13 Dwarves, a Hobbit, and Gandalf: A Totally Expected Journey

So usually when I write a blog I really think things through before putting them down for your consumption. I am a slave to what I explained to Chef is what I have dubbed “the routine”. It is where I do things in a certain order every time no matter what it is. Like when I wake up for work I’m up at 3 am and
out the door by 3:20 am never fail. When I go out to a certain shopping area and there is a Target I will go into that Target even if I have nothing to buy. It is just because I really, really like Target. The same holds for when I write a blog. I will sit in front of my computer and research the subject, plot out my main points, and then write a rough draft. It will have an intro, body, and conclusion and then I will add a couple of pictures and make sure it has the required amount of snappy one liners to keep you entertained.

                
This blog will strictly be “routine” free. I’m just going to write whatever I feel in whatever order I feel with the usual amount of bad grammar sprinkled in for good measure. Cause I did really bad in grammar in high school. Anyway this blog will be about Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkien novel the Hobbit. Obviously if you haven’t seen the film or read the book you shouldn’t read anymore because this will be a spoiler full blog. And also you should be ashamed cause everyone should have read the Hobbit in their lifetime.

                
My biggest problem with the film is that he did not take just a 300 page book and make one film, or even two films. He made THREE films out of a 300 page book, and an additional 100 pages from a compendium. Now I understand some books can pack a lot of detail into 300 pages but having read the book I refuse to believe that this is one of them. This seems to me like one of the most blatant money grabs in movie history. The fans of this series will consume any Hobbit related media put in front of them. As it was when he was making two movies on this book I thought Jackson was stretching it, but then he announced three I thought that was pure movie studio greed.

                
Don’t get me wrong Jackson is an amazing director and it is obvious that the Tolkien series was what he was put on this Earth to make films of. But I just cannot stomach a movie studio that knows they have a loyal, captive audience and then goes out of their way to exploit them. And the worst part is people will go and pay their money re-affirming to the studio that they did the right thing in making three films.

                
Anyhow back to the Hobbit. As the Chef would say I watched the film in “mortal-vision” and not in the much promoted 48 frames per second version. I didn’t even see it in the theater because honestly I was not interested in seeing this movie at all. I actually watched a screener version I downloaded off the internet. It was a little dark so maybe I missed some of the little details of the film and the computer graphics, but it was a watchable copy. And my thought of the film was this; it was a good film. I was not wowed by it and I actually watched it in three separate sittings because I could not sit through a movie that ran close to three hours. It was not a bad movie. Peter Jackson cannot make a bad Hobbit movie.

                
For me I found it a little boring to be honest. If you have read Tolkien’s Lord Of The Rings Trilogy you know that there is not a lot of action in them. Most of his books involve descriptions of these large battles waged that you see on screen in the film play out over several scenes lasting 20 or 30 minutes. But in the books most of these battles are glanced over in paragraphs, and sometimes even sentences. It is almost mentioned in passing that a huge battle happened and that X defeated Y. This film felt like a truer representation of Tolkien’s books then the more action oriented LOTR trilogy. For much of the first hour of the film it is spent walking around the Shire talking. Or in Bilbo’s house talking. Honestly it felt like he put out the director’s cut version of the film instead of waiting to put it out on blu-ray. There was a lot of talking about going to the dwarves home but almost an unnecessary amount. Like if you cut out 20 minutes of the first hour of the film Jackson could have still gotten his points across.

                
For me the film was about one thing; walking. There was a lot of walking in this film. They walked on cliffs, through forests, in tunnels, etc. They picked some awesome places to walk because in the mountains of New Zealand, I mean Middle-Earth look awesome in high def. I understand you try to communicate just how great a journey this is but it was a long march and they barely made it half way to the dwarf city. At one point they go through the mountains and two rock creatures start fighting as they walked by. No reason in particular for them to fight other then it looks like an awesome visual of two guys chucking rocks at each other.

                
The whole film was not even about Bilbo. It was about 13 dwarves trying to reclaim their home from Smaug the dragon that took it from them. Bilbo is relegated to a background for the majority of the film till he falls down a hole and meets Gollum about an hour before the end of the film. It is one of the few moments in the film you get a genuine feeling of excitement watching the film. There interaction is a moment that goes from funny, to terror as Gollum slowly gets frustrated with Bilbo's questions. Then once Gollum realizes Bilbo has the ring he becomes possessed with reclaiming his “precious”. It is probably the one moment of sheer joy during the film.

