish, overblown, and physically impossible action sequences, the number one reason the Hobbit sucked was that we had to look at Radagast always running around with birdshit crusted on his face.
#21
Old 06-15-2015, 03:43 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,218
There is nothing wrong, per se, with taking a short book and making it into a long movie, or even making it into 3 long movies. But you need to make it interesting, not just fill it with interminable chase scenes. And yeah, it helps if there is some overriding them driving the story. But mainly, you have to be a good storyteller. Whoever wrote the movie stories of The Hobbit wasn't very good at it.
#22
Old 06-15-2015, 03:51 PM
Charter Member
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,158
Honestly, I think Rankin and Bass did a better job of The Hobbit than Peter Jackson did.
#23
Old 06-15-2015, 04:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's most of it, but there was also the expectation that PJ would turn in another stunning masterpiece. Dont get me wrong, I loved the Hobbit, all three, but honestly they only get a 8 compared to the 10 (dare I say 11?) of LotR.

Now, I think adding in the backstory of what Gandalf did vs the Necromancer was a great idea. But they could have cut back some of the cray action sequences, and done it in two films.
Are you confusing LOTR with all the Harry Potter movies?
#24
Old 06-15-2015, 04:29 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 13,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Honestly, I think Rankin and Bass did a better job of The Hobbit than Peter Jackson did.
Dude, save that kind of talk for The Pit.

#25
Old 06-15-2015, 04:33 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 10,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
I'd love to see a heavily-cut edit of the Hobbit movies that left out so much of the padding Peter Jackson added, and got closer to Tolkien's original vision.
Hell, I would have liked to have seen what those three films looked like as *two* films, which was the original plan. Cut down from 9 hours to 6, maybe it wouldn't have been quite so ridiculous.
#26
Old 06-15-2015, 04:44 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,851
Why the HELL didn't someone capitalize on these movies and make a "Bored of the Rings" movie? You could turn one out for next to nothing, and it would have been grand!

Talk about your lost opportunities!
#27
Old 06-15-2015, 04:47 PM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Why the HELL didn't someone capitalize on these movies and make a "Bored of the Rings" movie? You could turn one out for next to nothing, and it would have been grand!

Talk about your lost opportunities!
I would have loved an MST3K approach -- actual clips of the movie with an audience making snarky comments and adding additional dialog.
#28
Old 06-15-2015, 04:48 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Hell, I would have liked to have seen what those three films looked like as *two* films, which was the original plan. Cut down from 9 hours to 6, maybe it wouldn't have been quite so ridiculous.
I would have liked to see Guillermo del Toro's version.
#29
Old 06-15-2015, 05:13 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 10,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
I would have liked to see Guillermo del Toro's version.
This, too.
#30
Old 06-15-2015, 05:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
"I feel thin, sort of stretched, like one book made into three movies...."
Bravo! Perfect.
#31
Old 06-15-2015, 05:20 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 10,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Are you confusing LOTR with all the Harry Potter movies?
I cried when Snape killed Gandalf at the end of the series.

Last edited by Drunky Smurf; 06-15-2015 at 05:20 PM.
#32
Old 06-15-2015, 05:35 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 27,361
I'd argue that 1/3 of the LotR trilogy sucks. But the Hobbit movies are so much worse because the story was expanded far, far beyond the source material. The worst parts of even Fellowship of the Ring are those which Peter Jackson added in -- like Gimli snoring during Sam's lament for Gandalf.

HOBBIT also suffers from some presentisn, a failing of the latter two LotR a well. The ridiculous notion that Faramir, in a pre-electronic culture, could be receiving nearly real-time intelligence about Mordor and Isengard's military advances, was echoed in the bit about the White Council being able to assemble quickly enough to try to intervene in the early part of Thorin & Copmpany's quest.

Oh, and the rabbits. The story was practically unsalvageable after Radagast's ridiculous rabbits. It signaled that Jackson was not taking his story serious, but was simply making mock.

Lastly there were no Eowyn. I'll forgive anything if Miranda Otto's on the screen.
#33
Old 06-15-2015, 05:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 27,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
I loved the LOTR movie trilogy (despite some nitpicks). Far too often, though, the Hobbit movies were more like a videogame than a Middle-earth adventure: loud, frantic, pointless and empty. The combat scenes went on and on and on. The Elf/Dwarf romance was laughable, and Thorin running across the teeth of Smaug was unforgiveable.

I'd love to see a heavily-cut edit of the Hobbit movies that left out so much of the padding Peter Jackson added, and got closer to Tolkien's original vision.
I wouldn't. The dark and terrible lesson that Peter Jackson taught me (with The Lovely Bones, though RotK didn't help) was not to see movies based on books that I love, because the things I love about books don't translate into movies.
#34
Old 06-15-2015, 06:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
Posts: 6,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Why the HELL didn't someone capitalize on these movies and make a "Bored of the Rings" movie? You could turn one out for next to nothing, and it would have been grand!

Talk about your lost opportunities!
We had a thread here maybe ten years ago trying to cast "Bored of the Rings." Might be interesting to try to resurrect that. Although we'd probably have to re-cast with today's crop of actors.
#35
Old 06-15-2015, 06:19 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
My subject line exaggerates. The Hobbit trilogy didn't suck
Yes it did. It sucked big time.
#36
Old 06-15-2015, 07:06 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 38,467
No comparison between the two other than some of the same people were involved. LOTR had a certain earnestness about it, and tension throughout, with a good sense of foreboding and danger. The cast seemed to click with each other (perhaps just good acting, but still). I really looked forward to each one of them, from the first time I saw the previews prior to the first movie. Just those short clips made me realize that something special was on the way.

Not so with The Hobbit. As mentioned, much of it was cartoonish and boring, more a video game than anything else. I watched all three, but only after they were available for rental, as even the previews of the first film showed me that this was not going to measure up. Just too long and too cute, with the result being tedium and boredom. Jackson should have stood his ground and not done it.
#37
Old 06-15-2015, 07:07 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Liverpool NY USA
Posts: 9,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffy the Elephant Shrew View Post
I haven;t even seen the third of the trilogy yet. But besides the bloat, besides the cartoonish, overblown, and physically impossible action sequences, the number one reason the Hobbit sucked was that we had to look at Radagast always running around with birdshit crusted on his face.
THERE IT IS! For me, anyways. Utterly repellant and ridiculous.

Another thing which I don't think I've ever seen addressed: Why do the dwarves, the majority, look like they're wearing big rubber Halloween masks, or big papier mache fake heads. Yet there are two or three that look more like humans, in fact are not too bad looking (I suppose for purposes of Romance With Elves). It's like once dwarves reach a certain age, they turn into ludicrous comical/ugly charicatures of 'dwarves'.

A stupid, stupid movie. I love LotR trilogy beyond reason, I love fantasy of any kind, and this is the kind of movie I would have on in the background while doing something tedious. But I didn't like it at all. Though I thought Martin Freeman as Bilbo was EXCELLENT!
#38
Old 06-15-2015, 07:16 PM
Charter Member
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,158
Freeman did do a good Bilbo, I'll give him that. In fact, I think most of the acting was decent, for what they had to work with. The really terrible parts were all things that can be laid at the feet of the director and the writers.
#39
Old 06-15-2015, 07:27 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,867
I think The Hobbit is just an inferior story compared to LOTR. Don't get me wrong, it's good reading. But fundamentally, The Hobbit is the sire of D&D dungeon crawls. Characters meet at a pub. They kill stuff. They take the loot.

Jackson can put all the birdshit he wants on Radagast and all the gold he wants on Smaug, but he can't cover up the simple truth: The Hobbit not the same kind of story that LOTR is.
#40
Old 06-15-2015, 07:58 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 5,726
The Hobbit is not only shorter and more light-hearted, it is also somewhat more of a picaresque novel than LotR (think Pickwick Papers vs. A Tale of Two Cities, if you like Dickens). In LotR there is a very strong story arc (or two or three arcs at different times, weaving around each other). The civilized world is at stake. In The Hobbit, the story arc is much less strong and compelling, and it only serves to loosely hold together an otherwise very episodic narrative. All we really care about is Bilbo's survival.

So in the movies, the episodic nature of The Hobbit is emphasized several-fold by adding in more episodes and padding the length of each episode.

Even the Necromancer additions, which one might think would add to the gravitas and importance of the plot, manages not to do that. Instead it's a distraction. The focus on the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin that is so important to the central theme of the book is overshadowed by the Necromancer and other things.

I haven't seen any of the second movie, but I have seen large parts of the other two, and for my money the acting seems kind of thrown away, except for Bilbo. He was just right.

eta: or what Dracoi more-or-less said, except that I think The Hobbit is a perfectly good story for what it is. It just isn't LotR.

