This was the studio's fault, not Jacksons.

Lord of the Rings: Written as 6 books, but published as 3 WB: Let's just make 1 movie for each book🤷‍♂️ The Hobbit: 1 book. Period. WB: Well, our Lord of the Rings trilogy was a huge success, so lets get as much money as we can by turning The Hobbit into a trilogy as well, and use as much CGI as possible so we can save money that practical effects would cost and get that 3-D movie money🤑

Should look into the production. Peter jackson even said how miserable the film companies were making it on the writers.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan I love all of his books read every single one. I understand a lot of peoples perspective on why they don't enjoy the Trilogy but I can honest I really enjoy them I can watch them anytime however I love the book way more sometimes I do wish it was more true to the book but with what we got I can enjoy it.

I recently read the Hobbit, and I thought it was amazing! I also watched the movies and the main problem I have with them is that they are overstreched... I agree it should've been a 3 hour long epic movie and not a trilogy But still, the movies are a solid watch! I liked them, even with all their flaws! I like the book a bit more, but I respect the movies and the effort put into them!

This review is 100% accurate lmao

I disagree on them making it one movie. There was enough for 2, 3 hours movies, just not 3. LotR could've been 5-6 movies in it's content, but if it followed hobbit standards, it would be 9, 3 hour movies which would be nuts.

I remember watching these movies after rewatching the LOTR movies and going "that's a lot of CGI" as opposed to "this is such a great story". It was nuts!

Just finished reading the hobbit for the 1st time. And damn the movie way different than the book Lol

I just read the book for the first time and was very surprised by how different it is from the movies. I enjoyed watching the movies, but now that I have read the book I don’t think I can go back.

That intro is Amazing!! Lol I love it!

I think the reason why Peter Jackson didn't use practical effects in the hobbit was because he didn't want to go through that filming trouble. I heard they had a hard time filming the lord of the rings trilogy.

I liked unexpected journey but both films 2 and 3 got too goofy Some scenes felt like a disney land ride :/ was sad cuz I read the book and had a lot of great memories reading it when i was younger

2 years ago was the first time I watched something that has to do with middle earth. I started with the hobbit and I said it was a good trilogy 8/10. Then some thing personal happened and I didnt get to lotr. A year later, I was asked to do a school project about a book, analyze everything about it. It had to be 300 pages no less. My group were a bunch of dumb dorks so I just told them to watch the movies so they some what understand and I read the book, the Hobbit. I read it. It was fantastic. I realized whats up with the movies and decided I will watch them with my group. We all watched the movies and I was confused to why there was so many unnecessary filler plots there. I gave my project to our english teacher. He was a fan of The Lord of The Rings. He asked me, why the hobbit? I explained to him that I didn't start Lotr yet and he convinced me to watch it. I watched it, something personal happened late 2019 and now I am finally reading lotr. I still love the hobbit but I now know there is something better.

To be fair it tried to be faithful but turning them into three films was a dumb but we can agree most of the cast were fantastic

I prefer the Hobbit Animated TV Special by Rankin Bass over the movies. It was the closet to perfectly adapting the books- which thanks to this, got me reading the original book & trilogy!

I actually loved the addition of the plot with the Witch King of Angmar. For the regular reader it is not clear where Gandalf was, when he left the company, not unles you read the Unfinished Tales. And it was (mostly) done right in my opinion.

This is the wrong approach when criticizing the Hobbit movies. You can't compare them to the book as literal translations. They are an adaptation. The Hobbit movies aren't perfect, but in all due honesty, the book they are based on doesn't do them any favors. The book is a simplistic fairy tale of an almost farsical nature, with episodic adventures of different scale that aren't properly built up or structured with solid cause and effect. There is a difference in tone between the Hobbit and LOTR, which is acceptable in book format, but doesn't translate well when you build a cinematic universe with a visual and thematic identity. Tolkien died before revising it in accordance to LOTR, which was something he already did after the 1st edition and wanted to do again. In turn, the Hobbit movies not only fill in some major gaps that the book had, they also juice the story up to the level of Lord of the Rings. Which is a pretty high standard to aim for. There would be a thematic dissonance if they did otherwise. The inclusion of material from the appendices was a great idea, and much needed solution to tie it to LOTR, and most story changes concerning Gandalf having trouble in Dol Guldur (for the sake of stakes) and Bard's more fleshed out role (it would make no sense for him to be introduced just to kill the dragon - again, lack of build up and stakes) were much needed. If this is the prequel to LOTR, then it needed to produce the necessary gravitas to be carried into LOTR. I would have only cut some of the longer fights, the excessive use of CGI, the unnecessary long and inconsequential fight between the Dwarves and Smaug, every single scene with Alfrid and most of Legolas's fight scenes (especially the one where he steps on falling rocks). Otherwise, it's a pretty damn good adaptation that even improves upon some aspects of the book.

