Jump to content

Will The Hobbit age as well as The Lord of the Rings?


gkgyver

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Lonnegan said:

How many years afterwards then can the disappointment of these movies and their scores be lamented? Is it an ongoing struggle? Don't you all tire of repeating the same complaints over and over, as if sitting on a sickly rotating carousel of debate repetition?

 

Let these failures rest, move on with your lives!

 

People have made careers out of doing this with the Star Wars Prequels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does feel like the great prequel anguish dissection of the noughties has finally been put to bed now though.

 

Will it take a Silmarillion success before the same thing will happen with the Hobbit? But what if there never is one? You guys will be left to cry into your pillows for all eternity! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lonnegan said:

It does feel like the great prequel anguish dissection of the noughties has finally been put to bed now though.

 

Will it take a Silmarillion success before the same thing will happen with the Hobbit? But what if there never is one? You guys will be left to cry into your pillows for all eternity! 

New films have given people something else to talk about but they still come up when there's a lull.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anguish hasn't been put to bed, the prequels are simply forgotten.

After TFA, plenty of people would like to pretend they didn't exist.

 

The Hobbit also isn't nearly on the level of colossal letdown of the SW prequels. You can only say that if you went into them with that mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Despite not all his ideas landing, PJ is a far more inspired director than George Lucas ever was

 

I'm not sure I agree with this.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Jackson is an outstanding director, and while I have serious problems with The Hobbit, I think it's still far ahead of the Prequels in pretty much every way.

 

That said, let's remember that George Lucas created something entirely original.  Star Wars was an stunningly original piece of work that came from George Lucas' imagination and inspiration. The Force, Lightsabers, Wookies, etc. are all unique creations. Yes, Star Wars, like all works of art, had its (well known) influences, but it was an original creation.  Jackson's Lord of the Rings, as remarkable achievement as it is, in an adaptation of the creative genius of someone else.

 

So yes, Peter Jackson in 2001 or today is a better director than George Lucas in 2001. I think it's hard to argue with that.  But could Peter Jackson have created Star Wars? I don't know. I don't think so. So maybe "inspired" wasn't the word you were looking for, because despite his many faults as director, I don't think Lucas lacked for inspiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stefancos said:

For once I agree with Gyver. The Hobbit films, as flawed and uneven as they are are nowhere and inept and dull as the Prequels.

 

After the EE, the battle for Erebor certainly resembles certain ugly aspects of AotC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/08/2016 at 4:20 PM, gkgyver said:

The Hobbit also isn't nearly on the level of colossal letdown of the SW prequels. You can only say that if you went into them with that mindset.

 

4 hours ago, Stefancos said:

For once I agree with Gyver. The Hobbit films, as flawed and uneven as they are are nowhere and inept and dull as the Prequels.

 

Yes, but the reason for that is simple: the source material.

 

Most of the things that don't work are the ideas PJ brought on the table, while most of the things that do work were Tolkien (PJ did came up with some neat ideas, I'll give him that, though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

 

Most of the things that don't work are the ideas PJ brought on the table, while most of the things that do work were Tolkien

 

Yep.

In the LOTR commentary, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens talk about how they intentionally tried to stay close to the source material through the at first several drafts of the scripts, and always had as the first priority staying true to Tolkien's spirit. Once they did that, only then did they allow themselves the freedom of deviating from Tolkien for purposes of making the story more engaging for cinema. As a result, the changes we did get were mostly good, and for the most part are things that aren't even really regarded as controversial today (e.g. the change in Faramir's character).

 

On the other hand, on The Hobbit they seem to have regarded Tolkien's story as merely inspirational source material...a bare skeleton on which to hang their own ideas, many of which were insipid. As a result, much of The Hobbit doesn't work. And most of the things that do work are Tolkiens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think expanding the Bard character was essential. Even in a one film version of the Hobbit, you'd have to give more depth to Bard. You just can't have a new character come out of nowhere and do that.

 

I think there were mixed results with the way it was executed, so whether it "works" or not is another matter.  But no, I didn't have a problem with expanding his character. Along these lines I also didn't have a problem with creating individual personalities for all the Dwarves and making Thorin a younger, and more heroic character than in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stefancos said:

For once I agree with Gyver. The Hobbit films, as flawed and uneven as they are are nowhere and inept and dull as the Prequels.

 

The prequels are so bad that The Hobbit looks pretty damn good by comparison. But did anyone ever say otherwise? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2016 at 0:14 PM, Not Mr. Big said:

To be fair, there hasn't been much Avatar-related content since the film's release.  Had they already made a sequel or two by now, I imagine it would still be relevant.  I've heard that Star Wars went through something semi-similar in the dead-zone between ROTJ and TPM.

 

I remember when Cameron said he wanted to "compete" with stuff like LOTR and Star Ward, only to release nothing.

 

I imagine he didn't expect the MCU, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lonnegan said:

 

The prequels are so bad that The Hobbit looks pretty damn good by comparison. But did anyone ever say otherwise? 

 

I have and on more than one occasion. In fact, The Hobbit was the bigger disappointment for me. I recognize that mine is a minority opinion however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

At least the prequels are entertainingly bad.  The Hobbit films are just boring.  

 

This. I don't feel any sort of hate or notable disgust with the prequels. I'm young enough to never have had expectations about them, so they were always like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're at least competent entertainments though. Bloated and lazy, but the scenes are at least cohesive. The prequels on the other hand are an absolute disaster, they feel like the expensive work of an amateur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prequels are only "entertainingly bad" in retrospect, because everyone has accepted what they are and there's nothing to be done about it. At the time, there was nothing fun about experience of shear disappointment in watching them after so much anticipation.  

 

A corollary to this is that by the time ROTS rolled around expectations were so low that it seemed like it was better than it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel L. Jackson's utterly bored delivery of the line "A Sith. Lord?" never fails to make me laugh.  So yeah, the prequels are great comedies mostly due to their horribly wooden performances (outside McDiarmid who goes too far the other way in ROTS).

 

I'd rather crack a beer and watch a SW prequel any day ahead of any of The Hobbit movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Samuel L. Jackson's utterly bored delivery of the line "A Sith. Lord?" never fails to make me laugh.

Sam Jackson has some of the worst line deliveries of the saga.   

"The o-PRESSION of the sith will NEVER return! YOU, have lost!"

"He is the traitor-ahhh."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nick66 said:

That said, let's remember that George Lucas created something entirely original.  Star Wars was an stunningly original piece of work that came from George Lucas' imagination and inspiration. The Force, Lightsabers, Wookies, etc. are all unique creations. Yes, Star Wars, like all works of art, had its (well known) influences, but it was an original creation.  Jackson's Lord of the Rings, as remarkable achievement as it is, in an adaptation of the creative genius of someone else.

 

You're talking about George Lucas the writer here. I was comparing them solely on their directing abilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I prefer LOTR/Hobbit to SW, I have to agree with everyone who said the preqeuls are just entertainment. It was so hard not to laugh at 'HE'S HOLDING ME BACK!', Amidala's horrible British accent and the stupid Force explanation. Say what you will about the prequels, but they weren't as boring as the Hobbit was. At no point did I ever feel as if Lucas was trying to bloat a storyline just "'cause we want the films to be long!'.

 

The Hobbit is deadly boring at times. Or rather, there's too much of almost everything: 

- the Dwarves antics 

- the trolls,

- Radagst,

- the endless AUJ persuits,

- the goblin song

- the endless Smaug confrontation at the end of DOS with all its impressive lines included (I KILL WHENEVER I WISH!!!)

- the needless cameos throughout the three films

- Tauriel and so on...

Bard was indeed handled well, and Stephen Fry is just gorgeous.

 

And the same problem carries over to the music. I have never been a big fan of the non-thematic original Star Wars music, but the prequels had some very, very impressive moments. It felt as though Williams was still enjoying himself and, more importantly, felt inspired. They never made me feel unsatisfied. What's more, some of the prequel scenes actually managed to move me (Anakin becoming Darth Vader, Anakin's mum dying etc). At the end of BOTFA, I was just glad it was all over and didn't feel that much for anyone, really, except Bilbo in the beginning and Bard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The impressive preformances from Freeman, McKellen, and others really save the movies from being completely lost causes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't consider The Hobbit films boring.  More like...disappointing. And occasionally cringe worthy. The tone is just all wrong. But I can't really say I was bored. 

 

That said, they're only bad compared to LOTR. I have to remind myself occasionally how really, really, really bad most fantasy films are. The cinematic landscape is riddled with the corpses of post LOTR films that tried to start aborted franchises. And I say that as a huge fan of the genre. The LOTR movies represent a minor miracle that someone actually did it right.  So if The Hobbit films are a step down from that (and they are), they're still light years ahead of most fantasy films.

 

Part of the problem in The Hobbit for me was that I always felt like I was watching a fantasy film, whereas LOTR felt more like history. I think this is part of the reason GOT is so successful as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nick66 said:

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't consider The Hobbit films boring.  More like...disappointing. And occasionally cringe worthy. The tone is just all wrong. But I can't really say I was bored. 

 

I don't find them boring, either.  Just disappointing - there is SO MUCH wasted potential!

 

5 minutes ago, Nick66 said:

Part of the problem in The Hobbit for me was that I always felt like I was watching a fantasy film, whereas LOTR felt more like history. I think this is part of the reason GOT is so successful as well.

 

Great point!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jay said:

I don't find them boring, either.  Just disappointing - there is SO MUCH wasted potential!

 

That's what's so annoying - you can see that they almost made some (two?) truly excellent films. But they didn't. :puh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the bloom and reducing the colour grading would make them automatically 30% better. Some CGI with a ton of bloom on top in crayon colours can be an attack on your eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks better in some places than it does in others, IMO. For the high fantasy of LotR I suppose I find the visual presentation agreeable enough. But it never turned out in the way I'd imagined it in my mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lonnegan said:

What does that have to do with visual aesthetics? 

Mate, your pic makes me feeling kinda dizzy.  I like your posts but I want to be sick every time I look at it.

 

Seriously, I hope no one on this site uses a pacemaker.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Nothing at all. And it's especially totally irrelevant to the original thread question.

 

But it isn't irrelevant to the current conversation and the organic nature of JWFan. 

 

25 minutes ago, Nick66 said:

Mate, your pic makes me feeling kinda dizzy.  I like your posts but I want to be sick every time I look at it.

 

Seriously, I hope no one on this site uses a pacemaker.  :)

 

When it comes to avatars I like to keep my finger on the pulse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It was reported this morning in one of our biggest newpapers Helsingin Sanomat that according to a new survey done for a research project the Hobbit films received considerably lower scores than The Lord of the Rings films. 36 000 people from 43 countries participated in this survey on the Hobbit films and Finns (1600 people participating in the survey) were clearly the most critical on the subject with only 18 % of people considering them good films. The whole article was titled: Finns particularly disappointed with the Hobbit films. Ouch. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.