Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Do epics get any better ?

[sueb1863]

The Hobbit had to add invent entire sequences.

No, no, it really didn't. That was the whole problem. A few added sequences would have been fine, but they felt they had to heap huge new plotlines on top of each other until Bilbo was all but buried.

They didn't have to add a romance. They didn't have to add an Orc villain. They didn't have to add a stupid henchman for the Master of Laketown who seemed to get more screentime than most of the Dwarves.

The story didn't need any of that stuff. I found it very frustrating because PJ had an absolutely stellar cast, probably the best we could have hoped for, and he didn't make a movie that took advantage of it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

The simplicity of the tale is the Hobbit's strength which the films manage to drop the ball on, whilst the complexity of the LOTR books are it's strengths, the time taken to flesh out and develop characters and arcs, where the films use these as a springboard across it's trilogy, where The Hobbit goes for a different 'feel' in my view, it feels less expansive, extensive in it's nature, I feel, almost deliberately so.

 

[Iceman]

Lord of the Rings would have felt less stretched at 6 films than a Hobbit at 3.

 

[Galactus123]

They are great movies but do epics get any better than them? Yes. Lawrence of Arabia is better.

The Hobbit movies were bad.

 

[Batmannerism]

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of issues with the Hobbit trilogy (it should never have been stretched across three movies, two shorter movies would have been more than adequate and for starters they should have completely cut out the Legolas subplot and especially that whole embarassing love triangle), but I do think the hate is a little overblown. The first film especially is actually very good in parts, the bloat and aforementioned pointless and cringeworthy love triangle subplot doesn't kick in until the second movie.

I also recently did a 'Middle-earth' marathon of all six films, and it is rather satisfying watching all the films in chronological order and seeing how smoothly one trilogy does flow into the next. So yeah, the Hobbit trilogy is problematic and not a great adaptation of the book, but it's nowhere as bad as some people make out.

Nice, a very balanced view. Maybe I'll give the Hobbit films another chance, but definitely watch LOTR after rather than before.

Cheers.

 

[childeroland]

Lotr is certainly up there. There are epics I personally prefer (The Ten Commandments, 2001, The Human Condition, The Godfather series, Princess Mononoke, Space Battleship Yamato, etc.) but Jackson & his team's achievement is monumental. He probably did the best job that could have been done balancing faithfulness and the cinematic (and I like Bakshi's film, but still) and created an immersive experience. He should get a lifetime pass for that (and for Heavenly Creatures), IMO.

 

[sueb1863]

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Ralph Bakshi had ever been able to finish his animated version of LotR. The biggest problem I think would have been his characterization of Sam, whom he turned into the comic relief idiot. I don't think there was any way that character would have worked in the later part of the story.

 

[Abudefduf]

The biggest problem, maybe, but definitely not the only one.
I have to be honest though, the Fellowship part of Bakshi's LotR is a guilty pleasure of mine, it's so unintentionally hilarious. It's after Boromir's death that the movie becomes downright unwatchable. Not even Gollum can save it.

 

[scarlet-witch]

I think it's one of the best for sure.

 

[InCali]

You might be right. I suppose that LOTR raised expectations which the Hobbit failed to live up to.

Had the Hobbit films come first they probably would have been better received.

I will say this, LOTR really showcases and relies on the breathtaking scenery of the South Island and The North Island's central plateau ( I remember climbing My Ngaruahoe aka Mount Doom, back in 97, it's a stunning location) Whereas IMO The Hobbit appears to rely far more on cgi for what would have been exterior shots with a bit of matte work in LOTR. Viggo Mortensen commented on that, that where LoTR would use more practical effects and a little Chi, the Hobbit went overboard - I agree with him.

Still the Hobbit films aren't bad, just not up to the promise of LOTR.

It wasn't bad.....it was god awful. It was made worse because it was a shameless money grab that did a complete and utter disservice to the book. Total and complete carp.

 

[Broseph44]

Am I the only one that really loves The Hobbit films? I just think all 6 films work really well as a whole. But that is just my two cents.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Am I the only one that really loves The Hobbit films? I just think all 6 films work really well as a whole. But that is just my two cents.

I like them a lot, I just don't love 'em. Have the extended editions on dvd that I should get round to watching though.

