The Hobbit: Movie Review

[3113]

See it at 24 frames. That's the first thing I have to say. Peter Jackson, for whatever reason, decided to experiment and double the number of frames for this movie (only some places are showing this) to 48. I happened to see this version, and I think Jackson made a mistake using the Hobbit as his experiment for it. Why? Well, because there's a kind of cognitive dissonance when you see it and it takes a while to stop seeing it and just enjoy the movie. I mean it took me nearly half the movie to stop seeing/noticing it. I was fine once that happened, but audiences shouldn't need that much time to get used to it.

What do you see/notice at 48 frames?...well, pretty much everything as 48 frames gives you double the details.

Now if this was a film taking place in the here and now (say, the streets of NYC), that might not be so bad. You-are-there, as in a documentary, wouldn't distract so much as we'd simply see real building and such as we would if we were there. But when 48 frames are used for an imaginary world of sets and CGI, you don't get "you-are-there." What you get is "I'm at the renaissance faire" feeling. Or "I'm going on a theme park ride...."

Because you're either noticing details that make you see the object as fake (made of plaster not rock), or you're noticing that something doesn't have enough details to fit in (like a CGI wolf). ironically enough, the hyper-detail makes everything look less real and smaller. Suspension of disbelief, getting into that other universe is more difficult, because you keep getting distracted by a look that makes you feel like you stepped onto a sound stage--not into Middle Earth.

As for the movie itself (never mind the 48 frames)--I found it an entertaining movie, certainly well done and acted. But it is from "The Hobbit" which is a middle-grade book and it has that "entertain the youngsters" feeling. This isn't the adult fantasy that "Lord of the Rings" is, which drops you right into a situation scary and urgent and complicated. So the ride is a bit slower in gaining momentum, and the world and things we see in it are less breath-taking. Though there are some marvelous designs and places.

The famous Gollum/Bilbo riddle scene, lifted exactly from the book, is the highlight of the film and really marvelous.

I would say this movie is worth seeing, but no need to rush out for it. Also, I've no idea how Jackson is going to stretch it out into three movies. Two I could see, but three? This one did move slow at times and felt padded. I was happy to return to Middle Earth, but the visit was a bit strange. Enjoy!

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm going to see it tomorrow. Last week I took my daughters and we did a Lord of The Rings marathon at the local showcase. We were there almost eleven hours and I had to have dropped $100 on food throughout the day.

I'm looking forward to it, except for the one thing that has always annoyed me about the story.

In the game of riddles, Bilbo cheats. "Whats in my pocket is not a riddle.

Gollum should have slit his throat.

 

[3113]

Bilbo doesn't cheat--Gollum does

In the game of riddles, Bilbo cheats. "Whats in my pocket is not a riddle.

Actually, he doesn't cheat. ***SPOILERS FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK***
*
*
*
Bilbo is paused, trying to think of another riddle, when he rubs his pocket, feels something in there and, having forgotten about the ring during the game asks *HIMSELF* "What's in my pocket?"

Gollum is the one who sees this as the next riddle and Bilbo takes advantage of that. Gollum could have said, "Not a riddle, doesn't count..." but though he protests it as not fair, Gollum does takes it on as valid--he said "ask me a question" and Bilbo did. As Bilbo didn't intend his question that way, he didn't cheat--however, he does take advantage of Gollum's misunderstanding.

Of course, if we're going to point fingers at cheaters, then we have to point at Gollum who fails to keep up his end of the bargain. First, there's little indication that he ever intended on keeping his end of the bargain. And second, once he'd "lost" the game, he doesn't really help out Bilbo as promised; instead he ends up chasing Bilbo for stealing the ring.

So I really don't think we can take Bilbo too much to task for cheating, especially as the deal is that if he loses Gollum gets to eat him I think I'd go after every unfair advantage in such circumstances, wouldn't you?

 

[Carnevil9]

There is also the whole "the Ring made me do it" theory to explain Bilbo's lack of sportsmanship. (Or is that "sportshobbitship"?)

 

[lovecraft68]

Actually, he doesn't cheat. ***SPOILERS FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK***
*
*
*
Bilbo is paused, trying to think of another riddle, when he rubs his pocket, feels something in there and, having forgotten about the ring during the game asks *HIMSELF* "What's in my pocket?"

Gollum is the one who sees this as the next riddle and Bilbo takes advantage of that. Gollum could have said, "Not a riddle, doesn't count..." but though he protests it as not fair, Gollum does takes it on as valid--he said "ask me a question" and Bilbo did. As Bilbo didn't intend his question that way, he didn't cheat--however, he does take advantage of Gollum's misunderstanding.

Of course, if we're going to point fingers at cheaters, then we have to point at Gollum who fails to keep up his end of the bargain. First, there's little indication that he ever intended on keeping his end of the bargain. And second, once he'd "lost" the game, he doesn't really help out Bilbo as promised; instead he ends up chasing Bilbo for stealing the ring.

