|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roheryn
Tol Eressea
Dec 26 2014, 1:23pm
Post #1 of 24
(1487 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Musings on The Hobbit vs. LOTR
|
Can't Post
|
|
I’ve now seen BotFA four times, and I’m still trying to work out why this movie hits me emotionally so much more than ROTK ever did. Like many of us who read the books first, I suspect, I fell madly in love with Middle-earth through reading The Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed reading The Hobbit, but not any more than any other good fantasy-adventure tale, and a large part of my appreciation for The Hobbit came from its connections to the grander and more epic saga in LOTR.
So, when the LOTR movies came out, of course I loved them, and I fell in love with Middle-earth all over again. PJ showed that LOTR could be brought to life on screen, and it was fantastic. Yet at the end of ROTK, my eyes were dry. Middle-earth is saved, and all is (mostly) well. With the Hobbit movies, I expected to like them – but I was wrong: they’ve exceeded every expectation I’ve had, and have drawn me in with far greater emotionally intensity than I ever thought possible. Thorin’s death and its aftermath still send tears streaming down my face. Why? Why is the emotional impact of this movie’s ending so much stronger (for me, at least!) than the end of ROTK?
I’m still trying to answer this question. I think it’s in part because PJ (and the actors) have done a wonderful job in developing the main characters and their relationships with each other well beyond what’s given in the book. I care about them in a way that I never cared about the characters in the LOTR movies. I feel the Dwarves’ love for Thorin as their king-in-waiting, as well as Balin’s fatherly, Dwalin’s brotherly, and Fili and Kili’s nephew-ly love for him too. For a group of tough Dwarves, they have an amazing amount of love and concern for each other. And by BotFA, I feel Bilbo’s love for the Dwarves too: he risks his life multiple times to try to save theirs, which is something that would have been unimaginable before he left on his Adventure. He also trusts in his friendship with Thorin so much that he is willing to stand up to Thorin’s madness, even when the other Dwarves won’t. Bilbo has found not only his courage, but something he never had back in the Shire: true friends. As he tends the dying Thorin, he’s losing someone who has helped him grow beyond the confines of Bag End and discover the true meaning of friendship.
And so my tears are not only for Thorin, who will now never be the King Under the Mountain that he should have been, but for Bilbo’s loss as well, and for Balin and Dwalin whose hearts are surely aching for their king and friend, and for Kili and Fili, who died far too young and senselessly and so short of their potential. Contrast this with ROTK, where the hero-hobbit achieves his mission, Middle-earth is finally rid of all evil, the new king is not only crowned but wed as well, and almost everyone lives happily-ever-after. Yes, Frodo eventually forsakes Middle-earth, and isn’t quite whole ever again, but he fulfilled his mission, he lives, and the choice to leave Middle-earth is his. LOTR has more or less a proper good-conquers-evil fairy tale ending; The Hobbit is on a much smaller scale and is more a tale of growth (from timid armchair-loving hobbit to one who can stand up not only to orcs and dragons but to friends as well) and discovery and friendship and love (and I mean “love” in the very broadest sense). I care about the characters in The Hobbit more than I ever thought possible – and more than I cared about any in LOTR. And this, I suspect, is why I cry.
Thoughts, anyone? *offers as many pennies as it takes*
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Dec 26 2014, 1:55pm
Post #2 of 24
(943 views)
Shortcut
|
I think your reactions (and mine!) are largely to do with the performances of the principal actors, notably Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. Because of them, I am more invested emotionally in the Hobbit films than in the LotR films (in general, the casting and acting in the Hobbit are far better in the Hobbit films than they are in LotR, as far as I'm concerned). In LotR the major characters also survive, unlike one of the two most important characters in the Hobbit.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Dec 26 2014, 1:56pm)
|
|
|
Lurker in the Mirk
Valinor
Dec 26 2014, 2:05pm
Post #3 of 24
(919 views)
Shortcut
|
I've only seen BotFA twice, which made my ruminating phase slower probably, but I've been drawing towards a conclusion similar to yours. Fair interest disclosure - I'm a movie-firster. That first FotR trailer I saw near the premiere (I was living under a rock, clueless and spoiler-free, the way I like when it comes to movies) started a desperate attempt to read the book before I went for my first screening. Loved the book, loved the movies, and totally understanding the difference between the two mediums. I read The Hobbit before TTT premiered. And felt for it much as you did, except I really loved the gap-fill, especially the Riddles in the Dark chapter and Thranduil (yup card-carrying fangirl thanks to Legolas ).
