Is there a preference for the first Hobbit film over LOTR among fans?

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

Please note that I am only talking about the first film here. I know allot of people have similar problems with the An Unexpected Journey as they do the other instalments in the Hobbit trilogy however I do not think they are comparable. People like to compare the dwarves surviving their encounter with Smaug in such near death situation for instance to them surviving the stone giants I disagree. The stone giants are not trying to hurt the dwarfs just themselves unlike Smaug who was determinate to kill the dwarfs. Also the dwarfs massacring the orcs with ease was much more forgivable in An Unexpected Journey then in The Desolation of Smaug since they had Gandalf at their side(they guy that most fans of the books complain is not powerful enough in the films).

If you want to know however why I prefer the first installment of the Hobbit trilogy to the original Jackson trilogy it is the following.

1. The prologue is allot longer I would honestly have preferred a similarly lengthy prologue in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I prefer the extended version of the Hobbit prologue but both are still more satisfying than the one in Fellowship of the Ring theatrical and extended version. I know it is not Jackson's fault since he actually had a longer prologue in mind for the first Lord of the Rings film that he made but the movies are what they are regardless of the directors intentions not to mention movies are not a one man's product. Also, there many people who don't care for prologues in eithers films as they do not follow most of our main characters and are not the actual story as much as they are backstory. Well, I disagree but then again I like all the focus on lore and backstory in Tolkien's books as well so there is that.

2. The art direction is allot better then in the Lord of the Rings films. Gollums eyes glimmer allot more often and it is used to great effect. Dwarf look more cartoonish and fairy tale like with the unfortunate exception of kili, let's just say I prefer them that way. The trolls look like well trolls and not like the Rancor monster from Star Wars which is an improvement. The Wargs actually look like monster wolfs and not Hyaenodonts. Nuff said.

Anyway, please don't take this to mean that I dislike Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy I just have more of an appreciation for the first installment of his Hobbit trilogy and I might actually be a bit biased since I prefer the Hobbit story over Lord of the Rings and infact Lord of the Rings is only my third favorite Tolkien story(the second one being Children of Húrin).

Also given the amount of book purists that don't care for Jacksons adaptations at all on this forum I actually feel saver sharing this opinion here than anywhere else. So what do you think am I alone in this?

 

[Olorgando]

I'll start with points where I agree with you. The Wargs look a lot more like (demonic) wolves that do those of LoTR - which I thought looked a bit too much like bears (though ursines and canines do seem to have a common ancestor). The eagles in TH also look a lot more like their real-life equivalents; my impression of the Eagles in RoTK was that of hawks rather than eagles.

As to art direction of CGI, LoTR was ground-breaking in a lot of the art and CGI technology used, pushing the envelope. That this had become even better eleven years later should be no surprise. CGI has, especially in the Marvel stuff, become almost too dominant. Viggo Mortensen, LoTR's Aragorn, criticized TH for CGI overkill.

As to EEs: I think most of the additional film footage of TH to be abominable. PJ was dumping own inventions all over TH (in a lesser degree in LoTR), and especially the additional film footage for "Journey" was the worst waste of time in all six films. Bringing me to the thing about his treatment of Dwarves. There is only one "real Dwarf" (despite PJ's abominable making him a focus of comic relief) in all six films: John Rhys-Davies's Gimli. The whole TH bunch just look pathetic compare to him. Of course JRRT also made fun of the Dwarves in his children's book - but if PJ was trying to bring TH up to the level of LoTR, he badly failed as far as the Dwarves are concerned. I could care squat that (pre-) pubescent girls may have wet their pants squealing at Thorin (perhaps), Fili and Kili - and of course the squeeze from LoTR (for their older sisters?) Leggie - looking "strangely" older than during events that took place 77 years later. Their grandmothers put The Beatles off touring (though that was a Good Thing, not realized back in 1966) ...

In LoTR, PJ brought in stuff from the books that would have made the cinematic films too long into the EEs. Not always "canon", but often enough. And in "Fellowship", he stayed close to the book, as he knew that there were dozens of millions of readers of the book who could have made the entire franchise a disaster (principal photography for all three films had been done before the first premiered. What took time for all three was additional CGI, some pick-up shots, musical scoring and the like) if they had reacted negatively to the first film.

