The Hobbit Trilogy vs. The Star Wars Prequels

[Hoshi Izumi]

Though The Hobbit Trilogy hasn't ended yet, I can't help but compare the way Peter Jackson approaches these films with the way George Lucas approached the Star Wars Prequels. I know that there are strong differences between the two directors in terms of their movies and what they wanted to accomplish, but their prequel trilogies suffer from a similar problem: lack of effort. Now I will give Lucas credit for having better visuals and choreographed fight-scenes in the Prequels, but with the presence of annoying characters like Jar-Jar, and cheesy moments like Obi-Wan riding a giant alien iguana, you can't take the Prequels seriously. Thus, the Original movies seem more genuine in comparison, because the tone is consistant, and they tell a decent story overall. On the other hand, the cinematography of the Hobbit films is top-notch and there are some really good scenes like when Bilbo and the Dwarves are hopelessly wandering through Mirkwood, but when Jackson throws in silly scenes like the Barrel-Riding one (seriously, I thought I was looking at a Disneyland ride), the tone of the films become inconsistant. Then to add insult to injury, the musical score is pretty mediocre with some LOTR tracks thrown in for the sake of recognition. Its like Peter Jackson is trying to recapture the beauty and well-layered storytelling that lies in LOTR, while trying to stick with the light-hearted tone of The Hobbit book.

So what are your thoughts on these two series? Are there similarities or differences that you see that I didn't?

[strawberrycreamkiss2]

my ex bf. has hobbit feet

[Ryuu_Keiji]

What gets me the most with both is the use of computer graphics and green screen. I loved the make-up of the orcs and all of the costuming from the Lord of the rings movies and same thing with the original Star Wars movies. Computer generated characters honestly just make everything look more fake. I love both movie series to death, but looking at quality while comparing newer movies to old movies... Well its sad to think that puppet Yoda looks more realistic than new and improved CG Yoda. And with The Hobbit... Peter Jackson spent a long time in an interview saying how much he loved incorporating New Zealand's beautiful landscape into his film. Well ok. But you filmed the majority of the movie in a studio with props. AND the ponies in the first Hobbit movie during the troll scene! I wanted to barf! The were so obviously CG that it was sickening. I personally don't remember any horses in the Lord of the Rings trilogy looking that bad.

Either way I love both sets of prequels. And yes I will be there at the Midnight showing of The Battle of Five Armies. I guess for some reason, the Star Wars prequels make me more mad than the Hobbit. Maybe its because The Hobbit was actually a book that was written before the Lord of the Rings. Or because The actors that were in The Lord of the Rings did not change for their roles in the Hobbit. I don't know. I'm sure that when the new Star Wars movies come out I will probably feel the same way.

[Requiem ex Inferni]

The difference is that Jackson managed to make the Hobbit trilogy still be good, whereas Lucas single handedly ******** his own franchise over.

[franklymagnets]

no i don't think it can be compared because of many reasons, first and foremost because the Hobbit films are actually pretty good, and next because, even if one may accuse peter jackson of "not trying hard enough" i think it's completely the opposite. LOTR has a strong canonical base of books as ground, while the hobbit consists mostly on PJ's own ideas as plot device. The Hobbit is a children's tale- it's cute, but it's hardly written in the same tone as LOTR. PJ has made a gargantuan effort to try to sync the Hobbit and LOTR, which one may or may not consider a failed effort, but one cannot accuse him of not trying.

Unlike the frankly terrible Star Wars prequels, The Hobbit has a strong cast, a fairly well-constructed plot, and even includes an attempt to make Tolkien's world a little less male-oriented. The effects are splendid, the designs are gorgeous, and the colours brilliant. The script can hardly be compared to the messily written flop that was Star Wars episode I either.

Even though some LOTR fans felt dissapointed at the screeing of The Hobbit, at least most of them didn't alienate themselves from the franchise completely, as I know many Star Wars fans did.

[demon shaddow storm]

star wars is a lot better than lord of the rings

[demon shaddow storm]

star wars is better

[Fatal_Shadow13]

demon shaddow storm

star wars is better

in general, yes, I agree, the prequel films, no not at all. I say that for reasons already stated above

really the reason I didn't really enjoy the prequel trilogy was because I pretty much knew what was about to happen. There was no real mystery, you know that Palpatine will corrupt Anakin Skywalker, destroy the Jedi Order, and usurp the Grand Republic. You didn't know how, but you knew he would.

I'm not really sure how I'll react to the new Star Wars movies, mostly because of what novel I've read and have so much to compare them to, and the direction Lucas forced the book series towards.

