Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
The Hobbit vs Star Wars Prequels
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

HOBBITFAN13
Lorien

Aug 8 2017, 5:35pm

Post #1 of 26 (4372 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit vs Star Wars Prequels Can't Post

Both trilogies to me are flawed but which one do you think is better?

http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-worse-star-wars-prequels/


(This post was edited by HOBBITFAN13 on Aug 8 2017, 5:37pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


Aug 8 2017, 11:12pm

Post #2 of 26 (4247 views)
Shortcut
I agree with this... [In reply to] Can't Post

The Star Wars prequels were a let down to be sure, but they don't disgust me like PJ's Hobbit does. Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, directed them, so he should be free to do whatever he pleases with them. PJ did not write The Hobbit, so he should have handled it with far more reserve than he did. They are worthless garbage.

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time." -Christopher Tolkien


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 9 2017, 2:00pm

Post #3 of 26 (4206 views)
Shortcut
Fanboi input messed up the Star Wars prequels. [In reply to] Can't Post

If Lucas had stuck with his initial idea of Jar-Jar Binks being a secret Drunken Master Sith Lord the prequels would have been totally awesome.

At least Jackson had the balls to stay true to his vision, whatever it was.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”


Kilidoescartwheels
Tol Eressea


Aug 9 2017, 5:04pm

Post #4 of 26 (4172 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit movies were better, IMO [In reply to] Can't Post

They certainly have a lot in common - not only are both sets "prequels," but they both featured Christopher Lee, both were movies that made tons of money without being well-received, and (in the eyes of many) relied too much on CGI. I think some of this criticism is unfair, but to me the biggest difference was the quality of acting, and here the Hobbit movies win hands down. Hayden Christenson was just terrible, and he had no chemistry with Natalie Portman. Most of the SW Prequel actors came off as wooden, with only Ewan McGregor really selling the character for me. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the script, and here again I think PJ did a better job. Even Radaghast was a better realized character than Jar Jar Binks. Yes, PJ developed some really wonderful Dwarves and then forgot about them, but they were at least DEVELOPED, and IMO perfectly cast. I've heard very few complaints about the Hobbit actors themselves, mostly just the weird looks for the Dwarves & Beorn - but that's looks, not acting. And finally, I also think PJ wrote a more cohesive script, even if he departed from the original story (which IMO was not a BAD thing, but then I wasn't a huge fan of the original story). To me at least, the inclusion of the Dol Goldur subplot solved some problems I had with the original story, and I understand why there were characters like Alfrid, and why some of the Dwarves were left in Laketown. Both served a purpose, whether I liked the decision or not. But having Anakin be some four years younger than Amadala was just weird, and that whole goofy love story was kind of contradictory. OTOH, at least "Revenge of the Sith" explained why Darth Vader didn't know about the twins.
But I confess, probably the biggest reason I think the Hobbit movies are better is THIS guyHeartEvil


Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377


Noria
Gondor

Aug 9 2017, 8:29pm

Post #5 of 26 (4149 views)
Shortcut
I laughed when I read this article. [In reply to] Can't Post

Why bother, after all this time?

In my opinion The Hobbit trilogy is far better than the Star Wars prequels and though it's unfashionable and even sacrilegious to say it, I don't even hate the latter. They aren't great, but there are plenty of worse movies out there. Nor do I resent them for not being what I hoped they would be.

The Hobbit films are not among those worse movies, however. Kili pointed put some of the superficial similarities both between the movies and the complaints about them, but for me Jackson's films are filled with heart and depth and beauty that the SW prequels lack.

The mindset of author of this article is revealed when he says “the list of clashes with canon in The Battle of the Five Armies alone is a separate article.” He seems to me to be a Hobbit movie hating purist making another opportunity to bash TH movies.

Then he trots out the same old same old complaints about CGI, action, the three film split, the background Dwarves, the plot complexities and so on. I still disagree that those are flaws.

Is this part even true? “The entire series only exists because Jackson had invested too much money in a fruitless pre-production period with Guillermo del Toro that the movies simply had to be made.” PJ didn't fund these films, it was Warner Brothers.

