I've never seen the Hobbit movie, but I think Randal Graves says it best with the Lord of the Rings movies(also in Kevin Smith's stand up comedy.) I liked the books, but didn't like the movies.
ethomaz said:
Bold: after The Hobbit became popular hist editor asked to him to write a sequel, The Lord of the Rings was born... The Hobbit was write before The Lord of the Rings lol. 1936: The Hobbit "Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book called The Hobbit, which he had written some years before for his own children, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen & Unwin, who persuaded Tolkien to submit it for publication.[85] However, the book attracted adult readers as well as children, and it became popular enough for the publishers to ask Tolkien to produce a sequel.
Tolkien at first intended The Lord of the Rings to be a children's tale in the style of The Hobbit, but it quickly grew darker and more serious in the writing." Who told you LOTR was write before Hobbit? I need to kill him |
Actually he is not completely wrong, because after writing the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien went back and changed parts of the Hobbit to make it more consistent with the Lord of the Rings Books, he even calls Bilbo a liar for not correctly writing what really happened into the "first" book 
“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”
- George Orwell, ‘1984’
anyone who says they liked the books better in LOTR versus the movie has not read the books. Now i'm not saying the movie is better than the books, just saying its more enjoyable.
The books are for like the super fans of the series that want to learn every aspect of the world and know each characters geneoligy and howto speak elvin and ect. The books are like reading an actualy real life history book. They were not read for entertainment purposes. It's a chore reading them.
The Hobbit is the opposite. It is a delight reading the Hobbit.
Maybe that is why people love the LOTR movies and hate the Hobbit. Like most all book/movie adaptations, the books are always better. BUT in the case of the LOTR, while it may be better, it is such a huge chore that its a relief to be able to watch it and cut out the history lesson. Thus we look past its flaws or omisions from the books and can just enjoy the story.
meanwhile we already could enjoy the Hobbit and thus we start nitpicking every little thing about the movie.
| irstupid said: anyone who says they liked the books better in LOTR versus the movie has not read the books. Now i'm not saying the movie is better than the books, just saying its more enjoyable. The books are for like the super fans of the series that want to learn every aspect of the world and know each characters geneoligy and howto speak elvin and ect. The books are like reading an actualy real life history book. They were not read for entertainment purposes. It's a chore reading them. The Hobbit is the opposite. It is a delight reading the Hobbit. Maybe that is why people love the LOTR movies and hate the Hobbit. Like most all book/movie adaptations, the books are always better. BUT in the case of the LOTR, while it may be better, it is such a huge chore that its a relief to be able to watch it and cut out the history lesson. Thus we look past its flaws or omisions from the books and can just enjoy the story. meanwhile we already could enjoy the Hobbit and thus we start nitpicking every little thing about the movie. |
That has not been my experience at all. I've read all three LOTR books and was throughly entertained. I tried to read The Hobbit but stopped half-way through. I never felt the LOTR books were akin to a history book, yes there's a lot of details but the story progresses at a smooth pace and never gets boring. From what I've heard from my husband, it's the Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales that read more like a history book (I haven't read them so I gotta take his word for it).
Signature goes here!
| irstupid said: anyone who says they liked the books better in LOTR versus the movie has not read the books. Now i'm not saying the movie is better than the books, just saying its more enjoyable. The books are for like the super fans of the series that want to learn every aspect of the world and know each characters geneoligy and howto speak elvin and ect. The books are like reading an actualy real life history book. They were not read for entertainment purposes. It's a chore reading them. The Hobbit is the opposite. It is a delight reading the Hobbit. Maybe that is why people love the LOTR movies and hate the Hobbit. Like most all book/movie adaptations, the books are always better. BUT in the case of the LOTR, while it may be better, it is such a huge chore that its a relief to be able to watch it and cut out the history lesson. Thus we look past its flaws or omisions from the books and can just enjoy the story. meanwhile we already could enjoy the Hobbit and thus we start nitpicking every little thing about the movie. |
The books are for the super fans of the series? You mean the same books that came out 50 years before the movies did? The quality of and how highly rated the books were is the reason the movies were made in the first place. The movies cut out a massive amount of content that was included within the books. Instead it was nothing more than walking and action scenes that made up the movies.
The Lord of the Rings movie adaptations are like Final Fantasy 13. Nothing but walking from point a to b.
| irstupid said: anyone who says they liked the books better in LOTR versus the movie has not read the books. Now i'm not saying the movie is better than the books, just saying its more enjoyable. |
I personally don't know anyone that enjoyed movies more than the books, and I know some 30-40 people that read them. Movies completely missed atmosphere and characterizations of books, and Hobbit the movie is even worse offender.
| TruckOSaurus said: I think it starts with the fact that The Hobbit, the book, is much more kid oriented than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It brings a change of tone when comparing the LOTR movies with The Hobbit movie. There's also the problem of stretching a book that is considerably shorter than any of the LOTR books into three movies. The LOTR trilogy had to be compressed to make it into the three movies we know while The Hobbit has to be stuffed with filler. |
Filler yes, but canon filler to be sure.
There is a lot of content that was written that wasn't in The Hobbit, and you saw some of that in the movie. The problem is, is there enough of that to fill two movies? The next part of The Hobbit revolves around the wood elves and the forest, possibly Lake-town. Though Lake-town is near the end so I don't know.
I don't think The Hobbit was a kids book. The old 70's or early 80's animated treatment of the book was geared towards kids, but it was really just meant as a prequel. something to set the stage of the original. Written long after the LoTRs was written.
Porcupine_I said:
Actually he is not completely wrong, because after writing the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien went back and changed parts of the Hobbit to make it more consistent with the Lord of the Rings Books, he even calls Bilbo a liar for not correctly writing what really happened into the "first" book |
Well, to be honest as I had heard it, he had written it after LoTR. I didn't realize he had written it before and changed it. Interesting.
91,983 
Mr Khan said:
More fitting with the Hobbit's tone, really. If anything, Jackson is trying to inject *too* much heavy shit in there, whereas the original novel really only got sentimental right at the end with the death of Thorin, Fili, and Kili. The matter of dividing the treasure was also handled as a serious matter, but for the most part the Hobbit was something of a lighthearted romp through middle earth, which Jackson is now weighing down by throwing in too much of the fight against the Necromancer (along with bringing the rise of the Necromancer, and the turning of Greenwood into Mirkwood, ahead by over 1900 *years*, and by making the Witch King actually dead in order to justify the name Necromancer, which totally beats the whole point of having Eowyn kill him in Return). The problem with The Hobbit is that Jackson is simultaneously making it into a big LotR fan-wank project, and yet making far more egregious changes to the mythology than any of the minor, understandable tweaks brought into the LotR trilogy |
Good points, all. Although I'd be willing to forgive the change in tone and canon if the movie was good. Unfortunately, it's not. The characters are underdeveloped, the screenplay is unfocused, and the action set pieces are loud, joyless, and, worst of all, over abundant. It's so strange that a director as great as Jackson could make such a dud, especially considering his mastery of similar source material in 2001-2003.
I think there's going to be plenty of heart in the next two movies. People are judging the series too quickly. The first one was meant to be a fun romp--just a silly adventure to enjoy. And I personally am happy that it went that way. Something about seeing a Lord of the Rings movie that could just cut loose and have fun was incredibly refreshing, and altogether it was more true to the book. (The Hobbit was not a super serious adventure like LoTR was.) I think people are too critical and quick to compare to the original trilogy.
I really think things will begin to get deeper as they go along, though. It will probably still have that lighter, more magical feel, but it will get closer to the other movies in terms of emotional content and dire situations.
Currently playing:
Bloodbath Paddy Wagon Ultra 9
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
