SW Prequels vs Hobbit trilogy (scores AND films)

[GerateWohl 4,370]

On 21/12/2020 at 3:25 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

They did fire the entire writer's room back in March (after the first season was scripted), Shippey (who brought some credibility to the show) did walk away, and Cogman has departed the series.  All of this has also been confirmed by TheOneRing, and none of it has been denied by the parties involved.

George Lucas should have fired his writers room for the prequels as well.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

5 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

George Lucas should have fired his writers room for the prequels as well.

 

In retrospect, there probably shouldn't have been any Star Wars™ after ROTJ. I'd almost argue there shouldn't have been any Star Wars™ after Star Wars, but then we'd be without TESB. 

 

It's interesting to contemplate what Star Wars place in cinematic history would be today if Lucas had never made any sequels, and how we'd think about it. If Lucas had simply been this auteur genius who just made Star Wars and walked away to some Jedi-like monastic life. Rarely giving interviews, refusing to allow sequels to be made, and just let the whole thing become pop culture myth & legend.

[Richard Penna 3,692]

Hobbit for the first two, Sith for the third - film and score.

 

BOFA is just a complete mess, cinematically. I've watched it once and found the behind the scenes stuff on YouTube far more interesting than actually watching the film. Shore's score is still good, relatively, but Sith is more focused and 'tidy' and Williams' score is definitely more effective in its complete form.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

Hobbit for the first two, Sith for the third - film and score.

 

BOFA is just a complete mess, cinematically. I've watched it once and found the behind the scenes stuff on YouTube far more interesting than actually watching the film. Shore's score is still good, relatively, but Sith is more focused and 'tidy' and Williams' score is definitely more effective in its complete form.

 

Pretty much this, I voted the same way across the board. Sith is really the only good prequel film, and all in all I think it's a better film, with a better score, than BoTFA.

 

I'll just add that, while DoS is superior (in film and score) to the borderline unwatchable AoTC, I thought it was the weakest Hobbit movie, and more of a mess than BoTFA. Though BoTFA does admittedly contain the worst scene in that trilogy.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

One addition: For LotR the extended versions are the only valid ones for me. Especially for part 2 and 3. Fellowship is ok in the short version. But for the Hobbit movies the extended versions are obsolete. Here I just care for the theatrical cuts.

 

DoS has the longest extension, therefore suffers most from it.

[Richard Penna 3,692]

I haven't seen any of the Hobbit EEs. The TEs are long (and for DoS and BOFA, boring) enough. I don't need more of that.

 

I'm mixed on the LotR EEs: I felt for TTT the added footage was essential, and the TE was harmed by removing it but FotR and RotK feel a bit bloated in their EEs.

[mrbellamy 6,287]

Is there anything that essential in the Two Towers EE besides the Faramir stuff? I feel like the flashback is the main thing the theatrical could have benefited adding, but otherwise the EE has plenty of superfluous stuff itself. I think it's a little overrated how much it adds, personally...the theatrical versions of all three are still better movies for my money but I get how for many fans, you might as well go all-in with a rewatch. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

The FOTR & TTT EE's are pretty much perfect, though the ROTK EE, while still superior to the TE, does make some unfortunate choices in the Dunharrow/Pirates sequence that don't make much sense and were best left alone.

 

Anyway, they're the go-to versions for me. I haven't watched the TE's since the EE's came out.

 

Conversely, both the TE and EE versions of The Hobbit are to be avoided, and it's a film best enjoyed via either the M4 or Maple one-film edit.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Extended cuts end-to-end for this guy here.

 

I don’t believe in fancuts anymore than in cutting Siegfried.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

43 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Extended cuts end-to-end for this guy here.

 

I don’t believe in fancuts anymore than in cutting Siegfried.

Don’t Jews believe in the fan cut of The Bible?

 

I mean, isn’t the New Testament just an Extended Edition?

[Chen G. 3,949]

4 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

DoS has the longest extension, therefore suffers most from it.

 

I actually think its the film that benefits the most out of all six from the extension: setpieces like Laketown and Mirkwood (my favourite) get to breathe, an entire new character is introduced in the guise of Thrain. In terms of how essential the extension is, I would probably rank them:

 

1. The Desolation of Smaug

2. The Battle of the Five Armies

3. The Return of the King

4. The Fellowship of the Ring

5. The Two Towers

6. An Unexpected Journey

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I actually think its the film that benefits the most out of all six from the extension: setpieces like Laketown and Mirkwood (my favourite) get to breathe, an entire new character is introduced in the guise of Thrain.

 

One of my big problems with DoS is that I hate the depiction of Lake Town. Hate it.  I mean, setting aside the nonsense with the Mayor & Alfrid, the set is just...well, IMO, the worst set piece in the six films. I'm normally a sucker for cold, icy settings, but for Lake Town, that decaying, desolate, frosty setting is all wrong.  For one, they weren't in Lake Town in winter (the Dwarves arrived there in Autumn) and it's nothing like Tolkien illustrated it, which is one of my most vivid memories from reading the book as a kid.

 

I mean...

 

J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Hobbit 

vs...

 

WETA

 

I get changing things up for the sake of the film, and I'm not a book purist. But to me, Jackson's portrayal is unnecessary and does little for the story except detract from its charm. Which I suppose is the point given his vision for the narrative at this point.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

16 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

One of my big problems with DoS Smaug is that I hate the depiction of Lake Town. Hate it.

 

Quote

It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Ha ha. Fair enough.   It's perhaps a contradiction that I find Lord of the Rings to be a perfect book, but at the same time think it would be better without Bombadil & the Scouring. 

 

Two of several changes Jackson made that makes the story work better, as film at least.

[Sandor 797]

Both trilogies are flawed, but I would go with the Prequel Trilogy on this one. 

 

Simply because Peter Jackson made many of the same mistakes Lucas made, especially regarding an overkill of CGI animation. 

 

At least Lucas was truly pioneering at the time and sadly made some bad decisions, although I've always believed his heart was in the right place.

 

Jackson could have learned from the Prequels -they were still heavily criticised at the time- and he didn't.

 

The barrel sequence in DoS for example is so over the top and the idea to turn most of the baddies into lifeless digital creations alienates the Hobbit films greatly from the beloved LOTR Trilogy, which was graced by such a fine balance between practical and CGI effects.

 

Ironically, the only one who learned from all this seems to have been J.J. Abrams when he made The Force Awakens, a film I enjoy less that the Prequels or The Hobbit films, but was extremely successful and was praised for recapturing the feel of the original Star Wars films. 

 

But despite the shortcomings of all films mentioned above, I mostly enjoy them for what they are and own them all on Blu-Ray. 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I was actually making the comment originally about Mirkwood - that's possibly my favourite sequence in the trilogy, them getting lost in the trees - but I do also really, really like Laketown.

 

I understand its different from the more Celtic environment Tolkien envisioned, but I do feel like its completely fresh (the only place to look even remotely like it is Bree), and you really can smell the sea-salt (Yes, I know its probably not a salt lake, but you get my point ) and feel the cold. At least I did.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

12 minutes ago, Sandor said:

Simply because Peter Jackson made many of the same mistakes Lucas made, especially regarding an overkill of CGI animation. 

 

Jackson could have learned from the Prequels -they were still heavily criticised at the time- and he didn't.

 

Well said, I've argued this myself. It's remarkable how closely the mistakes of the PT and Hobbit track...right down to the hubris of two directors who over indulged on their own worst instincts when there was no longer anyone around to say no.

 

12 minutes ago, Sandor said:

At least Lucas was truly pioneering at the time and sadly made some bad decisions, although I've always believed his heart was in the right place

 

Agreed. Lucas, at least, was trying to do something new and fresh with the PT, and Jackson essentially became a cover band for his own greatest hits. That said, I admit as a whole I enjoy The Hobbit more than the PT...they're just better made, better directed, better acted, better scripted, better looking films.

[Chen G. 3,949]

24 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

right down to the hubris of two directors who over indulged on their own worst instincts when there was no longer anyone around to say no.

 

I don't find these arguments for directorial hubris to be very merited. In either case, actually. For one thing, if you're going to hinge your argument on "nobody saying no" you need to cite cases either from production on the original Star Wars in 1976, or from production of The Lord of the Rings in 1999-2004 when somebody DID say no.

 

I know both productions pretty well, and I can find no such instances whatsoever. I mean, Lucas said he wanted the whole film shot with a gauze on the lens. DP Gil Taylor didn't like it, but he did do it. Well, at least until the first opportunity he had to ditch it (which was when they moved to shooting Death Star scenes in the UK) and lets be honest: the secret to Star Wars' success is not THAT.

 

By contrast, I can cite examples from the later productions (The Hobbit, the prequel trilogy) of somebody...not so much saying "no" as having a suggestion to change something, and the director acquiescing to it: for instance, Lucas wanted the Jedi to be all aloof, but Liam Neeson convinced him that it would be appropriate for Qui Gon to put his hand on Shmi's shoulder. Likewise, Kili and Tauriel were as originally scripted, meant to kiss on the Lakeshore. They had a table-read before going on location, and Lilly suggested they ditch it, and so they did.

 

In the Jackson case especially its just not in his character. We know from the actors - on both trilogies - that they had huge input into the screenplay. That scarcely sits with the idea of a hubristic director who wants things done "his way." In the Lucas case its perhaps a little more in-character, but not particularly attested by evidence.