What makes all six EEs worth-while for me is the additional material - the "appendices", so to speak. And PJ was quite candid in the BoFA EE that he needed to take a break from filming, as he had not planned on being director (that should have been Guillermo del Toro), so he was missing something like two years of preparation compared to LoTR. That he "didn't know (anymore) what he was doing."

Yes, we book nerds (or purists) have our issues with what PJ did. Turning things an author has himself during his lifetime declared to be central to his story on their heads will not endear any film-maker to those who know the source books. We simply cannot look at these films as though they were done from original scripts (and some, perhaps myself included, have nagged that PJ's Oscar - shared with his wife Philippa Boyens, and Fran Walsh - for scriptwriting was for the wrong category - they got it for "adapted screenplay"; they should have gotten it for "original screenplay"), as do many film-only fans. For visual effects, for scenery, for costumes in the widest sense, for attention to secondary, tertiary ... detail, no films may rival these two trilogies. There at least, they followed JRRT in getting things only glimpsed in passing right. They (almost?) niggled. No Star Trek TV series boulders made of Styrofoam (and looking it!) here. I also refuse to fault any actor in any role for their performance in any of the films - actors work for the director (though some, with an authority about LoTR (and TH) the book, most prominently Christopher Lee, who must have read LoTR more than a handful of time before PJ was even born in 1961, and Ian McKellen, pointed out that using some original JRRT text might be better than what the scriptwriter trio had concocted, and successfully). These roles were not ones that could remotely nourish hopes for an Oscar or the like. Ian McKellen actually did get nominated for "Best Supporting Actor" for "Fellowship". And by the way, "Fellowship" was nominated more often, 13 times, than was "Return of The King". Not a few people think it should have won "Best Picture" that year, more so than ROTK did two years later. All three films won "Best Visual Effects". 30 nominations (also for "Best Picture" every time), 13 / 6 / 11, 17 wins, 4 / 2 / 11, including that 11 for 11 sweep 2004. Though "fantasy" or more broadly "the fantastic", which includes all SF and the whole of the Marvel etc. universe is a cash cow for the film industry, it is somehow for some things (except baddies, those possibilities for outlandish performances across all genres) somewhat less than "respectable". Like "fairy tales" or other children's stuff. The problem being a "suspension of disbelief", to use a term JRRT also did. Everyone believes there are types like Gordon Gekko on "Wall Street", the newspapers were full of them (don't know about the Internet). At least what I read about many reactions to the LoTR series in cinemas (and these were the last three films I saw at such locations), PJ was successful there. Even if occasionally the audience was on the youngish side, there was none of the stupid "horsing-around" that can be the case with such audiences with other films. Only one other film that I can recall clearly had an audience reaction similar to the LoTR three, if for other reasons: Steven Spielberg's 1993 "Schindler's List". Some subdued murmurings and whispers after the end, but I have never experienced an audience file out of the theater in anything remotely resembling that silence. Closest would be RoTK, which ended, as did the book, with Sam's quiet, anticlimactic words "well, I'm back".

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I'll just say the troll scene was clearly a PJ "tribute" to the Three Stooges.

Shutting up now.

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

As to EEs: I think most of the additional film footage of TH to be abominable. PJ was dumping own inventions all over TH (in a lesser degree in LoTR), and especially the additional film footage for "Journey" was the worst waste of time in all six films. Bringing me to the thing about his treatment of Dwarves. There is only one "real Dwarf" (despite PJ's abominable making him a focus of comic relief) in all six films: John Rhys-Davies's Gimli. The whole TH bunch just look pathetic compare to him. Of course JRRT also made fun of the Dwarves in his children's book - but if PJ was trying to bring TH up to the level of LoTR, he badly failed as far as the Dwarves are concerned. I could care squat that (pre-) pubescent girls may have wet their pants squealing at Thorin (perhaps), Fili and Kili - and of course the squeeze from LoTR (for their older sisters?) Leggie - looking "strangely" older than during events that took place 77 years later. Their grandmothers put The Beatles off touring (though that was a Good Thing, not realized back in 1966) ...

