Peter Jackson's adaption of The Hobbit is going to be interesting on a number of levels, both technically and artistically.
Technically, I'm anxious to see the 48 frames-per-second version. I haven't worked out yet which cinemas nearby will show it, but I'm going to try to see it in multiple cinemas to compare.
Artistically, there are a number of things I'm intrigued to see.
Firstly, how Jackson reconciles the "stylistic" differences between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Recently re-reading the former, I was struck by how different trolls and elves are portrayed compared with their LOTR versions.
Secondly, it's clear from the trailers, casting, etc that Jackson is going to incorporate a lot of stuff going on at the time of The Hobbit but which is not mention in that book, only in the appendices of LOTR and The Quest of Erebor in Unfinished Tales.
At least on this second point, it seems Jackson's adaptation is going to be more "what we know about the story from all of Tolkien's writings" than just "what's in the book The Hobbit".
I went and caught the 12.01 am screening at the Burlington AMC with my wife earlier today.
It was a digital projection in Real 3D but not HFR and not Dolby Atmos.
Of the LOTR movies, I enjoyed FOTR considerably more than TT or ROTK. After the initial viewing, I would place An Unexpected Journey well above TT or ROTK but not as high as FOTR.
FOTR just had a real magic and "newness" to it that kept me coming back for multiple screening. An Unexpected Journey didn't quite achieve that for me, at least after one viewing.
I found myself forgetting I was watching 3D. I think that's probably a good thing.
It was never gratuitous and most of the time, stuff was happening in positive z-space (behind the screen) which is a much more natural approach.
There were some gorgeous "sets" that I'm anxious to go back and watch again: pre-Smaug Erebor and Goblin Town being the notable two.
From the production diaries, I knew pre-Smaug Dale was going to be shown but I was not expecting to see pre-Smaug Erebor so the "prologue" was a nice treat.
Quite cleverly, Smaug is never shown in full in this film. You catch part of his tail and his eye but nothing more. Will make for an impressive reveal in the second film.
I was a little thrown off, though, that the skin around his eye seemed blue. Unlike Legolas's hair, Smaug's colour is not up for debate!
My comment two weeks ago that:
it seems Jackson's adaptation is going to be more "what we know about the story from all of Tolkien's writings" than just "what's in the book The Hobbit".
turns out to be very true.
An Unexpected Journey definitely assumes you know The Lord of the Rings. There's no real establishment of the Shire or Hobbiton and characters like Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and even Gollum appear without much attempt at an introduction.
I don't see this as a fault but it's interesting that in the books, much of The Hobbit is reinterpreted in light of LOTR whereas with the film, we know where a lot of things are going and we're far more aware what's being set up.
I was disappointed that the trolls scene was changed to remove the ventriloquism.
The way the deus ex machina of the Eagles was portrayed is going to give rise to more of the "why didn't the Eagles just carry them all the way?" criticism where in the book, it's made perfectly clear why the Eagles got involved when they did and why they didn't do more.
It's frustrating when a film adaptation opens a plot hole that the book was careful not to. Maybe the second film will explain that but I'm not hopeful.
I noticed that, besides Thorin, there's considerably more screen time and dialogue give to Balin, Fili and Kili than the others (Ori and Bofur would be next). There's little effort (and not much opportunity) to really establish the others as individuals.
I guess Azog and Bolg have been merged into one.
UPDATE after seeing DOS: I guess not :-)
It's funny that Saruman's problem with Radagast parallels his problem with Gandalf in FOTR: he thinks they've both become a little too fond of the "local produce" :-)
While we're getting a lot more Necromancer background in the film than was in the book itself, I can't help but feel the Necromancer / Dol Guldur storyline has been way over simplified: 900 years compressed into one visit by Radagast!
Maybe more will be revealed in the other movies (after all, the third movie was supposedly justified by all the additional stuff that could be told linking The Hobbit and LOTR).
UPDATE after seeing DOS: there's more development of the Dol Guldur storyline in the second film.
