(The following article was written in December 2012 and may need future alteration.)
J. R. R. Tolkien’s book The Hobbit (1937) is recognised by most as a classic of children’s literature. It was also the precursor to the widely successful Lord of the Rings trilogy (1954 – 1955), which had previously been adapted to film too much critical acclaim by director Peter Jackson (2001 - 2003).
When the film trilogy came to an end, much discussion was brought up as to whether The Hobbit would itself be adapted to the screen. As the previous adaptions of Tolkien’s works had been such financial successes it didn’t take long for an answer to be made, and fans waited in much anticipation. When years of preproduction passed without much progression being made (the original man set to direct Guillermo Del Toro, signed on and then dropped out of the project.) Filming finally began in 2011, with the book adaption being arranged into three parts.
At this news both fans and critics alike were both sceptical about how a three hundred-page book could be made into three movies? Was there really enough material here? At this point, the studio went into overdrive in order to explain the move. It seemed in fact that the news had been misleading; The Hobbit itself would be the source for two films, whilst the third film would fill in the information on what happened between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
With this information the fans were again even more excited. Unlike the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit would be allowed the time to fully explore the books narrative, without the need to cut much information.
Coming up to the films release the fans were further informed that the film was going to be filmed in 3D and shot at 48 fps. Although most people remain sceptical of 3D, I remained open-minded to the experience. The news of the films 48 fps shooting however persisted to puzzle myself. I had previously seen very few films that had been shot in a similar frame rate (these mostly being experimental short films shot at 40fps) yet I remained curious to see how this would look on the big screen.
Many critics had varying opinions in the early weeks of the films release so when I entered my Imax screening I was slightly wary of what was to come. Overall the film itself was stunning in terms of its visuals. The sound design also shinned with a stunning sound track similar to that of Jackson’s previous Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. But what of the new technologies employed? How have they changed the experience? Well, they really didn’t alter that much. The frame rate itself did give (as was advertised) a more realistic look in most instances. The actor’s motions seemed smoother, yet the 3D itself remained relatively unchanged. Problems mainly arose from the area of visual presentation. At times, costumes and sets seemed a little staged – to inauthentic even. Fast motion also appeared choppy and jarring to the viewer. This latter disturbed shots which were meant to show large landscapes and vistas, however the camera seemed to move to fast and actors in the distance looked as though they had been sped up.
The 3D itself was good but this enhanced nothing. It seemed mostly to be an overpriced gimmick to impress those who embrace it.
Yet, what of the film itself? Ok, the film was impressive. It presented some fantastic visual imagery, but overall, there seemed to be a lot of padding to the story. The film just seemed to be a bit bloated. There was no real pace or bite to it. As it went on the spectacles got warring and whole sections of the film seemed to grind it to a halt.
Yes the film was entertaining, but that is no excuse to give the film a pass on its sloppy editing and pacing. What this film needed was an editor who would cut down on the extensive excess. What it had, was a yes man who enthralled himself on the commands of an overenthusiastic producer/director. This will forever stand as an example of excess filmmaking and excessive ego.
The film is based on a book, a relatively short book which, has now for money purposes been stretched into two films (three if you count the third connecting The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy). But why? For what reason has this been done? Is Hollywood scared people wont want to see it without some kind of new twist? Why should it be? The Lord of the Rings trilogy made, combined, nearly three billion dollars. To be honest I don’t think their scared, yet I still struggle to understand why they keep placing more and more gimmicks onto each new blockbuster. In repeated instances critics have spoke of their thoughts on 3D – from Mark Kermodeto Roger Ebert, or even the general public in research from 3D Focus, The Huffington Post and blunt film website Screen Rant suggest audiences are unsettled by this.
Although, in the end the movie itself may not be that significant in the overall film canon, it’s use of innovative presentation methods may influence the future of Hollywood cinema. Therefore it remains important for audiences to make themselves heard in these instances of opinion. Audiences must vote with their wallets. It is through this method that large production companies will gain a fuller understanding on the public consensus.
As the technology presently is, there are defiantly problems with presentation – with both the uses of 48fps and 3D technologies. There is of course the chance and possibilities of future improvement. But is this a feasible expectation for these new expensive technologies? Who knows? Only the future will show how these issues will finally develop upon a concessive conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment