|
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net? Consider a donation!
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tripecac
Bree
Dec 14 2012, 1:08am
Views: 520
Shortcut
|
For those of you who haven't seen the movie yet: please keep in mind that it's just a movie. Not only that, but it's just an adaptation of a book that most of us don't like as much as Lord of the Rings.
The hype and anticipation drove many of us to expect this first Hobbit movie to somehow surpass the Lord of the Rings movies in terms of its emotional value to us. But how can it???
If you think about it, the only aspect of the movie that is likely to be "better" than the LotR movies is the technology. Namely, the CGI, the 3D, and the 48fps. For those of you who are seeing the Hobbit it in 2D, the only thing that is likely to be "better" is the CGI. And by "better", I mean "more detailed".
Are CGI, 3D, and 48fps the only aspects to a movie? No!
What else does a movie consist of?
1) writing
2) pre-production (props, costumes, sets)
3) background scenery
4) acting
5) cinematography
6) music
7) other audio
8) post-production/editing
Those are all pretty important parts of a movie, right?
So think about it: why would any of those be better than Lord of the Rings?
1) Writing - If anything, they have a tougher job this time due to less (and arguably lesser) source material, Guillermo leaving (having to decide whether to keep or abandon his ideas), and a last-minute shift from 2 movies to 3. Why would you think the writing would be better than Lord of the Rings? Do you think Peter, Fran, and Philippa did a better job writing The Lovely Bones than Lord of the Rings?
2) Pre-production (props, costumes, sets) - There's no reason to believe these will be better (or worse) on the Hobbit than Lord of the Rings. How can you exceed what was already pretty much top-of-the-line? Besides, PJ is using many of the same artists, designers, etc., so it is likely to all be on par with the Lord of the Rings.
3) Background scenery - There was supposedly a lot less location shooting for the Hobbit than LotR. So if anything, the Hobbit is at a disadvantage.
4) Acting - For both the Hobbit and LotR, we're dealing with carefully selected actors and a director who favors lots of takes. So the acting is unlikely to "make or break" the movie.
5) Cinematography - Likely to be on par with Lord of the Rings. 10 years won't automatically make it any "better".
6) Music - Howard Shore did an awesome job on LotR, and that is hard to surpass. Do you think Hugo's score was better than Lord of the Rings?
7) Other audio - Likely to be the same. Foley and mics can only do so much. Bad audio can ruin a movie (Jar Jar) but good audio is not really noticed.
8) Post-production/editing - According to Wikipedia, principal photography for LotR ended on 22 December 2000, and Fellowship premiered on 10 December 2001; this gave them almost year to edit Fellowship. Principal photography on the Hobbit ended 6 July 2012, and the first Hobbit movie premiered 28 November 2012; this gave them less than 5 months to focus on editing. Sure, there's overlap here and there, but think about it: 12 months to focus on Fellowship, 5 months to focus on the Hobbit.
--------
So, logically, why should we really expect The Hobbit to surpass Lord of the Rings as a movie?
|
|
|
|
|
Perspective