amazing content Adam Wright. I killed the thumbs up on your video. Continue to keep up the brilliant work.

I really love the format of your videos and I'd be curious to get your review on another take on The Hobbit trilogy. I've spent the past 8 years meticulously editing the trilogy down to a single film with the specific intention of keeping the film as close to J. R. R. Tolkien's original novel. Is there any way I might be able to contact you with regards to you potentially reviewing this fan edit on your channel some time?

Hate to say it but the RankinBass Hobbit film did the entire novel in one short film with a few minor exceptions allotted for the films time frame regardless it is still true to the book in many respects. John Houston who voiced Gandalf really doesn't get the credit he deserves in particular his narration

This channel is a really good idea

They were... okay. I think too much hate is given to them because of how great LOTR was. I believe the Hobbit should’ve been two movies. I think the problem with adapting the Hobbit in the 1st place is that it is a kid’s book. Even Tolkien himself said the Hobbit was more of an age of innocence book while the lord of the Rings was more of teen to adult story. I feel Jackson had to make the LOTR connection, and had to make a Sauron connection. Also keep in mind that while the Hobbit is a shorter book, it’s a far longer adventure in a linear story. Yes the Fellowship was a linear story but really you could knock it down to The Shire, Rivendell, Moria, and Lorien and not look choppy because they are basically hitting the Misty Mountains and starting part 2. The Hobbit goes over the Misty Mountains and way further than that. In the Hobbit there is substantial time given to Hobbiton, Rivendell, the Goblin Cave, Beorn’s House, Mirkwood, the Woodelves Kingdom, Lake Town, Smaug’s lair, and the Battle of the 5 Armies. Tolkien got away with it because the Hobbit feels episodic, and transitions aren’t needed as much. But in a major movie it doesn’t work. I think if it was done as one then it would’ve been worse than what we got. So 2 would’ve been the better option. But still at 3 I don’t think they are on par with how bad the Star Wars prequels and sequels that many like to compare them to.

I will not argue with most of the points, but one that some people mentions, and this video does, is just misinformed: The Gandalf side plot. True that is not in the book of The Hobbit, but... In the book he also leaves the group right in front of Mirkwood, and the reason is not explained, but there is a reason. In other books and appendices Tolkien explain that he left the group to face the Necromancer. Did Peter Jackson engorged that part? Yes, indeed, but to get to the same point as the books, which was to investigate the Necromancer, why Greenwood turned into Mirkwood and discover his identity. If you consider the movies of The Hobbit as a prequel to Lord of the Rings is a very important plot to tell.

I came to the book quite late and hadn't seen the movies either. I asked my husband on multiple occasions "so you're sure there was just one book??". They could have maybe done 2 movies. Maybe. But 3??

I really liked the the video I was wondering about watch or read the hobbit but now im gonna read the novel Thanks❤

Now I did Re Watch both An Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug and I thought the Movies were at Least Good. Not better than Lord of the Rings but I thought it was Decent.

still haven't read the book. i watched all the hobbit movies and didn't mind it. i enjoyed it a lot but there were a lot of silly and goofy stuff that just made me roll my eyes. i've never been a reader so still ahven't gotten around to reading hobbit or LOTR even tho LOTR is still my favorite movie/s i've ever watched. and i've see n a lot.

