Reasons why The Hobbit films are not as popular as LotR

[Smaug's voice]

Putting aside the debate whether the LotR films are superior to the TH films or not, I was wondering or more like making a list, as to the reasons these films have not been received as well as the earlier trilogy.

-LotR was of course the first Live-action Tolkien film and people had waited for it for decades. This anticipation was dialed down because The Hobbit was no longer "new" and also did not have the same level of anticipation LotR had.
-LotR was the first venture into middle-earth for most viewers today. And over the decade, people got so used to it that perhaps the freshness was gone.
-Then there are the changes made for the sake of changes. I can atleast work out the logic as to why PJ changed what he changed in LotR films (with the exception of the Frodo-Sam fight, which remains a mystery to me). Not so with The Hobbit. I mean, having recently re-read the book, there are small or big alterations in nearly every line of every page.
-Bad dialogue. Fundamentally, there isn't a great deal of difference between the dialogues in TH and LotR. But compared to LR, There's so little Tolkien dialogue compared in these films that the weaker scripts are more noticeable.
-There is also the fact that TH for many is a fond memory of their childhood - they first they ever read for many. So there's a certain emotional connection there.
-I think editing and scene-selection has played a key part too. IMO the editing of both the films have gone between mediocre to poor. There's this sense of bloat which I do not find in LotR. (yeah, those were long but not filled up with unnecessary scenes) Important bits from AUJ (Rivendell) were cut to be replaced by Stone-giants and such. While DOS had far too little Mirkwood and far too much barrels and Smaug-chase.
-A big reason I think is the decision to split the films into three. The critics were ready to bash Jackson on these films as soon as this was announced. People began holding opinions without even seeing the films. I am certain that if most people had no idea the films were stretched from a 300 page book, they would not have felt the sense of bloat to the extent they are stating they feel now. That is not to say, that these films are not bloated.

[Elentári]

I would say other reasons include the decision to film this adaptation in the current 3D "blockbuster style", writing to a formula, almost ticking the boxes in many respects, and adding far more gratuitous action scenes where there were none in the novel, (and I'm not including Appendices material in this, but stuff like the warg chase, the OTT stone giants, the barrel escape, and the Dwarves/Smaug confrontation.) This is most noticeable with Desolation of Smaug, where much of the original storyline has been cut for the EE in order to make a tighter, action-packed TE. Obviously this seems in part to be a knee-jerk reaction by Jackson to criticism of the too slow pace of AUJ, where he did leave in much that is beloved from the book. However, I think that had to be left in because of the 3-movies switch, and AUJ needed every bit of material available to pad out the length - even though, surprisingly, Jackson left out Bilbo-centric material which could have improved the TE, IMO.

But then again...did the movies have to be over 2hours 30? Surely with the switch to 3 films, each film could have been trimmer and pacier at a shorter length?

With LotR we got the fan service in the TE to a far greater extent, and Jackson's additions sat slightly more comfortably alongside Tolkien's material.

A lot of this also means we are more nostalgic towards LotR...the new technology has meant no more "bigatures," less prosthetics, less sets built on location, in favour of overwhelming CGI, HFR...all of this has led to a difference in visual tone and aesthetic which is unsettling to those who adored LotR and were hoping to revisit that experience. Talking of tone, there is, of course, the difference in tone (initially) between the more light-hearted HOBBIT and the seriously epic LotR. Jackson's attempt to portrayal this tonal difference with his brand of humour and comedy has in places almost caused TH to feel more like a send up of LotR...particularly when he has insisted on recreating many "moments" from the original trilogy, instead of there being simply a more childlike-sense of wonder and magic... Now we have a mish-mash of tone, veering between slapstick comedy to darkly epic. Not saying this hasn't been successful for many...it's surprising, on the strength of LotR's success, how many comments there have been from those who find they are enjoying a lighter take on M-e - an easier escapism, if you like, and they compare it favourably with LotR that apparently was too self-important and took itself too seriously!

This is a worrying reaction to me...LotR's importance in the history of cinema was that it was the first fantasy film that showed the general public, and Hollywood, that genre could be taken seriously. it's almost like with TH this advance for the genre has reverted back 15 years, and now fantasy is back in that comfortable zone along with the comic book heroes - great escapism but not to be taken too seriously...

[Smaug's voice]

This is most noticeable with Desolation of Smaug, where much of the original storyline has been cut for the EE in order to make a tighter, action-packed TE. Obviously this seems in part to be a knee-jerk reaction by Jackson to criticism of the too slow pace of AUJ, where he did leave in much that is beloved from the book.However, I think that had to be left in because of the 3-movies switch, and AUJ needed every bit of material available to pad out the length - even though, surprisingly, Jackson left out Bilbo-centric material which could have improved the TE, IMO.

I would not say much of the original storyline of DOS was cut for the EE. In fact, most of the story from the book was there fitted with new additions which diluted the original storyline (looking at the romance here) and spoiled it.
Frankly, I liked DOS far more than AUJ and think it feels much more "Tolkien" than the other. Apart from the party, the trolls and Riddles I cannot really think of the things in the book that were left in.
I also think DOS is better paced than AUJ but that isn't that big an achievement in itself.

But then again...did the movies have to be over 2hours 30? Surely with the switch to 3 films, each film could have been trimmer and pacier at a shorter length?

Very much agreed on the length. I think three 2 hour movies would have been great in this case.I would have liked to see the final 20 minutes of AUJ cut, the whole "into the fire" sequence was agonizing for me, even more than Goblintown. The same is the case with the Laketown attack in DOS.

[Smaug's voice]

And here's an interesting article while we are at it

The Lord of the Gaps: How Tolkien’s mastery of a literary technique would make ten Hobbit films possible – and they still wouldn’t be enough

[Elentári]

I would not say much of the original storyline of DOS was cut for the EE. In fact, most of the story from the book was there fitted with new additions which diluted the original storyline (looking at the romance here) and spoiled it.

I was of course referring to the material we know was filmed and will likely be reinstated in the EE, namely the extended stay with Beorn, the Enchanted River and White Hart sequences, both of which are beloved parts of the original storyline; also there is likely more footage involving the Company travelling through the ruined Dale, all of which will add considerably to the Tolkien quota of the movie...which you right note was diluted by Jackson's additions.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think it's simple. The story and the characters as presented by PJ, are simply not as compelling.

Additionally, I think the decision to make most of the dwarves look and act like French cartoon characters didn't help audiences get invested in them and their quest, and the lack of meaningful character development for Bilbo didn't allow audiences to get invested in him either.

Shiny and pretty, but without an emotional core.

[narya]

The books are very different to begin with, and even PJ can't change that, so the TH movies are bound to be more disappointing and less subject to multiple re-viewings. I don't know how much of the popularity of the LOTR movies was due to repeat viewings and people dragging their non-LOTR friends to see the movies, but that may account for part of the number.

Not only is The Hobbit more light-hearted as Elentári said, it is a classic adventure of a band of treasure hunters, whereas LOTR was an archetypal quest to save the world. Relating to Bilbo having an adventure is far different than relating to Frodo who takes on a task of monumental importance that he knows he will not survive. And there are heroic roles for other characters as well. LOTR - both book and film - is worth multiple viewings to contemplate multiple takes on the meaning of life.

Secondly, LOTR had multiple story lines. Bilbo wanders off occasionally, but in general it is a simple story line. PJ attempts to add other lines by following Gandalf and adding cameos, but it's not the same. It's easy to "get" TH in just one viewing.

