By Tyson Hinton
I wrote this review almost a month ago but never published it. Since my views are still applicable and there are going to be people who have not seen the film I will share my thoughts and observations. There will be SPOILERS.
12-18-2012
Several weeks after the release of The Hobbit I've now had the opportunity to view the film in 3-D with 48 frames per second and also in the 24 FPS movie standard and thought I would share a few thoughts on the film. I won't be writing in any amount of depth on the overall plot but there may contain some *spoilers* though I don't feel I should be worried about spoiling the story for an nearly 80 year old book.
I saw The Hobbit for the first time in 3-D 48 FPS the Monday following the release of the film. I'm sure that I will spend more time going over what I didn't like about the film, so don't get me wrong as I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The framing device for the film, using the original cast of Ian Holme and Elijah Woods of played Bilbo and Frodo respectively in The Lord of The Rings was a great way t back story and depth to some characters simply by them being present. The audience knows what is going to happen with Bilbo and his eventual fate far across the sea in the west with the elves.
The Hobbit was originally intended to be a two part movie but sometime during filming it was decided to split the movie into three films and many saw this as a money grab. I am not one who would be able to disagree with that point entirely. There a points of the film that seem to drag on a little longer than might be necessary. This was a common complaint I've heard from people when discussing The Lord of the Rings trilogy with people over the last ten years, especially the long ending of Return of the King. In the case of the LotR trilogy I've personally felt some of those scenes were necessary for exposition and the overall development of the plot. In the case of the dinner scene when the dwarves arrive at Bag End the scene dragged on without any real character development.
There are some things that happen during the film may come as a surprise for many of have read the The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson uses some stories from the Silmarillion, the appendices at the end of Return of the King, and some unpublished stories to add to the original story of Thorin Oakenshield and his company of 14. Some characters that were mentioned in The Lord of the Rings novels and in the appendices such as Radagast the Brown and the Necromancer make an appearance as do the great Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Christopher Lee as Saruman who I had no idea was in the film. While these stories feel more self contained than the rest of the plot I think that these scenes will add much more to the world than distract from it. Many still cite the scenes from the novels with Tom Bombadil and the 'Scouring of the Shire' as scenes that should have been filmed during the production of The Lord of the Rings. The decision to break this story into three parts will enable the film makers to not have to not shoot or cut as many scenes from the story and will enable the filmmakers to create scenes everyone we all want to see. So while these stories feel a little self contained and some might find them unnecessary I think we as fans will be very happy the scenes are there in 20 years.
The lack of character development is by far the biggest issue I have with the film. Now granted there wasn't much to go on from the source material for many of the characters and I do understand that most of the dwarves were never given a personality in book. By end of the film only a few of the characters stuck out in my mind as individuals. Outside of Thorin and Balin many of the dwarves do little but take up space in the background. Some of the dwarves get more moments to shine than others but these moments were few and far between. Most films have smaller casts of a few characters so they have ample screen time to become developed by the end of a film. The reason I bring this up is because of the film version The Fellowship of the Ring. By the end of Fellowship each on the nine members of the fellowship were developed enough as characters that each individual character had a distinct personality and motivations that were understandable to the audience. By the end of The Hobbit, and I've seen it twice now, I barely can remember any of the dwarves
names so the chances of anyone being able to describe their personalities and motivations is remote. I hope that this is rectified in the future films and the likely extended cuts that The Lord of the Rings did so well.
The technical aspects of the film are simply amazing. The costumes and sets are just as good as anything that the Weta Workshop has created. The costumes and sets look and feel authentic and work to further create the cultures of Middle Earth in ways you don't see in other films. The CGI this time around is stupendous and lacks the rubbery quality that we see to often I films. The scene with Gollum are done so well I don't even think of him as a computer generated character but instead as an actor. Andy Serkis did just as good of a job as he ever has with his voice work and motion capture. I love the redesign of the worgs though I don't care for the look of the Goblin King and which the design of the goblins was more in line with the LotR trilogy.
As for the two versions of the film I found that I enjoyed the 3-D version with the 48 FPS much more than the standard 24 FPS that I viewed last night (12-18). This is a big statement by myself as I don't normally like 3-D in films. The 3-D generally doesn't warrant the extra price of a ticket and is often barely more than a gimmick that makes objects appear to fly at the audience. I left the 3-D in The Hobbit was much more like the 3-D in Avatar. It was less a gimmick though gimmicks are certainly present. The 3-D was used mostly in a way to add depth to the scenes. Combined with the high frame rate it made for a much more engrossing viewing experience. The frame rate gave a level of detail that I have never experience before in a film. During the tremendous battle scenes for example you could pick out a minor character in the background and see a high level of detail in the shot. The 24 FPS version while still a great movie did not have nearly the level of clarity of the 48 FPS version. Howard Shore's music score felt as if it was coming from the same world. All the songs were original as far as I can recall and there were some nice thematic nods to songs from the first trilogy. Bilbo's theme was reminiscent of Frodo's though it wasn't quite as memorable. Using Sarumans them slightly during his brief was a nice touch and the score is full of great moments like that.
Overall The Hobbit is a great film and should please fans of The Lord of Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted tale than its predecessor and doesn't have quite the level of epic-ness or urgency of the quest that the Fellowship undetook and runs a little long in parts but should satisfy anyone who is a long time fan of Tolkien or The Lord of the Rings nook or film trilogy and is a great jumping on point for newcomers to middle earth who are looking to experience The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the first time.
I remember a time when those of us who can call ourselves fanboys
and fangirls
were ridiculed for our tastes. I find it funny that today its almost the cool the thing to do. Year after year it seems the biggest entertainment events world wide feature characters and bobbies that have been king among us for years.
Ten years ago I never would have dreamed that we would see an Avengers movie featuring Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. There is no doubt that aside from the Hulk the average movie viewer had no clue who these characters were. Who would have thought Iron Man could become as popular as he has become. Notwithstanding starring an actor who had essentially ruined his career. Ten years ago only characters who were highly recognizable among average viewers such as Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and the X-Men had any chance of being made into a movie. There have been a few exceptions such as Blade and love it or hate it Daredevil which was designed as a vehicle for Ben Affleck.
Who would have thought that Batman would recover in such a spectacular fashion as he did following the movie lowness that was Batman and Robin? The Christopher Nolan Batman films have not only been popular amongst the average moviegoer but have been
critically praised by critics and even had an actor Heath Ledger receive a posthumous Oscar for best supporting actor.
Video games sales, economic recession aside, have been on the rise for best selling entertainment events. Every year it seems Call of Duty releases a new game that shatters not only video games sales, but movie sales, and the previous years CoD release.
We have known for years why these characters and why video games are awesome. Thankfully there are still a few surprises for us. I'm sure I squealed when Thanos showed up in a cameo at the end of The Avengers.
Now many more characters have been or are going to be brought to the big screen. Not all to the same degree of success as Batman, Spider-Man, and the Avengers. Scott Pilgrim, Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, Kick Ass, Fantastic Four, Ant Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, Thor, Toby McGuire Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield Spider-Man reboot, Eric Bana Hulk, Edward Norton Hulk, Mark Ruffalo Hulk, a Fantastic Four reboot, Daredevil reboot, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Hobbit, The Walking Dead, Resident Evil, Assassins Creed, Star Wars prequels, Star Wars the Clone Wars, The Punisher, Harry Potter, Superman, and many many others have come to the big screen or are going to be coming to be appearing on the big screen. There have been varying levels to the success to these films but one thing is obvious. There is interest in these characters and franchises and when they are handled well can be an amazing spectacle for fans and the average viewers alike but when done not so well can be quite cringe worthy.
There has also been some misfires with marketing and cross pollination of products. With all the success that comic book movies have had there has not been a renewed interest in comic books themselves. The market is still there. I know lots of people who have never bought a comic book but have book shelves full of manga. What possible steps can companies like Marvel and DC do to turn people on to the non movie side of the industry? I won't pretend to be a marketing genius. I have a background as an artist and graphic designer but can honestly say I don't have a background in marketing. I can say I find it puzzling that there are no offers in video game and DVD cases for a year or even multi year subscriptions to comic book titles. I recall when I was kid that every issue of any comic would have an ad that offered subscriptions to various comic book titles and often gave buyers deals for ordering more than one title. Digital distribution is a good step in the right direction which cuts out shipping, printing, and middleman costs. I've yet to see any promotions for buying comics digitally. Some companies have had done a better job of having issues released quickly in the digital format while others are still months behind. Though we still are not seeing in promotion of these products and services.
That being said something needs to change. I took a friend of mine to a local comic shop after we saw The Avengers last May. When we got there they were immediately drawn to the Iron Man and Avengers comics. It shouldn't come as surprise that after looking through the issue and liking what they saw they put the book back down and said "These are way to expensive." How can it be anything but unsurprising that the few people who go to check out comics because of their interest in the movies would likely not find value in a 32 pages comic for 5 dollars.
