Why?

Why?

Effort and cost

wolves/ wargs is the only one that bothers me. The ogre and goblins differences could just be chalked up to differences between individuals within the species/ race

Oh good a lotr thread. I have a question that's sort of off topic, but would an elven blade glow from the presence of any evil, or just orcs? Would Fingolfin's blade glow during his battle with Morgoth, for example?

shouldn't we be more upset by the rather drastic story changes, dialogue changes, tone changes, and omissions

studio trying to avoid being too scary. a lot of parents said LOTR was too much for kids

I was so dissapointed about this shit. I really liked the goblin culture in Fellowship of the Ring, so I was very excited to see more of the goblins in Hobbit.
But then it turned out that they went with a totally new style and design that didn't fit at all into the original triology

its depends on the craftsmen

Orthanc which was retained by Dain under the Lonely Mountain was said to glow from any danger approaching the mountain (which could have easily been a narrative license)

wargs looked objectively superior in the hobbit

The problem is that the style is compltely different.
The Hobbit monsters look like out of a fairy tale

(OP)
>implying all goblins, trolls and wargs should look the same

thats racist user

Practical effects vs CGI

From the quality of animation, sure. Technology marches on, after all.
But I would argue that the design of LOTR wargs is much better

I'm asking only because I'm doing a painting of the duel currently and would like to be accurate given what little guidelines there are to go off already. But if it's unclear then maybe I should just make it glow to have better lighting

I like the hyena look over the wolf look personally.

>Differences between mountain trolls and cave trolls

>Difference between Moria golbins and Northern Misty mountains goblins

>Difference between Gundabad Wargs and Isengard Wargs

This really isnt rocket science guys.

wargs are literally supposed to be wolves

You may not have noticed, but the books have a remarkably different tone as well....

Yes, but lets be honest, Hobbit was marketed as LOTR prequel, not as a stand alone fairy tale movie

>oh shit we gotta start filming now
>we have no practical effects assembled because we threw out everything del taco did
>we can throw up a greenscreen, film, and have CG artists adding stuff in at the same time we're working on other scenes
It's that simple. Practicals require more preproduction time because you CANNOT film a scene unless all the effects are ready. And the Hobbit movies did not have enough prepro time.

Nigger, why would they be different? This isn't like a separation of continents influencing evolution.

So they just didn't give a fuck about attention to details? That was what made LOTR so great

>triology
I fucking hate faggots who say this. you're probably a German speaker, which makes me hate you even more

...

they look generic as fuck

>le evil angry doggo

...

vs

...

...

God this looked so terrible how did they get away with it ?

...

What game?

The hobbit troll is actually way better. Both versions of the warg are shit.

...

>enemy charging a phalanx
>instead of letting them impale themselves, have dumbass elves jump out in front
This will never not rustle my jimmies.

what is the image trying to say?
that the hobbit was better animated compared to lotr?

>Lets jump to our immediate deaths!

>le evil angry doggo
That's basically what a warg is though

What the fuck is Smaug even doing here?

It's like he's having an autistic fit.

...

Does Tolkien ever describe these differences or is it just Jackson being a hack?

Yes, and they decided to go a more creative route and make kickass dire hyenas.

I see it as the Hobbit being an inherently more whimsical, cartoony and cheerful story than the epic that is Lord of the Rings. It is appropriate. Then again, the Hobbit adaptions are not that great and touches Sauron too much.

...

I get the feeling that compression makes this one look a lot worse than it should

Wargs were actually a slight improvement in Hobbit desu. Actually resembled wolves instead of a weird fuckin bear/cat thing.

oh oh no no no no uuuuuhhhh...

There's a difference between wild trolls and Sauron's Olog-hai that he bred to withstand sunlight.

The LOTR wargs look like giant pugs with pubes glued on. The Hobbit version looks shitty in its own right too. Jackson should have made them look a lot more like wolves

Yeah, he specifically mentions that the Hobbit varieties look like obvious CGI shit.

>Glowing swords
>That you won't see because they are in a scabbard most of the time, so you wont see it glowing at all.
>It also glows so that Goblins find you faster!

>implying LOTR trolls don't look like obvious CGI shit
Come on now, user.

Is the hobbit worth watching? Theatrical vs. director (did they even do a directors cut)?

Condensed fan edit of all 3 in a 3 hour runtime?

I never read the book but I'm fairly certain it's a a short read, I've got no idea how they got like 10 hours of material out of it.

I can't remember this in the book...

It's all shit. Don't bother

I will never understand how this shit was allowed in the film or why this scene was even written.

No the movies suck. Book is a short but fun read.

The final film covers like 10 fucking pages of the book.

holy fuck that hobbit wolf looks like its from the hobbit video game for the gamecube

They included material from other books/extras including, I think, material that Tolkien never finished.

Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2002 and the CGI looked great back then. Back in those days people hadn't even seen enough effects of that kind to instantly recognize them as fake, their brains were too busy being blown away.

The fact that the Hobbit which came out more than a decade later looks strictly worse is fucking inexplicable.

the only differences Tolkien really specifies are Uruks being the largest orks, Uruk-hai being specifically half orc half men from Isengard and the only type of trolls he outlines are hill trolls (there's no cave troll in Moria or mention of one) and the troll chieftains (Olog-Hai). Tolkien's Goblins aren't twisted mutants with shit weapons, they are fairly big and well armoured. Wargs are literally giant wolves, and if you didn't realise Isengard's wargs are from the misty mountains along with retinues of goblins.

I think the main problem with the trolls and goblins for The Hobbit is that they had to humanize them whereas they were more or less just dumb monsters in LotR. Can you imagine the cave troll from Fellowship being Tom, Bert, and William?

Tolkien's goblins are just orcs. Also Olog-Hai are mentioned in the appendices.

I understand the Trolls but there was no reason to humanize the goblins.

apparently the goblins and trolls were del toro concepts which makes sense. shame the fat fuck couldn't get his act together.

>there's no cave troll in Moria or mention of one
Incorrect

>back out because of laziness
>Jackson takes all the blame and basically ruined his legacy

why isn't Del Toro blacklisted?

Jackson fucked up as much as Del Toro. There's only so much blame you can place on pre-production.

>wyvern smaug with the voice of a sissy fag
>also that 20 minute scene with him and the dwarf to just make that shitty golden statue

I dunno fan
making up a trilogy as you're filmming it is pretty hard desu
the movies aren't absolutely terrible too like the prequels, like the first two chapters in the movie version are great except for thorin being an asshole all the time in the movie

>making up a trilogy as you're filmming it
>trilogy
There's your problem

Hobbit wargs are much better looking.

how the orcs of gundabag had better armor than orcs from mordor?

They look way too angular, making them cartoony.

it was the studio fault not his desu

implying anything evolved in middle earth and wasnt literally creationismed at varying degrees

I thought that actually fit the aesthetic of the film desu.

Evolution isn't a thing in LOTR you mong.

Hobbits are just men that evolved to be short, tolkien described goblins as orcs that evolved to live in caves and became smaller and more bow-legged.

>So they just didn't give a fuck about attention to details?
Jackson didn't have the time. The studio still wanted things to run according to the schedule Del Toro had set up, but Jackson had to start completely fresh. When he made LOTR, he had a massive amount of pre-production time and tricked New Line into giving him more shooting time by lying about how many reshoots would be required. Those movies were essentially in production for 5 or six years straight, with half of that before Fellowship was even released.

didn't hobbits evolve from manlets?

Tolkien never specifies their genealogical roots

>So they just didn't give a fuck about attention to details?
The studio didn't. Once Jackson came on board he asked for more time to plan everything out but the studio said fuck you, and we got what we got.

Jackson's production team was on a tight budget, so they decided using CGI was a cheaper and inexpensive option to produce the film.

Motherfucker, that was the point I was making. Why would their location affect their physiology?

...

Well, an Olog-Hai is literally a different kind of troll.

The difference in Trolls ain't even bother me because they are of different races.

Wrong, he said they were probably a smaller race of men.

It's just a stronger sub-specie, like uruk from basics orcs.

That's not specific genealogy

I'm pretty confident that a phalanx of dwarves could destroy an army of orcs.

>implying a universe where entire races were created with magic needs evolution to influence regional differences within like species.

I don't remember it looking this bad on the bluray.

>implying Tolkien Elve's pride would allow them to take back seat to those greedy meddling dwarves.

Tactically, it's fucking retarded to leap ahead of your shield wall. Lore-wise though, it makes some sense.

Disgusting. It's like the director had never played a Total War title in his life.

2spooky4kids
even the book was for kids. LOTR was supposed to be the mature version.

Riddles in the dark definitely should've been a lot spookier though.

>I never read the book but I'm fairly certain it's a a short read, I've got no idea how they got like 10 hours of material out of it.
It is, should only take a day or so to finish. If you're interested in LotR or just ME in general you really owe it to yourself to read the books before watching the movies. They really are incomparable in terms of scope and quality.