Anyway, when news of The Hobbit going to film as well broke, I tried to keep with my live-under-a-rock MO, because with LotR, being online as it happened quite spoiled them all for me and took a lot of the wow away. So AUJ was quite a nice surprise, and I thought I was right to keep my MO and doing well. But well, I succeeded only until Thranduil's appearance in DoS I do not regret delurking and living virtually in the TA thread. Still, strangely, I find myself invested in The Hobbit's storyline. With BotFA finally here, I find myself both disappointed at the loose ends and certain plot(gaps), and yet happy for its conclusion.
I did not cry - it's a RARE movie that makes me wail - but I do find myself feeling more for the characters of TH, and missing them, than I ever did for the denizens of LotR. Which is a surprise since LotR is the fuller story, and the movies were when I was at the more excitable younger-by-a-decade age while TH is a filler to LotR the book, and is quite the kiddie read. Ultimately, (while it may change, I really think it's quite set), I find that LotR scores for me in terms of story and treatment, and when held up against each other, TH's shortfalls are all the more glaring and frustrating. But despite the problems i have with TH, the conflicts, ambivalence, morality of the the characters in these movies are where I feel affinity for characters more deeply and find my favourites through all six of the Middle-earth.
Thranduil will always top my list He is THE ELF of Tolkien's world for me. But Bilbo here is my favourite Hobbit. Ever. I have even found some Dwarves I could get on the bandwagon for - Balin, Fili, Dwalin, and yes, even the most disagreeable one of all... and his worse cousin, Mr Ironfoot I even find Gandalf here more interesting. Along with the swashbuckling Elrond. To see Galadriel dishing it and that first sly step onto the other side by Saruman, was just something else. I think grey morality and conflict is a common thread here and it appeals to me, more than the more clear-cut character arcs of LotR. True that in LotR there is also fellowship and friendship. But they were more or less through defined racial and cultural lines. For lack of a better comparison, the fellowship was hothoused whereas the company, barring the initial Gandalf contrivance, was more organic, if that made sense.
Also, I think the existence of places and denizens outside of Mordor that was also perceptibly grey, in the form of Beorn and Mirkwood, and even Laketown adds to my affinity scorecard. And Spiders! Those were another bonus
So yes, thanks to PJ's great eye for casting, and to the actors for succeeding beyond expectations, and overcoming the strange creative choices that worked against their work in service of their characters.
"I'll say dark and gritty, which, with the Elvenking, translates as Hot and Sexy.  " - vanima ephel
I fancy myself an ME BFF (Book/Film Fan) 
(Aaaaand a gushy Thranduil fangurl before The Hobbit movies; still a gushy Thranduil fangurl through them. )
  Thranduil Appreciation. Threadcount: XXX
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI | XVII | XVIII | XIX | XX | XXI | XXII | XXIII | XXIV | XXV | XXVI | XXVII | XXVIII | XXIX
"BoFA"= The Battle || "BotFA"/"tBotFA" = The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
=======
 Middle-earth dispatches out of the lurkmirk
|
|
|
LoremIpsum
Lorien
Dec 26 2014, 2:52pm
Post #4 of 24
(895 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I do have quite a bit of gripes with these movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and a part of me somehow wishes that I could dismiss them completely and stop caring but I do in fact have a much stronger emotional connection to the characters than LOTR and the ending of BOFA moved me in a more profound way than anything in the last 6 movies combined.
(This post was edited by LoremIpsum on Dec 26 2014, 2:52pm)
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Dec 26 2014, 2:59pm
Post #5 of 24
(868 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For me, it's all about the characters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm in love with the Hobbit movies first and foremost because of the people, especially the dwarves. Throughout all three movies I wanted more time with the dwarves, and I wanted more scenes with the dwarves interacting with the other people of Middle Earth, rather than the other people interacting just amongst themselves. I think the casting and acting in the Hobbit movies was totally spot on, could not have been better, and every character was so interesting that I wanted to know more about them and I really cared what happened to them. And as for the performances of Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, they were just amazing.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
Eledhwen
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 26 2014, 3:35pm
Post #6 of 24
(876 views)
Shortcut
|
The very end of BOFA moved me, but I was sobbing for about the last half-hour of ROTK (those who saw it with me will back me up on this). I think this is because I've always been less emotionally involved with TH than LOTR.
|
|
|
mirkwoodwanderer
Lorien
Dec 26 2014, 4:16pm
Post #7 of 24
(864 views)
Shortcut
|
Cried every time. This movie is tne best of the 6, because you really feel and care for the caracters, like Thorin and Bilbo.
