The Hobbit Trilogy versus The Prequels

[KK 3,307]

It was the were-worms, I think, that killed our relationship.

[A24 4,349]

Do non-LOTR fans dig The Hobbit movies somewhat better?

[Jay 37,384]

better than what?

[A24 4,349]

Than the LOTR trilogy?

[Jay 37,384]

Oh. Definitely not.

[Bofur01 245]

I know someone who likes the Hobbit more than FotR, she hasn't seen the other two, despite my best efforts...

[KK 3,307]

Not even close. Maybe to 10 year olds dazzled by CGI...

If you were wondering Alex, you would absolutely hate these films.

[A24 4,349]

Sh!t! I recorded the first Hobbit movie from TV.

[Jay 37,384]

The only thing good about the Hobbit films are the acting by McKellen and Freeman, and the scores. They botched just about everything else

[KK 3,307]

Sh!t! I recorded the first Hobbit movie from TV.

At least it was the most tolerable one...

If anything, these films were catered more to LOTR fans than the casual movie-goer.

[Jay 37,384]

Yup!

[Will Tasker 21]

The only thing good about the Hobbit films are the acting by McKellen and Freeman, and the scores. They botched just about everything else

Theres a couple of points where it almost flirts with being really good - right after the Trolls in AUJ, where they find the elven swords - but by and large its complete trash. And lemme tell you, it takes concentrated effort to make something trash when Christopher Lee and Ian McKellan are in it; those guys could sell water to a drowning man.

[Jay 37,384]

Throughout the trilogy there are moments of potential greatness, ruined usually by the very next scene being completely terrible

[Will Tasker 21]

Throughout the trilogy there are moments of potential greatness, ruined usually by the very next scene being completely terrible

Well met.

Truthfully, I had given up on it all the moment I saw the "barrel out of bonds" sequence in the second film - which could be the worst thing I've seen on the big screen screen since either the Dungeons And Dragons movie or Bless The Child. I was agast at it, considering the source material.

By the time I saw Legolas running up falling stones like Wiley Coyote in the third film, I was laughing so hard some may have thought I was watching Duck Soup.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Jay 37,384]

Critics like the scene of Legolas defying gravity?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

I think he's referring to the barrel sequence.

I was looking forward to that scene too. It would have been a more appropriate setting to unleash PJ's excessiveness (in the spirit of the Goblintown sequence). But I didn't expect it to look so visually repulsive!

[Barnald 365]

Even if we neglect the quality of the films for a second, the buzz surrounding the release of AUJ was nothing compared to The Force Awakens. I remember going to one of the first showings, and there were like 4 other people in there (the other films were busier, but I was really surprised by the low numbers for AUJ). It did decent money of course, but not huge money. And let's face it, quality of the film doesn't always dictate this, especially when you're dealing with large franchises.

There was a feeling - for me at least - that among the general public Middle-earth films were kind of old hat by the time The Hobbit came out. Yes there was love for LOTR films, but I think many didn't necessarily want to see more of Middle-earth. More probably went out of a sense of curiosity, or obligation, rather than because of general enthusiasm. The reasons for this dwindling interest I can't quite pinpoint. Superhero films had supplanted fantasy at the box-office, while the rising Game of Thrones phenomenon had given people a new perception of fantasy (this absurd idea that it was Middle-earth 'for grown ups'), one seemingly incompatible with the 'old-fashioned' fantasy of Tolkien.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Barnald 365]

I am capable of making a decent point once in a while

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Even if we neglect the quality of the films for a second, the buzz surrounding the release of AUJ was nothing compared to The Force Awakens. I remember going to one of the first showings, and there were like 4 other people in there (the other films were busier, but I was really surprised by the low numbers for AUJ). It did decent money of course, but not huge money. And let's face it, quality of the film doesn't always dictate this.

