The Lord Of The Rings is a pronounced series largely because of its time. Audiences feel a greater attraction to the original movies because nothing so epic had been done previously. So when you criticise The Hobbit trilogy, youre essentially punishing the films for arriving at a time when movies of such an ambitious scale are now considered the norm And thats just outright absurd. Is it Hobbits fault then that movies like The Avengers and Avatar, in all their visual glory, have desensitised audiences to cinematic spectacles of such lavish scope? No. In fact, Hobbit deserves additional praise for meeting, upholding and in some cases even surpassing that standard. So in the eyes of the common filmgoer, it of course falls flat. But what people dont realise is the ways in which the trilogy has initiated cinematic innovation. Having pioneer Peter Jackson at the helm meant that audiences were treated to cutting-edge visual effects and a choice of three technical versions: 2D, 3D and High Frame Rate 3D. Although HFR provoked fury amongst critics and cinephiles, as they felt that the new format outputted something that appeared starkly uncinematic, it has to be said that the problem isnt with the technology but with the audience. Given that cinema history has largely been written in 24fps, its no wonder that cinemagoers are likely to feel certain ire at first. However, perhaps opinions of the trilogy might have been different if audiences were already acclimatised to 48fps. The trilogy presented itself in HFR and like Rings nothing so epic has been before. Whether you like it or not, you have to admire Jacksons chutzpah for pushing the boundaries of cinema yet again.