Yeah, the Dwarfs being taken less seriously is a big tonal shift between not just Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit but all of Tolkiens other middle earth fairy tales and the Hobbit. Then again the Hobbit was not originally intended to take place in the same universe as the Silmarillion.

I guess in this instance tho I do not care so much for the Hobbit being more like Lord of the Rings except for the changes to ''riddles in the dark''.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

I find them far inferior to Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, but weirdly better than Return of the King. The bloated CGI in Return of the King just irritates me... though The Hobbit technically DOES double down on this, I get used to it. Because however much silliness visually, and whatever slightly unfortunate Elf and Dwarf romance, at the centre of The Hobbit films are three great central performances, and the narrative works. In Return of the King the narrative falls apart for two thirds of it. So yes, I prefer The Hobbit films to Return of the King, and parts of Two Towers, but not at all to Fellowship. Though Thorin's death comes close.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

slightly unfortunate Elf and Dwarf romance

At the risk of oxymoron, I'll call that "major understatement".

 

[Olorgando]

... So yes, I prefer The Hobbit films to Return of the King, and parts of Two Towers, but not at all to Fellowship. ...

You may have decided to give my hemorrhage above a pass; I wouldn't blame you (but then I must warn you that there are even longer posts by myself and others here lurking to pounce on you …)

I'll try for a telegraphic version.
I watched "Fellowship" twice in the cinema, within perhaps three or four days in January 2002. Problem was, I didn't know what to expect. In the first viewing, I found myself compiling a lengthening list of what PJ had gotten wrong (I doubt seriously I managed to keep this up through anything like the entire film, probably sitting in a somewhat dazed exhaustion for a major portion of it). So the second viewing, this time approaching it (as far as was possible - a very tough thing for me to try) that this was a film with an original script, not an adapted one. PJ and Co. did a lot of things very right that were not directly related to book-fidelity, and I will gladly repeat my opinion that with other filmmakers, we could have done a lot worse. Now knowing, more or less, what to expect, I only needed onse viewing in the cinema for the next two films. I also watched the cinematic DVDs at least once each, same for the EE DVDs when they came out. On a Saturday some time after the release of the RoTK EE, I actually watched all three EEs back-to-back (but none of the DVDs since then …)

For TH, my expectations were already very much lower as to book fidelity, especially after it became clear that the much smaller "Hobbit" (even with all later writings concerning it by JRRT, in which he tried to reconcile this children's book to his legendarium of which it was never in origin meant to be a part) into a film trilogy, too. PJ and Co. had to leave out parts of LoTR the book (though their own inventions that led to a part of the leaving out were uniformly of inferior quality). In TH, they had far more leeway for their own imagination. And they filled it with "blockbuster battles", some of whose scenes made me roll my eyes at the violation of Newtonian physics, others making me raise my eyebrows at the ratings of at least the EE versions.

But to echo something I mentioned above, what I (and other books nerds) will probably never be able to do is take the perspective of film-only fans never having read any of JRRT's books. They may have entirely other criteria for favoring one series over the other, or for ranking the six films (and here we also have a divide between theater-only fans and those who have the EEs and have watched them, especially the longer-than-the-films appendices) in some way.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

At the risk of oxymoron, I'll call that "major understatement".

Alright, fair enough---just saying it didn't scourge the heart of the narrative, the way they messed up with Return of the King.

 

[Spirit of Fire]

Am I the only one who preferred the first Hobbit film over the Peter Jackson lord of the Rings trilogy?

Yes, you are

 

[Ealdwyn]

The only part of the Hobbit movies I enjoy is the first few minutes. The unexpected party is a joy.

Once they leave Bag End it becomes what I can only describe as a hot mess.

 

[Alcuin]

The old Rankin/Bass animated films have serious cinematic shortcomings. Jackson’s films are eye candy. But the Rankin/Bass films told Tolkien’s tales, however imperfectly. Jackson’s works tell a story that uses Tolkien’s characters and settings, but pervert his tales.

