In which The Hobbit is viewed, and Freya is skeptical.
So I saw The Hobbit. As a movie, it was good and I liked it. As an adaptation, I was left scratching a hole through my head. I had my issues with some of the changes to LotR (Faramir's characterization in particular had me seeing red, and there were some quibbles with wording), but for the most part I was satisfied (excising Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs, removing the Scouring, and expanding Arwen's role, among others, seemed more or less reasonable changes). In addition, while I was exposed to LotR as a child, it did not make nearly as deep an impression at the time as did The Hobbit. Many of the changes made little or no sense.
The way Bilbo leaves the Shire is as good a start as any. Book!Bilbo gets up, begrudgingly washes the piles of crockery left him by thirteen inconsiderate dwarves, then settles down for a nice prolonged meal of his own, only to be yanked out of his chair and kicked down the road by an urgent Gandalf. This is known, archetypically, as Refusal of the Call, and it also explains the lack of a pocket handkerchief. Movie!Bilbo gets up, wanders about his nice tidy burrow for a bit, then makes Epiphany Face at the unsigned document left by the dwarves, and goes sprinting down the road after them, just desperate to go on An Adventure ("Nasty uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!"). They included mention of the pocket handkerchief, but it seemed out of place.
This would seem a minor irritation if the movie weren't stuffed to the gills with moments like this. The whole subplot with Azog (who, prior to the events of the book, is DEAD, and long-dead at that) seemed tacked-on; Thranduil's brief appearance made him seem like a callous asshole (I had a sinking feeling about Thranduil's characterization, and now I'm more certain than ever that he'll be villainized once they get to Mirkwood); and don't even get me started at Bilbo Baggins: Action Hero! leaping down from a fir tree to gleefully hack away at attacking Wargs--which, incidentally, are sentient in the books and converse among themselves, not mindless sword-fodder--instead of safely and sensibly clinging to the tree like any normal hobbit worth his salt. Those oddly bloodthirsty moments aside, for a movie titled The Hobbit there was surprisingly greater emphasis on dwarven culture, to the point where it ought to have been titled Return of the Dwarf King. Bilbo may have been the title character, but most of the plot, and plight, was reserved for Thorin Oakenshield.
I was also annoyed that they left out my favourite line ("We like the dark! Dark for dark business."), but that's just a personal peeve.
Then there's the ongoing abuse of Elrond. Remember endlessly helpful Book!Elrond, "as kind as summer"? Or Book!Thorin, for that matter, who, when he learns that Gandalf intends to bring them to Rivendell, willingly and eagerly accepts the help of the elves? Instead of Book!Thorin's attitude of "Thank you for your gracious assistance, wise Master Elrond!" we get sulky Movie!Thorin's philosophy "DWARVES RULE ELVES DROOL," which if anything senselessly endangers his quest and his people, and Gandalf actually has to resort to subterfuge, SNEAKING THEM INTO RIVENDELL because of Thorin's stubbornness! I also didn't like the completely random Warg attack that required them to be saved first by a Disney character (further complaints below), then by Elrond and his people. Instead of Gandalf saying, hey, let's head to Rivendell to rest and regroup, and Thorin being all, okay, why not? (while Book!Thorin isn't thrilled at the idea, he doesn't reject it out of hand and certainly is respectful to his host), he's driven to a place he specifically said he wanted to avoid.
Also, Radagast. Just...WTF. Seriously, BUNNY SLEDS? BIRD CRAP? MUSHROOMS?!? He's a freaking ISTARI! He's a goddamn MAIA, for the love of Eru! SHOW SOME BLOODY RESPECT. I did love the semi-in-joke about the two unnamed Blue Wizards: "You know, I can't remember their names."
I have no problems whatsoever with Galadriel being included, simply because without her there are no female characters at all in The Hobbit, and if they're going to include a female character she makes the most sense (as opposed to, say, Arwen showing up, when she was canonically in Lothlorien at the time). I didn't like that she came off as having superpowers like telepathy and teleportation, and her scenes with Gandalf made it seem like there was something going on between them. It was...weird and inappropriate.
The mention of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins makes me wonder if she'll show up at some point. Frodo popping up was a little jarring, and the entire device of the party used as excuse for Bilbo to reminisce about his glory days seemed awkward, but it's not like we-the-audience can ignore the movie trilogy and start from scratch. There are the obvious issues with filming a prequel ten years after the sequel, namely that the cast has all obviously aged (except for Cate Blanchett, somehow), but it was that or recast everyone, so. Yeah.
Thank goodness Riddles in the Dark was spot-on. The most iconic chapter in the entire book, possibly out of Tolkien's writing, and they nailed it. There were a few squirrely bits during the troll scene, and I could have done with more trickery and fewer outright swordfights, but overall it was handled well.
Lest you think I have nothing but complaints to make, Things I Actually Liked: the dwarves' singing was beautiful, the foreshadowing of the spiders and mention of Ungoliant was clever, the rock giants were well-done (and much more dramatic than portrayed in the books), Riddles in the Dark was outstanding and EXACTLY like the book (nary a riddle left out), dwarves portrayed as actually attractive and competent (my mother, after we watched the movie: "Thorin Oakenshield is a babe!"), the plight of the dwarves was poignant without being maudlin, and Erebor was absolutely stunning in a futuristic way.
