Peter Jackson’s left pretty disappointed.
Still, each trilogy has its merits. Here are 5 Reasons Why The Lord Of The Rings (And 5 Why It Was Better).
The Hobbit Was better: Fan Service
After The Hobbit and made the whole third movie one mammoth-sized battle sequence.
LOTR Was better: No unnecessary subplots
Hobbit book contained enough material for just one tight, fleshed-out movie. This meant the writers had to make up a bunch of subplots that had nothing to do with the overarching narrative just to stretch the trilogy out to the nine hours the studio wanted.
The Hobbit was better: More fun
The Hobbit movies could be lighter and more fun than their more critically acclaimed cousins.
LOTR was better: It came first
Because The Lord of the Rings didn’t have any of those problems.
The Hobbit was better: One-on-one fight scenes
There aren’t a lot of one-on-one fight scenes in The Lord of the Rings are between characters like Frodo and Gollum (i.e. untrained fighters).
However, Peter Jackson’s whole Middle-earth saga.
LOTR was better: Consistent tone
Tonally, The Lord of the Rings movies, leaving its overall tone all over the place.
The Hobbit was better: More action
The Hobbit is such a slim book, all the moments of action are quite brief and no one gets hurt. Peter Jackson dragged these moments out to spectacular half-hour set pieces, but they had very little impact on the plot and the characters mostly came out of them unscathed.
LOTR was better: Stronger pacing
Due to the fact that it’s based on one book and stretched out into three movies, the plotting and pacing of The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, was written as a trilogy. As a result, its plotting and pacing were a lot stronger and more consistent.
The Hobbit was better: More advanced CGI
The Hobbit was made a few years of technological advancement later.
Still, it can’t be denied as a point in The Hobbit looks realistic and has Serkis’ incredible performance behind it.
LOTR was better: It was supposed to be a trilogy
When Guillermo del Toro was attached to direct the film adaptation of The Hobbit, he wanted to make it a two-part movie, because the book is split into two parts and that made sense. But because trilogies make more money than two-part movies (because there’s one more movie to charge audiences to see), the studios pushed for a trilogy.
Peter Jackson replaced del Toro and did his best to give the studios the trilogy they wanted and give the fans the story they wanted, but he only succeeded on the first count. The Lord of the Rings was supposed to be a trilogy, so naturally, it works better as a film trilogy.
