I got back from seeing "The Hobbit" today and I left with mixed feelings. Overall I'd say it was a fun romp, but there were a few things that kept me from fully enjoying it. This can be attributed to two things:
1. Jackson and co. treating the film as more of a children's story. I know Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" for a more juvenile audience. I've read the book multiple times (still haven't touched "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, though. I want to, but I find it too intimidating of a tome, like it's so densely packed my brain would explode trying to process everything. I'll read it one day, though, one day...), and it definitely isn't stereotypical kids literature. It doesn't pander to them and deals with subjects that are mature for its intended demographic. It's smart and nothing stupid's put in there because "the kids'll like it." I felt that that was what was going throught Jackson and co.'s heads when they developed the character of Radagast the Brown and his bunny sled. I first saw the bunny sled in the trailer and for some reason thought nothing of it, then I watched the movie and wondered why I hadn't realized "Hey, this is pretty dumb" up until that point. If I ever meet Peter Jackson in person the first thing I'd say, well actually the second thing because I'd be gushing about how much I loved "King Kong" first, is "a bunny sled? Really?" If Jackson really needed to include him that badly then he could've been better written. It's not like he was being loyal to the source material, as Radagast's one mention in original novel is so slight that I forgot he even existed until I read this movie's press. Radagast the Brown just doesn't feel like he belongs in Middle Earth. Which is really my main complaint here. The juvenile stuff just doesn't belong in Middle Earth. It feels like a it comes from different world entirely. Particularly the Goblins and their king. They didn't feel like the same race as the ones in the trilogy, and I don't mean the Orcs because, though I'm no Tolkien expert, I'm aware of that distinction. They were just too comical and felt like they stepped out of another fantasy series. They were even designed differently, I think. I guess you could rationalize it by saying they're a different race of Goblins in the same way the Wargs, the giant wolves ridden by Goblins, looked different. But you shouldn't have to do that. Same with the Deacon Alien in "Prometheus," and don't get me started on that film!
2. All the scenes feebly trying to connect it with "Lord of the Rings." I know that sounds weird because I was just complaining about how this didn't feel like it was in the same universe, but in the original book all that connected the old with the new was Bilbo's magic ring, which eventually became the Ring of Power. I thought that was cool, how something so big could arise out of something so small. I don't need an entire scene of Gandalf debating with others whether Sauron's returning or not. Get back to the quest! The book didn't dwell on that. In the book when such meetings took place Gandalf just left for a while and came back and mentioned the meetings in passing. The meetings weren't the meat of the story and don't further the narrative. Tolkien knew what to focus on. It's like how the "Star Wars" prequels suffered from lack of focus. No one person was the main character. Now you've got an enitre subplot about characters separate from Bilbo, who's supposed to be the main focus, trying to prevent the rise of Sauron. Granted, it's not as bad as in the "Star Wars" prequels, but it certainly runs the risk if this is going to be the same with future films. However, I understand this problem, and it's inevitable given Jackson's tendency toward overindulgence, which I usually enjoy and is why I loved his "Kong" interpretation. He obviously loves the material, and when he loves something, he basks in it for as long as he can. As a Tolkien geek, he made this for other Tolkien geeks just like "Kong" was for Kong fans like me. But the problem is that by adding all this extra stuff from the appendix of "Lord of the Rings" (and probably from "The Silmarillion but I haven't read that, either), it's not really "The Hobbit" anymore. It's just a bloated mess. That's not to say I won't be looking forward to that, or at least parts of it. The more Orc battles, the better. But... I don't know, it's complicated.
Anyway, here are some positive things about the movie:
1. Gollum, Gollum, Gollum. Best scene by far, especially for being the first one they shot. It was like seeing an old friend again. He was my favorite character of the last three movies and he's my favorite here. I love Andy Serkis by now. First Kong, then Caesar (the ape not the emperor), and now back to his finest! Really I can't praise him more than what's already been written.
2. The sub-plot with the pale Orc that Thorin has a blood feud with was kind of take-it-or-leave-it for me. It wasn't crappy like Radagast or the Goblins but its addition left me scratching my head. Like Radagast there's no real point to him being there as the story would be just as riveting without him. But he is kind of cool so he gets somewhat of a pass from me.
3. Lack of Smaug. I already knew he wasn't going to fully appear until film 2, but damn it I wanna see him now! They're really hyping up his appearence, aren't they? I just hope it doesn't turn out like the American Godzilla movie where the design was a disappointment when revealed. This is probably one of cinema's only shots at an iconic movie dragon. Film history's filled with iconic dinosaurs, but no dragons in cinema have left any (scorch?) marks. They tried with "Beowulf" in 2007, but we all know how that turned out (not the design, but the movie itself. I loved the design). "Dragonslayer" may have been the exception if it hadn't opened against "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The dragon in that film takes the cake in terms of awesomeness. Can Smaug top that? We'll see. I also wonder how motion capture is going to play into this. Dragon anatomy is of course different from human anatomy, so how is that going to work? And Benedict Cumberbatch isn't only playing Smaug but also Sauron, so I wonder how they're going to differentiate his voice?
4. That fucking bunny sled! You're telling me it can out-run a gang of Wargs? I mean-- sorry. I'll stop now.
So that's just my overall impressions after my first time of seeing "The Hobbit." Just thought I'd post a review. I was actually thinking of turning this from an art blog to a more general blog. There'd still be art, there would also be reviews and observations and stuff. Part of my motivation for this change is, as you can probably tell from lack of updates, I haven't been drawing much lately. It's not enough of an excuse to say college burned me out, since it ended about 8 months ago. It's more complex than that., but now's not the time to talk about it. All I can really say is hopefully I'll update more because I just realized that a few people in my family actually read this (hey, guys!) and I wouldn't want to disappoint them with lack of content. If they still read it.
