What made these films so good when the Hobbit films were so terrible?

Care and effort

The hobbit films were based as f
3>1>2

literally practical effects vs. over reliance on CGI

the casting was near-perfect

>>87189959

tone and not stretching one story into three movies

the third hobbit was just one long drawn out third act with no change in setting

>the stuff about the necromancer is LITERALLY one page in the first chapter of the hobbit
>it takes almost the entire second movie

geez I wonder

Honest passion for the source material and they worked their asses off in pre-production,

>>87189959
People dont give a flying fuck about dwarves. I know I dont. I fail to see how anyone could. Of all the race of Middle Earth people Dwarves are the ones I give the least shits about.

File: big guy.png (3MB, 1000x1503px)

3MB, 1000x1503px

>>87190098
I rewatched the first LotR film recently and holy ass it as aged well. The aesthetics and visuals are just so genuine and gritty. Even cliche stuff like riders in black look unique and distinct.

>>87189959
Besides everything?

Hobbit movies shat all over the source material, used tons of shitty cgi, expanded useless stuff, added extra stuff, and generally wasted time all while cutting actual plot points.

LotR aside from some of the crappy dialogue, was fairly faithful.

the hobbit was just jackson collecting a pay check and sitting on his ass while the studios dictated what they wanted out of the movie. jackson didn't want to do it, but they wanted his name attached to it so they gave him a shit load of money.

File: 2e1.png (115KB, 426x382px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 426x382px

>>87190212
i wonder who's behind this post

>>87189959
Love and being faithful to the great source Material

>>87189959

Lots of reasons but because of Del Taco dropping out Peter Jackson had zero pre production time and was always in a rush when trying to make the films. They aren't great, but considering how botched the production schedule was it's amazing that they are as good as they are.

>>87190217
IS THE GUY ON THE LEFT THE DUDE FROM PARKS AND REC? LMAO

File: Hobbler-trolls.jpg (324KB, 2000x852px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 2000x852px

>>87190279
the adaptation of the first chapter and second chapter are so good, but then it keeps getting worse

File: 1503438959441.jpg (56KB, 500x488px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x488px

>>87190271
and they cut out the bull like tom faggotman, good choices all around

1. LOTR had a darker tone in general. The Hobbit was a children's book about a hobbit that goes on an adventure. But the studio wanted the films to be another epic tale about a great war like LOTR rather than being a faithful adaptation.

2. The Hobbit was a much shorter book than LOTR but was stretched over three films because the studio wanted to milk the series as much as they could.

3. Jackson didn't nearly have as much preparation time for the Hobbit trilogy as he did for LOTR. He took over the director's role partway through production and had to hit the ground running.

4. They tried to copy LOTR by having multiple different subplots going on at the same time. Bilbo was supposed to be the main character and he barely does anything in the last film. It would have been much better if the story had solely followed what happened to Bilbo and ignored the Tauriel and Gandalf subplots.

5. Legolas was shoehorned in obnoxiously. LOTR had some pretty silly Legolas moments but none were as ridiculous as any of his action scenes in the Hobbit films.

>>87190329

I don't think they ever figured out what they wanted the tone of the movies to be, they swing wildly from silly and fun to dark and brooding with action beats out of nowhere and tense scenes out of nowhere. Either make a fun, lighthearted romp about a hobbit and a band of dwarves going on an adventure, or make a serious LotR compatible delve back into middle earth that shows how serious this quest was. For god's sake don't try to do both.

>>87190564
Scooby is gay

>>87190787
you wish

>>87189959
Hackson got lucky.

Source material was better

>>87190867
it isn't better, it is just different

>>87190279
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQkygZdZ_Vk
this is all that anyone ever needs to post in regards to why The Hobbit wasn't good. It literally explains everything that went wrong

why did they make Thorin such an asshole in the movie? he is nothing like book Thorin