I'll need to view it a second time to get more accustomed to the changes, and then probably the other movie(s) for a more complete picture. Right now I'm trying to puzzle it out and reconcile it with the familiar text.
The way Bilbo leaves the Shire is as good a start as any. Book!Bilbo gets up, begrudgingly washes the piles of crockery left him by thirteen inconsiderate dwarves, then settles down for a nice prolonged meal of his own, only to be yanked out of his chair and kicked down the road by an urgent Gandalf. This is known, archetypically, as Refusal of the Call, and it also explains the lack of a pocket handkerchief. Movie!Bilbo gets up, wanders about his nice tidy burrow for a bit, then makes Epiphany Face at the unsigned document left by the dwarves, and goes sprinting down the road after them, just desperate to go on An Adventure ("Nasty uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!"). They included mention of the pocket handkerchief, but it seemed out of place.
This would seem a minor irritation if the movie weren't stuffed to the gills with moments like this. The whole subplot with Azog (who, prior to the events of the book, is DEAD, and long-dead at that) seemed tacked-on; Thranduil's brief appearance made him seem like a callous asshole (I had a sinking feeling about Thranduil's characterization, and now I'm more certain than ever that he'll be villainized once they get to Mirkwood); and don't even get me started at Bilbo Baggins: Action Hero! leaping down from a fir tree to gleefully hack away at attacking Wargs--which, incidentally, are sentient in the books and converse among themselves, not mindless sword-fodder--instead of safely and sensibly clinging to the tree like any normal hobbit worth his salt. Those oddly bloodthirsty moments aside, for a movie titled The Hobbit there was surprisingly greater emphasis on dwarven culture, to the point where it ought to have been titled Return of the Dwarf King. Bilbo may have been the title character, but most of the plot, and plight, was reserved for Thorin Oakenshield.
I was also annoyed that they left out my favourite line ("We like the dark! Dark for dark business."), but that's just a personal peeve.
Then there's the ongoing abuse of Elrond. Remember endlessly helpful Book!Elrond, "as kind as summer"? Or Book!Thorin, for that matter, who, when he learns that Gandalf intends to bring them to Rivendell, willingly and eagerly accepts the help of the elves? Instead of Book!Thorin's attitude of "Thank you for your gracious assistance, wise Master Elrond!" we get sulky Movie!Thorin's philosophy "DWARVES RULE ELVES DROOL," which if anything senselessly endangers his quest and his people, and Gandalf actually has to resort to subterfuge, SNEAKING THEM INTO RIVENDELL because of Thorin's stubbornness! I also didn't like the completely random Warg attack that required them to be saved first by a Disney character (further complaints below), then by Elrond and his people. Instead of Gandalf saying, hey, let's head to Rivendell to rest and regroup, and Thorin being all, okay, why not? (while Book!Thorin isn't thrilled at the idea, he doesn't reject it out of hand and certainly is respectful to his host), he's driven to a place he specifically said he wanted to avoid.
Also, Radagast. Just...WTF. Seriously, BUNNY SLEDS? BIRD CRAP? MUSHROOMS?!? He's a freaking ISTARI! He's a goddamn MAIA, for the love of Eru! SHOW SOME BLOODY RESPECT. I did love the semi-in-joke about the two unnamed Blue Wizards: "You know, I can't remember their names."
I have no problems whatsoever with Galadriel being included, simply because without her there are no female characters at all in The Hobbit, and if they're going to include a female character she makes the most sense (as opposed to, say, Arwen showing up, when she was canonically in Lothlorien at the time). I didn't like that she came off as having superpowers like telepathy and teleportation, and her scenes with Gandalf made it seem like there was something going on between them. It was...weird and inappropriate.
The mention of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins makes me wonder if she'll show up at some point. Frodo popping up was a little jarring, and the entire device of the party used as excuse for Bilbo to reminisce about his glory days seemed awkward, but it's not like we-the-audience can ignore the movie trilogy and start from scratch. There are the obvious issues with filming a prequel ten years after the sequel, namely that the cast has all obviously aged (except for Cate Blanchett, somehow), but it was that or recast everyone, so. Yeah.
Thank goodness Riddles in the Dark was spot-on. The most iconic chapter in the entire book, possibly out of Tolkien's writing, and they nailed it. There were a few squirrely bits during the troll scene, and I could have done with more trickery and fewer outright swordfights, but overall it was handled well.
Lest you think I have nothing but complaints to make, Things I Actually Liked: the dwarves' singing was beautiful, the foreshadowing of the spiders and mention of Ungoliant was clever, the rock giants were well-done (and much more dramatic than portrayed in the books), Riddles in the Dark was outstanding and EXACTLY like the book (nary a riddle left out), dwarves portrayed as actually attractive and competent (my mother, after we watched the movie: "Thorin Oakenshield is a babe!"), the plight of the dwarves was poignant without being maudlin, and Erebor was absolutely stunning in a futuristic way.
I'll need to view it a second time to get more accustomed to the changes, and then probably the other movie(s) for a more complete picture. Right now I'm trying to puzzle it out and reconcile it with the familiar text.