|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Apr 13 2015, 4:37pm
Post #1 of 25
(1754 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Which Middle-Earth Film Trilogy Did You Like More?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Pretty self explanatory!
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Apr 13 2015, 7:33pm
Post #2 of 25
(1670 views)
Shortcut
|
As much as I did enjoy the Hobbit trilogy Lord of the Rings is... well... Lord of the Rings. I have less issues with it too so it's easier to enjoy. Though if there had been possible to vote both I would have.
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Apr 13 2015, 8:26pm
Post #3 of 25
(1658 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I had to say the same thing except
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
my issues are not as much with the movie because I really liked both of them. My issues are more with the experience surrounding each of the movies. LOTR had Trilogy Tuesday, the studio seemed to give a darn about the fans throughout the years the movies were released. With The Hobbit, I got the feeling that they could have cared less about the fans as long as they filled the seats and bought the merchandise. The whole experience was less... magical.
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Apr 13 2015, 8:48pm
Post #4 of 25
(1653 views)
Shortcut
|
Although now that I think about it, maybe I should have picked TH instead. I consider LOTR to be a better set of films, but, like I said in another thread, if I were to sit down and put on a DVD right now, I'd go with TH.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Apr 13 2015, 8:56pm
Post #5 of 25
(1645 views)
Shortcut
|
I think a part of it is that "wow factor," the sense of discovery that came when the original trilogy came out. No matter how awesome Rivendell or the Shire looked in The Hobbit, we had nothing to compare these images to when LOTR came out. Everything was new and fresh then!
The technical aspects had a big part of it too. LOTR had so many groundbreaking achievements in terms of VFX, but the Hobbit simply built on these achievements without doing anything truly revolutionary. I won't even count the whole 48fps debacle as that RUINS the aesthetic of cinematography as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 13 2015, 9:43pm
Post #6 of 25
(1638 views)
Shortcut
|
I noted with some concern PJ's tendency towards overblowing certain aspects of the story in the first set of films. By the time he made The Hobbit trilogy, this tendency had taken full possession of his approach and, imho, made the later trilogy almost unwatchable.
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Apr 14 2015, 1:49am
Post #7 of 25
(1612 views)
Shortcut
|
|
possibly, but what I was more struck by
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
was the complacency of the studio. They almost seemed to take for granted that people would show up. There were no special events, no trinkets given out at the marathons, if you could find a marathon. They weren't particularly generous with the advertising either, at least not up to the standards of other movies out at the same time.
I was ready for *re*visiting Middle Earth. I was ready to see things again instead of them being new. I was even ready to feel something different, not discovery, but coming home. And I loved coming home! I could wander in Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth for years. I'd love to have an adventure there. That was never an issue for me.
I tried the different formats and liked them both for different reasons so that was a non-issue for me also.
But I still can't get over the feeling of being slighted by a studio who should have been welcoming the LOTR fans back with open arms. That is something that I will shake my head over for a long time.
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Apr 14 2015, 2:55am
Post #8 of 25
(1614 views)
Shortcut
|
The Lord of the Rings is a better story than The Hobbit can ever try to be. It's still an Amazing story, don't misunderstand, but its barebones when compared to the sweeping majestic story of Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson did a laudable job trying to bring The Hobbit in tune with Lord of the Rings but at the end of the day the stakes are just never as high as in Lord of the Rings and for obvious reasons.
No matter how The Hobbit was approached and by whom it could never match up to the story-telling scale that the base of Lord of the Rings had set into it from the start, therefore I feel if this thread were made with the same "did you like Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit book more?" it would overwhelmingly lean towards the former.
It's part of the reason I feel people's disappointment with The Hobbit movies as misguided, people could Not have expected it to be better than Lord of the Rings, they knew the story and knew it could not match up to Lord of the Rings, I was cognizant of this from the first to last and this did not keep my from massively enjoying The Hobbit trilogy.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Apr 14 2015, 12:50pm
Post #10 of 25
(1578 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it was a mistake for the filmmakers to approach The Hobbit as if they were making Lord of the Rings 2.0. Like you said, the scope and tone of the stories are completely different even though they take place in the same world and have many of the same characters. The studio didn't seem to care as long as they made billions of dollars, which of course they did.
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Apr 14 2015, 2:51pm
Post #12 of 25
(1568 views)
Shortcut
|
No matter how The Hobbit was approached it couldn't have matched up to Lord of the Rings both in book and in other media (well maybe the Lego video games of The Hobbit could have been better had they Actually completed it...) It was a laudable effort, meaning that it was a well-conceived notion to tie The Hobbit into Lord of the Rings as Tolkien had once tried to do as well. They are not separate and are part of the same mythology.
But the Lord of the Rings is just a better story from the base of it, I'm referring to the books here mind you, not the movies. The Hobbit movies are of a lighter time in Middle Earth so the visuals are lighter as a response, it didn't need to be as gritty and realistic as the original story could hardly be considered as such.
The studio cared and their efforts are worthy of much praise and the six movies are still some of the best I have ever seen, but from a basic perspective The Hobbit in nearly any form cannot match up to the Lord of the Rings in nearly any form.
If they were to film the book as "faithful as possible" you'd have so much boring or outandish matters that it wouldn't even be worth watching. Take for instance Bilbo's Dynasty Warriors-esque run through of Mirkwood against the Spiders, he takes out... loads of them while the Dwarves cower behind the mighty Halfling.
