‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ vs. ‘Fellowship of the Ring’

Published 2 years ago by , Updated December 19th, 2012 at 6:56 am,

hobbit unexpected journey fellowship ring The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey vs. Fellowship of the Ring

Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a blockbuster landmark achievement. It demonstrated that the moviegoing masses are willing to tolerate (nay, embrace) sprawling tentpole productions that run some 3 hours long and are geared heavily towards geek crowds. Jackson returns to Middle-earth with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (read our review) and today we’re going to examine how much has (and has not) changed in the filmmaker’s approach to adapting J.R.R. Tolkien’s literature over the decade since his Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings trilogy.

So far, much of the discussion concerning Hobbit (pun not intended) has centered on the first installment’s (controversial) use of HFR (48 fps) 3D; not to mention, differences in tone and style that have left numerous critics – who were big fans of Jackson’s Rings films – grumbling that An Unexpected Journey is a disappointment (as evidenced by an okay 65% Fresh score and 6.4/10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes). However, the film also received an “A” CinemaScore over its opening weekend; likewise, several members of the Screen Rant staff (full confession: that includes this writer) agree: Jackson successfully brought us home to Middle-earth. This range of opinion was evident among our editors in the recent Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey episode of the SR Underground podcast.

Feel free to jump ahead to the poll at the conclusion of this article, in case your mind is already made up as to whether An Unexpected Journey is a weaker, equal or better introduction to Middle-earth than Fellowship of the Ring. Everyone else? Keep reading, as we dive into important qualities of both films, beginning with the two famous ring-bearer halflings: Bilbo and Frodo Baggins.


The Characters

bilbo frodo journey fellowship The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey vs. Fellowship of the Ring

Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), as introduced in Fellowship, is a wide-eyed and good-hearted hobbit who demonstrates immense courage in the face of overwhelming danger. He’s also an unwilling adventurer at his core, who might’ve been content to never leave his home. However, Frodo becomes an unlikely savior for Middle-earth and is essentially forced to endure the burden of carrying The One Ring of Power – given his unprecedented resilience to its influence – despite being both physically and mentally-unfit for the task.

Young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) in An Unexpected Journey has more personality than Frodo. He’s fussy, proper and often self-concerned, yet enters dangerous situations with but a little encouragement (and sometimes, none). Bilbo endures taunts and disdain from his dwarf peers to become an important player on their quest; indeed, Bilbo ultimately chooses to accept the responsibility of helping Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and his kin reclaim their home, rather than having the task forced upon him.

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey Thorin Oakenshield Richard Armitage 570x245 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey vs. Fellowship of the Ring

Richard Armitage in ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’

Speaking of Thorin: the hardened Dwarf is (arguably) as much a protagonist in An Unexpected Journey as Bilbo. Flashbacks illustrate how he came to be a monastic and cynical warrior in the present; despite his accomplishments, Thorin is humble and places his faith in Dwarfs whom he admires for their gusto (not because they are the strongest and wisest). Moreover, Thorin still possesses an optimistic spirit, which (like Bilbo) inspires him to accept the daunting challenge of reclaiming the Lonely Mountain from Smaug – ultimately, of his own free will.

That’s all to say: Fellowship (from a protagonist perspective) is about acceptance of destiny thust upon you – a theme echoed in subsequent Rings films, as when Aragorn becomes King – and An Unexpected Journey deals with choosing a destiny and accepting the responsibility that comes with it. In a way, the latter presents a more timely dilemma; namely, whether to take it upon oneself to better the world (when presented the chance) or simply continue to make your way in life.

Gollum in The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey 570x245 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey vs. Fellowship of the Ring

Andy Serkis returns as Gollum in ‘An Unexpected Journey’

As for the remainder of the cast: Ian McKellen captivates in both films, offering two connected (but distinguishable) portrayals of Gandalf the Grey. Similarly, both An Unexpected Journey and Fellowship of the Ring have supporting characters that hit the bullseye – in particular, Andy Serkis as mo-cap Gollum in The Hobbit and Sean Astin as Samwise in Fellowship – while others Middle-eartheans possess either a satisfactory or flat presence (sorry, Orlando Bloom as Legolas). Thus, these films are evenly-matched in this department (for this writer, anyway).


WINNER: An Unexpected Journey, for more nuanced protagonist(s) and their relatable personal journeys.


Next Page: Story and World

« 1 2 3 4»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

    • I agree,

      Although I’d knock out 60 min and make the last act about Smaug.

        • Nope, because I’d replace it with 60 min of Smaug.

          Long movies are great, so long as what’s filling the time is.

          • Why do you think the 2 movies are now 3?They are gonna build up to Smaug in the final movie.

            • Doubtful – my bet is that the second movie will end with the defeat of Smaug. The third movie is going to be about the battle of the 5 armies and whatever remaining bridge building they are going to do leading up to the Lord of the Rings.

              • That is exactly how the second and third films should and will play out. To anyone who has a problem with The Hobbit being made a trilogy, no one is forcing you to go. This will likely be our last journey to Middle Earth, if not forever, then for decades to come, so most true fans, I believe, will enjoy all the time they can get there. The first film, in my opinion, makes an excellent companion piece to The Lord of the Rings, as will, no doubt, the second and third films. Being that the movie has already made over a half billion dollars worldwide, only two weeks after opening, I would say that most people agree.

      • If you are saying the Hobbit should have and could have been one movie, I couldn’t agree more.

    • I totally agree Anubhav dude, if ‘…An Unexpected Journey’ had been about 140 minutes long – leaving more meandering material for the inevitable extended edition – the critics would be praising Peter Jackson to the hilt and the film would be marginally better overall, as it is, it’s an undeniably accomplished and fabulously entertaining piece of fantasy cinema, but it probably could have been tighter for it’s theatrical run.

      And whilst I’m here, I think I should admit to one and all that I was wrong about ‘The Hobbit’ being a single film, dead wrong, the book may be only 300 or so pages, but once you break down each incidental beat in Tolkien’s work to actual scenes onscreen, it’s a considerably larger story than initially appears and simply could NOT have been done justice in one single outing, even two films would have been a little too tight – especially once you get into the expanded appendices material that run contemporaneous to the events in ‘The Hobbit’ – thus I’m completely turned around on this trilogy treatment, I now see what and where Peter Jackson is both doing and going with this adaptation, and truth be told, it’s undeniably exciting, I’m sold on it, I’m a believer now, roll on December 2013 and July 2014… the worst is behind us, P.J. and team had to set up and lay foundations for what is to follow, now they’ve done that, i think it’s fair to say it’s all open road from here on in, yee-ha!

      All that being said, it’s not the three-film treatment that’s the problem, it’s the running time of each film; three tightly-edited and brisk movies are completely justified, they are, but not three overlong and slightly indulgent ones, keep the theatrical versions tight and nimble, and leave the broader material for the extended editions… next stop, the Lonely Mountain, all aboard…

  1. Reasons ‘Fellowship’ is Better:
    1) Higher stakes– 2 characters die! (or so it seems). There wasn’t a moment in The Hobbit where it actually felt like someone was going to die– and all the wind got taken out of the final scene by having Gandalf call for ‘Eagles Ex Machina’. Also, in Fellowship of the Ring, they are embarking on a quest to SAVE THE WORLD. The Hobbit is about giving one small group of fellows their home back.
    2) Better soundtrack. Howard Shore phoned The Hobbit in. We heard the ‘dwarf theme’ like 12 times, and none of the other themes were memorable.
    3) More of a sense of ‘realism’. And I’m talking basic physics. Both the craziness with the rock giants and the Goblin King falling on the company should have killed everyone. And frankly, there’s no way those dwarfs were able to coordinate that dish-throwing extravaganza without dropping any.
    4) Better/less-cheesy overall villain. The lead Uruk-hai that Aragorn eventually killed was far more menacing than Azog the Defiler and all his nonsense. It also helped that the Uruk-hai were real people, and I was always aware of how CG Azog was.
    5) Frodo’s emotional journey was more powerfully portrayed than Bilbo’s. Frodo makes the heartbreaking decision to leave the Fellowship and go off on his own, pursued by a pathetic and desperate and loving Samwise, while Bilbo’s big climax is to suddenly get some courage from nowhere. What did he think was going to happen when he jumped in to save Thorin? And why the hell didn’t he put the ring on?

    Fellowship all the way.

      • Dragon, you make some good points. To be clear, I am critiquing the entirety of both films, regardless of the material they are adapted from (I’ve read them all). Some thoughts:
        1) I know deaths are coming– I’m just saying that as the end of a film, even if its part of a journey, it adds to the emotional power of it if there is some kind of meaningful sacrifice. This may sound like blasphemy, but I was hoping Peter Jackson might give one of the dwarves a standout role in this film and have them die protecting Thorin. On an emotional level, that would have worked for me.

        2)I know The Hobbit is meant to be a children’s book, but I don’t think anything about the story suggests a children’s story. With all the same plot beats and characters, the choice could have been made to give this film a similar tone to Lord of the Rings. And frankly, I just miss seeing black orc blood.

        3) My biggest problem with the journey I’m watching Bilbo go on in the film is that they’re trying to make him more of an action hero, when in the books and how I always imagined him, he’s a terrified guy completely out of sorts struggling to keep up with all these grizzled warriors, using the only advantages he has– stealth and logic. I LOVED how much much time he spent contemplating whether or not to kill Gollum, and it seemed out of nowhere that he would dive in to save Thorin when he has neither the strength nor skill to do anything meaningful there. He had to know that was a suicide thing to do, and so would he really rather die than save Thorin but reveal he has the ring? Doesn’t make any sense to me. And why the heck didn’t any of the dwarves dive in to save Thorin? My favorite Bilbo is the one who logics his way out of everything instead of fighting. I appreciated that Frodo never killed anyone in LotR, and I felt him and Bilbo should share that in common (at least until Mirkwood… you know what’s coming ;) )

        • Some of the things you say makes real sense, but in response to your first point, I would have to say that while it would’ve been great for the movie (and possibly ratings), I just don’t think that changing the source material is the right way to go…to be honest, I would be the first one here to complain about that. I mean if the movie was not based on anything, I would have been really sad that there was no death scene at the end.

          Yes, I actually agree on the black orc blood stuff, it was missing that one little element. I saw this especially during the fight scenes outside of Moria. Everything was too clean and while I loved the movie in 48fps, even I felt that those scenes(Moria and prologue) were a bit too clean and ‘video game like’ (the other scenes were fine, thought they looked incredible). In the Moria scene, I would have preferred to have seen more blood and more of the actual fighting…for example when Thorin cuts of Azogs hand, it did not feel right, like there was no real blood or gore you know, it felt…fake.

          I was actually very surprised at the decision to make him ‘fight’ at the end. I mean he even looked kinda silly doing it. He is one of those characters that is supposed to kind of cower away from all the fighting and stuff.

          Yes, the contemplating weather to kill gollum part was amazing BUT I think that the scene lost some of its…meaning because of the foreshadowing earlier when Gandalf tells him: “It is not about taking a life, but knowing when to spare one.” I just think that Bilbo is meant to come to that conclusion himself without having Gandalf spelling it out to him.

          I know this is kind of unrelated, but I’m curious, did you see the movie in HFR 3D? Because watching it in HFR 3D has actually had an impact on the way I see the movie. The first time I saw it, I saw it for the story without thinking of anything else. Then when I saw it for the second time, I was more aware of the technical things. I thought the CG was great, but maybe we are yearning for the black or blood because of how clean the movie looked. I would’ve preferred less CG and more prosthetics, especially for Azog…he just looked a little too clean for a ‘head orc”

    • @ Dragon

      Just FYI, I went ahead and deleted your duplicate comment – in case you were wondering. ;-)

      • Sandy, I think you deleted my response to his comment as well.

        • It should be viewable again now.

          Sorry about that.

      • Thanks a lot…I have no idea what happened.

    • AlexC, excellent post. had I read your post initially, I would have nothing more to add. I agree completely.

      • Thanks so much Random Internet Guy!

  2. I’d say The Fellowship is better, but I loved The Hobbit just as much.

    Very different movies really though.

    • They are very different (but both quite enjoyable), which is why the comparison was tricky.

      I tried to focus on what each film was striving to accomplish, for that reason.

  3. I don’t think these movies should be compared at all. They are both so different, I loved the Hobbit and I have been telling people not to go in expecting LOTR. If you go in with the expectations of another LOTR rings movie you end up not liking the movie as much as you should. If you go to see the Hobbit as just another movie that happens to take place in the same world and feature some of the same characters it is a much more enjoyable film.

    • I agree with this when it comes to story, as LotR is inherently much more epic and dark, but I think its still valid to compare the filming style, the soundtrack, the character depictions, the emotional journey, the cinematography, the pacing– all the more general elements of film making.

      But even there, I think Fellowship wins, though by a much smaller margin.

  4. I think both the first trilogy and the second trilogy should be compared as one story… or at least one movie. To compare the movies individually makes it unfair because they are after all, slaves to the stories they must tell. It would’ve been better if they were made in order though… (as far as comparisons go)

  5. Fellowship all the way. Hobbit was awesome and there were a few scenes that were pure brilliance imo (the dwarves in bilbos house, the white council, riddles in the dark especially). Fellowship was just a bit more consistent. Hobbit had a few things that felt a little drawn out or unnecessary (radagast stuff, pale orc subplot). The musical score was also better in FOTR. Hobbit’s soundtrack was great, but it was great because it drew from the great tracklist already established in the LOTR trilogy. That music started in FOTR so I cannot say that Hobbit’s soundtrack was better, it really only had one new song (the dwarves lonely mtn theme thing).

    That aside Hobbit is a great movie in its own right and should not be criticized for not measuring up to the LOTR trilogy. imo it totally does measure up but if you must compare them FOTR (and in a broader sense the LOTR trilogy) comes out on top.

  6. Oh wow. For me, Fellowship is a superior film with better performances, better pacing and a more authentic, believable feel. As a standalone film, It stands above the first Hobbit movie and does so much more.

    • Ha, yeah, I enjoyed listening to you and the others argue about that in the latest podcast.

      Oddly enough, I started out expecting Fellowship to come out on top. I guess that not even I always know what side of the fence I’m ultimately going to land on. ;-)

      • Did you hear two of the three guys who downplayed Fellowship on that same podcast all say they “don’t remember” and “forget” that movie in saying The Hobbit is better?

        • Ha, well… like I said, I’m a bit surprised myself (and I even re-watched Fellowship a few days ago).

  7. I like the character arcs better in The Hobbit.

    But, The Last Stand of Boromir and the battle in Moria are FAR superior than anything in The Hobbit IMO.

    The Hobbit did win the battle of the flashbacks though lol

  8. Fellowship

  9. It’s funny because originally the Fellowship was my least favorite of the trilogy. To a 13-year-old me it didn’t have the action to compete with the other two (you know, grandiose battles). But over time I’ve grown to love the performances and subtle emotion present in the first film. Plus, while I first read The Hobbit before I saw the Fellowship in theaters, the film was really what hooked me into Tolkien’s world, and for those reasons it will most likely stay superior to An Unexpected Journey.

    However, I would like to point out that from a storytelling perspective, Thorin is much more intriguing than Aragorn ever was (and this is coming from a guy who ADORES Aragorn, really). Sure, Aragorn had a huge destiny to live up to, but he is too flawless. Thorin, on the other hand, is ornery, cynical, carries doubt and holds grudges. He’s more dynamic, in other words, and I really like that about his character when compared to the perfect ranger-turned-king.

  10. As one who has never watched anything (from start to finish) LOTR related until “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and catching “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” on TV as soon as I got home…

    I still say “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”. I can’t really side with either movies with an in depth comparison such as this, but something about it just captured my interest extremely. Now, by no means am I saying that “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” is a bad film because it’s not.

    But if I were to introduce someone like me to these movies, one who hasn’t seen anything LOTR related at all, I’d go with “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”

    • fair enough, but let’s see if you feel the same after renting FOTR off Netflix or iTunes, and watching it in its entirety.

      “…If you do… you will not be the same…”

      • I actually went out and bought the LOTR trilogy the other day to see all of Fellowship without interruptions.

        I still say Hobbit.

  11. Fellowship.

    From an emotional standpoint, there simply was no comparison.
    I enjoyed Hobbit, saw it twice, and frankly, that’s more than enough for me.

    whereas FOTR, I saw in theatres close to 10 times.

    anyway, I’ll keep this short.

    The best \ emotional part of the Hobbit, was the “Pity of Bilbo” scene. Not the silly riddles part, no.
    The part where as soon as you saw it, you recalled the scene in FOTR in the mines of Moria where Gandalf tells Bilbo

    “’twas pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand”.. etc etc…

    Best Scene by far in the entire film.

    Now for comparison, FOTR had the following;

    - “Get off the road” scene with one of the black riders
    - “He’s one of them Rangers” scene at the inn of the prancing pony – [introduction to Aragorn]
    - “This is no mere ranger, he is aragorn” – nuff said – Thorin just couldn’t match Aragorn’s presence
    - “Into the mines”
    - “Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life” – Frodo & Gandalf in the mines of Moria
    - “You shall not pass” The Fall of Gandalf – nuff said
    - “he has fallen in the shadow” – Galadriel – to be fair, she looked just as good in the Hobbit, but fell a little short of awesome like FOTR
    - “I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my King” – The Fall of Boromir
    - “I made a promise Master Frodo” – The near death of Sam.

    seriously, if FOTR came back to theatres, despite the fact that I have the blu-Ray I’d still go see it again just for the experience.

    simply put, FOTR was EPIC, Hobbit was not.

  12. Fellowship beats The Hobbit by leaps and bounds for me. There are so many moments that stand out to me in Fellowship that were like “That is awesome!” The Hobbit had a few, but they almost entirely from the second half of the film.

    Also, in what world were the effects in The Hobbit better than Fellowship? I thought a lot of stuff in The Hobbit looked very fake.

    • agreed. On first viewing, I thought the escape from the Goblin King was great, but on second viewing, it looked very “artificial” and “CGI-y” and a tad cheesy with the Goblin King cracking a joke [wfH??] after being disemboweled??? and those goblins I hear were CGI and not actors in make-up. how disappointing ! :(

      the SFX & make up in FOTR is leaps & bounds above that of the Hobbit. Sorry.

  13. Fellowship all the way in terms of characters, emotions, actions,Plot, and The World. The Hobbit may be the latest film, but that doesn’t make it the greatest.

    • +1

    • Frodo was nothing without Sam.
      Frodo was whiny and annoying, but arguably had more depth to him than Bilbo.
      Frodo was also more believable, and we felt much more empathy for him than The Hobbit allowed us to feel for poor selfish BIlbo. Even his heroic scenes

      “I will help you take it back if I can”,
      Saving Thorin from the beheading,
      “I would have doubted me..”

      didn’t have the same emotional effect as Frodo’s scenes.

      Despite Frodo being a whiny b*tch, we kind of loved him & his his shortcomings.
      and you’re forgetting Frodo doing his part in the Mines of Moria.
      Frodo was a ring-bearer, as opposed to a “burglar” whatever that ‘s supposed to be.

      Bilbo was more willing to kick arse?? that’s what the “emotional twist” in the end was supposed to make you believe. but it was unconvincing.

      • I’d appreciate it if you didn’t attack everyone who disagrees with you. We all have different opinions so please respect them because your thoughts are not all of our thoughts. If he likes Bilbo more than Frodo, so be it. I personally like Bilbo more than Frodo

    • If Bilbo killed Gollum, you would have a completely different outcome for LOTR that would upset a lot of fans of the books and the movies. Plus, I think Bilbo felt pity for Gollum, just as Frodo will do in the future. I mean, Bilbo himself almost lets himself be possessed by the ring as we see in Fellowship.

