This really isn't bad. it's a far cry from the original but it's _so_ different that it kind of works. It still has holes, but then it's only 12 minutes long and the guy only had a month to make it. And it sure is a trip, I really wish it was longer so I could see their takes on oher events in the book and so it holds together a bit better -- I mean they build up Mirkwood and the "poisonous Desolation of Slag" and then nothing happens in Mirkwood and the Desolation is skipped entirely. Plus they include Bilbo getting the Ring and then it only _maybe_ has an effect on the adventure. xD
I don't get the harsh comments on this. It is 11 minutes long, so it obviously can not be faithful to the books. Who cares? It's a product for a young audience, realized in a few days and with a small budget. As such, it is very well crafted and the art style is amazing! Only Tolkien's fanatics would think this is bad.
He was not an animator but one of the most influential European illustrators of his time. If you put aside the copyright law, differences from the original book, and limited animation tools they had, this kid's goodnight story is a masterpiece with so many creative ideas. And all was handmade with love, hours, and hours of pure creativity in the sixties. Masterpiece. And the typography works of this guy...so inspirational.
Things this movie got right from The Hobbit: - Bilbo Baggins and the fact that he lived in a hobbit hole - Gandalf - there was a dragon - the Arkenstone - the One Ring Things it got wrong: - LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE
It's funny that this movie got some names wrong, when it seems like the writer was a fan of Lord of the Rings. Like, there's NOTHING about the Men taking over Middle Earth to the end of magic, or the "One Ring of Power" in The Hobbit. Those are Lord of the Rings details. Clearly Gene Deitch was a Tolkien fan! Also "great-great-grandhobbit" goes hard.
I came here after watching Dominic Noble's review of this film. I don't think the film's great, but I don't think it's completely terrible either. There's a kind of rough around the edges charm about it.
Unknown children's novel? 1927? It was published in 1937 and was a best-seller on both sides of the Atlantic! By the 1960s and the subsequent success of The Lord of the Rings, it was an acknowledged classic children's novel. Who writes the utter nonsense in the blurb to these videos??
So he had to make a ‘movie’ to keep the rights to the Hobbit and in the contract is didn’t specify how long the movie would need to be to keep it. Needless to say he kept it after this monstrosity and sold the rights back to Tolkien.
I am convinced the animators never read the book, but had asked an introverted nine-year-old who'd had it read to her what it was about, without taking notes on her reply.
Mika needs to make a comeback. All in all this seems like a book report by an elementary school student with some added elements from their imagination. I would have liked this as a young child. And I have a soft spot in my heart for the Rankin/Bass Hobbit.
