Which is the worse trilogy: Hobbit vs Star Wars prequels
So which is the worst trilogy: the Hobbit or Star wars prequels?
Both are pretty terrible compared to their originals, One will kill you with sheer length and boredom, the other is a CGI mess and features Ja Ja binks.
Discuss
Both are pretty terrible compared to their originals, One will kill you with sheer length and boredom, the other is a CGI mess and features Ja Ja binks.
Discuss
Scroll to see replies
Im gonna say the Star Wars prequels. Both trilogies are a less successful offshoot of their predecessors but the Star Wars prequels for me fail on more fronts. The plot for them is far too dragged out and overly political in a non star wars way. The casting is all over the place. Whilst I liked the choices of Ian Mcdermit, Ewan Mcgregor, Christopher Les and Liam Neeson who all execute their roles perfectly, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman single handedly wrecked the movies for me with emotionally dead roles and a boring plot for them to boot. Artsitically I despise it because they didnt use sets in 2 and 3, they used sets in 1 which is why i like that one a bit more. CGI is meant to be a tool to aid creation of movies, not something you solely rely on and in 2/3 it was done over to death and it didnt impress me then and it looks even worse now. I feel also that the camera work was worse as well, the way they filmed shots just didnt feel right. The one thing I cant knock here is the music, John Williams is a credit to aucostics in general and him and the London Symphony Orchestra NEVER dissapoint.
The Hobbit on the other hand only failed in my eyes for a few reasons. Going against the lore, over use of CGI and a dragged out story(blame Jackson for making a third movie fromca short book). Because it was so spread out, the movie was padded with un necessary tid bits. When it got the lore right which was most of the movies, I loved it. The casting was top notch and although I criticise the overuse of CGI, it does wonders for the battle scenes, just amazing. If they had used more costumes for the orcs instead of CGI in the close ups, I would have loved it more(its why i appreciate the craft of Lord of the Rings). The Hobbit for me just felt like they wanted to take it further and up the ante but you just cant top LoTR. Star Wars prequels failed because they were an abrupt departure in every sense of the word and the real problem of it was the lack of emotion and groundedness. It was too dense and was all over the place storywise, all set up to get Anakin in that Vader suit whilst retconning a load of lore from the original trilogy. The travesty underpinning it all was that Lucas forgot what made Star Wars in effect Star Wars. Peter Jackson knew what made Tolkiens work a Tolkien piece but he was severely limited by time, 3 movies in 3 years, so I can respect Jackson for making what he made. It makes the Star Wars prequels more laughable as they were in planning since at least 1994 and each movie got 3 years production and look at the messes that were synthesised in that time span. So in my opinion, The Hobbit is just better
The Hobbit on the other hand only failed in my eyes for a few reasons. Going against the lore, over use of CGI and a dragged out story(blame Jackson for making a third movie fromca short book). Because it was so spread out, the movie was padded with un necessary tid bits. When it got the lore right which was most of the movies, I loved it. The casting was top notch and although I criticise the overuse of CGI, it does wonders for the battle scenes, just amazing. If they had used more costumes for the orcs instead of CGI in the close ups, I would have loved it more(its why i appreciate the craft of Lord of the Rings). The Hobbit for me just felt like they wanted to take it further and up the ante but you just cant top LoTR. Star Wars prequels failed because they were an abrupt departure in every sense of the word and the real problem of it was the lack of emotion and groundedness. It was too dense and was all over the place storywise, all set up to get Anakin in that Vader suit whilst retconning a load of lore from the original trilogy. The travesty underpinning it all was that Lucas forgot what made Star Wars in effect Star Wars. Peter Jackson knew what made Tolkiens work a Tolkien piece but he was severely limited by time, 3 movies in 3 years, so I can respect Jackson for making what he made. It makes the Star Wars prequels more laughable as they were in planning since at least 1994 and each movie got 3 years production and look at the messes that were synthesised in that time span. So in my opinion, The Hobbit is just better
I'm a big Star Wars fan; a supporter of the Alliance and I'll tell you this, I absolutely despise the trilogies! The biggest irony here is that Star Wars IV, etc., were shot in a period where technologies were not as advanced as now but they were absolutely stunning and just timeless.
