The “Better Than Lord of the Rings” Argument Tests the Wrong Thing

The list is always ten films long, Lord of the Rings is always on it, and the framing is always the same, a list of films that are better. It is a fine way to spend an afternoon, and it measures something entirely different from quality. The trilogy has one property almost nothing else in cinema has, and it is not that these are the best films ever made.

The word better is doing no work

Better at what? Better dialogue is a different claim from better structure, which is different again from better on the tenth viewing, which is different from more important. A film can win three of those and lose the fourth, which is why these arguments never converge.

Most of the time what is being compared is memorability, and memorability belongs to the viewer rather than the film. Nobody is arguing about craft. They are comparing the shape of the hole each film left in them, and holes are not ranked. They are just occupied.

What the trilogy pulled off

It was three films from one long work, shot together in New Zealand as one continuous shoot and released annually, each with a beginning and an ending that matched. Other trilogies were built on very different terms.

Trilogy	How it was built	Release shape	The risk that structure created
Lord of the Rings	All three shot together, 1999 to 2000	Annually, 2001 to 2003	If it failed, it failed three times at once
The Hobbit	One book expanded into three films	Annually, 2012 to 2014	Every extra hour had to be invented
The Matrix sequels	Two films shot back to back	Six months apart, 2003	The middle one is structurally a bridge
Star Wars prequels	Planned as a set before release	Three years apart, 1999 to 2005	The ending was common knowledge
Pirates of the Caribbean	Second and third shot back to back	A year apart, 2006 and 2007	The seams between them are visible

None of those structures destroys a film by itself. Each one makes a specific failure more likely, and the failure usually shows up in the final act, because that is the part written under the most pressure.

Why the comparison keeps coming back

Lord of the Rings works as the yardstick because it is the only large scale fantasy adaptation that satisfied both audiences at once. Readers had spent decades bracing for disappointment, viewers had never turned a page, and the source material was widely considered unadaptable.

When a franchise fails, the question is why it could not do what that one did. When a franchise succeeds, the question is whether it is better. Both conversations ask about confidence rather than quality.

The next Middle-earth film is a different bet

The more interesting comparison now points forward. The Hunt for Gollum started shooting in 2026 with Andy Serkis directing, Elijah Wood back as Frodo, and a story set before the first film rather than after the last one. The Fellowship of the Ring also turns twenty-five in December.

That is a different structure entirely. Not a trilogy shot as one production, but a single parallel story inside an established timeline, using a returning cast for continuity and a director who was in the original room. It is much lower risk, and it tells you what the studio learned: you cannot buy the thing the trilogy had, so you build something that does not need it.

The fair comparison is production against production

Line the productions up rather than the finished films.

• How many were planned at once.
• How long the cast were contracted.
• Whether anyone making the second one knew how the third would end.

It is the same measure that makes the Harry Potter run so interesting to argue about, because those films were made one at a time by different directors and still hold together. Run the same questions past a television production and the method holds: Game of Thrones broke on distance long before anyone ran out of books.

On the production questions the trilogy wins by a distance, and it wins for reasons that have nothing to do with whether a quieter film with a perfect last scene means more to you.

If you are planning a trilogy

• Decide the ending before you shoot the beginning, or accept that the third film will be written by people reacting to reviews.
• Shoot as much as you can at once if the cast has to age. Continuity of a room is the reason the third film does not feel like a reunion.
• Budget the final act like it is the whole project, because with hindsight it always is.
• And be honest about the bet. The trilogy wagered everything on all three landing, and that is why it is remembered as a standard rather than a lucky film.

The trilogy is the benchmark for planning and investment. That is a narrower claim than better, it is defensible, and it does not require anyone to pretend that the film they love most is somehow measuring the same thing. More film and TV arguments sit under Movies and TV.