Hobbit vs. LOTR

So, simple question this time.

Hobbit film vs. FOTR film

Hobbit book vs. LOTR books.

Fire away! Looking forward to seeing people's opinions on this.

Cowley 121 wrote:Hobbit film vs. FOTR film

Kind of like choosing between a kick in the crotch and a kick in the arse, but my vote is for the latter.

Hobbit book vs. LOTR books.

I chose TH as my favorite book in the other thread, but that's for nostalgic purposes; LotR is the better book.

it's like asking a parent to choose between their kids.

Then do it!

Cowley 121 wrote:Hobbit film vs. FOTR film

Can I please watch something else?

Cowley 121 wrote:Hobbit book vs. LOTR books.

Hobbit.

Cowley 121 wrote:Then do it!

u obviously don't have kids.

FotR is my favourite book - it has the shire, Three's Company, the Old Forest, Bombadil, Bree, the Council of Elrond, Lorien - I love all those parts, and I'm very grateful that I have the opportunity to read them both in English and Fjordian (New Fjordian, that is - don't care much for that Danish crap ). They're both exceptionally well written, and for a language geek like me they're as good as it gets The Hobbit is a wonderful tale of adventure that I've loved since the day I read the first page for the first time, but the LotR trilogy is my favourite because of it's language and epicness (in lack of a better word ). It is a hard choice, though, and I like Norc's description of it - I almost feel bad just for writing that one of them is my favourite

As to the films, FotR wins again, with RotK a close second and TT third. The Hobbit film barely deserves being compared to them

I've got two daughters actually! But I understand if you don't want to answer the question.

bungobaggins wrote:

Cowley 121 wrote:Hobbit film vs. FOTR film

Can I please watch something else?

  

a book, it's like a movie inside you head! it's magic!

The worlds most powerful graphics chip is the mind.

I would say it would be difficult to make a comparison between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings as books based on quality. Because all the while they might be based in the same world, they are simply so different.

One is a 1000+ page romantic epic the other is 300+ page childrens novel.

So while one might seperate them on enjoyment, I think any judgment on a differentiating quality would be rather useless.

Though actually, come to think of it, I'm not really sure which one I enjoy more either.  

Are we shitting on the LOTR films again in this thread?

 

Eldorion wrote:Are we shitting on the LOTR films again in this thread?

again? again? you guys are always shitting on the LOTR films!

Norc wrote:

Eldorion wrote:Are we shitting on the LOTR films again in this thread?

again? again? you guys are always shitting on the LOTR films!

 

I have to say on behalf of the "Lord of the Rings" films that they were decent, yes even good, movies. It's the kind of movies they were made into and the way that they were adapted from the books I have trouble with.

The Hobbit movies of course are a completely different matter.

that they were decent, yes even good, movies. - Bluebottle

If you dont mind atrocious dialogue, poor characterisations, no logic to the geography and distances between places and events, huge inconsistencies like appearing disappearing elven armies, characters whose motivations make no sense, impossible physical acts, clichéd plotting devices (Faramir changes/Frodo sending Sam away, Frodo in a literal cliffhanger), a climatic final battle with no tension, peril, or sense of a chance of defeat thanks to the arrival of an invincible army of dead on a killing spree, and an ending that makes absolutely no sense in the context of what has just gone before it, then yeah, decent, if you say so. I might not however.

Well. You've heard my argument before, Petty.  

I guess my point would be; couldn't all of those faults be picked with the latest "Avengers" movie or wathever the latest blockbuster is as well.

Still, I agree. An adaptation of Tolkiens work should strive to do better.

couldn't all of those faults be picked with the latest "Avengers" movie - Blue

Yes, I thought it was unwatchable shit too.

Yeah, that kind of hits at my point.

Some of the faults of the movies are foibles of the modern blockbuster genre. Part of Jacksons mistake were making them in to those kinds of movies.

To quote Christopher Tolkien again; They made the books into "action movies for young people aged 15 to 25."

My point is that they as their genre of movies, which tends to be rather "crap" in parts, I agree, were quite decent movies in that genre.

All the while being bad adaptations of Tolkiens books, and maybe even eviscerations of his work as Christpher Tolkien might say.

Part of Jacksons mistake were making them in to those kinds of movies- Blue

I could not agree more. Its the wrong format entirely in my view unless you make more than 3 films, probably 6 would be best, film is not a suitable medium at all for it.
TV is better suited overall I feel.

Making LotR's in the form of a modern cinema blockbuster is simple trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

I actually liked Avengers, (one of the two Marvel movies I've truly enjoyed) and don't find that it has the same number of flaws as PJ's ME movies—or that the flaws aren't as noticeable.

Also, I don't care about the Avengers nearly as much as I do Tolkien's works (and Avengers isn't based on a definitive work, but rather a disparate collection of works by different authors). If I didn't know Tolkien's books, I don't know how I'd feel about the movies, though I expect the flaws would become apparent eventually.