|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macsen
Lorien
Dec 18 2014, 10:03pm
Post #1 of 21
(1526 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Watching LOTR after the Hobbit
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suppose this thread could go in the LOTR forum, but since the discussion will probably be full of Hobbit spoilers that may not be a good idea.
I watched the LOTR EEs after watching all the Hobbit movies last week. Here are a few observations:
Even though this is a 3/3 movie split, LOTR is much longer. If the BOFA is 30 minutes longer than the TE, then the LOTR EE saga will be a whole two hours longer than the Hobbit. The ROTK EE is twice as long as the BOFA TE. So even though there's some criticism of giving the Hobbit the same treatment as LOTR in terns on length, three hobbit films do not equal three LOTR films.
Although there has been some criticism on this forum that the Hobbit films feel rushed, the LOTR films do feel much more tightly edited. PJ also seems to achieve much more within a few scenes in terms of developing characters. For example, Boromir goes through pretty much the same character arc as Thorin in 4 scenes rather than 20+. It's interesting that some argue that there simply wasn't enough time to give the individual dwarves lines, while LOTR features just as many characters on a quest and give them all plenty to do (Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli, Aragron, Gandalf, Boromir, Theoden, Eowyn, Faramir, Arwen... Etc etc).
The score in LOTR is so much more obvious. It's played at full blast throughout, and there are many scenes where the scor is allowed to do the talking. In the Hobbit films you hear almost nothing of the score, which is always played at low volume in the background. The only chance the Hobbit score really gets to let rip is when the dwarves are crossing the Misty Mountains in AUJ. Listening to the CDs there's little difference in the quality of the scores, so this is a shame.
Ironically, Legolas feels underused in LOTR after his exploits in the Hobbit! You watch him throughout and he seems strangely reserved. It's only in the Mumakil scene in ROTK that you feel 'the old Legolas is back!'
LOTR is better than the Hobbit, but that's mostly down to the simplicity of the plot that is always pushing forwards towards a resolution. The plot of the Hobbit meanders after reaching the Lonely Mountain, and there is never that strong moral purpose behind the quest that you get in LOTR.
However a lot of the individual scenes in the Hobbit are the best in the entire 6 films. It's just somehow less than the sum of its parts.
LOTR feels far more 'filmic' and 'real' than the Hobbit. I think this has less to do with CGI - you notice while watching LOTR that it's chock full of, often bad, CGI. It's because LOTR was filmed on film, while the Hobbit has a clean digital look to it. It's less warm and 'real' even while it's more clear.
Shelob seems less of a big deal in ROTK after the spider scenes in DOS. You think, 'well, it's just one spider'.
Moria seens les of a big deal after the Lonely Mountain, although there's much more punch to Balin's tomb.
Every time I saw Ian Holm I thought 'that's not what Bilbo looks like'!
You miss Gandalf the Grey much more when he turns into Gandalf the White, the Grey version is much better.
This is controversial, but I think the acting in the Hobbit is better than LOTR. Bilbo is certainly much better acted than Frodo, with his default constipation expression when things don't go his way. I also think Ian McKellen has more range with Gandalf in the Hobbit. Thorin is also much better acted than Aragron who is a bit boring by comparison.
Galadriel is in these films a lot. You sort of expect her plot to go somewhere, but at the end she just jumps on the boat without saying much. I think the Hobbit creates a certain expectation of some of the characters, like Galadriel and Legolas, that the LOTR films don't meet.
The villains in the Hobbit films are much better than in LOTR. You never get another orc as cool as Azog. Sauron never does anything as interesting as he does in DOS or the excellent Dol Guldur scene in BOFA. However, i think these scenes do improve him as a villain for LOTR. It does seem like a great wasted opportunity when he is reduced to a lighthouse in ROTK however.
ROTK is probably the best film overall, but the ghost army in it are the worst thing in all 6 movies. And there are far too many endings, even if you've just say through 15 hours of film (or perhaps even because of that). BOFA ending is far superior.