There was a feeling - for me at least - that among the general public Middle-earth films were kind of old hat by the time The Hobbit came out. Yes there was love for LOTR films, but I think many didn't necessarily want to see more of Middle-earth. More probably went out of a sense of curiosity, or obligation, rather than because of general enthusiasm. The reasons for this dwindling interest I can't quite pinpoint. Superhero films had supplanted fantasy at the box-office, while the rising Game of Thrones phenomenon had given people a new perception of fantasy (this absurd idea that it was Middle-earth 'for grown ups'), one seemingly incompatible with the 'old-fashioned' fantasy of Tolkien.

I disagree. AUJ had big pre-hype. Certainly not TPM level, but that's to be expected. There was a lot of buzz going around the media about it, and it had an excellent opening weekend. But after the lukewarm response and word-of-mouth to both the film and the disappointing 48fps, the hype just kind of died out. And then people stopped caring about the films.

LOTR's reputation still stood the test of time at that point. But to compare it to Star Wars, is indeed a losing battle.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Jay 37,384]

I think he's referring to the barrel sequence.

Ooops, I missed his bolding!

[KK 3,307]

I think he's referring to the barrel sequence.

Ooops, I missed his bolding!

That wasn't always there

How is Stars Wars 'definitely' much more well known than LOTR?

I never said it was more well known.

I was referring to the pop culture aspect and nostalgia. SW is much stronger in that regard than LOTR.

LOTR had a huge pop culture impact and so did Star Wars.

But, SW's impact >>>>> LOTR's

[mrbellamy 6,300]

What the Hobbit films have going for them is the Tolkienite/PJ-fan community, which while significant, does not reflect the majority. Only LOTR had a real effect on the cultural zeitgeist. And in the years to come, pop cultural references in relation to Tolkien will reference LOTR films, not the Hobbit trilogy.

We'll have to wait and see, but I don't think this is the case at all. I've been plenty of references to the Hobbit - mainly Bilbo finding the ring and Smaug. I'm confident these 'pop cultural' references will stick with the film franchise.

These were already iconic from the book and I don't really consider them to have been heightened by the films. If the book didn't exist nobody would talk about the scene where Bilbo finds the Ring and I still don't think they do. Smaug, I guess people would remember but I also haven't seen him around in pop culture except the Colbert thing. Nobody does impressions of him, nobody references or talks about him, not more than they used to when he was already a famous dragon name. Now we just have a face to put to it, I guess. That's compared to Gollum who was known from Tolkien but his popularity was taken to the next stratosphere with the films. He didn't need his literary counterpart to become as famous as he is and actually his one scene is probably what people remember most about both The Hobbit book and all three films.

I also disagree that people can't shut up about the prequels simply for the Star Wars brand association. That's part of it but they had very specific things that stick out and could be referenced and parodied ad nauseum. I really can't think of anything from The Hobbit that will become as infamous as Jar Jar Binks or the Darth Vader "NOOOO" moment, or as frequently quoted and paraphrased as any of Lucas' memorably terrible lines of dialogue.

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people just think they're long, pretty boring, forgettable movies. Usually when I see people talk about them at all it's merely as a point of comparison to LOTR or indeed the Star Wars prequels, or as just another addition to the long line of "Reasons Why Prequels/Sequels/Remakes/Reboots Suck". Otherwise I think people are going to be happy to mostly ignore them as time goes on. Jackson should consider himself lucky!

[Barnald 365]

Put it this way - for someone who lives in a Tolkien fandom bubble, I expected more hype for The Hobbit, more anticipation. Of course it was still bigger than your average film, but it still wasn't quite the event I thought it would be given the success of LOTR.

[Jay 37,384]

Here's the thing: I think if the filmmakers had made some (ok, a lot) of different choices, it COULD have been on the same level as LOTR. Actually, let me rephrase: Not the level of LOTR, it was impossible it ever could be even under the best circumstances, but it could have been another very strong chapter in the Middle Earth cinema history, and PJ's directorial history. Instead it's practically a footnote in each.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Barnald 365]

What the Hobbit films have going for them is the Tolkienite/PJ-fan community, which while significant, does not reflect the majority. Only LOTR had a real effect on the cultural zeitgeist. And in the years to come, pop cultural references in relation to Tolkien will reference LOTR films, not the Hobbit trilogy.

