Why i think that the Hobbit is better than LOTR

[Påsan]

Totally agree.

[ccllnply]

Ok i know that LOTR fans will hate me for this. But after seeing again the two hobbit films(waiting for the third to come out)i realized that the hobbit is better than LOTR. Here some reasons why

1)Better script. Hobbit has better pacing and quickly runs from the one adventure to the other adventure. Of course LOTR had its adventures too but sometimes they would become tiresome. For example the battle in Twin towers lasted for about an hour. Even if you had not read the books you knew what the result would be. So whats the point of dramatising this battle so much?

Better pacing? I wasn't going to bother replying until I saw that. The Hobbit has the worst pacing of any movie I've ever seen. Why? Because it tried to turn a book which was shorter than any individual LOTR's book into a trilogy and they still reasoned that they should remove bits that were in the book. As for your last point, scene in the second Hobbit movie where Bilbo was in Erebor running from the dragon was the most ridiculous waste of an hour I've ever experienced. Smaug was just moving around the place talking about how great he was and every time he was about to find Bilbo, Bilbo would fall down a mound of treasure or just get behind a wall. This went on for a frustrating long time with the sole purpose of wasting time and stretching out the movie so they could turn it in to a trilogy. Plus, the result of that was pretty obvious too.

At least the Battle of Helm's Deep was an hour of poor action and suspense, regardless of whether you knew what was going to happen. Bilbo hiding from Smaug in Erebor was just pointless drivel.

2)Better acting. The dwarves, Bilbo Baggins all of the new actors were excellent. In contrast with LOTR were, i must say, i never liked the hobbits with the exception of Sam. There was something that was missing from Aragorn too. Not so convincing as a future king. Boromir was great but he was killed in the first movie

To be honest, I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. I'm not saying your wrong, I simply feel that there wasn't any major faults in acting for either movie. However, I would agree with Wulfburk and say I preferred Gandalf in LOTR. My theory would be that Ian McKellen was forced to play Gandalf "before" the time he did in LOTR so it was as if he was trying to pretend he didn't know stuff yet and it didn't work for me.

I would also say that the acting in The Hobbit has been handicapped by the ridiculous overuse of CGI in basically every scene.

3)Better-shaped characters. All the characters in Hobbit have advantages and disadvantages which is realistic. Thorin is brave but makes mistakes. Bilbo is indifferent but usually saves the day. Balin is the wise advisor yet he is somehow reluctant. I also like Tauriel as the female elf that sympathises with one of the dwarves.

I think you're confusing "better-shaped characters" with "more shaped characters". This JRR Tolkien's work, a pure good vs. evil story. The characters aren't "shaped". For that matter, Aragorn and Thorin are practically the exact same. Both are heir's trying to reclaim their kingdoms and both have doubts about their ability. Thorin is just has slightly less doubts and is more of an .

I also like Tauriel as the female elf that sympathises with one of the dwarves. By contrast i really hated female characters in LOTR. They were all crying for Aragorn...Come on. We need to see some Orcs fighting!

I don't see how you can claim this when you just complained about the Battle of Helm's Deep being dramatised and drawn out and when Tauriel was a character introduced by the movie makers with the sole purpose of falling in love with everyone.

4)And at last Hobbit trilogy took many liberties that, i think, benefit the movie

As in stretching this children's book out over three movies while leaving out important bits of the book and adding in the hour long hide and seek in Erebor and the Tauriel love scenes?

I'm a serious Tolkien fan but the movie makers took liberties in LOTR that I felt actually benefited the movie. As a result, I preferred the movie to the books. In the Hobbit, these liberties had no other point than stretching the movies and maximizing profits off the back of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[Mangalore]

...
I don't see how you can claim this when you just complained about the Battle of Helm's Deep being dramatised and drawn out and when Tauriel was a character introduced by the movie makers with the sole purpose of falling in love with everyone.
...

Given that all characters and their actions are a mess I can't really care about some she-elf being added to that whole non character roster of the movie. She can't really detract from something that isn't there. Storywise shoehorning Legolas in there is to do his rule of cool nonsense is way more of a distraction than the idea to at least give one dwarf and one elf some story to have halfway normal dialogue about stuff.