That's all I can muster at the moment! 
|
|
|
FrogmortonJustice65
Lorien
Dec 18 2014, 10:12pm
Post #2 of 21
(1029 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd agree with one statement in particular
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"However a lot of the individual scenes in the Hobbit are the best in the entire 6 films. It's just somehow less than the sum of its parts."
Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo's conversation with Smaug, and the Thorin/Bilbo scenes in BOFA are about as good as anything in LOTR -- truly fantastic. Gandalf and Bilbo's "Good morning" in the opening of AUJ is also great.
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 18 2014, 10:13pm
Post #3 of 21
(984 views)
Shortcut
|
Rarely do I read a post on here that is this spot on.
Well done. Very thoughtful and balanced.
Couldn't agree more
|
|
|
utku
Rivendell
Dec 18 2014, 10:21pm
Post #4 of 21
(954 views)
Shortcut
|
From a practice that many of us will be doing in our lifetimes I'm sure. I too agree that Hobbit has the better individual scenes, especially with the last film. One interesting thing I would add again has to do with Legolas. You'd think Frodo would have more of an interest in Legolas knowing that he is the only one in Fellowship besides Gandalf that Frodo has heard from Bilbo's stories: well as we all know they do not interract at all! I think Legolas's arc is handled poorly, I don't think it clicks right with me how we see him in these films. The obvious "getting younger and less bulky with each movie" look doesn't help either but that couldn't be helped.
On the other hand, nuclear Galadriel scene in Fellowship, which didn't make that much sense without knowing the backstory in Fellowship now has a better pronounced significance, which is good.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Dec 18 2014, 10:21pm
Post #5 of 21
(973 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Notice how all of those examples
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are
A. Bilbo's scenes
B. Very faithful to the books
Pretty much anytime Bilbo was on screen and when PJ was sticking to the books the movies really shined.
|
|
|
mefansmum
Rivendell
Dec 18 2014, 11:40pm
Post #6 of 21
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Interesting exercise that made interesting reading but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think going through the six EE's in order after not watching any of the movies for a couple of years (if anyone here can manage it  ) will be an even more interesting exercise because every movie will be on as even a footing as they can possibly be by then. eg All their optimum versions, any advantage or disadvantage of a recent cinema screening having faded.
One might also re read the books in the interim although I am not sure how relevant that would be in judging the movies on their own merits.
|
|
|
Faramir5
Bree
Dec 18 2014, 11:49pm
Post #7 of 21
(826 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll have to disagree with acting in the Hobbit being better and also the villains being better.
The acting in LOTR was flawless by each and every character. The acting in The Hobbit was superb as well, except for how overly comical the some of the less-popular dwarves were. Also, I thought that the people of Laketown were often too charactery. When they were running from the orcs in BOTFA, I didn't feel a true sense of fear like I did from the humans in Two Towers and Return of the King.
I'm not a hater of Azog and Bolg...in fact I thought they were excellent in BOTFA! I was a lot more scared by the nazgul in LOTR and the regular orcs freaked me out a lot more. I had a sense that they were a lot harder to kill than those in BOTFA.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 11:55pm
Post #8 of 21
(811 views)
Shortcut
|
Everyone who reads the books has their own film in their heads, and no one can do your film, or mine. So PJ came closer than anyone... but it's clear Dwarves and Hobbits resonate more with him than Elves, which somehow miss the mark I was feeling when I read the books.
Legolas is the weird combination of very young and wide-eyed with the very old and wise (even though he says stuff to Aragorn like "you havfe travelled further than I..")... the kind of thing we see in the best of Doctor Who, the kind of thing we only see in non-human characters.
He is also deeply rooted in the natural world, the thing that most resonated with me reading the books. He says things like "I hear the stones speak", he gallops back toward the Huorn wood because he saw eyes in the trees (Gimli thumping at his back to "get me off this horse!"). He stands under the eaves of a mysterious Fangorn peering into the dark, reading the psychic energy of the forest while everyone else is sharpening their weapons and thinking grim thoughts. He waxes eloquent over the cry of gulls in the dark, rides without saddle or rein (with a lumpy axe-wielding Dwarf at his back no less), and refuses to sit with smokers. He is a legit prince who never mentions royalty, giving himself to the service of others, to mere mortals.
