The literary world has been forever enriched by the creative genius of J.R.R. Tolkien, whose works “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings” have captivated readers for generations. Beyond their literary impact, these epic tales have also achieved remarkable success in the realm of film and merchandise. This essay aims to explore the question that has intrigued fans and industry experts alike:

What made more money, “The Hobbit” or “The Lord of the Rings”? To answer this question, we will delve into the box office earnings, merchandise sales, and various factors that contributed to the financial success of these iconic franchises. Through this analysis, we will gain insights into the enduring commercial power of Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

What Made More Money The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings?

Since my knowledge cutoff is April 2024, here are the box office earnings for both franchises:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003):

• Total worldwide box office: Approximately $2.92 billion
• Fellowship of the Ring: $898 million
• The Two Towers: $947 million
• Return of the King: $1.15 billion

The Hobbit trilogy (2012-2014):

• Total worldwide box office: Approximately $2.94 billion
• An Unexpected Journey: $1.02 billion
• The Desolation of Smaug: $959 million
• The Battle of the Five Armies: $962 million

Interestingly, The Hobbit trilogy made slightly more money at the box office than The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but this is without accounting for inflation. When adjusted for inflation, The Lord of the Rings trilogy would have earned significantly more in today’s dollars.

It’s worth noting that these figures represent only theatrical releases and don’t include revenue from merchandise, home video sales, streaming rights, and other ancillary income streams.

Merchandise Sales:

1. The Lord of the Rings: Beyond the box office, “The Lord of the Rings” franchise has been a merchandising juggernaut. It boasts a wide range of merchandise, including books, video games, clothing, collectibles, and more. The franchise’s merchandise sales have contributed significantly to its overall revenue, with billions of dollars generated in this category.
2. The Hobbit: “The Hobbit” also had its share of merchandise, including books, toys, and clothing. However, its merchandise sales, while substantial, did not reach the same level as “The Lord of the Rings.”

Overall Franchise Profitability:

When assessing the overall profitability of each franchise, “The Lord of the Rings” holds the edge. It has maintained a continuous presence in popular culture, with ongoing merchandise sales, video games, and adaptations. The success of the original trilogy paved the way for Amazon’s highly anticipated “Lord of the Rings” TV series, which reportedly has one of the highest production budgets in television history.

While “The Hobbit” contributed significantly to the Tolkien franchise’s financial success, its impact has been somewhat overshadowed by the monumental success of “The Lord of the Rings.” “The Hobbit” was originally planned as a single film but was expanded into a trilogy, which, while profitable, faced criticism for stretching the source material thin.

In conclusion, when comparing the financial success of “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings,” the latter emerges as the clear winner. Both franchises achieved remarkable success, but “The Lord of the Rings” not only outperformed at the box office but also maintained a stronger and more enduring presence in the realm of merchandise and ongoing adaptations, making it the more financially lucrative of the two.

Did The Hobbit or LOTR make more money?

Answer: “The Lord of the Rings” film trilogy made more money than “The Hobbit” film trilogy. While both film series were highly successful, “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, directed by Peter Jackson and released between 2001 and 2003, achieved greater financial success. The three films in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy collectively grossed over $2.9 billion at the global box office, making them some of the highest-grossing films of all time.

In contrast, “The Hobbit” trilogy, also directed by Peter Jackson and released between 2012 and 2014, grossed around $2.9 billion globally, which is a substantial amount but slightly less than “The Lord of the Rings.” Several factors contributed to this difference in earnings, including the pre-existing popularity of “The Lord of the Rings” books and films, as well as changes in the film industry and the reception of “The Hobbit” films.

What went wrong with The Hobbit movie trilogy?

Answer: Several factors contributed to the mixed reception of “The Hobbit” movie trilogy, and they can be considered as what went wrong:

1. Stretching a Short Book: One of the primary issues was the decision to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien’s relatively short novel “The Hobbit” into a trilogy of films. This choice led to the inclusion of additional material from Tolkien’s notes and appendices, which many fans felt bloated the story and diminished its charm.
2. Overreliance on CGI: Compared to “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, “The Hobbit” trilogy made heavy use of CGI effects, leading to a more artificial and less immersive feel. This overuse of CGI was criticized by both fans and critics.
3. Pacing and Length: The extended runtime of each film, coupled with a slower pace, made some parts of the story feel tedious. The trilogy could have benefitted from more concise storytelling.
4. Lack of Emotional Depth: “The Hobbit” films were criticized for not capturing the same emotional depth and character development that “The Lord of the Rings” achieved. Characters in “The Hobbit” often felt one-dimensional.
5. Comparison to “The Lord of the Rings”: Given that “The Hobbit” is a prequel to “The Lord of the Rings,” it faced inevitable comparisons to its predecessor, which was a critical and commercial triumph. This comparison heightened expectations that were difficult to meet.

