# LOTR film trilogy vs. The Hobbit film trilogy: why did the latter suck? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 15, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589 "2015-06-15T17:40:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/61 "2015-06-16T15:58:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Watching the Hobbit movies after seeing the LOTR movies is like watching Babe Ruth hit a double. > > Regards, > Shodan More like reach first on an error.šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/62 "2015-06-16T16:49:25Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > ā€œI feel thin, sort of stretched, like one book made into three moviesā€¦ā€ Youā€™re just being preciousā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/63 "2015-06-16T17:06:02Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Iā€™m pretty sure someone did exactly that. An alternate version of the hobbit where he kept only the content that originally was in the book and cut mostly everything else. Actually the behind the scenes stuff with Gandalf and the Necromancer was occurring, is critical, and adds a lot. Adding extra hot elf action was _not._ Radagast not played entirely for laffs, as in his first scene would have been fine. Mind you, he is supposed to be overly rustic and concerned for animals. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/64 "2015-06-16T17:50:17Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > Now, Iā€™m aware that JRRT wasnā€™t so inclusive with women characters, and **The Hobbit** in particular suffers this, but jamming in a female character for a _romance_ subplot is still problematic. Worse than that, _a love triangle_. Iā€™m fairly certain that the only named female character in any of the movies who _isnā€™t_ in a love triangle is Shelob. Personally, I think they should have killed two birds with one stone and made a couple of the dwarves women. It would give them more room to differentiate the largely interchangeable dwarves without descending into farce. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/65 "2015-06-16T17:57:20Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Personally, I think they should have killed two birds with one stone and made a couple of the dwarves women. I see what you did there. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/66 "2015-06-16T18:20:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Actually the behind the scenes stuff with Gandalf and the Necromancer was occurring, is critical, and adds a lot. > > Adding extra hot elf action was _not._ > > Radagast not played entirely for laffs, as in his first scene would have been fine. Mind you, he is supposed to be overly rustic and concerned for animals. The Necromancer sub-plot is only critical in the big picture, as a lead-up to LOTR. But to mix it into the Hobbit movies in this way is pretty distracting. Itā€™s likeā€¦ letā€™s say you have a 1930ā€™s gangster movie, and they kept cutting away to show the rise of the Nazi party. Sure, Hitler is important. But heā€™s not relevant to the actual story we need to be telling. For The Hobbit (i.e. Bilboā€™s story), the Necromancer is only important as a way to explain why there are spiders in Mirkwood and why Gandalf canā€™t help kill Smaug. Thatā€™s it. Frankly, I think the Necromancer sub-plot would have made a great bridge movie between Hobbit and LOTR. Do it as a stand-alone movie and Iā€™m a happy guy. As for Radagast, the books and extended material clearly portray him as rustic, but thereā€™s a long, long way between Radagast and Gandalf/Saruman. When those two guys enter the room, you instantly think ā€œDo not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.ā€ However Jackson chose to portray Radagast, I feel that statement has to be true of him as well. Itā€™s not hard to imagine a nature-loving rustic who knows more about the forest than you know about yourself and who will kick your ass if you start raising the dead there. He shouldnā€™t be portrayed as a birdshit crazy, panicky, little kid brother of Gandalf. ---
**Author:** ![FasterThanMeerkats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@FasterThanMeerkats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FasterThanMeerkats)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/67 "2015-06-16T19:39:22Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > ā€¦Take the chase in the tunnels under the mountains: at least in the movie, the dwarves fight. In the book, they only ran. The movie showed them as the deadly foes we knew they really could beā€¦ Perhaps they ran because a small weakened and unarmored party of 15 fighting an entire community of goblins in their own mountain doesnā€™t make sense. The books portrayed goblins as dangerous and the dwarves were not cast as ā€œsuper-warriorsā€. It was the trilogy movies that cast the goblins as weaklings. Seeing the dwarves cut through the goblins/muppets like butter seemed completely ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![OffByOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OffByOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OffByOne)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/68 "2015-06-16T19:44:29Z")
Because ā€œThe Lord of the Ringsā€ was an actual trilogy, whereas ā€œThe Hobbitā€ was a single book? ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/69 "2015-06-16T19:57:02Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I loved the LOTR movie trilogy (despite some nitpicks). Far too often, though, the \*Hobbit \*movies were more like a videogame than a Middle-earth adventure: loud, frantic, pointless and empty. The combat scenes went on and on and on. The Elf/Dwarf romance was laughable, and Thorin running across the teeth of Smaug was unforgiveable. > > Iā€™d love to see a heavily-cut edit of the \*Hobbit \*movies that left out so much of the padding Peter Jackson added, and got closer to Tolkienā€™s original vision. There is such a cut floating around out there, called The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit. Runs about 4 hours long. Not hard to find if you know what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/70 "2015-06-16T21:38:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Freeman specializes in playing ā€œeverymanā€ characters. I dunno, maybe he really canā€™t do anything elseā€¦ He was great in HOT FUZZ, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/71 "2015-06-16T21:49:59Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > Because ā€œThe Lord of the Ringsā€ was an actual trilogy, whereas ā€œThe Hobbitā€ was a single book? Actually LotR was six books, bound into three volumes. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/72 "2015-06-16T21:50:06Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Yes it did. It sucked big time. Itā€™s not that it sucked. Itā€™s that it suh-huh-_HUUUUUUUCKED_. > [@astro](#): > > Honestly that bird shit nonsense was pretty off putting. It almost took you out of the movie. Huh. I guess that was one of those points when I was almost completely uninvested in what was on-screen, because I didnā€™t even notice it. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/73 "2015-06-16T22:01:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Actually LotR was six books, bound into three volumes. Whether you call them ā€œvolumesā€ or ā€œbooksā€, LOTR had three and The Hobbit had one. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/74 "2015-06-16T22:04:26Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Whether you call them ā€œvolumesā€ or ā€œbooksā€, LOTR had three and The Hobbit had one. It depends on what you mean by ā€œbook.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Banksiaman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banksiaman/32/3334_2.png) [@Banksiaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banksiaman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/75 "2015-06-16T22:25:12Z")
Iā€™ve been enjoying the Hobbit extended versions much more than the screen versions. The extended version is even more about the Hobbit as a prequel to LOTR, but has the additional contextual matter to make that coherent story. Editing that out to make a coherent cinematic Hobbit that stood on its own [or rather the bookā€™s merits] was not ruthless enough. Ultimately the screen release movie failed by being too big for Hobbit [book] and too trimmed down for Hobbit [LOTR prequel]. The LOTR prequel through the extended disks is monstrously long [~9+ hours], but if the action and battle scenes were cut back youā€™d probably have a very satisfyingly solid two parter. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/76 "2015-06-16T22:37:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It depends on what you mean by ā€œbook.ā€ What most people mean by ā€œbookā€ is a thing with a bunch of pages that you can hold in your hand and read. Tolkien could just as easily have called each half of the three LOTR ā€œvolumesā€ ā€œPart I and Part IIā€ as he could have called them ā€œBook I and Book IIā€. Which makes it all a silly pedantic hijack. Whatever you call them, LOTR was a trilogy and the Hobbit was a ā€¦ unogy. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/77 "2015-06-16T22:59:59Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > **The Hobbit** has, as main characters, _thirteen_ dwarves AND a hobbit. That is already starting with a large and unwieldy cast of main characters. Yet Jackson for some unfathomable reason thought that he needed to add _more_ main characters - Radagast, Legolas, Tauriel, etc. _And_ numerous subsidiary characters such as Bardā€™s family. _AND_ added _both_ the Necromancer and Azog as antagonists (when you already have Smaug! why do you need additional enemies WHEN YOU HAVE A DRAGON?) Probably because the death of the dragon isnā€™t the climax of the story. Iā€™m guessing that when they laid out the story that for non-readers the orcs in the Battle of Five Armies come out of nowhere and it sort of becomes the the climax. Adding Azog helps lead up to the battle. I didnā€™t have a problem with the addition of Azog but he got too much screen time. I liked the addition of the Necromancer in theory. To people who know the whole Hobbit/LoTR story arc the actions of Gandalf and the White Council are important parts. My issue was that so much of it was ham-handed, like the death of Gandalf. Saruman comes across as a babbling fool; why would Gandalf later trust him with the news of the emergence of the ring? Iā€™m apparently one of the few who didnā€™t mind Radagast but I agree he could have been portrayed better. To me the biggest problems where the bloat, the love triangle, and the insipid fight scenes (someone already mentioned the dance on the dragonā€™s teeth). ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/78 "2015-06-16T23:02:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Grumman** : > > Personally, I think they should have killed two birds with one stone and made a couple of the dwarves women. How do you know they didnā€™t? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/79 "2015-06-16T23:17:07Z")
Why do you think Kili is the only dwarf without a beard? Why do you think Kili is so much prettier than all the other dwarves? ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589/80 "2015-06-16T23:42:17Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > What most people mean by ā€œbookā€ is a thing with a bunch of pages that you can hold in your hand and read. Tolkien could just as easily have called each half of the three LOTR ā€œvolumesā€ ā€œPart I and Part IIā€ as he could have called them ā€œBook I and Book IIā€. Which makes it all a silly pedantic hijack. > > Whatever you call them, LOTR was a trilogy and the Hobbit was a ā€¦ unogy. Only because the publisher interviened. JRRT considered it one novel and intended it to be published as a single volume as it has been many times. I should know as I have one of them bound in red leather with a slip cover. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-film-trilogy-vs-the-hobbit-film-trilogy-why-did-the-latter-suck/722589.md?page=5)