But also, although I was mostly a fan of Jackson's LotR movies when they came out (though even then I took exception to moments in FotR such as the deeply silly wizard-break-dancing-fight, Arwen Warrior Princess and The Momentary Possession of Galadriel by the Special Effects Demon) in the years since the sheer visual thrill of seeing Jackson's often stunning visuals on the screen wore off, and I've come to cringe at much of the dialogue and plot/character changes in the LotR movies. While I'm eager to see The Hobbit (and will be starting a lightning re-read of the book with the older kids this weekend in preparation for perhaps taking them to see the movie during the Christmas-thru-New-Years break) one of the things that concerns me is that it sounds like The Hobbit has, to a great extent, been turned into a mini-LotR Jackson style.
This worries me a little as The Hobbit is a rather different book than The Lord of the Rings. In LotR, the War of the Ring is one of the two major plot lines of the book (the other being the related quest to take the ring to Mount Doom.) Thus, while in some ways Jackson sought to make the book more focused on big battle set pieces, the book itself is heavily focused on war and that which surrounds it. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a journey and adventure story. The dwarves do not set off expecting war, and even at the end they don't really expect it to come upon them in their stand-off over the rights over Smaug's treasure. The Battle of Five Armies comes upon all of the characters (save Gandalf) unawares, and Biblo himself is such a small part of it that we have to hear an account of the battle after the fact since his witness to it is fairly useless in knowing what's going on.
From all I've read and seen, Jackson decides to structure the Hobbit movies much like he did with LotR, starting them off with a historical background section in which we see epic battles that set up the current situation, and creating ongoing rivalries and tensions that make the various events of the story more warlike and build expectation for the final battle. This strikes me as a potential problem in that "journey" is a story worth telling in and of itself, and I think that The Hobbit gains rather from the fact that actual war is something which comes about rather unexpectedly at the end. That, after all, is like life. Rather more so, indeed, than big epic struggles leading up to a final showdown. And while I don't object to the latter, that too is a good story, I do object to the recent tendency to turn every fantasy or historical story possible into a Titanic Showdown Between Sides plotline.
9 comments:
I'm not going to see it. I can't. What Jackson did to LotR was bad enough... seeing what he does to the Hobbit might actually kill me.
Visually, the LotR was spectacular, but I cringed almost every time someone opens his mouth. I can't forgive Jackson for making Aragorn into a whiny little *redacted*, or making Frodo weak, foolish and cruel, or for the slandering of Faramir.
This is what bugged me most about the Narnia movies.
Then again, could anything be worse than the 70's cartoon version?
Re Narnia, we only saw the first one and were disheartened that it had been turned into another Disney family adventure.
+JMJ+
As long as we're talking about Narnia, I actually liked what they did for Prince Caspian.
E, there were many things I disliked about Prince Caspian, but in my opinion the best sequence was the one they made up out of whole cloth, with the assault on the castle. It was more consistent than the rest -- being as they made it up out of whole cloth and all.
+JMJ+
For me, what stood out was the conflict between Caspian and Peter. In the book, Peter just takes for granted that Caspian must be restored to the throne and that the Telmarines are a legitimate royal house. That never made sense to me. I think the friction between them in the movie was an excellent fleshing out of characters Lewis was content to leave two-dimensional.
Why wouldn't Peter accept Caspian? He looks around at Narnia, it's not the same Narnia. Hundreds and hundreds of years have passed. He doesn't intend to stay in Narnia forever; he knows the rules. Who else are they going to have as legitimate ruler? Somebody from Archenland or Calormen or the Lone Isles?
Whereas, if Aslan sticks some king candidate in your road, it's pretty obvious what you're supposed to do. And the English have been programmed with Bonnie Prince Charlie/King Charles II propaganda, so obviously Caspian is the king on the run.
+JMJ+
The last time Peter stayed in Narnia, he was there long enough to grow up. Let's give it ten years, minimum. In this second story (book, not movie), he ages even faster. He may not have intended to stay forever, but it's hard to believe that he knew in advance that he'd only be there for a few days.
But in a way, this mess is his fault. He should have married and left a legitimate heir when he had the chance. Even my imagination strains at these logistics, though. =P
Now that you've mentioned propaganda, however, I see the piece I've been missing for years. Although I've long thought of Prince Caspian as Lewis's way of rationalising England's slide into Protestantism, I didn't realise until now that it was bad enough to merit the P-word. The movie, for all its shortcomings, isn't such a blatant propaganda vehicle.
+JMJ+
The last time Peter stayed in Narnia, he was there long enough to grow up. Let's give it ten years, minimum. In this second story (book, not movie), he ages even faster. He may not have intended to stay forever, but it's hard to believe that he knew in advance that he'd only be there for a few days.
But in a way, this mess is his fault. He should have married and left a legitimate heir when he had the chance. Even my imagination strains at these logistics, though. =P
Now that you've mentioned propaganda, however, I see the piece I've been missing for years. Although I've long thought of Prince Caspian as Lewis's way of rationalising England's slide into Protestantism, I didn't realise until now that it was bad enough to merit the P-word. The movie, for all its shortcomings, isn't such a blatant propaganda vehicle.
Post a Comment