it was a source of butthurt back then to say, but can we all now agree that The Hobbit was to LOTR what the Star Wars prequels were to the original trilogy?
will anyone ever watch the hobbit movies again?
>>63522394
Seems like a solid analogy senpai
>>63522394
People caught on to that pretty much unanimously by the second bud.
>>63522394
The prequels were actually bad though.
>>63522531
just like the hobbit
your point?
>>63522394
Yep pretty much.
>>63522394
i wouldn't say that because star wars is just adding on more and more ad infinitum and the whole thing is just made up to play off the unexpected success of the original movie. It's sort of inherently reactionary in that respect, which gives the whole franchise a sense of desperation.
Meanwhile all the lotr stuff was built from tolkein from the ground up, organically, and as an expression of art and creativity so it is inherently dignified, in spite of hackson's manipulation of the material. Lotr has a incorruptible base foundation in that regard that star wars by it's superficial nature cannot equal.
>>63522643
This. Though I'd say it's another perfect reason why prequels are a stupid fucking idea in the first place.
Yeah, but regardless of that base, we're talking about the final product, the movies. And each set of prequels was equally shitty.
RT Scores:
Phantom Menace - 56% (6.0/10)
Attack of the Clones - 65% (6.7/10)
Revenge of the Sith - 79% (7.3/10)
Unexpected Journey - 64% (6.6/10)
Desolation of Smaug - 74% (6.8)
Battle of the Five Armies - 60% (6.3/10)
>>63522689
Truly.
"Let's see what things were like before!" Why? Who gives a fuck?
>>63522394
I couldn't even make it through the hobbit or the prequels.
Peter Jackson you fucking cunt
>>63522689
i was expecting to be called autistic, but seriously i lose my composure about star wars, something about the whole franchise, fans, the way it's held up as culturaly important, all of it drives me up a wall. I can't express it without seaming obsessed but I'm sure other people feel the same way and bear their burden quietly. It's the best example of something I can classify as mediocre but it has so much attention and the prequels were so bad, it should have doomed it.
>>63522770
RotS>TUJ>DoS>TPM>BotFA>AotC
>>63522770
how the fuck is desolation of smäüõg the best rated hobbit movie, it was literally the worst
As much as I hate defending the abomination that is the Hobbit movies, there is one big thing that sets them apart
Lucas had total control over the Star Wars prequels and did everything exactly how he wanted it, and the end result was shit
The Hobbit movies had tons of studio interference (the biggest being splitting it up into 3 movies) and Peter Jackson was thrust into it basically halfway through production when del Toro left and wasn't given time to change things to how he was going to approach the movie. The whole production was a nightmare and they were constantly behind schedule because Jackson didn't have control from the start.
>>63522842
SW is culturally important because it was basically the first super-successful special effects heavy scifi movie of its type. You don't get it because you've lived in an era when all scifi tries to be the next Star Wars so everything is commonplace.
It's the same with people complaining about LotR being generic fantasy land with Elves who don't get along with Dwarfs and evil Orcs, when it was the first fantasy book to have these elements. It just seems commonplace because Warcraft, D&D, and pretty much every major fantasy world since the 1950's has been heavily influenced by it
>>63523012
>Ranking anything below JUST of the five armies
>>63522806
If this story is so great, then why didn't they tell it first? It obviously isn't necessary to establish characters, or the setting. Its superfluous by definition. And while the Hobbit was always the book that started it all, in context of their release they're prequels for all intents and purposes.
>>63523052
the productions were both crazy in their own way and thus actually very alike
hobbit movies for reasons you mentioned, and the star wars ones because lucas had himself gone crazy
its only a good analogy because of how good lord of the rings is
prequels are still miles worse
>>63523156
I don't really hear people complaining about Lotr for any reason that much, but perhaps they exist.
I can believe star wars was a big deal at it's time, but it still comes across as really nerdy. My biggest gripe with star wars is that people indulge themselves so much with it, unlike anything i've seen. It's like an excuse to act childish in my opinion.
>>63523156
This. When people talk about the cultural impact of star wars if you weren't alive at the time you don't have a context.
In a time before the prequels, before the special editions, before modern media, it was kind of a big deal. It was iconic, and thanks to George hanging on to the licensing and merchandising rights, he made sure it always had at least a minor presence.
I loathe to quote the plinkett review but the phantom menace is the "greatest example of cinematic blue balls in history."
