Peter Jackson’s Hobbit films get a lot of flak for being overwrought and overlong. Many of the criticisms are valid enough (I have some of my own), some are a matter of taste, and some, I feel, are simply misguided. My view, as a fan of Tolkien first and Jackson second, is that the naysayers are judging the films for what they’re not. They are not a cinematic translation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic novel but an adaptation in the truest sense of the word. And they are specifically an adaptation of events in Middle-earth 60 years prior to Bilbo’s eleventy-first birthday party which include those covered in The Hobbit and the appendices of The Lord of the Rings.
Spoilers follow for The Hobbit films.
To adapt something is to change, alter, or modify it to make it suitable for new conditions, which is where the problems occur for fans of a richly detailed story. No, not merely a story, a whole legendarium (Tolkien himself called it such) that lots of people care a hell of a lot about. The expectation seems to have been that Jackson should have kept to the books closely, should have told the story just as Tolkien did. But ultimately, that’s just not realistic.
It’s not like he didn’t know what’s in the books; in addition to knowing them well, he was surrounded by Tolkien scholars, Elvish linguists, and other literary experts. Rather, he’s an uber-successful director, producer, and screenwriter who has to wrangle massive movie budgets and we’re not. He loves Tolkien’s work but had taken on the self-imposed, if herculean task of maneuvering a beloved tale through the Hollywood machine. Have you ever watched a comic book, novel, or even play adapted to film and thought, “That’s exactly how I would have done it”? If you have, then that’s amazing! If not, well, in this age of Hollywood remakes, reboots, and adaptations, why expect these films to be any different?
I want a faithful adaptation as much as anyone. But I am not a Tolkien purist about it because I think that Peter Jackson adding Tom Bombadil to The Fellowship of the Ring would have been as absurd as, oh, say, adding a scene in The Hobbit where Thorin & Co. enter the Lonely Mountain right after sending Bilbo in—you know, to go in quietly and do what they had specifically employed him to do. “That, Master Burglar, is why you are here,” Thorin says to him. So yes, that scene was too much. Do I love seeing what various chambers in Erebor might look like? The forges, the billows, the vats, the cavernous abyss of a great mine shaft? The fantasy nut in me says hell yes! But the Tolkien reader in me says no, not for a gratuitous and overlong action sequence, and not at the cost of undermining Bilbo’s quiet resolve.
Certainly not at the cost of losing this wonderful moment from the book:
It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterwards were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait.
Of course, it’s hard for any film to portray a character’s internal thoughts, which is all that moment is, but I think most of us would agree that Martin Freeman would have done an excellent job visually depicting Bilbo’s trepidation. Peter Jackson opted not to try this, and we can and must live with that. The book is not demeaned, but the movie is the lesser for it.
Likewise, Peter Jackson opted to keep Bombadil out of The Fellowship of the Ring, which it must be remembered was his first foray into Middle-earth. Which, honestly, we’re still lucky even happened. And I agree with nixing Tom not because I wouldn’t like to see him or his oft-referenced yellow boots on the big screen—because that would be both fun and surreal—but because I don’t think anyone but die-hard book fans would have had the patience for him, his lovely but passive wife Goldberry, or his flamboyant, “Ring a dong dillo” self. Simply look at the numerous complaints of “too many endings” levied against The Return of the King. Jackson’s Fellowship would have faltered with the excess of Tom Bombadil (and even the barrow-wights, which I’d dearly love to have seen) and then millions of people would never have come to know or appreciate the greater works of Professor Tolkien. And the Tolkien Estate’s book revenue wouldn’t have increased by 1,000% (in the UK) as they did despite its utter contempt for Jackson’s meddling.
I’m rereading all the books now and I’m enjoying every unabridged word. Likewise, I’m happy to watch Peter Jackson’s six adaptations as a hybrid member of the audience, fully accepting that no one demographic can be fully satisfied. Among the many, you’ve got:
- Hardcore Tolkien fans who gripe at every change from the books (but still go see the films).
- New fans who loved the films and have now discovered the books.
- Action-adventure moviegoers who just want to be entertained but probably won’t ever read but “OMG look how badass that blond elf is with all the arrows and the shield-skating acrobatics and crumbling-tower-climbing and monster-bat-riding!”
- Young girls, according to the director himself, who might be glad to have a relatively strong female character to root for (in Tauriel and Galadriel), where otherwise The Hobbit would have had none.
The point is that untold numbers of people have enjoyed all three Hobbit films, sometimes because of—and sometimes despite—their Jackson-expanded elements. Now that The Battle of the Five Armies has marched into theaters and the trilogy has concluded, I’d like to weigh in on the bigger picture.
First, I found The Battle of the Five Armies to be satisfying and extremely fun. And by that I mean that it’s a fine capstone to the prequels to Jackson’s Rings trilogy. I’ve had no qualms about The Hobbit being split into three films on principle. From the coming of Thorin and Co. to Bilbo’s home (July of the year 2941) to the return of Bilbo to Bag End (June of 2942), about 11 months pass. Meanwhile, from Frodo’s departure with the One Ring from Bag End (September 23, 3018) to all four hobbits returning to the Shire after Sauron’s defeat (November of 3019), about 14 months elapse. The span of diegetic time is comparable. Granted, there are more moving parts and political conflicts during the War of the Ring, but just as in the Rings trilogy, there is plenty happening behind the scenes during the quest for Erebor that Tolkien addressed long after writing it. The White Council moving against Sauron in Dol Guldur is just one part of that.
It’s been said that “the filmmakers have wrung all they could out of the source material,” but I find that to be a lazy stab because it’s simply untrue. Indeed, to me that’s the irony. While three Hobbit films meant there should be room for some fleshing out of otherwise sparse details—the very thing people are complaining about, that he made a short book longer than they felt it needed to be—Jackson still didn’t actually cover everything. I reserve a more final opinion for when the Extended (i.e. the real) Edition of Five Armies comes out, because it promises to include 30 more minutes, but there are elements of the story simply left off.
I can forgive almost any extension or stretching of characters and themes, so long as they’re not completely antithetical to Tolkien’s ideals, but only if the existing story, including the appendices-based backstory, is exhausted first. Beorn’s house; the Eagles and their eyries (and why they help at all); the drunk Wood-elves and the full interrogation of the dwarves; the thrush and its world-saving delivery of vital information; the aftermath of the battle—all of these have been gutted. In the behind-the-scenes features of the DVDs, you can even see that some of it was filmed (such as the captive dwarves being brought before Thrandruil, not merely Thorin), but never made even the Extended cut. Sadly.
But these are movies; they need to take into account a moviegoer’s patience (and bladder). Of course, short making a full-blown movie series (rather than mere trilogy) there is never enough time to cover everything. Think of all that was removed from The Lord of the Rings, which has a full run-time of just over 11 hours. Given that, are you in the “What, no ‘Scouring of the Shire’?” camp or the “Nah, it’s fine as is” camp?
Still, in The Battle of the Five Armies, every second of screen time given to the character of Alfrid was one less we that could have been better used developing the White Council. Explaining who they are exactly, how their Rings of Power relate to one another, that sort of thing. And that’s a real shame. Alfrid is a cartoonish weasel who seems to portray the worst that the world of Men has to offer short of being seduced by Sauron; we already had that in Gríma Wormtongue, but at least he was a necessary, plot-based character. In any case, it seems the Master of Lake-town’s fate in the book has become Alfrid’s fate in the film and the dragon-sickness gets to him. Whatever.
The White Council’s ousting of Sauron from Dol Guldur felt the most truncated. I enjoyed seeing the ringwraiths in their more spectral form, even if their inclusion via the High Fells of Rhudaur were an addition. This is a prime example of where I don’t mind Peter Jackson’s tinkering; it was never made clear by Tolkien where the Nazgûl would have been during this timeframe. No harm, no foul, why not see them again? That said, more spellcasting and less wizard-fu in the Dol Guldur skuffle would have been preferred, but it’s still gratifying to see Galadriel finally invoke some epic, Silmarillion-flavored might. She will one day return there, after all, when the Shadow is defeated. Per Appendix B:
Three times Lórien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself. Though grievous harm was done to the fair woods on the borders, the assaults were driven back; and when the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lórien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed.
But I do wish her bearing was brighter and less dark-queen creepy, which is clearly meant to match up with her Fellowship manifestation. In Five Armies, she is not being tempted by great power, she’s using her own. I think the visual connection was too much handholding. Likewise, I wish her voice was not once again layered and pitch-dropped—Jackson’s sound crew, having proved themselves throughout all six films, could have done way better than use that cheap trick.
Saruman himself was underused throughout the trilogy, though it’s yet been a joy to see Christopher Lee return to the role. He is the head of the White Council, and though he kicks serious Nazgûl ass in Five Armies, he seemed more horrified than intrigued at the sight of the Enemy, who he was charged to oppose from the start. I was hoping for deeper insight into his own corruption and eventual betrayal. In the canon, he was already desiring the One Ring for himself at this time and had discovered only two years prior that Sauron’s servants were searching the Anduin near Gladden Fields. Which is why he’d finally agreed to move against the Dark Lord, to keep him from finding the One first.
“Leave Sauron to me” seems to be the only hook we get. For now?
As for Tauriel and Kili, this is all there is to it: In An Unexpected Journey and only in the Extended Edition, we see Kili eyeing an Elfmaid in Rivendell, so we know he’s prone to elven interests. Then in Desolation, he meets Tauriel and actually falls for her (as much as a dwarf can in so brief a time) and is saved by her. Then in Five Armies, it all comes to a head and one dies trying to save the other.
I’ll say two things about this subplot then leave it alone, since much has already been said and because it’s a small matter compared to the rest of the story.
Tolkien’s Elves, while portrayed quite differently in the films than in the books (a topic for another time), are still presented as a tragic, if powerful race. To me, the tale of Kili and Tauriel is less about an Elf and dwarf romance as the adversity that lies between an immortal and a mortal. That is a theme that Tolkien cared much more about and he used several times. In Beren and Lúthien, and in Aragorn and Arwen. Even Elrond and his brother Elros were given the choice of mortality or immortality; Elros chose the life, and therefore the doom, of a mortal Man (and surprise, chose a mortal wife), while Elrond chose immortality. They were therefore parted by thousands of years.
There is precedence for a rare fondness between Elves and dwarves despite their ancient racial feud. In The Lord of the Rings, not only do Legolas and Gimli forge an everlasting friendship with far-reaching effects, but Gimli is powerfully and affectionately smitten by the beauty of Galadriel and it changes him deeply. The dude won’t shut up about her sometimes, it’s awesome.
Against these, the cinematic contrivance of Tauriel and Kili’s brief but unexplored love is nothing to fret about. Yes, it’s annoying to see an Elf lose her head, teenager-style, in the midst of a great battle—and more so because she’s one of the few female characters—but she’s still the only Elf pushing to oppose the orcs because it’s the right thing to do. Even Legolas would not have, and daddy Thranduil merely covets gems. The relationship feels a little forced, and the alleged affection between Legolas and Tauriel is also hard to buy into—in part because the films have made Elves colder than their literary counterparts—but it’s also harmless. So a character with little personality in the book (Kili) is given feelings for a character nonexistent in said book (Tauriel). Big deal. It’s not like Jackson gave Bilbo a girlfriend. Thankfully.
Honestly, I’m just happy to see female Elves, period, especially in battle. In the massive ranks of armored and militant Elves—in the Battle of the Five Armies, at Helm’s Deep, or even in the Fellowship prologue—are there any others? I don’t honestly know, but I’ve never noticed any.
The fact is, the biggest portion of the trilogy is the adventures of the titular hobbit, and Martin Freeman’s Bilbo remains the highlight, diminished only in scenes where he’s upstaged by the actions of others. I was quite content with his role in Five Armies, since the “Thief in the Night” sequence was more or less faithful to the book and his involvement in the battle itself was extended only lightly. Bilbo’s parting words with Thorin as the dwarf lies mortally wounded were meaningful to me, if much too abridged—but then that’s generally my only complaint. I do hope for more coverage of the battle’s aftermath in the Extended Edition: Thorin’s funeral, Bard’s coronation, more of Bilbo’s return trip, or any of the things glimpsed in the trailer that didn’t show up in the theatrical version.
If you watch the films and then read the corresponding events in the book, you’ll find that Tolkien’s storytelling method has a curious, tell-don’t-show chronology to it—something he did in The Lord of the Rings but perhaps not as arbitrarily as in The Hobbit. I’ve heard it complained that Fili and Kili’s deaths were “much better” in the book by naysayers of the film. There was no scene at all in the book relating their deaths, merely a past perfect, after-the-fact summation of what happened. All we get is:
Of the twelve companions of Thorin, ten remained. Fili and Kili had fallen defending him with shield and body, for he was their mother’s elder brother.
So I for one am grateful for the things we do get to see brought to life on the big screen. The Rings trilogy was full of satisfying “off screen” moments from the books brought on screen, like the Ents’ assault on Isengard and Boromir defending the hobbits from orcs. Hell, to me Dain Ironfoot’s portrayal in Five Armies was enjoyable even CGI’d as he was, and seeing an army of dwarves gratifies the D&D freak in me. Dain, like Bolg, like Thranduil, like most of the dwarves, are given personalities Tolkien doesn’t take the time to do.
