I still can't fucking believe this shit
>4th Chapter, the original which starts it all, the most basic in the series with a simple story that survives on its resonance and charm, and is arguably the best film in the trilogy because it had no predecessor to live up to.Everything rides on this film being a success and careful attention is paid to every detail to make the film into something memorable.
>5th Chapter, the darkest in the series where characters begin to grapple with their struggles, which many believe is the best in the series but has tonal difference from the original which leave the matter of which is truly the best up to taste. It lacks the sense of mystery and adventure from the first film but replaces it with a grim seriousness to a strong effect.
>6th Chapter, still a great movie in its own right but most people agree it's not as good as 4 or 5. While it's still well put together and feels like part of the preceding chapters, there's some fairly forthcoming evidence of hackery that's begun to slip through, even if it doesn't necessarily ruin the film.
>>61819136
>1st Chapter, made years after the original trilogy, allows the director to go full hack and starts off a new saga reliant on CGI and filled with pointless, depthless character that has multiple plot lines that make the films hard to follow. There's some strange charm about the first chapter that's almost appealing or reminiscent of the original film, but not enough to overcome that fact that it's just bad.
>2nd Chapter, the one which truly confirms the hackery of the first wasn't just a mistake. You realize that it's even WORSE than the first chapter, existing solely to bridge the 1st and 3rd chapter, including a pointless romance that ends up being almost entirely unnecessary to the actual plot. Loud, CGI-based action sequences replace any sense of humanity in the movie.
>3rd Chapter, the tripe finally comes to a close and the director almost seems to realize what a terrible mistake they've made. Rather than try to fix a trilogy which can't be salvaged, the director tries to instill some sense of familiarity but ultimately fails, leaving an incoherent mess where the last 30 minutes try to tie up as many loose ends and make as many connections to the original trilogy as possible.
It's literally the truest form of poetry.
I think the only difference is that BotFA is considered the worst of the Hobbit trilogy while Episode III is considered the best of the prequels
>>61819136
>>61819155
Prequels > Hobbit
tbh
>>61819136
RotK was far better than TT.
>>61819136
Ordered chronological in universe time
LOTR
6>5>4>>>1>>>2>>>>3
STAR WARS
5>4>>6>3>>>>2>1
>>61819241
Get a load of this guy
>>61819241
I'm a sucker for sieges. TT is GOAT
>>61819136
>someone actually spent the time to type this all out
Nice blog. I only cringed about 3 times.
RoTK is the best in the trilogy. It won 11 academy awards including best picture. I also showed my GF the trilogy recently and she enjoyed RoTK much more than the others.
The Hobbit movies arent bad, they just arent anything special. Theyre still fine films and I can enjoy watching them. I literally cant find any enjoyment in the Star Wars prequels, as most people cant. The comparison just isnt there OP.
LoTR is one big movie split into 3 parts. All equally strong. Original Star Wars are 3 very different films. With RoTJ by far being the weakest.
>>61819393
>RoTK is the best in the trilogy. It won 11 academy awards including best picture.
nice bait
>>61819456
>I have no argument to fall back on, therefor, I will label your comment as bait
>>61819494
Actually I mostly agree with you (except that the Hobbit films are rewatchable)
But RotK by itself didn't win 11 academy awards, they were essentially awards for all three films combined
>>61819393
Regardless of needless referencing of the Oscars, this is pretty accurate. The Hobbit films might look pretty bad compared to the LotR films (some of the best put to screen), but this was always going to be the case. Even the very best Hobbit adaption would have been inferior, for the simple reason that the story it's based on isn't as good, especially for a movie (or trilogy) of this kind.
Unlike the Prequels, which show a total ineptitude in the basic of scriptwriting and moviemaking even in the absolute basics, the Hobbit films are competent, and even good for those who like Jackson's style.
I can understand those yearning to make a comparison, as here we have a trilogy followed up by an inferior trilogy - but beyond that and a few other details one has to bend the facts significantly to make them fit in the box that would at first glance seem so apt.
>>61819705
Repeating the "basics" was pretty poor English I apologize lads
Frodo was a better lead than Bilbo.
Thorin was a better lead than Aragorn.
>>61819764
Freeman>Wood
tbh Freeman would have made a great Frodo (for those who've only seen the movie this might seem odd, but book-readers will be able to back up Freeman being the right guy for the job, compared to an overly whiney and useless Frodo that Elijah provided. He looked the part, yeah, and he wasn't /awful/, but Freeman was top stuff.)
>>61819806
He just played his character in The Office tbh
>>61819764
You dipshit. Aragorn wasn't the leader. Gandalf was. And the fellowship was split so there wasn't much to lead.