Thirdly, LOTR had multiple lead characters to begin with, and PJ fleshed them out (or changed them) to make them even more distinct. You can tell by the choices of screen names on TORC when the movies first came out that Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Faramir, Gandalf, and others each had a fiercely strong following. I once looked through all the screen names in TORC and found over 800 devoted to "Lego-" or "Orly-". When we had only the books, the was not a major Legolas cult. Though PJ does flesh out the characters in TH by use of lots of little manufactured vignettes, the characters are still pretty uniform. You can't become immersed in a character and world in TH the way you could in LOTR, and there isn't the draw to want to escape once more into Middle Earth.

At least, that's the way I see it as an amateur fangirl, with I'm-afraid-to-admit-how-many viewings of LOTR under my belt, and only a handful of TH viewings.

[yovargas]

According to wikipedia, the LOTR books have sold 50 mil more copies than The Hobbit. So one could just as easily ask - Reasons why The Hobbit books are not as popular as LotR?

[Smaug's voice]

Not only is The Hobbit more light-hearted as Elentári said, it is a classic adventure of a band of treasure hunters, whereas LOTR was an archetypal quest to save the world. Relating to Bilbo having an adventure is far different than relating to Frodo who takes on a task of monumental importance that he knows he will not survive. And there are heroic roles for other characters as well. LOTR - both book and film - is worth multiple viewings to contemplate multiple takes on the meaning of life.

This quote puzzles me.
Yes TH is light-hearted and more of a kid's story, why should that prevent it from being less popular? Just like LotR was a classic for being one of the first "serious" fantasy films, these TH films could easily have been a children's classic. Children's classics CAN be popular (just look at Frozen or Toy Story) and it could have been.
I do not think complexity of plot has much to do with how popular a film is; as long as the thing is executed perfectly, it can be a hit.

[Smaug's voice]

According to wikipedia, the LOTR books have sold 50 mil more copies than The Hobbit. So one could just as easily ask - Reasons why The Hobbit books are not as popular as LotR?

LOTR was criticised more than The Hobbit, initially when it was published. Wonder why it's the reverse here.

[Dave_LF]

Reasons why The Hobbit films are not as popular as LotR

Fundamental story differences are important; probably most important. But so are demographics. 2001's teenagers are twenty or thirty-somethings now. Twenty and thirty-somethings don't go to movies as often as teenagers, and tend to have different tastes when they do. Those who go anyway will be comparing a cherished experience from the golden days of youth to one of weary adulthood, with predictable results. Meanwhile, the new batch of teenagers has its own set of tastes which are not necessarily the same as last decade's. Further, overall public interest in movies is less than it was--if you want to compare 2012 to 2001, you have to account for the tides that have lowered all ships.

[kzer_za]

I think a big part of it is timing. LotR was one of the first fantasy movies that people took seriously, used CG in new ways, and was a huge cultural phenomenon - bigger than anything since Star Wars, really. I remember from 2001 to 2003, the main topic at the extended-family Christmas dinner every year was always the latest LotR movie. I was in high school when the trilogy came out, and it was huge - even the cool non-geeky kids would have conversations like "which Middle-earth race would you want to be?" Also, while the books are certainly a very popular work, there were plenty to whom Middle-earth something totally new.

It had cool action sequences and crazy creatures, it had a beautiful world, it had great music, it had a complex storyline, it had thematic depth. Folks who weren't into action movies or fantasy at all would totally geek out over it. There was something for everyone in it - I know not literally everyone liked it, but the point is that plenty of people from almost every demographic did. There are only a handful of movie tunes you can whistle or hum and everyone in the room will instantly recognize it - the Fellowship theme is one of them. Some would say this is because the strength of the source material shone through despite PJ's bungling, but regardless, the movies really captured people's imagination.

The post-9/11 timing also probably helped, since people were happy to have a dark yet hopeful story. Some even appealed to LotR to justify the Iraq War...but that's another topic.

Now more than a decade later, plenty of movies have imitated LotR and even people who haven't seen the movies have a little familiarity with the world. I don't think the Hobbit movies are as good, but even if they were, there's no way they could have the same impact.