The Hobbit

Thoughts on The Hobbit Trilogy

by

After re-watching The Hobbit trilogy (extended) for the first time in a good few years, I’m solidly of the opinion that, while good, there are some definite tonal issues throughout. It’s really as if Jackson just couldn’t decide if he wanted to keep the darker, mostly serious approach of the LOTR films (which isn’t to say that those don’t have humor) or go with a somewhat lighter kid-oriented approach as befitting the book’s recognized status as a “children’s book”, and ended up with a mix of the two (with the added “extended universe” material contributing a lot of the darker stuff) that is just kind of weird and doesn’t always work.

The first movie is definitely the best, with Goblintown as the low point, and the Bilbo/Gollum encounter the highlight. The second movie is still pretty strong, though the barrel escape swings too far to the goofy side of things and Laketown is dreary. Similar to the first, it’s the Bilbo/Smaug encounter that stands out. The third is just so dreary, from start to end; little more than three hours of gloom and destruction, and I can’t really find a particular lowlight or highlight. However well done it is — and it is — it’s kind of a slog to get through.

I still enjoy the trilogy as a whole, but it definitely starts strong and then goes downhill (even if only slightly, not off a cliff or anything) from there.

Other assorted thoughts:

  • Why are the goblins the only builders that add any sort of railings or guardrails on their bridges (and even they are inconsistent about it)? Elves do manage to get some on their balconies, but bridges? Of elves, humans, dwarves, and goblins, only goblins seem to have, if only occasionally, figured out that falling off might be a bad thing.

  • It’s rather amusing to watch these films while sitting next to someone who says, “you’re not even in this book!” every time Legolas comes on screen.

  • How does Smaug know about Thorin? You pretty much get the impression that Smaug showed up, took over Erebor, and then just snuggled down under his gold security blanket for six decades until Bilbo wandered in. There’s the strong implication that Smaug is in league with Sauron in some way (dragon telepathy?), but Smaug really seemed pretty well-informed on the goings-on outside of the Lonely Mountain for a dragon who hadn’t been seen in so long that some wondered if he had died.

  • The eagles are such a convenient deus ex machina that I find them one of the weakest parts. They swoop in, save the heroes, and then swoop away. I’d actually forgotten that they turn the tide of the final battle, and spent much of the Battle of the Five Armies trying to remember who the fifth army even was.

  • I was excited to get the extended editions when they were first released — and as I said above, overall, I do still enjoy them — but now not only am I wondering if going back to the theatrical versions would be easier to go through, but I’m also finding myself more curious about tracking down one of the “just the book” fan edits that edit out all of the extra bits to just focus on what’s in the original book.

by

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

First re-watch in a few years. Some sequences really could have been dropped (the mountain giants add nothing except a few minutes of running time), others are just tonally weird (the goblin city sticks out as being goofy in the midst of serious sequences). But that said, it’s still very well done, and the Bilbo/Gollum sequence is still a masterpiece of acting and animation.

Trolling Middle Earth

by

First off, the gorgeous new trailer for the first part of The Hobbit has just been released:

Now, a slight digression. Back when the internet was new (and I’m not entirely exaggerating with that), the Jargon File was created as a living encyclopedia of words, phrases, terms, and events common to the geek communities of the day. In that document are the original definitions for the term “troll” as used in the electronic world.

  1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

  2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll.” Compare kook.

Where today, “troll” is almost universally understood as the second of the above quoted definitions — a person solely out to provoke annoyance — I’ve always preferred the first definition. In that sense, a properly constructed troll is something I’ve always respected.

The comments for yesterday evening’s io9 post about the Hobbit trailer contain a beautiful example of trolling in the old sense (“…a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.”). This comment gave me a good laugh this morning:

Yawwwn, sequelitis strikes again.

Hey Hollywood, how long’d it take you to come up with yet another unnecessary backstory?! Do we really need to go with Frodo’s dad on his quest to find the ring?

I bet they’ll dumb it down and make it all kiddy too. Hard R or I ain’t watchin!

How much you wanna bet they’ll figure out a way to shoehorn half-a-dozen giant spiders to compete with the one they had in LOTR2.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a troll is supposed to be done.

The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien

by

First off — wow.

I thought I’d read The Lord of the Rings a long time ago. Now that I’ve just finished reading it, I’m not sure if I ever actually had or not. It may well be that I’d read The Hobbit a long time ago and over the years thought that I’d read the entire LotR series. It could also be that I’d seen the animated version and assumed over the years that I’d also read the book. Now I’m not as sure, as far too much of what I read was entirely unfamiliar to me.

Either way, though, I’ve now read it — and if I hadn’t read it before, it’s a shame it took me this long. It really is as good as people say it is. Not that I ever really doubted that, however, it’s far different to have so many people hold it up as a masterpiece of fantasy, and to be able to actually form that opinion for yourself.

There’s a lot more information and reviews of LotR available on the ‘net (a quick Google search for “tolkien lord of the rings -movie” turns up around 125,000 hits) that are very likely to be much more well-written and in-depth than this little bit of babble is, so I’ll just stick with what I’ve got.

I was promped to pick it up and (re?-)read it after watching Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (which I apparently didn’t post any comments on, though I did mention it a couple times beforehand…). I’ve definitely got a lot more respect for Peter Jackson‘s ability to translate the books to the screen — and I’m really jonesing to see the rest now! Just seven more months until The Two Towers comes out, and nineteen until The Return of the King. Going to be a long wait, that’s for sure….