The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (Prime)

unwashed potato! said:
Indeed. The LOTR is one of the best if not the best trilogies ever made. The hobbit however is as bad as rings of power.

Not one single thing that made LOTR great was in the hobbit.
Click to expand...
Disagree personally. There's some great bits in the trilogy hobbit that wouldn't look out of place:

Bilbo/gollum
Battle of dol guldur
All of smaug
Some of the actors performances were great (Armitage and Freeman in particular)

Don't get me wrong there is lots to critique, really bad cgi and how it's stretched ultra thin plot wise over the 3 films, some of the writing, the nods to LOTR, Bilbo is often a side character in what is his story (a fault of having to stretch it over 3 films imo) and others, but they are OK films if you don't compare it to the best 3 film series ever made.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
Disagree personally. There's some great bits in the trilogy hobbit that wouldn't look out of place:

Bilbo/gollum
Battle of dol guldur
All of smaug
Some of the actors performances were great (Armitage and Freeman in particular)

Don't get me wrong there is lots to critique, really bad cgi and how it's stretched ultra thin plot wise over the 3 films, some of the writing, the nods to LOTR, Bilbo is often a side character in what is his story (a fault of having to stretch it over 3 films imo) and others, but they are OK films if you don't compare it to the best 3 film series ever made.
Click to expand...
Sure I agree those are some decent scenes on their own. And I feel you could probably say there's a decent scene here and there with rings of power. Perhaps you're right. Hobbit is better. If I was forced to rewatch hobbit or RoP, it's be hobbit, but it's not he a decision I made on my own. The films are totally ruined due to too many bad scenes.
 
IvanDobskey said:
The hobbit is pretty poor in comparison to the lord of the rings trilogy, but rings of power makes it look like a masterpiece :p
Click to expand...

Hmm I disagree - I was devastated when I saw the Hobbit at the cinema. Here’s what I wrote at the time…

Nitefly said:
Without reading the other reviews in here I'll give my opinion:

I went into this optimistic and open minded but I ended up really disappointed. Although it was cool too go back to middle earth, there were so many things that were just... bad.

First things first, the HFR 3D version of the film. Holy poo was that hard to get used to. At times it looks amazing but before my eyes could adjust a lot of it looks like a Benny Hill sketch or in fast forward mode. Even with that aside, with a combination of the 3D and the HFR, or for whatever reason, the fast paced action scenes looked fake and false.
The main offender was the brown wizard and his sleigh. That looked terrible
. Perhaps it's because the more realistic you try to make something the more your eye can see that it's false.

So with that in mind, I really don't know if I could recommend the HFR version... it just didn't sit right with my eyes. I completely understand the comments from critics suggesting it looked more like a slick BBC TV production than a feature film, but I don't think that made it any worse. It looked sharper and more fluid, but is that 'better' in this context? Hmm.

Any-who, onto the actual film. There is the fundamental problem is that the film lacks what the LOTR trilogy has in spades: the sense of threat. There is nothing menacing going on and as a result it's not a dramatic film, relatively speaking or otherwise. It's just not that exciting. The next problem is that there is some seriously misplaced goofy humour and some seriously misplaced goofy characters.
The portrayal of the brown wizard was just terrible. Likewise the scene with the trolls around the fire was silly due to their herp derp nature and voices. Only one of the songs was warranted (the second song in bag end with the humming). The first song with the tidying up of dishes... again, really bad. The biggest offender by a long way was the dwarf with an orange beard. Oh wow hilarious look at the fat dwarf doing fat things like falling over a lot. Peter Jackon. On behalf of the world: He's fat. We get it.
Fair enough the story isn't as 'epic' or 'menacing' as LOTR, but does that mean we have to suffer this dumbness?

With no malingering sense of dread or doom, and the above silliness, it is an enormously lengthy and at times a tedious watch. Far too long considering the content anyway. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone in the audience groaned with disappointment when they realised that even after escaping the mountain, it wasn't over.

Good parts:
  1. The scene with Gollum.
  2. The introduction of the Necromancer
Misc. Bad Parts:
  1. King dwarf and leader of the troupe was just a douchebag.
  2. Did I mention the brown wizard :/

Enough said :(

4/10
Click to expand...

Huh, I forgot about the 48fps thing… that was weird wasn’t it :)

Rings of Power didn’t live up to the trilogy of films but I did enjoy it much more than the Hobbit trilogy.

The only really good bits of the Hobbit trilogy were the Smaug and Gollum scenes IMO. The battle of the five armies was a desperate excuse for a film.
 
Last edited:
IvanDobskey said:
@Nitefly oh I agree with you regarding the hobbit, it was a shameless cash grab. Still better than rings of power though.
Click to expand...
Thing is I don't mind cash grabs, it's just how shameless it was. Make 3 films, really take your time and explore the characters, this is great, however in the hobbit with the extra time they just added more junk and more nothing characters, rather than explore the ones they had. Each hobbit film should have been at least 30 minutes shorter, and had 30 characters less.

LOTR did an outstanding job of introducing the shire and hobbits. The hobbit should have had a much longer intro really going into what it's like to live in the shire, both at the start of the first movie and at the end of the last.
 
unwashed potato! said:
Thing is I don't mind cash grabs, it's just how shameless it was. Make 3 films, really take your time and explore the characters, this is great, however in the hobbit with the extra time they just added more junk and more nothing characters, rather than explore the ones they had. Each hobbit film should have been at least 30 minutes shorter, and had 30 characters less.

LOTR did an outstanding job of introducing the shire and hobbits. The hobbit should have had a much longer intro really going into what it's like to live in the shire, both at the start of the first movie and at the end of the last.
Click to expand...

Don’t forget all of the exciting mystery alluding to an incoming ‘big bad’ - weren’t you just itching to find it who it was and how it concludes?!
 
Year season two = the writers know they can’t write for **** so have promised more action to try and keep the audience from tuning out!!
mattyfez said:
I'm looking forward to it...it got a lot of hate for some reason but I like what I see so far.
Click to expand...
Oo I can give you quite a few reasons.

Seems the general audience hated it also despite the spin Amazon tried to put on it.

What was the % of viewers again that bailed?? All the defenders of the show disappeared after I posted it and went very quiet.
 
Last edited:
Bigpig said:
Year season two = the writers know they can’t write for **** so have promised more action to try and keep the audience from tuning out!!
Oo I can give you quite a few reasons.

Seems the general audience hated it also despite the spin Amazon tried to put on it.

What was the % of viewers again that bailed?? All the defenders of the show disappeared after I posted it and went very quiet.
Click to expand...

Well all I can say is that I realy liked the first season..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom