What do you think of the Film Adaptations of LOTR and the Hobbit?

[BAYLOR]

Having re-watched the trailer for Battle of the Five Armies , I can't wait to see it.

 

[The Bluestocking]

Back from watching Battle of the Five Armies.

Apart from a few cool scenes like:

Spoiler

• Legolas running up falling stones fast enough to make it look like he's hopping up steps.
• Galadriel facing off against Sauron.
• And Sir Ian as Gandalf, of course

It was pretty much... meh.

Basically, it's set up to feed into the first of the LOTR films and we'll be able to watch all 6 films as a mega series once all the Hobbit films are out on DVD/blu-ray.

But yeah - meh. Even the battle scenes are meh. LOTR's battle scenes (especially the Battle of Helm's Deep) and the final battle where Eowyn removes her helmet and utters the epic "I am no man" are far more epic.

 

[BAYLOR]

I saw Battle of the Five Armies and loved it.

 

[Vince W]

I'm with you @Baylor. I thoroughly enjoyed BotFA.

 

[BAYLOR]

I would love to see The Silmarillion adapted. But that's not likely to happen.

 

[svalbard]

I enjoyed The Battle of the Five Armies.

 

[DisapprovingOwl]

I feel the Lord of the Rings films are more successful adaptations of the source material. Both sets of films take liberties with the source material in the adaptation process - however, to my mind, The Lord of the Rings was already an "epic" and was adapted as such, wheras The Hobbit was a more intimate tale that's been bloated and had "epic" trappings bolted onto it. I felt the theatrical cuts of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was mostly very well-paced; in comparison, stretching one short book into three films has left even the theatrical versions of the Hobbit trilogy feeling overly padded.

I'd love to see a "de-extended" edition of The Hobbit released, in line with the originally-shot two-film version, though I'm a little worried that even that would feel a bit dragged out.

 

[HanaBi]

Loved the LOTR films when they first came out way back in the early 2000s, and still enjoy them during the odd yearly viewing now. As others have said, given the voluminous source material, I never felt the film adapations were stretched or padded out. They were perfectly sized for each book, albeith with a few changes here and there (no Tom!!!)

I will admit that when I do rewatch LOTR, I find myself spending more time watching FOTR than TT & ROTK, without the need to press the FF button on the remote. I also found the never-ending journey of Sam & Frodo to Mordo, rather mundane & repetitive, to the point where I really couldn't have cared less.

But overall, I still enjoy the LOTR film trilogy - they will stand the test of time for a long while to come I think.

As for the Hobbit! Well again, the popular criticism is how a 300 page book can be turned into a 9 hour saga!? And as a consequence, I didn't think much of "Unexpected Journey", although it wasn't all that bad, and certainly head and shoulders above the dreadful "Desolation....." And I have yet to bother with "5 Armies..."

So on that score, the LOTR adaptations far exceed the contemptible Hobbit offerings.

But then again, I guess The Hobbit is aimed at a younger, less discerning audience.

 

[BAYLOR]

That for the most part Tolkien fans have long ones embraced them.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I love the LoTR movies. And that is high praise, because I'm very difficult to please these days when it comes to TV and movies. I never watched the Hobbit movies. I read a trusted reviewer that advised against it (the main issue being the stretching of a shorter work into three full length movies).

 

[BAYLOR]

I love the LoTR movies. And that is high praise, because I'm very difficult to please these days when it comes to TV and movies. I never watched the Hobbit movies. I read a trusted reviewer that advised against it (the main issue being the stretching of a shorter work into three full length movies).

For me , The LOTR film are by far the best fantasyfilme ive ever seen . They do fall well short of Tolkien works but, that does not diminish my enjoyment of them . As for Hobbit films , they are not in thsame league the LOTR films but I do find them to entertaining films in their own right.

 

[KGeo777]

If I was a fan of the books but I could only get through the Hobbit (it was ok) and based on what I have heard--the movies greatly expand that story.
I am not a fan of the LOTR movies--they go on forever. The neverending story for real.


If given a choice, I'd rather watch Krull.

I am Ergo the magnificent. Short in stature, tall in power, narrow of purpose, and wide of vision.

 

[BAYLOR]

If I was a fan of the books but I could only get through the Hobbit (it was ok) and based on what I have heard--the movies greatly expand that story.
I am not a fan of the LOTR movies--they go on forever. The neverending story for real.


If given a choice, I'd rather watch Krull.

I am Ergo the magnificent. Short in stature, tall in power, narrow of purpose, and wide of vision.

Ive seen Krull, It's entertaining a good film but, not a great. It does have decent production values, James Horners wonderful musical score and ,of course, Lysette Anthony .

 

[KGeo777]

It's not great but I think it has more charm (and less need for restroom breaks) than LOTR.
The LOTR has better spfx but it also has Orlando Bloom so that cancels out the other for me.


The Balrog is cool. That's the main benefit I got from watching it in a theater.
And Ian McKellan shouting "you shall not pass!"
He could have phoned it in like some other actors in the cast (ahem, see above) but he didn't.

Just not enough there for me to want to rewatch.

Hawk the Slayer is more likely to get a rewatch from me.

