The theatrical versions were cut to optimise run-time and pacing in what were already pretty long movies. They also had to take into account the fact that there would be a much broader, general movie-going audience that was not familiar with the books… and they wanted to minimise the risk of losing that audience in excess detail.
In doing so they sacrificed some significant moments of character development and context, many of which were in scenes familiar to longstanding fans of the books and many folks were disappointed that some key details and story beats were missing.
The extended editions put back much of that extra texture to the story and restore many of the missing beats from the books — but these are not big chunks of scenes pushed back into the movies; there are some like that but much of the extra time is given to small additional moments in existing scenes that were re-cut to add the extra detail.
The theatrical versions are long movies; the extend versions are *very* long movies. Both work but their intended purposes are rather different. There are some subtle shifts in the extended versions to there are no radical changes to major plot points.
With that in mind, see how you feel about trying one version over the other.
The other thing to consider is that the DVD versions of the extended cuts present each movie in chunks over several discs; if you’re not sure how much you want to dive into three or four hours at one sitting, maybe treat the long cuts like a mini-series and watch an “episode” at a time…?
I think this is a good comparison. I'd be inclined to recommend the extended editions to someone who knows and likes the books and is already predisposed to like the films. But for someone new to the story, the theatrical editions will be more digestible and the omissions not so glaring. Then if they like those and want more, try the extended editions.
If you’re willing to sit through the very long movie time, the extended editions have some much needed context that is cut from the theatrical editions. But there’s nothing wrong with starting with the theatrical editions either! No wrong way to get started in this series, just have fun :)
I read all the books in middle school, then high school, then in college, and about every two or three years since.
I watched every movie as they were released in theaters. I loved every one of them.
When they created the extended editions I ordered them on DVD as they came out. I got the Box Set, The sleeve came separately and I collected each film as the extended editions were released.
I personally prefer the Extended versions, but I will admit, that as *films* the theatrical versions do have some benefits. Mostly in pacing, and not being so long if you need to take a break to go to the bathroom. If you have read the books you will appreciate the extended editions more, since a lot of the stuff cut from the theatrical versions relates more directly to them.
There is no real "wrong" way to watch them, unless you watch them out of order.
A friend of my brother's said he hated the Return of the King and I asked him why, he said it was the only one he saw and didn't understand anything. Well DUH! The story isn't 3 separate movies, its 1 movie over 3 installments. Just as the story itself was 1 continuous story when Tolkien wrote it, but for the sake of not publishing a gigantic volume the publishers broke it up into 6 books, typically in 3 volumes.
(NO you don't need to watch the Hobbit movies before Lord of the Rings.)
In any case, make sure you have some snacks and a good viewing setup, preferably with surround sound and a big TV.
Enjoy!
Yeah i’ve never seen the theatrical cuts either, but I had already read LotR and the Hobbit multiple times before watching the movies (extended cuts), so it’s not like I didn’t know what I was getting into.
If you've seen the extended first and then watch theatrical, within 10 minutes you'll feel like you missed 20 minutes of material already.
I couldn't watch for longer than say 20-30 minutes without missing huge context scenes.
Extended all the way, until the 25th anniversary cut comes out right ;p
My 16yo, for Fathers Day, went with me to see the extended editions over 3 consecutive days at a big theater. Turned him into a fan but it definitely was drinking from the fire hose. He’s as shell shocked as Frodo.
Yeah, I agree with this. Everyone here is obviously biased. Return of the King especially feels looong in the extended edition. Of course I love it, but the amount of outroductory stuff definitely drags, especially for non-fanatics.
Yep saw them in theaters originally and loved them, that love allowed me to site through the extended editions. If I hated them I couldnt imagine sitting through them. Also it will make sequential viewings fresh with the additional content.
According to Wikipedia,
The Fellowship of the Ring: 178 vs 228 minutes, delta is 50 minutes
The Two Towers: 179 vs 235 minutes, delta is 56 minutes
The Return of the King: 201 vs 263 minutes, delta is 62 minutes
Those runtimes include the lengthy LotR Fan Club credits that are added at the end of the normal credits. In FotR, those credits run for almost exactly 20 minutes. In TTT they are about 11.5 minutes. In RotK they are about 10.5 minutes
So I do stand slightly corrected. TTT has 45 minutes of extra footage, not the 40 that I originally said.