In the three Ring movies. the actor playing frodo ruined a lot and mad you (and many others) laugh out loud even if it was serious.
In the Hobbit movies everything fits and the movies are clearly made with love for the autiance. Only the singing Goblin king in the E.E. of UEJ was a bit .... like ... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Tintallë
Gondor
Dec 26 2014, 4:31pm
Post #8 of 24
(850 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You have captured EXACTLY the sentiments
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have been trying so hard to put into words. Have you been rooting around in my head? I feel precisely the same.
I was stunned by the first hobbit movie, having expected to feel no more for it than I felt for the book, an engaging story written for children. I found myself reveling in wonder and delight as the dwarves appeared at Bilbo's door. They were so much more than the flat book dwarves who were nearly indistinguishable from each other aside from their colored hoods. It was Thorin's appearance, though, that cemented my emotional attachment to the movie: his "So. . . this is the hobbit;" the dwarves' marked change upon seeing him, ranging from Ori's speechless, wide-eyed awe to Balin's easy confidence and pride in his young king; Dwalin, who has been at Thorin's side through fight and flight and who respects Thorin as much for being his equal as for being his king; Fili and Kili, young, confident, ready for adventure and devoted to their heroic uncle. . . all of them were so much more than I'd ever imagined. If I hadn't read the book I would still have known Thorin for a leader and king from that very first appearance. It was remarkable and set the tone for everything that followed. I think it's one of the very best scenes in the trilogy.
The LOTR movies brought my imagination to life in a very satisfying way. The Hobbit movies went far beyond my imagination to create an entirely new experience. I saw the first and second movies in the theatre an absolutely ridiculous number of times each. This last one I've seen only once so far. I found it hard to go because I was completely spoiler-free and I was afraid of how Thorin's death would be depicted. I think, too, that I did not want the journey to end. And yes, I cried - for both Thorin's death and the many endings afterward, including the ending of these incredible movies.
I'm copying your post because it so perfectly expresses my own feelings. It actually made me cry. It also prompted me to post, something I've not really done for a long time here. Thank you!
(This post was edited by Tintallë on Dec 26 2014, 4:36pm)
|
|
|
ghost_matt
Rivendell
Dec 26 2014, 4:32pm
Post #9 of 24
(794 views)
Shortcut
|
My eyes were dry at the end of ROTK too (the book is a different matter). Even PJ admits in the commentary that they were rushed on time, and I think that's the problem. You don't really feel the destruction of Frodo. It seems more like he's leaving because his shoulder still hurts from when he was stabbed. Since they cut out the Scouring of the Shire, there's no sense at the end that the world is changed and will never be the same. The hobbit go back to the Shire and everything is just how they left it. Also, the movies never clearly explain where the elves are going and why.
Hobbit, on the other hand, nails the ending.
|
|
|
Ruxendil_Thoorg
Tol Eressea
Dec 26 2014, 5:07pm
Post #10 of 24
(786 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for sharing. I can relate to a large extent.
When I saw BOTFA I was a teary mess, starting from around when Thorin and Co. were charging toward the camera in wedge formation (which may seem an odd place to start getting misty but what can I say, Thorin's portrayal / RA's performance got to me.) I seem to recall my emotional reaction being somewhat similar to how I was during ROTK.
In ROTK my biggest emotional (read: weeping) reactions came during the scene where G & P ride through Minas Tirith up to the top level, and the beacons lighting scene. Also later the tears came back during the You Bow to No One. So, I had emotional response at the end of ROTK, but not necessarily in the same way or to the same degree as the end of BOTFA.
I think one possible reason one might respond less emotionally to ROTK than BOTFA, at least as to the endings, might be because ROTK's denouement felt, well, peaceful and patient, to put it in a positive light. BOTFA ended in a snappy, efficient way, keeping the image of the final scene with Thorin fresh in my mind. The part where Bilbo admits to the auctioneer how what Thorin meant to him, called back to that scene (and to his farewell to the Dwarven company, which in turn called back to the Unexpected Party, thus emphasizing Bilbo's character arc, contrasting between his beginning and ending of the trilogy).