Just re-read the book to my 8 year old daughter and we absolutely loved it. Subsequently re-watched the movies and honestly they are much better than I remember! I have no problem with them fleshing out the wizards confronting the necromancer- in fact I think these scenes are great. No problem with them embellishing the story. Even the only REALLY bad CGI thing is Legolas running up the breaking bridge. Not as good as LOTR movies but still pretty great IMHO. :)

I find the first Hobbit movie excellent honestly, it was definitely the closest to the book, and it was a solid film. Desolation of Smaug wasn’t as great, however I found that when it stuck to the book, it was excellent Battle of Five armies is where things really fell apart. Adapting a five page battle into a 3 hour movie was the worst thing they could have done. I sincerely think two 3 hour movies (which was the original plan) would have done the book perfect justice, especially if they both ended up like An Unexpected Journey

I feel like they made radigast so important because they wanted to add to the tension since most people watching these movies have seen TLOTR they already know what's coming and what happenes so they add some setup scenes that were only alluded to in the book. Same with the necromancer fight with Gandalf. I actually quite like this because it flashed out events we were only told about but didnt see/read ourselves. I honestly like the Hobbit movies for what they are despite my initial dissatisfaction with them. I just asked myself would I rather them not have been made and my answer is always no.

I've not read any of these books and have only seen parts of the movies. To be completely honest I don't know the difference between lothr and the hobbit. Yes I know I'm going to have that goblin character saying "my precious" in my ear all night, oh well. But I do remember seeing when I was a kid what seemed like all of these stories combined into an animated film on TV and loved it. That was back in the 80's ,I think, and have not heard or seen anything of them since!? Had all the same characters and stories, everything, I just don't know if it was called the hobbit ,the lord of the rings or what. It was however the greatest cartoon I've ever seen. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you sir ,I've subscribed to your channel because I enjoy reading and hearing your intelligent comparisons. Keep it up!

I am 32 years old and I have been a huge fan of Tolkien's work since I was a little kid. I grew up watching the animated versions of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Return of the King. I went to go see Peter Jackson's LOTR films on the day of release and I loved the hell out of them. I loved them even more when the extended editions came out and those are now the only ones I will ever watch. I read The Lord of the Rings books when I was a young teenager and I think they were a little above my reading level at the time, but I still enjoyed them thoroughly. Personally, I absolutely loved Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies just as much as his LOTR films. The CGI didn't really bother me and I thought they nicely tied the movie trilogies together in a very enjoyable way. As of yet I have not read The Hobbit or any other of Tolkien's work. I just recently picked up a copy of the 75th anniversary edition of The Hobbit and I am going to start reading it within the next few days. I actually do not understand why so many people have an issue with the one book getting turned into three movies, because based on the length of The Hobbit and the average person's reading speed, it would take about the same amount of time to read the book as it would to watch all three movies back to back. I'm hoping to enjoy reading the book and hopefully it will not give me a retroactive bad opinion of any of the movies.

I was really confused hearing people hated The Hobbit movies, as I remembered being fond of them. However, as soon as you mentioned the Tauriel/Kili thing and some other parts that were added I realized I had somehow completely erased those from my brain. Selective memory for the win I guess?

Amazing video

I agree to 100% on what you say. I read the book before the first movie was released. When I watched it in the cinema, I was disappointed to the point that i refused to watch the two following movies. Now, years later, I continued and finished watching the triology and realized that the first movie had still been the best of them all. Parts 2 and 3 are just crap due to the unnecessary added content and the non-realistic feeling the convey.

Yeah hollywood always has to add extra to the original. Very good video you explain it very well.

i watched the first hobbit movie and half of the second one and then gave up,this review is spot on !

Thanks for the honesty about getting old and "literature" feels tapid.

I agree. I also was cautiously optimistic about the first film, BUT with all the run time of all the movies, they shortchanged Spiders and Flies. That was always my fav part. Plus, it's the key moment when Bilbo becomes a hero.