And that’s fine that he didn’t. It was a single book he wrote before conceiving of the enormity of Middle-earth. Tolkien was a revisionist, and even went back and made changes to The Hobbit once he started to write The Lord of the Rings. (In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum bets Bilbo his magic ring if the hobbit wins their riddle game—imagine that!) But Tolkien was content merely to bridge The Hobbit with Rings in other ways and not rewrite everything from the start.
2001’s The Fellowship of the Ring is a miraculous, groundbreaking film and each of Jackson’s installments since have, in spirit, style, and Tolkien lore, been like a carbon copy of the previous one, so that 2003’s The Return of the King was still excellent and felt close to Fellowship, but 2014’s The Battle of the Five Armies is certainly a far cry from it. Yes, it’s far more flash and action than rich storytelling and certainly bears even less resemblance to the source material, but it is at least fairly consistent with its own vision of Middle-earth. And that’s what they all are: the vision of one man (Jackson) who stands at the vanguard of an army of talented artists and filmmakers. Because of that army, it’s still a hell of a lot of fun to watch. And Howard Shore’s score still somehow legitimitizes it, just like a John Williams score and a lightsaber sound effect can still, just for a moment, invoke nostalgia in even the crappiest Star Wars film.
The Hobbit trilogy is not perfect, of course not. There are numerous things to pick at. The stone giants sequence in the Misty Mountains was needless showing off of CGI and presented a hazard to the characters not suggested in the book. The barrel-riding scene was turned into an action sequence that downplayed Bilbo’s role in it. But at least the stone giants and the barrels are in the book. Some of the added dialogue just doesn’t work. Fili telling his brother “I’ve got this!” at Ravenhill is gratingly anachronistic and not remotely Tolkien-esque. Though a pretty mild offense, I found Saruman referring to the Necromancer as a “human sorcerer” disappointing because the word “human” is never used in the books to refer to Men. Legolas and Tauriel reaching Gundabad and returning again in so short a time undermines the length of Bilbo’s whole journey. Jackson certainly played fast and loose with geography.
All the birds and beasts have been de-anthropomorphized. The Eagles did not speak, neither does Roäc the raven or the thrush. Beorn’s sheep, dogs, and pony friends don’t serve Thorin and Co. their meal as they do in the book. But these things wouldn’t exactly be in keeping with The Lord of the Rings, anyway—neither Tolkien’s nor Jackson’s.
When I first saw An Unexpected Journey, I loved it but I have learned to accept the things that didn’t play out more like in the book. Why, I fretted, didn’t they use the Great Goblin’s actual lines from the book? Sure, add some new dialogue but don’t replace what was there wholly. But I’ve learned to let it go. As J.R.R.’s own grandson has said, the films “kind of have to exist in their own right.”
Repeated viewings of all six films continue to impress me, and watching the making-of featurettes on the Extended Editions do shed light on reasons for the changes even if they’re not what you’d have done. For me, I pine not for a perfectly faithful translation of the books but for the additions that could have been. The opportunities for greater context were there, right under Peter Jackson’s nose. We’ve met Radagast (who totally would have been given at least a cameo in Fellowship if Jackson has made the Hobbit films first), we’ve heard of the “two Blueses,” and we’ve seen the White Council in action. Why not use all that to show what Gandalf really is, why he’s constantly prodding everyone to oppose Sauron, and how he had the power to “rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill.” Why not address the Nine, the Seven, and the Three? Especially the Seven, since the fate of Durin’s folk, their greed for gold, and Sauron are all related?
But alas, that would not have been done so easily, as a lot of that lore comes from The Silmarillion and the Tolkien Estate has not yielded that license. Not to mention the awesomeness of The Unfinished Tales, which reveals all kinds of good stuff about the Istari.
So again, the films are not the books and shouldn’t be judged as such. If they’re not what you hoped for, fair enough. You can’t please everyone, but don’t try and take them away from those they did please. As old John Ronald Reuel himself wrote in his Foreword to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings:
As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often as fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.
Personally, I’m pleased with any franchise which shows, however briefly, Belladonna Took’s son as a small child, merrily play-battling with Gandalf the Grey, a symbolic and touching moment for all that would follow—not only to show that a mighty Maia spirit was fond of the simple Shire folk but also why he would select one of them particular to turn the tide.
Jeff LaSala can’t wait to read The Hobbit to his son, who is much too young to realize how nerdy his dad is. For now, both will just have to play with plush hobbits and Istari.
Oh, _thank you_ for this commentary. :) It seems you’re on the same page as me with a lot of this, regarding all six of these films. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; for me as a viewer and a lifelong Tolkien fan, the Hobbit trilogy of movies is a B+ effort and certainly not quite up to the level of the masterwork that is the Lord of the Rings movies.
But that said? A B+ out of Jackson is still _pretty damned awesome_.
I’m very much with you on the issue of Alfrid, who I found entirely useless throughout Five Armies. It took a second viewing though to solidify my thoughts on the scene with Galadriel, which didn’t quite play for me as awesomely as I wanted. And I’m definitely in the pro-Tauriel camp.
(I have full review posts for both my first and second viewings over on my site, for interested persons!)
A lot of what I feel about the Hobbit films is clearly expressed with this article. There was so much more that Jackson could have done to expand the world of Middle-Earth but instead added completely unnecessary, and frankly ludicrous, garbage.
Every moment spent on Alfrid and Tauriel is a moment that could have been better used to explain who the wizards are, what the Rings of Power are, who the Necromancer and the Wraiths are. Every gratuitous battle scene (running up falling rocks? war-sheep? really?) is time wasted that could have been better used elsewhere. And rock-worms? WTF, Jackson.
Sadly, for me, the missteps greatly outweigh the good. I firmly believe that Jackson is suffering from George Lucas Disease. What I would love to see is not an extended cut, but a shortened cut; one that removes the inanities. That, I would pay for. As they are, I will not be adding The Hobbit movies to my collection of Tolkienalia.
It’s very nice to see this piece – opinionated, but reasonable and moderate. I quite enjoyed reading it!
-Andy
I’m sort of confused; the article’s thesis seems to be that the films should be judged as independent works, rather than within the light of the original books. But then most of the article is talking about the differences between the books and the films and justifying them. If the films are going to be defended on their own ground, shouldn’t they just be looked at in their own context alone?
I can appreciate the films in their way; they are amazing technological constructions. The visuals and music are occasionally stirring. They are also sometimes meandering, which can be good but is sometimes not. The battle between the dwarves and Smaug, for example, achieves no real storytelling goal; the dwarves don’t accomplish anything, it doesn’t illustrate anything about the characters, and honestly it’s a bit boring. It feels like it’s there to pad out the movie’s length.
When you have stretched the story to three movies and then you have to pad it out, padding is a mortal sin.
I would have settled for two films that focused more on Bilbo, and left all the LOTR backstory out of it, but I am content with what we ended up with. It was a grand adventure, and fits nicely into the LOTR movie trilogy, while still being its own story. Some of the over the top action in the battle scenes took me out of my suspension of disbelief, but that is a problem with almost all modern action films.