[Hoshi Izumi]

franklymagnets

no i don't think it can be compared because of many reasons, first and foremost because the Hobbit films are actually pretty good, and next because, even if one may accuse peter jackson of "not trying hard enough" i think it's completely the opposite. LOTR has a strong canonical base of books as ground, while the hobbit consists mostly on PJ's own ideas as plot device. The Hobbit is a children's tale- it's cute, but it's hardly written in the same tone as LOTR. PJ has made a gargantuan effort to try to sync the Hobbit and LOTR, which one may or may not consider a failed effort, but one cannot accuse him of not trying.

Unlike the frankly terrible Star Wars prequels, The Hobbit has a strong cast, a fairly well-constructed plot, and even includes an attempt to make Tolkien's world a little less male-oriented. The effects are splendid, the designs are gorgeous, and the colours brilliant. The script can hardly be compared to the messily written flop that was Star Wars episode I either.

Even though some LOTR fans felt dissapointed at the screeing of The Hobbit, at least most of them didn't alienate themselves from the franchise completely, as I know many Star Wars fans did.

I'm not saying that the Hobbit films are bad in terms of quality, and I actually don't mind the things Peter Jackson had added such as the White Orc, the female elf, and so on. It's just that the tone of the films is inconsistant. They're trying to be light-hearted comedic and downright serious at the same time, and while that can be done with the right amount of balance between the two, Jackson doesn't pull it off in my opinion. Now I'm relatively neutral about the Star Wars prequels, so its hard for me to say whether they're better or worse than the Hobbit films because to me they have a similar feel, but while the prequels attempted to make a light-hearted sci-fi series more dark and serious, the Hobbit films are trying to add serious elements while retaining the original novel's light-hearted tone.

[Master Burglar]

°•»Bilbo Baggins says«•°
It's rather difficult to compare the two series as they are largely different in some aspects. I think the overall tones and moods are too separate to really discern any kind of arguable comparison. In the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, the theme is admittedly much darker than the Hobbit's. Although, both involve someone changing for the worse, at least one has a clearer conclusion.
I believe Lucas' intentions for the Star Wars Prequels was to provide more backstory for the movies that would follow Luke, Leia, and Han. It's supposed to fill in some gaps for the watchers to understand what exactly motivates them so much to go so far to stop the Sith, etc. A big part of those Prequel movies was to tell the story of how Darth Vader came to be. In my opinion, the Prequel trilogy of the Star Wars' Series can better be classified as a prologue than the Hobbit can. I say this because J. R. R. Tolkien admitted to writing the Hobbit as a "warm up" for the darker, more serious Lord of the Rings series. And in truth, you don't necessarily need to watch the Hobbit to gather any more information in the Lord of the Rings series than what is already given to you. The story of Bilbo is only mentioned in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that is only to bring about the danger of the ring. You don't need to know how Bilbo got that ring (and I'll add they tell you in the Lord of the Ring's trilogy anyways), and they even supply you with clearer information of how Gollum obtained it. They never mention Thorin and his Company, or the tale of Smaug. It's almost like two separate trilogies, only linked by characters and the world of Middle Earth. Though, Peter Jackson did try to incorporate more little hidden Lord of the Rings' goofs in the Hobbit, the book doesn't contain any information about Frodo or his adventure to be, or even any foreshadowing of what's to come for the most part. This being said, I can easily say the Hobbit is a less of a prologue than it is a separate series.
I was fine with the more comedic tone of the Hobbit. It's more of a younger-audience type of movie than the Lord of the Rings (younger-audience meaning the lower half of the teens or around there.) When I read the book, I didn't get the same sense of urgency as I did in the Lord of the Rings books. This is in part because the Hobbit involves only Thorin and the dwarves adventure. The threat isn't one that threatens all of Middle Earth, only the lives of those traveling back to take Erebor. This escalates to much grander scale of action with the Battle of the Five Armies, but initially, the threat was contained to a small portion of the world. And even with the Battle of the Five Armies, you still got the sense it wasn't nearly as global as Lord of the Rings (where the threat is already threatening Middle Earth right off the bat). Plus, with the knowledge that Tolkien meant the Hobbit to be more of a warm up for the Lord of the Rings, you can enjoy it with a little less criticism in my opinion and just appreciate the process the author took to make this world come alive. As for the quality of the movies, I think it was to be expected. Smaug could NOT have been made entirely out of prosthetic and material as they might have making the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And in order to lure more audiences out, they needed to impress the public with more current technology. I'll admit it's kind of a let down for this to happen to movies nowaday, but it was a SMART move on Jackson's part. It might surprise most of you, but many people have NOT watched the Lord of the Rings movies. Jackson knew this, and much of today's audience want better, bigger graphics and won't watch films simply because the graphics aren't current. If Jackson hadn't gone the more modern route with the CGI and special effects, the Hobbit probably wouldn't have been as lucrative as it should have been. And although we (being LoTR fans) might appreciate the little nostalgia it brings, we'd probably be most of the income they'd make. But they did a marvelous job with costumes and they still did use a lot of makeup and old school methods to creating more realistic characters and what not, but ultimately I felt like Jackson did a smart thing by not taking it all the way back.

