|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HelmHammerHand
The Shire
Jul 15 2015, 8:01am
Post #1 of 18
(1648 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Help me tie down the difference between LOTR and Hobbit
|
Can't Post
|
|
Have been watching FOTR and am, once again, struck by the difference in 'feel' between it and 'The Hobbit'
With FOTR I feel there is 'light and beauty up there that no shadow can touch' but I do not feel this way watching the Hobbit...and I don't know why.
Several options:
1. FOTR is less vibrant in colour and more 'gritty' which makes it feel more real
2. I was spoiled by all the leaks etc. before 'The Hobbit' in a way I wasn't for LOTR
3. The acting was better in FOTR
4. The Script was better in FOTR
Thought the use of CGI would be a major reason but there is a significant amount of CGI in the prologue of FOTR yet it looks and feels very different to the battle of Azanulbizar - darker, more dramatic. Also the parts of the Hobbit that are not CGI still feel different to LOTR
This is not a bashing of the Hobbit - more of a praise of the FOTR which I still think is the best of all the Middle Earth films
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Jul 15 2015, 9:37am
Post #2 of 18
(1567 views)
Shortcut
|
Not that I think the acting in LotR awful I do enjoy more of it in the Hobbit. Colorful and charming characters and that out of a book that really doesn't flesh them out.
But yeah the feel of the movies are quite different. I feel FotR has a fantasy feel to it, but at the same time not so much that it feels 'unreal' you know? It's very easy on the eye. Very beautiful movie.
AUJ is my favorite Hobbit movie and I love it so much. But the Hobbit is a children's book and I think that was what they were going for, but kinda feel like they ended up all over the place with the following/last movie.
Somehow the CGI hasn't been my biggest issue though I can understand people who has. LotR wins with having far more filming on locations and bigatures than the hobbit. I don't think the CGI per say is bad, but that dreamy, soft texture they have put on makes it look worse. Had it been left more gritty it'd look better. I think.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 15 2015, 2:02pm
Post #3 of 18
(1469 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sorry, can't help you much, I get the same feeling from both of them...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In terms of acting I'd say The Hobbit was better - and that's not a criticism of Lord of the Rings.
In terms of story Lord of the Rings is so much broader and deeper and richer in characters and events. I've always felt that way about the books so it doesn't surprise me to feel it about the films and for me at least it doesn't mean that The Hobbit is any poorer than it should or could have been. It's an essay in the craft - a first reaching towards something Tolkien would achive in the sequel.
I suppose my question to you might be do you feel 'light and beauty up there that no shadow can touch' when you read The Hobbit?
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Jul 15 2015, 7:35pm
Post #4 of 18
(1355 views)
Shortcut
|
I love the Hobbit trilogy but there were a few issues that resulted from the last minute changes in production that ultimately hurt the films. Let me first say that I think the design and production teams did a remarkable job given the strained circumstances, and all of the actors did a marvelous job... Now that's out of the way, here are a few issues that hurt the three films.
1) Scripts. The reason AUJ stands up as a lot of people's favorite (not everyone's, I know), is that it has a very clearly defined arc. It's about Bilbo stepping out his door and becoming accepted by the company. In order to have this moment they moved up the Thorin/Bilbo "make-up" scene from after the Barrel sequence and pushed it to the Carrock. What this meant was that the those sequences, now the first half of DOS, were removed of the thematic undertone that was originally present (i.e. Thorin not accepting Bilbo as part of the company). The problem when they reshot what that they didn't re-insert a thematic undertone that would carry throughout DOS. So essentially you have the end of the original first film (now stripped of thematic undertone) now tied with the first act of what was to be "There and Back Again." This gives DOS a very disjointed feel. When they reshot and did pick-ups the main focus should have been on developing a new clearly defined arc for the film. What they did end up adding, for better or for worse, was a more intricate subplot for the elf characters, a beefed up orc battle in Laketown (that expanded on the sequence that was originally planned), and a confrontation with Smaug that felt inconsequential. There is a lot of forward momentum in DOS, but very little payoff or sense or a clear narrative backbone. I think part of this could have been remedied by putting the first 12 minutes of BOTFA (Smaug's laketown attack) as the ending of DOS, as the shot of Bilbo watching Thorin walk back to Erebor would have offered a clear change from how their relationship started at the beginning in the Wilderland. In terms of BOTFA, a lot of the issues deal with the third act in Ravenhill, which were a result of the rewrites that made the elven characters a bigger part of the story. I like Legolas and Tauriel, but there's a sense that this section "misses the point" that was set up in AUJ about this being about the company and their story. I think having Legolas distract from the emotional core of the story (the line of Durin), with his action hero antics, ultimately makes this section of BOTFA feel disjointed. The problem, again is there is a lack of coherence to what DOS and BOTFA are about. The additional photography and rewrites expanded the story into more splinters rather than build on the core story that was established in AUJ.
2) CGI. I have issues with the CGI, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying and ultimately loving the films. My issue is more to do with the mentality that exists in the business as a whole. If you look at the behind the scenes footage there were extensive battle sequences shot with live orcs and the Ironhill dwarves, but in the finished film, these were all replaced with CGI. The thinking is that there is more control, over the actual shot and the performance of the actors in the shot, this means the director doesn't have to be at the mercy of a background actor that doesn't quite sell themselves as an orc or an elf, etc. The issue with this mentality is that part of the charm of LOTR was that it was real people in real costumes. It creates a more lively and surprising image rather than a carefully controlled and conceptualized shot. With the current technology, PJ and co have too many opportunities to second guess what was shot and change shots, when their first instincts were usually the better ones. I can understand the switch of Azog to CGI, since none of the prosthetic orcs in LOTR were ever capable of displaying that range of emotion, but the decision to move all of the orcs over to CGI, and ultimately several other characters (elves, dwarves, Dain), was more of a result of second guessing material they had shot already.
(Side note: in the case of Dain, I've heard that most, if not all of his material, was shot with Billy in make-up. It wasn't a matter of his recent health precluding re-shoots as others have speculated, it was more that PJ didn't like the prosthetics that were designed for Billy's face, and therefore decided to swap it out. Again it's a shame, would he have CGI'd Gimli in LOTR? there are several shots where the seams are visible but we love the character and buy into it. There's a superficial mentality of "everything must be visually perfect in 48fps 5K" that ends up sacrificing the charm and integrity of having live performers with real make-up and costumes)
3) The "Bloom" Color Grading. There is a really strange shift in the color grading from AUJ to DOS, and even more strangely from DOS to BOTFA where they specifically "soften" the image by giving parts of the shot a glowing halo effect. It gives the visual effects sequences a very muddy feeling. If you watch the Weta FX reels on youtube you can see the sharper images before they went through color grading. This filter was a response to the 48fps criticism, it really compromises the quality of the CGI work and adds to the artificial look that a lot of trolls complain about.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jul 15 2015, 7:35pm
Post #5 of 18
(1351 views)
Shortcut
|
LOL my "short response" would be, well, the base material of the films is different and targeted to a different audience, and there is a 10-year gap re technology (I finally got WETA book #5 and there is a comment re the use of models - or not - in the Hobbit re that they couldn't as with LOTR, because of the high-res cameras used in the Hobbit, and other tricks used for LOTR would no longer work...)
I will always be uneasy comparing LOTR and the Hobbit - film and books. Not saying folks shouldn't and that was inevitable I guess, but NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH YOUR POST - but it has been and continued to be a source of more or less irritation for me - that IMO with any film where there are going to be previous tie-ins, IMO the director should be very careful in not paying enough attention to the present in favor of the past.
