A Quote by Sylvester McCoy

'Doctor Who' is not as literary as 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit' is - books have come out, but they are from the television episodes. So there is that difference... it's more scholastic.
If you take 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' as books, one is written for children, and one is an adult's book.
They were the books to read, 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings.' A rite of passage going through life.
I loved the 'Lord of the Rings' books, 'The Hobbit.' And my parents, they still don't understand it because they hate fantasy stuff. Neither of them are into it. So I don't know where it comes from.
I grew up actually reading 'The Hobbit,' not 'The Lord of the Rings.' I loved 'The Hobbit' growing up.
I read 'The Hobbit' when I was twenty and first reading modern science fiction and fantasy. I followed it up with 'The Lord of the Rings,' which I still reread from time to time, but of the lot of it, I prefer 'The Hobbit.'
I read 'the Hobbit' at the age when you're supposed to read it. I didn't read 'The Lord Of The Rings.' My father, who was an English teacher, advised me that once I had read 'the Hobbit,' that would be enough. I could then move on to Dostoyevsky.
There are a couple of locations in 'The Hobbit' that are shared with 'Lord of the Rings.'
I think Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens have very carefully plotted 'The Hobbit' out so that it does feel like the starting point for 'The Lord of the Rings.'
I read a lot of fantasy as a kid. I read 'The Hobbit' and all of the 'Lord of the Rings' books, but I also read a lot of realism like 'The Outsiders.'
Gollum is Gollum - though in 'Lord of the Rings' he's 600 years old and in 'The Hobbit' he's 540, so he looks a little bit more handsome.
I do find it slightly offensive that everyone thinks that every New Zealander starred in either 'Lord of the Rings' or 'The Hobbit.'
I think 'The Lord of the Rings' holds perhaps a deeper place in people's hearts than 'The Hobbit' the book does.
Only idiots or snobs ever really thought less of 'genre books' of course. There are stupid books and there are smart books. There are well-written books and badly written books. There are fun books and boring books. All of these distinctions are vastly more important than the distinction between the literary and the non-literary.
I read 'The Hobbit' but not a single one of the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. I had to lie about this pretty much all through high school. I still say it apologetically.
To make three films out of one shortish book, they have to turn it into an epic, just as 'Lord of the Rings' is an epic. But 'The Hobbit' isn't an epic: its tone is intimate and personal, and although it's full of adventures and excitement, they're on a different scale to those of the bigger book.
I've seen 'Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit' about 25 times each, so I like all kinds of movies, but I'm drawn, as an actor, to dramas about humans living lives I can relate to.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!