At the time of writing, it has been exactly two weeks to the day since The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hit UK screens. aving been panned by critics – though, seemingly adored by everyone else – Peter Jackson’s second delve into the adventure-ridden realms of Middle Earth looks set to be the most controversially talked about film of 2012.
In a year in which fantasy has been forced to play second fiddle to many other genres of the industry – thanks in part to the forgettable Snow White and the Huntsman and the under appreciated John Carter – The Hobbit, it would seem, announced itself to the world during a time in which cynicism governed the day. Indeed, unlike the plaudits received by the technology used to render Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, the controversial pioneering of the high frame rate format was seen by many as a step too far.
Coupled with the unfortunately unavoidable comparisons between An Unexpected Journey and The Fellowship of the Ring – the opening installment of Jackson’s other trilogy – the critical failure of The Hobbit will be seen by many as a grave disappointment in the years to come. Though a true fan of Tolkien appreciates that both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are as different as they are similar, Jackson’s obvious odes to The Fellowship of the Ring will ensure that comparisons are unavoidable.
Thus, with the above considered, it is time for An Unexpected Journey to weigh itself in; the following ten similarities between both films will ultimately decide which opening installment currently reigns supreme.
10. Prologue
These days, an engaging prologue is as essential to a fantasy film’s success as the main plot is. A prologue sets the tone for a fantasy film and, so long as it is convincingly feasible, ensures that the viewer enters the main body of the film with a positive outlook.
Admittedly, both prologues in question are prime examples of how a prologue should be done; from the gorgeous scenes of Dwarven craftsmanship and majesty – in An Unexpected Journey – to the historical accounts of anarchy during a time in which evil threatened the consume the land – The Fellowship of the Ring. Indeed, it is difficult to suggest that either is superior to the other, as both capture the wonderment and epic proportions of a Tolkien fantasy.
Yet, with that said, the origins of the One Ring is slightly superior to that of the fall of Erebor. Simply put, the fall of Erebor is not the only origins story that the viewer is made to digest. The bridge between An Unexpected Journey and The Fellowship of the Ring – seen via the inclusion of Frodo and an older Bilbo – is also apparent prior to the account of Erebor, somewhat confusing the viewer as to which is the main focus. As such, The Fellowship of the Ring proves dominant due the lack it being enveloped in another story.
Winner – The Fellowship of the Ring
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
You Might Also Like...
- The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug First Trailer Hits!
- The Hobbit: 5 Upcoming Scenes That Could Save The Series
- After The Hobbit: 10 Reasons Peter Jackson Must Make The Silmarillion
8 Actresses Who Tricked You Into Thinking You Saw Them Nude
11 Irresistible Movie Moments That Wore Out Your Pause Button
100 Things Wrong With The Dark Knight Rises [Video]
10 Scenes You Won't Believe You Missed in 2012
10 Most Infuriating Movie Cliffhangers
10 Major Plot Holes You Probably Missed
10 Happy Movie Endings That Probably Had Horrific Consequences
12 Ruthless Movie Villains Who Were Defeated By Complete Fools
5 Comments
There’s much more to “The Hobbit” that a high-budget fantasy movie produced by one of the most gifted film makers of our time. http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/peter-jacksons-precious/
The darker side to “The Hobbit’s” production shows that the good guys don’t always win…
Oh, dear. On frame rate, you say, “It is for that reason alone that The Fellowship of the Ring – shot exclusively with a lower definition in mind – triumphs.”
Are you really saying the fact that FOTR “exclusively” used your favorite format makes it better than The Hobbit, which dared to, in addition to giving you your favorite, give other people their favorites as well? I loved the 3D HFR. My eyesight isn’t good, and the clarity and vividness there was an absolute joy. And, yes, I did see the movie in 2D 24 fps as well – well, sort of see, as there were many things I couldn’t make out there, but could see well in the other version.
While I much enjoyed your thoughtful and detailed comparison and agreed with a great deal of it (especially the excellence of Martin Freeman’s acting), it’s rather painful to me to find that overall The Hobbit lost to, rather than tied with, FOTR purely on the grounds that Jackson provided an optional version of the movie that people like me can actually see. I would have thought that The Hobbit would have won that standard on the grounds that it provided choices rather than being “exclusively” in one format.
Oh – also, I thought the Bilbo/Frodo prologue to the Hobbit did a beautiful job of setting up the tone of the book: an older, wiser person telling an embellished story to the younger generation.
Hi there, MyrtleMartha, and thanks for taking the time to read the article!
Now, don’t get me wrong, unlike many other critics – who are dismissing the 48fps movement altogether – I do believe that a higher frame rate is the future. However, currently, it is very flawed; the scenic shots and battle sequences being the only redeeming features of it at this point in time. For me, the industry-standard 24fps is still the dominant format; though that doesn’t necessarily mean it always will be.
With regards to which film proved the ‘better’ of the two, you’re right, they are both very enjoyable films. Ideally, people should simply appreciate this film as another of Peter Jackson’s finest achievements; but they don’t. It is for that reason that there is a demand for comparative articles like this.
Though I did tinker with the idea of tying The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings, I have to admit that, for me, The Fellowship of the Ring is the more satisfying of the two; though only when compared and contrasted with the factors that are listed.
In enjoyed the movie very much and felt it marginally outdone LOTR: FOTR as an opening trilogy movie. I was very very disapointed to see an abundance of CGI in the movie for the evil characters tho. I get it with the goblins of Goblin Town but why they didnt render Azhog? The pale orc guy as a full make up like Lurtz and went for CGI is beyond me. Consider they won an oscar for it with LOTR, did it really need changing? I consider it to be cutting corners. Not something i expected from Jackson. Oh well, roll on Pt. 2
I agree, the CGI was a bit of a let down. It by no means ruined the film, but I do feel that if only one thing could have been changed, it would be that the film was less CGI heavy.
With that said, the worst decision Jackson could make now is to revert back to a use of make-up; he should stick to his guns. Though, as you say, roll on The Desolation of Smaug!