So, we went to see The Hobbit –
ostensibly as my birthday ‘treat’. I stocked up on drinks, popcorn and sweets and
stuffed them in my bag (cos, seriously, who can afford to pay the prices they
charge at cinemas?) And James and I got
stuck in pretty much as soon as we sat down (oh, okay, before we even got to
our seats) and Adrian got cross with all the rustling. But, hey, you gotta rustle in the cinema,
right?
I confess I was doubtful, even before
it started. As I said in my earlier post, I was never a huge fan of The Hobbit (no Aragorn, too many dwarves, etc
etc) but the trailer had looked pretty awesome.
But then, I wondered, were they really, truly, honest to godly
stretching it out into three parts – each three hours’ long? Jesus, that’s nine hours’ of cinema for one
pretty skinny book. It seemed a bit
unfair. LOTR got that and it was – what?
– seven times longer?
What can I say? I hated it. In fact, I fell asleep and slept through the
most part of it out of sheer disappointment.
Or maybe I was just terribly tired.
I don’t know.
And it got me thinking…why? Why did I
dislike it so much? I don’t read reviews
but I know people have said it shouldn’t have been split into three parts, that
it was over long and yes, absolutely. It
felt…stretched. Every scene pulled and
tugged until it nearly snapped.
But it was more than that. Somehow, it felt as if the very ‘ being’ of
the book had been fundamentally changed, pulled out of alignment. It felt…glossy. Too glossy.
It felt…epic. Too epic. And sexy.
I mean, I seriously don’t remember cute, photogenic, shaggable dwarves
in the book.
![]() |
| Be honest - was this how you saw Thorin? |
It was like someone sat round the
table in Hollywood or wherever, said, ‘Look, we haven’t got Aragorn or Boromir
or Faramir or even Legolas, FFS, so what are we doing to do? Who’s gonna be the
pin-up?’ Cos, let’s be honest, Bilbo and
Gandalf aren’t lust material. So someone
came up with the idea of giving a few of the dwarves a glossy makeover. So they don't actually look like dwarves. Kinda sad, huh?
![]() |
| Or Kili??? |
And, ahem, what was with the cutesy big-eyed hedgehog stuff? That was total utter pure Disney. Don't get me wrong - I like Disney but in its rightful place, and its rightful place is not, not, not in Tolkien.
And then all the massive big action
movie style moments – the giants slugging bits of mountain; the fights with
goblins and wotnot. In the book they
were just – exciting things that happened.
But someone decided that wasn’t enough – they needed to be turned into
something bigger, longer, wilder, madder.
It was like they were thinking, ‘Hey, how would this scene be in the game of the movie of the book?’ or ‘What
about when it gets turned into a ride at Disney?’ And I guess that’s fine but it brings me onto
my last thought…and the major one.
It simply wasn’t representative of the
book. It didn’t capture the ‘soul’ of
the book, its essence. The Hobbit is a
small book – one with big adventures and a wide landscape for sure, but its
major focus is small, a microcosm – it’s a one man (or hobbit) tale of how Bilbo leaves the
safety of the Shire and goes out into the big world to discover…himself.
And that is what gets lost almost entirely in
this movie. They’ve turned it into a generic
action adventure film – it’s Die Hard with sexy dwarves instead of Bruce Willis and with added
dragons, orcs and goblins (and, weirdly, a reanimated hedgehog). And I figure
that’s a shame.
Will I be watching the next two
tranches? Unlikely.
Now, next question? If I felt that strongly about the movie of a book I wasn’t even that wild about, should I
really go see Cloud Atlas and Life of Pi?






.jpg)











.jpg)