 

[Spirit of Fire]

After watching the first Hobbit movie, it was impossible to imagine a film with such amazing source material could be any worse. The other two films somehow managed that feat, but this in no way mitigates the dreadfulness of An Unexpected Journey. If ever you have the thought, "you know, it wasn't all that bad", just think of Radaghastly and that debacle. And if that doesn't do it, hearken your memory back to the roller coaster ride in the Goblin-town amusement park.

 

[Alcuin]

And if that doesn't do it, hearken your memory back to the roller coaster ride in the Goblin-town amusement park.

Yeah, but think about ticket sales for the Goblin-Coaster ride at The Hobbit-themed amusement park they’ll eventually build in New Zealand (along with similar trademarked parks in Paris, London, Shanghai, Los Angeles, Florida…) 💲💲💲

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

Yeah, but think about ticket sales for the Goblin-Coaster ride at The Hobbit-themed amusement park they’ll eventually build in New Zealand (along with similar trademarked parks in Paris, London, Shanghai, Los Angeles, Florida…) 💲💲💲

It seems like whenever something is considered bad people always start accusing the makers of just trying to make money. Oddly enough I have seen very little merch for the Room or the Inside.

 

[Ealdwyn]

It seems like whenever something is considered bad people always start accusing the makers of just trying to make money.

If stretching the Hobbit to fill three movies wasn't a blatant move to rake in the cash then I'm at a loss to think what is.

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

If stretching the Hobbit to fill three movies wasn't a blatant move to rake in the cash then I'm at a loss to think what is.

Yeah but I was referring more so to individual scenes.

 

[Spirit of Fire]

Yeah but I was referring more so to individual scenes.

How is including Legolas and the elf/dwarf romance not a cash grab?

 

[Aramarien]

The old Rankin/Bass animated films have serious cinematic shortcomings. Jackson’s films are eye candy. But the Rankin/Bass films told Tolkien’s tales, however imperfectly. Jackson’s works tell a story that uses Tolkien’s characters and settings, but pervert his tales.

I agree with you! I also think the animated film of LOTR by Ralph Bakshi was closer to the books in story line and characters. ( I KNOW how bad the animation was, but it was considered to be "new" at the time)

Jackson's films were visually stunning because of Howe and Lee and so much work was done by Weta workshop to get even the smallest details down of the sets and props. I loved when Gandalf was in Bag End in FOTR and he stopped to look at the maps that were on the desk from TH. There were so many visuals that were good in LOTR, but the story and characters? That's another story (pun intended)

 

[Ealdwyn]

I agree with you! I also think the animated film of LOTR by Ralph Bakshi was closer to the books in story line and characters. ( I KNOW how bad the animation was, but it was considered to be "new" at the time)

Jackson's films were visually stunning because of Howe and Lee and so much work was done by Weta workshop to get even the smallest details down of the sets and props. I loved when Gandalf was in Bag End in FOTR and he stopped to look at the maps that were on the desk from TH. There were so many visuals that were good in LOTR, but the story and characters? That's another story (pun intended)

This. Just this.

 

[Alcuin]

There were a lot of mouths to feed for The Hobbit cinema production: New Line Cinema, Harvey Weinstein, Saul Zaentz, United Artists/MGM, Warner Brothers, Tolkien Estate, and Peter Jackson (who had sued New Line Cinema over merchandise payments and so was initially excluded from consideration as director of The Hobbit) all had a share of the proceeds. That’s why there were three films: there had to be enough revenue to meet payments to all the stakeholders. I don’t know if the original director, Guillermo del Toro, was a Tolkien fan or not; but Peter Jackson, who completed the film series, had already demonstrated that he was more than willing to tell his own version of the story in his Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I can see The Hobbit taking two films to tell well, splitting the telling perhaps at the Eagles’ eyrie. (I would also, were I able, split The Lord of the Rings into six pieces, one for each of the six “books” of that tale.) But while the scenery and special effects of the The Hobbit are breathtaking, the story that emerged from the film studio was bad fan-fiction.