@Lysanor and @gentrygary9
I agree with you guys. These are amateur filmmakers hoping to become full-time filmmakers, and what they did with a lot of imagination, and little in the way of funding, is nothing short of amazing.
@Entmooting, you said:
>>Firstly, they are both incredibly derivative of the Peter Jackson productions, both style and content. There is a large body of people who are not enamoured with Peter's work, and to have it as some default setting is not desirable.
I am not enamored of PJ's visual style, either, and his work is not the Middle-earth I carry in my imagination, having read the books decades before the films came out. However, in defense, at least, of the director of Born of Hope, she has explicitly stated that she wanted her film to look like PJ's imagery, that she wanted it to fit in as seamlessly as possible with the movies, visually speaking. She achieved that.
>>Independent producers should be creating their own, independent interpretation of Tolien's work, not Jackson's.
While I personally agree with your statement, there's nothing wrong with emulating Jackson, if that's what independent fan filmmakers want to do.
>>Secondly, the films are mind-numbingly boring, which is a miracle in itself, considering the source material. In fact, I'm falling asleep remembering them zzzzzz
That's an opinion of these films, and you are more than entitled to it, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I didn't find them boring at all, and it's because I prefer character work in a film story to an endless barrage of special effects and way-too-drawn-out action sequences.
To each his own, I suppose. I still think, for fan work, both of these films are incredible achievements.
The London Independent Film Festival seems to think so, too. In the category of "Micro-budget feature," they just presented Born of Hope with the "Best Film" award. In my opinion, very well deserved!