[Gaidin]

Given that all characters and their actions are a mess I can't really care about some she-elf being added to that whole non character roster of the movie. She can't really detract from something that isn't there. Storywise shoehorning Legolas in there is to do his rule of cool nonsense is way more of a distraction than the idea to at least give one dwarf and one elf some story to have halfway normal dialogue about stuff.

Out of curiosity, where is Legolas during this time period?

[athanaric]

Out of curiosity, where is Legolas during this time period?

AFAIK he was not yet invented when The Hobbit was written, so he's not in the book. Like I said, he'd probably be a captain of his father (the Elf-King), which he actually is in the Hobbit movies, too, only in Peter Jackson's exaggerated Legolas fanboy fashion. If they'd actually adapted the book - instead of inventing generic fan fiction loosely held together by scenes more or less taken from the source material - Legolas would be a background character in a few scenes (mostly non-action) with two lines, at most.

[Gaidin]

AFAIK he was not yet invented when The Hobbit was written, so he's not in the book. Like I said, he'd probably be a captain of his father (the Elf-King), which he actually is in the Hobbit movies, too, only in Peter Jackson's exaggerated Legolas fanboy fashion. If they'd actually adapted the book - instead of inventing generic fan fiction loosely held together by scenes more or less taken from the source material - Legolas would be a background character in a few scenes (mostly non-action) with two lines, at most.

If they'd actually adapted the book every fight would be three sentences and/or seconds long. Really? Come on. Be real. Welcome to the theatrics of movie and stage acting where the script says nothing more than <they fight, prince dies>. Now where was Legolas in his life at the time of the Hobbit, theoretically, as both you know and I know he was a wood elf and he was alive at the time of the Hobbit canonically.

Man, if you have a problem with this, let me just say you better avoid the up and coming Foundation tv series. Because boy did Asimov love to have his battles be three sentences long. (Yes, those battles were there) And boy do we know that HBO loves to give its producers creative leeway. Especially when the battles are three sentences long and the fans will have jack and to complain about.

[athanaric]

If they'd actually adapted the book every fight would be three sentences and/or seconds long. Really? Come on. Be real. Welcome to the theatrics of movie and stage acting where the script says nothing more than <they fight, prince dies>. Now where was Legolas in his life at the time of the Hobbit, theoretically, as both you know and I know he was a wood elf and he was alive at the time of the Hobbit canonically.

That's not the point. The point is, the book is called The Hobbit, not The Elf, and Legolas isn't anywhere near to being a central character. In fact, his is a typical case of characters that can be left out when adapting a book to the screen. Now I don't know where you get the idea from that I objected to drawn-out fight scenes specifically. However, it should be obvious that you can adapt stuff creatively, and then there's gratuitous over-dramatization. Read this post on the previous page for examples. Other directors are capable of filming somewhat plausible fight scenes that are enjoyable yet still retain some semblance of realism. See Game of Thrones for example.
Then there's a difference between a battle, a skirmish, and individual fighting. It makes perfect sense for a battle to be drawn out and you don't see me complaining about the length of the Battle of Helm's Deep in LotR, because it makes sense, it's in the book as well, and it's actually fun to watch, apart from some questionable tactics and shield surfing. The Donkey Kong commercial in the Hobbit movie, meanwhile, was just filler.
Also, it's not just the fight scenes that are drawn out and sometimes unnecessary. It's a large part of the first film and most of the second one, incidentally the parts that were completely invented by the scriptwriters.

Man, if you have a problem with this, let me just say you better avoid the up and coming Foundation tv series. Because boy did Asimov love to have his battles be three sentences long. (Yes, those battles were there) And boy do we know that HBO loves to give its producers creative leeway. Especially when the battles are three sentences long and the fans will have jack and to complain about.

Strawman much?

I haven't read Asimov's novel and I don't care about it, nonetheless I can generally say that I trust HBO much more with adaptations of novels than I trust Jackson/Walsh/Boyens.

[Påsan]

Ur alone on that. LotR is easily a superior adaption than GoT.