We'll have to wait and see, but I don't think this is the case at all. I've been plenty of references to the Hobbit - mainly Bilbo finding the ring and Smaug. I'm confident these 'pop cultural' references will stick with the film franchise.

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people just think they're long, pretty boring, and forgettable movies.

Believe it or not but I've encountered a fair few people who think that of the LOTR films too. It's probably less in the grand scheme of things but there are still a surprising amount of crazy bastards out there.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[KK 3,307]

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people just think they're long, pretty boring, and forgettable movies. Usually when I see people talk about them at all it's merely as a point of comparison to LOTR or indeed the Star Wars prequels, or as just another addition to the long line of "Reasons Why Prequels/Sequels/Remakes/Reboots Suck". Otherwise I think people are going to be happy to mostly ignore them as time goes on. Jackson should consider himself lucky!

Spot on!

Put it this way - for someone who lives in a Tolkien fandom bubble, I expected more hype for The Hobbit, more anticipation. Of course it was still bigger than your average film, but it still wasn't quite the event I thought it would be given the success of LOTR.

I think AUJ got an appropriate amount of pre-hype for what it was. And if it was a LOTR-quality film, I think things might have gone very differently for the mainstream's perception of the films.

But a friend, with some insider knowledge, once told me that there was already fantasy-fatigue among critics before the AUJ premiere.

It's interesting to see how LOTR really jumpstarted that genre of film again and gave it real credibility in the modern-age, after ending on the same level of generic output that fantasy was suffering from in the first place.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[KK 3,307]

SUH, you're talking about a nearly 40-year old franchise that revolutionized the film industry and helped mould the traditional "blockbuster" model. LOTR has definitely made its mark, but its still a relatively young saga. It just can't be compared to the legacy of SW!

[Barnald 365]

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people just think they're long, pretty boring, and forgettable movies. Usually when I see people talk about them at all it's merely as a point of comparison to LOTR or indeed the Star Wars prequels, or as just another addition to the long line of "Reasons Why Prequels/Sequels/Remakes/Reboots Suck". Otherwise I think people are going to be happy to mostly ignore them as time goes on. Jackson should consider himself lucky!

Spot on!

Put it this way - for someone who lives in a Tolkien fandom bubble, I expected more hype for The Hobbit, more anticipation. Of course it was still bigger than your average film, but it still wasn't quite the event I thought it would be given the success of LOTR.

I think AUJ got an appropriate amount of pre-hype for what it was. And if it was a LOTR-quality film, I think things might have gone very differently for the mainstream's perception of the films.

But a friend, with some insider knowledge, once told me that there was already fantasy-fatigue among critics before the AUJ premiere.

It's interesting to see how LOTR really jumpstarted that genre of film again and gave it real credibility in the modern-age, after ending on the same level of generic output that fantasy was suffering from in the first place.

I've long suspected this myself.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[KK 3,307]

Put it this way. More people, from any generation, are going to recognize "Luke, I am your father" or "May the Force be with you" than any of the lines from LOTR (though there are a good couple of ones that could compete).

[Barnald 365]

The most famous LOTR lines (IMO):

"My precious"

"You shall not pass!"

"One does not simply walk into Mordor" (purely because of the memes)

Any more? I can't think of any others I would say have entered pop culture.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[mrbellamy 6,300]

What the Hobbit films have going for them is the Tolkienite/PJ-fan community, which while significant, does not reflect the majority. Only LOTR had a real effect on the cultural zeitgeist. And in the years to come, pop cultural references in relation to Tolkien will reference LOTR films, not the Hobbit trilogy.

We'll have to wait and see, but I don't think this is the case at all. I've been plenty of references to the Hobbit - mainly Bilbo finding the ring and Smaug. I'm confident these 'pop cultural' references will stick with the film franchise.

