It's almost like the Hobbit was some shameless cash in.
strange

When will the kids who grew up spoonfed LotR finally realize that it was a shit adaptation from the start and that The Hobbit is qualitatively exactly the same? I've been waiting for years but no one except Chris Tolkien wants to say anything.

>>67844762
>faithfulness to the source affects enjoyment

>>67844762
Now i think LOTR is a total garbage adaptation, it's still better than The Hobbit

>>67844762
LotR isn't a perfect adaption, but it's sure as hell miles better than The Hobbit.

For example, you can see shit in LotR that got much worse in The Hobbit

>>67844346
The Hobbit wasn't handled well behind the scenes. PJ was rushed to complete a series he hadn't expected to be directing in the first place. We're really lucky it turned out as good as it did.

>>67844928
>as good
Man, you're giving Jackson too much credit. The ONLY good parts is the Riddles in the dark scene and when Bilbo talks with Smaug, and both is ruined by the shitty actionscenes that follows them

>>67844762
>no one except Chris Tolkien wants to say anything.

Honestly, the opinion of an acclaimed writers child isn't worth much at all. Just look at Brian Herbert for a good example. The cunt single-handedly fucked the Dune series.

>>67844346
That's actually Grishnákh.

>>67844762
As someone who loves both the books and the movie. They are both fucking great, just for different reasons, which I think is a positive. Since what would be the point in watching something if it's a word by word remake and not a re-imagining?
The movies set out to do something different than the books and made the adventure feel more like a modern epic rather than the more drawn out, less "dire" classical epic what Tolkien set out to do.

You know, I didn't read the books because of the narrative(which is pretty bad when you think about it), I read it because it's basically one long travel guide into the wonderful world of Tolkien, that's what kept me going through hundreds of pages of people walking.

I watch the movies because they had epic set pieces, good dialog, and excellent production values.

They are different and set out to do different things, but they are both fucking excellent.

>>67844997
As good as in it could've been much worse. Nobody is saying it was a good film

>>67845083
I don't know. It could have been laughable bad. Now it's just bad and boring as fuck.

>>67844346
>adaptation of kiddie book
>have orcs speak in correct tongue with subtitles
I think Jackson just kept the script the same as Del Taco

theres clearly some massive differences in the script (which became non existent after a while)

>>67844762
They had completely different goals. The film is an adventure thriller for general audiences while the book is a fantasy about European language and culture.

Judging a film for not being like the literature is way based on is missing the point; it is visual entertainment and on top of that, an adaption, meaning a completely separate work of art. It's sad that most people's perception of the The Lord of the Rings is now that of an action movie rather than the book, but frankly that's completely irrelevant to the quality of either work.

If you want The Lord of the Rings film to be exactly like the novel then just read the fucking book. Films are about mood and image, and those that are extremely similar to their source material are usually uninteresting.

>>67844346
Because the source material simply wasn't as good. It was one kids book stretched over 3 movies.

>>67844346
What named orcs were memoirable oh there was only one named Gothmog who looks like that guy from the goonies.

At least the hobbit movies had Azog, the Goblin King, and Bolg who were all very memorable.