There are only 3 LOTR movies.

I find it is easiest to think of the book, The Hobbit,as an omniscient narrative of the actual events, and to think of the movies as an adaptation of There and Back Again, the in-universe book that Bilbo wrote. Because Bilbo would exaggerate, just a bit.

I liked how long they were but thats because i love watching shit and some good movies are way to short. But for the story and the fact that I haven't watched em for a couple years then i would say its alright definitely could have been one movie and way better that way. Lol i am pretty sure i have read the book completely before finishing the second movie.

Peter Jackson went woke on this one. He said for both the LOTR & The Hobbit, that he had to cut some of the book for time constraints. A scene by scene adaptation would have resulted in a 100 hour long movie. I accept that, for LOTR. But not The Hobbit. He said "What did Tom Bombadil add? Nothing!" Now if he felt he had to cut something, I can accept Bombadil being the character cut. But he didn't leave it there. He added that elf maid, what's her name. And even that wasn't enough; he added a whole beastial love affair between her and the dwarf. No where in the Legendarium does it even hint at such a liaison. Elves and men were "children of Iluvitar" and produced offspring. Dwarves were not "children of Iluvitar", but creation of a lesser God. Iluvitar blessed their existence, but a marriage between them would be beastiality, with no children possible. Jackson cut out Bombadil to same time, but added the mixed race romance to add time. This was all just virtue signaling bastardization. Further exaberated with the addition of black casting extras. Tolkien made it clear; blacks were "Southrons", not from any other part of Middle Earth. This also seriously detracts from his The Hobbit. Get woke, go broke.

The Hobbit movie strayed too far from the book path, like the love relationship between the dwarf and elf? I mean come on there was no need, just stay true to the books

ur wrong dude

hobbit may be bad but it would seem good compared to what amazon vomited out for us

While I enjoy the films as cinema, and they are certainly deserving of merit in that regard, I still say that Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the worst literary adaptations ever made. And a lot of the horrible choices made in regards to adaptation often lower the quality of the story as cinema: The dispensing of Tolkien’s morality. The uncanonical failures of nerve. The disregard for proper tone. The elasticity of pacing. The flattening of narrative. The interminable battle scenes. The complete destruction of characterization. The degradation of Tolkien’s prose, reducing beautiful sentiment to corny greeting card mush. The relentless trivialization of the story. And perhaps most egregiously, the facile appreciation of the book thinly veiling a profound and contemptible lack of comprehension of its themes. This is in addition to the enthusiastic copying of an alarming amount of shots, scenes, and entire sequences from Ralph Bakshi’s animated adaptation from 1978. While it may be true that Jackson’s interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is far greater qualitatively that his interpretation of The Hobbit, well... that isn’t really saying much.

I liked The Hobbit better than LOTR

easy because it was a lazy shitstain of a cashgrab and one of the few movies i walked out of the cinema. god it was bad. lotr improved on the books, the hobbit shit on it. it is still hillariously overrated.