A more serious post about The Hobbit

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, so if you haven't caught on, the last post I made about The Hobbit was obviously a joke. In all honesty, when I posted it, I had yet to see the new live action movie, and what I posted as "the story" was really what The Hobbit would be like if it had the same plot as Star Wars - The Phantom Menace. Now that I have seen the movie, I can give a review.

I'll warn you ahead of time that there are spoilers in this post, even though it is almost impossible to spoil the movie since almost everyone knows what the story of The Hobbit is all about.

So was the movie good? Why yes it was. After all, it's The Hobbit, which was one of my all-time favorite stories and I was at one time obsessed with the animated movie to the point where I could recite the entire script word-for-word verbatim. Just like in LOTR, there was a lot of amazing scenery and architectural work. Plus, I always liked Bilbo better than Frodo. While Bilbo was definitely insecure, he was much more clever and charming than Frodo was, and the movie did a good job of representing his character as well as the rest of the characters in the movie based on how they were in the book.

On the flip side, did it live up to the hype and legacy that the LOTR movies created? And the answer is no. I guess that's expected though because The Hobbit didn't have the same impact on literature as LOTR did, nor was it as prominent. Peter Jackson went above and beyond when he made the movies to a point where they are considered the Star Wars trilogy of the 21st century (even moreso than the Star Wars prequel trilogy). I was into The Hobbit and LOTR many years before the movies came out, and once I saw Fellowship of the Ring for the first time, I was blown away how amazing it was.

There were definitely some nitpicky things about the movie. First of all, the most obvious issue is the fact that there is going to be a Hobbit trilogy. One of the pressing problems when books are converted into movies is that sometimes for example a book can be over 1,000 pages long and it is summed up within two hours in a movie. The Hobbit movie has the exact opposite problem; they took a book that's only a little over 300 pages long and split into three movies, each of which is 3 hours long. The first thing to come to mind is the only way that's possible is to add a shedload of filler scenes, which is exactly what they did with this first film. In some cases I don't mind it and I think it's actually pretty cool. For example, there's a subplot about a necromancer coming to life, which is obviously an attempt by the movie to try to tie it in with what happens in LOTR. There are other scenes, however, that served absolutely no purpose and did not belong in the movie whatsoever. The most notable of these scenes is the one with the rock giants. Granted, it has been over 15 years since I read the book, but seeing how much I was into the story back then, I swear that if the party had to face off against rock giants prior to seeking shelter from the storm while traveling in the Misty Mountains, I would have remembered it. The scene served no purpose to the plot and was the perfect example of a Big Lipped Alligator Moment. Not only that, but it was just one in many of the scenes in the movie where people are getting smashed by giant rocks or falling way down deep crevices and not even getting hurt. I know this is a fantasy story, but I would think if a knife can cut in this story, then getting hit by giant boulders or falling several hundred feet would at least break some bones. There was also this brown wizard character who I only remember being briefly mentioned in the books, but I thought it was really cheesy how he had this sleigh that was pulled by giant rabbits. I can handle the cheesiness in this movie though since it is supposed to be a bit more light-hearted than LOTR is.

One of the biggest disappointments, however, was the music. I only recall hearing one unique track in the entire movie, which was the Dwarves' song. This song of course is the theme to this trilogy. All the other music was just recycled from LOTR. If they could make unique soundtracks for all three LOTR films, why couldn't they make a unique soundtrack for The Hobbit?

Anyways, the movie ends after the eagles rescue the party from the orc warg riders. I imagine the next movie is going to start out where the party travels through Mirkwood, although I think they visit some guy's house beforehand, which was a moot point in the book. Judging by the title, I'm sure they will get to the scene where Bilbo enters Smaug's lair. I'm sure the last movie in the trilogy is going to have a large focus on the Battle of Five Armies, but I imagine there's going to be a shedload more filler.

Some of the things they added were mentioned in other things Tolkien wrote, including The Unfinished Tales and the appendices for Return of the King as having taken place at the same time as The Hobbit, so their inclusion was fine by me particularly the Necromancer of Dol Guldur. I didn't find Radagast the Brown cheesy at all, and was glad to see him show up since he was left out of the Lord of the Rings films. The way he was described in the LotR books always sounded like what you would refer to as a Druid in any other fantasy setting, so their depiction of him in The Hobbit movie suited him, even if he wasn't actually in The Hobbit book that I recall. Personally I am fine with some liberties being taken in order to create a better movie and most of the additions went towards that, in tying the story in with the LotR movies better. I will agree the Storm Giants were completely random and weren't necessary though.

Considering the first movie used only the first 6 chapters of the book, and I feel it was well paced despite the length, I think it bodes well for the second and third. There should be more than enough material for them to on par with the first movie. Though to be fair, we don't know the running time of 2 and 3 either. They could very well be shorter than An Unexpected Journey. If he had planned for two 3-hourish movies, and he stated the decision to make it three movies was because he filmed more than he needed for two, I don't think he would have been so far off the mark to film 9 hours of movie when planning for 6, probably closer to 7 hours total so I would guess that would make the second and third parts closer to two hours each.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I do plan to read the book again before the second part comes out though.

I'm seeing the movie tomorrow.

Radagast wasn't in the Hobbit, but he is in the first LOTR, closer to the beginning.

I'm fine with Jackson adding stuff from the Unfinished Tales and other works into it. It makes it more cohesive. Movies are never the same as the books, and sometimes I wonder if it's a legal thing - like you have to have some differences in order to have it be a creative license.

I only know that because I'm an artist, and you can't profit from a drawing of a photograph that looks just like the photograph. So perhaps the reason that movies are different is because you can't profit from an exact re-telling of the stories.

Just my two cents.

I've never read the book but I'm aware that it was more of a childrens book back in it's day while LOTR (which I also haven't) was more adult. Anyway I've seen the film and thought it was really good though not as good as the LOTR trilogy. There were some weird moments in the movie like that animal wizard riding on a sled of sort being pulled by rabbits and those trolls. When watching scenes like that it doesn't feel like something out of LOTR (though thats not what these movies are) but they look like they come out of something like Harry Potter or The Chronicles of Narnia. But all and all a really good movie and I'll think I'll see it again but this time in 3D and when the other 2 come out I think I'll see those in both 2D and 3D in case Peter Jackson decides to re-release LOTR in 3D and I would have seen them all in 3D. Thats what I'm doing with Star Wars. I've seen Episode I in 3D so when the others come out I'll do the same.

The trolls are actually in the book, and are even seen in The Fellowship of the Ring movie as well. The Hobbit was definitely aimed at younger audiences as a book, and your mention of Chronicles of Narnia is not far off as Tolkien was good friends with C.S. Lewis. The movie seems to ride the line between the tone of the original book and the tone of The Lord of the Rings books/movies