So The Hobbit came to Comic-Con 2012 and the fans went crazy. Not a dry seat for miles, nor an objective opinion. I’ve made it clear in recent articles and podcast that I am concerned over the artistic changes to the narrative of the movie. So far I have read nothing to allay those fears. Believe me, there’s nothing I’d like more than to be proven wrong on this one. We’ll have to wait and see. Anyway, in the meantime there were some interesting sound bites from Peter Jackson. Here are a few to ponder on.
“I don’t want to make a children’s story to go into The Lord of the Rings so we are providing a balance,”
“A lot of the comedy and the charm comes from the characters. You’re dealing with Bilbo Baggins who is a bit more reluctant to go on an adventure than Frodo was… and with Dwarves who have a personality and camaraderie all of their own. There’s a lot of humor. But, there are still some serious themes involved.”
“We’ve used more source material than The Hobbit. For instance, in The Hobbit, when Gandalf mysteriously disappears for chapters, it was never really explained where he’s gone. Much later Tolkien filled in those details. In these appendices he did talk about what happened. And it was altogether a lot darker and more serious than what is written in The Hobbit.”
Now you can read into those comments what you want. It does sound very promising and I’m sure many fans would be delighted to see as much of Tolkien’s work dramatised and up on the big screen as possible. But before we all get carried away let us consider the following. Twelve minutes of footage was previewed at Comic-Con. A scene by scene breakdown of the material has been posted over at TheOneRing.net so only go and check it out if you don’t mind spoilers. However one simple sentence stands out from their analysis, as bold as brass and grabs your attention. Once read it takes a while to digest.
Radagast, (is) racing through the forest on his bunnysled. Yes, a bunnysled. A sled, pulled by surprisingly strong bunnies.
Yes, you did read that correctly.
Okay. Has that sunk in?
Now tell me with a straight face and one hundred percent conviction that you are confident that Peter Jackson will not take liberties with the source text. Go on. Tell me it will all be okay. It’s Peter Jackson. How could he possibly fail?
Is your sphincter puckering up just a little?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS Feed
Email
YouTube
Generally, I’m most concerned about the ‘witch kings tomb’ nonesense. This little nugget about sylvesters jackrabbits was all over TOR.net a while back. On this specific issues, as Odd as its sounds there is lots in German, Netherlands and Scandinavian mythology and folk lore to support this kind of oddity. Even Thor has a chariot pulled by goats! I also generally think this kind of playfull whimsy fits well with the original book, with talking purses, horses serving beorns meals, etc. I’m sure it wil be taken a bit too far with the whole ‘he likes animals’ thing, but if you want to fear for something in this film this is not the place, after all, of Radagast, know practically nothing.
I was rather hoping that Jackson would play down the “whimsy” of the book, as I feel it may not sit well with the tone that’s already been established for Middle-Earth, by the previous movies.
And no matter how you try and justify things, the bunny sled is unacceptable.
Sphincter is definitely puckered after hearing of the Bunnysled. But at the same time, considering that PJ was going to be involved in the screenplay whether he was directing or not (Guillermo Del Toro and PJ worked together on the SP before del Toro backed out of directing), I doubt GDT would have been more faithful to the source material had he been in the director’s chair. If anything, GDT would have gone further away from the source, in my opinion.
The screenplay has been extensively reworked throughout the course of the production, so I guess it is quite a different beast to what is was initially.
My concerns over PJ are derived from my observations on several A list directors. Many film makers make their best work at the beginning of their careers. Subsequent fame and working within the studio system seems to diminish their talents. A lot of this perhaps stems from the fact that everyone assumes they know their job and no one ever challenges them.
Consider John Carpenter, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg to name but a few. Great work to begin with, leading to indifferent and self indulgent film making.
Peter Jackson is now an A list director and it’s over a decade since the LotR trilogy was made. He failed with the Lovely Bones and the animated Tintin film which he was heavily involved with was not as well received as you’d expect.
Therefore, although The Hobbit has the potential to be great, it is wise to bear in mind wider factors. This being one of them.
Pingback: A "Hobbit" Trilogy: Good or bad idea? | SQPN: Secrets of The Hobbit
I think the tone will be more akin to the original films, yet it seems like they will contain some whimsical elements. I for one was hoping for more playfull elements, the need to make Ridley Scot-esque films full of ‘gritty realism’ is beyond me. Whilst Jackson has made a rod for his own back with the tone of the original three, I think it is entirely justified to lighten this a little, so I am completely fine with the bunny sled. I’m sure you will leave the cinema grumpy and dissatisfied anyway.
I’d like to bet though, that this particular element is a GDT addition from early on anyway, I can absolutely see him doing this, and makes me sad he didn’t continue to be involved.
Any disscussion of ‘source’ is difficult, as of course, Radagast is basically a blank sheet, so tone is all we have, but where do you strike the balance between source text tone, and established ME film tone. To me the best way, is to bring the bulk of the characters and story in the established ME film tone, and use the incidental characters and smaller sub plots to maintain the childish elements of the source text, and it looks to be along the lines of what they are doing.
Its a good point you make about directors careers. With the exception of Alien and the Duelists, Ridley Scott has always been shit, I despise the mans arrogance, particularly towards my proffession, John Carpenter I have never had any time for, and Spielberg is a mixed bag, I can’t stand ET for example, but Jaws and ‘Jones were great, yet minority report, catch me if you can, and munich were also good.
Jackson I can’t decide. King Kong was a pop corn cruncher, and utterly self indulgent, but I actually enjoyed the lovely bones, although somewhat deviating in tone and focus from the superior book, and Tin Tin from a point of view of Jackson and Spielberg was also great.
I’m looking forward to the world and visuals he creates the most, as lets be honest, he’s bound to bork the story up in some way, and that Boyens woman can’t write a script without a love story.