Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So my wife has recently confessed to having never seen any of the movies. Prior to this revelation, she just said that she didn't like them. Now she has expressed an interest in actually giving them a try.

But in what order? The Fellowship trilogy, then Hobbit? Or start from the beginning with Hobbit?

I'm thinking Fellowship first, because the full Hobbit storyline isn't out yet. And jumping from the end of the first Hobbit movie to the Fellowship might really confuse her.

What say you?

Chronologically;

The Hobbit

Fellowship of the Ring
Two Towers
Return of the King

The later three however can be viewed and understood without reading or seeing The Hobbit. Since Hobbit isn't all out yet, probably best to go with Lord of the Rings

Watch the LotR first. The way the Hobbit opens also assumes you've watched the LotR so that could be confusing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Watch the LotR first. The way the Hobbit opens also assumes you've watched the LotR so that could be confusing.

Excellent point, I hadn't considered how the Hobbit opens! Yeah, the Fellowship trilogy is probably the better starting point.

What they said... plus if you waited for the Hobbit to finish you'll have to wait a couple of years seeing as how he turned it into three movies.

Might I suggest the delux or extended versions.

For me, same answer as SW -- in order of release.

I'd watch the LotR trilogy first.

Agreed; LOTR.

Go for the extended versions as well if at all possible; much better!

I don't own them, but I've seen the extended versions. They are definitely superior.

Watch all 3 LoTR in order. Skip the shady - even for the time - CGI of Legolas swinging around a mumakil and surfing down it's back.

Then watch The Hobbit with the caveat that it isn't very good.

Alternatively get her to read the Hobbit then watch all three LoTR films.

Meh, the ending on The Hobbit can be watched stand alone and to someone who'll watch TLotR after will go "Aaaaah, now this makes sense, such a cute tie in"

Start with Ralph Bakshis animated version.

I never thought the animated version was ever that great. Also Bakshi was so sour when Jackson made it big because of LotR...

I only like it for nostalgic reasons. It is pretty horrid But C3PO is in it.

And yes, reading about Bakshis reaction to Jacksons films is facepalm worthy at best.

 Cortez667 wrote:
So my wife has recently confessed to having never seen any of the movies. Prior to this revelation, she just said that she didn't like them. Now she has expressed an interest in actually giving them a try.

But in what order? The Fellowship trilogy, then Hobbit? Or start from the beginning with Hobbit?

I'm thinking Fellowship first, because the full Hobbit storyline isn't out yet. And jumping from the end of the first Hobbit movie to the Fellowship might really confuse her.

What say you?

The Hobbit is poop. Start properly, with the correct mood and story. Start with Fellowship.
READ the Hobbit

Given that the hobbit is a considerable step down in quality from the LOTR I'd avoid showing it to her at all. The Hobbit is only really appealing to people who're already die-hard LOTR fans imo.

xruslanx wrote:
Given that the hobbit is a considerable step down in quality from the LOTR I'd avoid showing it to her at all. The Hobbit is only really appealing to people who're already die-hard LOTR fans imo.

Exactly. Now the scenes with Smaug may be awesome, but we'll see. If she sees the Hobbit movie she won't want to watch LOTR.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cortez667 wrote:
So my wife has recently confessed to having never seen any of the movies. Prior to this revelation, she just said that she didn't like them. Now she has expressed an interest in actually giving them a try.

But in what order? The Fellowship trilogy, then Hobbit? Or start from the beginning with Hobbit?

I'm thinking Fellowship first, because the full Hobbit storyline isn't out yet. And jumping from the end of the first Hobbit movie to the Fellowship might really confuse her.

What say you?

The Hobbit is poop. Start properly, with the correct mood and story. Start with Fellowship.
READ the Hobbit

Then The Silmarillion, then The Sons of Húrin, then the Unfinished Tales, and if fancy, the Untold Tales and the 12 volumes of History of Middle Earth~

The hobbit is an excellent film when enjoyed in isolation, when viewed directly before or after LotR is suddenly becomes quite dull.

One needs to remember that The Hobbit was explicitly a children's book, whereas The Lord of the Rings is not.

 Frazzled wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Given that the hobbit is a considerable step down in quality from the LOTR I'd avoid showing it to her at all. The Hobbit is only really appealing to people who're already die-hard LOTR fans imo.

Exactly. Now the scenes with Smaug may be awesome, but we'll see. If she sees the Hobbit movie she won't want to watch LOTR.

Well yeah. Wait until all three hobbit films are out, and someone cuts 90% of the crap out, *then* you'll have a decent fantasy film.

I'm with everyone else, watch the original series first. But, I'd recommend the theatrical versions for the first watch - the extended ones can be a bit much, especially for the first time.

Really, if you're going to watch LOTR, the extended versions are certainly worth it. Yes, they're long, but they are also split in two so you can watch them one half at a time if it seems like too much.

And I really don't get this whole problem people have with the Hobbit. No, it's not up to the standard of Fellowship of the Ring, but I can't say I've seen anything that is (except possibly Gladiator or Braveheart). Watch it without this preconception, and you'll probably love it.

But definitely start with LOTR.

Its a compromise between the book being a classic children's book and being true the Tolkien's larger setting.

Think of the movie as what the Hobbit would have been had the LotR been written first and not as a children's story.

I prefer the Hobbit over the LotR movies, but then I'm still miffed over some of the changes in characterizations(I'm looking at you, Faramir), changing of some events(who's on the Corsair boats no Scouring), and cutting out certain characters(no, I'm not talking about Tom Bombadil, the only thing that scene serves is giving Frodo and friends the Barrow Blades). They're good fantasy films, terrible LotR films.

In contrast, I find many of the Hobbit changes for the better in developing the lengthened story(so, what GT said).

To be fair, Faramir was almost too noble in the books. Brushing off the Ring like its temptation was nothing made his character quite shallow. They could have done a better job for sure, the Osgiliath detour was unwarranted. It could have happened completely in Ithilian.

Faramir needed to have that moment of serious temptation and struggle, and then overcome it in contrast to Boromir.

My only real issue with LOTR was the lack of the Scouring, everything else really doesn't detract from the story. That said, Glorfindel should have been in it .

And Grey Templar, that's exactly what I mean about the changes to the Hobbit. Tolkien himself admitted he wan't happy with the Hobbit's style/

Watch all three LotR movies on rewind from the end to the beginning.

One hobbit's journey to take a magical ring that he got from a fire-born demon to his Uncle for his birthday party. Along the way, watch this lovable scamp rescue 9 cloaked riders from a raging river, regenerate a long-lost finger, and moonwalk 9000 miles!

I actually like the more lighthearted style of the Hobbit, but it couldn't be taken over to the movie without ruining it.

I think they did a great job of keeping some of the light hearted flare without making it silly. And believe me, it would have been super silly, almost to the point of self-parody.

I liked Hobbit too. It's not as good as LOTR in my opinion, but I find it more fun to watch.