    • Actually only J.R.R. Tolkien can think of that

  14. These are two completely different movies, and that’s what I loved about The Hobbit. Despite all of its visual callbacks and tie-ins to LotR, it had its own tone, distinctly different characters, and what I think justifies the decision to turn the movies into a trilogy: A pitch-perfect ending between Bilbo and Thorin. But at the same time the Last Stand of Boromir stands head and shoulders above The Hobbit’s climax in the fir trees, which was still good, I thought.
    When it comes to visual effects, though, I can firmly declare Fellowship to be more effective. I appreciated Azog, but he would have been ten times better as a person in prosthetics. On that subject, though, I think the use of CGI as opposed to makeup for the goblins and Azog in The Hobbit was meant to distinguish from the orcs following the company in FotR, which I can definitely respect.

  15. Saw 3D HFR Hobbit.

    I am not sure what some of people were talking about in terms of soap opera effect. Didn’t we all went through the shock first time we bought 120hz or more TV like 4 years ago? I went and start looking for things to weird me out but it turns out that not only HFR doesn’t bother me at all, but I started to worry about 3D movies coming in 2013 that’s not in HFR(MOS and Star trek especially). Other 3D looks fuzzy compare to HFR and I hope they go to even higher(60 fps) at some point as this makes 3D very very tolerable and realistic(I still prefer true imax with true imax camera).

    Having said this, onto HObbit.
    Oh man. Since I already wasted 3 hours of my time, I am not gonna waste too much time deeply going into what went wrong w/ this movie. I am just gonna say that, they could have spend 10 min(and I am being generous here) in one of the LOTR trilogy to explain away the movie hobbit. This is how I feel.

    Star trek prologue? hHhmmm.. I enjoyed it but like the screenrant said. It wasn’t like Dark knight or dkr.
    Also, I do appreciate this style but I prefer sort of stand alone sequence(like DK or DKR).

    • Some people enjoy “The Hobbit” book more than the LOTR trilogy. To some people, it deserves more than just 10 minutes.

      But if thats how you feel, okay

      • @ACW 007, yes I understand. All subjective and perhaps I was being bit harshy but I am sure who are fan of the book will check out the movie anyway. Perhaps because I am casual fan of lotr triology, I was bit disappointed. Sorry for the strong words.

  16. I enjoyed both films but overall I’d take FotR anytime. I like Bilbo a lot better than Frodo (I hated him so much)but I don’t think the problem with the hobbit was the effects or the loads of CGI it was the oversaturated information. There were parts really boring that added nothing to the movie (the Sauruman, Galadriel and Gandalf talking on Rivendell) and the film could’ve been perfect with 20 minutes less. I think they tried so hard to tie this movie with LotR that they forgot to focus more on the actual story. Other than that I really liked it and I’m looking forward to the next film.

  17. You know, i would have said that the Hobbit was the better movie fresh out of the theater. But after rewatching the LotR fims in this last week, i gotta say: Fellowship takes the win for me. Perhaps it was the fact that it was the first time I was introduced to Middle-Earth on the big screen (live action anyway. I’m not precisely sure, but I’ll tell ya, it gripped me in a way that the Hobbit just didn’t. That’s not saying AT ALL that the Hobbit was a bad movie, I LOVED it. Just not as much as Fellowship.

  18. This film was absolutely disappointing, in pretty much every way. It simply lacked the spirit that the LOTR trilogy had in spades. I don’t expect it to be the same feel as the previous films, but I do expect Tolkien-based films to have at least some spirit in keeping inline with the books. Honestly, in my opinion this film does a great disservice to the work. Glossly fromage of the highest (read most expensive) calibre.

  19. FOTR to me is a much more serious movie about good vs. evil and the many characters and their flaws. The Hobbit is a children’s story about how even the small a and insignificant person (like all of us) has greatness that can be found when tested, and I think it is told by Tolkien in that fashion. However the movie seems to have set the beginning of a warrior Hobbit rather than one who uses mostly his wits to extract himself from difficult places. Also the chase scene under the Misty Mountains is surrealistic and I think only done for 3D as it does nothing for the story. I saw it in 2D and thought it was interminable. But there is much good in the movie and it far outweighs the crass parts inserted just to extend this film and make a trilogy.

  20. Some people say this movie was too much like LOTR.. In my opinion, it wasn’t. If it was, movie would have been awesome.

    Rotten tomatoes overall grade rarely lies.

    • Your comment baffles me. How, exactly, was is not like LOTR? To me, it makes a perfect companion piece to the trilogy.

  21. I think they are both different movies. I really enjoyed fellowship of the ring cause it took me to a new place I never imagined of going. The hobbit did the same but I been here before but with new attractions. I was so exited seeing the hobbit as if any other lord of the rings movies.
    You have to think they are two different story telling and they should be appreciated in their own respective way. Can’t wait for the next one.

  22. I like both. I just think that Tolkien made Hobbit to complete LOTR.

    That’s only me or anyone else realized it too:

    1) In LOTR, dwarf didn’t really have things to be proud of (we’d agree that aragorn and legolas already had their proud). In Hobbit, Tolkien seemed want to tell about how mighty and worth (to be respected) the dwarves are.

    2) In LOTR, Frodo was nothing without Sam and the rest of Fellowship. In Hobbit, Bilbo is the real hero, who was pointed by Gandalf as “small things that will keep eveil at bay”.

    3) According to number 2, I think Tolkien also wanted to tell readers why Gandalf chose Halfling (Hobbit) for every adventures.

    Well, I think those three reasons came up answering why Hobbit seems more light than LOTR. The first Hobbit’s movie from trilogy should not as dark as LOTR, because it’s just a bridge. A bridge that would tell us that “THIS IS ANOTHER COMPLEMENT FOR LOTR”, then the next sequel will be at least as powerful as LOTR ^_^

  23. The Hobbit was one of the most disjointed movies I have ever seen. While visually it was fine, the story line seemed hacked together and the acting rather poor. The transitions from one scene to the next seemed to have been chopped together during editing and there is no doubt that this should have been one long movie rather than 3 long movies. It will be hard to see how they will recover in the subsequent films.

    They might of well have recruited the Monty Python crew to plan many of the roles. Raddagast was too close to John Cleese playing Tim. Too many of the scenes felt like they were being put together to support eventual games or amusement park rides rather than really support the story.

    I was very disappointed.

  24. After finally seeing The Hobbit (for the first time), I have to say that I agree with you Sandy, as it is better, overall, than The Fellowship of the Ring, although both are great movies. I am quite perplexed that it only got a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but in reading some of those reviews, I don’t give a lot of merit to the criticisms contained therein. If people liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy, then there is no reason they should not like The Hobbit. If they were hoping for something different, either in substance or style, I don’t understand why. Thus far, the first installment of The Hobbit makes a perfect companion piece for The Lord of the Rings. My only criticisms of the film…I feel the brief fight between the rock monsters could have been avoided, as it seemed extraneous, and I did not like the Goblin King commenting, “That’ll do it,” just before his death, as the remark seemed foolish. Tomorrow I will be seeing the film in 3D, although sadly, I will not be able to experience it at the new 48 fps speed, as there are no theaters around here offering it. I am hoping that the option will be more available for the second part of the trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug.

  25. I heard about the horses dying during production.

    Were the film editors riding them when this happened?

  26. It’s a great article, fair comparison, but I think AUJ wins over FOTR just because the writer chooses the points at that AUJ is stronger than FOTR. If he/she adds some more points like the acting, the dialogue,… then I’m sure that FOTR would definitely win in overall result.

    For example, in the acting, the casts in FOTR is very much stronger than the casts in AUJ, the chemistry between the casts in FOTR was amazingly great when the casts in AUJ seem to have so many things to catch up.