Joining the chorus weighing in on the new The Hobbit trailer…
Despite the lukewarm reception it’s getting by James at Grognardia and Al over on The Blog that Time Forgot, I’m rather encouraged. Is it too nerdy to admit to daydreaming of a day spent watching all five movies consecutively (extended versions, of course)? How many hours would it require? How much food and other supplies would I need to complete such an adventure? Would I return the same?
First, what I like. Thorin is bad ass—as he should be. I’ve heard some claim that The Hobbit should be a whimsical children’s fantasy complete with bumbling dwarves. There is some of that in the book, particularly early on (and we see that in the trailer with dwarves tossing crockery in Bag End—I hope we also get a rousing rendition of “Chip the glasses, crack the plates!”). But remember that this too is the Thorin of Tolkien’s novel:
Thorin wielded his axe with mighty strokes, and nothing seemed to harm him. “To me! To me! Elves and Men! To me! O my kinsfolk!” he cried, and his voice shook like a horn in the valley.
Everything I’ve seen of Martin Freeman makes me happy. Based on the trailer and the previously released “making of” clips, he seems perfectly suited to the part. The casting of Bilbo and his performance is by far and away the most important ingredient in the success of this film, in my opinion, and so far, so good on that front.
Of course, I love the singing. I’m a little bit disappointed in the criticism coming from Pat from Pat’s Fantasy Hotlist who asks, “Why must they sing???” Really? Have you read the books, Pat? You do know that the scene of the dwarves singing at Bag-End is probably the most iconic scene in the entire book, or at least on par with “Riddles in the Dark”, and that there would have been open revolt without it? That the song establishes the mood and the atmosphere and the stage for the “why” behind the entire quest?
Sure, I’ve got a few reservations. I’m not quite sure what’s going on with Galadriel brushing away Gandalf’s hair from his face. I’m more concerned to see so much heavy foreshadowing of the portentous events of The Lord of the Rings. Thorin’s “Nor will I be responsible for his fate” comment in reference to Bilbo implies that he knows that the latter will play a critical part in much larger events to come. I hope the emphasis is on telling a fine story that stands on its own and not in developing a LOTR prequel. We’ll see around this time next year. But overall, I’m pleased.
18 comments:
I'm with you. Can hardly stand the one year wait. And then another year after that.
I have to admit I haven't gotten around to watching it yet despite seeing that it was available, will remedy that tonight.
Is it too nerdy to admit to daydreaming of a day spent watching all five movies consecutively (extended versions, of course)?
I respectfully submit that it cannot, or rather should not be done, despite the fact that they could be shown in less than 24 hrs. I think I've tried it twice, once running short by a disc and once stopping as Frodo and Sam assailed Mount Doom. And that's just LOTR, obviously. I don't think it would be as enjoyable as it should be to try to cram them in, although perhaps in a group or at least not by oneself it might be more do-able.
I'd recommend a weekend trek - Finish the Hobbit, take a break to savor the death of Smaug, then get at least through The Council of Agent Smith...er...Elrond and finish up with Sam's homecoming, gnash your teeth once more at the absence of the Scouring and call it good.
(most peculiar - word verification "dwarsts"...related to Thorin's kin, perhaps?)
Hobbits are a virus Mr. Baggins...
I believe the line from Thorin about not being responsible for Bilbo's fate is from the unfinished tales where Thorin is meeting with Gandalf at the Prancing Pony...or was it the Green Dragon? Thorin is reluctant to take a hobbit along, despite Gandalf's advice that smaug doesn't know the smell of hobbit.
Had a lively discussion yesterday with some people about the trailer, we're all hoping that the battle for the necromancer closes up the first movie so that the death of the dragon & the battle of the five armies stand alone in the second, otherwise the audience would be too tired of having 3 battles in the same movie.
The galadriel scene is obviously from a meeting of the white council, Gandalf in the caverns is the lair of Dol Guldur, you can see a nazgul statue clearly in the background.
The singing gave me chills. That is part and parcel of Tolkien and gives me quite a bit of hope for The Hobbit. Jackson rarely backs away from things that other directors might think silly or old fashioned. If people are supposed to sing, then they sing. (Well except for Tom Bombadil. heh)
I believe I'm with the anonymous poster above in interpreting Thorin's statement as less about what we know is about to happen to Bilbo, and more, "hey, if he dies, it's your fault".
Anyway, this trailer has gotten me completely stoked for the movie, though I am disappointed by the glimpse we see of The Trolls. And where is that place Gandalf keeps standing with all the stairs supposed to be? They wouldn't be showing clips from The Mountain already, would they?
[added after re-reading comments] Dol Guldur? Nazgul statue? O well, any excuse to watch it again . . .
Color me ambivalent.
The movie already feels like less "The Hobbit" than "The Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit". Or it's like a chocolate-covered nut with "The Lord of the Rings" enveloping "The Hobbit". How much chocolate and how big the nut, that remains to be seen, but I fear the chocolate taste may overpower the nut.