In contrast, ROTK's farewell to Frodo didn't necessarily contain anything in it that reminded us about how Frodo began his trilogy that was much different from how he ended it. That's one advantage TH has over LOTR, the main character in TH goes through a more discernable character development, something that was noticeable ever since AUJ. In LOTR, the most character development can be found in supporting characters like Samwise's gardener-turned-hero and Aragorn's self-doubter who becomes leader of the most epic decoy mission ever. Frodo had some development but the contrast between his beginning and ending was not as noticeable as for those characters or for Bilbo. Unlike Bilbo's homebody starting point, Frodo started as already intrigued by the outside world and already concerned about the needs of others over himself, starting with his concern about Bilbo, evolving into a willingness to sacrifice himself completely to save the world.
So, perhaps that might explain why TH:BOTFA induced more crying than ROTK. That might be why I found BOTFA's ending to be emotionally stirring in a way that I thought might have surpassed ROTK's ending. I'm starting to consider whether this film supplants ROTK as my favorite of the six. I will have to see the EE, and view several more times at least, before I can really decide, but at this point its fair to say it's up there.
***
He was born of mortal frailty mixed with Elven fallen realm,
Comin’ home to a land he’d never been before.
Arvernian behind him, sailed the seas of Middle-earth,
You might say he didn’t know what lay in store.
When his wife came out to find him she'd been turned into a bird,
Upon her breast there shone a shining star,
So he took her to his bosom, and by morn her form returned,
And he shifted West to find the high Valar.
And in Valinor he went before the high,
In doing so, resigned himself to die.
Take up arms against the Shadow, asked he of the high,
of the Valar high. (Fight, fight the Shadow)
of the Valar high. (Fight, fight the Shadow)
* * *
http://newboards.theonering.net/...forum_view_expanded;
|
|
|
mirkwoodwanderer
Lorien
Dec 26 2014, 5:59pm
Post #11 of 24
(774 views)
Shortcut
|
|
that makes me cry too. Thank you
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have been trying so hard to put into words. Have you been rooting around in my head? I feel precisely the same.
I was stunned by the first hobbit movie, having expected to feel no more for it than I felt for the book, an engaging story written for children. I found myself reveling in wonder and delight as the dwarves appeared at Bilbo's door. They were so much more than the flat book dwarves who were nearly indistinguishable from each other aside from their colored hoods. It was Thorin's appearance, though, that cemented my emotional attachment to the movie: his "So. . . this is the hobbit;" the dwarves' marked change upon seeing him, ranging from Ori's speechless, wide-eyed awe to Balin's easy confidence and pride in his young king; Dwalin, who has been at Thorin's side through fight and flight and who respects Thorin as much for being his equal as for being his king; Fili and Kili, young, confident, ready for adventure and devoted to their heroic uncle. . . all of them were so much more than I'd ever imagined. If I hadn't read the book I would still have known Thorin for a leader and king from that very first appearance. It was remarkable and set the tone for everything that followed. I think it's one of the very best scenes in the trilogy.
The LOTR movies brought my imagination to life in a very satisfying way. The Hobbit movies went far beyond my imagination to create an entirely new experience. I saw the first and second movies in the theatre an absolutely ridiculous number of times each. This last one I've seen only once so far. I found it hard to go because I was completely spoiler-free and I was afraid of how Thorin's death would be depicted. I think, too, that I did not want the journey to end. And yes, I cried - for both Thorin's death and the many endings afterward, including the ending of these incredible movies.
I'm copying your post because it so perfectly expresses my own feelings. It actually made me cry. It also prompted me to post, something I've not really done for a long time here. Thank you!
|
|
|
ltnjmy
Rivendell
Dec 26 2014, 6:26pm
Post #12 of 24
(803 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The actors in the Hobbit trilogy are better caliber than in LOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not including Sir Ian McKellan, Sir Christopher Lee, Sir Ian Holm - I think they can do and act in virtually anything and we all would still love them. But Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage were absolutely great - and better than Elijah Wood and some other performances in LOTR. I also still like Hugo Weaving's performances in all of the films very much and say without a doubt that Lee Pace was fantastic as the Elven King Thranduil and wish that Jackson had fleshed out his character much, much more.