Superior book too, but that's beside the point.

Better pacing? I wasn't going to bother replying until I saw that. The Hobbit has the worst pacing of any movie I've ever seen. Why? Because it tried to turn a book which was shorter than any individual LOTR's book into a trilogy and they still reasoned that they should remove bits that were in the book. As for your last point, scene in the second Hobbit movie where Bilbo was in Erebor running from the dragon was the most ridiculous waste of an hour I've ever experienced. Smaug was just moving around the place talking about how great he was and every time he was about to find Bilbo, Bilbo would fall down a mound of treasure or just get behind a wall. This went on for a frustrating long time with the sole purpose of wasting time and stretching out the movie so they could turn it in to a trilogy. Plus, the result of that was pretty obvious too.

That scene was in the book. Smaug was not trying to find Bilbo, he was trying to get information of who he was working for. That scene was the best scene in both Hobbit movies. No idea what the you're talking about but you obviously did not pay attention.

At least the Battle of Helm's Deep was an hour of poor action and suspense, regardless of whether you knew what was going to happen. Bilbo hiding from Smaug in Erebor was just pointless drivel.

Poor action? More like hands down best medieval battle on film.

[athanaric]

Ur alone on that.

What do Aurochs have to do with any of this?

LotR is easily a superior adaption than GoT.

Why?
GRR Martin seems content with the adaptation of his opus. Otherwise, he wouldn't be working with the show. I doubt that JRR Tolkien would be so happy with the latest LotR adaptation, although he'd probably prefer it to the previous attempts. We know that Christopher Tolkien, who's the leading authority on the subject, was less than thrilled by Jackson's adaptation.

Now if you want to argue that LotR is a better film than GoT, I see no problem with that (even though I wouldn't necessarily agree). Likewise with the source material. But that's a different thing altogether.

[Påsan]

I feel GoT changes so many things, and cut so many corners compared to LotR. Battles, gone. Major events, gone. Major characters, gone. Whole storyarchs, gone. In LotR when they cut stuff, like in the Fellowship they cut a fair bit in the beginning, and the end, it feels organic. In GoT it feels gracious.


Renly "Oh look at my great army on that hill over there"

[Gaidin]

I feel GoT changes so many things, and cut so many corners compared to LotR. Battles, gone. Major events, gone. Major characters, gone. Whole storyarchs, gone. In LotR when they cut stuff, like in the Fellowship they cut a fair bit in the beginning, and the end, it feels organic. In GoT it feels gracious.


Renly "Oh look at my great army on that hill over there"

That's mostly because as a single trilogy LOTR lends itself better to adaptation. Granted, they're doing the right thing by it by doing a tv show, but they have to structure it right and write it right by keeping characters in it consistently over the season or actors will have to leave. People gotta eat. Now, this is really apples and oranges from my point and is somewhat of a segue. My point is that the Hobbit is written totally differently than a movie will show the screen time. The only part of the book that you can really name that people will consistently know that you can get word for word minute for minute out of the book and slam it into the script and up onto the screen is Riddles in the Dark. Might. Maybe. Possibly get the same for the Trolls that turn to stone. Maybe. Everything else, really? That 15 minutes of action of them running through the mine to get away from the orcs? Two sentences in the book. Great scene in the movie. Pretty boring in the book though, half a second of reading.

That's how you get a trilogy from 300 pages.

Now the trap in this discussion is that when you're in the same world as LOTR you have the same characters living. And when a race is immortal holy crap when you get stuck with the elves where Legolas lives, and then later have a huge Battle of Five Armies?! Guess what happens! Athanaric can do this math but he just doesn't want to because he'll have to admit he's wrong and won't get to anymore.

[athanaric]

I feel GoT changes so many things, and cut so many corners compared to LotR. Battles, gone. Major events, gone. Major characters, gone. Whole storyarchs, gone. In LotR when they cut stuff, like in the Fellowship they cut a fair bit in the beginning, and the end, it feels organic.

