Several Things About The Hobbit: A Review (of Sorts)

It's been a couple of weeks now, since I saw two of the three available versions of Peter Jackson's new foray into Middle Earth, known as The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey. Overall, I loved the film, but I want to dig a little deeper, and see whether that love might be at least partially due to my tendency to view anything Tolkien related through rose-tinted glasses.

The first thing I want to cover, before I get into the story, is the new technology, namely the Stereoscopic (3D) High Frame Rate (48 fps) release. Before I discuss this, let me say I have not see the normal 3D (24 fps) release, but, that said, the 3D aspects of the HFR release I did see actually did not feel as intrusive as they have in some other films (I am not, essentially, normally a fan of 3D).

Ahem.

So, the High Frame Rate version ... what can I compare it to? I guess it was a lot like a bottle of cheap vodka. The right amount, mixed properly, can be a lot of fun, but too much, and everything is ruined. Unfortunately, the HFR was not a dynamic aspect of the film. It was static, constant, and overall, became intrusive.

Don't get me wrong. There were certain things it definitely improved. Landscape shots, wide shots, outdoor shots, and in particular, anything where the camera was in motion, especially on a boom, a track, shots presumably taken from a helicopter, or shots rendered in sweeping CGI, looked absolutely gorgeous, and while they were gorgeous in 2D (standard frame rate) too, there was a clarity to them in the HFR version that not only did my eye catch, but I actually thoroughly enjoyed.

Sadly, these shots were a smaller portion of the film than the scenes that were negatively affected. Whenever the camera was stationary, especially when the actors were in close-up, or were in motion while the camera was not, the animation of the objects on screen felt stilted, almost false, like when you watch certain BBC productions on an LCD HDTV. It's hard to describe, but if you've seen it, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

All in all, though I do think HFR may have a future in Cinema, for this film, in my opinion, it was more detrimental than it was beneficial. If you can only afford to see The Hobbit once, I recommend seeing it in standard frame rate. I loved the 2D version at 24 fps, but the 3D version may also be quite good.

If you're the technical type, and would like to read a much more in depth analysis of all this, check out Vincent Laforet's blog post about it, here: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why HFR fails, and a reaffirmation of what makes cinema magical.

* * *

Now, let's talk about the story. Or more so, what Jackson did with it. Before I make my points, go read this very funny post by Genevieve Valentine: Ten Things You Should Know About The Hobbit.

Obviously I don't agree with all her points, though I do enjoy the post. So, let me cover some of her items, as a way to try to briefly get to: All. The. Things.

1) Bilbo. Basically, I agree. Martin Freeman is a fabulous actor, and he really shines in his performance as Bilbo Baggins. I don't know that I agree entirely about the beginning. The scene (rambling, probably far too long) with the Dwarves, and dinner, and the dishes, goes on for far too long, and there are some awkward moments, even from Bilbo, but the scene is awkward in the book, and it makes sense for Bilbo to be rather uncomfortable. I do agree that Freeman hits his stride just as he hits the road ("I'm going on an Adventure!") but I would also argue that the scene in which he first good mornings Gandalf is one of the best exchanges I've seen between two brilliant actors in a long time (it's later eclipsed by Gollum and Bilbo in the riddle scene).

Of note: Gandalf has a line in Bag End, when he's trying to convince Bilbo to come on the adventure, in which he says something like: "all the best stories deserve a little embellishment." I see what you did there, Peter Jackson. Well played, sir. Well played.

2) Thorin Oakenshield. I get it, I do. Richard Armitage is handsome. This movie has no Aragorn. Thorin's backstory is not completely, entirely accurate to canon. But, I have to say, for the most part, at least for me, it worked. The antagonism between Thorin and Bilbo, and the way their relationship builds through the story is one of the main (pair of) character arcs in the book, and while the movie certainly protrays Thorin in a way I never would have pictured ahead of time, I can't say that I didn't like it.

Of note: Richard Armitage has quite a set of pipes, and can sing like Durin himself.

3) The Dwarves. Okay, sure, there are too many, and in the film, a couple of them feel completely superfluous, but this is Tolkien, and when you're turning a short novel into three feature length films, you're certainly not cutting anything.

Of note: there is an Orcish axe permanently embedded in Bifur's head. Please don't let this come up in dialog in the later films. Like Legolas surfing down the stairs of the deeping wall at Helm's Deep, if you're cutting anything, it ought to be this nonsense.

4) Radagast. I'm pretty well split in my opinion of Radagast. On the one hand, some of the foolishness he portrays in the film does fit with how he is described in Middle Earth canon, but I was still annoyed by a lot of it, because he is, after all, one of the Istari, a Maiar, and I just couldn't swallow him as quite such a bumbling old fool. That said, a Facebook friend of mine, Paul Genesse, wisely pointed out that this could all be subterfuge on Radagast's part, and his point is somewhat well supported when Radagast actually has a moment of strength at Dol Guldur.

Of note: pipe weed is not marijuana. Saruman certainly talks about the Halfling's leaf slowing Gandalf's wits in the books, but the smoking was much funnier, less silly, and more subtle in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And this post is getting way too long. I'll have to continue it some day soon. For now, I'll just add that if someone out there could edit out the two egregiously overdone CGI sequences that I could not stand (stone giants, and falling bridges in the goblin kingdom) I think we'd have a very good, if not excellent, film on our hands (preferably the 2D standard frame rate version).