So I really don't think we can take Bilbo too much to task for cheating, especially as the deal is that if he loses Gollum gets to eat him I think I'd go after every unfair advantage in such circumstances, wouldn't you?

As a gollum fan I just wanted to see him slit his throat.

Then again I also keep questioning why they didn;t put Frodo on the back of one of those giant eagles and just fucking fly over Mordor.

Then I guess we couldn't have had the 11 hour marathon.

 

[Carnevil9]

......Then again I also keep questioning why they didn;t put Frodo on the back of one of those giant eagles and just fucking fly over Mordor......

The in-universe answer to this often-asked question is that Sauron would have seen them coming a mile away and sent the Nazgul to take care of them. The writerly answer, however, is that Tolkien's theme was the power of the little guy; it took two hobbits, toiling in obscurity, to accomplish what the great and powerful never could.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Back in the day, well-meaning people kept telling me; "Read the Hobbit first!"

Which turned out to be pretty much impossible. The first half could have used an editor.

Finally I gave up in disgust and read the Trilogy-- and later went back and got into the Hobbit, by way of skipping the first three chapters.

 

[glynndah]

Back in the day, well-meaning people kept telling me; "Read the Hobbit first!"

Which turned out to be pretty much impossible. The first half could have used an editor.

Finally I gave up in disgust and read the Trilogy-- and later went back and got into the Hobbit, by way of skipping the first three chapters.

Maybe I should try that. My husband's read all the Tolkien books multiple times while I struggled to get through the first few pages of The Hobbit just once. I finally had to give up. It wasn't my cup of tea.

 

[SubWhisperer]

The Hobbit is written at a very different level from The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is essentially young adult fiction (although they didn't have that term back then). I read it in high school and thought it was too young a book even then.

The Lord of the Rings is written for adults. It doesn't mean someone who didn't like The Hobbit would like it, of course, but there's at least the possibility. The Hobbit isn't like Lord of the Rings 1A, really.

 

[PennLady]

Back in the day, well-meaning people kept telling me; "Read the Hobbit first!"

Which turned out to be pretty much impossible. The first half could have used an editor.

Finally I gave up in disgust and read the Trilogy-- and later went back and got into the Hobbit, by way of skipping the first three chapters.

I think what I did was read "The Hobbit," although I couldn't tell you when. Then I think I tried LOTR but b/c the style was so different, it took me back and I guess I just wasn't in the mood. I read the entire trilogy and enjoyed it immensely after Fellowship came out.

I loved the LOTR movies as well but man, I'm really leery of these Hobbit movies. I've been wary of Jackson since King Kong. Which I generally liked but in a bit of a paradox, thought the action-filled middle actually slowed the movie down. To me, you could have cut out a lot of the monsters on the island bit, and the movie would have been better.

 

[lovecraft68]

Back in the day, well-meaning people kept telling me; "Read the Hobbit first!"

Which turned out to be pretty much impossible. The first half could have used an editor.

Finally I gave up in disgust and read the Trilogy-- and later went back and got into the Hobbit, by way of skipping the first three chapters.

This perfectly describes Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books. I started with Lord Foul's Bane and it was so boring and Covenant was such a whiner I gave up.

A few years later I pick up book one of the second trilogy and it was so good I went back and forced my self through Lord Foul, the next two boos were very good and because there are time gaps I have recommended to people that you can start the series with The Illearth war and not miss much because each book has a "what has gone before" intro.

Back to the topic, I also read the trilogy before the Hobbit and am not a fan of the story, but hey, you know me, I was rooting for the Dragon.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

This perfectly describes Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books. I started with Lord Foul's Bane and it was so boring and Covenant was such a whiner I gave up.

A few years later I pick up book one of the second trilogy and it was so good I went back and forced my self through Lord Foul, the next two boos were very good and because there are time gaps I have recommended to people that you can start the series with The Illearth war and not miss much because each book has a "what has gone before" intro.

Back to the topic, I also read the trilogy before the Hobbit and am not a fan of the story, but hey, you know me, I was rooting for the Dragon.

Rooting for gollum, rooting for the dragon...

We get it. You're a bad guy.

 

[sr71plt]

Rooting for gollum, rooting for the dragon...

We get it. You're a bad guy.

Well, his answer to everything is to strike out at it. A sad puppy.

But you picked him as a buddy.

 

[TE999]

When I was in college everyone was saying "Dude, you gotta read the Rings Trilogy, Tolkiens so cool".

Meh.

I just couldn't get into it. I still can't.

I've read a lot of F&SF and enjoyed it; hell, I write the stuff, Tolkien for some reason leaves me cold. Dunno why, he just does.

C.S. Lewis is cool though.

 

[PennLady]

When I was in college everyone was saying "Dude, you gotta read the Rings Trilogy, Tolkiens so cool".

Meh.

I just couldn't get into it. I still can't.

I've read a lot of F&SF and enjoyed it; hell, I write the stuff, Tolkien for some reason leaves me cold. Dunno why, he just does.

C.S. Lewis is cool though.

I can understand this. Tolkien is, I think, pretty cold. He was more interested, it seems to me, in the overall story, his mythology, than in making his characters too relatable, let alone warm and fuzzy. Also, LOTR is written in what I consider a sort of formal style. The Hobbit (as I recall) was much different.

 

[lovecraft68]

Rooting for gollum, rooting for the dragon...

We get it. You're a bad guy.

Not always

I always rooted for Rocky!

I just think that in general, the bad guys are always portrayed a little cooler.

Shit, look at what happened in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter became a damn anti-hero

and when you read the books closely and they did a good job with it in the movies Gollum was not really evil, he was just a sick soul who'd been warped by the ring.

Hey he was even being good until Frodo had to squeal on him to those lame ass archers, then he went back to bad again.

 

[lovecraft68]

This message is blocked because SR71Pilot is a low life coward who talks about people behind their backs especially when he thinks they are not "listening"

 

[sr71plt]

This message is hidden because lovecraft68 is on your ignore list.

 

[3113]

Maybe I should try that. My husband's read all the Tolkien books multiple times while I struggled to get through the first few pages of The Hobbit just once. I finally had to give up. It wasn't my cup of tea.

Give the "Fellowship of the Rings" a try--just the first chapter or so. The Hobbit was Tolkien's first book and not, I think, the one he really wanted to write; and it really is for a different audience than Lord of the Rings.

If you can't get into "Fellowship" then, yes, Tolkien's not your cup of tea. He's certainly not for everyone as he is creating a very poetic epic, one where the reader has to really step in and commit to his world, not remain on the sidelines as some fantasy books allow readers to do. It took me a while before I was ready for LOTR. But when I finally was ready for it, I was really glad to have taken that long strange trip.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'll tell you what I tried to get into a few times, but never could was the Silmarrilion which if I remember right is a prequel dating way back before the Hobbit, sort of a history type of book, unfortunately it reads like a history textbook.

I think there was actually some talk of a movie, but for the life of me I can;t see how it would work

 

[3113]

I'm really leery of these Hobbit movies. I've been wary of Jackson since King Kong.

I can totally understand that as I was horrified by King Kong (didn't know why it had to be made again in the first place). But you can go to the Hobbit without fear (outside of that 48 frame version ). It's very non-threatening entertainment.

C.S. Lewis is cool though.

If you like having Christianity shoved down your throat. Kids might be fine with his books as they don't get it, but his proselytizing is impossible to miss if one's an adult. Every Narnia book offers the same message: Hero of the story or not, you're not allowed to do anything worthwhile until you proclaim your blind, undying faith in Aslan/jesus.

No thanks. I'll take Tolkien's subtler, more complex Catholic metaphors over being beaten over the head with Lewis' blatant believe-in-jesus didacticism.

 

[3113]

I think there was actually some talk of a movie, but for the life of me I can;t see how it would work

Doubtful because Tolkien's family still holds the rights to that. They haven't been at all satisfied with what they've gotten back form LOTR's or the Hobbit, and so aren't likely to hand over those rights they still hold anytime soon.

 

[Carnevil9]

The Silmarillion is a collection of related short (and some not so short) stories, of the First and Second ages, looooong before the era of LOTR. Very epic, Mount Olympus type stuff. No cute hobbits in sight, primarily good and evil elves and good and evil gods and demi-gods. Any one of the chapters would make a good high-concept fantasy movie.

 

[lovecraft68]

The Silmarillion is a collection of related short (and some not so short) stories, of the First and Second ages, looooong before the era of LOTR. Very epic, Mount Olympus type stuff. No cute hobbits in sight, primarily good and evil elves and good and evil gods and demi-gods. Any one of the chapters would make a good high-concept fantasy movie.

So if they're short stories does that mean Jackson would only be able to make a 120 minute movie out of them?

 

[MSTarot]

When I was in college everyone was saying "Dude, you gotta read the Rings Trilogy, Tolkiens so cool".

Meh.

I just couldn't get into it. I still can't.

I've read a lot of F&SF and enjoyed it; hell, I write the stuff, Tolkien for some reason leaves me cold. Dunno why, he just does.

C.S. Lewis is cool though.

I have noticed a pattern in that. A lot of fans of C.S.Lewis don't seem to like Tolkien. I'm sure there are exceptions but in general the reverse seems to be true too. A lot of Tolkien fans don't like Lewis.

I was a fan of the Hobbit from page one. Read it so many time the school librarian asked me to stop checking it out and let someone else read it.

Lewis? Not so much, to me he read kind of dry. I've thought about picking his stories back up since the movies came out to see if that might have changed. I know my tastes in reading has over the years.

It's funny they were friends to some extent. Tolkien even wrote Lewis into the Lord of the Rings. The "Haruuum Barooom" of Treebeard is Tolkien poking fun at the way Lewis would hum to himself when he walked around the halls of the College where they both taught.

M.S.Tarot