MovieChat Forums > The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Discussion > So ''cleaned up'' compared to the other ...

So ''cleaned up'' compared to the other series

posted 3 years ago by holly61 (989)
11 replies | jump to latest

The Hobbit films are so cleaned up and borderline family friendly in comparison to the Lord Of The Rings it's shocking. Honestly the Lord of the rings movies were frightening, violent and completely for adults but far, far superior.

These films are just in another category and the ''shock'' I have over it is how Jackson could get from the vision he had from his other film series to something like this. Why did he dial back to this extent? to completely lose his edge and make a film akin to a children's fantasy epic. Was this pressure imposed by the studio to resort to this?

reply

[–] bellington83 (3293) 3 years ago

The Hobbit is a childrens book!!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 3 years ago

I wish they'd embraced the children's fantasy aspects more. It would've been more in-keeping with the book and made for a jolly adventure film instead of this one-foot-in-each-lane business. These films had a lot of problems, and many (most?) of them stem from their lack of interest in being source-faithful to the original novel. Ironically, the Lord of the Rings films benefited from painstaking care devoted to adapting the book well.

reply

[–] bellington83 (3293) 3 years ago

"Ironically, the Lord of the Rings films benefited from painstaking care devoted to adapting the book well"

Except for 1 or 2 contentious omissions 😬😄😭

I always like to see your comments on topics about The Hobbit/ LOTR. You answer in a way I think but can never put into a coherent explanation.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 3 years ago

There are differences, of course; surprise, surprise, those are often the parts I like less (Faramir!), although if I had an infinite budget and total creative control, I'd still probably have cut Tom Bombadil.

Thank you; that's a high complement indeed!

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

agreed look how long it was (the extended cut) are 3hrs 20 minutes. we going to add in Tom and his lady and the wights. thats going to be a 3hr 40 minute film. I mean im all for it they could have an extended extended 5 hour cut im down but not everyone else is

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 3 years ago

A lot of it is about consistent tone, for me. It's not just that Tom Bombadil would add a half hour (ish) to the runtime, it's more that his song-and-dance would take us out of the Ringwraith chase and the flight to Rivendell. It might work in a TV show because the viewers could be properly moved into and out of the interlude with Bombadil, but in a film, it's got to be more focused.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

oh for sure. plus we kinda got out hopeful joyous introduction in the shire. then get another respite in the elven lands, before shit really hits the fan. having a third in there is kinda pointless

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 3 years ago

Excellent point. It's too many lulls in action without direct story advancement. Rivendell has the Council of Elrond which is necessary for exposition and forward momentum (great scene!) and Lothlorien is needed or else we'd have no time to mourn Gandalf's loss.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

The Lord of the Rings is definitely NOT for children. Not all wizards are of the happy Harry Potter ilk.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

to be fair I found they perfectly aged with their audience (if you read them as a child)

book 1 had little danger and a scary troll and vampire Voldemort but thats it

book two had kids almost die but no one did

book 3 had people die but then saved

ect ect. it just gets progressively darker and darker each book

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 3 years ago

The films? Yeah, LOTR isn't a kids' movie. The books go younger, although there is some scary stuff, so it would depend on the exact age and the particular kid's temperament (and attention span).

reply