The animated hobbit movie is personally my favorite adaptation. The problem with it is the opposite of the trilogy. It's too short. They entirely skip beorn and most of the walk in mirkwood

I agree with all of this, except it kind of makes sense for Legolas to be in this at that time. He *is* from the Woodland Realm after all, and the "Elf King" (who was, in The Fellowship of the Ring, later revealed to be "Thranduil") is Legolas' father. Also, Gloin briefly comments on how Legolas was "less tender to [him]" when he and the rest of Thorin's company (all except Bilbo) were imprisoned by Thranduil, but I admit that he may have just been referring to his people rather than Legolas personally. It could work either way, I think. But despite all of that, they still somehow managed to make Legolas' appearance feel forced in that movie. I honestly think that they were trying to appease the LOTR fanbase by having as many returning characters/actors and references/easter eggs as possible. It sort of just stops it from feeling like its own separate adventure.

UPDATE: I actually Finished the Lord of the Rings Trilogy plus the Hobbit. They were pretty good Books, while yes I still thought the Hobbit Movies were Decent (Still not Topping the Lord of the Rings Movies), The Hobbit Book as well as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was way better than the Movies.

I remember when I was 4 or 5 I incidently mistakened the hobbit animation for a kids movie... I had nightmares for my age of smeagol. But man I caN remember how simple life was then.

I actually hated Smaug in the films. For some reason they decided made him a wyvern instead of a dragon.

I have seen the movies back in 2017-19 ish before Reading the book. I read the book somewhere before easter for the first time (IT was a school project where We made reviews of book we choosed). After rewatching the movies in the begining of summer and I could see a LOT of issues. I do like the fact that They tried to tie in some thing with the Lord Of The Rings, I'll give them credit for that. IT was nice to see Bard to have more screen time in the films where as in the book he only appears in the last 4 chapters. But I think the book would've been better adapted into either one massive movie or a TV series. What do you guys think?

So I had never read the books, I had only watched the movies. 3 days ago I started reading the Hobbit and was surprised on how much better the book really is, I fell in love with it. So I am now going to read Lotr, let's see the difference

After watching rings of power the hobbit Trilogy seems way better

0:04 I love Jackson's nonchalant look Lol. :D

I recently watched the Hobbit movies and thought they were great fun, it wasn't like Game of Thrones where the writers ruined it, it was still good movie, even if a lot of events did not happen in books. If our minds were wiped and Hobbit book did not exist people would like this movie a lot more. I mean the Hobbit is still one of the best fantasy adventure movies out there, aside from Lord of the Rings, what are comparable fantasy swords and magic movies are there?

So your mane point of contention is that this story is inspired by the Hobbit and not a direct accurate depiction of the Hobbit .I ask you this question is the trilogy a labour of love depicting several methods high quality art set design wardrobe Cgi voice acting artistic direction soundtrack do these aspects have any value to you.

I am listening (please don't cruscify me) to The Hobbit read by Endy Serkis and Dear Lord of The Rings, the man has a hundred voices inside of him. It's fantastic! I'm am so amazed I don't even know how to compliment it

To be fair The Hobbit is written in a super rushed way. They go from the shire to the trolls to rivendell in only 40 pages,it is insanely fast. Lord of the rings is the opposite, with the council of the ring taking on almost 90+ pages or something. This book needed breathing room and in my opinion did it amazingly well so they could link better with the LOTR trilogy. Especially Sauron, Legolas etc. It turned a rather childish and silly book into an epic cinematic experience.

You should check out some of the fan edits of The Hobbit trilogy. M4 book edit version is excellent. It cuts down the trilogy into a 4 hour movie. Colour corrects and brings the focus back to Bilbo and the dwarves. I knew there was a great movie in there somewhere, luckily some of the fans found it.

If the movies were too long. Do you think that the Rankin Bass animated version was too short?

The Hobbit was the first book I read in English (I’m a non-native speaker or whatever it’s called) & I honestly prefer it to LotR. The whole “cozy fantasy adventure” feel was what made the book so great & the movies completely missed the mark. They are set in the same universe but the Hobbit & LotR are really completely different genres outside of the common fantasy theme. LotR is a dark, the whole world’s at stake story & they tried to give the Hobbit that feel as well when really it’s just a friendly treasure hunt adventure.

Even though I love these movies, but at least I have to admit the 1977 Rankin/Bass Hobbit film was a lot more closer to the book. Sure it didn't include some other stuff that was in the book, but at least they kept in the songs, no fillers, no fan service/characters that were never in the book at all, and no unnecessary love triangle. And I remember seeing a deleted scene where the dwarves met Thranduil and talked before sending them to the dungeon. That happened in the book and yet they cut it out as a deleted scene. Why?