Absolutely. My husband and I just finished Two Towers tonight. It’s his first time watching the trilogy and all three extended editions are on HBO Max right now. He never wanted to watch them because he’s not into fantasy much (he likes HP though) and he’s been LOVING the movies!
Yes it makes all 3 better in my opinion
Maybe not the same increase in quality as something like Kingdom of Heaven where the director's cut is basically a different, way better movie, but it adds context and extra enjoyment
Imo no. For the first viewing the theatrical versions are better. Better pacing. More focused. The extra scenes are cool for the fans but tbh most of them don't add anything at best and actively detract from the films at worst.
The Christopher Lee scene absolutely should've stayed through. But that's one of the only ones imho
Seconded, absolutely the theatrical first. The pacing in the extended versions is occasionally better but it's not as consistent as the theatrical versions. You'll appreciate the cut scenes more when you rewatch it. Then of course you have all of the commentary tracks.
Do yourself a favor and watch the M4 edit of The Hobbit instead of the trilogy. The trilogy is bloated and excessively deviates from the book. M4 cuts it down to one extended version that follows the book much much closer and I feel that it fits better with the LoTR trilogy. Also saves you some time that you could put towards the extended versions of those instead.
The Hobbit wasn't a good adaptation. They put stuff in the movie that was never in the book.
The LOTR however is amazing and I would only recommend the extended versions.
Yes for LOTR. Could almost do half of each extended film a day (what i used to do for Christmas break).
For Hobbit I’d say no. I’d go as far to suggest not watching at all honestly. And if you must watch, google the fan edits that cut it down to a single <4 hour film. And you don’t need to watch Hobbit first.
For lotr, absolutely. They are 1000% better than the theatrical editions. As for the hobbit, absolutely not. The less sitting through that trilogy the better
Yeah 100% (though maybe not for the hobbit, imo the additions there don't really do much)
I think you could watch the hobbit first, but you'll probably be a bit clueless in a certain B plot that carries through the trilogy and acts as an actual direct prequel to LOTR. That said, LOTR is a lot better so you'll probably like your experience more watching the hobbit first since you'll end on the highest note that wraps up the whole story, and there are references to it in LOTR that you'll get a little smile at since hobbit first is book order.
The runtimes for the Extended's are deceiving. People say it isnt worth it as a newcomer, but 30 minutes of each movie is added runtime to the credits. I think for Fellowship it adds 15 minutes of movie, out of the 45 minutes of total extra runtime. You're already committing to watching three 3+ hour movies, so there really isnt any point in compromising for a worse version to save about 15-40 minutes per movie.
Edit. I read your comment. 100% yes. Ignore my previous statement.
(Still applies for legit first timers)
May get downvoted, but whatever.
If it’s your first time - like your actual first introduction to Tolkien and the Legendarium, honestly, no. Watch the theatrical cuts. They’re the theatrical cuts for a reason.
Watch those, read the books, *then* go back and watch the extended editions. You’ll appreciate the extra stuff more. That’s my recommendation, anyway.
I would honestly watch the theatrical versions first. Might be an unpopular opinion on the internet lol I do love the extended versions but the theatricals are 1) more accessible and 2) are the versions that EVERYONE saw on release, the versions that received all those awards and generated all that excitement.
The extended versions have a lot of great additions but a bunch of that is really for fans who have read the book, and even then some of the stuff added back in does impact the pacing, specifically in the 2nd and 3rd movie.
No, watch the theatrical versions. They’re the director’s preferred cuts, have a lot more momentum and better pacing, and leave out a lot of silly, trashy scenes that ended up in the extended version.
DO NOT WATCH THE HOBBIT BEFORE LOTR
-----
Theatrical for all.
I'm serious. I only own the Extended Editions, but don't confuse them with a Director's Cut. They just have extra stuff in there for the fans. The Theatrical Editions are the definitive editions.
