The Hobbit Goes to Celluloid
Although the title is probably inaccurate (I doubt a single strip of film will be exposed for the whole thing), and there is time yet for a change of plan (or heart), I stumbled upon the news today that The Hobbit will become not one, but two films, and that both will be directed by none other than Peter Jackson. Yes, I know the news is now a week and a half stale, but somehow it managed to slip past me last week. I confess I haven’t exactly been scouring the internets for news on the subject since any more real news on the subject is probably still years away.
I find myself wondering on the subject of details for the film—like the most obvious question of who might be cast to play Bilbo, as Ian Holm did a splendid job of defining the character, but is almost certainly not up to playing such a demanding physical role this late in his years. Further, I wonder if it isn’t a mistake at all to try to tell this tale on the big screen, too—as if doing so might somehow steal grace and beauty of Jackson’s achievement with The Lord of the Rings.
I’ll be honest: I thought The Hobbit was the weakest of the three books (with my favourite being The Silmarillion) but I know the latter could never be made into a remotely watchable film; it would have a difficult enough time being rewritten as a television serial oriented toward kids with ADD. The book just lacks the detail to be able to illustrate anything at a watchable pace, has little-to-no dialogue, and a rather broad scope all things considered—A few thousand years, compared to a year or two each for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Still, I would be lying to say I’m not interested and that I don’t hope they’ll be excellent; I’ll almost certainly be making my way to the cinema to watch both when they start to come out (likely in another 3-4 years from now, if that’s not being too optimistic). Good luck to Peter Jackson and his production team; here’s to hoping lightning striking twice.
If it makes you feel better, I WAS scouring teh internets for news on this very subject and have now just learned about it from your blog post.
I’d say Peter Jackson has a better chance of making you really like this particular story than anything else. He has a gift of embellishing and distoring the source to hit the notes the way they need to be for film, even if it’s not exactly the same as what the book said.
Oh, no disagreement there; Jackson definitely changed quite a few details (and a few major events). There were changes to The Lord of the Rings that were entirely welcome for my part to the point of relief (Tom Bombadil, moving Boromir’s passing to the end of the first “part” instead of the beginning of the second), some that were a little sketchy but acceptable (Arwen instead of Glorfindel at the Ford of Bruinen, Elves at Helm’s Deep), and nothing that ruined any of the three movies to me.
I am sure you’re right to say I will enjoy the film if it is indeed Peter Jackson who does it—I think he’s proven himself to be worthy of our trust in making the right changes. There’s still room for stuff to go wrong, though; movie making may be an art for him but it’s still “just a business” for most, especially those holding the dollar bills. My concern is for the influence of the latter, not the former.
And that is why part of me is a little sad that it’s not The Silmarillion that he had somehow been convinced to do. Tell me you wouldn’t want to see Laurelin and Telperion, or Fëanor’s exodus from Valinor, or the shining city of Gondolin, or the horrors of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad. I guess all will have to remain in my mind’s eye for at least another decade if not forever.