The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Post-Release - Page 11

 

 

The Hobbit is fine as a book, but stretching it out into 3 big films means every little narrative beat is held up to the microscope in a way it was never meant to. This is most problematic in the first part of the book which has a lot of repetition. 

 

This trilogy of films will always be controversial because on the one hand you have fans of the book who say it should only have ever followed the book, and fans of the films saying Tolkien himself wrote (and published) plenty of added material for the story of the Erebor quest, so why not see it? Both have their points.  

I gladly swap a DelToro Hobbit for Pacific Rim. If At The Mountains Of Madness went through instead I'd be overjoyed.

A standalone, purely GdT putting his spin on Tolkien version of The Hobbit was never going to happen.  Even if the project hadn't been held up, and he'd stayed on it... even if they'd somehow managed to keep it to one film (yeah, right), it was still going to be something that was meant to have some continuity, and consistency of vision with Jackson's films.  You might as well wish for Sam Peckinpah to come out of the grave and direct a four hour version of Blood Meridian starring Daniel Day Lewis as the Judge.  It's not a "lost" film.

Spike Lee is at it again:

 

 

A GDT Hobbit would have spent a collective hour just on giant clockwork doors locking and unlocking and you know it.

And it would have been joyous.

I've come to believe GDT is overpraised. He's a fun idea man and a great personality but his films rarely satisfy me to the level I wish they would.

 

And I know he's Chud's golden boy, so don't hurt me.

He's like the Mexican John Woo. His Spanish language films are far better than his Hollywood output. Pan's Labyrinth is the one most people praise but my favourite of his is The Devil's Backbone - it really aces it on the stuff he does so well (war and its effect on children, horror, strong women, violence, and the innocence of children vs corrupt adults). It has a nice stripped back approach as compared to Pan. It also has one of the best screen ghosts I've ever seen.

 

He really is a director who needs to be left to his own devices though. Not sure about Pacific Rim, I'm picturing massive studio interference. We'll see.

I do think the GTD deification has a lot to do with ideology and his persona. He's seen as the True Geek, making True Geek movies for other True Geeks. The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth are great movies that show GDT really is a talent, but for a guy nearing 50 his career seems increasingly underachieving to me. He really should've made the definitive GDT magnum opus by now, but there's no sign that such a thing is even on the horizon. There's not even much sign of anything to live up to the promise he was starting to realize with the Spanish language movies.

 

Him ditching the Hobbit may have been bad for all concerned. I mean clearly he wasn't truly passionate about it or he would've done it, but the years he would've spent on it he's pretty much squandered anyway. These would've given him the biggest possible showcase for his visual style, and he'd have the clout afterwards to do just about anything he wanted. Instead he's just got Pacific Rim and the kind of predictable fantasy remakes and adaptations that everyone would roll their eyes at if Tim Burton was doing them.

 

Watching The Hobbit, it's so Peter Jacksony (for better and worse) it's kind of hard to imagine what it would've been like with someone else in charge. Maybe it would've been a weird, uncomfortable mix of sensibilities and we're better off with what we're got. But I'm pretty sure a GDT Hobbit would have less of the more-of-the-same feel that makes it a bit hard to find these new ones truly exciting even at their best, and maybe he would've kept some of the excesses in check.

Saying he wasn't passionate about The Hobbit is truly unfair--he moved himself and his family to New Zealand for two years, didn't work on anything else, and then had to sit on his hands while the rights got worked out. You don't do that if you're not on board 140%.

 

 

But it sounds good.

 

 

Purely speculative, but I wonder how much, if at all, GdT leaving had to do with Jackson perhaps realizing he kinda needed to direct this after back to back disappointments.  The rights got worked out pretty quickly after Guillermo left, and obviously the first film has arrived much sooner than the project he moved on to.

The New Yorker profile from about a year back shared enough information to suggest that Del Toro's vision would have been substantially weirder, particularly his conception of Smaug. But there's no doubting he was totally committed.