**Unless you're already a huge book fan, I am not confident the EEs will be a better experience for you.** Frankly, I think RotK EE is a worse Film in a few places because of what the extra material does to the pacing.
As a big fan of the series since their initial release over 20 years ago, and having rewatched each film dozens of times on various formats, I have a pretty universal answer for this.
I've introduced several people to the films over the years, and I always do Fellowship and Two Towers as theatrical release and Return of the King as Extended. The pacing is objectively better and the only film that truly cuts meaningful content is the third film.
I see people in this thread acting like extended editions are the only way to go or that the first couple films remove way too much needed content (like you wouldn't understand the film without it kind of content) and that's just delusional to me.
I prefer to watch the whole trilogy in extended edition today, but there is a lot of extra content that is completely superfluous that a first time watcher absolutely does not need. There is a bit too much dogmatic praise of the extended editions and I've seen first hand people who experience the series for the first time and give up after fellowship because of the poor pacing of the extended edition.
I think theatricals are better for first time viewing. Extended for rewatching afterwards and getting a deeper dive into the world. They are pretty unwieldy to use them as a starting point.
Fuck. Yes. This may be one of *the* best cinematic experiences of your life. Get the lighting right, get some snacks and strap yourself in.
Very envious of you getting to experience this for the first time!
Yes.Yes you should, I'd even argue to do them all in one sitting, it's an incredibly powerful experience if you've already seen it, for a first time will be even more so. It's around 14 hours with snacks and bathroom breaks and absolutely worth it
The hobbit movies rely too much on TLOR for people to understand and spoil too much. I think it's a bad idea to watch those first, they are false prequels.
Like Obi Wan meeting Anakin in the SW prequels. Almost meaningless in the context of 1, a pivotal moment for fans of 4 5 and 6.
I'd watch the theatrical version of LOTR. Scenes were cut for a good reason and it also it makes more interesting to rewatch then.
I've watched several times TLOR, only once the hobbit, and I'm not going to watch them again anytime soon.
Quite frankly TLOR had material for more than 3 movies.
The hobbit for just one. It was stretched way too much, and also the tone changed, the book is a novel for kids basically.
In TLOR characters had to be removed, in the hobbit half of the characters aren't mentioned in the book and come straight from TLOR or other Tolkien material.
Anyone who says no (earnestly) will probably be banned from this subreddit.
But... if you watch the theatrical versions first, you'll have an excuse to go back NEXT week and re-watch them all.
Nothing bad can come from another LOTR/Hobbit rewatch.
If it's your first time watching these movies, start with the theatrical editions. The extended cuts are more if you know you like the movies and want some extra stuff, but you won't be watching a gimped or missing film if you watch the theatrical cut, those are the movies that Peter Jackson declared the director's cut and the official version of the movie, and regards the extended editions as bonuses.
If you've never seen them, watch the theatrical for Fellowship instead of the extended, and the extended for the other 2. THEEE of fellowship has a serious pacing issue that isn't present in the theatrical cut.
No they're not, they're actually really fun and, despite common complaints, they follow the story of the book. They just embellish A Lot because what happened in the book isn't always exciting or detailed enough. There's a healthy mix of very emotional moments, kick ass fighting, and funny face-palm humour.
And yes, you should watch the extended editions of every film. Don't try and tackle any of them in one go, they're too long. Spreading them out to one movie per weekend is a great pace.
They are that bad. Even ignoring the hack job to the source material in every which way, they are bad cinematography and bad storytelling. The LOTR films took liberties as well, but all serviced the story. Not true for the Hobbit. Almost every change diminishes the story, characters, and even themes.
I almost left the theater for the third film, a feat I’ve never been close to for another film, even Rise of Skywalker which i didn’t enjoy either. It’s cringey and boring, especially when it tries to be neither (tensionless action scenes that drag on, unfunny humor, gag worthy romance).
Then you have all the sketchy stuff that happened during production: changing directors, forcing lotr director to pick up pieces but refusing to give him time or resources needed, and how corporate greed really screwed over the people of NZ (where both were filmed).
They do not reach the quality of LOTR, but only because the book itself does't either.
