Poll
65%
10%
10%
15%
I agree lets wait until all 3 films are released before we can make a fair comparison. Plus splitting into 3 films means we can see more of the back stories such as Gandalfs journey into Dol Guldur and the first hints at the degeneration of Saruman by trying to stop driving the Necromancer (ie Sauron) from Mirkwood. In the words of Treebeard, lets not be hasty!!
Well, LOTR is by far the better of both trilogies. They compacted a huge book into three movies and by compacting it they made it in several places better than the book.
The Hobbit is a bloated, unrestrained, self indulgent soufflé movie. He should have made a 2,5 hour movie out of it. Now every little tidbit they came up with became a huge scene..
To me it's like: oh, we have to get them from A to B, how can we turn this shoe leather scene into a huge, humungous chase scene? (like the barrel scene or the (see extended edition) ice river chase in Battle of Five Armies.
LOTR was about a couple of hobbits getting the ring to Mordor and about the fate of Middle Earth. The Hobbit should have been about a hobbit and a quest for gold. And it was about a lot of things, but Bilbo was more a sideline than the focus of these movies.
Fun to watch... but a bit boring and definitely overblown. They could have ditched the Tauriel storyline, Legolas, Galadriel (although Cate did an awesome job) and a lot of other things. Even Dol Guldur was a bit too much. And... the orcs. These ones totally diminished the meaning of the Uruk Hai: huge bred orcs than can go by daylight. Unique? Well, Middle Earth was swarming with them in The Hobbit. They ruined the Uruk Hai, if you ask me.