I usually stay far away from trailers. I like to experience movies as cold as possible. But this is Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, and my fine principles have failed me. The film itself is still a year off … and I can’t wait that long to satisfy my curiosity. Have a look:
What do you think?
I think it looks fantastic, for the most part. Of course it’s a trailer, and so the material has been carefully selected, but I love much of what we see here.
One of the best things about the trailer is the Dwarves’ song about the lost gold, and the way the trailer plays it up, using it to score other scenes. As my friend Peter Chattaway pointed out at ArtsAndFaith.com, most of the singing shot for The Lord of the Rings was relegated to the Extended Editions or even to deleted scenes, so it’s encouraging to see this evocative song given such prominence. When I read Tolkien to my kids, I love making up melodies for the songs (sometimes more successfully than other times). This melody has exactly the air of somber longing that I go for in my rendition of the Dwarves’ song. I can’t wait to hear the words “We must away ere break of day / To seek the pale enchanted gold.”
Likewise, although we see some action here, the trailer seems intended to reassure fans that The Hobbit honors the intimacy and smaller scale of Tolkien’s book, that it hasn’t been amped up to bone-crushing Return of the King levels. The bucolic Shire scenes early in The Fellowship of the Ring remain among the most successful elements in the film trilogy, and the later chapters sometimes seem to me to stumble over the very ambition of the overwrought action.
Some people have suggested that Jackson and company were just working too hard toward the end of The Lord of the Rings, and made mistakes in judgment due to exhaustion. If so, I hope the rest and the smaller scale of this project pay off in a surer hand to the end. (Please, please, no skullvalanche-level tonal atrocities, no drinking-game bathos or video-game culture allusions, no staff-shattering sacrileges. See the Extended Edition notes in my Return of the King review if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
The shot of one dwarf wrapped in webs, of course, hints at one of the more striking connections between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit: a forest full of Shelob-like spiders, smaller perhaps but in much greater numbers. It’s hard to imagine them talking in Jackson’s version, or Bilbo taunting them in the same way with his “Attercop! Attercop” song—although a lot of people will be unhappy if they omit the “Attercop” business entirely.)
As young Bilbo, Martin Freeman has struck me from the outset as a canny choice to replace Ian Holm—and from what we see here that seems confirmed. Maybe if they’d shot The Hobbit right after The Lord of the Rings they could have done up Ian Holm like they did for the brief flashback where he finds the Ring, but a few years out that no longer seemed possible.
Thankfully, Gandalf’s age isn’t an issue, and it’s just wonderful to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey again. (McKellen had some great moments as Gandalf the White too, but neither McKellen nor Jackson were quite as comfortable with that more transcendent version of the character as with the more fallible earlier version.) McKellen seems to wear the part lightly here, with a twinkle, and less of the foreboding that he projected in much of The Lord of the Rings—all exactly right, I think. McKellen’s Gandalf is one of the most awesomely right and perfect performances of any literary character I’ve ever seen, and I’m so happy there’s more coming. I … I think I’ll cry now.
I don’t have much to say about the casting of the Dwarves yet, except that Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) is younger and more, well, Aragornish than my picture of the character. I don’t know offhand what descriptions of Thorin we have from Tolkien, or whether Tolkien drew any pictures, but Thorin in my mind is an older figure, stout as an oak tree, beard as imposing as a shield. I really hope Jackson’s Thorin doesn’t become in The Hobbit what Aragorn became in the later Rings movies, the all-inspiring hero whose greatness diminishes those around him. (I call this centralizing of awesomeness the Aragorn Effect.) If nothing else, the climax of Tolkien’s story should prevent that—but you never know.
It was shrewd of the editors to save two of the most familiar elements (an image and a voice) for the trailer’s final shots.
Those are my thoughts. What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
I’m pretty sure Ian Holm is going to be in it. But you can find out for yourself in what capacity. Go to aintitcool news and search for “The Hobbit Part 1”, one of their reporters has been on the set for the last few months.
Peter Turner: Ian Holm’s in the trailer, so I assume he will (probably) be in the film. (Of course it’s possible his material could be cut, but I doubt it.) The key words in that sentence are “As young Bilbo.”
I really, really, really loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, am repelled by, find intolerable, recoil from and shrink from, and am almost unable to bear waiting.
This is a difficult life to live when one is a Catholic awaiting the real ‘return of the king’ and a mother who has endured waiting 11 times over awaiting babies. God is always good and happily all of my babies came earlier than expected and healthy to boot!
SDG, you are also good to post this. I’ve been avoiding any news of The Hobbit from such sites such as IMDB unsure of what I would find but seeing it here gave me great confidence in its quality. I expect I will be watching and rewatching this wonderful trailer until next year to ease my pains.
They kept the singing! They kept the singing! (but wil we get anything to match R/B’s “Five Fir Trees”?)
Also, I am far more impressed with the dwarves now than I was with the still shots.
I posted this trailer on my fb wall last night and I got NO excitement. Come on!! SQUEE! Ok sorry. But yay good article ;)
Although I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy’s cinematic experience, Jackson’s take on the novels is so diametrically opposed that I fear the Hobbit movie may disappoint as well (i.e. the character of Gandalf in the books is drastically different than the movie) !
I really look forward to Richard Armitage’s portrayal of Thorin. He may be different than what I pictured, but as soon as I heard that Armitage was cast I could rest easy. He is immensely dedicated to each of his roles and his acting is some of the best you will see in British television. Glad to hear you make so many great comments on Sir Ian McKellan as Gandalf, he gives a superb performance throughout the trilogy. To me, PJ can do no wrong in his casting choices- and that includes the females (which is where I depart from most die hard Tolkien lovers). I am also most excited about the singing included in the trailer!
Nope, not interested. Refused the Jackson films. I’ll leave all the books to my imagination thank you.
SDG,
Agreed on all parts. *slow claps after seeing the trailer*
I’m still worried about Jackson’s ability to adapt the story tastefully, but this looks great. I love the song. I hope the whole thing is included in the movie (it won’t be).
When I was a kid my parents bought me a record with music and dialog from the 1977 made-for-TV movie, along with a book with pictures so I could follow along with the story. I listened to that constantly, long before I ever read the book. The melody for The Dwarves’ Song is the one I hear in my head when I read it. The one from the new film is even better! I’m a HUGE LOTR fan, and I can’t wait to see this movie!!
This brings back memories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXP8VEXWMs
A few thoughts: Thorin and Gandalf’s discussion in the trailer seems to reflect the fact the Thorin has a self-righteous, somewhat ruthless streak. He sees Bilbo as an employee to whom he has few obligations and who could become a troublesome burden. This comes out especially in the later chapters of The Hobbit.
Not only are these flaws that Aragorn did *not* have in the films, but portraying them earlier in the film gives more credibility to his later weaknesses of character. They seem to be viewing Thorin as a flawed hero, more like Boromir than Aragorn. If that’s the case, I like what I’m seeing here.
I pretty much liked everything I saw here too. Except for one thing…who was that elvish woman, and what was she doing hitting on Gandalf??
@Thinkling:
That was Galadrial. And I’m 100% certain that she wasn’t hitting on him (she’s married!). Comforting, sure, but nothing more. :-D
David B: Good thoughts & comments. Cheers.
I don’t fear Thorin as another Aragorn. Jackson seems to have grasped the Hobbit is about Pride vs Humility, embodied in Thorin vs Bilbo. I think he’s got this bit right.
The trailer looked wonderful.
Though that odd Galadriel/Gandalf “what conditioner are you using, Gandalf the Grey?” scene begs for captions.
Ian Holm is in the film, that’s been confirmed. But if you look closely in the trailer you can see it’s Freeman in oldBilbo make up in the exterior shot.
I think I’m not watching the movie or anything to do with it. I never cared if PJ was directing or producing or cranking the camera for it. It’s enough that he and Fran were involved in the screenplay. He’s a fine director, but he never got Middle-earth, nor any of its denizens. Even if there’s less to get in the Hobbit, I have no confidence, nor will to enrich him.
I’m sure the movie will be big and shiny, well acted, well scored, and well produced.
What’s the deal with Galadriel brushing aside a strand of Gandalf’s hair? Is this suppose to be the sign of some kind of romance between Galadriel and Gandalf? If so, it will completely ruin the movie.
NickZ: See David B’s comments above.
OK, thanks. Hadn’t seen that. I hope David B is right.
This whole post is spot on. I agree about Thorin’s appearance, and the Dwarves’ song is literally note-perfect. Just exactly right. I do think that Martin Freeman looks a little too… trim, perhaps? to be Bilbo at the beginning. I think he’ll do a lovely job, though.
I watched the trailer at least 20 times yesterday. WOW, can`t wait !! The dwarf song was perfectly used as cover to the following scenes. Martin Freeman was a great choice for Bilbo. We have another masterpiece in the making.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the hair-brushing, although it’s a little more affectionate a touch from Galadriel than I think Tolkien would have permitted. The book has Gandalf attending a White Council and driving the Necromancer out of his fastness off-stage; I believe Galadriel has been written in to bring some of that on-stage. Which may offend the purists but suits me fine; besides, it’s another excuse to see Cate Blanchett.