                
Gandalf is also in the film and for whatever reason he wants to help the dwarves with their journey. I actually didn’t follow why he did except for the fact he kept mentioning the oncoming darkness which I would assume is Saruman from LOTR. But he gets to have all the hero spots in the film and thankfully he did as he was one of the highlights of the film.  

                
The ending of the film felt like a big middle finger to the viewer. You see Smaug’s eye as he sits under the golden throne and then we immediately fade to the credits. It was like the filmmakers said, “Thanks for coming but you have to fork over another $20 next year to see the real payoff”. God that ending made me so angry. It shouldn’t if you read the book but man as a movie cliffhanger it sucked so bad.

                
Despite what you might perceive as complaining I did enjoy the film. Again Peter Jackson cannot make a bad movie about Middle-Earth. But the Hobbit seemed to me almost like a fan service film. The fans wanted certain moments that were not in the previous trilogy like longer dialogue scenes, singing, certain character interactions (Gandalf, the elf queen, and Agent Smith), etc. They wanted more Middle-Earth and he obliged and gave them lots of Middle-Earth. I just don’t know that if you cut 30 minutes out of the film you would not have a more concise, better flowing film. The reason they make directors cuts is because films such as this are meant for the hardcore fan who wants more. They want to listen to the director’s commentary, the making of documentaries, and the photo galleries. This film felt like a director’s cut that maybe could have been shorter and may have been better for it.

                
In the end if you are down with Middle-Earth then this is right up your alley. It is more of the same. And if you were just blasé about LOTR then this might not be your cup of tea because it is more of the same. 

 *******************************************

 Nicely done, J. Let me explain why I'm using THIS picture for my avatar this time instead of my usual Zombie Killer Chef pic. It's basically me reading your post, throwing up my hand, and telling you to just hold on one mother fucking second!! Did you actually PAY Mr. Peter Jackson for the privilege of enjoying this very epic movie? What's that? Can't quite hear you, buddy! 

Oh. No? No, you didn't pay Mr. Peter Jackson for your ticket into this journey? OOOOH. I see. Well, I did. I paid him for FIVE tickets, so you can technically ride off of one of mine. So, set you guilt aside. I got you covered. I do own the screener, as well, so no judgement there, but let's just set it straight right now. YOU ARE BITCHING ABOUT A MOVIE YOU DID NOT PAY TO WATCH. GO SIT DOWN.

For the people not familiar with The Hobbit and Tolkein, I'm going to sum it up without getting too nerdy about it. He wrote The Hobbit as a children's story for his kids. Yes, this is like the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for his time.  Angry that England's fairy tales and fables and mythes of olde were falling into obscurity, replaced by Norse Gods and Roman Mythology, Tolkein tried to bring back what he could of olden tales of yore. So, if you are looking for the complex tale of intermingled lands and people and species; an intricate and complex web of interaction and overlapping like you found in Lord of the Rings, you will not find it in The Hobbit, simply because that's not what The Hobbit was written for. It was a bedtime tale for children with hobbits, dwarves, elves, wizards, and a bad ass dragon. When the Lord of the Rings came out over 10 years later, his children had grown, the character development he outlined for each character was a lot more complex, and he had a lesson to preach against War and various other political things going on during his time. The overall plot of both these stories is this: you're innocent and sheletered at home but once you step foot off your land and encounter new places, people, circumstances, and war, IF you come back, you will be changed FOREVER. Period.

With that being said, the tone of The Hobbit was a lot more jovial and merry than the tone of the Lord of the Rings, which was a darker tale from the start. I like that Jackson tried to put more the music Tolkein wrote in the books into this movie. Yes, in the book the  dwarfs were all introduced within a few sentences., but Jackson takes nearly 30 - 40 minutes to bring them in one at a time so you can actually differentiate each one, their personality, and give you a little more character development which was sorely missing in the book. Let's not fail to mention that Jackson had to make this movie more marketable to the non-geek ladies so he could get them to the theater with their mates; so he added the HOT dwarf. This is eye-candy for the non-hardcore fans, which is fine because as a hardcore fan, I, for one, am not complaining. Just some background on Kili; he and his brother Fili are Thorin's nephews and you will notice physically, that these 3 have the lease bulbous of noses and have more refined features- as a testament to the royalty of their bloodline. Kili, specifically and ironically, most resembles an elf with his cute, petite nose, pointed ears, and dexterity with the bow. Ladies, you will not be disappointed. And, not to ruin anything for those of US who will watch the next two movies in this trilogy, but his character will have some major scenes coming up. Watch for it!