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Dec 26 2014, 9:42pm
Post #13 of 24
(709 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My love for Dwarves grew slowly
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when I read and re read multiple times the Appendix dedicated to Durin's Folk. When I read the Hobbit (more or less a year after LOTR), I was intrigued by the story and surprised by such a sad ending for a children's book, with all the three royal Dwarves dead on the battlefield.
And in the 2000s I found myself getting more and more interested in the Durin's genealogies and relations.
I wondered at Dìs, and at how few Dwarf women were, and at the fact the Dwarves were loyal, and possessive, and could renounce love if they could not get it.
I wondered at how deep Gimli's love for the beauty of the Lady Galadriel was, and at the fact he was the only Dwarf who could sail to the Undying Lands.
Only an element was missing, which was so powerful in LOTR: the visual element. I could not relate emotionally in a complete way because I could not imagine them, and identify with them (I read LOTR before seeing the film but I knew what the characters looked like, and this was strongly intertwined with my first reading experience).
Therefore, when I first looked at the Durins... I was astonished because I would have never imagined that Dwarves could look so appealing.
Strangely it was DOS that made everything click for me: I grew so emotionally attached to these characters that the mere idea of seeing Botfa was painful.
And yes, as I have already said many times on these boards, I cried both times I saw the film.
I credit both the script writers/Weta team and the excellent actors for this incredible magic.
As much as I love LOTR, it was TH which stole my heart.
|
|
|
Roheryn
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 12:22am
Post #14 of 24
(650 views)
Shortcut
|
I think grey morality and conflict is a common thread here and it appeals to me, more than the more clear-cut character arcs of LotR. True that in LotR there is also fellowship and friendship. But they were more or less through defined racial and cultural lines. For lack of a better comparison, the fellowship was hothoused whereas the company, barring the initial Gandalf contrivance, was more organic, if that made sense. Yes, I do think that's a big part of the appeal: many of the characters in The Hobbit (and I am talking movies here, not book) are much more complex than the more straight-forward and clear-cut characters, and character arcs, of LotR. Grey morality is a lot more thought-provoking. Good point about the difference in the way the fellowship was formed versus the company. The fellowship came together to achieve a particular quest; the company (barring Bilbo) came together because of their love for, trust in, and willingness to follow their leader on his quest. I suppose this motivation adds to the poignancy of Thorin's death.
(This post was edited by Roheryn on Dec 27 2014, 12:23am)
|
|
|
Roheryn
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 12:31am
Post #15 of 24
(663 views)
Shortcut
|
lies the beauty of the diversity here. :-)
I know lots of people were moved like you were by the end of ROTK! And I would have said I too was much more emotionally invested in LOTR than in TH. This differential investment has clearly flip-flopped with the Hobbit movies. I'd still say I'm far more emotionally invested in book-LOTR than in book-Hobbit, and I'm not not-invested in movie-LOTR, I just feel a lot more invested in the characters in movie-TH than in the characters in movie-LOTR. If that makes sense!
Do you think being 10 years older now has had any influence on your response to the Hobbit movies? I've also wondered if that might explain differences in responses for some people.
|
|
|
Roheryn
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 12:43am
Post #16 of 24
(637 views)
Shortcut
|
Glad you joined in for this one, Tintallë. Obviously what you've written resonates with me, too!
I like your point about Dwalin respecting Thorin as much for being his equal as for being his king. Spot on: Dwalin is Thorin's fiercest, best warrior, but Thorin is every bit as capable on the battlefield as is Dwalin. Thorin has earned that respect from Dwalin -- respect I'm sure doesn't come lightly.
Agreed on Thorin's entrance into Bag End -- and our hearts. That may be my very favourite scene in all six movies.
And agreed too on the LOTR movies giving us Middle-earth in a very satisfying way -- but TH movies going so far beyond expectations. I think that's part of why I like TH movies -- and BotFA in particular -- so much: they've wildly surpassed anything I ever imagined.
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Dec 27 2014, 2:39am
Post #17 of 24
(640 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I feel the opposite, but it's cool that you feel like you do!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now that all the movies are out, I still find that I have little connection to the characters and story of TH. I just don't find it very moving at all. Now, LOTR on the other hand.....
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Dec 27 2014, 9:06am
Post #18 of 24
(584 views)
Shortcut
|
I love the hobbit book and read both the hobbit and the lord of the rings prior to watching either film trilogy - both the books get me way more emotional that the films but the lot trilogy moves me in a way the hobbit films have not been able to which feels strange as i have such a connection to these dwarves and bilbo in the book - i think it is the disconnect i feel between what i read and imagine and then the difference from that in what i am seeing.
