blogs_blog_389

I disagree that LotR was more faithful to the books. You go chapter to chapter and you see that they cut a lot of stuff out, including favorite characters, sequences, ext. The second movie itself had the most changes; Sam and Frodo never went to Osgiliath, the elves didn't show up at Helms Deep, there was never technically a warg attack, ext. The problem was that there was just too much in the books to show in the movie.

 

Inversely, I think the Hobbit suffers the opposite problem; its hard to fill in one book (which itself was less detailed than LotR, IMO) into three movies, so they're adding in everything and then some. Some of it I like; they're giving more character to the dwarves for sure, and it's nice to see what Gandalf is up to.

 

Okay, not really a big issue, just thought I'd point it out. Lovely movie tho!

 

I personally loved the first act in Bagend, but hey that might just be me.

 

I've always enjoyed the Shire Theme the most as well so...

Everything, minus the whole Warg and burning trees scene, was awesome! The character development was so awesome!

 

It helps me see the world of LOTR in a better light and makes me smile everytime. And i'm so glad that it took three hours!

I disagree that LotR was more faithful to the books. You go chapter to chapter and you see that they cut a lot of stuff out, including favorite characters, sequences, ext. The second movie itself had the most changes; Sam and Frodo never went to Osgiliath, the elves didn't show up at Helms Deep, there was never technically a warg attack, ext. The problem was that there was just too much in the books to show in the movie.

 

Inversely, I think the Hobbit suffers the opposite problem; its hard to fill in one book (which itself was less detailed than LotR, IMO) into three movies, so they're adding in everything and then some. Some of it I like; they're giving more character to the dwarves for sure, and it's nice to see what Gandalf is up to.

 

Okay, not really a big issue, just thought I'd point it out. Lovely movie tho!

 

 

I'm glad you pointed this out, because you're right!

 

Taking it chapter by chapter and scene by scene, the LotR movies do differ quite extravagantly from the book. There's a lot that's missing, and a good deal that's been added. However, in my opinion, the changes that were made to the LotR movies helped make them more cohesive as a whole; after all, you can't simply take a book and translate it word-for-word onto the big screen. Things must be changed and adapted, otherwise, well, the movie will suck.

 

The LotR movies did this and did it well: they adapted Tolkien's story to the big screen. At the end of the day, however different they may be from the books, the movies still feel like they're telling Tolkien's story.

 

The Hobbit, on the other hand, doesn't feel quite as cohesive, in my opinion. So much as been added and changed (mostly to fit the trilogy format) that it doesn't feel like Tolkien's story anymore; it feels like Peter Jackson fan faction.

 

At the end of the day, the Hobbit is a great movie. My only disappointment is that it feels like they're rewriting the story to fit the big screen, while the LotR movies were adapted to fit the big screen. The changes in LotR don't feel quite so intrusive, and they assist in the telling of the original story. The changes made to the Hobbit, on the other hand, almost seem to make it a different story altogether.

 

Of course, all this is subjective. I grew up with the Hobbit, so I know it backwards and forwards and it's one of my favourite books. Of course I was going to be disappointed if they didn't adapt the movie exactly how I imagined it (which was never going to happen).