 

These stories of directorial hubris run amock are as old as time, and I always find them simplistic. The earliest one I can think of is one of your favourites, Doctor Zhivago: there was a review from the time which said that Lean clearly needed Sam Spiegel to tell him no, and anyone who knows the production history of Lean's films knows that's special pleading. Then there's the more blatant case of Heaven's Gate, but we must remember that even that case is mostly recounted from the point of view of the studio. The most recent I've seen that argument used is against Nolan in the making of Tenet.

[Sandor 797]

Uhm, I think everyone is pretty aware of the fact that when Lucas made the original Star Wars, he encountered a lot of opposition and questioning.

 

When he made the prequels however, things were very, very different and Rick McCallum was no Gary Kurtz.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 minutes ago, Sandor said:

Uhm, I think everyone is pretty aware of the fact that when Lucas made the original Star Wars, he encountered a lot of opposition and questioning.

 

Then by all means, cite me an example.

[Sandor 797]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Then by all means, cite me an example.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Sandor said:

 

First off, I reccomend Lucas' latest biography by Brian Jay Jones, which is an amazingly well-researched (though not without flaw), rigorous and unvarnished document.

 

But I want a specific example of Lucas wanting something one way, and someone in his cast or crew going rogue on him and doing it another way, or coercing Lucas to acquiesce to something like that.

[enderdrag64 624]

25 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

For one thing, if you're going to hinge your argument on "nobody saying no" you need to cite cases either from production on the original Star Wars in 1976, or from production of The Lord of the Rings in 1999-2004 when somebody DID say no.

Most of the examples of Lucas not getting what he wanted on the original film were due to technical or budgetary restrictions. There was that one editor who didn't do what GL wanted, but he got quickly fired and replaced 

[Sandor 797]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

First off, I reccomend Lucas' latest biography by Brian Jay Jones, which is an amazingly well-researched (though not without flaw), rigorous and unvarnished document.

 

But I want a specific example of Lucas wanting something one way, and someone in his cast or crew going rogue on him and doing it another way, or coercing Lucas to acquiesce to something like that.

I’m not aware such extreme forms of opposition took place during the production. From what I read, people just didn’t take Lucas or the film very serious during its making.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Just now, enderdrag64 said:

There was that one editor who didn't do what GL wanted, but he got quickly fired and replaced 

 

Yeah.

 

People always cite the editing thing, but they forget to cite that it was Lucas' call to get rid of Jympson, and that as far as we know every decision made in the editing by Marcia, Chew and Hirsch passed through Lucas.

 

Some of them were things that he wasn't necessarily sold on from the outset, but the point is accepting somebody's suggestion (which, again, also happened in the prequel trilogy) is not the same as somebody saying no: "Saying no" implies someone just went rogue on him. That never happened.

 

A film production, certainly one on the scale of Star Wars and most definitely one on the scale of Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, is an artistic enterprise but its also a high-efficiency corporate enterprise (in the sense that it takes a concerted effort from a huge crew of people). If you say "no" to the person in charge...you get fired. You can't make a film with naysayers onboard.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

36 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I don't find these arguments for directorial hubris to be very merited.

 

Well, look, I can only judge by what I see on the screen. Whether it was not having anyone around to say no to, or simply having the freedom to indulge in their own personally excesses because of their massive success, I think both directors lost their way a bit with their respective prequels...again, I can make this judgement based solely on what I see on the screen even if I knew nothing about the productions.

 

In Jackson's case, it's clearly evident in The Hobbit...that is far from the film he'd have put out had he started making The Hobbit first in 1997.  My guess is that it would have the more, lets say, restrained tone of FOTR.

 

And I'd actually argue that PJ started to lose his way a little bit in ROTK. Masterpiece though it is (and it is a masterpiece), ROTK nonetheless has some narrative and character flaws and begins to show some of the hubris and indulgence that later plagued Jackson in The Hobbit.  To me, FOTR and TTT are just tighter, more grounded films.  

 

If I'm not mistaken, Viggo Mortenson, who (rightly) regards FOTR as the best of the trilogy, has made similar observations.

 

Anyway, I respect your opinion and knowledge of these productions, we'll just agree to disagree (and by that, I mean you disagree with Viggo and I )

 

36 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The earliest one I can think of is one of your favourites, Doctor Zhivago

 

YOU KEEP DR. ZHIVAGO OUT OF YOUR F*CKING MOUTH!!!

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I was actually making the comment originally about Mirkwood - that's possibly my favourite sequence in the trilogy, them getting lost in the trees

 

Yeah, Mirkwood's fine.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Well, look, I can only judge by what I see on the screen. Whether it was not having anyone around to say no to, or simply having the freedom to indulge in their own personally excesses because of their massive success, I think both directors lost their way a bit with their respective prequels...again, I can make this judgement based solely on what I see on the screen even if I knew nothing about the productions.