Also:
These two ruined the movies!
Also:
Original post by marco14196
Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman single handedly wrecked the movies for me with emotionally dead roles and a boring plot for them to boot.
These two ruined the movies!
Original post by DaveUncle
I agree. While in my opinion Revenge of the Sith wasn't too bad in comparison with episodes I II, the Hobbit is just better. Lightsabers are still cool though.
My problem is that they were over used. They were seldom used in the original trilogy as Jedi are wise and peaceful, relying mostly on the force to do their thing. The lightsaber was a sort of last resort thing. Then comes the new trilogy and they are dancing around like crack heads swinging those things around constantly. It stole the special ancient feel that lightsabers had, it just made them look like they were using generic swords and that was it. And dont get me started on how they butchered the mystery of the force by explaing it with medichloreans and having a 5 year old dweeb young anakin asking about it to liam neeson in the most emotionally dead robotic way imaginable
Original post by marco14196
My problem is that they were over used. They were seldom used in the original trilogy as Jedi are wise and peaceful, relying mostly on the force to do their thing. The lightsaber was a sort of last resort thing. Then comes the new trilogy and they are dancing around like crack heads swinging those things around constantly. It stole the special ancient feel that lightsabers had, it just made them look like they were using generic swords and that was it. And dont get me started on how they butchered the mystery of the force by explaing it with medichloreans and having a 5 year old dweeb young anakin asking about it to liam neeson in the most emotionally dead robotic way imaginable
Hm I see it the other way around! In the prequels the Jedi Order was flourishing and full of well trained people and weren't really in any danger (until Ep 3 obviously) so they saw more use, whereas in the Originals, Luke was never as talented with a lightsaber than say Obi Wan. But I guess it's open to interpretation really!
But yes I thoroughly agree, midichlorians were dumb and the guy who acted child Anakin was dreadful!
Both terrible film additions... with exceptionally great music.
starwars prequels. I wouldn't wipe my ass with them.
I would say the Hobbit.
The entire thing is an indulgent project. It's full of itself. Very little actually happens across it's 10 hour running time. The dwarves are like big cuddly 'warriors'? They're almost as annoying as ewoks. For all it's faults, the prequels actually try to establish a universe and the deep back story of the Vader and Jedi story. The Hobbit adds absolutely nothing to the series.
One was executed poorly, the other has no purpose.
My two pennies
The entire thing is an indulgent project. It's full of itself. Very little actually happens across it's 10 hour running time. The dwarves are like big cuddly 'warriors'? They're almost as annoying as ewoks. For all it's faults, the prequels actually try to establish a universe and the deep back story of the Vader and Jedi story. The Hobbit adds absolutely nothing to the series.
One was executed poorly, the other has no purpose.
My two pennies
(edited 9 years ago)
The Star Wars prequels!!!!! Okay if you're 10-12 I certainly liked number 3 at that age but come on:
"I don't like sand, it's rough and coarse and irritating and it gets everywhere" - episode 2 I mean what's the need! Haha
Posted from TSR Mobile
"I don't like sand, it's rough and coarse and irritating and it gets everywhere" - episode 2 I mean what's the need! Haha
Posted from TSR Mobile
As gar as I am concerned the original Star Wars movies are less enjoyable to watch than the 3 Hobbit films. The 3 prequels are just an embarrassment to film.
Stars Wars. It wasn't that good to begin with.
At first I thought Star Wars, but then I realised outside of a few CGI game cutscenes and that odd melting gold statue I recall very little from the two Hobbit films I have watched.
The Hobbit films are certainly less dreadful when it comes to acting and script and looking like some sets aren't just green screen, but I loved LoTR so much the fall from grace is greater. I've watched the extended versions of LoTR a couple of times, I've yet to have any inkling of rewatching either Hobbit movies (I fell asleep for about ten minutes during the first one and couldn't be bothered to rewind.)