Last edited by Roderick Femm; 06-15-2015 at 08:00 PM.
#41
Old 06-15-2015, 08:01 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,056
A Middle Earth where Beorn's ponies and dogs can set a table of bread and honey for the dwarves is a Middle Earth where a wizard with a sled pulled by giant rabbits makes perfect sense. Radagast was fine, seriously.

Martin Freeman did an excellent job as Bilbo. Perfect casting. And Thranduil was good, just what an asshole elf-lord should be. And the dwarves singing "The Misty Mountains Cold" was perfect. Set design, character design, all was good. There were a lot of great parts in the Hobbit movies. Some changes made the story better, like that Thorin had a plan beyond wandering to the lonely mountain and then seeing what happened.

But there were some horrible parts too. The Tauriel-Kili-Legolas subplot? Horrible. The numerous extended cartoonish action sequences? Horrible. The extended Azog vs Thorin subplot? Horrible. Even the White Council vs the Necromancer subplot didn't work.
#42
Old 06-15-2015, 08:32 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 17,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by fachverwirrt View Post
Second, he went effects crazy. In LOTR, there's really very little in the way of CGI. The orcs were mostly actors in costumes and makeup, and most of the effects were camera and staging tricks. In the Hobbit we just did everything on the computer which makes everything really sterile.
Aside from the criticisms about bloat, pacing, and plotting (which I agree with), this was the real deal killer for me. The entirety of Middle Earth suffered from a very bad case of The Uncanny Valley, and as such the films could not draw me into their world.
#43
Old 06-15-2015, 08:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
A nitpick, but if you go by word count, the ratio is closer to five to one. Trying to fill all the screen time with so much less content threw off the pace of the movie. There were so many scenes that just didn't work but Jackson couldn't edit them out because he needed the minutes.
If you wanna get specific, The Hobbit was 319 pages long (original published edition). The movies in their theatrical cuts:

An Unexpected Journey - 169 min
The Desolation of Smaug - 161 min
The Battle of the Five Armies - 144 min

Average: ~1.49 min of screen time per page of book.

LoTR series:

Fellowship - 432 pgs / 178 min
Two Towers - 352 pgs / 179 min
Return - 432 pgs / 201 min

Average: ~0.46 min of screen time per page of book.
#44
Old 06-15-2015, 08:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by salinqmind View Post
THERE IT IS! For me, anyways. Utterly repellant and ridiculous.

Another thing which I don't think I've ever seen addressed: Why do the dwarves, the majority, look like they're wearing big rubber Halloween masks, or big papier mache fake heads. Yet there are two or three that look more like humans, in fact are not too bad looking (I suppose for purposes of Romance With Elves). It's like once dwarves reach a certain age, they turn into ludicrous comical/ugly charicatures of 'dwarves'.

A stupid, stupid movie. I love LotR trilogy beyond reason, I love fantasy of any kind, and this is the kind of movie I would have on in the background while doing something tedious. But I didn't like it at all. Though I thought Martin Freeman as Bilbo was EXCELLENT!
Honestly that bird shit nonsense was pretty off putting. It almost took you out of the movie.
#45
Old 06-15-2015, 09:17 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere near Boston
Posts: 9,905
Well, as people keep saying, the book version of the Hobbit contained a lot of light-hearted whimsey and humor. And the movie avoided humor and charm at every chance it could. Admittedly, they kept the dishwashing/cleaning up scene, but they lost the bit where Gandalf introduces the dwarves to Beorn and they completely altered the part of the movie where Bilbo bungs up the dwarves in barrels to escape the elves.

Possibly the role of the greedy guy who looked like Mr. Bean was supposed to be humorous, but they didn't actually do anything with it or even have it lead to a satisfying come-uppance, so that was just wasted padding.


Thorin's death, which was supposed to be noble and atoning was exchanged for some stupid boss fight from a comic book movie.

The TL;DR is that they didn't respect and possibly didn't even understand the material.
#46
Old 06-15-2015, 10:18 PM
SDSAB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Honestly, I think Rankin and Bass did a better job of The Hobbit than Peter Jackson did.
It pains me to admit it, and it's a close call, but I would have to agree. The Dwarves also looked better - not just humans in big boots and silly hair, but better-proportioned for (at least my mental image of) their fictional race: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r4QIMn15Qh...0/00316977.JPG
#47
Old 06-15-2015, 10:31 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by dracoi View Post
I think The Hobbit is just an inferior story compared to LOTR. Don't get me wrong, it's good reading. But fundamentally, The Hobbit is the sire of D&D dungeon crawls. Characters meet at a pub. They kill stuff. They take the loot. . . .
Say what one may about the movies, they were actually better than the book.

Take the chase in the tunnels under the mountains: at least in the movie, the dwarves fight. In the book, they only ran. The movie showed them as the deadly foes we knew they really could be.

And in the entire damn book, Nori (and I believe Ori) do nothing. At least Dori carries Bilbo a couple of times, but the other two have ZERO to do with the story. Bifur, too, has, if memory serves, only one moment of action, when he gets hauled up on ropes to the thrush's ledge, along with Bofur.

Thranduil gets some actual dialogue and motivation. In the book, he's just a cardboard cut-out.
#48
Old 06-16-2015, 01:20 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 10,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by salinqmind View Post
Another thing which I don't think I've ever seen addressed: Why do the dwarves, the majority, look like they're wearing big rubber Halloween masks, or big papier mache fake heads. Yet there are two or three that look more like humans, in fact are not too bad looking (I suppose for purposes of Romance With Elves). It's like once dwarves reach a certain age, they turn into ludicrous comical/ugly charicatures of 'dwarves'.
Note that the three dwarves who looked more "human" (Kili, Fili, and Thorin) were the three who died in the Battle of the Five Armies. It's been hypothesized that this was intentional -- that, because they looked more human, the audience would empathize with them more, and thus be hit harder when they died.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 06-16-2015 at 01:20 AM.
#49
Old 06-16-2015, 03:59 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
If you wanna get specific, The Hobbit was 319 pages long (original published edition). The movies in their theatrical cuts:

An Unexpected Journey - 169 min
The Desolation of Smaug - 161 min
The Battle of the Five Armies - 144 min

Average: ~1.49 min of screen time per page of book.

LoTR series:

Fellowship - 432 pgs / 178 min
Two Towers - 352 pgs / 179 min
Return - 432 pgs / 201 min

Average: ~0.46 min of screen time per page of book.
I can't tell what editions you're using because those page counts seem out of whack with respect to the number of words. Maybe the Hobbit (as a children's book) had a larger type because as has already been noted, LOTR boasts more than five times (481103 to 95356) the word count of the Hobbit. So using word count against your film run times I get:

LOTR: 862.2 words per minute
Hobbit: 201.2 words per minute

That's a lot of padding.
#50
Old 06-16-2015, 06:22 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 214
I know I'm in a minority of one, but I really didn't like Martin Freeman in the Hobbit movies at all. I don't think he can actually act - he does the same face and actions in everything. He doesn't have the screen presence to drive these sort of movies. Here in the UK he was brought to the public's attention as a simpering feeble loser in the "Office" comedy show and I think the feeling has stuck.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: michael eisner farquaad removing jacket nitris tank supreme vs gladiator ugliest insects as enterprises poop autopsy on animals spitting image origin drake message board queen mustapha throw thermal pod kaeru meaning midget pregnancy songs about reuniting uplift universe superman miss tessmacher sook definition pathfinder tiny hut burrowed ticks surveying tripod ww points potato classic stripper songs sleeping gas caligula cumshot snapple quotes zzzquil dosage one way cruises smell behind ears vermicious knids italian for silver smoke caffeine pills skateboard blockers zensunni quotes price of freon for car air conditioner hbo go closed captions woo hoo wee hoo how do bands remember all their songs canon mg2922 printer not responding a number 1 pencil a song of ice and fire cliff notes d&d 5e avatar the last airbender lava lamp wax stuck on top air mattress new york amazon marketplace payments amazon.com/bill wa two dollar bill good luck motels that rent by the hour near me what to say when you call in sick to work how to remove cactus splinters 30 degree weather outfits honeywell thermostat circ or auto lead figures d&d young girl sucking old man cock palm oil tree nut allergy what was cartman saying in german solar powered car vent fan what does llc mean in a company name song beginning with z how much does it cost to buy a dolphin how fast are camels average baby shower size best socks for cowboy boots light switch turns on by itself base metal bezel 1412 who pissed in your cornflakes 5'8 compared to 6'0 how much to tip a taxi cab is it cum or come