Though I'm foremost and forever a Tolkien fan, watching the original Star Wars for the first time in 1977 was the closest I have come to a movie experience akin to my first reading of LotR some years before. Both were once-in-a-lifetime events that evoked wonder, exhilaration and a lifelong love.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 9 2017, 8:32pm

Post #6 of 26 (4146 views)
Shortcut
Changes, additions and retcons [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
To me at least, the inclusion of the Dol Goldur subplot solved some problems I had with the original story, and I understand why there were characters like Alfrid, and why some of the Dwarves were left in Laketown. Both served a purpose, whether I liked the decision or not. But having Anakin be some four years younger than Amadala was just weird, and that whole goofy love story was kind of contradictory. OTOH, at least "Revenge of the Sith" explained why Darth Vader didn't know about the twins.


The basic idea of the Dol Guldur subplot was already present in The Hobbit and further developed by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings. That said, I expected that to be included in the adaptation as soon as I learned that del Toro saw it as splitting the book into two films. Before that, I thought that the White Council/Necromancer story might be integrated into the hypothetical 'bridge film'. I liked Tauriel as a character, just not where Jackson went with her. Likewise, I thought that Alfrid worked better as the sounding board for the Master of Lake-town than as an adversary for Bard in his own right.

I don't like to speak poorly of child actors, but young Anakin in the Star Wars prequels was a poorly written character given an awful performance. Jar Jar was mostly just a waste of screen time, and I agree that Christensen was, if anything, worse than the kid. The end, with the death of Amidala, only works if we assume that Leia's memories as a young child of her mother were really memories of her stepmother, Bail Organa's actual wife.

I'll admit that I haven't bothered with the original article simply because I've seen too many like it already. I have a pretty good idea of what it says without reading a word of it.

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 9 2017, 8:38pm)


QuiteShocked
The Shire


Aug 10 2017, 11:48pm

Post #7 of 26 (4043 views)
Shortcut
My vote is for The Star Wars prequels [In reply to] Can't Post

It's love story was a tad bit more believable, and certainly better written.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 11 2017, 1:50am

Post #8 of 26 (4025 views)
Shortcut
Maybe. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It's love story was a tad bit more believable, and certainly better written.


If we are only discussing the two romances then I will concede your point. There was still no decent chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman.

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor


StingingFly
Lorien


Aug 11 2017, 3:06am

Post #9 of 26 (4017 views)
Shortcut
The article has some valid points... [In reply to] Can't Post

...to answer the author's question, the reason people don't talk about how bad the Hobbit trilogy is because few people care. 'Star Wars' is part of our culture. It could endure a mediocre trilogy and be born anew. People have moved on from Middle Earth. There are no more books to adapt and little enthusiasm for more of what this last trilogy had to offer.
The SW prequels had the task of inventing all new stories, most of which were pretty good. The Hobbit is one of the most beloved fantasy genre books ever written. It should have been a slam dunk, but ended up a convoluted mess. Some of Jackson's ideas were intriguing; heroic Thorin, expanded Dul Guldor, a darker tone....others were unforgivable, which I don't need to enumerate here.


wizzardly
Rohan


Aug 11 2017, 4:20pm

Post #10 of 26 (3980 views)
Shortcut
yes, more than a few valid points here... [In reply to] Can't Post

The main problem is that PJ handled this adaptation in the same way that Lucas handled his prequels. If he wasn't so fixated on specifically adapting it as a prequel to his earlier trilogy rather than as its own thing, it probably wouldn't have turned out so lousy.

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time." -Christopher Tolkien


Kilidoescartwheels
Tol Eressea


Aug 12 2017, 2:57am

Post #11 of 26 (3928 views)
Shortcut
I didn't bother reading it [In reply to] Can't Post