I love this, and we see little of it in the films. To give Orli credit, he managed to evoke some of this quality, despite the script.
"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 12:01am
Post #9 of 21
(809 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree very much with what you say, especially when it comes to the acting. I think the cast were OK in the LotR films for what they had to do, but apart from Sir Ian McKellen the acting of the key characters was not of the high standard of some of those in the Hobbit. I think the acting of people like Richard Armitage, Martin Freeman and Ken Stott, for example, is outstanding, and those playing Bard, Smaug and Thranduil are also superb.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 12:15am
Post #10 of 21
(801 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They surpassed my wildest dreams with Balin
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
All I hoped for was to give Balin a little extra material to shine so we get to connect with him when they enter his tomb in FOTR. What we got was the most well-written and lovable member of Thorin's company... I loved every scene Balin was in and Ken Stott did awesome work.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 12:32am
Post #11 of 21
(753 views)
Shortcut
|
While I'm at it, I think Balin was fully aware that Bilbo had the Arkenstone – he conveyed that in his expression.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 2:19am
Post #12 of 21
(704 views)
Shortcut
|
Ken iz closelytoo.. the PERFECT "BOOK" Dwarve
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
White Beard
He Could have Tucked into his Belt
{Like in the Book}
Seemed to take the PART of playing...Tolkien, Himself
....................................
{The Narrator"}.. as Tolkien describes himself
to his Children by their Bedside
over SSOoo many YEARS.
WE can ALL.. TOOK .. Leave
of OUR EXTRA-Ordinary Adventure...
FUR bomby this.has BEORN, & become A.,A.,A..
adventure of a LIFE-Time..
ONCE TOLKIEN takes HOLD?
MiddleEARTH never lets gooo.
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Elentari03
Rivendell
Dec 19 2014, 6:35am
Post #13 of 21
(641 views)
Shortcut
|
although I agree with several other posters that 1) the acting in both movies is equally excellent, and 2) some of the orc/uruk-hai villains in LOTR were as frightening/"cool" as Azog.
|
|
|
misspoptart
The Shire
Dec 19 2014, 9:20am
Post #14 of 21
(623 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree about the acting in the Hobbit being better than in LotR...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
ESPECIALLY in terms of the Elves. I'm not sure if it's related to the tone of the Hobbit films (the plot is much less heavy in my opinion), but the acting for Elrond, Thranduil, Tauriel, and Legolas in the Hobbit was extremely moving for me.
I always found Hugo Weaving good, but he made a very grumpy Elrond which wasn't what I expected at all. This time around he has fleshed out Elrond as a caring and kind soul with a sense of humor. :)
For Orlando, I think some of it is that he was young during LotR and maybe the direction for his character was not so clear, but I always found Legols completely devoid of personality. Finally(!!) in BotfA I thought to myself, wow, Orlando is acting! I actually understand something more about Legolas now!
I don't even need to talk about the genius of Lee Pace or the elegance of Evangeline; the two do perfect justice for what I think was Tolkien's vision for Elves.
I also want to say that I find Bard and Bilbo a lot more endearing than Aragorn and Frodo. Don't get me wrong; the acting was spot on in LotR also, but Luke & Martin just make me love them more than Viggo and Elijah did. Could be character development or script even, but I\m tempted to attribute it to the fact that they are just very very very good actors.
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Dec 19 2014, 10:03am
Post #15 of 21
(597 views)
Shortcut
|
Well said. I mentioned it already in my review, but i was truly amazed by Richard Armitage in BOFA. It never occured to me that he would have such a dramatic power in his performance.
"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Dec 19 2014, 10:53am
Post #16 of 21
(578 views)
Shortcut
|
Ah it seems, I am the odd man out on the acting.
I really thought the acting was great in all 6 of the films. I thought each actor did a really great job in the role they were given, except for maybe a few scenes here and there.
I will say, however, that The Hobbit has a much stronger (and better acted) main character than LOTR. I thought Elijah Wood did an excellent job as Frodo in LOTR. I also agree with the OP that there were quite a few scenes that were iffyish.