A well written and reasonable take on the movies. Agree with you on most points. Though – I agree with Mouldy_Squid regarding his points of criticism (especially the Worms and physics & logic defying run up falling rock BS) I didn’t find them SO offputting that they ruined it for me. I completely agree that the Alfrid gags were given WAY too much screen time – once, fine and enough.
The thing that bothered me most – was the Tauriel Kili romance. I had NO problem with Tauriel as a character, and I wouldn’t have minded if the romantic bit was with Legolas – as it was – there seemed to be NO chemistry or attraction between them at all. Heck – I wouldn’t even mind a deep affection between Kili and Tauriel in the same way that Gimli was smitten with a deep (non romantic) love for Galadrial. But to turn this relationship into a romatic infatuation felt completely forced and out of keeping with Tolkien’s Middle Earth, and THAT nearly ruined the movie for me. A complete waste of screen time on a non necessary story line. Still – I can get past it – and I enjoyed the movies overall (despite the over the top Hollywood action sequences that just defy all credibility).
Thank you for your commentary on the Movies. I watched The Hobbit movies with a much less critical eye than I did with LOTR. For those, I did my best to hold my nose over the stupidity of the edits (IMO) in favor of loving the visualizations of Elves, Hobbits, Nazguls, Moria, You Shall Not Pass, Lorien and all the characters (good representations – Gandalf and poor – Sam).
For The Hobbit, ignoring the filler (Azog), I just loved seeing the story told and bringing Middle Earth to Life again.
3 Cheers to ending with the Auction of Bilbo’s things and ending it in the spirit of the book. The lack of a Scouring of the Shire makes me turn off ROTK at Rivendale every time.
OopsI forgot about the Dune Inspired Orc Worms. That was stupit beyond belief. THat was a place I wanted to see the CGI hoard crossing over the foothills.
Complaints aside, what is up next for Jackson?
Is the Tolkien estate going to budge at all on the Silmarillion?
I mostly enjoyed the Hobbit trilogy, except for some bits that either made no sense or simply took away from the movies as a whole. For instance, I was completely taken out of the moment when the dwarves were introduced in the first movie; half of them look nothing like Dwarves, but more like short Men. Kili, Fili, Thorin, bippity, boppity, and boop look nothing like Dwarves. Balin, Dwalin and a couple others looked real.
There were some other things that twisted my shorts, too, but they’ve been addressed by others better than I. I would finish with two comments,
1. Why are Gimli and Kili smitten by female Elves? You ever see Dwarven women?
2. Alfrid proves that Good is not only stupid, but unwilling to do what must be done to Evil. He also proves that Peter Jackson for some reason thought he needed his Jar Jar as well; looks like he really is taking on Lucas’ traits.
@9 Zen,
I know the Tolkien family has been steadfast thus far in holding back rights for everything after Hobbit/LOTR, but I think they will bend a bit in 3-5 years. The money they no doubt make from the movies’ knock-on effects will sway them eventually. Money can’t buy happiness (says the peole who have none) but you can lease it for a long time.
My problem with the Hobbit movies is not the additions, or the removals (though Beorn should probably go and kick Jackson’s butt), but the outright stupidity of so many of the action scenes. CGI has enabled film-makers to push beyond the improbable — managed with physical effects and stunt-men, who still had to function within the bounds of reality to some extent — and then all the way through into the actually, obviously impossible. But the obviously impossible completely kills my suspension of disbelief, and leaves me bored. By the end of the second movie, my wife had actually fallen asleep.
I apologize. This is long. I have lots of feels about this.
We just saw this last night. I’m still trying to process it a bit. The movies are fun. The score and cinematography are beautiful. There are some great moments. But I can’t help but feel a real sense of disappointment and sadness and even a smidge of anger. It’s not that they ‘changed the book’, just that there were some missed opportunities here. I was really hoping to love it and I only liked it.
I was actually kind of excited for a three movie version of the Hobbit. But I really don’t agree with the way they spent and prioritized the screentime. The example you give from Desolation is a perfect example. The ‘battle’ with Smaug was pointless and did nothing to really advance the plot (and in fact WEAKENS Smaug as a character). Also, having seen all 3 movies now, the whole side plot with the 4 dwarves being left behind in Laketown and the orc attack was a massive waste of time. As far as I can tell, the only thing it did was a)give Tauriel a chance to heal Kili so he could be all googly eyed over her, and b)give Legolas a chance to show off. But it seems like they could have bypassed all that entirely – perhaps Tauriel and Legolas could have just caught up with the Company after they left, Kili would be really sick and healed, and maybe the orcs could even attack them at that point. The Laketown bits could have been solely about Bard and the dragon and the Master’s antics. And oh man, the whole video game style of the battle. Even in the first movie the way they played up Azog vs. Thorin was irritating and it really irritated me here – I am totally for some of the expansions here where they are giving the orcs, Sauron and Smaug a bit more of a ‘plan’, and I could go with the addition that Azog and Bolg are trying to protect the Mountain and re-establish Angmar. Thorin certainly has a reason to hold a grudge too. But I think they wasted too much time on it. I resented having to sit through too many minutes of Thorn vs. Azog and Legolas vs. Bolg and Kili/Tauriel vs. Whomever it was (I don’t even remember). JUST OMG STOP. STOP WASTING TIME. It is not that I am unilaterally opposed to Leoglas’s show-offy moments, or Thorin challenging Azog, or Kili/Tauriel fighting for each other – just that I think those could have just been a few moments here and there within the context of the larger battle, instead of a whole new set piece and extended action scene that bored me nearly to death.
This is all especially angering to me because there is SO much we missed out on. I was really hoping for a better epilouge – an ‘And Back Again’ as it were – showing the aftermath – Bard becoming lord of Dale, Dain becoming King Under the Mountain, burying Thorin with the Arkenstone, the return journey home, maybe a little more exposition tying up the loose ends between Hobbit and Lord of the Rings (such as Balin visiting Bilbo and telling him of recent events, showing Bilbo adopting Frodo, maybe even a hint that Sauron is rising again and the Ringwraiths have returned to Dol Guldur and darkness has returned to Mirkwood (maybe that’s what happens to Tauriel), Gollum leaving his cave and trying to re-claim the Ring, Aragorn doing stuff (not just a throwaway mention of him), etc). And like you said, more with the White Council and Sauruman, etc. THAT was the kind of stuff I was so excited about when I heard it was 3 movies, and instead I got ridiculous video game style battles and a totally overwrought, cliche romance. I totally agree with you that the problem was not 3 movies – there was plenty of material to include.
I actually really liked the stone worms – in my opinion, that was a cool way to add something – it was neat, it surprised me, and it only took about 5-10 seconds and then we moved on.
