Why hasn’t “Hobbit” trilogy done as well with critics and audiences as “Lord of the Rings”?

Home // Forums // Movies // Why hasn’t “Hobbit” trilogy done as well with critics and audiences as “Lord of the Rings”?

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
Created
3 years ago
Last Reply
3 years ago
11
replies
389
views
11
users
1
1
1
  • Daniel Montgomery
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169842

    I’m not as big a fan of the “Hobbit” films as I was of “The Lord of the Rings” films, but I’m not always sure why. Part of it may be that this set of characters is less compelling. And part of it may be the been-there-done-that aspect of it — though when we went there and did that before it was remarkable, so even a retread should be at least good.

    How come this trilogy hasn’t done as well with critics or awards as the last one? It’s certainly raking in about as much money (not accounting for inflation). Is it really not as good? Do you think it’s underrated? Or have critics and awards voters simply moved on, kind of the way a TV show doesn’t usually stick around at the Emmys when it’s more than a decade old?

    Reply
    TomHardys
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 24th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169844
    1. The plot is not as interesting and moving as the Lord of the Rings’s is.
    2. The Hobbit is one tiny little book with a story that could’ve easily been told in one movie (perhaps two). Three is a stretch.
    3. The ensemble is visibly weaker.
    4. We can’t exactly say The Hobbit is as groundbreaking as Lord of The Rings was. Peter Jackson should move on to better projects.
    ReplyCopy URL
    Ghost
    Member
    Joined:
    Jun 22nd, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169845

    The main reason for me is they have way too many unecessary things added. It could have easily been one 3 and a half hour movie like Return of the King or even two 2 hour movies. Another is the over reliance of CGI. Compare the original orc makeup in LOTR to the CGI orcs. The LOTR ones looked realistic while The Hobbit’s come off as fake.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Tyler The Awesome Guy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 19th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169846

    Oh I don’t know, maybe because they suck?!

    ReplyCopy URL
    ETPhoneHome
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 3rd, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169847

    The big thing has already been mentioned. There is simply not enough story for three films. 2 films would have been absolutely perfect. The first part would last until they come into Laketown, with the barrel scene being the climax. The second film would cover everything else. It would be totally doable, and much better. Also, we don’t need Legolas, or the romance plotline, and we don’t need the added dwarf songs. Cut all that, I would put this at the same level. In fact, I would challenge someone to reedit it into this kind of film, and we would have something really interesting.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Ryan Lapierre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169848

    Saw it today. It was all over the place. Sloppy, long unnecessary battles, boring and an average ending. It is definatly the worst Hobbit yet.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Cheshire
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 16th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169849

    1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was so much better.
    2. While I like The Hobbit movies (haven’t seen the third one yet), they are not high art.
    3. When Lord of the Rings came out, how they made those movies was something never done before. So The Hobbit movies don’t feel ground breaking in it’s production. 
    4. People thought making live-action Lord of the Rings movie would be impossible and Peter Jackson deserved to be awarded for doing the impossible and succed.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GraemeONeil
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 16th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169850

    Yeah, pretty simple. LOTR was fantastic. The Hobbit is not. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    espnfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169851

    ^I agree with what many posters have stated that the movies are way too long and much of them feel unneccessary.  Sorry to say, but most of these films reek of nothing more than being a cash grab.  Or the only reason they were made in the first place is to make more money for Peter Jackson and Co. 

    The original trilogy never felt like that.  Tackling a story of that scope and size was something we had rarely seen before.  Not only did Jackson attempt the near impossible, but he did so very successfully.  It felt like a grand adventure from start to finish, one in which we were totally immersed in the world of the characters, rooting for them to succeed.

    There is simply not enough material to create three more films (of substantial length at that) from the Hobbit.  There is barely enough material for two quality, average length movies, let alone three bloated blockbusters.   Not to mention the cast and characters are no where near as compelling as the original cast was.  At this point I barely know the names of 90% of the characters in the new films.  Nor care enough about them to know them.

    While the Hobbit trilogy has not ruined the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, it has not really added anything to it.  I really doubt most of us would feel we missed anything if they had not made the second trilogy in the first place.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169852

    That river scene was the worst.

    However, I do not get the widespread appeal of The Lord of the Rings.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Tye-Grr
    Member
    Joined:
    Nov 5th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169853
    1. The plot is not as interesting and moving as the Lord of the Rings’s is.
    2. The Hobbit is one tiny little book with a story that could’ve easily been told in one movie (perhaps two). Three is a stretch.
    3. The ensemble is visibly weaker.
    4. We can’t exactly say The Hobbit is as groundbreaking as Lord of The Rings was. Peter Jackson should move on to better projects.

    All of this.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Nick Spake
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #169854

    If we could get Topher Grace to reedit this trilogy into one film like he did with the “Star Wars” prequels, “The Hobbit” could be one of the great fantasy epics on par with “The Lord of the Rings.”

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
Reply To: Why hasn’t “Hobbit” trilogy done as well with critics and audiences as “Lord of the Rings”?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Jake - Aug 22, 2017
Movies
wilfred... - Aug 21, 2017
Movies