1) The last Middle Earth movie before "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was "LOTR Return of the King." Not only is that the greatest film of the entire original trilogy, it is also arguably one of the best films of all time. It won a record number of 11 oscars (tying with "Titanic" and "Ben Hur"), it was a huge financial success, and both fans and critics loved it alike. When the first Hobbit film came out, people expected a movie that was even better than "The Return of the King" because the LOTR movies became better and better as they went along. Some fans did not realise that this movie could not be like ROTK, because it is the first film of a much smaller trilogy. Even though I understand where the disappointment is coming from, I do not think it is fair to judge a movie based on the last picture from the same universe or the same director. "IronMan 3" was the first Marvel movie after the "Avengers", and the movie going audience unfairly expected it to be even more epic and spectacular. The same could be said for Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" which disappointed some viewers, due to the fact that Nolan was coming off from the "Dark Knight Trilogy" which was so globally loved and acclaimed.
2) The Hobbit is a much smaller book targeted for kids, whereas the Lord of the Rings books were much more in depth and appealed to more mature readers. The Hobbit is a lighter, more fun read, but if you are willing to invest the time and decide to read the Lord of the Rings, you are going to get a much deeper emotional ride. The same can be applied to the movies. They are made for completely different purposes, and have different visions behind them. While the "Lord of the Rings" movies did entertain the viewer, they offered a much heavier yet rewarding experience. The Hobbit movies, serve primarily as high quality entertainment. Going back to the previously mentioned super hero movies, comparing the two trilogies is like comparing "The Dark Knight" and "The Avengers." They have very different purposes, and tonalities. That is why most people can not say which super hero movie is the best. They are completely different animals that are not even in the same ballpark, it ain't even the same league, it ain't even the same sport.
3) When the LOTR movies came out, they were viewed as innovative, and nothing quite like that has ever been done before. The cinematic scope of the films was breathtaking, the battle scenes with thousands and thousands of extras (both real and CGI) were never done before, the motion capture on Golum was truly revolutionary and the amount of craftsmanship and direction that went into creating this fantasy epic was unheard of. I believe that is part of the reason why they are so loved. Just like the Matrix, or Avatar they discovered new ground, the LOTR films did something no movie has done before. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same thing about the "Hobbit" films. Yes the CGI looks cleaner and the shots are nicer, but there is nothing truly new in these films. Almost everything that the "Hobbit" films do, LOTR did first. They are like the second astronaut to land on the moon. Even though Buzz Aldrin did the same thing as Neil Armstrong, and almost at the same time, he is not as well remembered or as well known as the latter. The fault of the prequel trilogy, is that it was made after "The Lord of the Rings." If we were to see the Hobbit in early 2000, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy now, people would have a much different opinion on the prequels. They would be much more loved, and recognised as truly GREAT films, and not just good films.

No comments:
Post a Comment