Talk

Advanced search

Lighthearted, AIBU to think hobbit better than LOTR

(45 Posts)
Aclh13 Sat 13-Jun-20 02:07:38

I have always thought the hobbit films are far better than LOTR, just wanted to see what other people think

sleepydragons Sat 13-Jun-20 02:37:16

You are, of course, absolutely right, except for the spiders.

Aclh13 Sat 13-Jun-20 04:35:08

The spiders and graphics accompanied are some of the best parts? 😂

vikingwife Sat 13-Jun-20 04:41:29

Lord of the Rings was such a disappointment. They should have marketed the original better as the first of a 3 part movie franchise. Sat through the whole bloody 3 hr movie only to realise in the last 10 mins “they can’t possibly wrap this up in the last 10?!” And the finale scene was a faraway shot of Mordor off in the far distance. I was so disappointed no ending to the movie & how other people already all seemed aware the movie would have a vague ending.

Surely I can’t be the only non- LOTR fan who was fooled by the 1st movie

I was a CS Lewis girl, not JRR Tolkien angry they assumed a knowledge of LOTR movie 1 already having a sequel in the works !

Only good thing about that movie is the funny sexual undercurrent between Frodo & sam & the cute bloke from Love Actually was in it.

The Orlando bloom fairy boy & viggo mortensen left me cold, sorry ladies. All yours !

Thepigeonsarecoming Sat 13-Jun-20 04:42:27

LOTR films are way better, however when it comes to the books the Hobbit every time

JustAnotherPoster00 Sat 13-Jun-20 05:29:27

OP........ YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!!

TheClaws Sat 13-Jun-20 06:40:24

For me, stretching out a children’s novella (The Hobbit) into an adult-oriented trilogy was a mistake that showed. There were storylines added for padding that really did nothing for the story itself. It could have been kept to an absolutely brilliant standalone movie - but they went for more cash.

YinuCeatleAyru Sat 13-Jun-20 06:50:10

depends how you define a good film. if what you mainly want is some cool cgi graphics and epic visual moments, and you like those to be on screen for as long as possible, then yes you are probably right. if you are more into complexity of plot, and get the significance of the overarching struggle between good and evil that is the focus of the LotR trilogy, the then Hobbit films so rather pale in comparison. their main problem is that a single fairly simple book was padded out into 9 hours of screen time when it could have been adequately addressed in 3, so it is just dull in places where a sequence that could have been a couple of minutes is given 10 for no good reason.

AragornsManlyStubble Sat 13-Jun-20 06:53:50

What utter tosh OP!

jokolo Sat 13-Jun-20 07:23:17

YABVVVVVU

I'm sorry you are so wrong you don't even know how wrong you are! Madness! grin

Spanishcove Sat 13-Jun-20 07:29:22

What @TheClaws said. The Hobbit films are so padded out and overstretched they make the LOTR films seem like masterpieces.

Spanishcove Sat 13-Jun-20 07:30:05

And of course there is an absence of @AragornsManlyStubble in The Hobbit.

AragornsManlyStubble Sat 13-Jun-20 07:32:11

Exactly, I should have got an award for my efforts in LOTR but was sadly overlooked. sad

PulyaSochsup Sat 13-Jun-20 07:38:05

Pigeons is absolutely right. I thought they left out many good bits of the book to make the story fit better, but I have always thought that films based on books are a separate art form. It’s probably fairer to describe them as inspired by the author’s work than otherwise. I think the acting and media usage in the screen versions is fabulous, but literary devices don’t always translate well to film, which people often want to enjoy as a sensory rather than intellectual experience. I won’t watch the films properly until I have finished all of the reading.

Aclh13 Sat 13-Jun-20 07:40:50

Love this thread, but have to disagree with most of you, the books and films were better on every single level. Likewise goes for fantastic beasts over Harry Potter and eventually for the Cs Lewis fans, the magicians nephew over narnia

Ughmaybenot Sat 13-Jun-20 07:40:53

You couldn’t be any more wrong shock the hobbit films were shit, and bore little resemblance to the wonderful, little book. A wonderful, little book which was too little to be stretched so grotesquely into three films.
The Lord of the Rings films were and are fantastic. You’ll never change my mind grin I read the books (the hobbit followed by the LotR trilogy) and finished them before the first film came out when I was 7. Mum thought, because I’d already read the books and loved them, that I would be fine with the film. I had nightmares about the uruk-hai in the woods for ages afterwards and was too scared to see the two towers, but managed to get a grip on myself for the return of the king. They have such a special place in my heart and I’ve watched them all so many times!
My DH and I went to New Zealand for our honeymoon, the LotR link being an added bonus, and visited Rivendell and Anduin river and Gollum’s pool and mount doom and Gondor and so many others... and naturally, hobbiton too! It was everythingggggg. My husband doesn’t even really like lord of the rings that much grin

Muh2020 Sat 13-Jun-20 07:48:29

No, LOTR was much better.

Spanishcove Sat 13-Jun-20 07:57:36

You totally should, @AragornsManlyStubble. If only for your Sexiest Ever Opening of a Large Door scene. And the fact that yoU briefly made pipe-smoking look cool.

The LOTR films’ other big boon was leaving out Tom ‘Annoying Little Ditties’ Bombadil and the wet and winsome Goldberry.

MiniatureHero Sat 13-Jun-20 08:03:44

YABVU. For one thing, there wasn’t enough source material in the Hobbit (a children’s book of fairly modest length) to stretch to three huge films, meaning they had to fill them with all kinds of stupid extra bollocks that wasn’t in the books and lacked the depth and continuity of the original source material.

For another, the use of 48-frames-per-second format was distracting and interfered with the immersive experience of cinema for me.

LillianBland Sat 13-Jun-20 08:09:33

I’m just going to put myself to the rest of the vipers and agree with you, OP. However, I’m trying to be fair and take into consideration.... bag! It’s just better. I also think Fantastic Beasts is better. I know we’re going against the majority, but I’m in your corner, OP and the rest are just a bunch of hobbitphobes!

LillianBland Sat 13-Jun-20 08:10:08

Bag = nah!

ScribblyGum Sat 13-Jun-20 08:13:08

Wait, what, you are talking about the FILMS?

Dear God you are so unreasonable. You are almost as unreasonable as that person who came on mumsnet and started an AIBU about roast dinners not needing roast potatoes.

Unreasonable beyond measure.

FaceOfASpink Sat 13-Jun-20 08:21:02

Never mind the manly stubble, what about an award for the Hottest Ever Legs Whilst Running To Light A Beacon?

AragornsManlyStubble Sat 13-Jun-20 13:04:41

When the Hobbit films include Orlando Bloom surfing down stairs on a shield while firing arrows at Uruk Hai they will still be worse than LOTR, but they will include Orlando Bloom surfing down stairs on a shield while firing arrows at Uruk Hai.

Which was awesome. grin

thecatsthecats Sat 13-Jun-20 13:25:36

If you know about the film making process behind the two trilogies then you know that virtually everything was done to a higher standard for LOTR. Ian McKellen actually cried filming some scenes for the Hobbit on greenscreen rather than using the detailed forced perspective sets created for LOTR.

One day, when I have the tools and time to do so, I want to edit out all excess material to take the films down to just material from the Hobbit.

Jackson tried to tell two stories in one and it showed, badly. I do think it did need to be two films, and I don't mind, say, the inclusion of Legolas to strengthen the links between the two trilogies. I'm fine with adaptation to make the intent of the story translate well on screen. But it really, really didn't.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »