# Why did Peter Jackson's LOTR movies succeed & The Hobbit fail? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 4, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513 "2014-02-04T20:32:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/61 "2014-02-06T00:02:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Box Office, ratings and critics disagree. You always take their side. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/62 "2014-02-06T00:28:12Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > The book _is_ good source material, it\* can\* be a good film, the problem is that Peter Jacksons The Hobbit simply isn’t. Its just padded, turgid rubbish. Agreed. History will not be kind to these films. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Box Office, ratings and critics disagree. We’ve already established that critics’ ratings were _not_ stellar, as they were for LOTR. Box Office, Shmox Office. This thread is about the _artistic_ failures of The Hobbit movie,as per the OP. And, anyway, lots of shitty movies do great at the box office, as you well know. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/63 "2014-02-06T01:54:43Z")
3 books, 3 movies = good 1 book, 3 movies = not good ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/64 "2014-02-06T05:09:45Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Agreed. History will not be kind to these films. > We’ve already established that critics’ ratings were _not_ stellar, as they were for LOTR. > > Box Office, Shmox Office. This thread is about the _artistic_ failures of The Hobbit movie,as per the OP. And, anyway, lots of shitty movies do great at the box office, as you well know. True. "Not stellar’ and no where near as good as LotR. Already conceded. But still good nonetheless. Why does everything have to be crap or creme? 😕Why can’t it just be Good, when it’s not Great? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/65 "2014-02-06T12:39:13Z")
I don’t think we can blame the source material here. The Rankin-Bass animated THE HOBBIT (with a wonderful Richard Boone voicing the dragon) is enjoyable and amusing and has moments of emotion, and tells the story from Bilbo’s perspective. I think the blame here lies in making it too long. As noted, the dwarves in the book are almost indistinguishable, and that’s fine. I can understand why Jackson tried to give them individual looks, weapons, personalities: he thought that the movie needed to be visual and to distinguish them from each other. But there are too many, and the result is confusion and boredom, and it takes the focus away from Bilbo. As I’ve said before, I don’t mind varying from the book, most of those decisions were made for cinematic purposes. I do mind that Bilbo is a minor character (and one of 15 minor characters.) But I think most of what’s wrong with the film could be handled by severe editing and shortening (especially battles and chase scenes.) ---
**Author:** ![sohvan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/96bed5/32.png) [@sohvan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sohvan)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/66 "2014-02-06T14:35:30Z")
I agree with a lot of the reasons said already. It tries too hard to be both an epic prequel to the Lord of the Rings film trilogy and an adaptation of Hobbit the children’s book. Should have stuck with one or the other. The jokes about dwarves farting and bird poo wizards end up clashing with the epic battle against evil. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/67 "2014-02-06T16:07:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But still good nonetheless. I do not agree that it is good, and neither do many of the people who have posted in this thread. > [@](#): > > Why does everything have to be crap or creme? 😕Why can’t it just be Good, when it’s not Great? :rolleyes: The average of critics’ ratings for the Hobbit movies is mediocre, but I think many of us in this thread would rate the Hobbit movies _lower_ than the critics’ average. I would. I would say the movies are quite poor, or, as **bucketybuck** said, “…padded, turgid rubbish.” That does not mean that for us all movies are either “crap or creme.” More precisely, one might say that the Hobbit movies are actually rather _overrated_. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/68 "2014-02-07T02:17:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_The_Hobbit_film_series) > > Yes, but you see, all you guys are proving is something we all agree on. The Hobbit isn;t as great as LotR. No one expected it to be. > > “Not as great” as IMHO the greatest film trilogy of all times does not make it a “failure”. > > Why does everything have to be either A+++ or F-? > > The Hobbit gets a solid B. Which was stated in the opening post, which you were already told to read back when you started this threadshit. Why are you determined to find something wrong with the entire concept of the thread, to the point of making up strawmen about what it’s about? The subject of the thread is: Why is the Hobbit not as good as the LOTR? Try to read for comprehension next time you feel the need to try and ruin a thread you don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/69 "2014-02-07T02:33:33Z")
Sorry, got DrDeth mixed up with DMark, who was the one clearly threadshitting. DrDeth, do learn to read the OP. He said the Hobbit was good, just not as good as LOTR. Don’t follow DMarks footsteps when he clearly thought this thread and the topic was beneath him. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/70 "2014-02-07T03:11:58Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Sorry, got DrDeth mixed up with DMark, who was the one clearly threadshitting. > > DrDeth, do learn to read the OP. He said the Hobbit was good, just not as good as LOTR. Don’t follow DMarks footsteps when he clearly thought this thread and the topic was beneath him. True, the OP did say that, but his title was also “Why did Peter Jackson’s LOTR movies succeed & The Hobbit **fail** ”. My point is the Hobbit has not "failed’ in any meaning of the word except "not as good as the first three’ and there is no way in hell it could have been. But I wasn’t just responding to the Op. We also have\* “I think that the The Hobbit has been a failure of film making.