Comments on: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Review.

By: Darren

Darren — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:32:59 +0000

This is ancient now, but I just watched the extended cut of An Unexpected Journey and you are pretty much right: mostly just more songs. I will say three things:

1) Why did they cut the ten seconds worth of material that clearly established why Thranduil is such an asshole?

2) It doesn’t feel nearly as long as it did the first time around, nor did Radagast grate so badly. Nothing adjusts expectations quite so much as seeing it once, I guess, and I’m happier with it now than I was before.

3) Everyone who praises the (in my opinion pretty bad) Bakshi version and also complains about the Goblin King is a hypocrite. Especially in the Extended Cut that sequence is the closest to a cartoon and is entertainingly campy.

By: Gap

Gap — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:59:21 +0000

I think to be honest if they made three long films and didn’t include character development, it’s fair to say that adding more runtime probably wouldn’t help.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:29:31 +0000

They’re not given personality in the book, no, but that’s one of the things that suddenly becomes possible when you expand the relatively-short book into a nine-hour trilogy of films. Consider that Fellowship’s theatrical release was shorter and we don’t even meet half the characters until halfway into the film, and yet it still manages to give Boromir and Gimli personality.

The extended cuts are interesting, because with a few of the scenes you can see *why* they were cut — reinserted into the film they seem unnecessary and out of place. Most of them are just atmosphere- and character-building stuff that was cut for time, though — that or they contained particularly gratuitous amounts of singing, which should always be avoided if possible.

(I think there will be extended cuts for the Hobbit because there’s a market for it, but I think the cut footage will consist mostly of the former and not the latter. If there was character-building stuff that was cut from the Hobbit in favour of Elijah Wood’s cameo then I don’t even know what to say.)

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:35:15 +0000

That’s unfortunate. I wonder if there’s the assumption that audiences already know the Necromancer is Sauron–so they think that he’s scary by default–or that they really want to hide that fact and have over-corrected and undercut him.

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:18 +0000

Can’t say whether I agree or disagree with any of this until I see the movie. Some of these problems are endemic to the book, though; in particular, I don’t recall any of the dwarves other than Thorin having much personality. Advanced Disclaimer: while I agree that Return of the King is the weakest film of the first trilogy, I’d never call it “awful.”

I will refrain from it here, but I’ve always been fascinated by the differences between the Extended and Theatrical cuts of LotR. The Saruman scenes you mentioned are a particularly interesting example. I wonder if there will be extended cuts for the Hobbit, and if they will help–or hurt–the films.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:00:30 +0000

Totally, but there is enough ancillary shit that’s not actually in the book but is going on at the same time which they could put in to make it all worthwhile. Unfortunately the whole thing with the Necromancer is awfully done; he’s probably going to be the big baddie for the second film but here he just appears as a really bad special effect and scares Sylvester McCoy. Mr Boogedy was more sinister than this.

By: Gap

Gap — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:54:41 +0000

To be honest, I assumed the only reason they stretched it over 3 films was money. The Hobbit always struck me as a fairly self-contained, simple thing.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:11:16 +0000

Oh no, a series wouldn’t have worked at all. The Hobbit has zero character development as it is unless your name is Bilbo or Thorin, and there’s nowhere near enough to stretch over even a short season of television.

That Necromancer scene, though. Wow. When the sum total of your villainous acts amounts to “Kills hedgehogs” you probably need to go back to evil villain academy to rethink a thing or two.

By: Smurf

Smurf — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:57:41 +0000

I think perhaps The Hobbit would have been better suited to a big budget TV series than a series of films.

You can’t just introduce THE NECROMANCER and tell us how bad he is and then never mention him in the film again. I know that he is obviously another big bad for the next two films but in the context of this film it really doesn’t work. Even if the film is the first part of a trilogy and the other two have already been filmed so we’re guaranteed to get them released, the first film should be able to stand alone on it’s own.

Going back to my point, it felt like an overlong episode of GoT except I have to wait a year to see the next part, rather than a week. I left the cinema wanting more. Not in a “oh my god that was good I want more” way, but in the “I know you’ve got two more films but a bit of a conclusion would have been nice”.