Peter Jacksons latest trilogy sees a return to middle earth with an adaptation over three films of The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. The book is a prequel to the events of Lord of The Rings, focusing upon the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, how he came to find the “one” ring and his “Unexpected Journey”.
The film opens December 13th in the UK and has caused much hoopla for various reasons. The first being just how did Peter Jackson turn one small book into another massive film trilogy?
I’ve read The Hobbit, admittedly a long time ago, but I remember it being quite brief but easier to read than the convoluted Lord of the Rings. It is after all a children’s book and it is a very thin volume.
The Hobbit film was only supposed to be a two part prequel as well, however, Peter Jackson somehow managed to squeeze a whole trilogy out of it. If we are to believe Jacksons claims that he developed the scenes and included the appendices from the Return of the King, there is still the little matter of the first film clocking in at almost 3 hours!.
Sir Ian Mckellen has leapt to the defence of Jackson stating that “Anyone who thinks Peter Jackson would fall for market forces around him rather than artistic integrity doesn’t know the guy or the body of his work.”
Putting aside the length of the film, Jackson has also faced criticism for filming in 48fps (frames per second). This is double the usual number, for results Jackson claims are the future of film. Early views are mostly negative with some calling it a little disturbing and uncomfortable to claiming it causes sickness. Maybe we just have to take time to adjust to the change.
Regardless of these complaints, I’m sure the film will do well at the box office, with many still clamouring for more from the Lord of the Rings universe. Will have to see for myself whether the film has been worth the wait.
Thanks for reading,