The book has a sequel, the movies are prequels; was it too lucrative not to make the movies stand-alone in their own right?
I hope the emphasis is on telling a fine story that stands on its own and not in developing a LOTR prequel.
No chance of that. This is a LOTR prequel first, The Hobbit second. Bummer.
I don't quite understand the problem with this being made as a prequel to the Rings. Yes, Technically, Rings is a Sequel to the Hobbit.. But Tolkien himself went back numerous times to "Do a Lucas" on the Hobbit to make it fit better with the sequel rather than simply writing the sequel so it didn't conflict in the first place.
As for the singing, people have been complaining about that for years and years.. Its most frequent criticism I've heard of the books apart from Tom Bombadil.. But I think, just as Aragorn singing the song of Luthian Tinuviel, without the songs from the Hobbit it simply wouldn't be the Hobbit.
I agree about not watching them all in a single day. I've done that with Lord of the Rings several times, and I find the best way is to watch Fellowship and the first half of The Two Towers, and then watch the second half of the Two Towers and Return of the King. Make it into a two day event, and you can take your time.
As it stands right now, without including time to get up and stretch, fix food, go pee, walk the dog.. You would spend nearly 13 hours sitting watching movies. If you added in the sure to be at least 5+ hour Hobbit and you would be miserable by the time its done with..
Lagomorph: He didn't do anything as hackneyed as putting bloody Frodo in it. Yes, I mad. - Martin.
As it stands right now, without including time to get up and stretch, fix food, go pee, walk the dog.. You would spend nearly 13 hours sitting watching movies.
Well, I don't own a dog, and was thinking adult diaper... so maybe I could do it in 13?
Now hold up. Frodo isn't in "The Hobbit" he's in a few scenes that Jackson has created that chronologically take place during the extended "Concerning Hobbits" scene of Fellowship of the Ring which will function as a framing device, In order to get familiar faces back on the screen.
I've read the books. You've read the books. Millions of people have only seen the movies and will not be pleased when their favorite characters aren't there. Hence, Legolas (who makes perfect sense to be there anyway.. since ya know they go to his freakin' kingdom...) Frodo, and more.
It gets butts in seats.
You can be mad about it. But it's not as if Jackson has replaced Bilbo with Frodo or magically made them the same age so they can be BFF's. The Story of the Hobbit will obviously be portrayed pretty closely, It simply will have the framing sequence.
I think considering that Fellowship showed Bilbo telling the Troll story to the enraptured Hobbitlings that he obviously told it a lot.
I don't mind the insertion of Frodo as a framing device either. Lagomorph is right that Tolkien went back and amended The Hobbit to make it a better fit with The Lord of the Rings, both in terms of substance (Gollum and the One Ring and his encounter with Bilbo was completely rewritten) and style. My concern is with inserting these elements into the narrative of the film (i.e., the Thorin comment I called out) and lessening the movie by indirectly saying, "hey, this story we're in is pretty good, but just wait until the next one!"
Look at how Star Wars (1977) works both as a stand-alone adventure and as part of a bigger saga ("Episode IV"). Everything we needed to know (Jedi, the Force, the Empire) was explained with economy.
In contrast, Episode I does a very poor job of explaining the basics and viewers are expected to fill in the blanks by having watched the originals beforehand.
Despite the lukewarm reception it’s getting by James at Grognardia and Al over on The Blog that Time Forgot
To be frank, I think it would've gained a lukewarm reception round my end regardless of how the trailer ended up.
I don't doubt the film's going to be good - I'm pretty sure it'll be a fine film, and I certainly won't deny it looks breathtaking - I just don't look forward to having what I perceive to be legitimate criticisms shouted down. Or, worse, lumped in with the Bombadil strawman.
Al, I would never shout down a fellow member of the Shieldwall!
Know that I have my reservations too, and I don't think you'll be the lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to criticisms of The Hobbit. Critical reception, particularly among Tolkien scholars, is quite mixed on the subject of the Jackson films.
Oh, I wouldn't dream of accusing you of such a thing, I'm more speaking of the sort of people who think Faramir was boring in the books, and that there just wasn't enough shield-surfing.
I think my antipathy towards the films is fuelled a bit by contrarianism (is that a word? It should be), which naturally pushes me towards a certain side.
I really like the look of it. I wish Guillermo del Toro had stayed on board to direct, because I think Peter Jackson is a bit MOR these days, but that can't be helped.
Am I the only person who really doesn't like Andy Serkis's Gollum, though? That voice just makes me cringe - it's sort of half way between cute and sinister and achieves neither.
Am I the only person who really doesn't like Andy Serkis's Gollum, though? That voice just makes me cringe - it's sort of half way between cute and sinister and achieves neither.
I do like the voice of Gollum in the animated version better, but Serkis' physical abilities and acting are so good that they overwhelm any minor annoyances with the character.
Post a Comment