I don't think I even watched all three of them i was so disappointed with the first one.

Myself, all the members of my family, and most of my friends loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The academy awards and most critics agree with us on this one - so naturally we were all elated when we found out that Peter Jackson was going to make another 3 films.

I should have seen it coming but this trilogy did not live up to the hype and if you think about it there were lots of reasons why that could not end up being true. Here are just a couple reasons why.

The first trilogy was so epic that it would be impossible to top it. Sometimes, something is so good that it is best to just leave it alone. However, they wanted money and they ended up getting it, so whatever.
The LOR book is 1000+ pages long, so big that mostly you can buy the book in stages unless you want to be reading it in 4pt fond. The Hobbit book is about 150 pages long. Both of these books were made into 3 movies that were at least 2 hours long per. I can't imagine how that would present a problem? Can you?

Because there is not much source material in existence in order to make 6 hours of film we end up with scenes where Dwarfs are having dinner for 35 minutes, complete with a long history lesson about who each one of them is and stupid filler like songs being sung for 10 minutes. If i am not mistaken, the first 45 minutes of the film takes place inside Bilbo Baggins' house. snoooooze....

Then we have stuff like giant rock people fighting which depending on who you talk to, wasn't really in the books but was rather a metaphor.

these guys could certainly take over all of Middle Earth but don't for some reason

There was entirely too much slapstick in these movies and it wasn't until the last one where Smaug was featured so prominently that I felt as thought the movies took on a dark overtone the way the original 3 did. Even that was short lived and if there is one thing you should do it is to look up the youtube vids of Benedict Cumberpatch where he is actually reading lines running around in scenes with other actors despite the fact that all his work is voice-over in the movie.

In my mind the main thing that disappointed me about this was that it definitely did not need to be a trilogy. It easily could have been one film. But we must remind ourselves of Mark Hamill's words:

it doesn't matter if it's any good, only that it makes money!

It certainly accomplished that as merely the first part of the trilogy ended up making more than a billion dollars worldwide, becoming on the 15th film of all time to accomplish this. Most of my marks are awarded because it is visually stunning. The story is horribly paced and a bit dumb.

6 / 10

The Hobbit.jpg

Upon the announcement of the film adaptations of The Hobbit with Peter Jackson as the director, I felt this major excitement for the continuation--well, I guess the pre-establishing--of the universe we were introduced to with The Lord of the Rings. I was prepared for the fantasy genre to perhaps even make a comeback in cinema due to its success.

As is the case with most things in entertainment media, the next entry, prequel or not, tends to be far weaker than its predecessor in almost every possible way. Sadly, this was the case with The Hobbit's trilogy.

Personally, I found The Hobbit to have completely distanced itself from the world The Lord of the Rings had unravelled: this dark yet colourful, mysterious land of magic, friendship, and evil that knows no boundaries. The fantasy genre was finally getting the dedication it deserves given the sheer depth within fantasy lore.

The Hobbit seemed to have dropped the more serious approach and replaced it with out-of-place comedy, unlikable characters, and generally poor performances. The films felt far less authentic as well, given the almost-criminal amount of obvious special effects; come on, having the main threat of the story be nothing but a special effect is nothing short of laziness.

The Hobbit green screen.jpg

The Lord of the Rings felt far more authentic with its choice to shoot at real locations--specifically throughout New Zealand--which helped redeem the use of special effects when absolutely necessary. Anyone that has seen the behind-the-scenes footage of The Hobbit will have seen the plethora of props surrounded by nothing but artificiality, and that is always what ruins films of this genre. If you are going to create a film that is based on such well-thought depth and lore, not taking the effort to create the locations it takes place in will ultimately be the reason for its failure.

I believe these issues are not at the fault of Peter Jackson or its cast, but yet another disappointing studio decision; a film must be profitable, of course, so why would you bother spending so much money on authenticity if quality doesn't particularly matter to the studio? Of course, though, the fans certainly mind, and many complained about the very things I have mentioned thus far. Once again the pockets of big film studios are the reason another film that has previously displayed and established its successes in the market reaches its peak and falls into the bucket of forgotten dreams. As is the case with large films: a film cannot be good, cheap, and successful all at once.

It's an unfortunate outcome for the universe of hobbits, dwarves, wizards and elfs, and it will certainly create a ripple within the fantasy genre, which will now suffer even more until finally somebody does give it the recognition it deserves.

The Hobbit

Reviews

6 / 10

Comments

1 more review