Although I can't imagine, after what was in An Unexpected Journey, that an extended version or third movie will portray Thráin as a prisoner in Dol Guldur.
Adapting Tolkien's works for film is unusual in that normally all you have to adapt is the book itself. The book is one lens into the "story" and the adaptation is attempting another. A good adaptation attempts to be a new lens on the story underlying the book rather than the book itself.
But in the case of Tolkien, the story is already fleshed out more than the book because of the rest of the legendarium. In the case of The Hobbit, this is particularly the case.
That's not to say Jackson hasn't messed with the story but it must be remembered that, as I've said above, this is a re-telling of the story underlying The Hobbit more than an adaptation of the book itself.
It's a re-telling consistent with the style of the LOTR films so stylistically it doesn't always feel like The Hobbit even when it's true to the underlying story of the book(s).
A few months ago, I came across the terminology for the story told versus the underlying story that happened. Trying to find it again as it's so useful for this sort of discussion.
In the book(s), as show here, the investigation of the true nature of the Necromancer takes place over more than a thousand years. Gandalf visits Dol Guldur multiple times over centuries before establishing that the Necromancer is Sauron in 2850, 90 years before The Hobbit.
In the film, it's Radagast that enters Dol Guldur and discovers the morgul blade and that happens at the same time as the journey to Erebor by Thorin's company is taking place. I think this would make it impossible now to show a flashback of Thráin's imprisonment and how Gandalf gets the map and key to Erebor's secret entrance.
The other deviation from the timeline is that, in the film, Azog is not killed but survives, likely with much of the actions of his son, Bolg, in the books being taken over in the films by Azog himself.
But here's a hopefully useful timeline for viewers of An Unexpected Journey of what "really" went down.
I liked how the story of the invention of golf was treated in the film.
I confess when the musical score made reference to motifs from the Lord of the Rings, I got chills down my spine.
Going to drive to a more distant cinema to see it in 48fps tonight.
Back from second viewing, this time in 48fps. First some thoughts on the higher frame rate then some additional observations following on from my earlier comments.
Luke Hatcher had earlier told me that at first it seems sped up but then you get used to it. I experienced the same thing, basically during the Old Bilbo parts.
It went away during the Dale scenes but then came back once or twice later on so I wonder if it was partly related to the type of fast motion going on as well.
The main difference, though, was it looked like television. I often felt I was watching a documentary or a BBC period drama from the 80s.
It's funny that for years low budget filmmakers using digital video cameras tried as hard as they could to get the "film look" and now Peter Jackson is giving us a "video look". Glorious 4K video, mind you, but still jarring at first.
It isn't just the frame rate and effect that has on motion blur which gives the video look. The highlights were often blown out. That can't just have been the RED camera as it wasn't noticeable when I saw it in 24fps.
I noticed the blow outs particularly in the initial Dale shot and then a few times on Gandalf's hat.
I certainly never experienced any motion sickness in 48fps.
Smaug's tail at the start is definitely red. And the area around his eye at the end could be red with the blue tint coming from the lighting.
This time, I noticed a mention of Thráin going insane after Thrór's beheading. This is followed by a suggestion that he was imprisoned or died.
Makes me think what "actually" happened won't be covered in the films.
EDIT: now see below.
During the White Council, there is mention of a hard-fought battle against Sauron and a 400-year peace.
The "hard-fought battle" was presumably the War of the Last Alliance at the end of the second age, but the "400-year peace" can only refer to the time 2063-2463 where Sauron left Dol Guldur temporarily.
Of course, this was almost 500 years prior to The Hobbit, so the timeline is really messed up :-)
Saruman's denial of the threat of the Necromancer in the film is consistent with his hiding the fact he wanted Sauron to rise in order for the One Ring to be outed.
One improvement in the film over the book: in the film it's Bilbo who asks what Durin's Day is whereas in the book, it's Elrond that asks (which I always found odd).