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people just think they're long, pretty boring, and forgettable movies.

Believe it or not but I've encountered a fair few people who think that of the LOTR films too. It's probably less in the grand scheme of things but there are still a surprising amount of crazy bastards out there.

Well, sure, but obviously it's far from the general consensus. Most people seem to look at LOTR"s length kindly as part of its epic quality. Based on popular opinion I don't think it's unreasonable to lump it in as a descendant of Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, and other massive, acclaimed productions. Maybe the last successful attempt at that type of filmmaking that we've seen. With The Hobbit it's just bloat.

I really can't think of anything from The Hobbit that will become as infamous as Jar Jar Binks or the Darth Vader "NOOOO" moment, or as frequently quoted and paraphrased as any of Lucas' memorably terrible lines of dialogue

What a shame!

Well, exactly. I think that's a good thing, but what I'm saying is I really don't believe it has much staying power for good or bad. I see it just fading away with an "Ehhh"

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people just think they're long, pretty boring, forgettable movies.

My general impression with The Hobbit is that people generally enjoy them, some die hard fans love them, lots of book fans hate them, and some people find them boring.

I think that's fair and probably more accurate. My point still stands that I don't think they're thought of as extraordinary or memorable one way or the other, as far as broad impact goes.

[KK 3,307]

People would recognize The Imperial March or the main SW theme over anything from Shore. People would recognize the lightsaber over any weapon in LOTR, and characters Darth Vader and Yoda over anyone from Tolkien (I'd argue even over Gandalf).

My point here is that SW has permeated the public consciousness over all generations in a way that LOTR hasn't. So even if you went to someone my age, or your age, who hasn't seen either SW or LOTR, they would still largely be able to recognize SW stuff over LOTR.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[KK 3,307]

Well, sure, but obviously it's far from the general consensus. Most people seem to look at LOTR"s length kindly as part of its epic quality. Based on popular opinion I don't think it's unreasonable to lump it in as a descendant of Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, and other massive, acclaimed productions. Maybe the last successful attempt at that type of filmmaking that we've seen. With The Hobbit it's just bloat.

Indeed. This is how I've always perceived as well.

In terms of broad impact I really do think think Martin Freeman's Bilbo will stick.

People would recognize The Imperial March or the main SW theme over anything from Shore. People would recognize the lightsaber over any weapon in LOTR, and characters Darth Vader and Yoda over anyone from Tolkien (I'd argue even over Gandalf).

My point here is that SW has permeated the public consciousness over all generations in a way that LOTR hasn't. So even if you went to someone my age, or your age, who hasn't seen either SW or LOTR, they would still largely be able to recognize SW stuff over LOTR.

90% of people my age would recognise the Fellowship or Shire theme.

Also, I'm not arguing that LOTR is more well known that Star Wars.

But you're arguing they're similar in reach, and I'd disagree.

And I still think, when people think of the on-screen portrayal of Bilbo, Ian Holm's performance is what will come to mind.

[mrbellamy 6,300]

In terms of broad impact I really do think think Martin Freeman's Bilbo will stick.

I guess it depends on what you mean. I think Bilbo will always be a beloved character. I'm less optimistic about his status as an "iconic" movie hero despite Freeman turning in such a lovely performance simply because he was sidelined so much in his own story and the movies just aren't popular enough. I think his performance is very well-liked but I'm not seeing any signs that people are going wild about Bilbo necessarily. I mean, of course it wouldn't be fair because performance-wise I would rank him above Elijah Wood and certainly Daniel Radcliffe, but I don't think he's going to be seen as the face of modern Hollywood fantasy as much as Frodo and Harry.

But now of course we're getting further and further away from actual discussions of quality or even memorability and right into market saturation and that kind of thing.

[Jay 37,384]

90% of people my age would recognise the Fellowship or Shire theme.

That's simply not true! No matter what age you are!