The Hobbit: Part 1
Both this and Prometheus infuriate me.
I compare these films because Prometheus was (in my opinion) a good film ruined by a terrible re-write which basically just cut large chunks of the story out (including an actual ENDING) for the sake of sequel bait...which might not even happen. With The Hobbit, large unecessary chunks have been added to the story for the sake of more sequels.
I admire that the film maintains moments of subtlety (something most adaptations cut), but the only reason why it maintains these subtle moments is because they have to make a trilogy and they only have 300 pages of source material. I almost feel sorry for Peter Jackson and the writing team...almost.
Jackson has misunderstood the tone of the book. Lord of the Rings is a three part saga about destroying Sauron - who basically represents all evil in the world. The Hobbit is a literal character-journey as Bilbo gets plucked out of his quiet lifestyle and is forced to enjoy the more dangerous things in life (and in the process, these Dwarfs who are merely looking to get their gold back are thrust into this inter-race conflict that, in a way, they accidentally started). But Peter Jackson is still trying to crank up the epic-ness by making this quest for gold an earth-shattering event. I hated how they try to fit Sauron into it all. Who cares? Whilst it was awesome to see Christopher Lee again, that entire chunk of the film with the hermit wizard and the was entirely pointless. Sauron has nothing to do with anything! And why is Gandalf like "There's this necromancer running lose? Ah well - I'm off to help some Dwarfs get a load of bling.."
In fact, everything that wasn't in the book felt pointless. Jackson introduces this giant albino-Orc guy who killed Thorin's father (which, as we all know, is the cheapest and most clichéd way to create dramatic conflict between two characters. They even make Thorin yell "NNNOOOOOO!!" just in case you thought there might be the tiniest bit of originality or subtlety in this plot-element). What? Wasn't the giant dragon, the Goblins, the Spiders, the Mirkwood Elves, and all the other foes the party encounters on their quest enough? Did you really need to add another antagonist? I don't mind changing the source material - but adding stuff in just for the sake of piling another hour onto the running time?
Also, this is a minor complaint, but I found it hilarious when Elrond was like: "This map can only be read at a certain time of a certain day of a certain month of a certain year of a certain decade....oh, look at that!". Plus, this is really tiny, but they say that all the elven the swords will glow blue when Orcs/Goblins are present yet only Bilbo's ever glows - and it doesn't do anything when he's right in front of a rabid pack of Orcs. Its just I really liked it in the graphic novel adaptation where Gandalf turns off the lights and slashes all the Goblins with his glowing sword.
Underneath all the padding - there is a good film here. A very, very good film in fact. The characters are all memorable, the prologue and the scene with Gollum are the highlights, I really enjoyed the sequence with the mountain-giants, Martin Freeman is a great lead, and the dinner with the Dwarves begins excellently....until it kept going on and on and on and on and on. This film needs a complete re-edit (and a few re-shoots). The prologue and the riddle-game are absolutely spot-on, but in between these is almost two hours of untrimmed scenes and filler. I felt like I was watching a rough-cut rather than a worldwide release. It has many redeeming qualities, but I honestly don't want to watch the film again until the inevitable fan-edits start appearing online.
(Oh, and I didn't see it in 48fps - because no-where within reasonable travel distance of my town was showing it. I'm against 48fps simply because it looks like a television drama rather than a cinematic presentation. I know its meant to be 'realistic', but why on earth would you try to make your film with a main cast full of humanoids look 'realistic'? Maybe in a few years time this technique will catch on; but I really don't see the need for it at the moment. And please don't respond telling me that I'm saying what many people were saying about sound and colour. Wait until this catches on before berating me just for being a bit of a purist.
Also, I did see it in 3D because my cinema were trying to milk as much from this film as possible - thus every screening needed glasses. Part of it were OK, but it felt very post-conversion; which ruined the impressive landscape shots a little. If you want to see the film, watch it in 48fps if your really interested, but if you can only catch it 24/25fps and in 2D - I don't think your missing much)
Last edited by Max Butcher (December 18, 2012 (09:44am))