Ok, I think I was kinda neat exploring more Gandalf point of view from the story, since he kinda vanishes in the middle of the book to fought of the necromancer, who also doesn’t appear in the books, only mentioned. The use of cgi in these movie are annoying, but at least are still entertaining to watch. Even through isn’t the best adaptation, i still had a good time with those movies.

I agree with you 100%. One of the things that infuriated me was the fact in the movie the dwarfs fight Smog. The dwarfs never even saw Smog in the book. What a shame. I can't imagine what Peter Jackson was thinking.

you watched all 3. You did what I could not. I walked out halfway through the second.

I remember when first watcing this the orcs really bothered me. They were barely important if even at all in the book then became the main villain in the movies.

Im reading hobbit books , the problem is that my copy is just super small its a pocket book copy i didnt knew its this small befor i buy it but by far after around 50 pages ive read today i can say its better than its movies but yet i wish it was better like i searched alot and most of hobbit copys have small pocket text wich i hate it

i don't like how they portrayed Thorin most of the time, made him an arrogant, rude, greedy and selfish prick...and all the Gandalf saving the crew credits were given to Bilbo, but at the same time Bilbo finds his courage in Mirkwood against the spiders were one of my favourite scenes, they just let the elves took it. I don't mind how they change the plot a little bit or adding a bunch of stuff, but at least don't change the character's personality and development.

Your copy also has lithographs beside larger print and spacing

It does need to be mentioned that Jackson was making these movies under the worst kind of circumstances with an unfinished script, designing and making the movie props the same day as filming, 3 hours of sleep with 21 hour work days. He was doing everything he could to simply make them as enjoyable as possible given the circumstances he was in.

It is quite ironic that a movie which is based on a book which is about a moral admonishment against greed, itself falls victim to greed.

Just a little fun fact, the Hobbit movies were meant to be 2 films, but Peter Jackson decided to turn the Battle of the Five Armies it's own 3 hour movie.

Most people who watch these movies dont/have not read the books. My wife watched the lotr and Hobbit movies for first time and has not read the books loves the movies, just for what it is. I don't remember the book version but i enjoy the movies as well. Also, we are about to get whole movies based off of a phew paragraphs (the hunt for gollum)

Unpopular opinion I personally really like the movies I completely understand why people don’t though! But man the scene with Gollum and Bilbo and Bilbo and Smaug give me goosebumps every time! the battle of five armies is the only one where I’m like eh but I do really enjoy them.

The movies are incredibly flawed, but most of these flaws come from the book itself. Seriously, in the book the Dwarves are totally transparent and interchangeable (they are only defined by the color of their beards and their hoods), there is never a real sense of danger, everything happens way too fast (the Gobling King is killed almost immediately), every time tension builds up it inevitably falls flat... Like Beorn, for example. Gandalf keeps telling the company to be extra cautious and to walk on eggshells around Beorn, yet he turns out to be a very joyful fellow "come on in my dear little Dwarves! I want to hear more about your adventures, and then we'll eat and dance and sing!" Or the Spiders. They are not scary at all but just a bunch of cranky old ladies, that Bilbo makes fun of. Or Smaug. Bilbo gets all cocky with him because he's invisible, going so far as to humiliate and taunt the dragon !" now, o mighty Smaug, I'll let you rest. I guess it must be very exhausting for an old dragon to chase after some ponies... or an invisible thief!". There also tons of narrative ellipses in the book, and a lot of important events happen off screen. "You may wonder what happened to Smaug, right? Well, he was killed by some random dude called Bard". And what about Gandalf? Where was he all this time? > "oh, he just attended a white council and he kicked out a necromancer from Dol Guldur". What happened during the battle of the five armies? > "Well, Bilbo was hit on the head and passed out. When he came around, the battle was already over". "Fili and Kili were both killed while trying to protect Thorin". Er, sorry, but who are Fili and Kili, again? Honestly, just because it works just fine in a book doesn't mean it would also work in a movie. Had the films been a faithful adaptation of the book, they would have sucked much more. Now, granted the movies are way too long, bloated, utterly embarrassing and times, and worst of all, they betray the tone and the very essence of the book. But at least we have a little character development, a real sense of danger and tension, gravitas, and the plot is a bit more consistent.

I would prefer the book. It was one book, it should’ve been one movie without a lot of scenes in the movies that weren’t in the book.

Did you ever see the Hobbit cartoon film from the 70s? Although, it was perhaps intended for predominantly younger viewers, I enjoyed the soundtrack. Glenn Yarbrough puts a lot of feeling into his singing, and he performed, "the Greatest Adventure is what Lies Ahead." He definitely has a unique voice.

Isn't it true that PJ didn't want to do the Hobbit and was sort of forced into it?

I'm reading The Hobbit right now (I have seen all three movies (should have been two films) and a play at The Fringe (performing arts festival that comes once a year...before stupid Covid happened).

Just finished readin the hobbit, you mean to tell me i won't read of a legolas in the trilogy??? 😭☹

I just about lost my mind when the goblins broke out in song and fucking dance. And the orcs and goblins just look so stupid, same with the dwarves

I get all of these criticisms, and I agree with most of them. I just try to enjoy it for what it is. The book is obviously better, and the movies should've kept to the book more instead of making a trilogy. I still loved the movies and had a great time watching them.

There is a Fan edit of the trilogy on a single movie, although is not perfect, it such a improvement over the original cut.

I just heard the hobbit as audio book, but unless something was missing the 5 army battle was the worst part, as it was passed by because bilbo gets a stone in The head and wakes up after. I loved the book in many ways as it is told well, but the battle parts was better in the movies even if there is a lot of artistic freedom

Gotta get this off my chest... So people shit on these movies to a degree that i dont think they deserve. As a fanatic to Tolkien himself and who i idolize as one of my greatest inspirations in life, i have to say that the book actually did not impress me in the slightest. Not to say it wasnt good, but it skipped over events that should have been more important or with less detail like they were nothing more than a walk in the park while the movie, (even though it was an adaptation and added some things that were not in the book) seemed to just make the story come alive with hours of more detail and better character development that just hooks you in. Now i must admit, i was never the biggest fan of reading and i watched the movies way before i decided to read the books, but that being said, i have analyzed the books and the movies between LOTR and the hobbit and i have to say that the movies for the hobbit held up way better than the book. And for the people who say it was a cash grab to make 3 movies for 1 book might be true, it still doesnt take away from the fact that 3 movies for one book to give it some justice to Tolkien is way better than one movie per book like in LOTR. Now while i am a fan of the hobbit movie over the book that doesnt mean i have a biased opinion on the LOTR series either. In my opinion, Jackson screwed up a lot of things with the LOTR trilogy that didnt give the books its justice and there were many things changed for worse. Both trilogies are outstanding in terms of cinematic entertainment, and the books are a phenomenal masterpiece, but all the hate the hobbit movies get are just simply out of place and there is not enough credit given where it is due. I think if Tolkien were here to see both trilogies he would both applaud and criticize them but he would also say that the work put in would do good to be well praised. All that said i love Tolkien with a passion and i will always be one of his biggeat fans, but when it comes to the hobbit book i think if he had got to revise it a 3rd time it would have been more impressive than it currently is.... Now go ahead and send your hate comments cause im ready. Its just an opinion so dont get butthurt.

Some of the creative decisions with the movie I really like; like how they chose the handle Thorin's character, making him more heroic. I've seen the Tolkien edit, and I don't think it's a good watch. It tries too hard to be close to the book, and the movies were never trying to be. I think cutting out a LOT of the filler; all the shit with Tauriel and Kili, most of Legolas, most of the Necromancer and Radagast - I think getting rid of the garbage and focusing the movie more would really improve it. What's good in the movies deserves the chance to shine without being weighed down by all the garbage.

The Hobbit has been my favorite book since I was a kid and these movies are big, dumb and flashy. It should have only been 1 movie. I like being able to see some of the “off screen” goings on of Gandalf, but they bloat the story too much. And Legolas should have just been a cameo since Thranduil is his dad and it makes since for him to have been there. They spent too much time referencing the LOTR films too. I’d have completely cut out the framing device. The rankin bass cartoon version is more faithful and it’s only and hour and a half long.