 

 

Hey, I'm the first to say that what matter is what's on the screen. For instance, when Lucas says that he totally wrote all the Star Wars films at once, my prime objection to it is not some arcane production history, but something much more simple: "Well, if you did, it sure doesn't play that way on the screen!"

 

But - in fairness - when it comes to making more specific arguments about the production itself, I think our aesthetic experience of the work of art can only take us so far in terms of understanding what happened behind the scenes. All these productions have been very well-documented, and we really have everything we need.

 

So yeah, I think the whole narrative for directorial hubris (supposedly edging itself in The Return of the King and becoming completely saturated in The Hobbit) is just that...a narrative. It is not borne out in studying the production history, particularly. At least to me.

 

And yes, I'm aware of Viggo's comments, but I generally think actors aren't the best judges of productions they took part in: they only see things through the lens of their parts and their scenes. Somebody like a writer or an editor would be a better bet.

 

I think its easy to look for grand reasons why one likes movie X from director/series/adaptation of and not film Y from the same stock. And, in looking for such reasons, its easy to do so with a confirmation bias. Having a grand reason is comforting, but the truth of the matter is more often than not there isn't such a reason. Movies are big enterprises, where a million things can go wrong on a daily basis, without the need for big reasons for it.

 

14 minutes ago, Sandor said:

From what I read, people just didn’t take Lucas or the film very serious during its making

 

That is to some extent an affectation, the better to present Star Wars as the little engine that could (its one of the few instances where Jay Jones' otherwise superb book falters a bit, I would say). By happenstance I shared a couple of pertinent quotes a few days ago. I'll cite them again:

 

Quote

I had done sociological research on what makes hit films.

 

Quote

The idea of Star Wars was simply to make a "real gee-whiz movie." [...] "I put in all the elements that said this was going to be a hit," Lucas says.  He even put a value on them. "With Star Wars I reckoned we should do $16 million domestic"—that is, the distributors' share in the United States and Canada would amount to $16 million—"and, if the film caught right, maybe $25 million. 

 

Quote

 [it would be a] wonderful, humorous and exciting adventure-fantasy, an artistic and very commercial venture. Most of what we need is here.

 

Quote

Ladd called Spielberg on the sly to ask what he thought about what he'd seen. Spielberg told the executive he thought he had a hit on his hands – one that would eventually make about $US50 or $US60 million. [...] the sales reps were ecstatic. "Extraordinary," one said succinctly, while another shouted to Ladd over the phone, "I don't believe what I've seen!"

 

Quote

The picture falls into the category of a blockbuster picture. The picture has substantial domestic and international appeal.

 

Quote

there is much talk among those in the film business who should know that “Star Wars” might well be the largest box office movie of the summer.

 

Quote

Then there was merchandising. Contrary to legend, the contract didn't give Lucasfilm exclusive rights to all movie-related products: Fox could sell those too. [...] The fact that the lawyers would keep fighting over the precise details for the next two years shows that Fox was not as asleep at the switch we've been led to believe.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

So yeah, I think the whole narrative for directorial hubris (supposedly edging itself in The Return of the King and becoming completely saturated in The Hobbit) is just that...a narrative.

 

I'm not following a narrative, Chen. It's my opinion, one I've held since the first time I saw ROTK, and certainly since the first time I saw the trailer for AUJ. 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I'm not following a narrative, Chen. It's my opinion,

 

Sure. I'm just saying, its an opinion about the happenings behind the scenes, formulated by what's happening in front of the scenes. Like I said, there's merit to that kind of view (certainly, what matters is and can only be what's onscreen) but it only goes so far, and so in terms of it being an informed opinion...

 

If there was a movie of Jackson's that I would cite as a case for directorial hubris, if I were inclined to that opinion which I'm not, it would be King Kong. Its longer and more drawn-out than either three Hobbit entries, went way overbudget and time, etc...

 

NB. sorry if this sounds abrasive in any way, rough times...

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

No worries mate. Stay safe.

[Chen G. 3,949]

4 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Stay safe.

 

Oh no, its not that.  At least, not directly that.

[Schilkeman 964]

We have a lot of directors getting told no, figuratively speaking, in the blockbuster space, and the movies are boring as shit. I would trade all the films Disney and co have put out in the last 10 years for a trilogy of missteps that at least has a level of artistic integrity and/or ambition. I find the Hobbit films more or less ok, but they are Peter's films, and he stands by them, and I can stand with them for that reason. Same wit Avatar. Same with Dune.

 

It's a dangerous thing, putting art into the world*, and if you don't keep your feet, you end up with a drawer full of films that never get made.

 

*Unless you're John Williams. The man is unimpeachable.