Sign In

Is the Hobbit prequel trilogy suffering the same problems as the Star Wars prequel Trilogy? — Page 4

Author
Time

I've managed to miss out on whatever negativity might have been heaped on The Hobbit films so I honestly don't know if it's been subjected to the same kind of internet-based bashing that the prequels had. As with the prequels, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that someone, somewhere, watched the films, made a negative remark, and it's been repeated ad nauseum ever since by a growing number of "haters" - ergo, the first person to use the phrase "mannequin skywalker" was a genius, the second person to say it was an idiot.

Has the criticism been about the amount of CGI in the films? Quelle surprise, if it has. Or is it about the additional scenes? I don't remember Saruman being in the book but then again I only read it once and it was a long, long time ago.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Sauruman's appearances in the movie mostly come from the Unfinished Tales, et al., if I'm not mistaken.

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

I've managed to miss out on whatever negativity might have been heaped on The Hobbit films so I honestly don't know if it's been subjected to the same kind of internet-based bashing that the prequels had. As with the prequels, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that someone, somewhere, watched the films, made a negative remark, and it's been repeated ad nauseum ever since by a growing number of "haters" - ergo, the first person to use the phrase "mannequin skywalker" was a genius, the second person to say it was an idiot.

Has the criticism been about the amount of CGI in the films? Quelle surprise, if it has. Or is it about the additional scenes? I don't remember Saruman being in the book but then again I only read it once and it was a long, long time ago.

I agree there are some detractors of anything that follow a trend. But the PT is demonstrably crap. I have repeatedly been saying "Manikin Skywalker" since the release of AOTC so either I invented it or it was parallel evolution because I certainly don't remember reading elsewhere before I started.

And yes much of the added material to the Hobbit films comes from elsewhere in the books. All the crap in the PT came out of George's head largely after spit-balling with the art department with pictures and models.

Conventionally in the industry the story comes first and the designs come later (as with The Hobbit). Children play with toys and make up stories as they go along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

I've managed to miss out on whatever negativity might have been heaped on The Hobbit films so I honestly don't know if it's been subjected to the same kind of internet-based bashing that the prequels had. As with the prequels, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that someone, somewhere, watched the films, made a negative remark, and it's been repeated ad nauseum ever since by a growing number of "haters" - ergo, the first person to use the phrase "mannequin skywalker" was a genius, the second person to say it was an idiot.

Has the criticism been about the amount of CGI in the films? Quelle surprise, if it has. Or is it about the additional scenes? I don't remember Saruman being in the book but then again I only read it once and it was a long, long time ago.

 For me, it's both the amount of CGI and the added scenes, as well as the change in tone. The effects in the LotR trilogy was, in my mind, a perfect balance between practical and digital effects, which were also both done incredibly well. With the Hobbit, it has some great CGI, but way too much to be believable. That's fine though, since they don't really detract from the movie. The added scenes completely change the tone from fairy tale to GRAND EPIC FANTASY, which doesn't really work with the original story. 

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

I agree there are some detractors of anything that follow a trend. But the PT is demonstrably crap. I have repeatedly been saying "Manikin Skywalker" since the release of AOTC so either I invented it or it was parallel evolution because I certainly don't remember reading elsewhere before I started.

 I recall Jake Lloyd saying in an interview (or perhaps it was someone talking about Jake) that he was called "Mannequin Skywalker" at school after the release of TPM.

Author
Time

I remember the Mad Magazine TPM parody referred to Anakin as "Mannequin".

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

I agree there are some detractors of anything that follow a trend. But the PT is demonstrably crap. I have repeatedly been saying "Manikin Skywalker" since the release of AOTC so either I invented it or it was parallel evolution because I certainly don't remember reading elsewhere before I started.

 I recall Jake Lloyd saying in an interview (or perhaps it was someone talking about Jake) that he was called "Mannequin Skywalker" at school after the release of TPM.

I'm guessing that most who disliked Hayden's performance have come up with that pun, myself included, but don't use it because it's rather dorky.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Workprint V4 Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

Mannequin implies a stiff, lifeless performance, which wasn't Hayden's problem. He was saddled with playing a character that's hard to like, let alone root for.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Sauruman's appearances in the movie mostly come from the Unfinished Tales, et al., if I'm not mistaken.

Jackson doesn't have the rights to Unfinished Tales. He is extrapolating the White Council stuff from LOTR. From LOTR, we know the Council met during the events of The Hobbit, and Saruman was there. We know that he finally relented to Gandalf's wish to attack Dol Guldur at this meeting, and that his secret purpose for this change in policy was to keep Sauron from searching the Anduin for the Ring.

It is a shame he couldn't get the rights to Unfinished Tales, because The Quest of Erebor is really good.

"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time

My confusion must be that I'm mixing up the appendixes of the Lord of the Rings with the rest of the Middle Earth mythos.

Author
Time

Having only read The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit once and finding The Silmarillion easily put-downable, I've not picked up on what's in and what's not in the book when watching the films. I do enjoy The Hobbit movies more than The Lord Of The Rings, though - I really thought it would be the opposite - and really don't understand the criticism that there's too much CGI to be believable, simply because that's not been my impression at all when watching the films.

