Apr 25 2014, 10:59am
"how much of the difference we see between the two film trilogies is down to the fact we have all aged 10+ years between them.
I don't buy the "we've matured" argument
Is there *really* any difference between the two trilogies?
Could it just be that we've all aged a bit, and what we're looking for in a film adaptation has also changed?
Ultimately, would our 10-year-younger self love The Hobbit movie trilogy just as much as The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy?"
I think there may be some weight to this argument if you're referring to people who were 15 when they saw the original trilogy but, from what I can glean from the odd reference here and there, many of us were already adults when we saw them and our tastes therefore haven't changed anywhere near as greatly (if at all) in the intervening period.
It's also a theory that curiously presumes Jackson hasn't aged a day. If we've all matured in what we're expecting from an adaptation of Tolkien, why hasn't he?
Nope, I think the truth is simply that many of us regard this current trilogy as inferior because it is. It is far more prone to ludicrous action, infantile humour, questionable design choices, disregard for the text etc than the original (yes, flawed) trilogy ever was.
(PS As an aside and on-topic , I think BotFA is a far better title than TaBA which was, after all, both inappropriate and, yes, a little dull)
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
(This post was edited by Kendalf on Apr 25 2014, 11:09am)