GreyLord
Legend
You see, I broadly agree thst the LotR adaptation is extremely problematic...but the movies are good enough to transcend their sins.
One of the key differences is that the LotR is losing stuff by trying to cram too much into too little time. Whereas the Hobbit films are mostly original, to the point where it is in the same vein of adaptation as Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.
The Hobbit "trilogy" is over nine hours long. The 70s Rankin-Bass carton is about 90 minutes and covers everything in the book except for the Beorn episode comfortably. There is no reason for a Hobbit movie to be over two hours even with the songs, let alone nine.
I can actually agree with this take. I think it was a mistake to make it into 2 long movies, much less 3 long movies. It allowed them more time to add things (similarly to how they added things to LotR) adding to the Hobbit in more abundance. (One thing that annoys me about LotR is that they took out things that they could have included, and then added things that were not in the book).
The entire romance thing was nonsense as well in the Hobbit. As I noted, as a piece of Art, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an absolute masterpiece (ignoring it as a supposed adaptation).
The Hobbit is nowhere near that masterpiece, but on it's own, it's not the terrible thing people make it out to be either. It's an okay film trilogy. Get's kind of boring at points with some of the added plot points, but it has some nice eye candy (special effects and such) at times.