I think laying claim to a term (talking about "mannequin" skywalker here) three years after it had already been invented, regardless of whether you've heard the phrase before, would be hard to defend in a court of law! Easier to simply accept that you didn't come up with the term but perhaps you're just on the same wavelength as the person who first thought of it. It reminds me of when I used to write comedy routines back in the mid-nineties and would occasionally find that I'd written something that someone else had already thought of. Whenever this was pointed out to me or I found it out myself, I would drop the material and write something else, originality being the key.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

SilverWook said:


Mannequin implies a stiff, lifeless performance, which wasn't Hayden's problem. He was saddled with playing a character that's hard to like, let alone root for.


"He's a pathetic man" - George Lucas, The Empire Strikes Back archive commentary

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Then why make three movies that revolve around him? Luke I could identify with and root for, even when he screwed up. Once Anakin slaughters little kids, I was rooting for the lava.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Maybe Lucas wanted to make a trilogy about a hero with feet of clay. Why did Shakespeare write Hamlet, who's little more than a lunatic with a mother fixation? Why write Macbeth, a warrior-hero who orders for Macduff's children to be slain? Do all heroes have to be whiter than white and whinge about power converters?

I much prefer Anakin to Luke, who's flaws are more believable and is ultimately a much more interesting character.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Haarspalter said:

generalfrevious said:

You could say that George was doing the same thing with the PT, but I wanna say he is worse than Jackson because the LOTR is not being reedited   to fit in with the Hobbit trilogy.

You should listen to the audio commentary of the AUJ EE. At one point Peter Jackson and Philipa Boyens are discussing the possibility of a Six Movie Middle-Earth Box Set  AND ... ... that some shots of the opening scene from 'Fellowship' have to be replaced with Hobbit scenes (think Bilbo = remove Ian Holm, insert Martin Freeman) and that Thranduil could be digitally inserted into the battle scenes along with Elrond and Gil Galad.

History repeats itself. A director should never touch the same material a second time.

 Eh, it's not really the same thing objectively speaking. Jackson has been talking about a super edit of these movies since before The Hobbit trilogy came out. In all honesty, its less comparable with the water head antics of Lucas and more like Coppolla's Godfather Saga. The Godfather Saga is the first two GF films re edited with newly added deleted scenes so it flows together in chronological order. Its actually kind of interesting in that sense and, unlike with the SEs, it wouldn't be trying to replace the originals.

Author
Time

Wow, that's the worst kind of partiality I've ever seen.

Jackson wanting to go back and alter his old films to tie in with his new ones is EXACTLY the same as Lucas's revisions.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Wow, that's the worst kind of partiality I've ever seen.

Jackson wanting to go back and alter his old films to tie in with his new ones is EXACTLY the same as Lucas's revisions.

 No one would have cared what Lucas did to the OT movies if he just released the Originals Versions on DVD and BluRay.  I have T2 DVD and BluRay, and they give you 3 versions that I can pick from.  I have the Bladerunner BluRay that gives you 5 versions.  The difference between Lucas changes and Jackson possible changes, is that I have all 3 Hobbit Movies on BluRay (Theatrical and Extended Versions) whereas I am still waiting for the OOT versions on Bluray.......

Author
Time

Well, Jackson has wrought more changes on his Tolkien films in a lot less time than it took Lucas to start revising his films so there's another difference. So god only knows how many versions will exist of both LOTR and The Hobbit in, say, thirty years' time.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Well, Jackson has wrought more changes on his Tolkien films in a lot less time than it took Lucas to start revising his films so there's another difference. So god only knows how many versions will exist of both LOTR and The Hobbit in, say, thirty years' time.

 It doesn't matter, each generation of Home Video has ALL of the versions that I can buy or ignore for the Lord of the Rings movies.  The last time the OOT was up to par was on Laserdisk in 1993.

So your point is irrelevant because no one cares about the changes, they just care that EVERY version is released.  Thats the difference between Lucas and EVERY director in Hollywood.

Author
Time

Well, I'm still waiting for The Muppet's Christmas Carol uncut on DVD. Did Lucas direct that one, too? Since we're talking EVERY director...

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Well, I'm still waiting for The Muppet's Christmas Carol uncut on DVD. Did Lucas direct that one, too? Since we're talking EVERY director...

 Go start a site www.OriginalMuppetsChristmasCarolVersion.com and get thousands of members who post there everyday, and then you can make the case there is a demand for it like there is for the OOT.   ;-)

Author
Time

How much demand for it is a moot issue. You're wrong and, um, you know you are.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Easterhay said:

How much demand for it is a moot issue. You're wrong and, um, you know you are.

 OK, I'll play the game.  So then should Lucas release the OOT fully remastered on BluRay then?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'm not sure about playing games. What I am sure about is that you made a sweeping and wholly incorrect remark before and you've yet to address that; instead you're attempting to move on to discuss something else, something which isn't even apropos to this thread. And you have the gall to call people out on making "irrelevant" points.

Lucas won't be releasing any Star Wars films, OOT or otherwise, anyway, so that's another stupid question you've asked today.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Wow, that's the worst kind of partiality I've ever seen.

Jackson wanting to go back and alter his old films to tie in with his new ones is EXACTLY the same as Lucas's revisions.

 No, it's really not the same thing. As I said in my post and as others have mentioned, Jackson isn't trying to replace his films the way Lucas has. This Middle Earth version or whatever would just be yet another alternate cut. But you already knew the difference. I know it. Everybody knows it. You've not been fooling anyone. You know what the difference is, so why are you being such a dishonest, emotional argument making coward?