Well, the last month of summer is here which means my series of summer blockbuster reviews will be coming to a close for another year with reviews of Guardians of the Galaxy, The Expendables 3 and Sin City: A Dame to Kill For along with my usual top 10 summer blockbusters list. If you're wondering, TMNT isn't out until October here in the UK (a good thing really seeing as its has Bay written all over it) so it will be reviewed then.
Not many big video games out this month so like I've done already, I will do my very best to give you something every Thursday even if it isn't video game related.
And all reviews, videos and songs of the week will be up as normal every week.
And now for a short, but sweet theory:
Film Theory - Is Hobbit better than LOTR?
So having seen 2 of the Hobbit films and all 3 Lord of the Rings films (both extended and theatrical), I've come to realise that for all the right reasons, there is a significant difference between both films which are both obviously set in Middle-Earth. When Lord of the Rings came around, everyone thought that for such a successful book series to become one of the best film trilogies of all time was an impossible feat, and boy we were wrong. Nobody thought that the books could not be made into a film trilogy and yet, that's exactly what we got and it became one of the most successful film trilogies of all time which helped put New Zealand on the map for a great location for films, gave Sir Ian McKellen 2 iconic roles under his belt (Magneto and Gandalf) and was among the first of many films to use motion capture and did that very well. It had great acting that is full of emotion, had us connect with the characters and despite being very long, it also gave us some of the best fighting scenes ever put to film. So when Hobbit came around, nobody was sure how a small book made into 3 films was going to work as well as trying to be as ground breaking as Lord of the Rings. By the time the first Hobbit film came around, the technology that is used in films, came to such a feat that it would in theory, make any Middle-Earth film, much easier to make than when the Lord of the Rings films came around as it was possible to use digital effects that could have never been achieved in Lord of the Rings. But does that make the film better than its predecessor? In my honest opinion, no. I feel that the story of the Hobbit, is more light hearted and less of an emotional rollercoaster than Lord of the Rings because with Lord of the Rings, it was basically a big deal for all of Middle-Earth with the One Ring needing to be destroyed in order to prevent the return of Sauron so it needed people actually going to Mount Doom to finish it once and for all while everyone else, do what they can to help them whether it be going into battle against all known forces of Sauron, or just basically create a distraction for him. The Hobbit on the other hand, has less of a desperate struggle as it only effects the Dwarfs who want to reclaim their homeland from a dragon which in my eyes, is less of a big deal for Middle-Earth than Sauron. But in truth, both trilogies are great. Lord of the Rings is awesome and the Hobbit may not be as awesome, but its still pretty darn good anyway and I can say that there is nothing in the world that can be better or as good as these films. I love them very much and will continue to do so for many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment