I don't think it does? Nor is it trying to. LotR was something that happens once every 50 years - a movie series that's as good as the source material and holds quality over 3 movies (wonder why they didn't do the Hobbit as well). The Oddyssey is a summer blockbuster. A good one, I definitely recommend it, but far from memorable.

▲

d3Xt3r 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> wonder why they didn't do the Hobbit as well

Because it should've been done as just one movie. Someone got greedy and decided to split it up into three movies, and it was such a drag watching all of them - and I say this as a huge LotR fan who enjoyed all the extended LotR cuts.

The other big issue was the frame rate of the movie, 48FPS was a risky move and didn't really translate well to the big screen, it felt like everything was sped up and was hyper realistic.

The CGI was also bad and hasn't aged well, like if you watch LotR now it still looks pretty good, whereas the the monsters in the Hobbit look like some 3D printed figurines covered in oil, or have an uncanny valley effect.

In fact there was so much wrong with the movie that it's easier to just list the good things (which, for me, was the music).

	▲	globular-toast 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The problem with the 48fps release of The Hobbit is it was only available in 3D (and digital). I don't like 3D, not least because it gives me a headache after about 30 minutes, so watching a 3 hour film was not enjoyable at all (I hadn't internalised the sunken cost fallacy at the time; I shouldn't have stayed for the whole thing). IMAX shows that 3D is completely unnecessary. Gravity is the only 3D film worth seeing, but even that never made me hold on to my seat like the helicopter scene at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises. Not a great film, but I was able to see it in IMAX. One format I'd really love to see for real is Doug Trumbull's Showscan. It uses 70mm film at 60fps. I kinda wish Nolan had picked up on that instead of IMAX. The flicker at a proper 70mm IMAX screen is really noticeable for me.

▲

WalterBright 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> wonder why they didn't do the Hobbit as well

I have a theory. When Jackson made LotR, he was not a celebrity. I expect people on his staff would say "that's not going to work."

After LotR, Jackson was a god. Nobody on the Hobbit staff dared to say "no". For example, the Hobbit had numerous cliffhangers. Only one was necessary.

You can see the same thing in his King Kong remake. Nobody dared tell him to cut some of the redundant things.

The music on the Hobbit was pretty forgettable, too. I wonder what went wrong with that.

▲

archagon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

“a movie series that's as good as the source material”

Is it? I loved LOTR during my first watch, then many years later actually read the books and tried watching it again. Many of the changes that Jackson made in service of commercial, mass-market appeal were downright silly, if not cringe-worthy, to the point where I actually had to stop my rewatch after the first film.

The films don’t hold a candle to the books, though I appreciate that they got me into LOTR in the first place.