I just answered Hobbitfan's question. I get that alot of people don't like the Hobbit movies, well to each his own. But I don't agree with you that Star Wars is a bigger part of our culture than Middle-earth. For starters, there's THIS site; for another, people are STILL talking about the movies 5 years after AUJ came out. Whether positive or negative, PJ's movies are still discussed. And there have been many attempts to cash in on the fantasy genre since FoTR came out; yeah, most of them are bad (Eragon, anyone?), but the Shanara Chronicles, The Magicians, and I'd even venture to say Game of Thrones wouldn't likely have been picked up if people had moved on from Middle-earth. And in PJ's defense, I'd argue that it's much harder to adapt a well-known book to a movie than it is to write an original script. As an experiment, I wrote a stage-play adaptation of one of my favorite childhood books (too bad no one will ever see it, but the owner of rights doesn't want to talk to me). Picking and choosing which parts are too important to discard, which parts can be modified and which ones really aren't that important, knowing that you've got approximately 2 hours to tell a story that can come from several hundred pages - this is not an easy thing to do. And you can be sure that someone who's read the book will disagree with some of your creative decisions. I disagreed with some of PJ's decisions (believe it or not), but overall I thought the movies were very good. I've watched all three Hobbit films literally hundreds of times, just like I watched the LoTR movies hundreds of times. Sure I like Star Wars (and Marvel movies), but I have definitely NOT moved on from Middle-earth!

Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377


Legolas_Shoehorn
Bree


Aug 15 2017, 2:36pm

Post #12 of 26 (3826 views)
Shortcut
It wasn't Warner Brothers... [In reply to] Can't Post

In the AUJ EE appendices Jackson mentions that WETA had already spent a large amount of money for the Pre-Production phase when Del Toro left.

That's what the author of the linked article meant.

My English is not that good, my Elvish is better ;-)


glor
Rohan

Aug 24 2017, 7:36pm

Post #13 of 26 (3601 views)
Shortcut
Whose culture? [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Star Wars' is part of our culture.

Star Wars is a huge part of North American culture, it is a not such huge part of Western European culture where apart for hardcore enthusiasts, they are just big blockbuster family movies that most people have seen so, can be referenced. Like the original raiders Trilogy or LOTR. In north American Star Wars along with super hero comic books are part of a mainstream culture that seems to embed them with a quasi -mystical dare I say religious element, something that mystifies most Brits. As far as Sci-fi Goes in Britain, you wouldn't be surprised to know that, Dr Who is a far bigger cultural phenomena than Star Wars

In Britain the Hobbit was a book many of us read in school as part of our primary English education, I did, my 30 son did, My friends children who are still at school did.


No mascara can survive BOTFA


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 24 2017, 8:46pm

Post #14 of 26 (3593 views)
Shortcut
Pop Culture [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Star Wars is a huge part of North American culture, it is a not such huge part of Western European culture where apart for hardcore enthusiasts, they are just big blockbuster family movies that most people have seen so, can be referenced. Like the original raiders Trilogy or LOTR.


I think that it's fair to say that Star Wars has had a huge impact on pop culture world-wide. That is certainly true in Japan and more generally in Asia as a whole. I won't say that this isn't also true of Tolkien's Middle-earth and Peter Jackson's adaptations, but with these the impact might be less far-reaching.

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 24 2017, 8:47pm)


Lindele
Gondor

Sep 7 2017, 9:11pm

Post #15 of 26 (3159 views)
Shortcut
I will say this [In reply to] Can't Post

The more I watch The Hobbit movies, the more flaws I notice...but in some ways I also enjoy them more.

The first time I watched the Star Wars prequels (right before Episode XII came out), I was so utterly disgusted that I almost didn't make it to the original trilogy (I had seen the original trilogy when I was a kid but had little recollection of them, and watched them in order 1-7). They were hands down some of the worst movies I've seen. And I really, really tried to enjoy them.

The Hobbit movies are flawed. They are not as good as LOTR (in most ways), but on a scale of 1-10, the Star Wars prequels are a 1, and The Hobbit movies are probably a 6 or 7.

So no comparison. No comparison.

Obviously this thread has been and will continue to be run by Hobbit haters, which is fine, so I don't expect many people here to agree with me. But I'm definitely right. Wink


(This post was edited by Lindele on Sep 7 2017, 9:12pm)


glor
Rohan

Sep 12 2017, 12:11am

Post #16 of 26 (2988 views)
Shortcut
I Get It [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
The Hobbit movies are flawed. They are not as good as LOTR (in most ways), but on a scale of 1-10, the Star Wars prequels are a 1, and The Hobbit movies are probably a 6 or 7.

This.

This is the issue that is rarely discussed and, I may enrage a few Star Wars fans by doing it but here goes.