(I think a judicious use of nods and tie-ins is wonderful and a thrill for the audience; too much IMO and that kind of thing over-explains and seems too relentless and is something of an insult to what it is going on in the present - which I think did in fact happen in the Hobbit films, for me - I got tired of it - just sayin')
Since I like the Hobbit films, overall, better than LOTR, re:
3. The acting was better in FOTR
4. The Script was better in FOTR
I am just gonna disagree with this , except for the superb, makes-it-look-effortless Ian McKellan. If one CAN generalize . Like I always love Aragorn explaining the Nazgul. Or Gandalf explaining the Ring. Just like there are moments of acting in FOTR that really "grab" me - others, not so much, e.g., for me there is more of sense of distance with the characters, over-all.
VS. the Hobbit -are we talking about FOTR vs AUJ here? Anyway, across the board, if one CAN generalize, not once in AUJ did I feel any of the characters weren't exactly who they were supposed to be, e.g., they weren't acting - they were BEING .
As for the script - well, lots of lovely, quotable lines in both - I certainly never saw any script problems in AUJ - tho I think some cheesiness slithers in later esp. BOFA - tho IMO that could be said time to time of LOTR as well - FOR ME.
1. FOTR is less vibrant in colour and more 'gritty' which makes it feel more real
2. I was spoiled by all the leaks etc. before 'The Hobbit' in a way I wasn't for LOTR
Hmmm - re FOTR are we talking specific scenes? I mean, the Shire in both is presented as a lovely, pastoral, place...and there IS definitely some wonderful grittiness in FOTR as well as IMO the to-this-day fabulous Balrog scenes - on the other hand in AUJ we have I think an outstanding Gollum and Gollum-cave, and the stone giants get some flack but IMO the way that was done is wonderful as are the trolls, Goblin King, goblin cave, and pine tree and eagles/carrock (I was so bummed when I found out the carrock wasn't a real place in New Zealand  and even the cliffs the dwarves walk away from Rivendell on look real to me...)
Re: "I was spoiled by all the leaks etc. before 'The Hobbit' in a way I wasn't for LOTR" for me I would interpret that as for me - expecting a certain style for Middle Earth from PJ, which I am happy about - but I couldn't say it was WHOLLY fresh as it would have been if del Toro, I think, based on the designs I have seen, would have been - which for me, actually, is a relief . (I didn't think about it but I think I would have been longing for PJ's work, if the Hobbit had remained with del Toro - at least for this rendition of the Hobbit. I mean the designs for Smaug while novel for me, were just too "sci-fi" or something...)
But, yeah - I guess you can't cross the same river twice - for me there was that first homey, amazing view of the "unfilmable" re FOTR - and then - there was the fun of "falling back into Middle Earth", all the way back into an initially even more innocent time, before Bilbo had had the Ring - but for me, the opening lines of the book The Hobbit have always been a joy for me - to see them realized on the screen that way by superb actors - well, I was just GONE - not to mention already having seen the lovely Dale, and the glorious Erebor - I guess for me I had seen, and re-seen LOTR so often (tho I hadn't thought about it at the time) that re-visiting Middle Earth in a whole new way has been amazing, and a lot of times I enjoy it more than LOTR -
Partly, I guess (tho I hadn't thought about until your post ) I get to actually SEE a lot of "eastern" Middle Earth in the Hobbit films - and tho locations change in LOTR, a lot of it IS "dark and gritty" and just plain dark a lot of the time - night shots and Weathertop and Mordor and Moria and Helm's Deep and Fangorn.
Hmm - well, re your post - I think for me, considering the tone of the Hobbit book vs. LOTR I don't have a problem with the "different feel" - in fact I expected it!, as IMO there is a lot of whimsy in the "base" material of the Hobbit for much of the story, a lot of fairy-tale like charm and fun - and IMO it is a very, very, difficult, I think to walk that line on screen, in that the Hobbit book does have an underlying darkness, but the book - being a short tale written for children - IMO "skates" a lot that LOTR does not - even the fate of the Durins isn't painfully detailed as written, as is the fate and care of Boromir in text, say.
So blending the whimsy and the tragedy re the Hobbit books on screen I think is something PJ has accomplished with remarkable success - even from the beginning having to overcome his own initial presentation dwarves (re Gimli as comic relief in LOTR - which IMO the book Gimli was not). E.g., in LOTR book and film we have charming, fun, pastoral hobbits but they quickly leave the Shire and things get serious, pretty fast, overall. IMO, it's "immediately adult" books and movies.