So yeah as films the first two (especially Attack of the sand) Star Wars prequels are worse as films, but even with their dreadfulness I still recall more of them, from scenes to characters (mostly their look though.)
So Star Wars worse, but The Hobbit far more unremarkable and going through the motions which is kinda worse for me as I prefer LoTR to the original Star Wars trilogy
The Hobbit films are certainly less dreadful when it comes to acting and script and looking like some sets aren't just green screen, but I loved LoTR so much the fall from grace is greater. I've watched the extended versions of LoTR a couple of times, I've yet to have any inkling of rewatching either Hobbit movies (I fell asleep for about ten minutes during the first one and couldn't be bothered to rewind.)
So yeah as films the first two (especially Attack of the sand) Star Wars prequels are worse as films, but even with their dreadfulness I still recall more of them, from scenes to characters (mostly their look though.)
So Star Wars worse, but The Hobbit far more unremarkable and going through the motions which is kinda worse for me as I prefer LoTR to the original Star Wars trilogy
Original post by Truered
So yeah as films the first two (especially Attack of the sand)
Attack of the sand 😂😂😂😂
Posted from TSR Mobile
Definitely the Star Wars prequels. The Hobbit trilogy has a lot more sentimental value for me, because I absolutely loved The Lord of the Rings trilogy and I'm really enjoying reading The Hobbit (the novel) at the moment. I've never really been that wowed by any of the Star Wars films, to be honest - whereas I'd watch The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies time and time again because they interest me a lot more.
I liked the Hobbit films. They were good films. The star wars prequels were not good films. The last of them was quite good but it was too late by then.
Genuinely we're discussing one of the worst films of all time here (Attack of the clones) compared to this;
Genuinely we're discussing one of the worst films of all time here (Attack of the clones) compared to this;
Original post by silent ninja
I would say the Hobbit.
The entire thing is an indulgent project. It's full of itself. Very little actually happens across it's 10 hour running time. The dwarves are like big cuddly 'warriors'? They're almost as annoying as ewoks. For all it's faults, the prequels actually try to establish a universe and the deep back story of the Vader and Jedi story. The Hobbit adds absolutely nothing to the series.
One was executed poorly, the other has no purpose.
My two pennies
The entire thing is an indulgent project. It's full of itself. Very little actually happens across it's 10 hour running time. The dwarves are like big cuddly 'warriors'? They're almost as annoying as ewoks. For all it's faults, the prequels actually try to establish a universe and the deep back story of the Vader and Jedi story. The Hobbit adds absolutely nothing to the series.
One was executed poorly, the other has no purpose.
My two pennies
The sad thing is, the hobbit is definitely a story worth telling on film, but it was stretched so thin over three films when it should have been done in one. There are good things about them, the cast for example (Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo) but it all gets lost in soulless CGI and computer game action.
Having said that, I still think the Star Wars prequels are worse. I can't even begin to articulate what's wrong with these films, it's not even worth it. So much wasted potential.
I thought the Hobbit was good, not great or anywhere near the same standard as The Lord of the Rings. The first two were enjoyable apart from being dragged out (for the money) and Martin Freeman was great. The Battle of the 5 Armies was really disappointing, even more dragged out than the previous too and focusing mainly on characters that were ever made up by Peter Jackson or weren't in The Hobbit books.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- goldies question (harry potter v lord of rings)
- Name a film without the letter 'E' in the title
- Do you have a comfort film?
- Upcoming Films Trailer thread
- What are your top 10 video games?
- Best recent fantasy movies/shows?
- What was the last film you watched Mk. III
- Favourite Videogames Of All Time - Only remove 4 and add 4 from the last poster.
- What game are you currently playing?
- Your Favorite PC Game is ?
- goldies poll best star wars scene (2 votes)
- goldies poll star wars best film (3 votes)
- Any books that you hated?
- What film deserves a prequel?
- my gcse journey!
- English Literature gcse
- Aqa english literature gcse predictions?
- TSR Book Club Asks...What are your favourite books?
- Are they making my position worse?
- An Idea for a movie about Angor Watt