 

Holy balls, yes.

 

I wonder if Jackson directing made it easier to unsnarl the rights.

 

Try reading it and see for yourself. I still prefer it to the Rings books, though I love them all a whole lot. But as Samurai Mike points out, stretching it out into three books might not be good for the integrity of the narrative-- and this is coming from someone who thinks the narrative here holds up and makes for a great adaptation.

 

 

True statement. It's more than unfair, it's downright false to suggest GDT wasn't ready to go all the way with this and wasn't committed. GDT isn't the type of director to do things half-assed, no matter how much we want to quibble about the quality of his work (which, you know, sorry Shaun H, but you're shunned). 

 

That said, I'm kinda happy that the GDT version didn't work out. I want PJ to get back on the wagon and I want GDT to do his own original shit. Maybe that's just me being a selfish fan, because I'm sure GDT would have made a great Hobbit film-- though I admit my primary interest in a GDT Hobbit revolved around the clout he would have earned from making it.

 

 

Seems to make sense. Though, I dunno, is PJ the type to strong-arm someone out of a project for his own benefit/needs?

The orc villain did somewhat ... PALE ... in comparison to Gollum and the Goblin King but oddly the character who was most distractingly out-of-place visually for me in several scenes was Gandalf. I don't know why but he often looked 2D and dull in colour in his medium and 3/4 shots. I wondered if the shade cast by the brim of his hat and the fact he was clad all in grey had anything to do with some kind of technical failing in the cinematography or rendering or whatever witchcraft they use for these things, but he looked noticeably flat in several images to me.

The rest of the 3D 48fps was fine though. During the action scenes it looked so unlike film that my brain wasn't even trying to consciously or subconsciously reconcile the differentness of The Hobbit with what my brain expects from other films. It really felt so much like watching a completely different thing - like a hologram or something - that I had no problem with the non-filmic nature of it.


That's how I came out of it too. I knew about the "problems" from the reviews so only two parts really felt like a drag to me - the beginning of Radagast's introduction up until he's back inside his house, and the troll scene from when the band is tied up until Gandalf shows up to save them. The rest of the three hours paced out just fine because I was in the groove for it.

I didn't say GTD wasn't at all passionate about the project or that he was going into it half arsed, but it's hard to argue that he was more invested in it than all the other people that didn't drop out, because he dropped out. And he dropped out to chase hypothetical projects, not even greenlights!

 

That suggests to me someone who took a job when it looked like a fixed commitment and a great career move, and left it when it looked like it was becoming more of an albatross that might hold him back from his own projects. There's no crime in that, and that's not something I was criticising him for. My point was that by leaving he took a gamble in a difficult situation and I don't think it paid off for either party. But Jackson at least should come out of it with three more decent sized hits on his track record, which is something Del Toro could sorely use.

Also, accepting and even revelling in the fact that this film is utterly drawn out and lengthy, I've even got some nice, Über-Tolkien nerd love for the old Bilbo sequence. Specifically, the hugely unneeded bitch session about the Sackville-Baggins. First the two hundred pages of Fellowship, you're half convinced they're going to be the central antagonists.

And another thing about the length. As long as the movies are entertaining and good (which Hobbit was for me, handily), I like the length of these. I certainly never bother watching LOTR if I'm not committed to the whole thing, start to finish. I know this is totally subjective and doesn't make it true for anyone else, but as a big fan of Jackson's original series, I've well fan serviced.

 

In the books, if you take the business prior to Frodo leaving Bag End and The Scouring Of The Shire as bookends separate to the whole War Of The Ring story, they kind of are. Lotho was the one working with Saruman. 

Honestly, I never read Tolkien for his prose, or his plotting.  I read him for his world-building, characters, and sense of whimsy.  Those are the same reasons I like these movies.

Francis Ford Coppola originally wanted Scorsese to direct Godfather pt. II. You could speculate all day about how that would've turned out, but I wouldn't trade what we got. I feel the same way about The Hobbit. Sure GDT would've made some interesting choices (I'm sure creature designs would've been more inventive) but there's a nice sense of continuity with Jackson at the helm. It was a really tough tone to pull off and he did it rather well. It felt like a light hearted romp as well as an epic adventure all at once, which is exactly what it had to be.

First thing I'll do when I get this on dvd is watch those under the mountain scenes with the dwarves at the start and then the goblins later on in slow motion. Those worlds were AWESOME but they went by at such breakneck speed.


Yeah, the tone was very well handled by Jackson. I can sympathise with some complaints about the pacing and the plot but the tone was perfect.

Saw this again tonight with my best friend and his 10 year old son who's reading THE HOBBIT for the first time in school. This time in high framerate 3D and good lord the crystal clarity of the image was amazing.  I enjoyed it even more this time around. 

 

Oh and the scene with Galadriel and Gandalf when the sun is shining through her dress? Damn.
 

Edited by Headless Fett - 12/30/12 at 2:33pm

 

I've just started re-reading The Lord of The Rings for the first time since the films came out (read it twice before then). The starting chapters are even more leisurely paced than I recall (Red Letter Media were right about the overuse of the word 'fortnight'), but hell, it's almost like revisiting an old friend. Re-watching the extended Fellowship film again recently evoked the same feeling. Just a great world to hang out in.

Faaaaaark, I didn't even consider that. It's decades since I read the book so I forgot he's just in that one part of The Hobbit.

Surely one of the adjustments PJ and co make will be to have him turn up in the next couple of films too. I don't want to not watch that creepy little guy again.


I actually thought he was amusingly crap. We get all this guff from Balin about how he's this born conqueror and then for the rest of the movie he fails to prove himself anything other than a stubborn buffoon who couldn't lead his way out of a wet paper bag.

At the end when he strides in slo-mo (along that very convenient path) through the fire he finally seems like someone worth cheering for, but before that he's a horse's ass. In fact, he's not even a horse's ass, he's a pony's.


C'mon OB, this ain't no Joss Whedon joint.

Yeah, had one of the dwarf guys died people would just be complaining they did it for a cheap emotional moment.

 

#7 or possibly #8, NOOOOOOO!

Movie totally could have trimmed the number of Dwarves down from the very beginning.

And lose those beards? Fuck no, thank you very much.

Anyone wanna bet the first twenty minutes of part two is about climbing down off that spire?

 

I was just thinking about that. Hey eagles, thanks a bunch, drop us off anywhere.

I'm seeing a lot of negative reactions here but I really liked it. I even liked stoner hippie Radagast and his animal friends, although I did spend some time wondering if that stuff on the side of his head was bird shit or lichens. 

What is that necromancer bullshit about anyway?  I'm guessing that's Sauron? 
 

 

And you'd be right. I'm picking he's Azog's boss too. 

 

As much as I can see why that stuff was included in the first film, I think it really could have benefited from being moved to the second movie, as it goes nowhere here and just slows down the already slow first act. But I did like Radagast.

 

My theory is that dwarves are made of rubber - and why not? Elves are basically magic ninja in these movies, and goblins can scale walls like cockroaches, so it's only fair.

 

And we all know the next film's opening will be old sped-up Bilbo explaining how they got down from that rock to the Sackville Bagginses.

So can anybody give me a bit of bg on the necromancer?  Is it just Sauron as a shadow monster chilling in this keep?  Is he possessing somebody and doing dark magic?  Why is he fucking around in this old castle instead of building his hordes in Mordor?

He lost the ring... he "died."  But since the ring wasn't destroyed neither was he.  So he's coming back into the world of the living, but it's taking some time to gather his power, or whatever.  I don't know the nerdy details, but it's not that difficult to figure out, is it?  He's not just going to be like "I'm back, bitches!" He doesn't even have a body.  It'd taken him thousands of years just to get to that point.

