Food for thought: Which prequel trilogy is better/more necessary to set up its main trilogy counterpart between the Hobbit movies and Star Wars Ep 1-3? Discuss.
I say SW by quite a bit, even though those films aren’t great. (The Fantastic Beasts movies compared to HP series would be a distant 3rd if included IMO.)
ETA: I do think Bilbo and Thorin are compelling and well cast, but I thought the trilogy as a whole was a missed opportunity. SW 1-3 is probably also a missed opportunity, but maybe I just like the SW universe more than the Middle Earth universe, and the DV backstory is necessary, even if the movies struggled to do it correctly at times.
First: I’m not qualified to discuss Star Wars cuz after the first three were released (starting with episode 4, a new hope) I just couldn’t get into any of them. Altho Rogue One is ok.
Middle Earth: sorry Peter Jackson, the 1977 animated Hobbit is better. At least that’s what my grandson says and he’s the Tolkien fan. The Hobbit is far better than LOTR - book wise. Martin Freeman is a good Bilbo but Thorin not so much.
LOTR: rather not have the added female stuff but he says it’s understandable in today’s climate. The movie had some good parts. Missed other parts that got left out.
I mean millions of people saw the original trilogy and managed to understand it just fine before those awful prequels.
And anyone who started with the prequels missed out on one of the biggest screen “reveal” ever made. Apart from the fact it was leaked by one paper here, most people who saw it in the cinemas (movie theatres) gasped audibly. It really was a plot twist to end all plot twists.
I agree with this. I get why the changes were made, but they ended up also changing things they didn’t need to. But if you separate the book from the movies, the movies are just amazing. Long…but amazing.
I actually didn’t like The Hobbit as a book…so to turn it into a three movie snoozefest was just too much. In many ways it suffered in the same way the SW prequels did. George Lucas seemed to forget he was telling a story because of all the cool special effects he had at his fingertips. Same was true with Peter Jackson and the Hobbit trilogy. I think it could been halfway decent if he narrowed it down to a single movie and focused on story.
That is all true. Episodes 4-6 are great on their own and were just fine for 20 years by themselves. I guess what I should have said is that in spite of that, 1-3 still added more than the Hobbit movies did for me. Most of Phantom Menace was pointless, and 10-year old Anakin is boring (not that the young adult is very exciting either) and everyone hates Jar Jar, but I’ll still take the parts of the story that were kind of told well over anything in the Hobbit movies that just seemed more of a waste to me.
I was told I could skip them, lol. So far Ive only managed episodes 4-6, contemplating on 1-3. So I cant say. Their are better versions of the Hobbit as someone else mentioned. But my son loves the new movies and I like them too.
Yes. You can. If you missed them entirely, you’d be no worse for the wear. In fact, I could argue you are better off NOT seeing them because they can start to weigh down the perception of Star Wars in general too much! (Mostly, when I watch them, I just feel angered at George Lucas for such a poor job he did compared to the originals.)
For sure. I just love SW so much overall, that 1-3 are like those relatives you put up with because they’re part of the family (most likely by marriage), but they’re not exactly value-added. 1-3 look even worse than they are because of the high expectations after the 20-year wait after ROTJ and in comparison to just how good the original trilogy is.
