Forostar
Ancient Mariner
The Hobbit....
Yesterday I went to the portrayal of one of my favourite books. The Hobbit is called a children book but if it is, then I certainly thought it was one of the most exciting and adventurous stories I'd read around that age (I was 12 or 13 when I read it). I was looking forward to this movie very much and I'd re-read the book last summer.
Beforehand I was wondering: how on earth could they make 3 epic films on The Hobbit? A book that is 200-something pages.
The answer is simple: add many things that are not in The Hobbit. Some scenes refer to other Tolkien works, such as The Silmarillion, and other stuff was just made up.
So, looking at the proportions, story/scene-wise: what's the difference between the book and the film?
The book has a number of scenes and the film makes them shorter and/or changes them. For balance many non-Hobbit segments are added.
So in short: the film consists of more segments than the book. And most -if not all- segments are shorter.
To be honest, the added segments didn't serve a great extra purpose. It just was additional entertainment.
Never did I have the thought "this is better than the book" or something, but it wasn't disturbing. In fact, some added scenes were pretty cool. Others zoomed in on the humouristic side of this film. There are lots of comical situations. I confess I had expressed my concern about that a while ago, but I had to laugh pretty loud in the theatre, as many others. Cool actors, cool characters. The dwarves are a great wild bunch (Peter Jackson's Inglorious Bastards)!
You must realize that I am a big fan of the book. While reading the book, my own imagination helped build the world and adventures Tolkien described for me. In the film the makers and actors of the film decide how it looks like. They decide how long a scene takes and they decide what is changed, deleted and added. This all sounds very logical. It was the same with previous Tolkien films, and you see it with other films based on novels.
I'll give an example of a rather exaggerated changed part. In Moria, the adventure is set in tunnels, halls.
In the film there are huge constructions of wood, and the dwarves and orcs run and fall around like rats. The amount of falling in this film is over the top. Peter Jackson must have thought: "Nah, the book is not exciting enough. I need to make it more exciting. More dangerous. More falling"
And thus the film has many literal cliffhangers. I know it's a fantasy story, so how realistic do you want it to be, but really: the dwarves make numerous falls, and crashes, it's not normal how they can survive all that falling. It's a bit over the top. What am I looking at? The Muppets? The Fraggles? No, I rather stick with the dark tunnels. Tolkien's description of the darkness provided enough suspense already and all these circus acrobatics make it less tense (even though it looks damn good!).
OK, this sounds pretty negative but basically, this criticism is especially focused on the dwarves, escaping from Moria.
The scene with Bilbo and Gollum was excellent. I might be mistaken but I think one or two riddles were added, even. Also great was the scene in which the Eagles are rescuing the party from the wargs. Still, this wargs scene was pretty short, and in the book the wargs talk. Perhaps Jackson thought that this might not work in film.
The grand opening scene was great. I won't tell much about it, but I thought it was one of highlights of the film.
Another point of criticism: some scenes were clearly written for actors from the LOTR films. Hi Saruman, hi Galadriel. You guys have no business here, but Peter Jackson pays tribute to these actors and wants to connect this film very much to the LOTR films. Actually, he has the right to do that, and in all honesty, the scenes themselves were not that disturbing or long. Radagast was a very queer fellow, though, and I expect some people to dislike this character because he acted nuts (eaten many paddo's) and has an unexpected role in the film. The speed he moved with, made me think of how Yoda looked in the one but last Star Wars film: over the top.
My wife said that the wow-factor was less present, simply because we've already seen and known LOTR. But then I say "How many other films besides LOTR do exist of these proportions and of this style and visual quality" None. It's trademark Peter Jackson and company and it's something which can be admired, just as one can appreciate a certain actor or director, legendary for his trademark (own style).
Conclusion:
It was a fantastic, well made film, with the best landscapes you can imagine.
Some scenes passed by a bit too quickly for my liking, but that's probably because I vividly had the book in mind. So the good thing is: people who don't know, forgot or dislike the book: go and see it, you might love it!