 

[Batmannerism]

It wasn't bad.....it was god awful. It was made worse because it was a shameless money grab that did a complete and utter disservice to the book. Total and complete carp .

Wow, that's a stinging criticism. Very few films can legitimately be called total and complete "carp". Would you say that there was something fishy about the whole series.

I agree though that the decision to turn the book into 3 three hour films was probably motivated by the same thinking that split Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two films - ka-ching !

Something other posters have mentioned is that in the final Hobbit film Bilbo is reduced to a supporting player at best , and at worst an extended cameo.
( mind you in the Lord of the Rings book and series the title character never actually shows up during the events of the story - only in a flashback). However the Hobbit is Bilbo's story and it's his thoughts that the reader hears ( well, as relayed by the 3rd person omniscient narrator anyway) it's his take on the momentous events transposing around him that makes the book so compelling and relatable - something largely missing in the final film.
Cheers.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Wow, that's a stinging criticism. Very few films can legitimately be called total and complete "carp". Would you say that there was something fishy about the whole series.

I agree though that the decision to turn the book into 3 three hour films was probably motivated by the same thinking that split Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two films - ka-ching !

Something other posters have mentioned is that in the final Hobbit film Bilbo is reduced to a supporting player at best , and at worst an extended cameo.
( mind you in the Lord of the Rings book and series the title character never actually shows up during the events of the story - only in a flashback). However the Hobbit is Bilbo's story and it's his thoughts that the reader hears ( well, as relayed by the 3rd person omniscient narrator anyway) it's his take on the momentous events transposing around him that makes the book so compelling and relatable - something largely missing in the final film.
Cheers.

Jackson intended for it to be two films, a big part of the reason why Bilbo winds up being a supporting player in the final film is because WB forced his hand into making it three films, Bilbo didn't do s*** during the battle in the book, he was unconscious pretty much the whole time, so the movie actually gave him more of a role in that respect, but even then, there's no feasible way to make him a major part of it. Jackson needed more time for filming, and WB told him they would only give him more time if he split it into three films instead of two. Originally the second film would've started when they met Bard, the middle of the film would've been Bilbo and Smaug, and the battle would've been at the end, and obviously much shorter. I think if he'd been allowed to keep it down to two films it would've worked wonders for the pacing of the films.

Am I the only one that really loves The Hobbit films? I just think all 6 films work really well as a whole. But that is just my two cents.

I really love the first one, I enjoy Desolation and Five Armies, but I'd love to find a good fan edit that turns them into one film since It think they have some pretty big pacing issues.

 

[sueb1863]

If Jackson needed more time to make two movies, why would WB force him to make THREE movies, which would take even more time and just make his job more difficult?

 

[-JKR-]

If Jackson needed more time to make two movies, why would WB force him to make THREE movies, which would take even more time and just make his job more difficult?

Because three hit movies are better than two hit movies. It was probably a joint decision between New Line/Warner Bros. and MGM, the latter of which was struggling at the time and could definitely need an additional hit.

Not to mention that it meant for MGM (which owns the TV rights) that it could license one more movie. And it seemingly paid off, as the studio has set up its own distribution arm in collaboration with Annapurna last year.

But yeah, The Hobbit movies should've never been a trilogy.

 

[Greens]

The answer is no.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

If Jackson needed more time to make two movies, why would WB force him to make THREE movies, which would take even more time and just make his job more difficult?

It's discussed a fair amount in the special features for Five Armies, you can doubt it all you want, but it IS what happened.

 

[sueb1863]

Oh, I don't doubt it, I just wasn't sure why they'd tell him to make three movies when he was having time issues making two movies. It doesn't seem like giving him more time but forcing him to make three movies instead of two would solve the problem. He had a whole additional movie to do as a result so any added time he got was taken up with the new workload, so it seem like he didn't gain anything out of the deal.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Oh, I don't doubt it, I just wasn't sure why they'd tell him to make three movies when he was having time issues making two movies. It doesn't seem like giving him more time but forcing him to make three movies instead of two would solve the problem. He had a whole additional movie to do as a result so any added time he got was taken up with the new workload, so it seem like he didn't gain anything out of the deal.

Well, as evidenced by how the films ended up being received, it didn't work out too well, the first film would've included Mirkwood and the river barrel escape, but in order to fill out Desolation those scenes were moved into film two, significantly slowing the pace of film one, and film two would've ended with the battle of the five armies as its final act, but that got made into its own movie instead, which again, significantly slowed the pace of film two, and gave us a third film that simply due to the nature of the story, reduced Bilbo's role. Also worth noting that it wasn't really an entirely additional movie, a lot of that footage was part of the original plan anyways.

 

[sueb1863]

True, though they still had to write and shoot enough additional footage to pad it all out to the length of three movies.

 

[InCali]

Wow, that's a stinging criticism. Very few films can legitimately be called total and complete "carp". Would you say that there was something fishy about the whole series.

I agree though that the decision to turn the book into 3 three hour films was probably motivated by the same thinking that split Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two films - ka-ching !

Something other posters have mentioned is that in the final Hobbit film Bilbo is reduced to a supporting player at best , and at worst an extended cameo.
( mind you in the Lord of the Rings book and series the title character never actually shows up during the events of the story - only in a flashback). However the Hobbit is Bilbo's story and it's his thoughts that the reader hears ( well, as relayed by the 3rd person omniscient narrator anyway) it's his take on the momentous events transposing around him that makes the book so compelling and relatable - something largely missing in the final film.
Cheers.

To be honest, I'm probably one of the biggest fans of the books you've never met. If you don't believe me, you can look at my website and look at my Tolkien book collection. My problem with The Hobbit movies is that they completely and utterly butchered the book.

I'm the guy who gives grudging respect to the LotR movies so that should tell you something.

Color me guilty.

 

[Batmannerism]

To be honest, I'm probably one of the biggest fans of the books you've never met. If you don't believe me, you can look at my website and look at my Tolkien book collection. My problem with The Hobbit movies is that they completely and utterly butchered the book.

I'm the guy who gives grudging respect to the LotR movies so that should tell you something.

Color me guilty.

I think the movies made the mistake of putting too much emphasis on the dwarves. Other than Thorin and Balin they're very one note characters. Fili and Kili , have almost no lines in the book. Yet in the films Kili gets an entire subplot ...with a made up character.

I had no problem with Tauriel, as the book is almost devoid of female characters. However, the main character should still have been Bilbo.

As someone has already mentioned, the final battle doesn't really involve much significant action from Bilbo, other than announcing the eagles arrival and getting KO'd.

As such, a film based around the battle was a stretch at best. Two films could have really done the trick With the first movie ending with the fight with the giant spiders and the dwarves capture by the Elves - end on a bit of a cliffhanger - either that or end with their escape, as they float down the river and Bilbo sees the Lonely Mountain looking in the distance.

Oh well, what could have been. Still at least LOTR is well on its way to becoming a timeless classic.

 

[InCali]

I think the movies made the mistake of putting too much emphasis on the dwarves. Other than Thorin and Balin they're very one note characters. Fili and Kili , have almost no lines in the book. Yet in the films Kili gets an entire subplot ...with a made up character.

I had no problem with Tauriel, as the book is almost devoid of female characters. However, the main character should still have been Bilbo.

As someone has already mentioned, the final battle doesn't really involve much significant action from Bilbo, other than announcing the eagles arrival and getting KO'd.

As such, a film based around the battle was a stretch at best. Two films could have really done the trick With the first movie ending with the fight with the giant spiders and the dwarves capture by the Elves - end on a bit of a cliffhanger - either that or end with their escape, as they float down the river and Bilbo sees the Lonely Mountain looking in the distance.

Oh well, what could have been. Still at least LOTR is well on its way to becoming a timeless classic.

This romantic thing between an elf and a dwarf was a complete and utter mistake. Really stupid move and, yes, there was far too much emphasis on the dwarves. They could have devoted more time to the White Council ousting Sauron from Dol Guldur. It wasn't really covered in the book and is a place where some imagination could have been used. The Hobbit didn't really need 2 full movies and this could have helped tell the other half of the story. Gandalf orchestrated the attack in order to make sure Sauron and Smaug could not team up so it's relevant to The Hobbit.

 

[I'm Old Greg]

The story is all the same to me. Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings. Especially the characters.