"What I saw wrong in The Hobbit" Topic

Everyone has rightly bashed The Hobbit films by now, but after watching the Fargo TV series I've finally put my finger on what truly didn't sit right with me. So, please indulge me, given that this is utter drivel.

A lazy comparison, I suppose, but when Ewan McGregor first came on the screen in his robes, he was convincingly an immature version of Alec Guinness' character. As the three films rolled on, he further grew into Obiwan, more fully filling the flesh shaped by Alec Guinness. As another example, Christ Pine strutted and loungued about in such a way as that he was indistinguishable from Shatner's Jim Kirk. He was the same man. Not so with Martin Freeman's and Ian Holm's Bilbos.

This is because McGregor and Guiness are and were actors, who craft characters with depth. I'd like to argue the same for Trek, but at the least, Pine could immitate convincingly Shatner being Shatner.

However, Martin Freeman isn't an actor. He's a small tool box of well-studied, oft-repeated gestures. Someone does something unexpected – furrow brow and hold, pause, twitch head to one side and back quickly, pause. Someone asks a troubling question – furrow brow, pause, twitch head side to side quickly, pause, say "no" in a guilty way. Fargo's Lester doing the big emotional release to his wife that he's "being a man" over the washing machine and Bilbo's big emotional release to Balin at the gates about how he remembers Thorin read exactly the same, except one is in a quasi-Canadian accent.

If you watch carefully in Fargo, the character development in Lester comes from the way other actors react towards him, or the music being played. The pivotal moment is when his brother speaks to him about his personality, not anything Freeman does himself. Freeman just keeps gesturing.

However, these are gestures Ian Holm never used in the character he developed. I simply can't believe that I'm watching a younger version of the same man, and as the Hobbit is about the growth of the central character, there should be convergence to an already-laid out template. There isn't, and so molten gold and rabbit sled aside, the whole endeavour still fails.

I have to say, my wife disagrees with you regarding Fargo.

And his acting in Sherlock.

Cheers,
JohnG

A lot of Freeman's limitations as an actor, and I like him but the only time he's not playing a version of himself is in the Ali G movie, were brought into sharp focus because we hadn to sit through three looooong movies. If it were just the one film we likely wouldn't have noticed.

What I saw wrong in The Hobbit:

Let's start our journey with a bit of a side trip. I recently saw a pack of six badges depicting characters from the movie. Who wasn't depicted? The hobbit! I saw one of those "art of the film" type books; conspicuously absent from the cover? The hobbit – any hobbit. Of course, he's in the movies, but he's marginalized in an effort to make a sweeping, epic film trilogy out of a 250- page children's book. I can't begin to tell how wrongheaded that is.

Ron

YouTube link

Hobbit and LOTR walking movies.

Having the leading ….. dwarf played by Tyrone Power.

Sorry, but what was wrong with he Hobbit was greedy Holywood types trying to cash in on the success of the LOTR films.

Kinda like the Godfather 3.

P. Jackson has zero respect for any intelligence or taste his intended audience might possess. And he's right. We who make these kinds of comparisons are not the target audience, yet we gave our pounds to P. Jackson and Company anyway. He won. And he'll keep churning out expensive, successful dreck for the rest of his (and my) life….

The orcs don't sing "Fifteen Birds." Bad movie. Bad, bad movie.

And to comment on the post just a bit above, Hollywood got their money. I paid to see it, but it is not a film for me to own. I am not a big fan of Mr. Freeman. I think his range is very limited for an actor. He sort of made Bilbo look as if he was sleep walking through the film. Yes, there were a few good scenes. I felt like I was watching the Dr. Watson character from Sherlock all the time.

Freeman's natural talent is for quiet, self-deprecating characters – his Watson in 'Sherlock' and his Tim in the original version of 'The Office'. For some reason his move out of UK based productions has turned him into the rather exaggerated twitchy performer described by Muerto. Normally he's brilliant at underplaying. For some reason lead roles in US financed productions have brought out a rather artificial style of work.

I enjoyed Fargo and hated the Hobbit, but in neither case, because of Freeman.

I like the books -- They may have some dated aspects like Tom Bombadils (and the Dwarves) songs, but they had Charm and depth. I Hated LOTR films and never bothered with TH at all.

I have no problem with others enjoying them though.

I am just a Tolkein purist!

All that is wrong with the Hobbit movies is summed up by my favorite misquote "I feel thin Gandalf, like too little plot stretched over too much running time"

Brilliant misquote. Indeed, I entirely agree with the sentiment that money-hungry bloating would have sunken it with a different lead, too.

Had Jackson left it alone after LoTR or not surrounded himself with yes-men who stayed silent about idiocy such as rabbit sleighs (a moment captured on video and available somewhere on the internet) he'd have left a brilliant legacy.

Thank you, all, for having indulged my little rant. <Shifts weight from foot to foot, furrows brow, looks shifty>

I didn't notice anything amiss about Martin's acting in the hobbit films. Of course I didn't notice much of anything about the plot or acting because I was distracted by Clone-Wars-style action sequences at every turn. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Haden Christiansen and Jar Jar pop onto the screen.

I thought Freemans hobbit was one of the few good things about the film.
LOTR Bilbo is a middle earth big shot; hes been around, played his part in big events, hes got the Ring, the elves think hes the business, gandalfs an old pal, the shire dont realise it but Bilbos a big deal.
Whereas hobbit bilbo is just a quiet suburbany type worried that hes going to run out of cheese or whatever. Freemans schtick is very much the everyman and he does it pretty well.

The films were god awful though…

Ummmm

It's Hollywood, what do you expect?

OSchmidt,
A good point to be sure, but I found the LoTR trilogy to be more than satisfactory even with the various Hollywood'isms (or Jackson'isms depending on who you want to blame) that were added. A surprising amount of stuff manages to squeeze itself out of the Hollywood orifice that isn't complete dung.

On the other hand I found The Hobbit trilogy (why a trilogy, why?) to be a mess of a film even by Hollywood standards.

Hollywood is a schlock factory. They are fantastic at producing dull drek and do just that a couple of hundred times a year. About a half dozen to a dozen times a year they produce a good film. Once a decade they produce a great film.

They are notorious for chasing the last top grossing film and hoping to replicate its results. Studios are ran by grey suited business men who, delusionaly, think of themselves as visionary artists. As proof I give you this week's movie listi gs.

Hollywood is like water: it finds its own level – and most of its output is now based on comic books.

Come on! How can you not like the all terrain, gravity defying battle goats.

There is nothing that a Bollywood remake of The Hobbit couldn't correct… ;-)