Jet Lag Sucks. Also, My Thoughts on The Hobbit

[azriona]

Andrew slept until the ridiculous hour of 10am this morning. Which, had it been Sunday morning in most places, wouldn't have been that big of a deal, but it being the UL, the week runs on a Sunday-Thursday schedule, so today was a school day. School opens at 8.15

Comments

[azriona]

What I didn't say above (mostly because I forgot) is that we had that impression after having seen it - the movie is really more set up for the serious Tolkien fan than the casual one. It's exactly the movie someone who loves the books would want to see - every last detail portrayed on film, preserved in all its cinematic glory.

And there's nothing wrong with that - heck, there's books I'd love to see done with that sort of care and effort. But if you're trying to reach a general audience, to draw people into the world and create additional fans for the series, this sort of treatment isn't likely to succeed. There's different kinds of storytelling, and not all of them are conducive to all kinds of media. They don't always translate from one to the other very well

[azriona]

The problem with balancing the second and third films of the series so that they are more accessible to the non-Tolkien fan is that those same non-Tolkien fans won't have seen the first movie. So they're far less likely to see the second or third, unless they watch the first at home on DVD.

(Which I admit is likely.)

I do plan to see the next two movies, but I think I'd like to go with an actual Tolkien fan, assuming I can find one, and afterwards have them explain to me all the bits I missed. (Bill's already said he doesn't want to go if there aren't Oompa Loompas.)

[kaffy_r]

Yeah, I went in to the movie not expecting to be that moved by it, largely because The Hobbit didn't move me. Boy, was I wrong.

The changes that Jackson has made, that ladyprydian mentions - bringing in back story from the Appendices - helped me see the Dwarves as a cohesive culture and as differentiated individual characters. Jackson toned down the Kid Story-ness which which Tolkien imbued the story, and brought it in line with the much more adult War of the Ring trilogy that Tolkien wrote much later. In that way, he made TH a far more organically connected prequel to his movie verse LotR trilogy and, I believe, arguably a better prequel to the written books as well. (Pause here to duck whilst both Tolkien purists and movie fans throw things at me

[azriona]

*points up to response to ladyprydian.

And oh dear, you just went way over my head with the Tolkien fangirling. :)

The backstory with the Dwarves is part of the Appendixes, right? I really did like that inclusion, actually, and especially to start off the movie - it was very helpful, knowing why the Dwarves had been kicked out of their mountain; I don't think I would have had nearly as much sympathy for them had I not. And yes, I remember hearing that The Hobbit (the book) was intended more as a children's book, but this definitely had the same sort of feel as the LOTR trilogy, and I think Jackson made a good choice to up the rating, as it were, to keep everything in line, stylistically.

So I wasn't just imagining or seeing through rose-colored glasses? Galadriel and Gandalf really did have a fling at one point? Awesome. :) Now I want to rewatch LOTR and see if I can catch him making sly looks at Aragorn and Arwen. :)

[kaffy_r]

So I wasn't just imagining or seeing through rose-colored glasses? Galadriel and Gandalf really did have a fling at one point? Awesome. :)

Whups. Nope, I didn't mean for what I said to come off as me stating definitively that there was a 'ship relationship between the two. What I should have written was how much I adored the way Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens (yay, these two!), Jackson and Guillermo del Toro have taken the same hints I got in the books, of the extreme high regard and personal affection the two had for each other, and run with it in their scripts - and how much I think Blanchett and McKellan have done with the script.

But yeah, I love that relationship, whatever it is.

[lordofthechaos]

Please don't forget my other comments, since you are busy mocking my lack of interest.

1. That Gandalf is actually The Doctor, because he disappears for stretches, only to reappear and yell 'RUN!'

2. That Elrod is actually L. Ron Hubbard, meaning that the Elves are secretly Scientologists who have Tom Cruse in a cave somewhere until he provides them with his hair care tips.

[thesmallhobbit]

I agree with most of what you wrote about The Hobbit. I went to see it with a group of (Sherlock) friends, most of whom were LOTR fans too, and I think I would have been slightly disappointed if it hadn't been for the good group I was with.

I did read The Hobbit a few years ago (because despite my username I'm not a particular Tolkein fan) but didn't remember all the story. I felt it was too long - unfortunately I was left with the feeling that it would have been better as two films, but that it was stretched to make more money. I'm sure I shall see all of them, but I'm perhaps not quite as excited about them now as I was before I saw part one.

I have to admit that by the time the film finished I felt there had been too many battles and I couldn't remember who was fighting by the end. (I suspect I skipped through some of the battle details in the book.) And the best bit for me definitely was Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, because he really convinced me that he was a hobbit.

[azriona]

I think that's the way to see the other two movies, with people who know Tolkien and that world (that's how I plan to see them, anyway).

And yeah - it felt like just when they were done with one battle, there was another beginning. By the time we got to the moving mountains, I was exhausted with them!

[azriona]

LOL. I would have liked to see one of the Eagles say something like that. Or at least watch Gandalf wrinkle his nose and not translate it!

Your daughter has a wise head on her shoulders. I hope she enjoys the book!