![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Hobbit
Dec. 23rd, 2012 04:29 pmThe short version is: If you liked Peter Jackson's take on "Lord of the Rings", you will probably also like his "Hobbit".
The following will be me moaning on a very high level, only talking about all the things I found difficult about the film while the bottom line remains that I was entertained for nearly all of three hours, might well rewatch the film in 48fps and am looking forward to the next sequel.
Which brings us to the first thing I am feeling sceptical about:
"Lord of the Rings" turned three fairly long books with loads of appendices into three very long films with loads of endings. "The Hobbit" will attempt to turn one normal-length book into three very long films. Leaving cynical thoughts of the likely financial considerations aside, I have to admit that "An unexpected journey" did quite well in terms of padding out the story with other pieces of Tolkien and the obligatory added references to the other trilogy. Now, I could have lived without those, keeping "The Hobbit" autonomous but can see why the decision was made to link trilogies. A legion of fanboys and -girls all over the world probably felt their elven swords glow. And to be fair, it worked. I can even see another film scratching at three hours repeating the trick. Another two films still feels somewhat excessive but I am looking forward to being proven wrong.
The 3D looked alright. There were some of the typical "Gee! Gosh! Golly!-pans, zooms and effects but for the most part I felt that the 3D was used to give the scenery more actual width and depth. The whole thing would have worked just as well in 2D, though. Maybe 48fps will convince me of the third dimension but so far it is at best a slight bonus.
I did not like the increased use of CGI for characters and scenery. Yes, technology has marched on but really the only computer-created character that truly felt real was Gollum, with the Goblin King being the least convincing character.
For reasons that are still not clear to me I also thought that the dwarf make-up was somehow lacking and not much better than the make-up used for Gwildor in "Masters of the Universe" in 1987. at first I also feared that the musical interludes and scenes of young-audience-orientated tomfoolery would spoil my enjoyment of the film but thankfully they kept that at an acceptable level.
The journey continues....
The following will be me moaning on a very high level, only talking about all the things I found difficult about the film while the bottom line remains that I was entertained for nearly all of three hours, might well rewatch the film in 48fps and am looking forward to the next sequel.
Which brings us to the first thing I am feeling sceptical about:
"Lord of the Rings" turned three fairly long books with loads of appendices into three very long films with loads of endings. "The Hobbit" will attempt to turn one normal-length book into three very long films. Leaving cynical thoughts of the likely financial considerations aside, I have to admit that "An unexpected journey" did quite well in terms of padding out the story with other pieces of Tolkien and the obligatory added references to the other trilogy. Now, I could have lived without those, keeping "The Hobbit" autonomous but can see why the decision was made to link trilogies. A legion of fanboys and -girls all over the world probably felt their elven swords glow. And to be fair, it worked. I can even see another film scratching at three hours repeating the trick. Another two films still feels somewhat excessive but I am looking forward to being proven wrong.
The 3D looked alright. There were some of the typical "Gee! Gosh! Golly!-pans, zooms and effects but for the most part I felt that the 3D was used to give the scenery more actual width and depth. The whole thing would have worked just as well in 2D, though. Maybe 48fps will convince me of the third dimension but so far it is at best a slight bonus.
I did not like the increased use of CGI for characters and scenery. Yes, technology has marched on but really the only computer-created character that truly felt real was Gollum, with the Goblin King being the least convincing character.
For reasons that are still not clear to me I also thought that the dwarf make-up was somehow lacking and not much better than the make-up used for Gwildor in "Masters of the Universe" in 1987. at first I also feared that the musical interludes and scenes of young-audience-orientated tomfoolery would spoil my enjoyment of the film but thankfully they kept that at an acceptable level.
The journey continues....