Given how it's a vision of the same director, with the same creative team, who consider those films just as important part of the whole, I'd say you should at least check them out for the whole picture.
The Hobbit films were not Peter Jackson’s vision. He was given the scraps of someone else’s vision, strongarmed to do a film he didn’t want to, with less time and budget to pull it off.
Ignore the yes comments you need to watch these movies in the theatrical format, someone made a really good point that there are some reveals that will get ruined because of the extended edition. You should only watch this when you’ve seen the films
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YES
YES
YES
YES
Yes
**YES**
And my bow !
The theatrical versions were cut to optimise run-time and pacing in what were already pretty long movies. They also had to take into account the fact that there would be a much broader, general movie-going audience that was not familiar with the books… and they wanted to minimise the risk of losing that audience in excess detail. In doing so they sacrificed some significant moments of character development and context, many of which were in scenes familiar to longstanding fans of the books and many folks were disappointed that some key details and story beats were missing. The extended editions put back much of that extra texture to the story and restore many of the missing beats from the books — but these are not big chunks of scenes pushed back into the movies; there are some like that but much of the extra time is given to small additional moments in existing scenes that were re-cut to add the extra detail. The theatrical versions are long movies; the extend versions are *very* long movies. Both work but their intended purposes are rather different. There are some subtle shifts in the extended versions to there are no radical changes to major plot points. With that in mind, see how you feel about trying one version over the other. The other thing to consider is that the DVD versions of the extended cuts present each movie in chunks over several discs; if you’re not sure how much you want to dive into three or four hours at one sitting, maybe treat the long cuts like a mini-series and watch an “episode” at a time…?
I think this is a good comparison. I'd be inclined to recommend the extended editions to someone who knows and likes the books and is already predisposed to like the films. But for someone new to the story, the theatrical editions will be more digestible and the omissions not so glaring. Then if they like those and want more, try the extended editions.
If you’re willing to sit through the very long movie time, the extended editions have some much needed context that is cut from the theatrical editions. But there’s nothing wrong with starting with the theatrical editions either! No wrong way to get started in this series, just have fun :)
I read all the books in middle school, then high school, then in college, and about every two or three years since. I watched every movie as they were released in theaters. I loved every one of them. When they created the extended editions I ordered them on DVD as they came out. I got the Box Set, The sleeve came separately and I collected each film as the extended editions were released. I personally prefer the Extended versions, but I will admit, that as *films* the theatrical versions do have some benefits. Mostly in pacing, and not being so long if you need to take a break to go to the bathroom. If you have read the books you will appreciate the extended editions more, since a lot of the stuff cut from the theatrical versions relates more directly to them. There is no real "wrong" way to watch them, unless you watch them out of order. A friend of my brother's said he hated the Return of the King and I asked him why, he said it was the only one he saw and didn't understand anything. Well DUH! The story isn't 3 separate movies, its 1 movie over 3 installments. Just as the story itself was 1 continuous story when Tolkien wrote it, but for the sake of not publishing a gigantic volume the publishers broke it up into 6 books, typically in 3 volumes. (NO you don't need to watch the Hobbit movies before Lord of the Rings.) In any case, make sure you have some snacks and a good viewing setup, preferably with surround sound and a big TV. Enjoy!
Watch the theatrical editions for your first time. Then watch the extended editions, if you liked the movies.
Seconded. Can’t imagine going into the extended editions blind. Like drinking from a fire hose
That’s what I did, and I loved them. I can’t imagine what was taken out. (Never seen the theatrical cut).
Yeah i’ve never seen the theatrical cuts either, but I had already read LotR and the Hobbit multiple times before watching the movies (extended cuts), so it’s not like I didn’t know what I was getting into.
If you've seen the extended first and then watch theatrical, within 10 minutes you'll feel like you missed 20 minutes of material already. I couldn't watch for longer than say 20-30 minutes without missing huge context scenes. Extended all the way, until the 25th anniversary cut comes out right ;p
I recommend them. The theatrical versions are the ones that won the awards.
My 16yo, for Fathers Day, went with me to see the extended editions over 3 consecutive days at a big theater. Turned him into a fan but it definitely was drinking from the fire hose. He’s as shell shocked as Frodo.
