You know, I'm not entirely sure it will matter what kind of an adaptation from the book The Hobbit is. I think all that's going to matter, really, is how well the audience is swept out of their seats at the theatre. I Peter Jackson delivers us a movie that does this, who is going to sit and whine about differences from the book? A select few.
This brings up so many questions of what an adaptation should aim to do. So many questions that it would take chapters and chapters to fully explore the idea.
But it's hard to feel so terribly about The Hobbit after the latest trailer. It looks well put together, well thought out. You have characterization, sets, action, drama, storytelling, and thought. I've never felt like I have seen enough of Martin Freeman's Bilbo to form an opinion, but simply the way he was walking around in the Unexpected Party scenes was so very like Bilbo. And Gollum, goodness, goodness, won't that be the best scene in the movie? (As many consider it in the book.) But why the sudden "sexy Galadriel" shot, the Gandalf/Galadrielness--it's almost even worse than the short shot that was in the first trailer. I understand you have to market all angles, but why? It's just so very wrong to hint at Gandalf/Galadrielness. Let's just hope this hinting is limited to the trailer--otherwise we know how Gandalf gets his broken arm at the end of the story: not from the Battle of Five Armies but from Celeborn.
Two and a half more months. (Hmm, I also have a final the day this movie comes out--I hope I'm not too distracted testing in the afternoon after watching in the morning.)
No comments:
Post a Comment