I’m kind of with you except the part about “watching the prequels”. I can’t stomach watching them again, especially Ep I. The Hobbit movies started with a pretty good story and bastardized them.
In both cases, though, I had hope for the movies and it was stomped under the jackbooted heel of reality.
Even though I actually I enjoyed the Hobbit films less than the Star Wars prequels and that I think that the Star Wars prequels get more hate than they deserve, I’m going to say the Star Wars prequels.
The reason I say this is that the Hobbit films’ worst offense is just Jackson’s inability to edit himself. He was able to get away with ridiculously long cuts for LotR because, even as long as they were, everything in there served to add to the world building and served a purpose. In the Hobbit films, scenes were extended far beyond what was needed, stuff was added that just didn’t need to be there. But aside from the bloat, and a few CGI messes, the core of the film is still solid. There’s still good characterization, good acting, good dialogue, etc. The way I’d relate it, it’s like the difference between listening to a really long song I love and a short song I love, but played on repeat several times so it’s the same length as the first; LotR is like the first, The Hobbit is like the latter.
For Star Wars, though, it has almost the exact opposite problem. If you look at an overall plot synopsis of the prequels and character arcs, like summarized down to a page or two for each film, it’s solid. The problem is, it needed to be fleshed out, and what it was fleshed out with is just awful. Yes, they look great, and each film has some amazing set-pieces, but the actual storytelling is just bad. Yes, the characters are supposed to be archetypes, that’s what makes Star Wars so appealing, but the archetypal characters in the original trilogy were more than JUST that. So much of the dialogue was terrible. The direction was bad, even though McGregor, Jackson, and Lee turned in decent performances, they were still doing less than I’ve seen them do elsewhere, and the rest turned it irredeemable performances. Worst, the WHOLE point of them is to see the rise and fall of Anakin, and while he has a couple brief moments, considering that his romance with Padme is THE spark that caused him to turn, that it was completely lacking in any chemistry made it just that much more difficult to buy his turn. And that’s why Star Wars is a worse film, because the art of film making just isn’t there. Even if the films were edited down, so many of the important plot points that HAVE to be there are still just poorly done, so you can’t save it in the same way that you can the Hobbit films.
TLDR: Hobbit is better because the art of filmmaking in it is superior and it can largely be fixed by editting. It’s greatest failure is the bloat makes it boring. Star Wars has better set pieces but everything else sucks. That makes it fun in a bad movie kind of way, and with little to edit out that just makes it a set of bad movies.
Right, the Hobbit Movies were actually quite good, and the Prequels had some great moments.
The three Hobbit films made tonnes of bucks. The Rotten Tomato ratings were 67, 75 and 61, not bad. Mind you, I think LotR was the best Film Trilogy ever, and I admit the Hobbit was not as good, but I still enjoyed it.
The three Prequels also did very well at the Box office, but not so good with RT, with 57, 67, and 80.
Yes, I know fanboys went in expecting the same sense of wonder they had when they were 17 and watched the first film, and felt betrayed. :rolleyes: Get over it.
Both critical ratings and box office prove all six films were successful and not “bad” at all. Not as good as the first trilogy in both cases, sure. But still OK.
A movie, book, or television show can be commercially and/or critically successful and still suck, in my view. What does it matter what others think, if I didn’t enjoy it?
I was 32 when I saw the first LotR, and I’d never seen Star Wars on the big screen before the prequels. Neither excited any adolescent sense of wonder in me. I thought Fellowship was a great movie with some minor flaws, Towers a very good movie but with major flaws, Return a bad movie with several excellet scenes, and the first Hobbit a Lovecraftian horror.
As for the prequels: I looked at the first one as a being composed of filler to set up action scenes, some of which worked and some of which didn’t. The second had better action scenes and also Natalie Portman in hotter costumes, but the filler was worse. The third had the best fight scenes but was best watched on DVD so you can skip the riduculous dialogue, which never failed to rip me out of the movie.
My point is that taste is subjective and idiosyncratic. If other people hate an entertainment product I find wonderful, my enjoyment is not derailed; if others love a product I find odious, my enjoyment is not enhanced.
But Skald, despite what you think, this isn’t The World According to Skald. 
Yes, it’s true. I hated some films which were great successes. But then, I don’t try to pretend that my opinion makes that film BAD. All my opinion means is that I didn’t like it.
I thought * No Country For Old Men* made no sense at all, and thus I couldn’t enjoy it. I hated the film. Does that make the film “bad”? No.
I haven’t agreed with “Best Picture” since 2003. IMHO- There were no less than three films better than “12 years…”- but that film was still powerful and deserving of nomination.
What makes the question actually kind of interesting to look at is that the two trilogies were not only bad for different reasons, but were bad in different directions. The Star Wars prequels began with a movie that was comically incoherent and followed with a movie nearly as bad, then concluded with a movie that was at least logical to follow if still really, really bad.
“An Unexpected Journey” really wasn’t a bad movie at all. After that, though, the Hobbit trilogy started getting bad, and by Battle of the Five Armies was just awful; that movie was an absolute dumpster fire.
The thing is, though, that
The Hobbit movies are at least technically proficient. The Star Wars prequels are not at all; the special effects are cool, but the move is poorly directed, poorly shot, poorly edited, and poorly blocked. The criticism that the movie is full of shot/reverse shot scenes reminiscent of a soap opera is spot on.
For all its bloat, The Hobbit tells a coherent story that makes sense in the context of its own universe, more or less. (Distance and time makes no sense, but doesn’t detract too much.) The SW prequels make little sense until you get to Revenge of the Sith and even then are irretrievably screwed up.
What makes the question actually kind of interesting to look at is that the two trilogies were not only bad for different reasons, but were bad in different directions. The Star Wars prequels began with a movie that was comically incoherent and followed with a movie nearly as bad, then concluded with a movie that was at least logical to follow if still really, really bad.
“An Unexpected Journey” really wasn’t a bad movie at all. After that, though, the Hobbit trilogy started getting bad, and by Battle of the Five Armies was just awful; that movie was an absolute dumpster fire.
The thing is, though, that
The Hobbit movies are at least technically proficient. The Star Wars prequels are not at all; the special effects are cool, but the move is poorly directed, poorly shot, poorly edited, and poorly blocked. The criticism that the movie is full of shot/reverse shot scenes reminiscent of a soap opera is spot on.
For all its bloat, The Hobbit tells a coherent story that makes sense in the context of its own universe, more or less. (Distance and time makes no sense, but doesn’t detract too much.) The SW prequels make little sense until you get to Revenge of the Sith and even then are irretrievably screwed up.
You…you just alluded to a John Irving novel in my presence.
YOU DARE!
You’ll pay for this. Both you and then, one day, your heirs.
But not right now. For right now I’ll point out that you missed the whole point of my post, which was that taste is idiosyncratic.
What else is “This movie is bad” supposed to mean except that “I disliked this movie”?
Yes, the fact that you couldn’t enjoy the movie makes it bad. And I agree about NCFOM, though my reasons differ.
Why no poll at the top of the thread?
The same - I probably phrased that wrong - the SW prequels didn’t burn me out on the SW universe as a cinematic setting (and that might be because the Clone Wars and Rebels animations somewhat redeemed that time period). Or even as a narrative setting overall - I enjoyed the Legacy comic series immensely and sometimes play Wookiepedia Mornington Crescent for funsies. The originals were always slightly cheesy, I realise that, but the prequels didn’t make me re-evaluate them negatively.
The Hobbit, however, burned me out on LoTR, to the extent where I now am more conscious of the flaws in the original trilogy than I am of their awesomeness - and I hate that, I still think they’re an awesome achievement. But that Elephant Man orc at the Siege of Minas Tirith and Legolas oliphant-surfing? I can’t help but think that’s where PJ’s heart really lies, in those films, and it retroactively spoils my enjoyment of the rest of it. And I’m burned out on the setting as narrative - not interested in any LoTR games other than the Lego one, not reading any of the works assembled by his son, don’t dive into the Encyclopedia of Arda like I used to…
I’d have to wait and see what the reviews were of the Silmarillion-by-Alan-Smithee, I *wouldn’t *go and see it based on a trailer alone, the way I am going to watch SW-TFA at opening.
I would agree with this but I only saw the first prequel.
The prequels.
-No real characters with any depth; seriously, I couldn’t describe any of them except for their physical appearance. And the love story between Anakin and whatsherface was devoid of any realism or chemistry-it was like when a 6 year old takes her sexless Barbie and Ken dolls and makes them smooch each other.
The Hobbit films had actual characters with real flaws, and solid performances by McKellen, Armitage and Freeman. I’ll deal with some bloat to watch those guys.
The Hobbit films could be improved with editing.
The Star Wars prequels can only be improved by burning every print that ever existed and then going back in time to prevent people from seeing them.