too old for midnight movies, oy
Okay, so I saw The Hobbit last night. Lots of spoilers below.
Oy. I feel rather like I did after seeing FotR: a bit battered. Peter Jackson is incapable of leaving a single quiet contemplative moment alone. And also incapable of passing even a single one-sentence description by, without turning the event into AN ADVENTURE.
Which is how the unexpected party, in the book a result of Bilbo's inherent fear of causing offense and the Dwarfs' presumption, turns into something closer resembling a football team in a high school cafeteria. And how the humorous business of the Dwarfs one by one getting popped into bags by the Trolls becomes an all-out battle. And how the gentle and friendly reception at Rivendell is fraught with suspicion and resentment. And how the passing reference to stone giants becomes a ten-minute sequence in which the party actually gets carried about on the Giants' stone bodies, smashing and crashing into the mountainsides. And the way Gandalf rescues the party from the mountain orcs is an endless crazy fight scene, even more protracted and gravity-defying than the running battle in Moria in FotR.
The Hobbit the book is a gentle episodic adventure, whimsical in tone and reassuring in its narrative voice. It includes references to times and places of great power and majesty, but the story itself is not really epic until the final section--and in fact the really striking visuals almost all take place out of Bilbo's sight.
The Hobbit the movie is, after the first twenty or thirty minutes (and why it takes so long to get going I have no idea), a nonstop racing adventure, in which one peril shifts instantly into the next, with barely a moment to breathe. The entire narrative is basically one long instance of "out of the frying pan and into the fire".
So much for the pacing. I don't necessarily think this is wrong, it's a choice, but the difference from the original text is even more striking than in the LotR trilogy in that sense.
*
Plot-wise, as we'd been told, Jackson pulls in a lot of stuff from the LotR Appendices. What I didn't quite expect was the depth of Dwarfish history he was going to use: we get protracted flashbacks not just to Smaug's original attack on Dale and the Lonely Mountain, but also to the great Dwarf-and-Goblin War, culminating with the battle before the Gates of Moria.
The major change from the original text here is that Jackson doesn't have Thorin kill Azog, but injure him badly, and Azog survives for the next fifty or so years. What drives the suspense in the movie is that Azog is alive, and actively hunting Thorin and his party. So the leisurely ride to Rivendell in the book becomes a hunt, with loads of goblins riding wargs, and Dwarfs being badass fighters (no musical instruments to be seen).
I had been worried, based on the trailers, that Thorin's quest was to Take Back Erebor. Which it still is, and there's less emphasis on the gold than in the book, but in the at least there's some recognition that 13 Dwarfs and a Hobbit isn't a party large enough to do much against a Dragon. Really, there isn't a clear statement of what the goal actually is. In the book, it's explicit: Get Our Gold. In the movie, it's Go Home. If I were Bilbo, I would be badgering Gandalf or Balin from day 1: "What exactly am I expected to do here?"
So that's a bit of a strategic/plotting flaw. And it's not lampshaded at all, just glossed over. I suspect it has to do with not wanting Thorin (clearly positioned as the Noble Leader) to look too greedy. Even though that is (in part) Thorin's fatal flaw. (Thorin is clearly being positioned as the Boromir analogue, IMO.)
The other major change is the Necromancer plotline. In order to develop this, Jackson uses Radagast the Brown, who looks like a character from Wind in the Willows, with his urchins and rabbit-drawn sleigh. Radagast follows some evil magic to the purportedly-abandoned Dol Goldur, and finds evidence of the Witch-King of Angmar. He brings this to Gandalf, who brings it to the White Council, where Galadriel announces that the Witch-King of Angmar had been buried deep with his weapons and powerful spells laid on the tomb. (Which astonished me: the whole point of the Witch-King was that he could not be killed by mortal man! That's why Eowyn and Merry have to do it!)
Anyway, you actually see the White Council argue a bit about what to do about Dol Goldur, with Saruman saying it's mostly Radagast's imagination and Elrond being noncommittal. Interestingly, even at this point Gandalf and Galadriel are scheming together without Saruman's knowledge. Although there is one unfortunate bit of blocking that makes Gandalf look like a junior high student called before the principal to answer for some misbehavior. Saruman might be the head of the White Council, but Gandalf is also a Maia, and it struck me as rather unlikely.
Other changes from the original text:
-- Bilbo chooses explicitly to go on the journey, no hustling by Gandalf needed.
