Why "The Hobbit" Movies Did Not Live up to the LoTR

[Ben]

Interesting take from Peter Jackson on why "The Hobbit" movies did not draw people in the same way that LoTR did.

Given the circumstances,  I would have preferred that filming be postponed a year to allow Jackson more time to rearrange the film's universe to his LoTR standard.

http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-jackson-hobbit-movie-problems/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_780774

[roo_ster]

Interesting take from Peter Jackson on why "The Hobbit" movies did not draw people in the same way that LoTR did.

Given the circumstances,  I would have preferred that filming be postponed a year to allow Jackson more time to rearrange the film's universe to his LoTR standard.

http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-jackson-hobbit-movie-problems/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_780774

I call bullshinola on his whinery.

That is akin to asking why the guy who made the sad copy of LOTR made an even sadder copy of The Hobbit.

The suckiest parts of Jackson's LOTR were where he added to the story.  Subtractions are assumed, as the entire LOTR would require multiple seasons of episodes to film in full.  Jackson's additions were kong-handed and indicated Jackson did not really get the LOTR story.

The primary reason The Hobbit adaptation was even worse was the larger proportion of Jackson additions to the story.  And, again, Jackson did not truly understand his source material.

FTR, there are floating about in the ether at least two recuts/edits of the three Hobbit films into one cohesive whole.  One is ~4.5hrs long and is much better than the total of Jackson's three films.  The other is 3 hours long and is even better, plus being very tight.  They are simply better end products.  They achieve this by excising most all the Jackson elements.  They still are limited, as they had only Jackson's product to work with.  BUt, all in all, they are a more enjoyable Hobbit experience.

[Jocassee]

The problem with Peter Jackson's Hobbit is that he directed it.

At the risk of agreeing with our #2 resident curmudgeon.

[Ben]

I liked the LoTR films. I knew going in that there were Jackson additions and changes and simply looked at the films differently than the books. It made them more enjoyable to me than if I were to pick the nits on differences.

I tried to do the same with "The Hobbit" films, but there was just something "off" about them that left me overall underwhelmed. Not that there weren't some good scenes, but they didn't rescue the overall movies for me. It would have been interesting to see what del Toro would have come up with.

[just Warren]

The best LotR was Bakshi's 1978 roto-scoped version.

Too bad it never got finished.

Have never bothered to see these Hobbit movies, they looked like crap just from seeing the trailers.

[bedlamite]

I have to wonder what was expected from the man who brought you Meet the Feebles

[BlueStarLizzard]

Only saw the first one. Was very bored.

Part of the problem was at about an hour and a half in I still hadn't picked up that it was being done as a trilogy and saying to myself "Okay... I actually read this one and we're not even close to done. How long is this dumb movie?" 

I'm not a Tolkin fan at all. I read a bit of the first LoTR and promptly dumped it on the floor when I got bored with it (which took like two chapters) I was forced to read The Hobbit (school assigned reading, sometimes it's a bust) Didn't really care for that, either.
I liked the LoTR movies, though, and The Hobbit did not have the same energy those did.

[roo_ster]

The best LotR was Bakshi's 1978 roto-scoped version.

Too bad it never got finished.

Have never bothered to see these Hobbit movies, they looked like crap just from seeing the trailers.

The 3 and 4.5 hour chopped versions are pretty good.

FTR, I own all three DVDs of the Hobbit movies.  Jackson got his money out of me, sure enough.

[MechAg94]

I tend to agree with roo_ster.  The biggest disappointment to me was that it wasn't just the Hobbit story.  It had a whole bunch of extra crap that took away from what is in fact a good story.  When I first heard of it, I figured the Hobbit would make a really good fast paced story.  I don't think 3 or 4 hours would even be necessary if done right.  The rest of the stuff was a little interesting but it took away from the story.  The last 30 minutes of the Battle of Five Armies was just terrible.  It just made me mad watching it. 

[Phyphor]

I can't say the Ralph Bakshi's Hobbit was that great...... but he could do some things pretty good.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZqRzHnI8s

[Ron]

I've never forgiven him (Jackson) for cutting "The scouring of the Shire" from LOR. Like roo points out, he doesn't even understand the material.

The LOR trilogy was decent but I have yet to see any of the Hobbit movies.

[Ben]

I've never forgiven him (Jackson) for cutting "The scouring of the Shire" from LOR.

Yeah, that was definitely a pisser.

[Mannlicher]

Jackson is covering his tracks.  The REAL reason the Hobbit movies sucked, was Jackson made it just too long, squeezing the last dollar out of the franchise.
Well, that and the insane changes he made to the very fabric of the story.  A Dwarf, hooking up with an Elf maiden?  And no where in the story line do I recall warrior elf chicks. 
No, Tolkein spun an almost perfect tale, and Jackson messed it up.

[Phyphor]

Yeah, Jackson definitely exhibited a prime example of Cranial/Rectal Inversion Syndrome.

[just Warren]

Yeah, tell the story that's there not the one you think should be there.

I wonder what it would take to do a word-for-word telling of the story.

At least ten two-hour movies to get it all in there but that's just a guess.

[MechAg94]

I also get ticked at some of the unreal stuff he added.  Giant animals carrying catapults throwing rocks that weigh more than they do?  Really?  Did you have to include that?  Some separate little personal battle up on an ice bridge a mile or two from the actual battle?  Really?  A battle isn't enough?  

LOTR: Return of the King had some of that also.  It hurt the movie IMO. 

[Andiron]

**** Ninja elves of any sex.  They didn't need to be.  The story was good enough to rate ONE long movie without any "help".