Territorial Hobbitses

[bloodyrosemccoy]

I really loved the Lord of the Rings movies--I even think some of the character arcs were better in them--but I can totally understand Christopher Tolkien's issues with them. If I'd spent my entire life in my dad's world and all sorts of other people started barging into it and crashing around, I'd be a bit territorial, too.

This also made me realize that I am far more worried about The Hobbit than I was about LotR, because I am far more invested in Bilbo as a character. He's a brilliant character, possibly the most relatable hero I've ever come across. And he's very hard to get right--I adored the hell out of There and Back Again, Pat Murphy's awesomely insane space opera remix of The Hobbit, but Bailey Beldon is no Bilbo. And I don't know if Martin Freeman could be, either--though if there were somebody I'd want to play him, Freeman's at the top of the list. Right under a magically age-reduced Sir Ian Holm, really. But even with Freeman playing him, it's a question of whether it'll work. We'll just have to see.

Comments

[stormteller.livejournal.com]

I started worrying about the adaptation as soon as I heard it was two films. There's not enough content in the book for two films. I'm more worried since I heard there are now three films. It looks like they're taking a lot of stuff out of the appendices and other sources to fill it out, but there are limits. Worse, I don't agree with the tone they showed with the early production materials. It looks like an action-comedy, and that's not quite what The Hobbit is.

I bet Freeman took notes on Holmes' performance, though. I'm not really worried about his portrayal, provided Peter and Fran wrote it correctly.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

I think it could be two films, but I'm not so sure about three. I would rather enjoy seeing some of the more obscure things up onscreen--I was totally pleased with the "dwarf women" bit in The Two Towers, because I read that section as a kid and thought, "Wait--does he mean the women have BEARDS?!" Mostly, though, I think the breaking it up has to do with dollar signs in studio execs' eyes--and I'm sensing that Peter Jackson really doesn't want this to end.

It is hard to define just WHAT The Hobbit is. It is kind of actiony, and kind of comedic, but ... yeah, I don't know. "Adventure fantasy," maybe? Or just "Completely Awesome"?

[stormteller.livejournal.com]

It could do one very long film or two short ones. But knowing Jackson they'll each be 2 1/2 hours, half of that drawn-out combat. I don't think he wanted to do three films and got pressured into it, but there's not a dearth of back-material to work with. It wouldn't be that hard to stretch The Silmarillion into a series of films, probably 4 at least.

The Hobbit is hard to categorise, largely because it predates most of the literature of its type, and that's part of what keeps it interesting to current audiences. LotR is a better example; it's the only example that I can think of offhand for an inverted fetch quest. Another thing that makes it work is that it injects an intended familiar everyman, the quintessentially-English Hobbit, into a mythical/fantasy world, in a much more seamless fashion than the more typical falling-through-a-doorway introduction used by such writers as Lewis.

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

Yeah - I could see two, given all the backstory and Dol Guldur stuff being put back in, but I am in fear that PJ is getting his fanboy on and PUTTING IN ALL THE THINGS because he can - whether or not they make it a better film. I mean, I enjoyed King Kong but I think I would have enjoyed it more if it had been half an hour shorter.

Sometimes a Director needs someone to say "No - that's enough" to him, and he doesn't have that.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

I remember telling someone that King Kong would've been a better movie if every single scene was about two minutes shorter.

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say "every" but it's a valid point. There was one scene (dinosaurs stampeding through a canyon) that looked awesome but just went on and on and on....and that's what I fear we're getting into

[raim.livejournal.com]

What would you think it was, then? It definitely shouldn't be as dark or angsty as LoTR, imho. The Hobbit always seemed more of a children's book, to me.