\*” and _“…padded, turgid rubbish.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/71 "2014-02-07T03:16:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The subject of the thread is: Why is the Hobbit not as good as the LOTR? I agree, but I also think that the thread title is a bit ill-chosen to convey that subject. Making a binary opposition between the LOTR movies “succeeding” and the Hobbit movies “failing” doesn’t suggest a thoughtful comparison of their quality so much as a blanket endorsement of the former and a blanket rejection of the latter. > [@Knorf](#): > > I think many of us in this thread would rate the Hobbit movies lower than the critics’ average. I would. I wouldn’t. I like 'em. They’re not as epic, in any sense of the word, as the LOTR movies, and I’m not saying I didn’t have my share of eyeroll moments while watching them, but ultimately it was still a Middle-earth I could believe in. And that’s plenty good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/72 "2014-02-07T04:07:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > True, the OP did say that, but his title was also “Why did Peter Jackson’s LOTR movies succeed & The Hobbit **fail** ”. My point is the Hobbit has not "failed’ in any meaning of the word except "not as good as the first three’ and there is no way in hell it could have been. Ah, I disagree. I went to see it and I was disappointed. The friend I saw it with said, more or less, “That movie was just like The Hobbit, except in every way.” So there’s a way in which the Hobbit has failed. And apparently a lot of people agree with me. I don’t think you can judge the success of a book like this on box office, because there are some movies that everyone is just going to see, even if the result is mediocre. ---
**Author:** ![KKKK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KKKK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KKKK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/73 "2014-02-07T10:31:56Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m not seeing this one. Legolas was presumably in the book of _The Hobbit_, too, just not mentioned by name. But it would be silly to visit the court of the King of the Wood-Elves, see the royalty of the court, and not run into the one guy who we know was a member of that royal court. Yeah, we probably see more of him than we should, but he shouldn’t be absent entirely. > > And the only other recurring characters I can think of are Galadriel and Saruman. Their place isn’t quite as firm as Legolas’, but the White Council attacking Dol Guldur was part of Tolkien’s conception, too, and they would have been key figures in that. Plus, Galadriel’s scenes in the movie were great. > > The character who was _most_ shoehorned in was Radagast, and he didn’t show up in the Lord of the Rings movie at all (not even mentioned, like he was in the book). So you can’t blame that on his character’s previous popularity. What about Tauriel, and that completely unnecessary love triangle with Legolas and Kili? Elves looked down even on men (considering them a lesser species). In thousands of years, there were only two elf-man unions (Luthien-Beren and Arwen-Aragorn). From the elvish point of view, dwarves would be one step lower than even humans. So would Tauriel really fall for Kili? ---
**Author:** ![KKKK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KKKK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KKKK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/74 "2014-02-07T10:41:45Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I agree completely. _The Hobbit_ is one of my favorite books. I read it over and over as a kid, including reading the whole book in a single sitting once when I was 13 years old. > > PJ managed to strip out most of the good parts of the book, and insert tons of mindless dreck. The whole tone of the story feels wrong in these movies, and why make so many wholesale changes to the story? Why did PJ feel the need to alter the scene in which Gandalf tricks the trolls by mimicking their voices? Why the need for endless chases and battles? It wasn’t that type of book. > > Further, why do some of the dwarves look human, and why does one look like a Klingon? And if you’re going to add a wizard to the story, does he have to be covered in birdshit? Why do the scenes in the goblin caves and in Smaug’s lair feel like a video game? Why trade Bilbo’s clever wordplay with Smaug for a stupid dragon chase? > > For all of the length of the movies, why cut out or shorten key scenes in favor of adding more boring material? > > I’ve rewatched the LOTR trilogy many times. The whole tone and feel was spot on. FOTR was nearly perfect. I don’t understand how the same person could screw up _The Hobbit_ so badly. My only problem with FOTR was that they cut out the Old Forest, Bombadil, and Glorfindel, and instead turned Arwen into some sort of superheroine. I mean, do you really think Elrond would let his precious daughter ride single-handed against the Nine – especially after what happened to her mother? Also, they should not have dropped the scouring of the Shire in the last movie. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/75 "2014-02-07T12:05:37Z")
> [@KKKK](#): > > My only problem with FOTR was that they cut out the Old Forest, Bombadil, and Glorfindel, and instead turned Arwen into some sort of superheroine. I mean, do you really think Elrond would let his precious daughter ride single-handed against the Nine – especially after what happened to her mother? Also, they should not have dropped the scouring of the Shire in the last movie. The problem with including Tom Bombadil is that he appears early on as a powerful force that saves the Hobbits … then disappears. You can afford to do this sort of thing in a book that people spend weeks reading (and rereading), but not in a two hour film. Also Tolkien didn’t put in many female characters and modern movie audiences like to see some. Elrond sent out many messengers (e.g. Glorfindel) to help Aragorn - it was just a coincidence that Arwen (Glorfindel in the book) met up with the hobbits. Arwen wasn’t intended to ride against the Nine. She had a superb horse and provided she could get back the Ford of Bruinen, she would be safe. I too like the Scouring of the Shire. Sadly (as pointed out above) there wasn’t time in the film to include it. Remember that the movie audience (who may not have read the books) probably think it’s all over once the Ring is destroyed. There already follows 20 minutes of finales and farewells (e.g. “You bow to no man!”; Frodo leaves to the Undying Lands; “Well I’m back”) and adding the Scouring would have baffled these folk about when the movie would finish. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/76 "2014-02-07T12:49:01Z")