***
I have two concerns: First, The Hobbit was written first, and was meant to be enjoyed for its own merits; I hope PJ doesn’t bog the story down with too many references to LOTR. Second, one beef I have with the cinematic version of the trilogy is that PJ and John Rhys-Davies took away a bit from Gimli’s dignity by making him too much of a comic relief; on the other hand, in Hobbit Tolkien presented the Dwarves as pretty inept until the Battle of Five Armies. So on what side of the balance will the Dwarves fall in this movie? ... Well, as long as Bombur is still funny ....
Like most of us, I had mixed feelings about Jackson’s LOTR adaptations. They got a lot right, chiefly a lot of the visuals (some of which were *better* than my imagining had ever been), the linguistics, much of the casting, and even the soundtrack - indeed, I would say, more than we probably had any right to expect from a Hollywood funded production and a horror director. What it got wrong (occasionally, very badly wrong) were some of the characterizations, and that distorted the story as a result. Seeing those alterations, and listening to the commentary tracks, I don’t quite think that Jackson, Fran and Philippa really quite “got” THE LORD OF THE RINGS. At heart, they’re post modernists. And it shows.
*
But there’s less in THE HOBBIT to screw up, however. Aside from Bilbo and Gandalf and Thorin, there’s not really any three dimensional characters, and none of those three have the depth they and others develop in LOTR…though perhaps there are hints in Bard and Beorn. It’s a children’s novel.
*
My concern, however, is Jackson’s decision to break THE HOBBIT up into two movies, of which this is the trailer for the first. There’s not enough material in THE HOBBIT to justify that at all, and we’ve heard that Jackson plans to expand out to fill in a lot of the history leading up to the LORD OF THE RINGS. I question that judgment. Likewise, the trailer here suggests a “darker” tone than the book, more in line with LOTR. It shows a lack of confidence in the source material, and it risks bogging down a taut narrative in a lot of subplots that are not going to have any payoff in this story. And that taut story is going to get split up into two movies…and that almost certainly means we must wait until 2013 to see Smaug the Dragon.
Richard, I disagree that there isn’t enough material in The Hobbit for two movies. My husband and I are big Tolkien fans, and our concern was that with one movie, they would have to cut (or drastically alter) scenes like Beorn’s house, the spiders in Mirkwood, the escape through barrels, the meetings with Bard…you get the picture. Smaug’s scenes alone (and the dwarves and Bilbo weren’t near the den of Smaug for just a few hours, but days) will require time and good pacing. Also, I think that Jackson is going to add scenes of where Gandalf was when he left the company in Mirkwood; such information is in the Silmarillon or other writings by Tolkien, and I think it will add to the film.
Hello Karen - I suppose I was assuming a movie of about the same length as the LOTR movies, that is to say, 3 hours plus. The LORD OF THE RINGS is about 455,000 words, exclusive of appendices; THE HOBBIT is only 95,000 words, and written at a considerably lower reading level. It’s a simpler, more focused narrative, with fewer main characters. And while I would be more than happy to see lots of hours devoted to Tolkien’s work on screen, I wonder if it would actually *work as a movie* - or as two movies, to be more precise. I don’t think much would have to be “cut” to do justice to THE HOBBIT as one one 3 to 3.5 hour long movie - certainly nothing like what had to be trimmed to adapt LOTR.
Karen: Agreed: We aren’t talking about The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe here.
If I recall correctly, PJ and company is adding other story lines to the Hobbit films, both to expand them, and to somewhat bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. However, it’s all Tolkien stuff, so no worries on PJ just making up crap and throwing it in. One of the big add-ons to the film is the White Council. Something that was only hinted at in The Hobbit, and expanded on in later tales, wil be shown in full here. And not just the council of course, but the results of the council’s decision to attack Sauron and his stronghold of Dol Godur in Mirkwood. I for one, am looking forward to these additions, I think they will give The Hobbit a grander feel then from what I remember in the book. I guess some would prefer The Hobbit to still be a children’s story, but I would rather see The Hobbit through the eyes of LOTR, and it looks like I will get my wish.
Yes, Ed, it looks like they are adding material regarding what Gandalf was doing when he left Bilbo and the dwarves when they entered Mirkwood. He was, I believe (my husband is the Tolkien scholar, not me) in council with Galadriel and Elrond regarding Sauron and the Ring. Somebody can correct me, but Gandalf says in The Hobbit that he has important business, and my husband says that important business is discussed in other Tolkien writings. I believe it will all be canon, and IMHO while The Hobbit is a “children’s novel” compared to Lord of the Rings, it has much more meat than Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. With the latter, the dialogue in the movie was so much better than Lewis’s original lines!
Oh, Karen. I could write a book on all the ways I disagree with your last sentence.
It should be noted that a love story is also being added to one of the two movies involving a female elf guard of the king of Mirkwood and an unnamed elf noble. So P.J. isn’t limiting himself to the contents of “The Hobbit” and the appendices of “The Lord of the Rings.” The verdict can only come after we see where his creativity takes the story, but as a Tolkien fan it does make me nervous.
Steven, you’re correct in your vague recollection that Thorin was much older and had a long beard.
Steven, you’re correct in your vague recollection that Thorin was much older and had a long beard. It should be noted that a love story is also being added to one of the two movies involving a female elf guard of the king of Mirkwood and an unnamed elf noble. So P.J. isn’t limiting himself to the contents of “The Hobbit” and the appendices of “The Lord of the Rings.” The verdict can only come after we see where his creativity takes the story, but as a Tolkien fan it does make me nervous.
Hello Ed - “so no worries on PJ just making up crap and throwing it in.” Well, Jackson did enough of that in LOTR despite the bountiful source material at hand. And it seems there will be some of that here as well: Evangeline Lilly is cast as Tauriel, a “female elf from Mirkwood” (that appears nowhere in the books), presumably because of the utter lack of female characters. And since some other LOTR characters (Legolas, etc.) are making their appearance, that means things will be contrived to get them into the story.
*
It is common knowledge now that Jackson is working other Middle Earth history of the day into the story - the White Council, the assault on Dol Guldur, etc. That’s perhaps enough to fill out two movies. But again, I wonder how well all that will work dramatically on the screen. THE HOBBIT had a number of adventures along the way, but with a pretty clear climax: the Battle of the Five Armies. But now we’ll have Dol Guldur to compete with that. And it leaves less clear what the climax of the first movie will be - my guess is the attack by the spiders or the capture by the Elvenking’s forces, along with the decision (at the precise same time) of the White Council to assault Sauron. That might be a little underwhelming. He may end up distorting these events to give them more dramatic heft, as he did with Faramir’s attempt to take the Ring at the end of THE TWO TOWERS, something I think that was problematic.
*
But it’s Jackson’s decision, so I suppose all my concerns aren’t going to make no never mind.
Hint: Read “The Quest of Erebor” in Unfinished Tales, which Christopher Tolkein edited. If The Hobbit: There and Back Again is told from Bilbo’s perspective, this is a synopsis of what the story would have looked like from Gandalf’s perspective! It discusses the White Council, as well as Thorin’s misgivings about taking Bilbo.
Hi Umberto - Good point - The Quest for Erebor is an excellent essay of what Tolkien had in mind as having gone on “behind the scenes” of Bilbo’s “recollection.” And if Jackson is serious about doing this, I hope he consults that closely.
*
The only difficulty is: THE HOBBIT works very well as a taut narrative - *as it is.* I’m not sure how well it works if it’s reworked from Gandalf’s perspective, with that broader picture. It might. But it could end up being a rather different story.
Richard, agreed and agreed!
The Hobbit as its own book is an absolute blast. And remember, film makers can only make VERSIONS of a written original; Jackson’s trilogy is a version, the 1970s anime of The Hobbit is a version.
It’s funny how The Hobbit, The Fellowship, Two Towers, The Return of the King, and The Children of Hurin are summarized into a few paragraphs in The Silmarillion. The myth Tolkein invented is so exhaustive, and the form of the novel is so limited, that I really don’t think Tolkein would object (too much) to a film about The Hobbit expanding the tale to include other events happening in Middle Earth’s history at the time. And you can’t really ask Jackson and WETA to shy away from action-packed content, when the source material exists, after the success of LOTR?
To All those annoyingly anal purists & rigid, or should that be turgid, nay-sayers, who insist on telling all & sundry how much they hate the LOTR movies, & how much of a naughty boy PJ is !... etc.. etc… & how they will NOT be viewing the movies (inc the Hobbit) at all ! All because they just revell in being Contrary to most sane people ...... well all I can say is: WHO CARES ! - & why bother posting !??
Do you really believe any of us moderate & non-psychotic fans, actually give an Orcs’ bowl movement about ur view ?? - & the fact that ur NOT going to see the films ! If not, then please do us all a favour, & put a Cave Troll foot in Ur mouth for some silence ! Then to top it all off, U could make us all cheer with joyous celebrations at the Green Dragon, by running off & joining Gollum, by falling into the Cracks of Mount Doom itself, for all we care ! - Thanking You in advance !
Thanks New Line!!!
Now I have to wait almost a WHOLE YEAR!!!!!
- M
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.