 

[Elckerlyc]

The LOTR trilogy are solid movies. I won't say I love them*, but I certainly appreciate the adaptation of the books. They're not perfect, but perfect doesn't exist, because A. Perfect doesn't exist in this world, B. Changes due to different type of media are unavoidable and C. Very few people will have exactly the same perception of any given book or movie. In any case, the movies breath quality and sincerity in bringing the book to the screen.
I have seen the trilogy several times and will do so again sometime in the future.
Not so The Hobbit. At a certain level they were entertaining, if you are willing to forget for a moment (well, 3 times 3 hours or so) that it was loosely based on a work by Tolkien. The film studio brass smelled money after the success of LOTR, and so the narrative of the book was wrung, stretched and wrung again to be able to cut it in 3 parts that no longer resembled what it originally was based upon. Compared to LOTR is was a caricature. Not re-watchable.**


* I generally don't 'love' films. When forced, perhaps the only movie I would consider labeling as 'I love it´ is Jeremiah Johnson.
** And if you want to know what's wrong about it and you have an hour or so to spare, watch this. A Long Expected Autopsy

 

[paranoid marvin]

The LOTR movies are about as good as they could have been. Yes, there are bits added and bits taken away, and the whole point of the story - The Scourging of the Shire - completely missing. But these are movies, and whatever Jackson may or may not have wanted included, the movie companies need decent movies more than they need faithful representations of the book. So losing the Tom Bombadil bit of the book was no detriment to the movies, and having a second climax (the Scourging) just doesn't work as well in movies as it does in books.

What I find most favourable about the movies is that they represent most of the locations just as I imagined them to be, in particular with Minas Tirith and The Shire. Much of the casting is spot on (especially Boromir and Sam with extra special mention to the two chaps who played Merry and Pippin) and the music sets the scene very well. The movies are most certainly not a replacement for the books, but they are a nice accompaniment..

The Hobbit trilogy on paper made sense. The same music, the same (where relevant) actors, the same format of a 3 episode story and bits added to fill in some of the gaps and make the story more relevant to LOTR. It fits in neatly with the LOTR franchise. The problem is that it shouldn't. The Hobbit is effectively an elongated fairy story; the LOTR is an epic fantasy adventure. Both stories are (for me at least) equally satisfying in their own way, but The Hobbit is not a prequel trilogy to the LOTR. Making it so either shows a deep misunderstanding of The Hobbit, a desire (as I mentioned) to make it fit into the franchise, or wanting to make as much money as possible (or a combination of the 3).

As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, it obviously was the right financial route to take as it made a ton of cash (surely more than a single movie would have made) and the general reception seems to have been favourable - otherwise audiences wouldn't have kept coming back for more. For anyone with a love of the book, the movies absolutely do not represent their interests, but I think that this is often the case with movie versions of books.

 

[ANV]

I love the movies. Watched them with my kids last week, now we have home an elf and a hobbit. They are asking me to show them Hobbit as well and for some reason, I am not sure I want to.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My previous post in this thread was written before The Battle of Five Armies came out. At that time, I was so unhappy with The Desolation (how aptly that abbreviation sums up my opinion of that movie), I was more-or-less determined never to watch the third movie, no matter how some of my friends praised it. It seemed to me that by the end of the second movie they had reached a point where there was so little left of the original story to be told, it would have to consist mainly (or entirely) of extended and ridiculously padded battle sequences. But I did give in eventually and watched it . . . and I sincerely wish I hadn't. I feel I am the poorer for doing so. My expectations going in were low indeed, and somehow it was still deeply disappointing. While even in the second movie there a few, a very few things that I liked, I cannot find anything good to say about the third. So much so that it has tainted my feelings about the entire franchise. I feel like I will never again be able to enjoy the LOTR movies as much as I did before, and so I have lost something by watching it.

Maybe someday that effect will wear off, but it has now been many years and that has yet to happen.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Budget for the Hobbit trilogy - £275m. Box office - almost £3 Billion.

As I mentioned earlier, it made perfect financial sense to make a trilogy. And most people seem quite happy with that; movie-goers, many critics and most of all Warner Bros.

It seems that the only people who weren't happy were those of us who read and love the book. But we didn't matter, as we were only a tiny fraction of the market the movies were aimed at.

How do you make a (relatively) short book into an 8 hour epic? You can't, unless you add and change lots of things. Things that make the final story into something it was never meant to be.

The thing is that movies (especially the second and third) drag. They're too long, and they know it. Yes there are one or two good bits, but for the most part they are like a sub-standard LOTR movie.

What I don't understand is why they were so positively received by so many critics and movie goers.

 

[CupofJoe]

I sort of like the Trilogy. They aren't great films but few films are.
My trouble is that they feel like that bit in Spinal Tap where they talk about the Amps going up to 11 [because 11 is more than 10].
I can see someone in New Line, after the LotR films had come out sat down and had a think...
What did people like about the LotR films?
I know!
Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, lots of fighting and running around and Sir Ian McKellen!
I know lets make films with more of those!
Plot?
Well. they start off here, go there and one of them comes back here again.
Oh. Did I mention there is an evil dragon?
Lets get someone English to voice that.