Why wasn’t The Hobbit trilogy as good as The Lord of the Rings?

Answer: The perceived quality difference between “The Hobbit” trilogy and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy can be attributed to several key factors:

1. Source Material: “The Hobbit” is a shorter and simpler novel compared to “The Lord of the Rings.” This made it challenging to stretch the story into three films without adding substantial new material, which some fans found unnecessary.
2. Tonal Differences: “The Hobbit” has a lighter and more whimsical tone than “The Lord of the Rings,” which is a darker and more epic story. The decision to maintain a consistent tone across both trilogies did not resonate with all fans.
3. Character Development: “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy featured deep character development and arcs, while some characters in “The Hobbit” felt underdeveloped or had less growth over the course of the three films.
4. Direction and CGI: The heavy use of CGI and green screen technology in “The Hobbit” gave the films a different visual aesthetic compared to the practical effects and natural landscapes of “The Lord of the Rings.”
5. Expectations: “The Lord of the Rings” set exceptionally high expectations for any subsequent Tolkien adaptations, making it difficult for “The Hobbit” to surpass or even meet those expectations.

What is one scene that explains why Lord of the Rings worked and The Hobbit didn’t?

Answer: One scene that exemplifies why “The Lord of the Rings” worked so well while “The Hobbit” faced challenges is the Council of Elrond scene from “The Fellowship of the Ring.” In this scene, representatives from different races come together to discuss the fate of the One Ring.

• Character Depth: The Council scene showcases the depth of the characters in “The Lord of the Rings.” Each character, from Frodo to Aragorn, has a well-defined role, history, and motivation, making them relatable and engaging.
• World-Building: The scene delves into the rich lore and world-building of Middle-earth, immersing the audience in a fully realized fantasy realm.
• Emotional Weight: The Council scene is emotionally charged, with characters expressing fear, doubt, and determination. This emotional depth connects the audience to the characters and their quest.
• Minimal CGI: The scene relies on practical effects, detailed set design, and cinematography, creating a sense of authenticity and grounding the story in a tangible world.

In contrast, “The Hobbit” often struggled to replicate these elements consistently across its three films, leading to a less compelling and immersive narrative.

Why were the Hobbit and Lord of the Ring movies released in reverse order to the books?

Answer: The decision to release “The Hobbit” movies before “The Lord of the Rings” movies was primarily driven by the filmmaking and business considerations:

1. Rights and Ownership: The film rights to J.R.R. Tolkien’s works were split between different entities. In the late 1960s, United Artists (later acquired by MGM) acquired the film rights to “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings.” The rights to “The Hobbit” were sold separately from those of “The Lord of the Rings.”
2. Development Delays: Adapting “The Lord of the Rings” was a complex and ambitious undertaking, and it faced numerous development delays, changes in directors, and financial challenges. “The Hobbit” was seen as a more straightforward project and, therefore, easier to greenlight and produce.
3. Directorial Vision: Director Peter Jackson had a strong desire to adapt “The Lord of the Rings” but was unable to secure funding and support until New Line Cinema stepped in. In the meantime, he directed “The Hobbit” as a prelude to “The Lord of the Rings.”
4. Popularity of the Books: “The Lord of the Rings” novels were already immensely popular and well-known, while “The Hobbit” was considered a more accessible entry point for audiences less familiar with Tolkien’s works. Releasing “The Hobbit” first allowed for building excitement and interest in Middle-earth on the big screen.

In summary, the release order was influenced by a combination of rights ownership, development challenges, and the desire to establish Middle-earth in the cinematic world before tackling the larger and more complex “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

Conclusion:

In the epic battle of financial success between “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings,” it is clear that the latter emerged as the victor. Despite both franchises enjoying immense popularity and contributing significantly to the cinematic and merchandising industries, “The Lord of the Rings” stands as the more financially successful of the two. The trilogy not only set box office records but also laid the foundation for an enduring and lucrative franchise that continues to thrive through merchandise, spin-offs, and adaptations.

While “The Hobbit” had its own share of success, the shadow of its predecessor loomed large. It faced criticism for its expansion into a trilogy, which some argued diluted the storytelling. Nonetheless, both “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings” are testaments to the enduring power of Tolkien’s storytelling, captivating audiences and generating substantial revenues.

These two franchises will remain embedded in the annals of cinematic history, reminding us of the magic that literature and film can create when they come together in harmony.You should read: Why Lord of the Rings is Better Than Game Of Thrones? to learn more about movies.

Dennis Gayirah

I am a highly experienced film and media person who has a great deal to offer to like-minded individuals. Currently working on several exciting projects, I am a film and media practitioner for over a decade. I have achieved a great deal of success in my professional career.