What do you think of the Film Adaptations of LOTR and the Hobbit?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,785
Do like them or hate them and to either choice why? Do You Think They do justice to Tolkien's books? Why do You think they are good or bad?:)


Thoughts?
 
I love the fact that LOTR won the academy award for best picture a few years ago.

As for the Hobbit, I rather like Pat i and part 2 and loved the cliffhanger ending of part 2, I was laughing my head head when 2 ended, It was brilliant. I can't wait for part 3 :D
 
I only ever saw The Fellowship Of The Ring. LOTR is not my king of thing but i thought it was a beautifully made movie.
 
The movie Fellowship of the Rings was my introduction to Tolkien. I was hooked from the first couple of minutes by the atmosphere, and I believe all 3 films were solid. I read the books after seeing the first movie, then went on to read The Silmarillion and most of the HoME books as well.

I thought the first Hobbit movie was okay, and it was nice to see some things included that were missed in the LOTR movies, like Radagast. But the second movie strayed from the story much more significantly. It looses the "flavor" of The Hobbit by trying to turn it into another LOTR, and Elves and Orcs who weren't even supposed to be in the story stole the show. I'm not sure I want to see the third installment because I'm afraid it may ruin my mental picture of The Hobbit.
 
I'm still waiting for a film adaptation of The Hobbit. Peter Jackson seems to have been reading a very different book to everyone else. :)

In and of themselves, they are pretty good fantasy films.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not usually a purist when it comes to adaptations, but The Hobbit has a special place in my heart. It was one of the first novels I ever read (at least 3 times between the ages of 8 and 10) and perhaps did more to set me on the path I've taken in life than any other novel. Conversely, I never read Lord of the Rings until my sophomore year of high school and have never been much interested in a reread, even if I have reread the Silmarillion a couple times since. Despite being disappointed in a couple choices made in the movies, I was fine with the LOTR films. The Hobbit, though... I left the theater after the first one feeling kind of angry. It was less an adaption of the book I loved than a prequel of the movies I liked. I haven't bothered with the others. My wife and kids, though, who have never read a word of Tolkien (tried reading it to my son when he was younger, but he never took to it), really enjoyed them. To each their own, I guess.
 
Yeah, I'm not usually a purist when it comes to adaptations, but The Hobbit has a special place in my heart. It was one of the first novels I ever read (at least 3 times between the ages of 8 and 10) and perhaps did more to set me on the path I've taken in life than any other novel. Conversely, I never read Lord of the Rings until my sophomore year of high school and have never been much interested in a reread, even if I have reread the Silmarillion a couple times since. Despite being disappointed in a couple choices made in the movies, I was fine with the LOTR films. The Hobbit, though... I left the theater after the first one feeling kind of angry. It was less an adaption of the book I loved than a prequel of the movies I liked. I haven't bothered with the others. My wife and kids, though, who have never read a word of Tolkien (tried reading it to my son when he was younger, but he never took to it), really enjoyed them. To each their own, I guess.


Essentially they cover the the major story elements of the Hobbit , yes they added a few things but so what? :)

I can't wait to see The Battle of Five Armies :D
 
Yeah, I suppose it's just personal taste. It was more the tone than the story that didn't jive with me. The only thing that seemed to fit, strangely, was Radagast, who wasn't in the books at all and annoyed the hell out of me on screen.
 
Yeah, I suppose it's just personal taste. It was more the tone than the story that didn't jive with me. The only thing that seemed to fit, strangely, was Radagast, who wasn't in the books at all and annoyed the hell out of me on screen.

Fair enough:)

As for Radagast , he could be be annoying but overall , I like the character. It was kind of cool seeing another Wizard besides Gandalf and Saruman.:cool:
 
Sean Connery turned down the role of Gandalf. While he would have been a fine choice for the role , Im glad Ian McKellen chose to play the role. He is simply magnificent as Gandalf. :)

Christopher Lee is equally great as Saruman.:)
 
I'm still waiting for a film adaptation of The Hobbit. Peter Jackson seems to have been reading a very different book to everyone else. :)
This is exactly what I feel, but if they wouldn't pretend to be an adaptation of the book they would be quite good fantasy movies.
 
This is exactly what I feel, but if they wouldn't pretend to be an adaptation of the book they would be quite good fantasy movies.

The current adaptations are good films.(y)
 
That's a matter of opinion, surely.

I agree and , I admit to being a bit biased in their favor. I love these movies flaws and all .:)
 
Last edited:
I love the three LOTR films and watched them many times.

But I find as time goes on I love them less. I think the reason is this: When I first saw the movies they had a huge emotional impact, so that I was willing to forgive parts that I thought were weaker. One big reason for the emotional impact was the soundtrack. There is a sadness to Middle Earth at the end of the Third Age, and Howard Shore's score often catches that. Then, of course, there were some huge moments in the story. Now that I am not watching the movies anymore (and I am no longer bewitched by the music), I've had a chance to look at them more objectively, and I see their faults more clearly.

I liked the first Hobbit movie fairly well. The parts that were true to the book I liked very much, and the parts that weren't were a mixed bag for me. The music (except for the Misty Mountains theme) was disappointing, but then Shore did not have so much to work with. There was a lot of excitement and running around, but I don't think that the book had the kind of big moments that the trilogy had, and the additions they made are no exception to that. To me, they look like second rate attempts to recreate the excitement of LOTR. I was eager to see what they did with the White Council and the Necromancer, but I hated the way they handled it. So it was not the idea but the execution that put me off.

The second movie I actively disliked. There were a few, a very few things that I thought were good. But there were so many things I thought they absolutely ruined. The whole girl elf thing with Kili I hated (unlike some people who hated the whole idea, I think I could have accepted it if it had been written better), and the way they changed things to split up the dwarves and give the elves more to do I hated even more. I realize that you have to change things to adapt a book for a movie, and I understand how they justified what they were doing, but sometimes doing something for a "good" reason does not yield a good result. I thought that was true of all the changes they made to the book in this movie. Some things could have worked for me, like visiting the tomb of the Witch King, but I thought they gave that part short shrift so it wasn't nearly spooky enough.

I realize that these were things that a lot of people thought were a lot of fun. And when we enjoy something we are willing to forgive changes from the original, and overlook any glaring faults. That was how it was with me and LOTR. But I am not the right audience for the kind of changes they made to the Hobbit, and so I am not a forgiving viewer. It is the only one of the five movies I have no desire to watch again, ever.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top