Although The Hobbit trilogy reached new levels of cinematic splendor and succeeded in visualising Middle-earth on a scale that is far beyond the reach of Rings, it would be unjust to set the movies visual effects against its much older sequel. But hold on a minute, The Hobbit actually puts right a catalogue of other elements that Rings gets wrong. An important thing to take note of here is that Peter Jackson listened to the fans. He heard the feedback from Rings and implemented it here, most notably not cutting as much content. The insincerity of Rings characterisation was stifling, but The Hobbit succeeded in rectifying these one-dimensional performances. Richard Armitages Thorin and Martin Freemans Bilbo for example represent a break from the plasticity of performance that held back the original trilogy and marks a development in characterisation, each rendered with both inner and outer conflicts. In addition, The Hobbit series also succeeded in ousting the unnecessary melodrama that Rings bathed in. These are just a handful of ways in which The Hobbit bettered and outclassed its much older and falsely better-revered companion. What do you make of The Hobbit trilogy? Are they underrated or do you think theyre a detriment to Middle-earth? Join the discussion down in the comments below.