As for your specific points: Alfrid – I actually don’t have strong feelings for or against. I thought his performance was entertaining. Not sure exactly why they had him basically fill the Master’s role but I don’t think he detracted from anything.
Dol Guldur – This was what I really wanted to see, and overall I’m happy it. I loved that they included the Ringwraiths and also made a reference to Rhudaur (one of the 3 kingdoms of Arnor) and Angmar. I do have a minor nitpick that, even though we don’t know where they are, I am fairly certain they were not ever entombed/imprisoned (especially given that in the legendarium, the Whte Council thinks that the Witch King is the Necromancer). But I can live with that. But…I was so excited to see Galadriel kick some ass here (is the implication that she is the one who causes him to lose his bodily form, as opposed to due to the downfall of Numenor)! I have to admit, I was totally freaking out when it seemed like she was going to spend the entire scene SWOONING. I was all, she is of the HOUSE OF FINARFIN! She’s probably the most powerful Elf in Middle Earth and the one who ultimately throws down the walls of Dol Guldur and cleanses its pits! (I actually was really hoping that would happen in this movie even though it’s not supposed to happen until after LOTR). But then she got better and kicked serious Maiar ass. I agree it was a tad overdramatic. But. Yay. :)
Tauriel (and Tauriel/Kili) – At first I resisted the addition of her character. In the end, I liked her – I like that the realm of the Wood Elves was fleshed out, there was an interesting female character, and at least she did have some motivations aside from the romance. But in some ways it bothers me that adding a female character automatically means ‘love interest’. I’m actually glad she didn’t die and get fridged, but that whole action sequence was pretty much as bad as it could get without fridging her in my opinion. I AM one of the people who thinks Fili and Kili’s death was way better in the books, despite it being only one sentence. But it was a very evocative sentence, and also speaks to the importance of loyalty and kin. It’s one of the moments I really wanted to see – ESPECIALLY after the way Thorin had fractured their relationship and then mended it – him, fighting with his sister-sons, and them dying in his defense. I think both of them got pretty raw deals, deathwise (I really hate pretty much everything about the Ravenhill scenes). I wasn’t totally on board with the romance and how epically it was portrayed despite having had maybe a 30 second conversation. If they had toned it down a bit, I might have enjoyed it more – showing Fili having a huge crush on her, Tauriel starting off as a bit intrigued and ultimately growing closer to him – as you say, it can be used very poignantly to show the relationship between the two races, and between mortals/immortals (I admit, at first I hated Tauriel’s lines about her surprise at love hurting so much because they seemed rather stupid, but then I considered that as an immortal, grief/loss are not something she’s dealt with much. And I agree that in general, the Elves are portrayed quite coldly in the Jackson movies in the first place). I think I would have preferred a few more quiet moments between the two of them so that scene would have even more weight, instead of the ridiculous battle sequence.
Regarding female Elves – As far as I know, this is totally invented by PJ etal, but I loved the fact that in this canon, Legolas’s mom was a badass warrior (at least, that’s what we can surmise. I’m going to assume she kicked some butt at Gundabad). Maybe that’s where he gets all his skills :D
Thranduil – still really on the fence about that. Loved him throwing shade all over the place but…they made him a little TOO creepy and insular. Of course, it’s all because he had a broken heart.
Bilbo was just wonderful. Martin Freeman made me want to cry. Even though they made Thorin such a dick (as they should have)…to the point where Bilbo’s loyalty and kindness and concern seems unearned. But Tolkien was big on grace :) I was hoping we’d get to see him plant his acorn in the epilouge. Source of the Party Tree, perhaps? (Can’t remember if the Party Tree already shows up in the earlier shots of the Shire).
I was also really hoping that when Bilbo lied to Gandalf about the Ring (and I’m glad they added that part)…he would have in fact used the original story! Said something like, “Oh yeah…this creature in the caves gave it to me when I won a Riddle Game”. It would have been a fun in-joke! I also noticed that they really changed the meaning of the ‘you’re just a little person in the world, after all’ line, which was meant to be about all his escapes, fulfilled prophecies, etc not just being for his benefit, but part of overarching providence.
Thanks, guys, for the kind words.
1. annathepiper: Well said. Yes, a B+ from the right team is still something great. And I’m pro-Tauriel existing, just not as happy with her conclusion. I wish there were more peripheral female elves (and dwarves, for that matter).
2. Mouldy_Squid: Definitely. So much could have been done with the White Council. An opportunity missed. My fingers are crossed that the Extended Edition at least gives us more, even if not all we want.
The were-worms were permissible to me only because they were a means of secret transportation, not wormy war machines. In the book, there is some talk about goblins and their tunnels. To me this was at least in keeping with Jackson taking a little idea in the book and running with it a little bit. Now, had Thorin squared off in battle with a were-worm, that would have been too much.
4. Colin R: I didn’t really have a single point here. Yes, I do feel that the films and the books need to be considered separately. But as someone invested in the source material, I still have opinions about what was done vs. what could have been done. I can’t justify everything Jackson decided. Some I flat-out disagree with, but most I can at least understand. One of my major points, though, is that the existing source material wasn’t actually stretched into three movies. If Jackson really covered the source material (The Hobbit) and intended to fill in all the gaps as they exist in the book—where did Gandalf go, what’s the significance of the Necromancer, what’s the deal with the Elvenking, where was Thorin all this time before the quest, how did Gandalf get the key to the Lonely Mountain? etc.—then this could have been five films or more, easy.
You are absolutely right about the dwaves vs. Smaug. It accomplished nothing in the story except maybe gave us a little glimpse of Thorin’s personal enmity with Smaug. Which is neat but not worth all the chasing and gold-melting.
I will say, I’m not particularly pleased with the lazy Strider hook at the end. In Fellowship, it’s established that Legolas was sent to Rivendell as a messenger that Gollum, who Gandalf had left in their keeping, had escaped. He wasn’t just wandering the world with Aragorn, as Jackson suggested it. But whatever. Again, it paints a picture of a slightly different Middle-earth.
7. alfoss1540: Ahh, you’re in the “What, no ‘Scouring of the Shire’?” camp. :) I get it, that would have been nice. But can you imagine the whining of impatient non-book-reading moviegoers?
10. Ragnarredbeard: See, I love the depiction of the dwarves. Jackson infused them with personality that Tolkien didn’t. And had he been too faithful to the book, the dwarves would have been stiff and wooden. Only the colors of their hoods and beards would have made them distinct from another.
13. Lisamarie: You said it. It’s “the way they spent and prioritized the screentime” that frustrates at times. But it’s also quite clear that our approach is just vastly different from Jackson’s. Once you accept that, it’s easier to tolerate. There were reasons for what he did, and I hate to say it, but considering the Box Office numbers, as a cinematic experience, he wasn’t wrong. I don’t think those crazy numbers are coming from Tolkien fans alone, you know?