The prequels are compared unfavorably, to the original trilogies from which they emanated but it is not like for like. The original 1970s Star Wars trilogy was and, is an important piece of film history. It was the birth of the blockbuster, new methods of movie making and creating movie magic but they were not, and are not, artistically in the same league as LOTR. The original Star Wars films still stand up, they are entertaining classics, joyous in fact, yes they were extremely important to the industry but, they were never placed up there with masterworks such as Battleship Potemkin,
Kieslowskii's Three Colours trilogy, The Godfather Trilogy and other feted and award winning pieces of cinema, LOTR was and is. Writing, directing, editing, acting, all things acclaimed in LOTR then and now, but not Star Wars, which has something LOTR doesn't have, a naive, exhilarating energy that spreads through the trilogy, rather than the set piece action of LOTR.

When ROTK won those 11 Oscars, it was the moment when the blockbuster gained true artistic kudos and it wasn't just the Oscars. So, when comparing the prequels to their progenitors the comparisons are unfair. The Star Wars prequels were a mess, because they lacked everything about the original trilogy that made it great: energy, exuberance, innocence the feeling of something genuinely new ( I was 10 in 1977). In fact the prequels were the opposite, stagnant, stilted, commercial to the point of cynicism. It's actually sad because the original trilogy could have so easily been improved upon by a well acted, written set of prequels that didn't have the joy sucked out of them by the cynical commercialism up there on screen. TPM still looks like the biggest and longest toy commercial ever.

The Hobbit on the other hand lacked the magic and coherence of LOTR, but the acting, if not always the script was IMHO improved on the original trilogy. The adaptation itself failed because it lacked focus, direction and didn't know what elements of Tolkien's story to adapt. It also suffered because the nature of the tale itself, needed more special effects (CGI) than the original trilogy. The Hobbit is though of a very high standard for a major film series or blockbuster, you only need to look at the succession of truly awful blockbusters of the last few years to see how in so many ways, the Hobbit succeeded.

Where the Hobbit didn't succeed was in matching one of the most artistically acclaimed trilogies in the history of cinema, LOTR and no one has since. That is still IMHO why it is torn apart, for not being the Mona Lisa part 2, it's just a very good portrait, that's worthy of a grand wall, it just not, The Mona Lisa.

In a nutshell; It was almost impossible to match or top LOTR with the Hobbit, not such a major task with the Star Wars prequels, compared to the original trilogy.

You are correct when comparing the prequels alongside each other not, comparing them to their hallowed originals., The Hobbit is a massive improvement on TPM and subsequent films in that threesome, that made Natalie Portman look wooden, perhaps the SW prequels greatest achievement.





No mascara can survive BOTFA

(This post was edited by entmaiden on Sep 12 2017, 1:37pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Sep 12 2017, 12:23am

Post #17 of 26 (2983 views)
Shortcut
Birth of the blockbuster? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The original 1970s Star Wars trilogy was and, is an important piece of film history. It was the birth of the blockbuster, new methods of movie making and creating movie magic but they were not, and are not, artistically in the same league as LOTR.


I wouldn't go quite that far. Jaws could make a better claim as an early blockbuster, though other films that could make that claim include: The Exorcist; The Godfather; Quo Vadis; The Ten Commandments; Gone with the Wind; or Ben-Hur. I don't disagree with your other points.

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor


jlj93byu
Bree

Sep 12 2017, 3:18am

Post #18 of 26 (2978 views)
Shortcut
Most Nominated Trilogy [In reply to] Can't Post

Is LOTR the only trilogy where every film was nominated for best picture? Is there any other trilogy with as many academy award nominations as LOTR?

As for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, I remember watching TPM and feeling like I was watching a cartoon because there was so much CGI. The Battle of Naboo at the end was especially cartoonish.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Sep 12 2017, 6:57am

Post #19 of 26 (2956 views)
Shortcut
I couldn't say. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Is LOTR the only trilogy where every film was nominated for best picture? Is there any other trilogy with as many academy award nominations as LOTR?


I dunno. Maybe the Godfather trilogy. There may be film trilogies with more Oscar wins since the LotR films only managed a Best Picture for RotK, though I would argue that counting awards is over-rated as a measure of quality (though I certainly don't mean that as a slam).