How about Bilbo taking the Arkenstone "just cause", or what about Bard's Magnificent introduction in the book where he shows up to act as a Deus Ex Machina in killing Smaug. Or how about where the Dwarves are just overly portrayed as cowardly, bumbling, and greedy?
The book has flaws and those flaws had to be addressed. I respect the way that Peter Jackson chose to go about this. People bemoan the Elvish inclusion, but the final product focuses on all three of the races in different ways as they're the main combatants of the Battle of the Five Armies.
In my opinion your response isn't fair to all of the effort they put into this. The Hobbit doesn't feel like Lord of the Rings 2.0 to me, How many people have complained about the "lighter visuals"? And that it doesn't "feel real"? This is precisely because it's not filmed in the Same Style or Tone as Lord of the Rings. It links the two, ties them together, doesn't try to emulate it. There is nothing wrong with that.
I feel people just hyped themselves on what They wanted the product to be and when it didn't match up to what they expected they cried foul and derided Peter Jackson for his efforts.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 14 2015, 3:18pm
Post #13 of 25
(1571 views)
Shortcut
|
My issue was that Peter's film-making style in itself has become overblown to the point that the original story is almost lost, and he's gotten worse with time. The fact that The Hobbit is a simpler story aimed at a younger audience did compound the problem, but that fact -- and your contention that it's not as "good" a story -- are not the reasons why I think the later film trilogy failed.
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Apr 14 2015, 5:20pm
Post #14 of 25
(1535 views)
Shortcut
|
simply because it was groundbreaking and it was my gate for ME.
But as long as I truly love these films and these actors, something unexpected will forever bind me more emotionally to the Hobbit films and cast.
I would have voted both if possible, though.
The Hobbit films had potential, but the studio did not do anything to promote them as they should have deserved. 
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Apr 14 2015, 5:36pm
Post #15 of 25
(1543 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't "like" either one of them.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The LOTR trilogy are better films, but they were unsatisfactory as adaptations.
The Hobbit films were terrible adaptations, and pretty overblown as films, too. But they made me less angry than LOTR did, probably because the book doesn't mean as much to me as LOTR does.
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Apr 14 2015, 6:54pm
Post #16 of 25
(1534 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Failed" is still a matter of opinion though.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I enjoyed them both and many people did. They made box office bucks. They may have failed to live up to expectations of some film-goers but that merely means that some folks didn't like them. That's not enough to make the films a failure.
Ishtar was a failure by any and all measures including the opinion of the actors in the movie. The Hobbit wasn't.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 14 2015, 8:03pm
Post #17 of 25
(1537 views)
Shortcut
|
|
yes, we are sharing our opinions here, and that is mine.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's no objective standard we can call on here. My opinion will always be that it would have been a lot better without the unnecessary bloat.
(This post was edited by Annael on Apr 14 2015, 8:04pm)
|
|
|
Fimbulfambi
The Shire
Apr 14 2015, 8:42pm
Post #18 of 25
(1515 views)
Shortcut
|
They're simply better balanced.
The Hobbit triology is enjoyable, but there are plenty of reasons why they didn't turn out as equals. More difficult material to adapt in the same format, struggles throughout the production, rushed CGI work, last minute add of another film which affects the script, build-up and tempo of the films... etc. etc.
I do think that they could've been better all things considered, they had a lot of potential and I have been pleasantly surprised by some great content. But in comparison with the LOTR trilogy which just happens to have a lot of great content - the LOTR recieves an easy win.
|
|
|
sevilodorf
Tol Eressea
Apr 15 2015, 12:06am
Post #19 of 25
(1489 views)
Shortcut
|
It's a grander story.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 15 2015, 12:06pm
Post #20 of 25
(1452 views)
Shortcut
|
Not only has The Lord of the Rings a deeper story and more nuances than The Hobbit, but I still feel that Peter Jackson took too many liberties with his second Middle-earth trilogy.
|
|
|
Ciars
Rohan
Apr 15 2015, 5:23pm
Post #21 of 25
(1434 views)
Shortcut
|
Definitely the Lord of the Rings, regardless of flaws/missing pieces/characters I can still remember the thrill of hearing Galadriel's prologue, seeing Hobbiton for the first time and simply the sheer joy of watching a story I've always treasured being treated with respect on the big screen. The soundtrack, particularly the hobbits theme still brings a smile to my face. Also, it brought Torn to life, a place which has remained a constant, with torn sibs who share my love for the books.
(This post was edited by Ciars on Apr 15 2015, 5:24pm)
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Apr 16 2015, 12:48am
Post #22 of 25
(1410 views)
Shortcut
|
I read your sentence incorrectly. I thought you meant that the movie had failed when all you really meant was that it had failed for you. Now I understand. Thanks for the bold print too. It helps to get the point across to folks like me who need the extra emphasis. 
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 16 2015, 2:17am
Post #23 of 25
(1402 views)
Shortcut
|
|
and the word "failed" was not mine
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
although I did repeat it, I wouldn't have used it deliberately. I don't think the films "failed." Obviously a lot of people loved them, and there were parts that I did like (the parts that stuck to the original story line!). So me it's more that I wish PJ had reined himself in - something I started to wish with TTT and have wished more strongly with every movie he's made since. Less is more, Peter, less is more!
|
|
|
|
|
