Three Solid Reasons Why The Hobbit Trilogy is Worse Than the Star Wars Prequels

(Image taken from: www.inspiringwallpapers.net)

(Image taken from: moviepilot.com)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing can be worse than the Star Wars prequels, right? Wrong! I genuinely believe that the Lord of the Rings prequels are actually WORSE than the Star Wars prequels and I have three solid reasons why. Read:

1. The Star Wars Prequels Look and Feel Entirely Different from the Original Star Wars Trilogy, while the Hobbit movies look exactly like The Lord of the Rings

Here's probably my biggest complaint about the Hobbit movies. They look just like the movies we loved not too long ago, but the dip in quality is so severe that you kind of wonder if you really should have liked The Lord of the Rings in the first place. So, yeah, it makes you question whether the original trilogy was even actually good or if it was garbage. But no, it wasn't garbage, and yes, it's just as strong as you remember it. It's just these Hobbit movies, with their turgid pacing and overlong battle sequences, suck the big one. On the other hand, the Star Wars prequels look so different and so terrible, that there's no mistaking them for the cinematic abortions that they truly are. So fans of the original trilogy can point to the screen and say, "See this? THIS is good? This over here, bad. Original trilogy, good. New trilogy, bad." It's not so clear cut with these abysmal Hobbit movies since they look so much like what came before them.

(Image taken from: starwars.wikia.com)

2. The character arc, believe it or not, is actually better in the Star Wars prequels than it is in The Hobbit trilogy.

Okay, I know, I know, George Lucas meddling with the original trilogy and sticking in corny additions, like the picture above, are inexcusable. That in itself may make the Star Wars prequels worse than The Hobbit movies. But I offer you this--At least the Star Wars prequels follow one character's story arc in Hayden Christensen's Anaken Skywalker. I mean, it might be clumsily put together, and the transition from kid to Hayden Christensen from Episode I to II is beyond jarring, but even so, his story evolves and by the end of it, he becomes Darth Vader. The story makes sense. But these Hobbit movies, oh, man. Where do I begin? For a movie actually called The Hobbit, he sure plays a very tiny role in the story. Another huge gripe I've had with these bloated, CG monstrosities is that the title character, Bilbo Baggins, feels like a background character. Instead of us truly going on an adventure with him, you know, there and back again, we're instead thrown a whole bunch of other stories--side quests, if you will--that detract from the main story. If it isn't the dwarves, it's the dragon. If it isn't the dragon, it's the man who's going to slay the dragon. If it's not him, it's the elf/dwarf relationship. If it's not that, it's the Legolas/elf who loves the dwarf relationship. In the end, the story of Bilbo Baggins gets lost and you're wondering what the hell happened amidst all those extremely long battle sequences. At least Revenge of the Sith has a semi-satisfying conclusion. "Nooooooo," and all.



3. You can feel that George Lucas actually tried to make a good trilogy. Peter Jackson was just in it for the money.

(Image taken from: www.imdb.com)

And finally, the biggest insult is the fact that you can tell by every overlong CG fight scene, or segment where Legolas is talking, that Peter Jackson was just in it for the money. The movie, initially, was supposed to be split into two, which, I'm sorry, is pretty ridiculous given the source material. But after it was turned into three pictures, you could tell that a majority of each film's run-time was just padding, filler. Peter Jackson was bowing to the pressure of New Line cinema and making his project a bloated mess. And while the Star Wars prequels, especially Attack of the Clones, feel obscenely long, at least you can tell by every corny joke and lightsaber battle, that George Lucas poured his heart into that garbage. It may have been terrible, but the heart was still there. Even a heart in the right place is better than a heart clogged with dollar signs.

But what do you think? Do you think I'm just talking out my ass and that my arguments are invalid? Leave comments below. I'd love to hear what you think.