What do you all think? Has anyone seen all three versions? I'm particularly interested in hearing about the 3D standard frame rate format.

Otherwise, Happy New Year to all of you, dear readers!

The Hobbit: First Review

Well, I heard my first review of The Hobbit on NPR's Morning Edition this morning. From Kenneth Turan:

"It doesn't suck."

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it's encouraging. And I now officially will not even look at another blog until I've seen the movie. So please don't tell me what you think until I've had a chance to see it.

Unexpected Predictions

Welly well, it's December now, all of a sudden, so it's time to talk about the biggest film of the year.

I remember when Fellowship of the Ring first came out, and I was so nervous. On the one hand, I was very excited to see my favorite story of all time turned into a live action film, but on the other, I was very apprehensive, concerned they would ruin it. They didn't. It's not perfect, but the Peter Jackson adaption of the trilogy is probably the greatest adaptation ever done.

Now I'm nervous and curious to see what they do with The Hobbit.

As you all know, they've decided to turn this one into a trilogy as well. That's going to be difficult. With LOTR, it was easy to keep it to three films: there were three books, there was plenty of material, and while they had to make long films, and cut only some important things like Tom Bombadil, the Barrow-Wights, Sharkie, Glorfindel, Aragorn's cousins, and so on, it all worked within the medium. At least it did for me.

So anyway, today I'd like to discuss what the good folks at Wingnut will be doing with the story from The Hobbit, and how they'll be expanding it into three films, including what they might cut, what they might expand on, and where the first movie will end.

First, let's cover the obvious: the one big thing that is mentioned in the book (and hinted at in other Middle Earth volumes), but never actually fully covered, is what the heck Gandalf is off doing while Bilbo and the Dwarves are traversing Mirkwood. Well, anyone who knows their Tolkien (like Ted or Deniz) can tell you that Gandalf was off evicting the "necromancer" from Dol Guldur, for the White Council. I don't know how they could fit this into the new trilogy of films, but I'd be interested to see it if they do.

Other than that, I can't think of any major plot elements that are known to fans, but not really covered in the book. From looking at the cast list and other info at IMDB, we can guess at some other things. I had originally heard that the fabulous Benedict Cumberbatch, of Sherlock fame, would be playing the voice of Smaug, but now it seems he's playing the Necromancer, so I think we can safely assume this first film will not take us all the way to the lonely mountain. I mean, it makes sense, right? If the first movie goes all the way to the end of the book, what the heck do you put in the next two films?

Also, we can see that there is no Legolas, no Aragorn, and no Arwen, but there is a Radagast the Brown, who I have always wanted to hear more about, so we shall see where that takes us.

Furthermore, the subsequent films in the trilogy appear to have titles now, which can tell us a bit more: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, is the second film, and the third will be called The Hobbit: There and Back Again.

So, I will predict that this first film ends before they even enter Mirkwood. Perhaps around the time they meet Beorn (if they don't skip that whole bit), but certainly after they escape the goblins and Bilbo tricks the ring away from Gollum. If they cover some of the side story, and follow Gandalf when he's gone, I could easily see that being enough content to make an entire film.

It seems to me the second movie would then cover Mirkwood, Lake-Town, the lonely mountain, and probably fit in with the ending of the book, The Battle of the Five Armies.

Then, perhaps the third film will be about the journey home.

Obviously I could be wildly out of touch with all of this, but it sure is fun to think about. What do you predict we'll get to see in these movies? What are you most looking forward to finding out?

Passenger Cover Reveal

I'm going to be extremely busy today, directing you to three different posts (including this one), but with the A to Z challenge coming up, I've got to fit everything in I can, before April.

So, very quickly, this is the cover for the upcoming and highly anticipated Passenger, the sequel to The Marbury Lens, by Andrew Smith which will be released Fall 2012. In case you live under a rock, or don't know me very well, here is a bit about the book:

Jack and Conner have a plan.

They think it's the only reasonable way to deal with the Marbury lens.

But the four boys - Jack, Conner, Ben, and Griffin - end up scattered in different places at different times. Jack is lost in a Marbury that isn't Marbury, a Glenbrook that isn't Glenbrook, pursued through every crumbling not-world by an uncaring cop trying to solve the mystery of Freddie Horvath's murder, and a deceitful kid named Quinn Cahill who believes he is the King of Marbury. Jack's universe is collapsing in on itself. He finds his friends. He finds his home.

There's always just one thing, and Jack knows it.

This can't be it.

Be excited, because if you do know me, you know that I think The Marbury Lens is one of the best books I've ever read. Passenger looks to be everything it was and more.

Now, I really am sorry to bother you with all these other posts, but like I said, I have to cram a lot of things in before the A to Z challenge begins next month. So, first, please visit Project Mayhem, and read the post I wrote arguing that The Hobbit is Middle Grade.

Then, please visit Afterglow Book reviews, and read my un-review of Please Ignore Vera Dietz, by A.S. King. Then you may go on about your day.

Thank you!