Would the Peter Jackson movies have worked better if he did 5 LOTR films and 2 Hobbit?

Would the Peter Jackson movies have worked better if he did 5 LOTR films and 2 Hobbit?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6o452z76tKQ
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUu1DA5HCs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What? What was missing from LotR?

>inb4 tom bombadildo

I'd keep the the LOTR trilogy, but I'd make the hobbit movies two parts.

>inb4 tom bombadildo

He was the only thing that really kinda needed to be omitted. As nice as his chapters are, they're kinda superfluous to the overall story.

As for what was missing? Kinda alot. But in many cases if was understandable for them to be left out (like for instacde them having consolidated Eomer and Grimbold's role). Though it'd have been nice for them to be included. Like the trees clearing out the routed Orcs from Helm's Deep, or Imrahil having a larger role than just when he was there to see Denethor think Faramir was dead. And also all the songs and Bilbo's birthday party in all it's glory.

movies that could be made in modern hollywood

I liked the 3 LotR movies, but the Hobbit should have been one movie, and kept much more faithful to the book. Also, they should have used Glenn Yarbrough's songs.

The only glaring omission imo was there being no Prince Imrahil and he Swan Knights. All the cities of Gondor only sending a handful of men to aid Minas Tirith really built up the dread and feeling that Gondor was about to get rekt by Mordor.

Ghan Buri Ghan and the Woses and Aragorn's Rangers would have added a little more to Pelennor Fields then the Ghost Army Deus Ex Machina.

Seeing an army of Captain Caveman looking fuckers beating the shit out of Orcs would be rad as hell.

>I liked the 3 LotR movies, but the Hobbit should have been one movie, and kept much more faithful to the book.

Even if they had, it'd still take more than one movie, I'm afraid.

> they should have used Glenn Yarbrough's songs.

Technically, they're Tolkien's. Practically every song used in the 77 animated movie that was sung by Yarbrough (and the ones he didn't) were sourced from the book.

And yeah, I'd have liked more of the songs to been featured. But as it stands, I'm content with 'That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates' made it in. Even if the verses were switched around a bit.

>The only glaring omission imo was there being no Prince Imrahil

He was in the movie, user. He just didn't do anything.

Extended Cut has the Goblin Town song

youtube.com/watch?v=6o452z76tKQ

No, I mean they should have used the tune from the 1977 version. I know the lyrics came right from Tolkien, but I prefer the melody of the animated songs.

Ah, then I just disagree. That'd been TOO too lazy on their part. I mean yeah, I like those renditions of those songs. I still sing them to myself when I'm alone. But yeah, no. It's better if they did it their own way.

I will say that they should have done the Misty Mountains song scene how Rankin Bass did: Have the Dwarfs telling the story of Erebor's fall versus the Bilbo narrated prologue we got.

I think part of it is nostalgia for the feel of the 77 version and the book. I wish they kept the lighter tone, rather than trying to be a huge epic with way too many side plots.

I thought 3 lord of the rings movies were appropriate.

Jackson even added nonsense in Osgiliath to make the Two Towers longer, which really annoyed me personally.

However I think a majority of the main story was told well in 3 movies. I don't see how adding 2 more movies would add anything.

I haven't read the Hobbit, all I know is I was bored to tears in the theater watching it.

The Hobbit was a lighter, funnier story. Much more of a children's book. Big contrast compared to Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was even planning on redoing the whole thing to feel more like Rings and got as far as redoing Gollum's chapter for continuity purposes, but friends told him it just wouldn't be The Hobbit anymore.

I support this post.

>I haven't read the Hobbit, all I know is I was bored to tears in the theater watching it.

The Hobbit novel is shorter than 1/3 of LOTR, and it moves FAST from scene to scene. Like the Battle of the Five armies is what, two pages long? Jackson added so much filler to pad it out to three movies.

This.

I get that people like Tom Bombadil but he had to go and anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand how pacing works.

They'd already been in the shire for half an hour it was time to start the journey not crash at some dudes house for the night.

It's interesting actually seeing how well LOTR was adapted for the big screen vs how bad The Hobbit was.

they actually did the ending BETTER then the book. it was pretty fucking terrible, but it happens exactly as described. they come out like a wave and just wash over everything.

>I wish they kept the lighter tone, rather than trying to be a huge epic with way too many side plots.

That's understandable. But it's also understandable that they wanted to set things up for the events in LoTR. Even though, if I remember the appendix correctly, the stuff like what happened at Dol-Guldur happened like a couple decades before the events of The Hobbit. And overall, I thought the films had a lighter tone than LoTR.

The Hobbit is really great adventure story. A children's book but still just as magical as lord of the rings. The Hobbit movies flanderized the dwarves a lot. It was really jarring going from the dwarves we see in lord of the rings to a bunch of fucking stooges that are in the hobbit movie

Yeah. Personally I never truly appreciated how much the movie needed to be in 2 parts until I saw how badly it worked as 3. Kind of a goldilocks deal.

That said I think the movie COULD have worked as a single 2 1/2- 3 hour film had they approached it in a totally differently way and presented it as a CGI movie ala Tintin and made it a lot more light hearted.

The big problems came with trying to make it LOTR episode 0 when the two stories are so completely different in tone.

I'll read the Hobbit eventually. I read Lord of the Rings earlier this year and really enjoyed it, just have to find time. I'm reading le epic GRRM's ASOIAF right now because I'm a pleb. Maybe when I'm done with that I'll read the Hobbit.

>It was really jarring going from the dwarves we see in lord of the rings to a bunch of fucking stooges that are in the hobbit movie

To be fair, they were even bigger stooges in the book. In the movies they at least made some of them out to appear to be competent warriors.

Reminder that Tom Bombadil is the reader

Assuming you're not borderline illiterate or have a reading disability you can actually read The Hobbit in less time than it takes to watch the movies, that should have been a red flag for how much fucking filler was in it.

Read it. And afterwards, read The Witcher series for extra mainstream fantasy shill.

>tfw western civilization is collapsing around us
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUu1DA5HCs

I guess I don't remember much since it's been a while. I know Bomber was the fatass and all that but I thought for the most part they were all pretty competent.

I guess I meant more the way they were portrayed. Like dwarf the costumes just looked bad

When they remake this I want them to make like a 30 hour long movie. I want it to be exactly like in the books, and I'd be willing to pay over $100 for the dvd to see it to make up for the casuals who don't like more content.

>I thought for the most part they were all pretty competent.

Not really. If I recall; they don't actually put up a fight with the Trolls, their flight from the goblin tunnels had little or no combat, they didn't fight against the goblins and the wargs before being bailed out by the eagles, any bloodshed of the spiders in Mirkwood was by Bilbo's hand and they really don't see combat till the Battle of Five Armies.

I was always under the impression that The Hobbit was for children so it would make sense for the movie to be more adventurous and fun as well. Of course its not even in the same league as LOTR, but I don't know why everyone bashed The Hobbit movie so badly for not being like lotr.

Why not just read the book, and enjoy the movies for what they are?

You don't need every single thing adapted. That's why work is adapted, so you can appreciate the original for all its worth.

I don't think that's why people bashed it.

I think the second and third movies, less so the first one, were at war with themselves in terms of the tone they had. It was all so jarring. Webm related comes literally a scene after a big charge in which thousands of people are killed. You just don't do that. It's bad filmmaking. Lord of the Rings sometimes had this problem as well, again moreso in The Two Towers and Return of the King than Fellowship, but it was never as bad as it is in the Hobbit.

The first Hobbit actually did this pretty well. Apart from the Goblin Town chase sequence, which is just a complete farce, there's a pretty spot-on mesh of drama and comedy in An Unexpected Journey. It allows the use of some comedy when it's tonally right for there to be a comedic moment or two (Troll fight, Riddles in the Dark) and leaves it out when did doesn't (Azanulbizar flashback, fight with the wargs at the end). Whether it worked for someone on a personal level is a whole other thing entirely, but cinematically it fits. That's something the filmmakers seem to have lost perspective on when putting the second and third movies together.

Try telling this to fans of the Berserk manga.

They literally took a shit on the manga though like with the Hobbit.