Hey guys! Sorry for the late upload, I had some technical difficulties- uhoh! But it’s all sorted now and I am bringing you our third week of Moving Picture Monday!
This week I am going to compare the book and film of The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien.
Now I would call myself a pretty big fan of the LOTR books and films. I went to see them when I was 12 and I loved the world – especially Aragorn.
I finally read The Hobbit a few years later and loved it. It was fast paced, and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Bilbo in his adventures. So let us get into my comparison.
Martin Freeman. Hummph. Do not get me wrong I think he looks the part. But I don’t see him as acting Bilbo. He’s just himself in the costume. He is such a breathy actor, he’s the same in Sherlock, and in Civil War – he just doesn’t change! Looks wise – HURRAH, other than that… neaah.
Aiden Turner and Dean O’Gorman are REALLY REALLY good as Fili and Kili. Straight off the page and into the world of Middle Earth- they are great.
Obviously I am not going to waste typing on characters from the main three books – Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom (though he looks YOUNGER in the Hobbit – HOW DO ORLANDO, HOW DO?) and Hugo Weaving – because we know these are done well and they are really enjoyable in the Hobbit. Though I do get annoyed with the script for Gandalf and he has such weak moments for such a bamf character.
Luke Evans was a really good Bard – physically and in acting – a solid performance!
Now this was something they did really wrong. Unlike its predecessor they didn’t go for EMPLOYMENT of the masses with having so many extras. They went for the CGI everyone in look. And it is what it is. Fake. LOTR works so well because of its authentic feel – whereas the Hobbit felt very glamorised. There was a horrible moment in The Battle of The Five Armies which shows Richard Armitage drowning and swirling in melted gold. It was the weirdest scene that looked awful and trippy. You can showcase madness without your aesthetic looking mad too.
Now this was beautifully done like with the first films. Howard Shore was still on board so it still captured the essence of the book, it took songs from the pages and reproduced them perfectly on screen.
When this was released, it gave me chills.
I didn’t think the book needed to be split into three films. It’s a children’s book. To keep up the pace the book had and the adventure spirit you would think one or maybe at a stretch two films would be plenty. But no. They had to go into the money making scheme of THREE BLOCKBUSTERS. They added in really weird stuff to the first book, they created an antagonist to try and make it plausible and added in more dark and twisting plot lines in the second and third films.
They also cut a lot of the development of Smaug out – they cut down Bilbo’s interactions with him to one – and that really annoyed me. Why cut really good pieces of the book out of the film but fill it with random stuff that never happened?
I don’t understand the adding of Tauriel – I don’t like her – she is a weak female character and a forced love interest Kili and someone to make Legolas jealous. She ain’t no Arwen, stop trying to make her so!
Misty Mountains was a nice transference to screen, and the general aesthetic of The Shire was really really nice – it felt like home. Overall though, there only needed to be one film really, the acting could have been a little less hammy and they could have made so much more of an effort with extras and scenery. Everything that made those LOTR films so great should have been repeated, not fobbed off. The Hobbit is a very glamorised adaption and one which Mr P Jackson didn’t do justice. And it hurts my heart to say it.
I hope you enjoyed this Moving Picture Monday! See you soon, and happy reading!
Love, Em x