Yes. To an extent, but with moderate trepidation. I love The Hobbit. If you’re a regular, you know that. I do not want to have it.. ‘fouled’. There are good points and bad points in my opinion.
Three Films, Short Book
Added Bits (Removed Bits?)
I have faith in Peter Jackson. The Lord of the Rings films were good – very good. I think the way Jackson and his team portrayed the Lord of the Rings was excellent. I’m very glad Jackson took over the dictatorship – sorry, directorship – of The Hobbit. Jackson is somewhat entwined with the Tolkien franchise. I think the Lord of the Rings movies are the only movies of his I can name, or at least that I know he directed. I think that he will be working very hard on The Hobbit, if only to get his name back out there on the movie market.
Martin Freeman will make for a good hobbit, in my opinion. I love him as Watson in the Sherlock shows. He’s a great actor, and I think he’ll suit ol’ (well, young!) Bilbo. You can see a bit of him in The Hobbit Trailer. I look forward to seeing him step into Bilbo’s.. hairy feet. And here’s Trailer 2.
The Hobbit is being filmed in New Zealand, just like the Lord of the Rings. I think the scenery of LOTR was beautiful, so I’m obviously pleased to see that Jackson and co. surmounted the no-brainer to return there! I’m anxious to see Mirkwood, and more so the Misty Mountain! A return to Hobbiton will be most welcome too.
All of the actors in LOTR were pretty good if not damn’ brilliant; and a few of the best will make a return for The Hobbit. Ian McKellen IS Gandalf, so I’m glad he’s back. I might cry if he weren’t. Christopher Lee is Saruman once more, which is good in character (but not for plot!), and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. Good actors both, but unnecessary.
The Hobbit is about a 300 word novel, give or take depending on which edition you read. The Lord of the Rings series is about 1270 words. However, they’re both being sold as trilogies in film. For LOTR, this is perfect. For The Hobbit.. ehhhhhh. It’s going to be a real stretch, even with the additions. I think a two-parter was acceptable, but a trilogy is pushing it for what is, in essence, a short novel. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’ll work out. It just seems that they’re wringing the Hobbit for all the money they can make of it.
Now, one of the things that Jackson and team have promised to do to help fill three films is include lots of info from the Appendices of the Lord of the Rings. Now, I’d love to see all of this on film, but The Hobbit is not the place for it! Fill another movie with it all! Sure it’s interesting stuff, but the vast majority of it is utterly irrelevant to the Hobbit. Tom Bombadil is not even thought of in The Hobbit, yet he’s being included (although his actor as seen in trailer 2 does look set to be the perfect embodiment of him). It frustrates me. If they add a load of stuff to The Hobbit, then miss out any detail from the book, I’ll be pretty angry.
The Dwarves. Well, maybe I’ll be wrong about this, only time will tell. However, a picture of all the Dwarves in the Sunday Times this week just didn’t seem right to me. They are not the Dwarves I imagined from the book. Especially Bifur. He has an axe in his head, and can speak in nought but grunts. Where is that in the book? Nowhere. Bombur, whilst a bit fat, is not a massively huge monstrosity whom ‘wields a ladel’. Maybe it’ll all turn out okay, but I’m not seeing it.
All in all, that’s my rant on The Hobbit, and what I’m looking forward to and dreading.