As for Galadriel, you say “She’s probably the most powerful Elf in Middle Earth and the one who ultimately throws down the walls of Dol Guldur and cleanses its pits!” I have to admit that gives me a funny image of Galadriel with a bucket and a garden hose and some scrubbing gloves. :)
Legolas’s mom having been a badass who met her in end in Gundabad, yes, that’s the sort of thing that’s okay to me. It’s not messing with any canon, just suggesting us where Legolas got all his moves.
JLaSala “7. alfoss1540: Ahh, you’re in the “What, no ‘Scouring of the Shire’?” camp. :) I get it, that would have been nice. But can you imagine the whining of impatient non-book-reading moviegoers?”
The Scouring of the Shire is the heart of TLotR; without that, the entire theme is ripped completely away. To leave out the Scouring is to miss the entire point of the story.
At best this should have been two movies. The first was fun, I won’t lie, but each successive film got worse.
Great article.
I think it helped me that it’s been so long since I read the trilogy. Last time I read it was back in high school. So I remember the main arcs but little of the details.
I really enjoyed all the movies, even this last one with its often over-the-top dramatisation of everything. But honestly they were good movies. People just have a really hard time separating their vision of the books and “what it should be” from how it plays out on screen, and that’s really too bad.
I do want to go back and read the books again, because there’s obviously a lot I’ve forgotten. But again, I’m glad it wasn’t so fresh in my mind, so it was much easier to just appreciate the movies for what they were — movies.
So admittedly I have not seen the entire third film just clips on the internet. However I feel constantly obliged to throwing in my 2 cents about the movie adaptations since The Hobbit was the book at made me want to over come my dyslexia and learn to read when I was little. The fact is I get changing stuff I get adapting it and maybe trying to clear up a some plot holes. However what I can’t forgive is cutting things out in the name of time to just add in more crap that never happened.
But let’s start with what Jackson did well:
First the acting is fairly well done with some excellent performances across the board. The only part that seems weak is actually Bilbo sometimes especially in the first movie where some of the lines he delivers seemed forced and kind of wooden.
Music, they really have the music down for these movies it adds to them and makes you feel part of an epic adventure.
Scenery and camera work: this is where Jackson excels he has always given us gorgeous fantasy middle earth that seems like a real place but always just a tad darker or brighter that it dances on the edge of imagination into the realms of fantasy.
Devotion to little details: Jacksons obviously a Tolkien fan and has added little bits of the world in the scenery and background that most people would barely notice. It adds flavor to the world and lots of time people barely notice.
The trouble is just about everything else. Notably the character writing. Let’s check it out.
Gandalf : he seems more like a loose cannon then a wizard of order. Within the context of the movies he seems over explained and loses a lot of the mystery and wonderment given to us in the book. Also it seems they wanted him at odds with Saruman already but in the LoRT hes already back to trusting him at the start.
Elron: once again we see him as more xenophobic and less interested in helping people. Its only grudgingly that he will turn up to help others which is almost a complete 180 from Elron in the books. This makes him feel less like the keepr of the last kindly house and more like a begrudgened warden. He seems to lose his character of being in tu e with the pain of middle earth and seems disengaged with it.
Galadriel by contrast she seems much more engaged with the world and more part of it then every other elf which is a vast change from the books where she and her people live in solitude at thee top of their not so preverbale ivory towers looking down on the world. It makes her seem far more…human and less mystical which is the opposite of what she is in Tolkien.
The dwarves. Since they are an ensemble we’ll just do it together and save time. On the one hand some of them get more development. Kili obviously. But Bifur gets far more development. This is all fine and good but lime the elves Jackson has made the dwarves far more xenophobic and mistrustful of the other races. It’s a resounding issue through out the series of basically everyone is more mistrustful of each other. It almost feels line Jackson would rather be directing a Game of Thrones episode where he could have everyone start stabbing each other in the back.
I’ll end off with well the title character. The Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins of Bagend. I think this is the true shame of the movies. I mentioned before I felt some of Freemans delivery felt forced but I don’t think that was his fault and he is still a fantatic actor who I think was a good choice. The problem is there is no Hobbit after the first movie. He seems only to show up when the dwarves need saving and otherwise the movie spends more time on its subplots and action scenes then on Bilbo. The book of the hobbit was about a sheltered person going on an adventure and finding themselves. But really we get very little of Biblos transformation after the first movie. In the book when he kills the spider it has a great effect on him. In the movies? Meh kill one spider and move to the next. We don’t see his struggle with keeping the dwarves motivated we don’t see his personal strife with the dragon they barely spar at all which is one of the best parts of the book. The third movie from what I’ve seen is still more focused on the other characters and side stories and it leaves out our little hero from the west. I don’t want more about the rings of power or the white council let them be mysterious forces in the background. Give us more Biblo and his wonderment and exposure to a grander world and let us discover it with him
Anyeyas I could go on for days but over all the movies look good but the story gets bogged down we lose some of the wonderment and style of Tolkien (especially in the language). Its an adaptation alright but it loses the soul and spirit of the books and trades them in for action and over the top cheese.
I admit that I was one of those naysayers, griping about The Lord of the Rings films. I wasn’t necessarily bothered with a lot of the changes as I realized that they were necessary for the adaptation. But I didn’t like that so much was omitted to add scenes that I felt at the time were only there to please movie-goers rather than fans of the books. I always felt that they moved too fast and left out too much.
I’m mostly over that now and I can say that I genuinely enjoyed The Hobbit films, additions and omissions and silliness included.
Thanks for the great write-up, I agree with you on many points, most especially the depiction of Galadriel at Dol Guldur. I had this very same conversation with a friend recently.
But yes, I adored this trilogy and I love what Peter did with the story, how he brought the characters to life for me in a way that Tolkien did not. And Martin Freeman as Bilbo was perfection. I wish that Elijah Wood had been half as fantastic at being a hobbit as was Martin Freeman.
I’m sorry, but taking out Tom Bombadil and the screwing up of Faramir really wrecked the movies attempts to be an adaptation. The inclusion of those characters in the books was precisely to make people think about what they’re reading, and those elements seriously jarred me out of the world. I’m usually one for taking movies and books separately (like in, say, Harry Potter – which was remarkably faithful to the books despite being drastically shortened in comparison); I didn’t see the changes as being a bad idea; in Tolkien however I care far more about the world as it launched me into fantasy in general – The Lord of the Rings first, then the Hobbit, and finally the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin. My biggest issues are all that of lore – the exclusion of Tom, the change to Faramir, elves showing up at Helm’s Deep, the army of the dead showing up inside the mountain and appearing at the Pelennor Fields; Tauriel and Fili (whaaaat?), the extent of the dragonsickness on Thorin, Azog being alive in the Hobbit, the assault on Dol Guldur not being led by Galadriel and Celeborn and including the army of Lothlorien, Beorn’s limited involvement at the Battle of the Five Armies.
All that being said, I did enjoy the films. I even saw several of them more than once in the theaters. That does not excuse or condone their failures, but I will not deny that Jackson made an incredible set of movies. They have their faults, but they also still have their own shelf in my DVD/Blu-ray library.
I just want a reboot in about 50 years that does it right. >_> /Yes, it’s wishful thinking. That’s why I’m wishfully thinking it’d be nice.
JMcKenna@20
The attack on Dol Guldur that takes place in “The Battle of the Five Armies” is the one mounted by the White Council that is mentioned in “Tale of Years” as taking place in TA2941, the same year as Bilbo’s adventure. The attack led by Galadriel and Celeborn that includes the army of Lorien is a different attack that takes place at the end of the War of the Ring.
On omissions in the LoTR movies: my own opinion is that the one section of the books that absolutely HAD to be cut (unless you’re doing something like Game of Thrones with a miniseries for each book) is the Scouring. It takes place after what has to be the main climax of the movie and there simply isn’t any room to even attempt put anything that lengthy there. The closing section is already too long. While also being too short since it’s basically a “highlights reel”.
(Tom Bombadil is second as something that HAD to be cut. It isn’t first mostly because it appears near the beginning and therefore one could at least try to compensate by cutting other sections.)
Tom Bombadil in the directorial hands of Andy Serkis.
I can think of nothing else to say other than bravo!
I was a huge fan of the LotR trilogy and approached the hobbit trilogy with a little trepidation. I was nervous that it would be heavy and stretched far too much (like butter spread over too much bread). But I wanted to give the trilogy a chance and have gone to see all movies at the cinema rather than wait for them to appear on DVD. I also own both extended editions of the first two hobbit movies and will eagerly await for the last edition to add to my collection.
My biggest gripe was the inclusion of Alfrid rather than the expansion of the existing characters. He was a cartoonish buffoon as a character and whatever joy or euphoria I was feeling when watching the movies would be robbed whenever his scenes appeared in the movies.
I have to say I was actually rather pleased with the depiction of Galadriel. I think it is fair to say that the creation of any of the rings was a mistake; the elves moved from harmony with nature to attempting its control. Galadriel was sentanced to live in Midle Earth. I thought it was a nice touch that Cate Blanchett’s portrayal is genuinely suprised that she turns down this ultimate symbol of power . I also enjoyed the “drenched” look she has has she yields the ring of water. It echos back to what she tells Frodo about why he should fear her having the One Ring.
Personally, I think one spot where Peter Jackson got it absolutely right, was Thorin, King Under the Mountain, suffering a bout of the dragon-sickness. It’s actually a Shakespearian trope, the king who loses it; it adapts very well to The Hobbit. I thought he fitted in between MacBeth and Richard III.
The gravity-and-death-defying antics of Legolas, I can do without. The were-worms in JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit are the dragons themselves; the were-worms in Jackson’s The Hobbit are migrants from Herbert’s Dune.
Especially in the second movie they spent too much time on boring action scenes that are too long and seem to exist mainly to show off what they could do with CGI. If they had shortened the barrel ride and the ridiculous Smaug chase they would have had more time to include things from the books that were left out.
The problem with the were-worms is that they showed up before the battle and then disappear. If they can tunnel through rock, they should have been used to dig the dwarves out of their mountain, but of course that didn’t fit into the plot.
I’ve just had a thought, if Tom Bombadil had been included then the perfect actor to play him would have been William Shatner.
I’m going to go with Lisamarie and say that the utilization of the screen time was a disappointment, but I’m going to disagree with your response when you say that he did it right in the context of a film. Because in particular I felt that a lot of the added Jackson stuff went absolutely no where. From a story telling perspective, if I were judging the films by themselves and not considering that there was a prior book as source material, I feel like these would just be loose plot threads that didn’t make any sense.
For example, the plot of the four dwarves being left behind…in the second film, there is all this big set up about it, but then here, they just meet up with the company again right away and set it back on track with the book rather than having a new (movie) storyline around it. Like Lisamarie says, it seems to only exist because Kili needs to see Tauriel all glowy (I did like his line about her walking in starlight). But, as Lisamarie said, that could’ve happened in a different way anyway. Also, why is Bofur left behind? Why not just Fili, Kili, and Oin (since they established him as a healer and the inventor of Oin-tment).
Also, the Alfrid stuff. My problem is not that they had so many Alfrid bits per se, but that it went nowhere. He got no comeuppance in the film. That’s what I was waiting for. You’re right that maybe he seems consigned to the Master’s fate…but we don’t see any of that. Maybe there was a message that was supposed to be in there that would’ve made it worth while, but if there was, it was kind of lost.
Also, there was mention of the Dwarves’ fight against Smaug–again, totally pointless and also stretched belief.
In addition to that, I was a little bit against the need to make everything a “personal battle.” I like Firefly’s inversion of that trope (“He needs to do this on his own,”–“No I don’t!”). I mean, Azog was floating under the ice, and I was like, “GEE! I wonder if his eyes are going to suddenly pop open and then he attacks Thorin through the ice!” And then he JUMPED up through the ice even though he had no leverage from which to jump.
At a running time about an hour shorter than the previous five films, all I can say is, they better add an hour of epilogue to the extended edition.
I’m one who loved the LOTR movies, though I was disappointed with what he did with Faramir. But really, they were astounding and beautiful works. I like adaptations. But I don’t like adaptations that lose the heart of a book.
And I liked the first Hobbit movie. I liked that PJ gave all the dwarves personalities, and added things like the stone giants, though I thought the pacing was a little off in the movie.
I loathed the last two movies.
I thought adding Tauriel was a great idea. Until they turned her into a love interest. Great, a woman created to represent, whose screentime is taken up by her mooning over a man. That was a huge misstep and made me very angry.
The second thing I hated: all the overlong action sequences that added nothing but took from time that could have been spent on scenes that were cut out, like those you mention above.
The third thing: we had dwarves PJ had given personalities to and those were set aside- they were turned into personality free bodies in costumes for the most part. It cheapened what had gone before and was so disappointing.
The fourth thing, the dwarves in Lake Town- that whole plotline was a waste of time and added nothing to the movie.
There are others I won’t bother listing.
Basically, I felt like the last two pictures were reduced to a series of action and CGI sequences that couldn’t care less about the characters or world they inhabited. And that to me is the reason I can’t stand them. I wanted something more of the book to show up than costumes and sets and amusement park rides.
One other problem I had (although I don’t know if there was a good way to address it) — they did a good job of making all of the dwarves visually distinctive (and I understand why they needed to do so), but by the end of the third movie I could still only name about five of them — Balin and Thorin and Fili and Kili and Bombur (he was easiest) and, um …? Starfish Head? Funny Hat Dwarf? Tattoos?