>true villain is actually elusive dark lord setting up network of spies and building power in secret, a "phantom menace", if you will
it's like poetry
The Hobbit wasn't as bad as the prequels. The Hobbit had problems but could've been salvaged. The prequels were beyond repair.
This is coming from someone who loves Lotr more than Star Wars and is thus more critical of the Hobbit. To be honest the hobbit had no chance of being as good as lotr because lotr is better source material.
>>63525189
nigger, it's not as bad as the prequels
it's as bad in relation to lotr as the prequels are to the original trilogy
>>63522394
No because it's flat out wrong.
LOTR and The Hobbit are adaptations.
The Hobbit is much closer to the source than LOTR ever was. It has fewer and less frequent changes than LOTR did, which is essentially not canon.
Star Wars are completely original ideas.
They cannot be compared adequately.
>>63525260
Not really.
>>63525299
you are flat out wrong
>>63525299
>The Hobbit is much closer to the source than LOTR ever was.
Adaptation autist right on que.
Nowhere near as bad, but in terms of Good original Trilogy then shitty second trilogy, yeah.
Hobbit and LOTR aren't as bad as the Prequels and Original because it doesn't completely shit on the original trilogy, it only farts really heavily and leaves a skidmark on Legolas.
>>63525326
:^). No, I am not.
>inb4 retards make excuses as to why changes work in LOTR but shit on CGI and effects in The Hobbit
>as if they are looking at both works in an unbiased view focusing on their value as an adaptation
Don't even bother.
>>63522394
not quite. the star wars prequels shat on so many of the characters from the original trilogy by fucking up their backstory. in the hobbit, the few important cross over characters weren't that bad. like gandalf and elrond were fine. legolas was fucked up but he's such a blank slate in the movies it doesn't matter
>>63525388
Whats that 3 book one with the japanese art on the spine?
>>63523012
The Smaug v Bilbo scenes were one of the only redeemable things in the whole series
>>63525444
>riddles in the dark
>>63525462
>one of the only
>>63525409
Kurosawa collection.
>>63525409
Oh wait, that's journey to the west.Chinese not Japanese.
>>63525388
>that book collection
Vomit.jpg
>>63525685
>implying I am looking for your gratification.
Heh, pleb.
>>63525388
The Hobbit movies are worse films and that's literally all that matters when discussing films. The LOTR movies are better films. No one gives a shit about minute details and stupid shit like Tom Bombadill, that would have ruined everything about the final climax of the third movie.
Go sperg out somewhere else, aspie.
>>63525739
>no one cares about movies which are solely adaptations
>which are titled after the work they are meant to be mirroring
What ever helps you sleep at night, pleb.
They are adaptation, the only reason they exist is to present a written work into another medium. One was better than the other in that respect.
Sure LOTR was a great movie, I loved it. It was a fucking shocking adaptation though, it isn't LOTR, AT ALL.
The Hobbit presents the story a lot better than LOTR ever did.
I am just stating facts here. No need to get all angry, 'aspie'.
>>63525796
>the Hobbit presents the story better than LOTR
Oh you mean by inserting ENTIRE FUCKING CHARACTERS THAT NEVER EXISTED AND DEVOTING SEVERAL MINUTES OF SCREENTIME TO THEM??
Remember reading the Hobbit when all the dwarves get chased by Smaug for 45 minutes in a video game cutscene then they dump molten gold on him which he then breaks out of?
How can you possibly be so retarded?
>>63525962
You mean exactly like pic related?
They made up entire arcs in LOTR, multiple times to fill in holes in the canon created by turning 6 books into 3 movies.
I know you haven't read the books, don't even pretend you have.
Pic related is and will always be the best Hobbit
I actually like the prequels more than the hobbit. Prequels were shit but they did not ruin an established book and the fact they split the movie of the hobbit up over three movies was super jewey. Also prequels have much more redeeming fun scenes and sheev, hobbit had the first ten minutes and smaug
>>63526144
my nigga
>>63526233
>where there's a whip
WOAHCH!
>there is a way
WOACH!
Actually even before first Hobbit movie turned out to be awful people weren't that hyped for a Hobbit trilogy, unlike Prequel Trilogy, I guess by 2012 people didn't care that much about LOTR anymore, but it wasn't old enough to be nostalgic, so while Hobbit movies were awful I don't think people cared much about them
