Why was LOTR great and the Hobbit basically shit?
I read both and know Hobbit was a bit stretched, but both are good material to make a movie. Can't help feeling maybe it is nostalgia and the feeling everything was better back in the day? However just watched Fellowship again yesterday and still enjoyed it much more.
>>69831697
>Hobbit was a bit stretched
>a bit
One was made for story.
One was made for money.
Have you read the Hobbit? You can read it in an afternoon it's like 200 pages it's a kids book.
You can finish the book before watching the entire first movie.
LOTR = something for fans
TH = something for studios
>>69831697
A grand creation forged by multiple people all fucking up and trying to salvage what little was left.
LOTR was also garbage, you were just too young to know it at the time
>reddit characters
>Jarringly bad CGI
>cheap looking sets
>the whole movies have a weird filter that makes everything look worse
Pretty much this
>>69831697
Hackson forgot that the hobbit is a children's book and tried to me it more like Lord of the rings. Its tries to be epic in the scale of LOTR but the source material was nothing like that. So you end up with a lot of padding to try and create an epic trilogy when in reality it should have been two movies at most or one long movie at best.
>>69831697
Hobbit was lacking heart
You can feel Jackson was pouring everything he was in to adapting the trilogy because they were his favorite books and he envisioned the loremore well. With hobbit he was doing a pet project, not a passion project
>Lotr
>3 books 3 movies
>one director
>Hobbit
>1 book 3 movies
>director left mid production
>they brought in Jackson to try and finish it
>>69831697
Spreading a 200 page kids book over 3 movies.
Peter Jackson had years to develop LOTR, and 4 months for the hobbit. when he made LOTR he was hungry and ambitious, in Hobbit he was complacent. The hobbit is a short children's adventure story. The studio's wanted it to be a 3 part epic like LOTR, it couldn't be done, especially under the listless captainship of Jackson.
Also it was made at a weird time where it was too late to coast off the hype of LOTR, but nor could it benefit from nostalgia.
>>69832008
Jackson wasn't even meant to direct it
Jackson went to a CGI-heavy style in about 2005 with King Kong. He can't make anything down to earth anymore. He is literally finished.
>>69832008
I want this to be true, but it sounds cheesy and can't really pinpoint what lacking heart means. I mean, I can't even say they did not go into details in Hobbit.
I hope Silmarillion will be more like LOTR
>>69831697
Blame Guillermo Del Toro, he supposedly did most of the pre-production. Then when everyone knew it was going to be utter shit and going to be canned, he left last minute. Then PJ stepped in to try to save it.
I read somewhere PJ actually wanted it to be two movies, but because of the money grubbing studio, and the looming expection to create something greater than LotR, they planned a third.
What made LotR so good, IMO, was it was planned very well and long, and wasn't stuck in production hell.
>>69832102
>time
so sick of this excuse. you fags just cant admit that jackson is a hack, has always been a hack, and then with the hobbit basically had free run (aside from deadlines) and he spent all his time on useless garbage time filler.
even if he had 20 years, he still would had stronk female elf pulled out of his wifes ass to cater to the broads, cartoon dwarves, laughable combat and rewriting tokiens work to squeeze in references to LOTR that make no sense.
>>69832354
Watch the behind the scenes from the extended editions. It shows that Peter wanted things to go right, but almost the entire movie was done by improvisation because of deadlines.
>>69831856
fuck
I imagine there was a lot of studio meddling in the latter. I don't think it was supposed to be a trilogy originally but some corporate type pushed for it despite knowing nothing about the source material.
>>69832459
surely a movie reflects its production schedule though
>>69832459
>jackson is a hack
>made the best movie trilogy in history
you're just a butthurt faggot.
>too many CGI sets (the goblin town, the dwarf smelting plant, the forests, etc)
>too many CGI characters (the trolls, the goblin king, all the orcs, Smaug, etc)
>too many characters, period. Two 3 hour films in and I still don't know who half of the fucking dwarfs are.
>too much Gandlaf/Galandriel/Rivendell/Rhadaghast the Brown bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with the story but reminds you that you're not watching the much better LOTR films
>the ending of the first film where we see Smaug open his eyes is horribly cliche, and the abrupt ending to the second film is also horrible sequel bait
>that whole bit with the giant golden statue melting/exploding/looking awful
>love triangle
And then there's all the conveniences and contrivances.
>>69831697
I liked better than LOTR 2bh
>>69832738
if he wanted to "get things right" he would have spent time on the movie, not attempting to use it to usher in HDR.
>also, resurrecting dead orc for one of the main protaginist
>>69832894
just because it made alot of money doesnt make it great, ruined LOTR as much as the hobbit
>making aragorn a whiny emo faggot
>no saruman/grima hobbit BBQ at the end
>>69831697
Hobbit stretching to 3 meant lots of shitty filler was added.
Jackson only agreed to do it because the studio still owed him money from LOTR, so they agreed a deal so he'd get all his money. Should have been Del Taco directing
Overuse of CGI
>>69832952
good points
>>69832894
tbf he did not really do anything besides that and the Hobbits. I mean anything that has monkeys in it is garbage, King Kong/Jungle Book/Tarzan, I can't even tell them apart and don't care
>>69832952
>And then there's all the conveniences and contrivances.
That was the book's fault, not Hackson's. Except for that Elf leap thingy at the end.
Hobbit was not a children book. Though it starts as one, Tolkien proved that he couldn't write fairytale adventure and made the story germanic as fuck, just as he liked. Films just failed to portray waves of comfyness, outworldish nostalgia and epicness in order and proportions planned by Tolkien.
Arrival at Beorn's hall mid-chase is the best example. They just killed comfiest scene in the book which was crucial in building tension.
I'm still confused: Why was gandalf surprsied in the fellowship that the one ring was found when he knew the dark lord had returned in the 2nd hobbit?
>>69831697
they were still miles above any similar kinds of epic/fantasy movies today, and they're still the only movies that can hold a candle to the original LOTR trilogy in the same way, albeit from weaker, stretched out source material
>>69832993
>just because it made alot of money doesnt make it great, ruined LOTR as much as the hobbit
hol up
hol up
kill
your
self
>>69833299
>avatar
>greatest movie in history
>>69831915
Retard alert.
Hobbits problem was almost entirely on pre production. From what I heard, Jackson had little time to prepare. Yes the story is stretched and many other problems. But it all stems from him not being g prepared, and having to take it on after del toro ditched.
>>69831697
Here's a pretty relevant little article http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/19/peter-jackson-battle-of-the-five-armies-i-didnt-know-what-the-hell-i-was-doing-when-i-made-the-hobbitI've only read the book