Ohhhhh, I get it!  He's a Voldermort rip off.

 

Relax fanboys!  I guess I'm just hung up on this necromancer business.  It makes sense that he needs to gather his strength, but having this whole other persona gaining attention I've never even heard of...

Maybe you should try reading the books then?

Sauron was a shapeshifter all throughout his career as a Dark Lord. When he returns as the Necromancer it's his first reappearance since he lost the Ring, so it's more of a 'recon' than him publicly announcing his return. Dol Goldur is one of his old fortresses.

Events in The Hobbit will show how he ends up back in Mordor. But think about this: why do you think the Ring just happens to pop out of Gollum's pants when Bilbo turns up? It's awoken, because it knows Sauron is back and looking for it. Of course it never expects a Hobbit to be the one to pick it up - perhaps it hoped he was a goblin. The fact Bilbo finds it and his subsequent pity towards Gollum set the whole LOTR saga in motion.

Maybe I should try reading the books?  In the words of Mr. Plinkett don't show me your books, or your comic books or video games or any of that shit.  What's put in a movie should work as a movie, and the necromancer should be relevant to THIS MOVIE, not the sequels.

But the movies do give you enough information to piece the "mystery" together.  Provided you saw Lord of the Rings.

It should be remembered that when Tolkien wrote the Hobbit the Necromancer was just.. A necromancer. An evil wizard that Gandalf rides off to deal with while Bilbo and the dwarves journey through Mirkwood. Tolkien hadn't concieved of Sauron or the story of LOTR at that time. When he wrote LOTR he made Gandalf's encounter with the Necromancer part of the bigger story.

As for why it's relevant to this story, the darkness that has fallen over Mirkwood comes into play later, and they were just laying some groundwork here.  Does it lend itself to a tight structure for the first installment?  No... but not much else did, either.

Then I would argue that all that laying the story down stuff doesn't work and should have been trimmed out, or it should have just been one movie so it had relevance.  It feels pretty shitty to the casual fan, the person who doesn't read these books and maybe even isn't a nerd culture person at all.  It alienates people when they leave the theater and their friend has to explain what the seemingly irrelevant scenes meant.  I'm making a big thing out of this for the sake of argument but I honestly don't think that stuff works.  At least not until the big fan edit in three years.

I somewhat agree with you. I watched LOTR recently and the great thing about those movies is how the story widens organically - nothing happens in the first film that doesn't directly affect the main characters in THAT film - when Two Towers comes along and the scale increases to include the war in Rohan it feels natural.

 

I think there should have been some mention of Radagast and Mirkwood at the White Council in An Unexpected Journey, and then have Gandalf meet up with Radagast at the start of film 2 (when they're on the borders of Mirkwood anyway), who then explains about the Necromancer and they head off together to investigate. 

 

It's interesting to note at this point that there was supposed to be a scene in the first film (a flashback probably) to Gandalf visiting Dol Guldur at an earlier date and discovering Thorin's father Thrain there, alive but driven mad - that's how he comes to aquire the key to the secret passage into Erebor. This scene is now apparently in the second film.

I guess I just fail to see what would have been so hard to follow.  It may hurt the film as a standalone experience for those who have never seen LOTR, and if you insist on judging it that way that's up to you.  But it's not hard to understand the necromancer stuff is part of a larger story, and that they're setting up something that will come into play later.  It may be unsatisfying, but it's not confusing... especially in a movie where so much was about just establishing the world.

I guess...  Maybe I'm just confused because I KNOW it's Sauron and wtf is Sauron doing fucking around as a necromancer when he's got shit that needs to get done?  He's a terrible dark lord.  Voldermort would wipe the floor with this guy.  He had SEVEN horcruxes.

It'll all be clearer when the Necromancer wins the Pod Race in the second movie.

I was THIS close to making a prequels joke.  I deleted it for not being funny.