Related
Peter Jackson’sThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy still stands to this twenty-four hour period asone of the capital cinematic feats of all fourth dimension . The Hobbittrilogy , Jackson ’s attempt to catch lightning in a bottle a second prison term , was less successful . It did just as well at the box government agency , but the fans who showed up in drove chisel to see the account of one relatively brusque novel play out in a trio of three - hour epics wereleft pretty disappointed .
Still , each trilogy has its virtue . Here are 5 Reasons WhyThe HobbitTrilogy Was n’t As Good AsThe Lord Of The Rings(And 5 Why It Was well ) .
The Hobbit Was better: Fan Service
AfterThe Lord of the Ringsunexpectedly becameone of the high grossing and most pop enfranchisement at the multiplex , Peter Jackson start out a somewhat clear idea of what the fans wanted to see and then put those things in the spotlight inThe Hobbittrilogy . fan do it Legolas inThe Lord of the Rings , so Jackson yield Legolas a significant role inThe Hobbit . Fans loved the struggle sequence inThe Lord of the Rings , so Jackson cram a battle sequence into just about every plot point inThe Hobbitand made the whole third movie one mammoth - sized battle succession .
LOTR Was better: No unnecessary subplots
The Lord of the Ringsbooks come with ream of material for Peter Jackson and his co - writer to do work from . When they were turn over those leger into three feature article - distance screenplay , theycould handpick the subplots that need to be thereand served the story the most and put them into the movie . However , the short and sweet singleHobbitbook stop enough cloth for just one tight , flesh - out picture . This intend the writer had to make up a bunch of subplots that had nothing to do with the overarching tale just to extend the trilogy out to the nine hours the studio apartment wanted .
The Hobbit was better: More fun
The Lord of the Ringsdeals with some very idealistic , very hard conception . There ’s a reason it ’s been compared to the Bible in terms of ambit and idea . You ca n’t leave your brain at the door when you watchThe Lord of the Rings . In many way of life , this is a period inLOTR ’s favor . But sometimes , when you ’re watching a movie , you just desire to have some fun . The Hobbithas a thematic focal point that ’s light to keep an eye on thanThe Lord of the Rings . It ’s about the dangerous power of rapacity . This meant thatThe Hobbitmovies could be sluttish and more play than their more critically acclaim cousins .
LOTR was better: It came first
BecauseThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy come up first , it felt like a breath of fresh air and it was trample on entirely raw ground . The Hobbittrilogy felt like a retread ofThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy , becausethat ’s exactly what it was . Easter ball and callbacks toThe Lord of the Ringswere shamelessly forced into the unnecessary subplots ofThe Hobbit . The Hobbitfalls intothe pitfalls of the prequelby focusing too much on the past times and not enough on tell its own stories . As the original , The Lord of the Ringsdidn’t have any of those problems .
The Hobbit was better: One-on-one fight scenes
There are n’t a mass of one - on - one fight scenes inThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy . There are plenty of with child battle chronological sequence where armies of hundreds jar with one another , but we do n’t see many fictitious character in scuffle hoe . The one - on - one fights thatareinThe Lord of the Ringsare between eccentric like Frodo and Gollum ( i.e. untrained fighters ) .
However , The Hobbittrilogy has a few one - on - one scrap to punctuate those larger conflict sequences , and they ’re brightly shot and choreographed . For example , the fight between Thorin and Azog is one of the most incredible view inPeter Jackson ’s whole Middle - earth saga .
LOTR was better: Consistent tone
Tonally , The Hobbitdidn’t really know what was going on . The Koran it was based on is more of a shaver ’s tale than anything else , take inspiration from fairy tales and intended to be told to minor , whereasThe Lord of the Ringswas more ofan epic tome of war and demise and love and power . The movies meditate those themes and felt fitly grand , appropriately grim , and appropriately heroic . But when it come toThe Hobbit , although the plot of ground was tonally reproducible with the book , the visual style was trying to emulateThe Lord of the Ringsmovies , leaving its overall tone all over the place .
The Hobbit was better: More action
The Lord of the Ringstrilogy had some of the most breathless action sequences of all time – the Battle of Helm ’s Deep , for one – butThe Hobbittrilogy had more of that material and less of the garrulous scenes . The only job with all the action succession inThe Hobbitis that they ’re generally inconsequential . SinceThe Hobbitis such a slim Koran , all the minute of activeness are quite brief and no one gets hurt . Peter Jackson dragged these moments out to salient half - hour solidification man , but they had very petty impact on the plot and the characters mostly came out of them whole .
LOTR was better: Stronger pacing
Due to the fact that it ’s found on one account book and stretched out into three movies , the plotting and tempo ofThe Hobbittrilogy is wildly discrepant . Its anatomical structure simply was n’t write to be split into three freestanding three - human action narratives . IfThe Hobbithad been made asa two - part movie as Guillermo del Toro initially mean , it would ’ve been a dissimilar storey . But being made as a trilogy meant that sequences that only took up a few paragraphs of the script were drag out into meandering hour - long section of the movie . The Lord of the Rings , on the other hand , was write as a trilogy . As a result , its plotting and pacing were a lot strong and more consistent .
The Hobbit was better: More advanced CGI
The Lord of the Ringscan’t really be held accountable for having less highly-developed CGI effects thanThe Hobbit , becauseLOTRwas made when CGI as a whole was in its infancy andThe Hobbitwas made a few years of technological furtherance later .
Still , it ca n’t be deny as a point inThe Hobbit ’s party favor . The Lord of the Rings ’ CGI effects have some raspy edges . For example , Gollum looks suitably creepy , but in an uncanny - vale agency , relying on Andy Serkis ’ performanceto sell the quality . The Gollum ofThe Hobbitlooks realisticandhas Serkis ’ unbelievable carrying into action behind it .
LOTR was better: It was supposed to be a trilogy
When Guillermo del Toro was impound to direct the motion picture adaptation ofThe Hobbit , he want to make it a two - part moving picture , because the book is break into two parts and that made sense . But because trilogies make more money than two - part pic ( because there ’s one more film to charge audience to see ) , the studios pushed for a trilogy .
NEXT:10 Times Game of Thrones steal From Lord Of The Rings
Peter Jackson put back del Toro and did his best to give the studios the trilogy they require and give the fans the story they desire , but he only succeeded on the first numeration . The Lord of the Ringswas theorize to be a trilogy , so by nature , it mold well as a film trilogy .