The Hobbit filmed lacked some key elements from the LOTR films: Shield surfing Legolas Dwarf tossing Scrubbing bubbles ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/77 "2014-02-07T16:32:02Z")
> [@KKKK](#): > > What about Tauriel, and that completely unnecessary love triangle with Legolas and Kili? Elves looked down even on men (considering them a lesser species). In thousands of years, there were only two elf-man unions (Luthien-Beren and Arwen-Aragorn). From the elvish point of view, dwarves would be one step lower than even humans. So would Tauriel really fall for Kili? There have been only those two marriages between Men and _High_-Elves, but I’m not sure this covers Silvan Elves as well. Recall that Prince Imrahil of Belfalas is sometimes said to be descended from the Silvan Elf Mithrellas, one of the companions of Nimrodel. If you want to really push the boundaries, recall also that even Hobbits are hinted at as possibly having some kinship with Elves, at least in the Fallohide branches. _The Hobbit_ says that it was rumored in the Shire that long ago one of the Tooks (a Fallohidish clan) must have taken a “fairy wife”, i.e., married an Elf. Moreover, while Elves and Dwarves definitely have a long-standing feud, I don’t think Elves see the different “speaking-peoples” in terms of some kind of racial hierarchy, as you’re suggesting. All the peoples seem to perceive each other more like aliens from other planets than like “lower animals”: not your own kind maybe, but not in any sense your natural subordinates or inferiors. So yeah, it didn’t faze me that much to think that a Silvan Elf might fancy a Dwarf. ---
**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/78 "2014-02-07T17:22:36Z")
The first Hobbit movie was fairly true to the book, but the Desolation of Smaug took too many liberties. While it aims to expand on the book to lengthen it into a movie trilogy, it ignores much of the detail within the book itself. For example, the Mirkwood forest episode seems like a lengthy journey in the book, but like a day hike in the movie. There’s no dream sequences with feasting elves. Finding the entrance to Smaug’s lair is a challenge in the book, but briefly attained in the movie. If the book was adhered to more closely, the movie wouldn’t need to rely on ninja elves as much. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/79 "2014-02-08T03:39:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **KKKK** : > > What about Tauriel, and that completely unnecessary love triangle with Legolas and Kili? OK, good point, she was even more shoehorned that Radagast. In any event, she wasn’t included because of her popularity in a previous movie, either. > [@](#): > > Quoth **GreenElf** : > > Finding the entrance to Smaug’s lair is a challenge in the book, but briefly attained in the movie. I don’t know; I thought that that was the one place where the movie actually improved on the source material. Tolkien’s conception of “Durin’s Day” just doesn’t make any astronomical sense. The movie’s still has its issues, but making the “Last Light” be that of the Moon rather than the Sun fixes a lot of it. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513/80 "2014-02-08T08:47:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I don’t know; I thought that that was the one place where the movie actually improved on the source material. Tolkien’s conception of “Durin’s Day” just doesn’t make any astronomical sense. The movie’s still has its issues, but making the “Last Light” be that of the Moon rather than the Sun fixes a lot of it. I think “Durin’s Day” is supposed to be when the autumnal equinox coincides with the first day on which the crescent moon of a new cycle is visible. This happens once every 823 years and is called Money Bags. The book scene works just fine - the dwarves no longer have the astronomical skill to predict moon phases accurately enough to know if Durin’s Day will come in any given year, so are sitting on the doorstep when they suddenly hear a thrush cracking snails. None of this “oh bugger, we got here on the last hour of the last day but the prophecy’s wrong so let’s wander off in despair” business in which PJ demonstrates yet again that he thinks dear old Tolkien really didn’t know how to tell an interesting story at all. I feel about the Hobbit movies much as I do about Disney’s cartoon _Jungle Book_ - which was amusing kids’ entertainment with some epic songs, but made no attempt whatever to tell the story Kipling wrote, and even the characterisation was way off never mind the story elements. If you want to make a three-movie series all about how there’s these dwarves, right, and they travel to this mountain, yeah, where this humungous dragon lives, and all the way there they get chased by orcs all the time, okay, 'cos the boss orc was wounded by the dwarf king like a hundred years ago, and there’s a chase scene every ten minutes, and then this hot red-headed elf totally falls in love with the dwarf king’s nephew, and they have this big scene where they trick the dragon into getting drowned in a thousand tons of molten gold, only it doesn’t work, and the man who everyone thinks is going to kill the dragon with this roof-mounted double-sprung arbalest is locked up in prison although he’s worked out that the dwarves are going to bring ruin on their town… well, it might make an acceptable action-adventure movie, but what is the point of even pretending that you’re telling Tolkien’s story? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-peter-jacksons-lotr-movies-succeed-the-hobbit-fail/680513.md?page=5)