|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on May 26, 2017 17:41:48 GMT
I really truly believe that had they made two movies instead of three they would've been praised by critics and fans alike. Nearly every problem in this trilogy stems from the fact that it's one movie too long. Also, there IS a tremendous movie in there somewhere. There are lots of gems throughout like Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. Basically everything from the book was good and most of what was added wasn't. It would've never compared to LotR though. The books are too different. LotR is well written fantasy fiction while The Hobbit is a relatively simplistic children's story. If only there hadn't been a rights dispute standing in Jackson's way back then. He did want to do The Hobbit first, then then Lord of the Rings, but getting the rights to Tolkien's first Middle-earth book was such a hassle, he ended up having to give up for the time being. If they had been able to do The Hobbit as a standalone film and then Lord of the Rings, that'd have been wonderful. Yeah, that would've been awesome. I wonder how they would've approached The Hobbit if they did it first. There was a clear intention to match the tone of LotR which was of course due to the popularity of that trilogy. Would they have done that if it was the first one made? I wonder. It might have even gone the other way around, with The Hobbit being such a success that the studio forced a lighter tone on LotR. Interesting stuff to think about. |
|