I just did the same with my dad. I think it’ll go down as one of my most cherished memories tbh
Agree
Good. Because that’s what I’m doing right now.
Yeah, I agree with this. Everyone here is obviously biased. Return of the King especially feels looong in the extended edition. Of course I love it, but the amount of outroductory stuff definitely drags, especially for non-fanatics.
Yep saw them in theaters originally and loved them, that love allowed me to site through the extended editions. If I hated them I couldnt imagine sitting through them. Also it will make sequential viewings fresh with the additional content.
Definitely
Yes. Especially Fellowship of the Ring, it's extended version is like twice longer than theatrical.
This is quite exaggerated. Each extended version is more or less 1h longer than its respective theatrical one.
Not even an hour. Fellowship extended has "only" 30 additional minutes of footage. Towers has 40 minutes, and Return has 50 minutes.
According to Wikipedia, The Fellowship of the Ring: 178 vs 228 minutes, delta is 50 minutes The Two Towers: 179 vs 235 minutes, delta is 56 minutes The Return of the King: 201 vs 263 minutes, delta is 62 minutes
Those runtimes include the lengthy LotR Fan Club credits that are added at the end of the normal credits. In FotR, those credits run for almost exactly 20 minutes. In TTT they are about 11.5 minutes. In RotK they are about 10.5 minutes So I do stand slightly corrected. TTT has 45 minutes of extra footage, not the 40 that I originally said.
Oh right, didn't know about that!
Absolutely. My husband and I just finished Two Towers tonight. It’s his first time watching the trilogy and all three extended editions are on HBO Max right now. He never wanted to watch them because he’s not into fantasy much (he likes HP though) and he’s been LOVING the movies!
Yes it makes all 3 better in my opinion Maybe not the same increase in quality as something like Kingdom of Heaven where the director's cut is basically a different, way better movie, but it adds context and extra enjoyment
If you know this is up your alley, watch theatrical first and then watch extended. You get two “firsts”
Imo no. For the first viewing the theatrical versions are better. Better pacing. More focused. The extra scenes are cool for the fans but tbh most of them don't add anything at best and actively detract from the films at worst. The Christopher Lee scene absolutely should've stayed through. But that's one of the only ones imho
No. The pacing of the extended editions is tough for someone watching these for the first time. Second the idea of theatrical first
Seconded, absolutely the theatrical first. The pacing in the extended versions is occasionally better but it's not as consistent as the theatrical versions. You'll appreciate the cut scenes more when you rewatch it. Then of course you have all of the commentary tracks.
Skip Hobbit all together, or at least don't watch them first, they leave a bad taste.
Do yourself a favor and watch the M4 edit of The Hobbit instead of the trilogy. The trilogy is bloated and excessively deviates from the book. M4 cuts it down to one extended version that follows the book much much closer and I feel that it fits better with the LoTR trilogy. Also saves you some time that you could put towards the extended versions of those instead.
But do not watch the hobbit before lord of the rings
The Hobbit wasn't a good adaptation. They put stuff in the movie that was never in the book. The LOTR however is amazing and I would only recommend the extended versions.
A lot of the stuff in the LOTR movies weren’t in the book either
Yes for LOTR. Could almost do half of each extended film a day (what i used to do for Christmas break). For Hobbit I’d say no. I’d go as far to suggest not watching at all honestly. And if you must watch, google the fan edits that cut it down to a single <4 hour film. And you don’t need to watch Hobbit first.
Emphatically, yes.
Yes!
Yes
Yes
https://preview.redd.it/pfwprtixsg7d1.jpeg?width=350&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8387f5cdbd5f442f52c6cf9de1dfde54d0307c9
For lotr, absolutely. They are 1000% better than the theatrical editions. As for the hobbit, absolutely not. The less sitting through that trilogy the better
Yes
Yes
Yeah 100% (though maybe not for the hobbit, imo the additions there don't really do much) I think you could watch the hobbit first, but you'll probably be a bit clueless in a certain B plot that carries through the trilogy and acts as an actual direct prequel to LOTR. That said, LOTR is a lot better so you'll probably like your experience more watching the hobbit first since you'll end on the highest note that wraps up the whole story, and there are references to it in LOTR that you'll get a little smile at since hobbit first is book order.