Um...
1 - I don't think all the changes in LotR are really great.
2 - The non-canonical additions in LotR are really jarring (like character changes and new scenes), almost as much as in the Hobbit movies.
3 - Not to forget LotR has a manageable number of story arcs and characters, unlike ASoIaF (as far as I know), where you have to cut something to avoid confusion.
4 - Battles being left out in GoT are a result of budget limitations. Luckily, that wasn't as much of a concern for the LotR guys. So it's a bit unfair to count that as a criterion.

In GoT it feels gracious.

"Gracious" doesn't make sense to me here (as it doesn't have negative connotations), do you mean "gratuitous"? Speaking of the latter, both franchises have gratuitous violence (and GoT has gratuitous sex scenes on top of that), but al least in GoT you never get the feeling that it was inspired by an arcade video game, or a session of D&D.

That 15 minutes of action of them running through the mine to get away from the orcs? Two sentences in the book. Great scene in the movie. Pretty boring in the book though, half a second of reading.

Pretty sure it was several paragraphs in the book. Did you even read it?

That's how you get a trilogy from 300 pages.

No, you get a trilogy because you add a lot of extra stuff from other sources, both canonical and not.

Now the trap in this discussion is that when you're in the same world as LOTR you have the same characters living. And when a race is immortal holy crap when you get stuck with the elves where Legolas lives, and then later have a huge Battle of Five Armies?! Guess what happens! Athanaric can do this math but he just doesn't want to because he'll have to admit he's wrong and won't get to anymore.

What the hell are you even talking about? Did you read any of my posts?

Guess what happens!

Are you saying what needs to happen is for the film to follow this Legolas character for half an hour, who is of zero importance to the plot of The Hobbit and is only there because of retroactive continuity?

[Gaidin]

"Gracious" doesn't make sense to me here (as it doesn't have negative connotations), do you mean "gratuitous"? Speaking of the latter, both franchises have gratuitous violence (and GoT has gratuitous sex scenes on top of that), but al least in GoT you never get the feeling that it was inspired by an arcade video game, or a session of D&D.

GoT's gratuitous violence is more realistic than anything. Not really what I'd call gratuitous. LOTR and Hobbit have violence that's more entertaining than it is anything else.

[Kanaric]

Why am I hearing about a Foundation TV series in a Hobbit thread? First i'm hearing of that.

Anyways on topic Hobbit is inferior. IDK what it is but I guess it's the pacing I don't like. I feel like it would have been better as two films instead of 3.

I like the more relaxed nature of a lot of the scenes on Hobbit and some of the characters more, however there are scenes that are over the top cartoon ridiculous. I feel like once they kill Smaug the dwarves are going to jump in to the piles of gold and swim like Scrooge McDuck.

4 - Battles being left out in GoT are a result of budget limitations. Luckily, that wasn't as much of a concern for the LotR guys. So it's a bit unfair to count that as a criterion.

I have no problems with this. The battles are mostly just eye candy. Of course someone here must be obsessed with no content eye candy battles, lol.

I don't feel like I missed anything in terms of battles from Game of Thrones. The show isn't really about battles.

[Condottiere 40K]

Legolas was included for continuity and for the audience to focus on something that wasn't either short and/or dorkable. Or is that dworkable?

For commercial reasons, after LotR the Hobbit was planned as a two parter; possibly after assessing the Silmarillion, they went for a trilogy, as no one could see how they could continue the franchise, so they needed to milk it for all it's worth.

Chances are the last part will be conflict heavy, as they clear Dol Guldur, Smaug throws some shrimp on the barbie, and everyone decides that possession is nine tenths of the law.

[Gaidin]

Well, they could've made the necromancer it's own thing. But that's neither here nor there.

[gastovski]

Only read the first post and i all can say is that "TOO MUCH CGI".

[Derpy Hooves]

Okay Papay, if you really think that then I challenge you to do this with all of the Hobbit main characters. Sure you can do Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf, and Balin, but can you do the rest of the dwarves? With LOTR, it is a cinch to describe the Fellowship.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. Twins

2. Lothario

3. Hubraic leader

4. Ugly wise guy

[Knight of Heaven]

Will be Dracula fighting a Dragon?