Now, before I actually go into today’s post, I just want to say this: I’m extremely sorry that I did not post last Monday evening, but I was busy with other things (NaNoWriMo mostly), but it was for a good cause, as I won my first year of NaNoWriMo with 50,624 words! 😀 Anyway, with that out of the way, posts will hopefully be returning to normal, being published Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays – weekly.
So the time is almost upon us; The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is due to hit our cinema screens on the 12th, 13th, or 14th of December, depending on where you are currently living. But what this post will focus on is whether we as film fanatics/J. R. R. Tolkien fanatics should be excited for this prequel to The Lord of The Rings. Are you still a little worried whether this’ll be a flop, or are you wondering why people are saying it will be a flop? If you are either of these, or just want to carry on reading, then do so, good sir!
Why are people afraid this trilogy will be bad?
A few reasons, and so I will go into a few here, discussing the points I at least know of.
1.) It’s a trilogy – yes, people are worried about this, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. For one, it’s Peter Jackson’s (the director) idea to split it into three, not the studio’s, so it’s not all about the extra cash, and that means Jackson may well have something special in mind to offer here. Secondly, if you take out most of the description and other things used to pad out The Lord of the Rings, you would end up with roughly the same amount of action. Does this mean the trilogy will be around the same running time as LoTR? Possibly. And thirdly, Jackson plans to use the appendices of The Return of the King book as substantial content to flesh out The Hobbit to make it a trilogy.
2.) Jackson is running out of stuff to do – really? Why on Earth do people think this? Just because he wants to direct a prequel of something he’s directed before (LoTR)? That’s like saying Tolkien ran out of stuff to do when he did a sequel to The Hobbit; this is just the other way around. Come on, guys, think of a better argument than that.
3.) 48fps instead of the usual 24 – what this means is that Peter Jackson has shot his trilogy with an unususual frames per second, and people are saying that instead of it looking hyper-realistic in a good way, it is in fact the opposite; hyper-realistic in a bad way. One projectionist told The Los Angeles Times, “It looked like a made-for-TV movie. It was too accurate — too clear. The contrast ratio isn’t there yet — everything looked either too bright or black.”Now, this I might just be able to understand. I’ve seen many made-for-TV movies in my time, and let’s just say I’m not really a fan of them. The script is awful, the acting can be a little off, and…wait a minute, the script for The Hobbit is almost definitely great, and it has an A-list cast! Granted the camera may look a little weird, but I must say it was never the camera that made me hate a made-for-TV movie.
I know I haven’t seen the film yet, and yes, maybe the fps is bad, but I’m reserving judgement for Peter Jackson. This is the guy that quite faithfully shot the The Lord of the Rings movies, and he’s also a loony for anything Tolkien. With a good past record and an even better cast backing him, why are people picking holes in what he is trying to do? He is trying to provide entertainment, and until I’ve seen the first film (and possibly even the other two) I’m going to say very little about what I think, and that’s why I’ve named this post An Unaffected Journey: it’s not an artificial film, as the money going behind it is extraordinary, and the cast, crew, and director has produced exceptinal results previously. As I end this post, I will leave you with a quote by J. R. R. Tolkien himself.
“Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.” – J. R. R. Tolkien
Do you think The Hobbit trilogy will be good? Why/why not? Post your thoughts in the comments below!