I asked this on another forum I go to, but I thought I'd ask here as well:
I had always assumed that the LOTR movies were widely beloved icons, and had for years lived in fear that (like Conan the Barbarian), eventually people would forget Tolkien's excellent novel and instead only remember the movie. This was what motivated me to record
vlog rants (warning: stupid, annoying and rambling) and which further motivated me to want to expand my thoughts into a full-fledged review of the movies--a 20-part-long one, if need be.
But I Googled around (and, again, asked elsewhere) and it seems like these days, if I do a review that criticizes the movies, I'd be basically preaching to the choir. It seems like nobody considers these movies anything more than a passing fad, and people are more willing to criticize them now than when they were new, especially after The Hobbit, which apparently no-one liked. This makes me wonder if there is even a point criticizing them now.
But I thought I'd ask you guys because it seems like you would be more in tune with modern sentiment than I would.
So I ask you: Are these still widely beloved?
(This isn't about personal opinions, but I
would like to hear those as well)
Thanks in advance.
In the first five years, they were heralded for their film-making, but with the Hobbit, it has to be from people re-watching the first trilogy and seeing the whole picture for what it is. The movies, as far as the extended editions go, were not spectacular or remotely special, if we look at them in the most objective of ways. Star Wars faces similar issues when you objectively watch the original trilogy. Were they groundbreaking films of their time? Of course. But are they movies to watch a few more times? I doubt it. Many of the pronounced issues with the effects in the Hobbit, and the pacing issues [ such as having almost an hour with Frodo, who is not remotely important in the story.] alone mark what the film-goers see in the originals.
My personal opinion? While the extended cuts might add more material, they were an absolute bore to watch. Why anyone would waste 9 hours or such to watch one of the slowest films with little returns is just beyond me. Like The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings was initially one book, but split in three by Tolkien himself to sell it better. I personally believe the trilogy, like the Hobbit series, would've been superior as a two film show. Both Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films just drag on and on, that I literally fell asleep. Granted many say we should see them on the adventure, but there's such a thing as jump-cuts or a clip montage. Most of either film series are complete snooze fests that you're waiting for the next action scene or scene relevant to the plot. While it's frowned upon to rely mostly on narration, these films SORELY needed it. After my first watching the extended trilogy, I was glad I didn't have to watch anymore of that crap. I do not care how many Oscars it won for its special effects or for its makeup and acting. Unlike the book its based on, the movies don't have the luxury of coming before Lord of the Rings.
So having them being much lighter adventures shot terribly with plot convenient physics and deus ex machinas to ensure that Bilbo is alive [which is a whole other bag of worms], alongside CG effects ripped from Skyrim made me largely unimpressed.The Hobbit was unnecessary, and given how we know Bilbo is alive, there is literally no tension or fear for any of the characters. Why care for any of the characters if they just keep avoiding death and they're mortal? At least the prequel trilogy for Star Wars was moderately enjoyable and wasn't as jarring in tone in comparison to the Hobbit. For the most part, it was terrible and why I typically avoid films that go on for three hours unless they got an intermission like Gone with the Wind, are done by Christopher Nolan, or by a capable director that can intrigue and entertain the audience. I never fell asleep when watching a few Marvel films in sequence, Harry Potter, or even any of the Heisei films of Godzilla. Those filmmakers knew how to captivate the audience and make the time FEEL like much shorter.
Peter Jackson does not. His films from what I've seen are so long and are the example of a director with too much power. Much of the footage kept in King Kong, Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit , was so superfluous that the films could have deleted the footage and no one would have cared or noticed. Many directors when they get to this point often have to rely on beautiful visual, hoping that the audience ignores the glaring issues in story, pacing, and even characters. Avatar is a great example. Excellent visuals, but a copy and pasted story much like every young adult book, reluctant hero story, you name it. The plot ,essentially a bare bones copy of Dances With Wolves meets Pocahontas, is just dressing on the cake. Stretched to three hours because the director does not have constraints to deal with. All these overt issues fans ignored in the first trilogy are more noticeable the second time around because Jackson took a book , which some say made a great solo animated movie, and turned it into a trilogy without adding content and toning the story.
I will likely never own The Hobbit or those films in general because despite the innovative filmmaking practices, and the great sequences and acting in the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, are probably one of the most overrated pieces of cinema out there. Not a bad set of films in their own right, but not anything special.