Hello, you sexy piece of dwarf meat!!!!

How can a 300 page book turn into 3 3-hour movies? Simply by fleshing out more dialogue and character traits that are glossed over in the book. Why should you care who dies or who lives in the course of this journey if you don't get to know these characters on a level other than the group that's tossed together to get something done. There were things in this movie that were never mentioned in the book, but made the story flow so much smoother. Need I mention the scene between Bilbo and Bofur in the cave when Bilbo blurts out that the dwarves don't understand his homesickness because they are homeless vagabonds? The hurt look on Bofur's face was all that needed to be shown to communicate how painful that truth was. And the fact that Bofur didn't react angrily and still wished him well, even though Bilbo was going back on his word and abandoning them, just shows the compassion and kindness of his character. That is not conveyed at all in the book (this scene was written in for the movie), but I am appreciative of it because it makes ME give a fuck about what happens to Bofur when this is all said and done!  

So, the entire argument about this small book being stretched out into 3 movies is INVALID. They are taking a children's book and creating an adult movie experience, and most adults need a little more meat on the bone in order to enjoy the meal. At least, I do, anyway! 

I can go on and on about why this movie was fantastic, but I'll give you my personal highlights. Thorin is a complex and intriguing character and the arc of the story is exciting to watch, because most of us will know what happens eventually. Kili is just delicious to look at. He has the most screen time out of most of the dwarfs, besides Thorin. He keeps your libido interested and your eyes pasted on the 48 frames per second. It was fine, so stop all the bitching about the 48 frames. Fucking pussies....Anyway, Bofur turned out to be my dark horse. He was great to watch for the comedic tone of his character, but also for the patience and the kindness he shows Bilbo, despite how Thorin and the others feel about him. I am excited to see what they do with him in the next two films. 

Yeah, I dig him. And you will, too!

Favorite scene:  Hands down, Thorin pulling himself up from the fallen tree to calmly walk with his sword drawn to face the White Orc. The regality of Richard Armitage and his sheer presence of manhood makes the viewer forget that this is supposed to be a troll-like dwarf instead of this fine speciman of a warrior. With the Requiem-like score playing in the background (it's actually called "Out of the Frying Pan" on the soundtrack if you're interested), you just feel immense pride for this lost Prince. And you would be one who can call him "King", as well. (Right, Balin?)

Forgive the shiteous quality of this pic. It's a pic I took of my screen b/c getting a screenshot was impossible!!!

Favorite Shot (in any movie EVER): Indulge me because I have a thing for eyes. I absolutely LOVE them. And the last shot of this film absolutely made my heart swell, because not only was it a great close-up shot of Smaug's eye, but an artist actually gave me a drawing of something very similar AGES before this movie was even made. It remains one of my most treasured possessions. 

My camera doesn't capture the sexiness of this shot, but I wanted to give you an idea.

 The Bottom Line is this: if you loved Lord of the Rings, you will probably love The Hobbit. If you're on the fence, why let two nobody's decide whether or not you're going to see this movie? (Especially if ONE of these nobody's has no fucking idea what the hell he's shitting all over when he discredits the sheer enjoyability of this movie.) GO SEE IT IN THE MOVIE. Enjoy it the way the makers intended it to be enjoyed. 

Oh, and just to throw a little more free education out there: The Thunder Battle on the Mountain that my co-writer J seems to think was pointless, is a nod towards the Norse Gods of Thunder, you may have heard of him...Thor? That ring a bell? Yeah, I thought so. I thought the visualization of them as mountain giants tossing boulders at each other to explain the claps of thunder and the rumbling of the mountains was very creative and, how's this: ORIGINAL. I, for one, found it rather enjoyable. And, as Bofur says as they are witnessing this happening: "The legends ARE true!" Which just goes to show you that even dwarfs have legends they were skeptical of....Like my co-writer's doubt of the greatness of this movie.