In the Hobbit book we have lots of whimsy and charm that somehow has to segue over - according to PJ's vision - to a growing darkness and seriousness, without Bilbo losing his "hobbitness" and actually becoming "a little warrior of a Hobbit". Or to put it another way, I think it's a bit easier to start with material written for adults, than having to bring a children's tale to an adult level tho I think thanks to the actors PJ was able to do so beautifully. (IMO Bilbo remains, throughout, quintessentially a hobbit thanks to the remarkable Martin Freeman. I think a lesser actor might have ended up playing the role as a miniature, grim dwarf or channeling Frodo after the Ring, but MF I think keeps true to Bilbo throughout.)
Happily I guess there are enough films for all to have favorites for their own reasons and what we respond to and why - of course, it will NEVER be enough for me.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jul 15 2015, 7:55pm
Post #6 of 18
(1335 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is IMO beautifully said....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In terms of BOTFA, a lot of the issues deal with the third act in Ravenhill, which were a result of the rewrites that made the elven characters a bigger part of the story. I like Legolas and Tauriel, but there's a sense that this section "misses the point" that was set up in AUJ about this being about the company and their story. I think having Legolas distract from the emotional core of the story (the line of Durin), with his action hero antics, ultimately makes this section of BOTFA feel disjointed.
I'll also add that it felt even more fragmented, in that because of the editing? script? that it feels to me as though there was some attempt to build up a "thing" of sorts between Bolg and Legolas but it didn't work for me, and neither did the "preceding" fight between the two in Laketown - so having so much Legolas/Bolg at the end (although I like the way Orcrist is returned to Thorin) feels to me like too much - and IMO the editing has some issues (so, I am really into Thorin and Azog facing off, and all of a sudden there is this "blip" of Legolas calling for Tauriel...why? Why right there? Why put it in at all, that's one of those things where of course Legolas would look for Tauriel, and anyway next time we see her she is up and around....)
But I'll thrown in about Dain's CGI - or not - since I just got the last WETA book, but only have had time for a quick look - but the images I saw - I gotta say, at first look, BC does look buried under silicon in some photos - like Aidan Turner perhaps not everyone's face lends itself well to prosthetics, at least if you don't want a "hairy square". But I really have to look at those images in detail.
On the other hand - and it's tough without being on set - I would question PJ's use of CGI at times - re it being "more dynamic" - um.
Perhaps if fans were there we could have said, well, I think having a "real" goblin in a suit grabbing the dwarves - and less of them - is more dynamic, for us, actually, because it looks real. Provided, of course, the goblins aren't just keeling over from the heat.
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Jul 15 2015, 8:25pm
Post #7 of 18
(1314 views)
Shortcut
|
What people wanted here...
"It's too much like LotR!"
"It's not enough like LotR!"
"The setting is too dark! This is a children's book!"
"The setting is too fantastical, it doesn't mesh well with the originals!"
"The Dwarves don't look like Dwarves!"
"They should have taken more risks with the boring looking Dwarves!"
And it goes on and on and on and on... people nitpicking for the sake of it, I feel.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jul 15 2015, 8:59pm
Post #8 of 18
(1301 views)
Shortcut
|
I think AUJ is a fantastic movie, so I have to discount your reasons 3 and 4. It's possible that FoTR is the better movie, I certainly watched it a milion times, but I also think there might be some sentimentality with FoTR being THE FIRST Middle-earth movie, which is always going to set it apart from the others. As much as I love AUJ, I admit that there were times I felt like I was watching FoTR: Gandalf bumping the chandalier, his darkened angry speech, Rivendell (of course it was identical, why wouldn't it be?), and the Goblin Tunnel reminded me a great deal of their running in Moria. Not identical, but similar. I'm assuming that your "light and beauty" line is a quote from LoTR; as many times as I've seen FoTR I don't remember ever having that feeling, so I can't really relate to your main complaint. I think it's just a matter of the first one is always going to be the best one.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jul 15 2015, 10:36pm
Post #9 of 18
(1263 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There was that one moment in the Moria
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When they got stuck into total darkness, after the Keeper broke the ceiling.