@30. hoopmanjh
They probably could have done that without all the comically stupid hair and beard applications. They look less like the stolid and serious dwarven race and more like a dancing chorus from a Disney musical comedy.
Change the typeface on this poster and that is exactly what you have.
@30: The only reason I know who they are is because of the special features on the DVD.
Personally, even separate from the source material, I found the Hobbit films to be a B at best (probably more like C+ or B-). I loved the LotR films (A+). The Hobbit films felt dragged out and had many problems. We see necro/bionic orcs and trolls with no explanation that don’t exist in LotR (where did they come from, where did they go?) that were pretty stupid. The Legolas/Bolg fight scene was flat out one of the worst fight scenes I’ve ever seen (it completely pulled me out of the movie and ruined my suspension of disbelief). Etc, etc. I’m not a Tolkien purist (I was fine with the LotR changes and fine with the elf/dwarf romance in Hobbit) but I *HATED* the change to the troll scene in the first Hobbit (it was supposed to be Bilbo’s moment to shine and show why he was a great addition to the fellowship but, instead, it’s a comical fight scene of blunders with no point).
Thank you for this post. Really, thank you.
It is more appreciated than you might expect.
@33: I felt that all of the Hobbit films in general downplayed Bilbo’s parts, or assigned his victories to other characters.
18. Welsey: You’re certainly right about Elrond, but he’s fairly consistent with his portrayal in the Rings trilogy, anyway. Yes, he’s too severe, too harsh. All the Elves are, except perhaps Thranduil, who is as much of a jerk in the films as he at first seems in the book. He at least exemplifies the “less wise and more dangerous” description given to the Wood-elves by Tolkien. Jackson, from the first trilogy, made Elves into fantasy Vulcans. Oh well, they don’t shine with the light and laughter of the books, but the change seems deliberate, in any case.
20. JMcKenna: I have a really hard time imagining how in the world PJ could have included Tom Bombadil and still made Fellowship such a success. While I think Bombadil has his place, he’s still the most shoehorned of all the characters. Tolkien invented him separately from the book and decided to insert him.
24. CFranklin: I did like Galadriel being terrifying with her power, but I’m not sure she should have been Samara-in-The-Ring-like as she was. She looked like a barrow-wight! I don’t think her aspect should have been so dark. I think light can be terrifying.
25. Gorbag: Well said. I rather liked the Shakespearean quality of Thorin. I think maybe there was a little too much time spent zooming in on his face and hearing echoes of other people’s words to him—kind of an old-timey way of doing it—but the overall emphasis on Thorin was fine.
28. crzydroid: While I was annoyed with all the Alfrid screen time, I disagree that we necessarily needed to see comeuppance. Sometimes people get greedy and they just get away with it. I don’t need it spoonfed to me that greed and selfishness doesn’t pay. Seeing Bard become the king of Dale is all the indirect “comeuppance” I need. Justice is served. In any case, I don’t know if the Extended Edition will give us Alfrid’s fate, but since he’s basically running off with as much treasure as he can, I have to assume his fate is the same as the Master’s fate from the book—dragon-sickness leading him to die of exposure and starvation in the wilderness.
Re: Azog in the ice, the opening eyes, etc….yes, we’ve seen that before. But it didn’t bother me too much. You know who hasn’t seen that a thousand time already? Kids. Younger people who aren’t jaded about it and just have fun. I’m okay with a certain amount of that.
Yes, Bilbo was downplayed too much. He’s the underdog sort of hero, and I think we DID get to see that but only about half of the time we do in the book.
All the aforementioned problems of prioritizing. Even my friends who are not Tolkien fanatics thought there were too many senseless action scenes and too much padding, and that it could all have been cut down to two 2-hour movies.
Biggest question from everyone was “Where is Beorn”. In the second movie they cut away the arrival scene completely, which would have been an awesome way to recap the first film. And in the battle of five armies we get about ten seconds of him before we cut away.
But apart from that, my main gripe is that it’s a trilogy called “The Hobbit” where the titular Hobbit has very little screen time, very little growth, and very little importance. If we look at the parts of the company, there is very little Bilbo and a whole lot of Thorin’s Jesus complex.
Bilbo becomes a comprimary in his own story, Tolkien’s praise of small people gets drowned in a tale of kings and giants and princes and armies and wizards, and that has very little to do with the books and the author where all of this comes from.
@36: Oh, I agree. In “It’s a Wonderful Life,” nothing bad happens to Mr. H. Potter (NOT The Cupboard Under the Stairs, Number 4 Privet Drive) for stealing the money, and I’m fine with that.
I guess what I meant was, the Alfrid scenes felt like they were a set up for some sort of a comeuppance that never came…just something about the way they kept coming up and were inserted. It felt like it was this ongoing joke that had no punch line. Maybe it was just to show that some people never let go of the bad even when the rest of the town is banding together and starting over and fighting…but I just feel like any message like that was lost.
The problem isn’t so much that it’s different as that it is so much less.
All I can say is “Dwarvish War pigs”. Who would have thought they would be so cool? Made the movie for me…
Oh yeah, and why didn’t the arrows fall out of Legolas’ quiver when he was hanging upside down from the were-bat?
@40:
“Oh yeah, and why didn’t the arrows fall out of Legolas’ quiver when he was hanging upside down from the were-bat?”[/quote]*In mock Snape voice* Magic, duh.
My problem The Hobbit movies is that Jackson evidently extended it out to three movies to make money. A substantial portion of the second film is an extended and pretty annoyingly stupid action sequence that adds nothing to the story and during which I eventually fell asleep. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy involved some crazy action sequences, but they weren’t tacked on to extend the running time, they actually had a place in the story. That they were part of the original stories isn’t what gave them power, it was that they fit the story. The added action sequences in The Desolation Of Smaug were simply gratuitous CGI diddling. As someone else said, I was immediately thinking of George Lucas and the horror he unleashed on the world with his inability not to gratuitously add CGI to his movies.
A big part of what made me want to see the second movie was the addition of Dol Goldur as a part of the story rather than something just hinted at. Sadly it struck me simply as a haphazard and essentially empty play for time rather than adding to the story.
The first of The Hobbit trilogy didn’t really grab me, but neither did any of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy when I saw them at the cinema. They were fun to watch, but there was something unsatisfying. I’ve since grown to love them because at the time I was too stuck on hoping they’d be faithful to books and I now just enjoy them as movies based on the books. However, The Desolation Of Smaug was so awful that I actually fell asleep after seriously considering just walking out because it’s just a bad movie. It takes a lot to make me walk out of a movie. I’ve nothing against mindless action films and movies that are purely about the fun of cinema. But The Desolation Of Smaug doesn’t even manage to live up to being fun cinema.