But not to rain on anyones parade its cool the OP loves them and finds a connection with it, as you say that is what film is all about.
Now where did i put my hobbit book
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
Eledhwen
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 27 2014, 1:17pm
Post #19 of 24
(544 views)
Shortcut
|
Possibly. But it's difficult to say whether it's being older that's made me less emotionally invested, or whether I'd had had the same reaction if they'd made TH films before the LOTR films.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Dec 27 2014, 4:15pm
Post #20 of 24
(549 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think this is a matter of different interpretation, and a "reversal"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
reactions to the characters. I did not find Frodo's leaving to be "his choice", I found it convincing that he really had no other choice - that he had been so damaged by his experiences that he really could not "come back". The Grey Havens scene (book and movie) is one that reliably makes me cry...and it is because the films in my opinion succeeded to make me care about Sam (and to a lesser degree Merry and Pippin) and his friendship with Frodo. To me, his loss of Frodo in this scene is very much of a piece with Bilbo's loss in "The Hobbit".
I do agree the writers and actors (especially Armitage and Martin) did a great job, quite possibly "better" than Wood and Astin (though I loved Astin's Sam). Then again, the story of LotR gave Astin and Wood some amazing material - and the audience a lot of screen time with just the two of them. And for this reason I was surprised that the deaths in Hobbit did not reduce me to the same crying mess as LotR does. I have the same different reactions to the books, but was expecting the changes Jackson made to make up for it. I've seen the film twice now. These are sad moments, Martin plays them really well, and I think the aftermath is very well done too, but somehow they don't get to e in the same way.
I think perhaps also one thing that for me makes LotR more impactful, is the happy ending. (Or, the so many happy endings... [:D] ) Frodo and Sam are rescued! They are reunited with the Company! Aragorn is King and Arwen is his Queen! They return safely to the Shire! Sam gets married! And then, the little guy who did the most to make it all happen - turns out not to be able to enjoy any of that. And has to leave. That, and the departure of the Elves, I think, is what makes the scene for me.
The deaths of Thorin, Fili, and Kili, on the other hand, occur on the field of battle, when I am more mentally and psychologically primed for Bad Things to happen, as I am seeing them happen all around (to extras/minor characters). It's also a reason I think it was a good call by Jackson to leave out triumphal scenes like Dain's coronation, or showing us a prosperous Dale and Erebor of the future. To the extent that I was saddened (if not to a sobbing wreck) by the events of the film, I found the sequence of scenes from Bilbo's farewell to his "proving" of his identity back home, moving (especially the slow coming to terms with his loss by Bilbo). By putting su scenes after Thorin's death, but before Bilbo's return home they would have broken the mood.
|
|
|
DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell
Dec 27 2014, 6:38pm
Post #21 of 24
(511 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm in love with the Hobbit movies first and foremost because of the people, especially the dwarves. Throughout all three movies I wanted more time with the dwarves, and I wanted more scenes with the dwarves interacting with the other people of Middle Earth, rather than the other people interacting just amongst themselves. I think the casting and acting in the Hobbit movies was totally spot on, could not have been better, and every character was so interesting that I wanted to know more about them and I really cared what happened to them. And as for the performances of Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, they were just amazing.
I love the hobbit as a book, but if I took issue with anything Tolkien wrote it would be that the dwarves matter so little in the book, even Thorin/Fili/Kili dying is told as an afterthought almost. So I love TH movies because the dwarves get far more time and development (please more in the EE though!) and the deaths matter. I sort of felt like the movies filled in some of the gaps in the book with the extra information from the appendices, which I love.
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 28 2014, 4:35am
Post #22 of 24
(489 views)
Shortcut
|
and I think I pretty much agree with you except that ROTK was an extremely emotional experience for me when I watched it for the first time. Although, at that time I hadn't read the books so I didn't know how it was going to end.
I do think that the characters in The Hobbit are easier to connect to, however, I think what LOTR and ROTK do far better than The Hobbit is to convey the sense of sacrifice and time that went into Frodos quest. In ROTK you really feel the weight of his journey and how much it has taken out of him. When they head back to the shire you really feel that sense of change and how things will never be the same for them. I guess when I finish LOTR I feel much more emotionally spent, even though on a more personal level I connect with Bilbo more than Frodo.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 29 2014, 4:29am
Post #23 of 24
(457 views)
Shortcut
|
|
From the stakes of fictive universe building to those of cinematic immersion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For me, the most gripping in LOTR was this permanent stance between fate and freedom, under the menace of this special kind of corruption consisting in doing evil while believing doing good. It was moving at a huge scale because virtually everybody was concerned : the members of the Fellowship as well as any of their encounters, as well as... the audience.
Of course the visuals, the pace, the actors, the landscapes and everything was stunning and groundbreaking at every corner. Simply put, no other movies in history, even the most epic ones, brought so much together.
How could the prequel, built on a most tiny book, elevates itself at such levels ?
It couldn't.
But, it hadn't. If the Hobbit had succeeded at the same level of LOTR, what would have been left of the crescendo ?
That said, due to it's own storyline, the Hobbit had the prime duty not to disappoint, not to fall short and get stuck in shallowness.
As a cineast, Peter Jackson had the challenge to maintain his prestige : that was a huge risk.
And so he did. For the sake of movie-making, he couldn't afford to cheapen Middle-Earth, the sets, the casting, the storytelling.
He had to groundbreak AGAIN. And that, he did.
Peter Jackson had to show that even thin storyline could be expanded if needed. He had to show that new strong characters could be cast and play their own legend even if other ones did reach summits before. He had to show that already known places can be shown twice for a better effect, if in the meantime technology has improved. He had to show that having become a reference, he could achieve new stuff without introducing facilities like sex and violence, because now families and schools are watching.
All of this is not only about Tolkien adaptating, far from it (Tolkienites don't get that). This is about Movie-making, its history and its future.
And the more I see those movies, the more I'm convinced that all these challenges have been served with honour.
For the audience, this may be not as gripping as the LOTR experience, come from nowhere, was.
But it may in the end bring a more profound satisfaction.
I will end saying what will stay as the most important for me : the artistic and technical cinematic stereo immersion on a large scale.
Not only something that had never been achieved before the Hobbit trilogy, but also something that will stay with us, as we can hope, forever.
This cinematic immersion thing has become important for me, because we all know that the world as we know him is changing, most probably not for the best. We are the first generation who collectively discovered that humanity is destroying its own planet. The landscapes that the Hobbit movies keep alive may stay existent only on screen, but they will stay with us each time people will stay able to find a wall to project it on. Those images are a refuge for the generations to come.
I have the feeling that cinematic stereo immersion may be the only way for our future generations to keep staying in touch with our own planet the way it once was, whatever will happen meanwhile. I feel it is foreshadowing our perpetual need to keep it alive, maybe even our dream to restore in all its splendor if it happens to collapse and rotten.
Our planet is our Precious, our Middle Earth, our Mountain Kingdom, the only one we've got and we'll ever get, even if we lose it to some Dragon. Is it something we can afford to corrupt ? Doesn't it now urgently need to be served with the same level of care - and hopefully, success - as the care we find shown in every frame of those six movies ?
|
|
|
Hobbithole
The Shire
Dec 29 2014, 6:59pm
Post #24 of 24
(437 views)
Shortcut
|
Although I have found much to enjoy in the Hobbit Trilogy (AUJ EE especially) and am afraid that the Hobbit trilogy is not even close to LOTR for me.
I rewatched FOTR EE last night having not seen it for some time and it is an incredible movie, a masterpiece in my mind.
I do not understand why people state that the level of acting in The Hobbit is superior to the LOTR films? Really, not for me. Yes there is some tremendous acting in the Hobbit, but look at FOTR. Viggo Mortenson, Sir Ian McKellan and Sean Bean are all incredible. The emotion during the scene after Gandalf's fall to the Balrog is amazing. The scene between Aragorn and Borimir when Boromir dies?Just awesome stuff.
Also the look of LOTR's is so much more 'real'. The battle between the Fellowship and the Uruk Hai near the end of FOTR is incredible and the Orcs look totally menacing. Contrast that with the CGI Orcs of the Hobbit and there is no comparison.
Horse for courses however, and neither trilogy is perfect! I was gutted they cut the Scouring of the Shire from ROTK, such an important message in the book IMHO.
However LOTR wins out every time for me!
p.s I still cannot get my head around how much younger Legola's look in the LOTR!!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this, Roheryn
[