Wow. That's quite the speech... But anyways, that's just my opinion. :]
°•».«•°

[boskoroth]

Lord of the Rings 4 Life

[Jehx_Dominguez]

^^

[Hoshi Izumi]

Master Burglar

°•»Bilbo Baggins says«•°
It's rather difficult to compare the two series as they are largely different in some aspects. I think the overall tones and moods are too separate to really discern any kind of arguable comparison. In the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, the theme is admittedly much darker than the Hobbit's. Although, both involve someone changing for the worse, at least one has a clearer conclusion.
I believe Lucas' intentions for the Star Wars Prequels was to provide more backstory for the movies that would follow Luke, Leia, and Han. It's supposed to fill in some gaps for the watchers to understand what exactly motivates them so much to go so far to stop the Sith, etc. A big part of those Prequel movies was to tell the story of how Darth Vader came to be. In my opinion, the Prequel trilogy of the Star Wars' Series can better be classified as a prologue than the Hobbit can. I say this because J. R. R. Tolkien admitted to writing the Hobbit as a "warm up" for the darker, more serious Lord of the Rings series. And in truth, you don't necessarily need to watch the Hobbit to gather any more information in the Lord of the Rings series than what is already given to you. The story of Bilbo is only mentioned in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that is only to bring about the danger of the ring. You don't need to know how Bilbo got that ring (and I'll add they tell you in the Lord of the Ring's trilogy anyways), and they even supply you with clearer information of how Gollum obtained it. They never mention Thorin and his Company, or the tale of Smaug. It's almost like two separate trilogies, only linked by characters and the world of Middle Earth. Though, Peter Jackson did try to incorporate more little hidden Lord of the Rings' goofs in the Hobbit, the book doesn't contain any information about Frodo or his adventure to be, or even any foreshadowing of what's to come for the most part. This being said, I can easily say the Hobbit is a less of a prologue than it is a separate series.
I was fine with the more comedic tone of the Hobbit. It's more of a younger-audience type of movie than the Lord of the Rings (younger-audience meaning the lower half of the teens or around there.) When I read the book, I didn't get the same sense of urgency as I did in the Lord of the Rings books. This is in part because the Hobbit involves only Thorin and the dwarves adventure. The threat isn't one that threatens all of Middle Earth, only the lives of those traveling back to take Erebor. This escalates to much grander scale of action with the Battle of the Five Armies, but initially, the threat was contained to a small portion of the world. And even with the Battle of the Five Armies, you still got the sense it wasn't nearly as global as Lord of the Rings (where the threat is already threatening Middle Earth right off the bat). Plus, with the knowledge that Tolkien meant the Hobbit to be more of a warm up for the Lord of the Rings, you can enjoy it with a little less criticism in my opinion and just appreciate the process the author took to make this world come alive. As for the quality of the movies, I think it was to be expected. Smaug could NOT have been made entirely out of prosthetic and material as they might have making the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And in order to lure more audiences out, they needed to impress the public with more current technology. I'll admit it's kind of a let down for this to happen to movies nowaday, but it was a SMART move on Jackson's part. It might surprise most of you, but many people have NOT watched the Lord of the Rings movies. Jackson knew this, and much of today's audience want better, bigger graphics and won't watch films simply because the graphics aren't current. If Jackson hadn't gone the more modern route with the CGI and special effects, the Hobbit probably wouldn't have been as lucrative as it should have been. And although we (being LoTR fans) might appreciate the little nostalgia it brings, we'd probably be most of the income they'd make. But they did a marvelous job with costumes and they still did use a lot of makeup and old school methods to creating more realistic characters and what not, but ultimately I felt like Jackson did a smart thing by not taking it all the way back.

Wow. That's quite the speech... But anyways, that's just my opinion. :]
°•».«•°

While I agree that the Prequels are intended to fill in the gaps of the Original trilogy and explain Darth Vader's backstory, it doesn't help that while the films are dark in tone, there are these really corny moments here and there that offset the mood. The same goes for the Hobbit films, which could be considered a separate series from LOTR if Peter Jackson wasn't trying to make more connections between them like the Frodo cameo, the council scene with Saruman and Galadriel, and the inclusion of Legolas even though he's not in the original book.

[thesupremekaidbz]

I prefer the Hobbit Trilogy over the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. I'm hoping the new Star Wars Trilogy will be as awesome as the the original Star Wars Trilogy.

[WingedReaper777]

Bruhhh, how is this even a debate? LOTR wins every damn time.