EPT
Obviously, SPOILERS, but enjoy!
===============================================
What, did you not think the title of this post was going to be a pun? FALSE. Of course it was. And, of course, the N3rd Dimension was going to be at Friday’s midnight premiere to see the next installment of Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth saga. Robin, your favorite Girl Blunder, and I were ensconced in an IMAX theater last week to see the journey’s beginning… and judge it as only nerds can.
Not all those who wander are lost, but those that pass beyond this point risk spoilers. You have been warned.
Sam: So, I think there were parts of The Hobbit that we agree on, and these were mostly good things, since you liked the movie more than I did. Let’s start with the casting. And by casting I mean, Martin Freeman is fucking amazing, right? His little awkward smirks, his Hobbit-y sincerity and honesty… he just did Bilbo.
Robin: Martin Freeman is… I don’t have a word for what Martin Freeman is, but suffice it to say the man is a brilliant actor. In general, Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, and Fran Walsh have always done an incredible job with casting and The Hobbit is no exception. Though, as I think about it now, I don’t really have anywhere to go with that statement, because one of my critiques about the film was that it was lacking in character development!
Sam: I’m with you on this, and, unfortunately, it just reflects a similar lack of characterization in the books. You never really learn that much about the Dwarves. And it’s because The Hobbit is a kid’s story: with kids, you don’t have to go in to that much detail. I wish Jackson had done a little bit more to add character to a few of the Dwarves, though he tried with some and not with others. Thorin, in particular, got a notable and tragic backstory, though it was a little cliched for my taste (only a little). My biggest annoyance on this score is for every bit of development they did well with Freeman’s Bilbo (like the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ scene, easily the best scene in the movie) they did another rather poorly (like robbing Bilbo of his big moment in tricking the Trolls for some Gandalf magic)
Robin: Yeah, when I said that the film was lacking in character development, what I really meant was that Bilbo was lacking in development. The book itself is very dwarf-centered, certainly, but I didn’t think enough was done beyond superficially showing that Bilbo really missed the Shire or didn’t think himself very brave. I had pretty big beef about Trolls scene, as you said, because that was really a chance for Bilbo the Burglar to show his quality. But! Even though I’ve started out complaining, I want to say (to the readers, obviously) that I really enjoyed the film and what I think facilitated that was my expectations of what can be done with The Hobbit as a film in a “post-LotR world,” let’s call it. Thoughts, Sam?
Oh and also. Thorin’s backstory, though cliched, is canon (Appendix III of RotK), so… there’s only so much Peter Jackson can do there.
Sam: Fair enough. And, to similarly clarify, I wasn’t nearly as into The Hobbit as I thought I’d be. But we’ll address those reasons later. First, the “post-LotR” world. The Hobbit provides an opportunity for Jackson to further flesh out the world leading up to Lord of the Rings, and as we all know, there’s a LOT of world out there. But this means that he has to take some creative license with the story of The Hobbit, because when it was written, that huge Tolkien world didn’t exist. And this fleshing out is why there are a lot of new and unexpected elements within The Hobbit that don’t mesh with the original tone of the novel. For example, the tales of Erebor and Thorin provide context about the conflict between Elves and Dwarves and about the retaking of Moria. Which is very cool, as a Tolkien fan.
Robin: Yeah, we should get this out right now: Jackson’s Hobbit is not the cutesy fun Hobbit that you may have read as a kid. I treated this film like an appendix to the LotR films using the framework of The Hobbit–and I think if you don’t, you’re really going to struggle with liking it, just like you probably struggled with your enjoyment of book version of The Hobbit after you’d plunged into the book version of The Lord of the Rings. The stakes in The Hobbit are far lower than they are in Lord of the Rings. Thirteen dwarves want to reclaim their home of Erebor and if they fail, well—the status quo remains and perhaps thirteen dwarves lose their lives. Sauron threatens all of Middle-earth, and a victory for the bad guys there means death to pretty much everyone else. Jackson had little choice other than to really delve into the story of The Necromancer (aka, Sauron, for our casual LotR fans) and Thorin, because we would have struggled to really care otherwise.
As I’ve mentioned Thorin, I’ll segue briefly into that beautiful moment with Thranduil turning his back on Thorin when the dwarves needed help. Those were the kind of moments that did more than just make the audience care about what was happening, but also expanded the films that had come before them. That moment was the moment that really catapulted the Dwarf v. Elf dynamic (that was arguably destined to occur, consider Mandos didn’t have permission to create the dwarves in the first place). It echoes all the way into The Fellowship of the Ring, specifically when you see Gimli, son of Gloin (One of Thorin’s 13. Let’s make that a thing. Thorin’s 13.) swear that he will never trust an elf. Simply beautiful.
Sam: These are the moments that are important to truly enjoying The Hobbit because when it comes down to it, this movie is a prelude to the upcoming ones (where there will be more war and more struggle) and the trilogy itself is a prelude to LotR. This is where I felt my expectations betrayed me and kept me from enjoying the movie as much as I could have. There’s the feeling that nothing really happens in the movie (and critics have been saying similar things). But that’s not really true; it’s just that what does happen is either low-stakes (as you said) or is context building. Which is important, but not particularly “eventful,” if you will. It means that (hopefully) the next two movies will have more substance taken on their own, and the whole series will run together marvelously as a full marathon (already excited for that). But, if you’re hoping to hear some Benedict Cumberbatch, grow tense during Orc v. Good Guy confrontations, or things like that, you’re going to be disappointed.
But there are also parts of the movie that pissed me off regardless of expectation. Along with the extra content of the movie, there’s a lot of self-referential fan-pandering that takes place in The Hobbit. I don’t understand why Gandalf turned Bag End dark when he was yelling at the Dwarves; it didn’t seem like he needed to get as angry as he did over the One Ring. I didn’t see why the Ring had to fall on Bilbo’s finger in the EXACT same way it did on Frodo’s in Bree. Sure, Galadriel should be brought into discussions about the actions which may endanger Middle-earth, but having her speak into Gandalf’s mind just because felt like the movie saying “HEY YOU REMEMBER THIS?! WASN’T THIS FUN?!” These particular choices weren’t even related to repeated content in the book (like Gandalf using moth-messaging to call the Eagles again), but were just shoved in there. Unnecessarily. To the detriment of the film.
Robin: And this is where we really differ, because I was really into all of the references, whether obvious or not-so-obvious. I don’t think that there’s really a “correct” response to that kind of thing, though, because everyone’s set point for what they think is acceptable fanservice and what’s just lacking in creativity is different. I thought that they were pleasant homages/parallels to the previous films, but I can see why someone with a different set point than mine may not feel that way.
Sam: Yep, there it is. I enjoyed things like the reappearance of Weathertop, or the surprise (to me) return of (good) Saruman, or Gollum’s reprise of his song from The Two Towers. And Gollum’s dual personality was immaculate during the scenes in the cave, which I thought paid well-deserved homage to Serkis’ performance in the first trilogy. But the rest of it was grating. I even was a bit bugged by “That’s What Bilbo Baggins Hates,” even though I know intellectually that that’s just part of Tolkien’s generally music-filled world and the child-like atmosphere of the whole narrative.
On more of a movie-related than Tolkien-related topic, the film has drawn quite a bit of criticism for being filmed at 48 frames-per-second, which is double the normal rate. Jackson boasted about how proud he was of this “film innovation,” but many people have really disliked it. Did you notice anything? I didn’t.
Robin: Not at all. Maybe because I was looking through 3D glasses, but I noticed nothing. But people complaining about that–that’s a film detail, not an actual criticism of the film. And, really, if that’s what’s drawing the most criticism, I’d call the whole thing a success, considering the high expectations.
Sam: Haha. Yeah, if that’s what you’re complaining about… So, overall, I didn’t have a great time watching The Hobbit because of the various bits of pandering or boringness that pervaded it, but at least some of that I can chalk up to my mindset. I’d be willing to see it again now that I’ve thought about its purpose in the overall saga, and maybe that would change what I think about it. But that wouldn’t make the scenes that I found artistically lazy any better.
Robin: As for me, I really enjoyed it. Admittedly, I don’t love it as much as I love LotR, but I really didn’t expect to. I had a great time delving deeper into the histories of Middle-earth and its characters, particularly in the case of The Necromancer. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing the rise of Sauron on the big screen as well as an even more enriched Middle-earth in the next installment.
===============================================
You can read all this, including Robin's posts, and more at the N3rd Dimension.