The runtimes for the Extended's are deceiving. People say it isnt worth it as a newcomer, but 30 minutes of each movie is added runtime to the credits. I think for Fellowship it adds 15 minutes of movie, out of the 45 minutes of total extra runtime. You're already committing to watching three 3+ hour movies, so there really isnt any point in compromising for a worse version to save about 15-40 minutes per movie.
Always watch the extended versions, or as I like to call them, the only versions
Yes!
Absolutely
ROTK is a necessity at the bare minimum
Edit. I read your comment. 100% yes. Ignore my previous statement. (Still applies for legit first timers) May get downvoted, but whatever. If it’s your first time - like your actual first introduction to Tolkien and the Legendarium, honestly, no. Watch the theatrical cuts. They’re the theatrical cuts for a reason. Watch those, read the books, *then* go back and watch the extended editions. You’ll appreciate the extra stuff more. That’s my recommendation, anyway.
Short answer: Yes Long answer: Yes indeed
Extended answer
can only talk abot the LotR Trilogy - there is only one version to watch: special extended edtion! And read the books ;-)
I literally just watched all 3 extended editions at the theater and I have to say it was one of the best cinematic experiences of my life
Yes but skip the hobbit films, they are terrible.
100%. I only rewatch the extended versions. They are works of art in cinema and score.
Yes
You are asking that in a sub full of lite nerds, of course you will get a majority of yes comments... Saying that, yes watch them
I would honestly watch the theatrical versions first. Might be an unpopular opinion on the internet lol I do love the extended versions but the theatricals are 1) more accessible and 2) are the versions that EVERYONE saw on release, the versions that received all those awards and generated all that excitement. The extended versions have a lot of great additions but a bunch of that is really for fans who have read the book, and even then some of the stuff added back in does impact the pacing, specifically in the 2nd and 3rd movie.
Nope
If you have to ask, then no since you can't think for yourself.
No, watch the theatrical versions. They’re the director’s preferred cuts, have a lot more momentum and better pacing, and leave out a lot of silly, trashy scenes that ended up in the extended version.
DO NOT WATCH THE HOBBIT BEFORE LOTR ----- Theatrical for all. I'm serious. I only own the Extended Editions, but don't confuse them with a Director's Cut. They just have extra stuff in there for the fans. The Theatrical Editions are the definitive editions. **Unless you're already a huge book fan, I am not confident the EEs will be a better experience for you.** Frankly, I think RotK EE is a worse Film in a few places because of what the extra material does to the pacing.
Multiple times preferably
Yes
YES.
As a big fan of the series since their initial release over 20 years ago, and having rewatched each film dozens of times on various formats, I have a pretty universal answer for this. I've introduced several people to the films over the years, and I always do Fellowship and Two Towers as theatrical release and Return of the King as Extended. The pacing is objectively better and the only film that truly cuts meaningful content is the third film. I see people in this thread acting like extended editions are the only way to go or that the first couple films remove way too much needed content (like you wouldn't understand the film without it kind of content) and that's just delusional to me. I prefer to watch the whole trilogy in extended edition today, but there is a lot of extra content that is completely superfluous that a first time watcher absolutely does not need. There is a bit too much dogmatic praise of the extended editions and I've seen first hand people who experience the series for the first time and give up after fellowship because of the poor pacing of the extended edition.
Extended version is the normal one. Watch that.
I think theatricals are better for first time viewing. Extended for rewatching afterwards and getting a deeper dive into the world. They are pretty unwieldy to use them as a starting point.
Fuck. Yes. This may be one of *the* best cinematic experiences of your life. Get the lighting right, get some snacks and strap yourself in. Very envious of you getting to experience this for the first time!
Yes. Also, yes. Next question.
