No Tom Bombadil = No sale.

I was so happy Jackson and his co-writers omitted Tom Bombadil from FOTR. I remember when the EE was first announced, I was dreading his inclusion. That said, I wish the Barrow-wight had made an appearance. It would have made the Witch-king's demise in ROTK all the better had he been weakened by one of the swords retrieved from the Barrow-downs.

I imagine it was family first, then close friends.

The difference between the two trilogies and the reason to skip the Hobbit films is that the Hobbit (at least in film form) just isn't a particularly compelling story. Sure we can parse each film scene by scene and say this works and this doesn't, but in the end what does any of it add up to? In it's original form it was a brisk, lighthearted, episodic adventure story. Fine, but that's not what the movies want to be. Instead the movies try to turn this small story into this grand epic. However, the stakes are just not there to support it. What happens if the Dwarves don't defeat the dragon and get their gold back? I don't know, they'll be sad? And all this stuff with Gandalf and Sauron and the elves setting up LotR? Why does any of that matter? We already know exactly where it ends up. That's the fatal flaw of just about any prequel. Sure it's fun for fans to see events from the books brought to the screen, but that doesn't mean it works cinematically. There's a reason why most of this written material only existed in supplemental form. It's interesting as the basis for world forming, but it doesn't provide a compelling narrative.

I'm not saying that I wish I had never seen the Hobbit films. They were fine to see once. But I can honestly say that I have no desire to ever see them again. On the flip side, I've probably sat through the LotR trilogy 10 times and will probably be happy to do so another 10. Are they perfect? No. What film is? But there's a level of investment in the characters and the stakes at hand that will bring people back. The Hobbit, on the other hand, just feels like a 10 hour bone thrown to all of the Tolkien uber fans.

If you want a true chronological order ,you would start with The Hobbit but skip past Frodo scene to young Bilbo. Watch The Hobbit trilogy. Then go back to The Hobbit intro with Frodo. Then start with LOTR. The opening scene in LOTR picks up right after The Hobbit intro.

I'm just now working my way through The Hobbit EE documentaries. It's funny to see how Peter Jackson quickly gains his weight back in the film making process. Has to be an enormous physical burden to make these films.

A lot of sitting down for sure.

That's exactly the reason many choose to ignore all the Middle Earth films. As a fan of all six, I don't agree with them, but they have a point as it applies to the weakness of the SIX film series. Can't use that angle to dismiss one when it applies to all of them.

Eh. There will always be people that don't like things. But if you can honestly tell me that the story and characters in the Hobbit films are on equal footing with the LotR then more power to you. I'm glad someone enjoys them. All I can say is that as someone who really enjoys the LotR, the Hobbit films are dreadfully unengaging.

If I can convince someone to endure 18hrs of Middle Earth, I will do it in chronological order. Start with the first Hobbit movie, end with Return of the King. The references in the Hobbit movie will come across as the first time we see them, as opposed to the LOTR movies currently being the "firsts". The (heavy handed) foreshadowing of Sauron and other events will come about in LOTR, and newcomers will most likely think it's cool.

I gave the first Hobbit movie a shot and thought it was only okay, then saw some of the 2nd movie on cable and got bored and never finished it. Too many long action sequences with characters that are underdeveloped and just plain silly. I have no intention of revisiting The Hobbit films.

I can because the LOTR movies have the same faults. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're free to like what you like, and as you say, we'll have to agree to disagree. Still, you really think that LotR has the same faults as the Hobbit? The absolute biggest problem with the Hobbit are the indistinct and underdeveloped characters. Boromir alone has more depth of character and intrigue to his back-story than just about every character in the Hobbit combined. And he has what, only an hour of screen time total in the entire series?

Tolkien had a slightly different take on it. He wrote (speaking as Gandalf) that if the Dwarves had failed, Sauron might have won the War of the Ring, and enslaved all of Middle-earth. Yeah, I guess the stakes weren't too high.

I guess that had the Dwarves and Bard not taken him out, Sauron would've used Smaug as his big weapon in the upcoming war?

Smaug would have been a powerful soldier but still only one soldier in Sauron's army. The real problem was Erebor itself. It was built at a key strategic location. Most everyone passed through there, which is why nearby Dale became so wealthy, and Lake Town was once a flourishing trading post.

It would have been a better military stronghold for Sauron than Mordor.

Well, if you're trying to turn someone into a fan of the series, start with LOTR for sure.. but if they're committed, go with the Hobbit. I do wish PJ had made the old Bilbo & Frodo bookends as an alternate version, but all well.

Film(s).

All 1.5 of them that you actually watched.

I believe you should always watch any movie franchise in the order they were filmed in. Whenever they make Prequel movies, there are little things that are in there that are made for fans that have seen the previous movies. Plus a movie series rarely gets better when they make more movies (especially prequels), so you always want to start with the good ones so the new viewers doesn't give up if they see the bad ones first and never get to the good ones!

But where and when was that written? And is it in the films? If it is then I completely missed it. It's been a couple years since I saw the first movie but at the point Bilbo and the dwarves began their quest no one even knew Sauron was in play. Stakes in hindsight aren't real stakes.

I would assume Tolkien came up with it afterwards. The book is a slim children's tale which is breezy and fun, all of the stuff tying into the larger universe came later (though knowing Tolkien, he probably had most of it figured out). It's a fundamental problem with the new trilogy. There simply isn't any way around the tonal disconnect between the light and breezy swashbuckling of The Hobbit and the grander stuff from LOTR, and they sit uneasily together. The book is a simple tale of a little character who learns about a bigger world by going off on an adventure. It's why I'm evidently the only one who's favorite is AUJ, because I think it's closest to that tonally. The second and especially third installments get increasingly grim.

The first one does have a much different tone than the rest. Which may be disjointing to LOTR fans. I've never read anything from that universe. So I can just take the films as the source for which to make an opinion of. I liked the first one more than the other 2 which just kept dipping quality. Five armies really had a bad idea in starting off the way it did.

When was it written? We don't know, other than the fact that Tolkien began creating the world of Middle-earth as early as the late 1920's-early 1930's. Was it all published then? No, but making the claim that something doesn't exist until it is published is really kind of silly.

In the narrative of the fictional universe, there were no "stakes in hindsight". Many story elements could not, for legal reasons, be directly stated in the films, but only alluded to. If that ruins the experience for you, well, then don't watch the films.

Honestly, I'm surprised they got away with even filming the Bree flashback between Thorin and Gandalf.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm legitimately asking where and when that explanation comes from? I'm not a Tolkien expert by any stretch of the imagination. Was it in the Hobbit? Was it in the revised Hobbit? The appendices? Where? And when did Gandalf come to that realization in the timeline? Like I said, he wasn't really aware of Sauron and his plans when Bilbo and the Dwarves set out on their quest.

But no matter what, if that bit of information is not expressed in the films, then that's a problem. It doesn't matter why it was left out. As a viewer I have no reason to be invested in their quest outside of "hey, I like these guys and I hope they find what they are looking for," and because I have no particular attachment to these characters, that's not enough.

That more or less is the way it is in the book of The Hobbit. However, I think that PJ and the writers realized that and decided to add this whole element of Sauron trying to unite with Smaug at Erebor to raise the stakes. It would have been pretty bad news for all in the film universe had they not taken the mountain , as Sauron would have undoubtedly established himself with Smaug acting like a Death Star. Strategically speaking, sending a dragon to level a town saves time and effort.

And as pointed out earlier, it was also a pretty well established as a strategic location without or without a dragon weapon.