Why Gandalf’s Backstory Was Missing From The Hobbit (HT: my sister, Jennifer) has a fascinating quote from Philippa Boyens:
"Good storytelling-spotting!" Boyens said, when we asked why we didn't see Thráin, father of Dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield and one of the bearers of a Ring of Power, give Gandalf the map and key. (Gandalf had found Thráin near death at Dol Guldur.) "We did try it at the front of this movie, and then we moved it," she said. Does that mean we'll see that moment in a flashback or prologue to The Desolation of Smaug? "Yes, it's very important that we're going to be doing that. We will be meeting Thráin, and it may be in unfortunate circumstances. It may involve torture. The discovery of who or what is in Dol Guldur" — i.e., Sauron, known only at this point as the Necromancer — "is a fantastic part of the storytelling, so yes, of course we went there."
So it does seem like we're going to see that part of the backstory!
I'm getting the impression from a couple of reviews that the last part of Desolation of Smaug is going to depart dramatically from the book. And I don't just mean a different "lens" on the story like I talked about above but an actual major plot change.
Went and saw Desolation of Smaug (non-3D and non-HFR) when it opened. A fun film, well-paced for its length (160 minutes).
The barrel fight was a complete delight even if not based on the book at all.
I'd watch the film again just for that scene. Watch for Bombur's bit in particular!
No major departures from the book that I wasn't already expecting (i.e. Tauriel and Legolas).
I don't think I minded Tauriel and Legolas because I was expecting it.
Although it was odd to me that Smaug's weak spot was already known (even if as legend) to Bard rather than conveyed via the thrush by Bilbo. I don't understand why that part was changed.
Beorn's house wasn't what I have pictured in my mind the last 30 years (nor does it reflect Tolkien's own drawing in the book).
Lake Town is like a Nordic Venice. Was probably my favorite location visually. And Stephen Fry is wonderful as the master.
I continue to be impressed at Jackson's smoothing over of the massive differences in tone between LotR and The Hobbit. The two sets of films have a consistency the books don't.
The whole "gold statue" thing was a bit weird. Visually impressive but left me thinking WTF?
There was even less differentiation between the dwarves in this movie. Balin and Kili still get more focus than the others.
Look out for a wonderful reference to Gimli when Legolas is talking to Gloin.
We see (via the prologue) Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree. Unless I missed it, I didn't see Gandalf give the key to Thorin, though.
We didn't see Thráin despite mention in a card above. I wonder if we will in the third movie (or perhaps in the extended edition).
The Bree sequence has an almost identical cameo from PJ as that we saw in FotR.
There's also a "Kingsfoil? That's a weed!" reference as well, later in the film.
Why does Smaug call Thorin "Oakenshield" given that name post-dates Smaug's invasion of Erebor? Seemed anachronistic to me.
I was a little confused by the visiting of the Nine's prison cells. I don't recall them being imprisoned (but maybe I need to recheck the LotR appendices).
I guess Azog and Bolg haven't been merged. In which case, why keep Azog around in the first movie?
I'd have to watch it again but apparently the Nine weren't imprisoned but rather entombed.
According to the Wikipedia article on Nazgûl, this is actually touched on in the first Hobbit movie (I'll have to rewatch to confirm that—I don't recall it).
In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) the White Council claims that the Witch-king of Angmar was killed when Angmar was defeated, and that his enemies buried him in a tomb protected by enchantments. It is implied that the Witch-king has been raised from the dead by Sauron, explaining why he is called the Necromancer.
It goes on to point out that this is a major departure from the books especially given Glorfindel's prophecy that no man can kill the Witch-king (which is referenced in the ROTK movie along with Éowyn's wonderful line).
It's perhaps telling that I care more about the inconsistencies around the Nazgûl and Dol Guldur than the introduction of Tauriel and her storyline :-)
If Guillermo had stayed on Hobbit, that golden dwarf would have mechanically come alive an battled the fire beast.
— TheOneRing.net (@theoneringnet) December 31, 2013
Oh my.