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 12 2017, 7:00am)


jlj93byu
Bree

Sep 12 2017, 6:38pm

Post #20 of 26 (2896 views)
Shortcut
Agreed Generally [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I dunno. Maybe the Godfather trilogy. There may be film trilogies with more Oscar wins since the LotR films only managed a Best Picture for RotK, though I would argue that counting awards is over-rated as a measure of quality (though I certainly don't mean that as a slam).


No slam taken. I agree that award nominations aren't always a measure of quality, especially today, but it seems historically they have been more reliable, even if still not definitive. Actually, it seems like right after ROTK the Oscars quickly became much less relevant because of their shift in focus to smaller and more radical films that pushed the envelope instead of just trying to tell a good story and tell it well.

Personally, I don't see movies because of awards or even reviews, but I do think there is a level of validity in at least considering the nods a film receives from the professionals in the various fields, even if they are their own unique group and may at times get it wrong or have purely political motives in mind.


glor
Rohan

Sep 24 2017, 7:17am

Post #21 of 26 (2630 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

The Oscars was the example but making BFI lists. critics lists, the original reviews of the trilogy, LOTR entered and is part of the artistic and popular canon of cinema. BTW The Godfather Trilogy won a total of 9 Oscars.

For a genre that was the most heavily derided both in terms of film and TV, that overturned the perceived wisdom that fantasy was impossible to portray on screen for an adult audience, well it went as they say, from zero to hero. Star Wars didn't do that, Kubrick achieved that 9 years prior to '77, Lucas himself too with THX 1138, there are also other notable sc-fi films prior to SW, Solaris, for instance. There is also the decade post SW, Alien, Bladerunner etc. (BTW I'm talking modern cinema, a different beast commercially and artistically than the film world of 1927 and, Fritz Lang's Metropolis)

How many fantasy films have topped LOTR in the decade since their release, none, zero. It not just the Hobbit that failed to match LOTR, no other director, cast, or crew has come close. One could argue that Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy did come relatively close but the irony of that is, that took the superhero movie and moved it towards the fantasy genre, heavily influenced visually and in terms of thespianism by LOTR. Thus, proving my point rather than countering it.

Although IMO, that's a lot to do with the quality of the source material combined with a director and production house New Line, unwilling to Hollywoodise Tolkien's material. Recall those horrendous tales of Jackson walking away from the Weinstein's because Sam was to become female, and the fellowship parred down so audiences could follow the film, previous owners of the LOTR rights and the ideas they had most notably Boorman's over-sexualised pop culture vision.

No mascara can survive BOTFA


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Sep 24 2017, 2:57pm

Post #22 of 26 (2597 views)
Shortcut
I would mostly agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

I would argue with little of what you've stated here. I do question one assertion:


Quote
One could argue that Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy did come relatively close but the irony of that is, that took the superhero movie and moved it towards the fantasy genre, heavily influenced visually and in terms of thespianism by LOTR.


I would never make that claim. Superheroes have always represented the fantasy genre to some extent, especially as they moved away from the costumed vigilantes of pulp fiction into the realm of adolescent power fantasies. Nolan made a concerted effort to keep his Batman films grounded in reality--though that fell apart a bit with The Dark Knight Rises. Even that would have benefited if it had introduced a Lazarus Pit to explain the healing of Bruce's spine. In other words, he deliberately moved away from fantasy in that trilogy.

2001: A Space Odyssey was presented as hard science fiction, not as fantasy or space opera. However we might embrace the argument that science fiction itself is, at its heart, a sub-category of the fantasy genre. THX 1138 was an obscure student film before the release of Star Wars; almost no one was aware of it prior to 1977. Likewise, the 1972 adaptation of Solaris had little impact on U.S. moviegoers outside of the realm of film students and professional critics.

