Gilgaearel
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2018
- Messages
- 66
I think that Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings was a decent one, judging always by the fact that it was the first attempt to adapt such a complicated book in a movie with actors ( there was the 1978's animated one of course that I watched back then too).
All three LoTR movies had their pros and cons but generally speaking and as a project in total, were close to the books, not that dark as the book is of course, but close enough.
The Hobbit movies though had for the exact same reason no excuses at all. It was the second attempt to adapt a Tolkien book and they were a complete and utter mess. Just to get an idea of how awful I found the three Hobbit movies ... I kept two of the fan edits ( Dastin Lee's one and David Killstein's one) and ditched the originals.
The messed up Hobbit movies is the reason why the Tolkien trust doesn't want to allow the adaptation of Silmarillion and I agree with them. Tolkien's books don't need Hollywood tricks and recipes to boost them. They have all the elements that are needed for a great cinema experience. They don't need any alterations or enhancement.
All three LoTR movies had their pros and cons but generally speaking and as a project in total, were close to the books, not that dark as the book is of course, but close enough.
The Hobbit movies though had for the exact same reason no excuses at all. It was the second attempt to adapt a Tolkien book and they were a complete and utter mess. Just to get an idea of how awful I found the three Hobbit movies ... I kept two of the fan edits ( Dastin Lee's one and David Killstein's one) and ditched the originals.
The messed up Hobbit movies is the reason why the Tolkien trust doesn't want to allow the adaptation of Silmarillion and I agree with them. Tolkien's books don't need Hollywood tricks and recipes to boost them. They have all the elements that are needed for a great cinema experience. They don't need any alterations or enhancement.