I thought some of the action was over the top, but the characters are very strong and the main story still stands. Now I "only" have to wait one year before it continues.
Beforehand I was wondering: how on earth could they make 3 epic films on The Hobbit? A book that is 200-something pages.
The answer is simple: add many things that are not in The Hobbit. Some scenes refer to other Tolkien works, such as The Silmarillion, and other stuff was just made up.
So, looking at the proportions, story/scene-wise: what's the difference between the book and the film?
The book has a number of scenes and the film makes them shorter and/or changes them. For balance many non-Hobbit segments are added.
So in short: the film consists of more segments than the book. And most -if not all- segments are shorter.
To be honest, the added segments didn't serve a great extra purpose. It just was additional entertainment.
Never did I have the thought "this is better than the book" or something, but it wasn't disturbing. In fact, some added scenes were pretty cool. Others zoomed in on the humouristic side of this film. There are lots of comical situations. I confess I had expressed my concern about that a while ago, but I had to laugh pretty loud in the theatre, as many others. Cool actors, cool characters. The dwarves are a great wild bunch (Peter Jackson's Inglorious Bastards)!
You must realize that I am a big fan of the book. While reading the book, my own imagination helped build the world and adventures Tolkien described for me. In the film the makers and actors of the film decide how it looks like. They decide how long a scene takes and they decide what is changed, deleted and added. This all sounds very logical. It was the same with previous Tolkien films, and you see it with other films based on novels.
I'll give an example of a rather exaggerated changed part. In Moria, the adventure is set in tunnels, halls.
In the film there are huge constructions of wood, and the dwarves and orcs run and fall around like rats. The amount of falling in this film is over the top. Peter Jackson must have thought: "Nah, the book is not exciting enough. I need to make it more exciting. More dangerous. More falling"
And thus the film has many literal cliffhangers. I know it's a fantasy story, so how realistic do you want it to be, but really: the dwarves make numerous falls, and crashes, it's not normal how they can survive all that falling. It's a bit over the top. What am I looking at? The Muppets? The Fraggles? No, I rather stick with the dark tunnels. Tolkien's description of the darkness provided enough suspense already and all these circus acrobatics make it less tense (even though it looks damn good!).
OK, this sounds pretty negative but basically, this criticism is especially focused on the dwarves, escaping from Moria.
The scene with Bilbo and Gollum was excellent. I might be mistaken but I think one or two riddles were added, even. Also great was the scene in which the Eagles are rescuing the party from the wargs. Still, this wargs scene was pretty short, and in the book the wargs talk. Perhaps Jackson thought that this might not work in film.
The grand opening scene was great. I won't tell much about it, but I thought it was one of highlights of the film.
Another point of criticism: some scenes were clearly written for actors from the LOTR films. Hi Saruman, hi Galadriel. You guys have no business here, but Peter Jackson pays tribute to these actors and wants to connect this film very much to the LOTR films. Actually, he has the right to do that, and in all honesty, the scenes themselves were not that disturbing or long. Radagast was a very queer fellow, though, and I expect some people to dislike this character because he acted nuts (eaten many paddo's) and has an unexpected role in the film. The speed he moved with, made me think of how Yoda looked in the one but last Star Wars film: over the top.
My wife said that the wow-factor was less present, simply because we've already seen and known LOTR. But then I say "How many other films besides LOTR do exist of these proportions and of this style and visual quality" None. It's trademark Peter Jackson and company and it's something which can be admired, just as one can appreciate a certain actor or director, legendary for his trademark (own style).
Conclusion:
It was a fantastic, well made film, with the best landscapes you can imagine.
Some scenes passed by a bit too quickly for my liking, but that's probably because I vividly had the book in mind. So the good thing is: people who don't know, forgot or dislike the book: go and see it, you might love it!
I thought some of the action was over the top, but the characters are very strong and the main story still stands. Now I "only" have to wait one year before it continues.
We're not exactly discussing a setlist or something. This film has many ingredients to talk about.