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 24 2017, 2:57pm)


glor
Rohan

Sep 28 2017, 5:39pm

Post #23 of 26 (2363 views)
Shortcut
Superheroes [In reply to] Can't Post

Don't represent fantasy to me. They represent a very US anti-government dystopian, vision in which Superheroes are necessary because government has failed. They are allegory in which the citizen triumphs over the inevitable failure of the corrupt state. The superpowers are embedded with a quasi scientific modernity, in which improved humans/citizens are the answer to the evil embodied in big government. yet they conflate justice and safety with vengeance, and retribution. the classic superhero genre is something this European, like many lefties of my origin find distinctly unpalatable, a form of right wing propaganda. ( as you are probably aware this is not a lone view but one advocated by some academics)

Fantasy it is not, they are closer to the metaphors and allegories that form the basis of sci-fi as a genre, a genre that exists in it's own right. Sci-fi does not have to rely on the totally imagined worlds of Fantasy to be sci-fi. It is a form of fiction that can and often does, play with the political, social and cultural now and exaggerate it, highlight it, illustrate new directions and change old paths. Man in the High castle, Brave New World,1984, Star Trek (the original series, an idealized UN in space)it is commentary, which in many ways are what Superhero fictions also represent but with a very individualistic stance. Just to note in it's not the sci fi lite of space opera, a sub genre of sci fi, that's often just fun.

I would never lump fantasy with sci-fi. Fantasy can offer allegory and metaphor but it is not one of it's central themes, it is the fiction of imagined myths and histories, it speaks to the reader in a different way to the works of sci-fi. Of course there are works that combined these genres but that doesn't mean because these exist that the genres do not operate in separate ways.

On the subject of the Dark Knight trilogy, I did say visually, not thematically. From someone who usually finds such films dull, and lacking imagination, I found that Nolan gave Gotham a now and an otherness at the same time, it felt like a dark noir fantasy New York embedded with touches of mysticism. There were aesthetic moments in the films that yelled, influenced by LOTR to me. What was also very noticeable at the time of their release was the thespian aspect. The Dark Knight trilogy was the first superhero movie in ages, if ever, where the actors were not knowingly tongue in cheek, not playing it for fun but taking their roles seriously, giving characters depth thus embedding the film with a human reality. This approach to acting and casting was identical to LOTR. Nolan wasn't making Clooney's Batman and Robin anymore than Jackson was making the Holy Grail, which he famously showed to his LOTR cast before a single reel was shot.

No mascara can survive BOTFA


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Sep 28 2017, 6:20pm

Post #24 of 26 (2355 views)
Shortcut
Different Perspectives [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not sure of your age, glor, but I was born in 1960 in rural western New York, early in the Silver Age of comics, and that might give me a different perspective on superheroes from your own. The superheroes of my youth were bright, colorful figures (even Batman to an extent) who were for the most part seen as far from anti-government figures. There were a few loners and outsiders at Marvel such as Spider-Man and the Hulk, but they were the exception rather than the rule. And even the Hulk was an Avenger for a while. I am forced to acknowledge that storytelling in comics has become much more sophisticated than it was when I was in my early teens. And superhero films have come a long way since the 1966 Batman movie starring Adam West.

One of the reasons why I state that superheroes are grounded far more in fantasy than in science fiction is that their super-powers are rarely easily explained in terms of real-world physics--even through extrapolation into future advancements in science and technology. When such explanations are attempted, they don't work convincingly without invoking such oogie-boogie science such as psionics. Likewise the environments that those heroes live and operate in only superficially resemble the real world. Science fiction is ideally at least grounded in science as we know it and what we can extrapolate from that science. It is what separates a space opera like the Star Wars movies from a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey or The Martian.

Fantasy does not have to rely on totally-imagined worlds any more than s.f. does, and can also use allegory and metaphor to tell its stories. There are many fantasy stories and novels set in the real world, but in a real world that is different from how we perceive it or that is connected somehow to some 'other' reality. I would cite Jim Butcher's Dresden novels as one example, though the Harry Potter books and films work as another.


In Reply To
On the subject of the Dark Knight trilogy, I did say visually, not thematically. From someone who usually finds such films dull, and lacking imagination, I found that Nolan gave Gotham a now and an otherness at the same time, it felt like a dark noir fantasy New York embedded with touches of mysticism.


I would argue that Tim Burton was much more successful in infusing Gotham with a fantastic quality, especially with his first Batman film using the designs of his Set Designer, the late Anton Furst. By contrast, Nolan's Gotham City could be any big, long-standing American city such as New York or Chicago.

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 28 2017, 6:35pm)


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Oct 6 2017, 9:54am

Post #25 of 26 (2128 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the Hobbit films are really bad films BUT only when you try and line them up next to the magnificent LOTR's films. On their own they are pretty good.

I think the SW prequels are really bad films in general.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.