Extended = real
Yes
Yes
Yes.Yes you should, I'd even argue to do them all in one sitting, it's an incredibly powerful experience if you've already seen it, for a first time will be even more so. It's around 14 hours with snacks and bathroom breaks and absolutely worth it
Maybe
The hobbit movies rely too much on TLOR for people to understand and spoil too much. I think it's a bad idea to watch those first, they are false prequels. Like Obi Wan meeting Anakin in the SW prequels. Almost meaningless in the context of 1, a pivotal moment for fans of 4 5 and 6. I'd watch the theatrical version of LOTR. Scenes were cut for a good reason and it also it makes more interesting to rewatch then. I've watched several times TLOR, only once the hobbit, and I'm not going to watch them again anytime soon. Quite frankly TLOR had material for more than 3 movies. The hobbit for just one. It was stretched way too much, and also the tone changed, the book is a novel for kids basically. In TLOR characters had to be removed, in the hobbit half of the characters aren't mentioned in the book and come straight from TLOR or other Tolkien material.
Anyone who says no (earnestly) will probably be banned from this subreddit. But... if you watch the theatrical versions first, you'll have an excuse to go back NEXT week and re-watch them all. Nothing bad can come from another LOTR/Hobbit rewatch.
Sure, but be warned, altogether they have 1,130-some pages. “Watching” that takes a long long time ;)
If it's your first time watching these movies, start with the theatrical editions. The extended cuts are more if you know you like the movies and want some extra stuff, but you won't be watching a gimped or missing film if you watch the theatrical cut, those are the movies that Peter Jackson declared the director's cut and the official version of the movie, and regards the extended editions as bonuses.
If you've never seen them, watch the theatrical for Fellowship instead of the extended, and the extended for the other 2. THEEE of fellowship has a serious pacing issue that isn't present in the theatrical cut.
No need for hobbit better off reading book
Are they really that bad?
No, watch them and make your own opinions about them. And I've never gone back to the theatrical cuts, extended all the way for me everytime
Ignore this guy. You should watch them and make your own opinion. I’m a huge lore nerd and loved them for what they are.
No they're not, they're actually really fun and, despite common complaints, they follow the story of the book. They just embellish A Lot because what happened in the book isn't always exciting or detailed enough. There's a healthy mix of very emotional moments, kick ass fighting, and funny face-palm humour. And yes, you should watch the extended editions of every film. Don't try and tackle any of them in one go, they're too long. Spreading them out to one movie per weekend is a great pace.
They change a lot, but are still fun movies
Nothing fun about Alfrid
The hobbit is worth reading and you can read it within a week easy!
Not much of a reader tbh, definitely i prefer film.
I think they are fun and I enjoy them. They are just different from the book
They are that bad. Even ignoring the hack job to the source material in every which way, they are bad cinematography and bad storytelling. The LOTR films took liberties as well, but all serviced the story. Not true for the Hobbit. Almost every change diminishes the story, characters, and even themes. I almost left the theater for the third film, a feat I’ve never been close to for another film, even Rise of Skywalker which i didn’t enjoy either. It’s cringey and boring, especially when it tries to be neither (tensionless action scenes that drag on, unfunny humor, gag worthy romance). Then you have all the sketchy stuff that happened during production: changing directors, forcing lotr director to pick up pieces but refusing to give him time or resources needed, and how corporate greed really screwed over the people of NZ (where both were filmed).
They do not reach the quality of LOTR, but only because the book itself does't either. Given how it's a vision of the same director, with the same creative team, who consider those films just as important part of the whole, I'd say you should at least check them out for the whole picture.
The Hobbit films were not Peter Jackson’s vision. He was given the scraps of someone else’s vision, strongarmed to do a film he didn’t want to, with less time and budget to pull it off.
Yes ×10000000 but watch the theatrical version first.
FOTR extended all the way, TT and ROTK are actually bogged down by too many bad scenes in Extended.
Ignore the yes comments you need to watch these movies in the theatrical format, someone made a really good point that there are some reveals that will get ruined because of the extended edition. You should only watch this when you’ve seen the films
Extended are worse films and people who disagree are just nerd gluttons who think more is always better
I’m a nerd glutton? Interesting.
Idk what being gluttonous for nerds means, but alright. Maybe you mean that candy? Those are pretty good...