I'm listening to a recorded book version of The Hobbit with my boys as we commute to and from work/school. It's fun to be back in Middle Earth, especially since my kids are familiar with the story of the book, thanks to the LEGO video games. I've been wanting to revisit Tolkien's world for awhile now--it's been almost two years since I last looked at it during my Winterim--and it's the kind of story that deserves revisiting.
Because today is my anniversary (12 years!), my wife and I decided to sit down and watch the extended edition of The Battle of Five Armies that's been sitting on our shelf for nearly a year. Without the kids at home, we could listen to it loud and do the whole thing without interruption.
I know that The Hobbit films are much more polarizing than the original adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. I will concur that, taken as a whole, The Hobbit is structurally weaker and feels more bloated than LotR. The structure, sadly, comes from the novel itself. Once the defeat of Smaug is finished, the purpose of the quest has been fulfilled. That makes the subsequent section that includes the Battle of the Five Armies a bit of a lingering coda. There are still story threads to finish up and some explanations to be had, but in a lot of ways, the ending of The Hobbit feels a little off kilter to me.
So it's little wonder that the films reflect that issue. I think that there probably could have been a bit of streamlining of the story, a reduction of the time that our basically invincible heroes are in peril. But, at the same time, the protracted action scenes, gorgeous long shots of New Zealand, and plenty of breathing space for the character scenes all eat up time. The story can be told more succinctly, but in some ways lingering in Jackson's version of Tolkien's world is part of the charm of the six films.
I wouldn't say that The Hobbit is as well done from a storytelling perspective than The Lord of the Rings, but it is very well done. The original trilogy has not aged as gracefully as one would have hoped. So from a technical perspective, I think the prequel trilogy is of a higher caliber--but that's to be expected with ten years' improvement. But storytelling-wise? No. Bilbo is the heart of the film, and his absence through large swaths of it--for obvious reasons, to say nothing of source-material ones--works against it.
I like some of the parallels that Jackson included in the films. The ideas of addiction, sacrifice for desire, and the inherent goodness of people are intriguingly explored in all six movies. Though the additions for Jackson's version sometimes feel a little out of place, I don't really begrudge them. There's a much richer world than the main books and the six films can touch, and seeing broader vistas of Middle Earth through the explorations of The Silmarillion is worth the price of admission.
The short version, then: I like the movies and books of Tolkien. They approach the same world from different, but no less enjoyable, angles.
Now that I've said that, I'm certain this will get more people upset at me than when I released my personal opinion on politics.
Because today is my anniversary (12 years!), my wife and I decided to sit down and watch the extended edition of The Battle of Five Armies that's been sitting on our shelf for nearly a year. Without the kids at home, we could listen to it loud and do the whole thing without interruption.
I know that The Hobbit films are much more polarizing than the original adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. I will concur that, taken as a whole, The Hobbit is structurally weaker and feels more bloated than LotR. The structure, sadly, comes from the novel itself. Once the defeat of Smaug is finished, the purpose of the quest has been fulfilled. That makes the subsequent section that includes the Battle of the Five Armies a bit of a lingering coda. There are still story threads to finish up and some explanations to be had, but in a lot of ways, the ending of The Hobbit feels a little off kilter to me.
So it's little wonder that the films reflect that issue. I think that there probably could have been a bit of streamlining of the story, a reduction of the time that our basically invincible heroes are in peril. But, at the same time, the protracted action scenes, gorgeous long shots of New Zealand, and plenty of breathing space for the character scenes all eat up time. The story can be told more succinctly, but in some ways lingering in Jackson's version of Tolkien's world is part of the charm of the six films.
I wouldn't say that The Hobbit is as well done from a storytelling perspective than The Lord of the Rings, but it is very well done. The original trilogy has not aged as gracefully as one would have hoped. So from a technical perspective, I think the prequel trilogy is of a higher caliber--but that's to be expected with ten years' improvement. But storytelling-wise? No. Bilbo is the heart of the film, and his absence through large swaths of it--for obvious reasons, to say nothing of source-material ones--works against it.
I like some of the parallels that Jackson included in the films. The ideas of addiction, sacrifice for desire, and the inherent goodness of people are intriguingly explored in all six movies. Though the additions for Jackson's version sometimes feel a little out of place, I don't really begrudge them. There's a much richer world than the main books and the six films can touch, and seeing broader vistas of Middle Earth through the explorations of The Silmarillion is worth the price of admission.
The short version, then: I like the movies and books of Tolkien. They approach the same world from different, but no less enjoyable, angles.
Now that I've said that, I'm certain this will get more people upset at me than when I released my personal opinion on politics.
Comments