-- Thranduil is seen coldly turning away from giving any aid to the Dwarfs fleeing Smaug, thus justifying Thorin/the Dwarfs' resentment of Elves. (This is certainly easier than showing the long history of Dwarf-Elf dispute going back tens of thousands of years.)
-- Thorin is constantly ragging on Bilbo, and as a result Bilbo tries to leave the party while in the mountains; he is only deterred by the goblin attack in the cave.
-- Galadriel and Saruman are in Rivendell when the Dwarfs arrive, and they give Gandalf a hard time about Thorin's quest.
-- Balin never gives Bilbo his cloak and hood. This made me sad.
-- Bilbo doesn't just put his hand on the Ring in the dark. He sees Gollum kill a goblin and we see the Ring fall, and a moment later Bilbo picks it up after Gollum leaves. The implication is clear that he knows all along that the Ring is Gollum's, which puts a different complexion on the whole question of whether Bilbo is, in fact, a thief. OTOH, it also shows the Ring beginning its corrupting influence right away, which I suspect was the point.
-- Andy Serkis plays Gollum as Gollum-and-Smeagol from the very beginning, which is unexpected, but it really works. The Riddle game is marvelous, if (IMHO) too well-lit. It needed to be darker and scarier.
I guess I need to talk about characterization. Martin Freeman is very good, no question. And it's not that the development of Bilbo isn't at least somewhat consistent within the movie, but like the other movies, this Bilbo isn't the one I grew up reading about. The biggest change is exemplified here: When the party is trapped by the Wargs and Orcs on the mountainside, Thorin charges Azog and is beaten down. Bilbo jumps out and attacks, and kills at least one huge Orc and a Warg. It's an utterly ridiculous and inappropriate thing for Bilbo, of all people, to do. Bilbo is by definition not a warrior. He's sneaky and a bit deceitful (of himself not least), but he's not a fighter in the open.
I really really disliked that, especially when none of the other Dwarfs ran out to help Thorin before Bilbo did. It just didn't ring true.
In comparison with the book, the Dwarfs are much more competent and badass: no sauntering up to get popped into a stewpot for this bunch. Fili and Thorin are the hot ones, and Fili gets to be great with a bow (if not to Legolas standards). The character designs are very good, and as a result most of them are pretty easy to tell apart, particularly Thorin, Fili, Balin, Bofur, and Bombur.
So that's a lot of chatter. What did I think?
The 3D was distracting at various points and I'm not sure how much it added, in general. I didn't feel immersed in the movie, myself, and near the end I was getting a mild headache, although the theater I went to showed the 24fps version, and not the 48fps.
It was visually simply gorgeous, and there were a few nice bits of characterization. But I also felt that it got a little repetitive in spots. PJ went back to the well a bit too obviously in a couple of places. Bilbo slips and falls and the Ring spins in the air before landing on his finger, just like Frodo. Gandalf calls for help from the Eagles by way of a butterfly. Saruman is dismissive. The camera sweeps majestically over a line of walkers following a trail along a ridgetop. Bridges and cliffs separate, tilt, and fall forward so the characters can cross chasms safely. Etc.
And the action scenes--omg, the action scenes were endless. Seriously, bits that Tolkein covered in two sentences went on for twenty minutes or more, if seemed like. I like an action scene as much as the next fangirl, but dear sweet jebuslug on a pogo stick, there was no need for the protracted running battle in the goblin caves, if it was going to be immediately followed by another protracted battle on the mountainside.
But I did like the characterizations, as a whole. Aside from Bilbo's ridiculous burst of warrior ferocity, he's quite believable. The Dwarfs get to not be played for humor, and show a wide range of character types. The Elves come across as a lot more dickish than in LotR, which I think is a legitimate inference. Ian McKellen is marvelous, Richard Armitage powerful, and Martin Freeman endearing. Andy Serkis is brilliant. And Aidan Turner didn't once make me think of vampires. *g*
So, in sum: I didn't hate it. I think I could grow to enjoy it. I do think that, as I expected, it's over-long, over-indulgent, with too much action and not enough quiet whimsy. But that's the whole franchise, really, and it's just one interpretation. This movie is entirely consistent with the tone of the previous movie trilogy, and anyone going in looking to re-experience the book needs to adjust their expectations accordingly.