If you watch that part for the first time, not knowing what's next (Gandalf ligthing his staff), anguish comes and it doesn't get away until... the end of the movie in fact (even the Lorien doesn't feel very secure).
Then you have the loss of Gandalf, the Hobbits crying and everybody stunned, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir... Before Aragorn took the charge, calling Frodo who was already 'away'...
Tolkien's dramatelling had improved between TH and LOTR : in his first book, nobody is lost until the very end.
Had only one dwarf got killed on the way, the whole tense would have been very different.
But PJ couldn't change anything of that.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jul 15 2015, 10:40pm
Post #10 of 18
(1263 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"The base material of the films is different and targeted to a different audience"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think that is the fundamental difference. At least in the early parts of AUJ, Jackson was picking up some of the lighter tone of The Hobbit, aimed at a younger audience than LotR in general.
I remember early on, Jackson was quoted on the design of LotR as saying he wanted to imagine it as being a historical, realistic depiction, albeit of fantastic creatures and events. That
"realism" was less of an objective in TH, once the commitment to the "latest, hottest" technology was made and the the scope expanded to three films. That's not an inappropriate change, if you're still thinking of that younger, less serious audience, but it is quite noticeable.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Jul 15 2015, 10:41pm)
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Jul 16 2015, 1:05am
Post #11 of 18
(1238 views)
Shortcut
|
Aside from the already stated fact, and very important one, that the source material is very different (but PJ tried to mask this turning The Hobbit into an adult movie which defeated the statement), to me the two trilogies are following Tolkien's own sentiments reflected in the way LOTR is far more mature. Mature as art not as age and time. The Hobbit is simpler but in its simplicity it's also harsher, either lighter or darker and just like youth knows no grey, it's black or white, love or hate, dark or light. This, again just like youth, has its own, raw beauty. The LOTR has the quieter, more patient, more complex srroke of the brush which usually comes with later age as the journey progresses and we realize few things are simple, black or white,dark or light. I absolutely love LOTR more but it is a reflection of my personality mostly. I prefer autumn to spring too, Lorien to Mirkwood, etc. In terms of acting, to me LOTR is light years ahead with the major exception of Richard Armitage who alone carried The Hobbit for me. Again, I think this is a matter of personal preference and there is no right or wrong answer, art is very subjective. But once again, the acting in LOTR in my opinion corresponded to this more complex and more subtle way of conveying emotion and story which is the spirit of the books themselves. And The Hobbit acting was simpler and more straight forward just like a grumpy teen will waste no time to flatter you but will snap at you before s/he falls into euphoria just a minute later. That's my feeling of the movies and has always been of the books except the first time I read them when I was little. If you take the two gatherings in the beginning of each trilogy, you may see what I mean: the abrupt dwarf invasion lol versus the elegant party of great magnificence. Look at the visual representation of these beginnings, the moments of stillness, the language spoken and words used. The beginnings are very telling.
Middle earth recipes archive
I believe
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Jul 16 2015, 1:33am
Post #12 of 18
(1232 views)
Shortcut
|
The problem when they reshot what that they didn't re-insert a thematic undertone that would carry throughout DOS. So essentially you have the end of the original first film (now stripped of thematic undertone) now tied with the first act of what was to be "There and Back Again." This gives DOS a very disjointed feel. When they reshot and did pick-ups the main focus should have been on developing a new clearly defined arc for the film. What they did end up adding, for better or for worse, was a more intricate subplot for the elf characters, a beefed up orc battle in Laketown (that expanded on the sequence that was originally planned), and a confrontation with Smaug that felt inconsequential...
The problem, again is there is a lack of coherence to what DOS and BOTFA are about. The additional photography and rewrites expanded the story into more splinters rather than build on the core story that was established in AUJ.