But Martin Freeman outshines him as Bilbo Baggins. It's due in part to the fact that Frodo is supposed to become worse as time goes on. But it's mostly due to MF's actin chops.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Dec 19 2014, 11:18am
Post #17 of 21
(587 views)
Shortcut
|
I want to start off by saying that the OP was a wonderful read. Thank you very much, Macsen.
I agree that The Hobbit does have some really awesome scenes that are just as good as anything in LOTR: Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo/Smaug conversation. Though, I've heard people saying that the individual scenes in the hobbit are much better than LOTR, which I don't agree with.
I certainly think those 2 scenes I mentioned are the best dialogue scenes of the entire saga. I don't remember anything in LOTR that had as much extended dialogue that was interesting.
But I still think LOTR, overall, had a lot more individual great scenes than The Hobbit. A few that come to mind are the Gandalf vs Balrog confrontation and death in FOTR, Boromir's death and the shore of the anduin scene at the end of FOTR, Gandalf the white revealing himself, the last march of the ents, the lighting of the beacons (come on! one of the best!), ride of the rohirrim, Pippen's song during Faramir's suicide run, the houses of healing.
To me, LOTR had a lot more of these great moments than the hobbit did. While the hobbit had a few really awesome scenes that are just as good as stuff in LOTR, the LOTR trilogy has a lot more of them.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 11:57am
Post #18 of 21
(572 views)
Shortcut
|
I think LotR was completely new to us – nothing like it had ever been seen before. With the Hobbit, people take things much more for granted. I think many scenes from all three Hobbit films equal and in some cases surpass anything in LotR: Erebor, Smaug, Lake-town, including its destruction, which was superbly done, Beorn's home, waterfall at Rivendell, the Eagles in AUJ, not to mention scenes involving Thorin and Bilbo in films three and one. In general I prefer the acting of the main characters in the Hobbit, apart from Gandalf, who is brilliant in both trilogies, but perhaps held together the acting in LotR (he should have got an Oscar), which I feel was poor in some cases.
I think also that LotR, e.g. for Ride of Rohirrim and shore of Anduin, had more rousing and more memorable music than Hobbit two and three, in which the music is far more low key. The music in the LotR films, and not just the visuals, which are not that brilliant when taken alone in some cases, had a great deal to do with my liking of some scenes.
|
|
|
Dipling
Lorien
Dec 19 2014, 12:11pm
Post #19 of 21
(555 views)
Shortcut
|
...music was allowed to do the talking. That is what i miss the most in the Hobbit trilogy.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 8:09pm
Post #20 of 21
(521 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The major difference is the amount of raw material.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit is about 300 pages long (305 in my paperback version) and told a very simple, linear story. In contrast, LotR consists of 3 volumes, all over 300pp not counting appendices, with an extremely complex tale. Basically, all the complaints about TH being padded go back to this basic fact. TH was extended with extra action sequences and fabricated plot lines, and it shows. LotR also had some invented material, which are generally regarded as the weaker sections.
It's not surprising that technically TH is superior in many ways. LotR was groundbreaking in its time, but it was made 14 years ago, and filmmaking technology is advancing incredibly rapidly. I quite agree that, in general, the acting in TH is superior in some scenes (we all pretty much agree on Riddles in the Dark and the conversation with Smaug). And RA and MF were superb throughout.
But the bottom line is TH is too little plot stretched over too much film.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Dec 19 2014, 8:10pm)
|
|
|
Macsen
Lorien
Dec 19 2014, 9:51pm
Post #21 of 21
(506 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that a lot of the Hobbit's weaknesses arise from having one book worth of plot stretched over three films. However, looking at the 6 films as a whole, it seems to me that LOTRs plot is actually more straightforward. The plot just maintains itself better over 3 films because, despite its simplicity, there's a much clearer motive for the main characters. Frodo is trying to save the world, while Bilbo is trying to get back the gold of a few dwarves who may not even deserve it! They do try and solve this in AUJ by putting the emphasis on reclaiming a homeland rather than the gold, but this is mostly lost by BOFA as the gold plays a much more prominent role.
|
|
|
|
|
