Best Lord Of The Rings/Hobbit Movie

What is everyone's favorite LOTR/H movie? It's really hard because they're all so good but I'm going with The Battle Of Five Armies. It may be super sad at times but it's amazing. The Return Of The King is probably second. It really shows that Samwise Gamgee is 99% of the Fellowships strength.

RotK. My second favorite all time movie behind Star Wars III

Who voted TTT?

I did.

There didn’t need to be more than one The Hobbit movie, and there needed to be more than 3 LOTR movies

It's one continuous story, I don't have a favorite.

If we’re talking theatrical versions, Fellowship. If we’re talking extended, Towers.

If we’re talking wasted potential, The Hobbit trilogy.

Not The Hobbit movies.  I didn't even finish them.

Pethead wrote:If we’re talking theatrical versions, Fellowship.

Humphf, I thought it was rushed and trashed quite a bit of it back in the day in some forum rants. Thought the extended was greatly improved.  I guess TT was the best of the theatrical, but it's been a few moons, as I thought the liberties taken with Return were too drastic.

Now because of this thread I'm watching The Hobbit 1st time since the theater.

Superjuice wrote:

Pethead wrote:If we’re talking theatrical versions, Fellowship.

Humphf, I thought it was rushed and trashed quite a bit of it back in the day in some forum rants. Thought the extended was greatly improved.  I guess TT was the best of the theatrical, but it's been a few moons, as I thought the liberties taken with Return were too drastic.

I’m not that big on the books, honestly. I enjoy them, but reading them is a bit of a slog to me.

I’m not that big on the books, honestly. I enjoy them, but reading them is a bit of a slog to me.

No!!!

Pethead wrote:If we’re talking theatrical versions, Fellowship. If we’re talking extended, Towers.

If we’re talking wasted potential, The Hobbit trilogy.

I have yet to watch the extended, I own them on DVD but they're all scratched. Also, The Hobbit is just as good as LOTR. I watched The Hobbit first because I wanted to watch the movies in order. I don't know how you can say wasted potential.

The Hobbit movies are to LotR what Torn Flesh is to Tourniquet.

I should clarify that I find certain PARTS of the novel(s) a slog. Not all of them. I really like books 2, 3, and 5, particularly.

Pethead wrote:I should clarify that I find certain PARTS of the novel(s) a slog. Not all of them. I really like books 2, 3, and 5, particularly.

Wait, aren't there only four? I own all of them. I haven't read them though. I would like to. I have normal versions and a special version with all three LOTR in one book (it's huge) and a special edition Hobbit (Or There And Back Again).

Pethead wrote:The Hobbit movies are to LotR what Torn Flesh is to Tourniquet.

The Hobbit movies are to LOTR what Deliverance is to Tourniquet.

This may be a hot take, but one of my main gripes with the movies is how they portrayed the Balrog. In the book, it is described as basically a somewhat humanoid shadow creature whose true form couldn’t be distinguished in the shadow, with spreading wings and a fiery sword and whip. The movie portrayed it to look like some sort of fiery demon video game boss, completely took away the “shadow” element which would have made it scarier imo

Christian Thrash Rules wrote:

Pethead wrote:I should clarify that I find certain PARTS of the novel(s) a slog. Not all of them. I really like books 2, 3, and 5, particularly.

Wait, aren't there only four? I own all of them. I haven't read them though. I would like to. I have normal versions and a special version with all three LOTR in one book (it's huge) and a special edition Hobbit (Or There And Back Again).

LotR is 3 volumes with 2 “books” in each volume.

I'm between Pethead and CTR on the Hobbit... I like the movies a lot, but LotR is much better

So they are what VR is to TQT

And the books are awesome. Tolkien was an incredible writer, dude literally invented multiple languages, complete with grammar and everything, for his fictional universe

Yeah, too bad he didn’t work on livening up his English…

seth wrote:This may be a hot take, but one of my main gripes with the movies is how they portrayed the Balrog. In the book, it is described as basically a somewhat humanoid shadow creature whose true form couldn’t be distinguished in the shadow, with spreading wings and a fiery sword and whip. The movie portrayed it to look like some sort of fiery demon video game boss, completely took away the “shadow” element which would have made it scarier imo

I liked the movie’s depiction if considered in a vacuum, but it’s very different than the books. Tbf, Tolkien isn’t very clear about its appearance, though. Which might’ve been the point.

Yeah the fact that it was cloaked in shadow was a major part of its scariness. And also the movie portrayed it as a giant brutish beast, but the book portrayed it as a far more intelligent entity with strong magical powers, sort of a dark counterpart to Gandalf