A couple of months before the release of The Hobbit, I read an article saying that the main challenge confronting Peter Jackson was how to present The Hobbit cinematically. Should he attempt to give it the epic feel of The LOTR and forgoe the playfulness of the book, or should he give it a more cheerful tone than The LOTR in order to stay true to the book, but risk alienating fans of the LOTR movies in the process? This is something that I struggled with while watching The Hobbit. I like that he adapted a more lighthearted tone but at the same time I want the epic feel of LOTR.
So my question is, "How do you wish Peter Jackson had presented The Hobbit, in the lighthearted manner of the book or in the serious/epic tone of the films that preceded it?"
My reading of The Hobbit has always led me to believe that the book, although intended for children, was a dire account full of peril, death, horror and of course adventure. I seriously feel that Tolkien found some impish glee in reading such dramatic and sometime spooky stories to his kids in order to pull them in to a tale of heroes, villains, goblins, caverns, dragons, and Hobbits.
I've read The Hobbit a score of times or more and have seen the Rankin/Bass version as a kid. In the reading, as an adult, the detail is gripping, the landscapes; vivid, the danger; extreme. I still close the back cover after completing another read and wonder: "The kids of Tolkien's time must've been unshock-able to read or listen to this tale without peering out of their covers at night and hopes of not seeing two small pale-green eyes blinking at them from across their dark bedrooms!"
The Rankin/Bass version of 1979, I believe it was, was done well in capturing those terrifying moments with the musical score of braying and trilling trumpets that seemed to send shivers down my spine while listening to Gollum's blood-curdling shrieks or watching the pursuit of our heroes through Mirkwood by those devilsh spiders....
The Hobbit always came off as a serious tale, to me anyway, tempered for youngsters by adding folly and whimsy, i.e.: The silly Trolls, the Dwarf troupe falling in the door at Bag End, Beorn's animal servants and so on. There are other examples here and there in The Hobbit but for the most part the story is pretty dire... I was hoping for that sense of gravity in those particular scenes that I have read in the past.
I understand time constraints when it comes to adaptation of a text in movie-making and for the most part I enjoyed what Peter Jackson did with White Council, Dol Guldur, the coming of the Dragon etc., But when it comes to a direct adaptation of certain scenes; I wish Jackson had taken more time to relay the tremendous danger our heroes were in, especially when it came to Riddles in the Dark segment...I dunno. I might just be kicking a dead warg at this point.....Cheers!
By the way, did the Goblin King have to say "That'll do it." when Gandalf flayed him...silly!
I'm mostly with you Jado. I think, reading as an adult now, The Hobbit is as light-hearted as folk make it out to be. It's an easy mistake with all the songs and Bilbo wishing he was back in his hole constantly.
In my opinion the Rankin/Bass film captured the book far better than this movie did. I think by adding all that PJ did, he actually cheapened the horror that the dwarves and Bilbo were feeling. JRRT hit the right balance in his narrative and PJ totally missed the mark. (I think I've written somewhere in the forums about how directors/screenwriters mess up with the "feel" of a book).
So, actually I wish PJ had put more of the fear into it and less "action". Action doesn't always equal terror. Some of the creepiest movies I've seen had no action in them at all. I think then the light-heartedness would have been more genuine and not had to be forced with stupid quotes like Jado pointed out.
Rankin/Bass nailed the severity utilizing Bilbo as a hapless homebody that we can all relate to. You hit the "nail on the head" so to speak, when you stated: "he actually cheapened the horror..." Those times of the story aren't fall-down funny, but what makes us smile is the utilization of humor in a dreary spot that catches us off guard and actually heightens the comical edge. It's more true-to-life, in that these funny or awkward times present themselves at the most unprompted moments in day-to-day living making them more memorable and sometimes exaggeratedly hilarious!
Another good point you made was when you said: "Action doesn't always equal terror." Truer words cannot be said about this film. It seems like Jackson (a fine director, don't get me wrong) used the 'Tried and True' formula for making a pop culture hit: Set up characters, introduce conflict, sprinkle with laughs, add a chase scene, and one turning point (and in the case of M. K. Shamalan; a twist) to round out the experience, which I find to be a placating tool unnecessary for today's more sophisticated audiences. Give us a little more realism, even in fantasy. The fact that it is a fantasy novel or film already bodes embellishment enough...give us a little grit. I'm glad to hear I'm not alone on this one Laurelin. Yours is the first review that I have read or heard of that echoes my own...I just know there's more people out there who feel the same. Hope to hear from them soon. Not that our words are going to undo the movie or topple the franchise, its just good hear some opinions about it....
I did miss some of the LotR 'seriousness' when I watched The Hobbit. There were places that should have been more sinister - like Goblin Town - that didn't get the atmosphere right. The Gollum encounter was good though, fairly dark despite the comic element of the riddle game.
The fighting scenes seemed a little too much like comic-book fighting, they lacked the depth and grit the fight scenes in the LotR had.
Overall though it seems Jackson achieved his desired result, assuming he wished for the film to not be as serious as LotR but not quite as childish as the book.
Have to see what the next film brings.
__________________
Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!
My Tolkien Society Group who went to the Opening night and caught the Hobbit at 12:03AM, was not happy with the obvious magic in the Hobbit. Professor Jane Chance, an authority on everything Tolkien and a world renown Lecturer and Writer, said that Tolkien was careful not to have magic play too much of a part in his story, yet PJ put a lot of emphasis on it with things like Radagast the Brown and his scene in the Home in Rosgobel where he was being besieged by huge spiders and also needed magic to cure his stickly friend. Personally, I was awed by the musical score. I think they did a great job with that one. They other thing some of my group thought was uncalled for, was that PJ made Lord Elrond look so much Younger! It was only 60 between the LOTR and the Hobbit. Elves just don't age THAT fast, and I agree with them. Another thing I noticed, it was not Erestor, who was Lord Elrond's right hand man, that met the group, as should have been. Galadriel was also romanticized to look much younger and innocent, not the sorceress of the Golden Wood. More like the Girl next door look. Any thoughts on this?
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
Arwen, I had thought the same thing about Elrond and Galadriel. At first I had thought maybe Hugo Weaving went in for Botox. But, then when I saw Cate Blanchett with a push-up bra on I almost had a fit. I know it's a small thing, but trying to over-sexualize her just ticked me off. And I thought, like you, that elves were essentially ageless, so if PJ was going to do anything to Hugo and Cate, it should have been to make them look like they did in the LotR movies.
The appeaances of some of the 'baddies' appeared overdone, I thought. The Goblin King looked plain silly, far too large and nothing like an orc. Azog was too large and pale as well. The three trolls were on the large size but I can overlook that. The least said about the 'stone giants' the better.
Mouth of Sauron, you certainly hit upon most of the problems I myself had with the movie. Small though they were, they did trouble me a bit, and yes, I think the stone giants are best left forgotten.
On a side note, I recently watched the Rankin and Bass version of The Hobbit, quite an interesting movie. Although why Smaug had fur is somewhat of a mystery to me.
was it fur that Smaug had? I'll have to look again. I always thought they were feathers. Not that makes a difference. Either one can get singed pretty easily by a fire-breather.
I might just watch The Hobbit tomorrow since I don't have a car right now. As you guys know, something else is bound to stick up again. This will be my 4th time to watch it.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
YES PJ SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE LIGHTHEARTEDNESS OF THE HOBBITT and he should have concentrated on making the dwarves AND the trolls PERHAPS EVEN the goblins funny. Now we get the doom-laden atmosphere from LOTR complete with ridiculous guest appearances from Saruman (who is NOT EVIL at the time) and Galadriel (looking like one of these Sex in the City-people). So those who have seen LOTR will feel at home - but WHY OH WHY is the mere restoring of gold and jewels and their old underground abode in the mountain related to good vs. evil and the whole western world. In the book we hear of The Necromancer (who in fact is Sauron) but this personage is only related to the Goblins in that they are all evil. We know that The Great Goblin Bolg/Azog will attack at The Battle of Five Armies in Hobbitt III, if it gets that far and so he is introduced dramatically in Hobbitt I. All this good vs. evil only reduces Tolkien to the level of any Hollywood drama. But if that's what The Master wanted to tell the world, that The West should ever be on the lookout for evil, then it's all as it should be, of course. Only I do not think this is so. There are neutral forces, like the magnificent mountain Cahadras, the ents and Tom Bombadil (in LOTR). PJ of course makes Saruman control Cahadras. It would be nice if we could relax and enjoy some lighthearted fun in The Hobbitt, instead we are indoctrinated and manipulated for war and suspicion. Tolkien did vehemently deny any political allegory, now PJ is ruining everything subtle and timeless to please the brainwashed crowds.
Hrorvendel, I thought that Peter Jackson's presentation of The Hobbit was commercial exploitation of the worst sort. It was as if he missed the whole point of the story.
The cinematic elements were well done. By that I mean the technology used in the movie was cutting edge. The work in casting was well done. But the writing of the screenplay was so far away from Tolkien's work that I feel it betrayed Tolkien's creation.
It wasn't done as a tribute to the authors work but is a project meant to fill someone's pocket with gold ... making Jackson as greedy as Thorin! I was very disappointed. Bear
__________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit Called or uncalled, God is present
Hrorvendel, I thought that Peter Jackson's presentation of The Hobbit was commercial exploitation of the worst sort. It was as if he missed the whole point of the story.
The cinematic elements were well done. By that I mean the technology used in the movie was cutting edge. The work in casting was well done. But the writing of the screenplay was so far away from Tolkien's work that I feel it betrayed Tolkien's creation.
It wasn't done as a tribute to the authors work but is a project meant to fill someone's pocket with gold ... making Jackson as greedy as Thorin! I was very disappointed. Bear
Absolutely, I enjoyed the LOTR films a lot, some adaption issues did get to me, but overall thought they were excellent as films, but The Hobbit was so far away from the book, that I was truly disappointed. Martin Freeman did the best he could with the script, but even he couldn't save the film. At least Howard Shore still made an excellent score. I'm interested to hear what they have to say on the Commentary and Special Features coming out with the extended cuts.
__________________
"You say that you are afraid. If it is so, the boldest should pardon you. But is it not really your good sense that revolts?"
- Boromir to Frodo
Headingsouth, I am enough of a Tolkien fanatic that I will go to the next installment of Jackson's "Hobbit."
And I will try and look at the film for the film itself and not go ballistic at the omissions or "artist license" that the screen writer adds (or subtracts) with the original story But right now, indeed as soon as I finish typing, I am reading the Hobbit again! (for the umpteenth time)
(sigh) The world ain't perfect but still has a lot of fun in it!
__________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit Called or uncalled, God is present
I generally read the Tolkien book again before I see the film for the first time and that probably hurts the film, because my memory is so fresh of the book.
__________________
"You say that you are afraid. If it is so, the boldest should pardon you. But is it not really your good sense that revolts?"
- Boromir to Frodo