It's funny. I think it was overstretched and didn't need to be 3 movies but felt some segments very rushed. Especially Beorns house and Mirkwood. Didn't take it's time and felt it was rushing toward laketown. First film I thought was fairly book accurate and a lot of fun for sure. I think as films they're decent if you don't compare to LOTR to much

Why did they do a trilogy out of a 300 page book, well, why outside of money

Not gonna lie, I admire what you mentioned, but I'll take these movies any day over what Amazon is now doing to Tolkiens work, yes I agree, the movies heavily exaggerate the book itself but one thing in my opinion I can agree on, I feel that Peter Jackson still respects the lore of what Tolkiens works really are regardless of him adding so much I enjoyed the story, the journey there and back again, as Jackson once said "We do it for the fans" and I'm glad he did these films.

I finished reading the book right before watching them, the book was kind of a drag but I can appreciate what it was. The movies were beneficial in some ways, the first movie is perfectly fine to me but the filler in the 2nd and 3rd weren’t enjoyable.

The first film is great but the dragon should have been slain in the second film. That’s where they went completely wrong.

It was a goblin and not an orc that killed his grandpa?

I loved it. All three

They do that because to make more movie after this to connect them all together, even if they make story about Legolas Aragorn and Gimli made something up I don't care

The book was perfect and then Peter Jackson was like “aight it’s time to add meaningless subplots”

Smaug is a Wyvern!

I'm the person who first watched movies and then read a book. Since that experience, I can tell that movies and the book are SEPARETELY great positions. Trilogy by itself is really good. But when it comes to compare these things to the book. Ehh.. I understand Peter Jackson wanted to more continue LOTR than make completely new story, but some things dont work after reading a book. The one thing I love about the movie and hate about the book is Thranduil. I fell in love with him, his harsh personality etc, but in the book his name is not even mentioned once. He is always as "king of the elves". But overall, as my start in fantasy 10/10 for the book. I love it and now have some sort of sentiment

The Hobbit did not need to be 3 movies, but honestly, neither did LOTR.

Just read the book and then the movies in full. Spent the entire movie shouting THAT'S NOT IN THE BOOK! THAT CHARACTER'S IN THE LOTR BOOK! THAT'S NOT IN THE BOOK! THAT'S NOT IN THE BOOK! THAT'S NOT IN THE BOOK! THAT'S NOT IN THE BOOK! THAT'S NOT IN THE BOOK! THAT CHARACTER'S IN THE LOTR BOOK! WHY DID THEY SKIP THAT PART?! Turned off the second film, it became a chore.

I am currently rewatching the movies along side reading the Hobbit for the first time. I thought the hobbit movies are decent but the changes in the movies feels painful. I’m only up to the riddle chapter but I think I might skip rewatching the movies.

Tauriel wasn't just absent from The Hobbit, she wasn't even in Tolkien's universe at all, and her schoolgirl romance with that horny dwarf was absurd. On one end I did like expanding on the content, in terms of the war, the addition of Tauriel (who should have been with Legolas) and the woodland realm in more detail, was great, but the action and close calls was too much. Orcs die too easily and present little to no threat, cheapening the thrill. As for the overuse of CGI, I agree, though when you watch the special features and making of the movie, it's actually quite awe inspiring how much practical work actually went into it. There really was an epic labor put into the making of this movie. In conclusion, I have mixed feelings and would probably have preferred a more organic, small scale children's version of The Hobbit that was true to the book itself, but I don't hate these movies and I do see why they went big instead. Their move to expand upon it was wise financially because The Hobbit in its base form would have garnered a substantially lesser audience, so I can see why they did it. Way less CGI, way less over the top action, and more realistic danger would have help this extended version greatly.

The goddamn lord of the rings mod, a mere fucking mod In minecraft, does the books a bigger service than the movies. But I do love the movies In a alternate timeline sorta way.

i agree with you

When I saw the Rings of Power, I remember the hobbit films. And I find out, that the hobbit is better as the series. I like the hobbit, but I see these films problem.