Crossposted from DW, where there are
comments; comment here or there.
Oy. I feel rather like I did after seeing FotR: a bit battered. Peter Jackson is incapable of leaving a single quiet contemplative moment alone. And also incapable of passing even a single one-sentence description by, without turning the event into AN ADVENTURE.
Which is how the unexpected party, in the book a result of Bilbo's inherent fear of causing offense and the Dwarfs' presumption, turns into something closer resembling a football team in a high school cafeteria. And how the humorous business of the Dwarfs one by one getting popped into bags by the Trolls becomes an all-out battle. And how the gentle and friendly reception at Rivendell is fraught with suspicion and resentment. And how the passing reference to stone giants becomes a ten-minute sequence in which the party actually gets carried about on the Giants' stone bodies, smashing and crashing into the mountainsides. And the way Gandalf rescues the party from the mountain orcs is an endless crazy fight scene, even more protracted and gravity-defying than the running battle in Moria in FotR.
The Hobbit the book is a gentle episodic adventure, whimsical in tone and reassuring in its narrative voice. It includes references to times and places of great power and majesty, but the story itself is not really epic until the final section--and in fact the really striking visuals almost all take place out of Bilbo's sight.
The Hobbit the movie is, after the first twenty or thirty minutes (and why it takes so long to get going I have no idea), a nonstop racing adventure, in which one peril shifts instantly into the next, with barely a moment to breathe. The entire narrative is basically one long instance of "out of the frying pan and into the fire".
So much for the pacing. I don't necessarily think this is wrong, it's a choice, but the difference from the original text is even more striking than in the LotR trilogy in that sense.
*
Plot-wise, as we'd been told, Jackson pulls in a lot of stuff from the LotR Appendices. What I didn't quite expect was the depth of Dwarfish history he was going to use: we get protracted flashbacks not just to Smaug's original attack on Dale and the Lonely Mountain, but also to the great Dwarf-and-Goblin War, culminating with the battle before the Gates of Moria.
The major change from the original text here is that Jackson doesn't have Thorin kill Azog, but injure him badly, and Azog survives for the next fifty or so years. What drives the suspense in the movie is that Azog is alive, and actively hunting Thorin and his party. So the leisurely ride to Rivendell in the book becomes a hunt, with loads of goblins riding wargs, and Dwarfs being badass fighters (no musical instruments to be seen).
I had been worried, based on the trailers, that Thorin's quest was to Take Back Erebor. Which it still is, and there's less emphasis on the gold than in the book, but in the at least there's some recognition that 13 Dwarfs and a Hobbit isn't a party large enough to do much against a Dragon. Really, there isn't a clear statement of what the goal actually is. In the book, it's explicit: Get Our Gold. In the movie, it's Go Home. If I were Bilbo, I would be badgering Gandalf or Balin from day 1: "What exactly am I expected to do here?"
So that's a bit of a strategic/plotting flaw. And it's not lampshaded at all, just glossed over. I suspect it has to do with not wanting Thorin (clearly positioned as the Noble Leader) to look too greedy. Even though that is (in part) Thorin's fatal flaw. (Thorin is clearly being positioned as the Boromir analogue, IMO.)
The other major change is the Necromancer plotline. In order to develop this, Jackson uses Radagast the Brown, who looks like a character from Wind in the Willows, with his urchins and rabbit-drawn sleigh. Radagast follows some evil magic to the purportedly-abandoned Dol Goldur, and finds evidence of the Witch-King of Angmar. He brings this to Gandalf, who brings it to the White Council, where Galadriel announces that the Witch-King of Angmar had been buried deep with his weapons and powerful spells laid on the tomb. (Which astonished me: the whole point of the Witch-King was that he could not be killed by mortal man! That's why Eowyn and Merry have to do it!)
Anyway, you actually see the White Council argue a bit about what to do about Dol Goldur, with Saruman saying it's mostly Radagast's imagination and Elrond being noncommittal. Interestingly, even at this point Gandalf and Galadriel are scheming together without Saruman's knowledge. Although there is one unfortunate bit of blocking that makes Gandalf look like a junior high student called before the principal to answer for some misbehavior. Saruman might be the head of the White Council, but Gandalf is also a Maia, and it struck me as rather unlikely.
Other changes from the original text:
-- Bilbo chooses explicitly to go on the journey, no hustling by Gandalf needed.
-- Thranduil is seen coldly turning away from giving any aid to the Dwarfs fleeing Smaug, thus justifying Thorin/the Dwarfs' resentment of Elves. (This is certainly easier than showing the long history of Dwarf-Elf dispute going back tens of thousands of years.)
-- Thorin is constantly ragging on Bilbo, and as a result Bilbo tries to leave the party while in the mountains; he is only deterred by the goblin attack in the cave.
-- Galadriel and Saruman are in Rivendell when the Dwarfs arrive, and they give Gandalf a hard time about Thorin's quest.
-- Balin never gives Bilbo his cloak and hood. This made me sad.
-- Bilbo doesn't just put his hand on the Ring in the dark. He sees Gollum kill a goblin and we see the Ring fall, and a moment later Bilbo picks it up after Gollum leaves. The implication is clear that he knows all along that the Ring is Gollum's, which puts a different complexion on the whole question of whether Bilbo is, in fact, a thief. OTOH, it also shows the Ring beginning its corrupting influence right away, which I suspect was the point.
-- Andy Serkis plays Gollum as Gollum-and-Smeagol from the very beginning, which is unexpected, but it really works. The Riddle game is marvelous, if (IMHO) too well-lit. It needed to be darker and scarier.
I guess I need to talk about characterization. Martin Freeman is very good, no question. And it's not that the development of Bilbo isn't at least somewhat consistent within the movie, but like the other movies, this Bilbo isn't the one I grew up reading about. The biggest change is exemplified here: When the party is trapped by the Wargs and Orcs on the mountainside, Thorin charges Azog and is beaten down. Bilbo jumps out and attacks, and kills at least one huge Orc and a Warg. It's an utterly ridiculous and inappropriate thing for Bilbo, of all people, to do. Bilbo is by definition not a warrior. He's sneaky and a bit deceitful (of himself not least), but he's not a fighter in the open.
I really really disliked that, especially when none of the other Dwarfs ran out to help Thorin before Bilbo did. It just didn't ring true.
In comparison with the book, the Dwarfs are much more competent and badass: no sauntering up to get popped into a stewpot for this bunch. Fili and Thorin are the hot ones, and Fili gets to be great with a bow (if not to Legolas standards). The character designs are very good, and as a result most of them are pretty easy to tell apart, particularly Thorin, Fili, Balin, Bofur, and Bombur.
So that's a lot of chatter. What did I think?
The 3D was distracting at various points and I'm not sure how much it added, in general. I didn't feel immersed in the movie, myself, and near the end I was getting a mild headache, although the theater I went to showed the 24fps version, and not the 48fps.
It was visually simply gorgeous, and there were a few nice bits of characterization. But I also felt that it got a little repetitive in spots. PJ went back to the well a bit too obviously in a couple of places. Bilbo slips and falls and the Ring spins in the air before landing on his finger, just like Frodo. Gandalf calls for help from the Eagles by way of a butterfly. Saruman is dismissive. The camera sweeps majestically over a line of walkers following a trail along a ridgetop. Bridges and cliffs separate, tilt, and fall forward so the characters can cross chasms safely. Etc.
And the action scenes--omg, the action scenes were endless. Seriously, bits that Tolkein covered in two sentences went on for twenty minutes or more, if seemed like. I like an action scene as much as the next fangirl, but dear sweet jebuslug on a pogo stick, there was no need for the protracted running battle in the goblin caves, if it was going to be immediately followed by another protracted battle on the mountainside.
But I did like the characterizations, as a whole. Aside from Bilbo's ridiculous burst of warrior ferocity, he's quite believable. The Dwarfs get to not be played for humor, and show a wide range of character types. The Elves come across as a lot more dickish than in LotR, which I think is a legitimate inference. Ian McKellen is marvelous, Richard Armitage powerful, and Martin Freeman endearing. Andy Serkis is brilliant. And Aidan Turner didn't once make me think of vampires. *g*
So, in sum: I didn't hate it. I think I could grow to enjoy it. I do think that, as I expected, it's over-long, over-indulgent, with too much action and not enough quiet whimsy. But that's the whole franchise, really, and it's just one interpretation. This movie is entirely consistent with the tone of the previous movie trilogy, and anyone going in looking to re-experience the book needs to adjust their expectations accordingly.
Crossposted from DW, where there are
comments; comment here or there.