The Hobbit: movies VS. the book

[Xtempo]

I finally saw the last 2 and might have to rewatch the first one as well as rewatch the animated one [because I love it to death] but anyway

I read the book a long time ago but I am assuming some characters and situations were lifted from the other books that have history and what not.

So what are the added stuff to the movies and which is better in your opinion: the movies or the book?

[imsounoriginal]

The movies have their issues but I mostly like/really like them, especially the extended cuts. I never particularly cared for the book so I like that they added stuff from The Appendices. I’ve more than spoken my piece on these movies in their respective threads so I’ll leave it at that lol

[JasonHensley]

Nothing is really better imo. The Hobbit movies really missed the mark of trying to be grander than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[car2nst]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

The movies have their issues but I mostly like/really like them, especially the extended cuts. I never particularly cared for the book so I like that they added stuff from The Appendices. I’ve more than spoken my piece on these movies in their respective threads so I’ll leave it at that lol

I enjoyed the movies as well, but I never thought they were up to par with the LOTR trilogy. I think if Peter Jackson was allowed to make The Hobbit trilogy a few years after his original trilogy they would have had better production & a coherence about them overall as part of LOTR anthology coming off the previous 3 with the routine, casting, production momentum, etc...with maybe the exception of the modern cgi tech used for Smaug., but unfortunately due to the Tolkien estate's objections, it held these up 10 years or so,

[JustinB13]

The Hobbit movies are insanely underrated and are actually a ton of fun. They may not be better then Lord of the Rings, but they are easier to watch(the shorter runtimes help).

[L.J.]

I enjoy the films and like how stuff was added from Tolkien's rewright he was doing before passing away. In the end prefer the book, films think should have been done in two instead of three. That said tho am in the process of getting the extended cuts.

[aiman04]

The Lord of the Rings
Book: 1,008 pages
Movie: 12 hr 6 min

The Hobbit
Book: 310 pages
Movie: 10 hr 13 min

I know they added stuffs from The Appendices but they didn't have to. They're just trying to repeat The Lord of the Rings scale and business.

[pwarner184]

Eh, I'm not a massive fan of the film adaptations.
Saw them all a couple of times on initial release and each time I got the impression that it's a two-parter dragged out into three. Felt like there was so much stuff-for-the-sake-of-stuff added and scenes tediously drawn out just to pad out the runtimes. (Five Armies literally could've had three quarters of its plot cut and just bolted the rest onto Desolation imo)

[HAL237]

Tolkien’s original novel is an absolute joy; one of the most purely enjoyable fantasy novels ever.

I like Jackson’s movies for the most part, despite their flaws. They’re certainly overlong and bloated at times, but I love the characters and the performances, and Howard Shore’s scores are among the best of this decade.

[Xtempo]

I was surprised to see Orlando, Evangeline, Cate, Christopher and Hugo in it since I don't recall them in the book. I assume these were in the Appendices then? Honestly I enjoyed LOTR but I've never read it but since I read the Hobbit PJ made it seem bloated and unnecessary at times but I am glad I finally saw them at least. I am not sure if I want to watch the EE since that might make it more bloated imo

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Xtempo

I am not sure if I want to watch the EE since that might make it more bloated imo

The EEs are better, they tie into LOTR a bit more and the third's one EE is frankly the only way to watch that movie. (I do kinda prefer the theatrical cut of DoS because the pacing suits the movie better, but the EE has some good added material.) Then again, I'm the weirdo that prefers the EEs for Hobbit but theatrical cuts for LOTR.

[Moviefan2k4]

I haven't read any of Tolkien's books, but strictly on a film level, I prefer Lord of the Rings over The Hobbit. The latter trilogy feels like Bilbo's description of his condition to Gandalf in Fellowship of the Ring: "Thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread".

[Dbuck64]

I like the book The Hobbit more than Lord of the Rings, but the LOTR movies were mostly fantastic. The Hobbit movies were okay, but undercooked and overstretched. Should have been two movies but three sure ups the box office returns.
I don’t blame Jackson for any Hobbit flaws, he wasn’t really supposed to direct the Hobbit movies and ended up having to work with what was already there.
Someday I’ll rewatch them all with their extended glory and probably find them even better than I remember.

[SymbioticFunction]

I think the extended cuts of The Lord of the Rings are definitely superior to the theatrical cuts (and they feel necessary). But with The Hobbit films, I've only ever seen the theatrical versions. I haven't bothered checking out the extended cuts as having read the book, admittedly a very long time ago, it already seemed like the Hobbit trilogy was very pointlessly drawn out with a far longer running time than was necessary. Having to watch even longer versions of the Hobbit films seems like my worst nightmare - sometimes less is more.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Xtempo

I was surprised to see Orlando, Evangeline, Cate, Christopher and Hugo in it since I don't recall them in the book. I assume these were in the Appendices then?

Legolas was added because it made sense to do so. As the son of the book's Elvenking, he logically would have been in the Woodland Realm at the time of the story. You could say that the reason he wasn't in the book was because, as a character, he hadn't been invented yet.

Tauriel was purely an invention of the filmmakers. She doesn't appear anywhere in Tolkien's works.

As for the others: yes, the White Council and their involvement with Dol Guldur is covered in the LOTR appendices ( and also The Silmarillion ). The most we got in the Hobbit book was: "It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic; and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood."

[RalphoR]

Originally Posted by L.J.

I enjoy the films and like how stuff was added from Tolkien's rewright he was doing before passing away. In the end prefer the book, films think should have been done in two instead of three. That said tho am in the process of getting the extended cuts.

I agree about having two movies. There's not enough plot to stretch the book out to three movies. I still enjoyed them but the pacing is all out of whack because of this.

[frogmort]

I love The Hobbit book. It was my first real foray into reading books for pleasure instead of for school. I think a Legolas cameo would've been perfect, since the dwarves were 'guests' at his daddy Thranduil's house, but his extended stay, along with other additions were just too bloated and overbearing. Alfred could've not existed too.

I actually prefer the extended version of The Hobbit movies, but I think the book is exponentially better. While I also think that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the best thing since butter scrapped over too much bread, I feel like most of the changes made in that trilogy at least made logical sense to me, whereas The Hobbit movies felt much more commercial and less earned and superficially cheesy.

[Damon1281]

With the exception of The Godfather and Hannibal, the book is always better.

[Alister_M]

Most of the issues with the movies are due to production being incredibly rushed compared to LOTR. Especially the third one, which was basically half finished in the theatrical cut, the extended cut being what Jackson considers the definitive version by far. The first two aren't majorly improved by the extended cuts, but the third one is a rare case of the theatrical cut being entirely disposable.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Most of the issues with the movies are due to production being incredibly rushed compared to LOTR. Especially the third one, which was basically half finished in the theatrical cut, the extended cut being what Jackson considers the definitive version by far. The first two aren't majorly improved by the extended cuts, but the third one is a rare case of the theatrical cut being entirely disposable.

That's very interesting. I'll have a serious think about picking up the third film's extended cut.

Edit: Just ordered a copy.