I've enjoyed the trilogy of Peter Jackson, even though not perfect. They were well done from a cinematic view point, though there are moments where it falls flat. They took some inspiration from The Similiarian. They incorporated where Gandalf disappears in the book into the narrative. While well done, I think it could have been better if it was a TV series. In a TV Series, there could be a whole episode about the White Council.

Then, of course, they added some female characters. I was fine with that, though I would have preferred if it was just Bard's two daughters. An elf Tauriel was so much like a warrior elf-princess. If an adaptation wants to add female characters where as in the books there aren't any, I'm fine with that. But there doesn't have to be a warrior princess type.

I think it fell flat to me was where a love triangle was enforced with Legolas, Kili, and Tauriel. Legolas and Tauriel don't appear in the book. Legolas is a major character in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (for some reason, Peter Jackson depicted him as attractive). Kili is one of the dwarfs that goes on the guest with Thorin and Bilbo. Tauriel doesn't appear in any of the Middle Earth books at all. It was a character that Peter Jackson created. Tolkien didn't write about a love triangle in the book, yet the studio said they had to have it. It was a popular thing at the time. I don't know if it is still is, or given that trends tend to change, it may not be as popular now.

What is good about it? Well, it was actually kind of nice that they expanded on the dwarfs at Bilbo's house. It helped the audience to get to know them. Although I could have done without the singing ("Far over, the misty mountain's cold").

Gollum was spot on! They got him just about right!

@jasmine_tarkheena 

My feeling about the three movies is that they made the story too long for a short book like The Hobbit. Of course I saw the movies only once in a theater and I have forgotten much of their content. But I have wondered if the purpose was to sell three movies to make more money.  Peter Jackson was probably taking too many liberties with the story.  It would be more understandable if his purpose was to include more of the book. The BBC did that many years ago with their television series of Dickens’ books.   The episodes were made on a low budget, but they had more content of the author’s original stories. But adding characters is another thing, and if the fictional people added are Peter Jackson’s and not Tolkien’s, it may be going too far.

@narnian78 

I actually remember being a bit thrown off when it was announced that The Hobbit was going to be made into a trilogy. While I am for extending on things, it would probably work better as a TV series.

As for the Rankin/Bass animated, I can't really say it's any better. I'm sure there are those who prefer it than the Peter Jackson trilogy. There might be some who prefer the Peter Jackson than the animated. That's fine, either way. It's all a taste thing. The artwork looks nice. Even the background is nice.

Who knew that a company that is usually known for their holiday specials (Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, Jack Frost, Here Comes Santa Claus), would actually go on to produce an animated version of The Hobbit? Seems like no one did. The director for the Peanuts specials, including the Charlie Brown Christmas, actually went on to direct the animated The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

I am a for extending some things, but probably more as a TV series. Though that could be a while.

So I'm not much of a J.R.R. Tolkien fan, but recently my family was (re)watching one of the Lord of the Rings movies and it occurred to me that the One Ring is like Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, a seemingly unsolvable court case passed down from generation to generation in Bleak House by Charles Dickens. That's the book I'm reading right now for Dickens Club, an online reading group that's going through all of Dickens's books in the order they were published. 

Everyone in Bleak House who tries to prove that the long-contested Jarndyce inheritance should go to them becomes dangerously obsessed with it and it ruins their lives. No one is uncorruptible. The book presents the only way to avoid being poisoned by the case is to have nothing to do with it. 

Sorry for posting about Bleak House in a Tolkien thread, but I really do think there might be some Tolkien fan out there who might find the parallel I've drawn interesting. Like one person at least.  

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

I don't know if it is still is, or given that trends tend to change, it may not be as popular now.

Most of the Tolkien nerds I've talked to are annoyed by the love triangle and warrior-elf princess. It doesn't bother me as much as it does for some Tolkien fans, but it does cheapen it a little bit. Aragorn and Arwen was done better in my opinion since it did relate to the appendices in The Lord of the Rings. It was elaborated on too much in The Two Towers, but they at least didn't have her fight at Helm's Deep.

Posted by: @narnian78

My feeling about the three movies is that they made the story too long for a short book like The Hobbit

You mean The Hobbit Trilogy is rather thin, sort of stretched, like a short children's book made into three movies. 😉 

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

The director for the Peanuts specials, including the Charlie Brown Christmas, actually went on to direct the animated The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

That's fascinating. I never knew that.

@azog-the-defiler 

I think the problem was that they added to the story, and they stretched out the plot more than Tolkien intended. The audio drama of The Hobbit broadcast on National Public Radio did a better job of preserving Tolkien’s story. It was about four hours long, but the story was much more like the original book. I think it was much more faithful to Tolkien’s book than Peter Jackson’s movies. The old 1977 Rankin Bass animated film was mostly accurate in its adaptation of the story.  But people want something thrilling for the big screen. If that involves adding something that Tolkien never wrote the filmmakers will do it.

There were some complicated "love stories" in Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Aragorn and Arwen are betrothed for most of it, until Return of the King. Eowyn has feelings for Aragorn as well. Faramir has feelings for Eowyn, and later on, she develops feelings for him in return. Then Grima Wormtongue is in lust with Eowyn. Saruman promised him wealth and riches and Eowyn. Wormtongue wanted Eowyn for himself. So things do get a little complicated in Lord of the Rings trilogy.

@azog-the-defiler, yes, that is a bit of trivia. I grew up watching the Charlie Brown Christmas special around the Holiday season (there's a moment where Linus shares the real meaning of Christmas- the shepherds and baby Jesus). But I never realized the director would go on to do the animated LWW.

I guess no one thought that Rankin Bass, who usually do Holiday specials would go on to do the animated The Hobbit.

When I was watching the Rankin Bass movie of The Hobbit last night I thought the animation was quite good considering the amount of money and the limited technology that was available in 1977. There was quite a difference in seeing the film on DVD and the old VHS tape when I last watched it at least ten or fifteen years ago.  I had forgotten much of the visual part of the film since I didn’t actually own it until now.  I always thought the movie was criticized too much for not having modern technology. Of course it isn’t perfect, but one can’t find fault with it because it made in a simpler time when less technology was available. The animation looked much better than most Saturday morning cartoons. I thought it was quite interesting to see the film again, and I have a much better impression of it now than when I first saw it on television. 🙂

The animated Hobbit I have is on VHS, distributed by Warner Bros. (another big name company like Universal, Disney, 20th Century Fox, MGM). 

Then of course, I think Warner Bros. now kind owns the Middle earth universe. 

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

Then of course, I think Warner Bros. now kind owns the Middle earth universe. 

The current movie rights for The Lord of the Rings currently sit with The Embracer Group, who apparently paid just £395m to acquire the rights from the Saul Zaentz company earlier this year. Warner Brothers are merely partnering with them as the distributor for any future movies, and Amazon only own the rights to a TV series (of greater than 8 episodes)

The Saul Zaentz Company owned the rights since 1976 and produced that 1978 animated version. They also partnered with New Line Cinema, and MGM respectively on the LotR and Hobbit trilogies.

I'm not quite sure what the licensing deal was with the Rankin & Bass movies, and if they were ever even legitimately licensed at all, but I think the only reason Warner Bros now owns the distribution rights on those cartoons is because they bought out United Artists a while back, and United Artists were the original purchasers of the rights from the Tolkien Estate way back in 1968.

Either way, Warner Bros has never been the rights holder.

https://embracer.com/releases/embracer-group-enters-into-agreement-to-acquire-ip-rights-to-the-lord-of-the-rings-and-the-hobbit-literary-works-by-j-r-r-tolkien/ This article gives more information on the subject. I really would be content if they didn't do any more Middle Earth films. They tackled the big ones in the early 2000s and 2010s but I personally think that The Silmarillion can't be adapted very well since it reads like a history book and would need a lot of added dialogue.

How would Saul Zaentz and now Embrace owning the rights to Tolkien's works affect other Tolkien books such as Finn and Hengest or The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun? I assume they don't have the distribution to his non-Middle Earth works so that would remain in the hands of the Tolkien Estate, right?

I kind of wonder how it would have been if Peter Jackson had included the Scouring of the Shire in Return of the King. I know there was big fuss and criticism about the multiple endings or climaxes, whichever you'd like to call it. Even after the One Ring is destroyed and Sauron is defeated, there was like almost 30 minutes left.

If the Scouring of the Shire had been included, well, it's kind of hard to say if there would have been more fuss about the climaxes.

@jasmine_tarkheena 

I remember that the “Scouring of the Shire”:or at least an hour long version of it was in the radio dramas as it was in the book.  The Return of the King did not end immediately with the destruction of. the Ring. So the radio drama, which was produced in 1981, was more faithful to the book. I don’t know if Peter Jackson thought that a longer ending would have been too much for theater goers. Other people who read the books have said to me that the ending should have been longer. I highly recommend the radio plays for accuracy. 🙂

@narnian78 

Good point. Maybe if it would have been too much for theater goers. I'll admit that some of the last scenes in Return of the King are quite touching- like Frodo saying goodbye to the Shire and leaving for the Undying Lands.

I'm nearing the end of my annual reading of LOTR. Five more chapters, 70 pages. How can I bear it to be finished? Each chapter is now precious. 

As I grow older, it rouses different emotions in me. Events and words mean different things from when I was younger.

Do others notice this too?