This the my main problem with the trilogy as a whole. They really lost the focus of the story as it went along. And how they treated Fili, Bofur, Gloin, Oin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Bifur, and Bombur in BotFA was insulting to the actors as well as the audience. And then there's the embarrassingly short Beorn cameo. Some of the choices they made towards the end are pretty baffling.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Jul 16 2015, 8:42am
Post #13 of 18
(1170 views)
Shortcut
|
And how they treated Fili, Bofur, Gloin, Oin, Dori, Nori, SidewaysOri, Bifur, and Bombur in BotFA was insulting to the actors as well as the audience.
They are treated like they are in the book so I don't see the problem.
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Jul 16 2015, 7:54pm
Post #14 of 18
(1096 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not about the movie vs the book in this case. It's about the character representation within the films themselves.
Just as one example, Bofur was barely even a character at all in the book. He was just a named dwarf with a yellow hood, had maybe one line, and he was the brother of Bombur and cousin of Bifur. I understand that. But in the movies they went out of their way to give his role to a well known actor (at least in the UK I think), and they gave him a relatively large amount of screen time in the first two movies. He was a fun character that a lot of people enjoyed, and then he essentially disappeared into the background once he returned to Erebor. Why did they bother focusing on Bofur as much as they did in the first two movies, only to have him be reduced to an extra in end? I wasn't expecting some earth shattering character arc, but giving him more lines than Hilda (the Lake-town woman) would have been nice...
Sorry, but pointing to the book in this case is just a cop-out and completely missing the point.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Jul 16 2015, 9:02pm
Post #15 of 18
(1084 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand it from a film point of you
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And I wont more dwarfs too, but I think many people is saying that the dwarfs are not in the story much and non book characters are more and I understand that but the dwarfs was not much in the story in the book in the time TBOFA took plays so saying that the dwarfs where sidelined or the book was dwarfs central and the film was not is wrong. I am not blaming you for this you have the film point of you but many other people have the book point of you.
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
Jul 16 2015, 9:50pm
Post #16 of 18
(1074 views)
Shortcut
|
Simple - Lotrs is brilliant! The hobbit films are George Lucas style garbage.
|
|
|
Lindelorne
Registered User
Jul 21 2015, 11:23am
Post #17 of 18
(802 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I prefer the lighter less gritty feel of the hobbit movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...compared to the Lord of the rings trilogy.
I believe the difference in overall tone and feel of the movies was done to emphasis that the hobbit is a more cheerful and innocent era when the shadow of Sauron is mostly absent and only just beginning to have an affect upon the world whereas lord of the rings is at a time when Sauron has been casting his shadow upon the world and having a negative influence for quite some time and it's reached the point where it can't be ignored.
There is definitely a big difference IMHO in how legolas is presented or rather how his abilities are presented in the hobbit and lord of rings trilogy.
In lord of the rings he exhibits all these superhuman abilities and if he was human the viewers would be calling it unbelievable but he's an elf so it's fine it doesn't go beyond the boundaries of believability. It helps that for most that trilogy he's the line elf amongst a bunch of humans hobbits and a dwarf so as far as we can tell he isn't doing anything other elves couldn't also do.
In the hobbit he's surrounded by other elves but he's still pretty much the only one exhibiting these over the top abilities. Furthermore the stunts he pulls have become so over the top that for me at least they have gone beyond believability and serve to bring me out of the movie.
(This post was edited by Lindelorne on Jul 21 2015, 11:24am)
|
|
|
Bernhardina
Rohan
Jul 28 2015, 1:59pm
Post #18 of 18
(702 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They are different in some ways
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But in most ways, I feel the LOTR and the Hobbit is very similar. I think the vibrant colours in the Hobbit, the colour grading overall, didn't hold up to the same standard as LOTR. I also feel the acting in LOTR was better, but the acting in the Hobbit is great as well. The Hobbit has a sense of childrens tale and adventure that the LOTR does not have. LOTR becomes more epic in story than the Hobbit ever was, and the LOTR films did have a lot better screenplays.
That sort of sums up my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
