(avg. read time: 8–17 mins.)
Introduction
Last month, I completed a series of reviews on the latest (and worst) big-budget visual adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s sub-creation. This was not my first experience with such reviews. That distinction goes to a long review of The Hobbit trilogy that I wrote just prior to my PhD program. If you have ever wanted to see a review The Hobbit as an adaptation in fairly extensive detail, you have come to the right place. I figure it is appropriate to post it now to mark the 10th anniversary of the release of the first movie.
Naturally, before I declare my thoughts on The Hobbit, it is fitting to declare my thoughts on the films that inevitably invite comparison—The Lord of the Rings—and the book from which the series loosely drew. I enjoy The Hobbit, even if I do not reread it as often as The Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion. It is a unique mixture of children’s story atmosphere and tropes with Tolkien’s sub-creative vision of a world similar to Norse mythology mixed with English and Anglo-Saxon sensibilities, as well as elements of biblical undertones that are subtler than any of Tolkien’s other major works. The sense of adventure is enthralling, the world is strange and fascinating, the action is engaging (when the buildup is not overly long), and the plot is (mostly) immersive. The characterization is of mixed quality. While Tolkien would do an excellent job of characterizing nine members of the Fellowship plus many other side characters over the course of LOTR, in this one book, Tolkien has trouble making all thirteen of the dwarves plus Bilbo and Gandalf all feel like distinct characters. He conveys a clear sense of who Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Balin, and a few others are. But the nature of the story he tells, which is thoroughly Bilbo-centric, and the length of it prevent him from adequately characterizing the central group of fifteen characters plus several other side characters. And for all the praise that I give The Hobbit, LOTR surpasses it in every way as the superior embodiment of Tolkien’s sub-creative work. For that reason, I found it strange every time someone asked me if I liked The Hobbit films that they followed up with asking if I was disappointed in them because they were not as good as the LOTR films. Frankly, because I knew the source material, I had no expectation of The Hobbit films being as good or better than the LOTR films. I had lower standards for these film adaptations, and they failed to meet even those standards.
What then did I think of the LOTR films? Don’t worry, I will have a much longer review of that trilogy that I plan to post next December in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of Jackson’s The Return of the King. But to summarize briefly for now, they are my favorite movies. They may not be the strictest adaptations, and I even have a few significant problems with some of the omissions and changes. But overall, they are faithful adaptations that excellently present (most of) the characters, the core story, many of the core themes, and the sense of epic adventure and struggle against evil, among other things. I will have occasion to compare the adaptation choices of LOTR and The Hobbit to show why I have more and greater problems with the latter than the former. In any case, the LOTR movies will always have a special place in my heart as quality films and as quality adaptations of my favorite trilogy (which is properly one book in three parts). In fact, I did not start reading LOTR until I saw The Fellowship of the Ring in theaters. If not for these movies, I may have never read Tolkien’s work, and I can scarcely begin to comprehend how much that absence might have affected me, just as I can scarcely begin to comprehend how much that presence has affected me. The Hobbit films could never compare with that impact, but even when we shrink the scope of concern to their simple quality and their quality relative to the material they adapted, they are almost a parody of greatness. They are like a pretend successor who resembles the great predecessor only in appearance or like an embarrassing predecessor completely overshadowed by the great successor (depending on if you look at the films from the perspective of them following LOTR in Primary World chronology or from the perspective of them preceding LOTR in the context of the Secondary World story).
As a final side-note before I get to more direct thoughts on The Hobbit films, I am among the many who hated the idea of making this one book into three movies. There was a time in development when they were attempting to make two movies, which I thought was a stretch, but one I could live with. Imagine, then, how much of a strain on the source material an additional film of equivalent length would make. It all feels thin and stretched like butter spread over too much bread. Nothing about the book justified devoting almost eight hours of film solely to it (not to mention the nearly nine hours of the extended edition). At the time when the plan was for two films, the story going around was that one film would be The Hobbit itself and the other would be a movie about events in between The Hobbit and LOTR. I was skeptical about the second project at first, since I did not know what they would focus on and how they would center the movie, but I think I would have preferred that idea to what we got. I would have preferred many things to what we got. Most fundamentally, this expansion of the project to three films was a blatant cash grab. Because why have people pay once to see a movie when you can have them pay three times to see that movie plus a titanic boatload of filler? And in case I have not made it obvious yet, I will not be reviewing the extended editions, though I will make occasional reference to them according to clips I have seen online. I see no need to extend my torment. And if what was released in theaters was not good, the extended editions are unlikely to make them good with a few additions here and there. If anything, it would make the theatrical editions even worse because they intentionally left crucial scenes for a particular DVD release.
General Thoughts
After those pitifully brief summaries, I now must proceed to my fuller thoughts on The Hobbit films. Unless a certain occasion from a particular film proves to be appropriate, I try to separate my general thoughts on the films from my thoughts on aspects of the particular films. First, I would like to start with the things that I thought were good. Like practically everyone else, I thought Martin Freeman portrayed Bilbo brilliantly. He was entertaining, funny, properly stubborn, clever, timid and terrified when appropriate, yet undeniably brave without seeming suddenly foolhardy, convincingly guarded concerning the Ring, and ultimately likable. He presented an eminently faithful—albeit more comedic—performance of one of Tolkien’s most enjoyable characters. Ian McKellen’s performance as Gandalf remained one of my favorites in either LOTR or The Hobbit. While I thought some scenes were too exaggerated, I also appreciated Richard Armitage’s performance as Thorin (and any flaws of his performance were covered over in the execution of his final scene with Bilbo). Balin was given an even more prominent role in this series than he had in the book, and I enjoyed Ken Stott’s performance of him as the wise, old Dwarf advisor, loyal servant, and caring friend to both Thorin and Bilbo. The other actors from LOTR that were also part of The Hobbit either had roles that were too small to make an impact (such as Elijah Wood and Ian Holm) or they were essentially the same as in LOTR and did not justify further comment beyond reiterating what I thought of them from the original trilogy (namely, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, and Christopher Lee).
I also love the setting, as I did with LOTR. In both series, Jackson and co. have done brilliantly in showing off the glory of New Zealand. New Zealand has become prime real estate for fantasy settings because of LOTR and these films continue to show good reasons why that is. The combination of the crew’s work with the natural beauty of New Zealand makes Middle-earth feel more real than probably any fantasy setting in film history. I do have problems with how the films look, but those problems have nothing to do with the chosen settings in New Zealand.
And let us not forget that Howard Shore has returned with new renditions of and additions to his iconic score of the LOTR movies. Admittedly, most of the original pieces are not as memorable as the LOTR music. But the fact remains that Shore has done good work again in creating music that fits the atmosphere of the story being told, even if I wish that story being told bore greater resemblance to the book on which it is loosely based.
On the other hand, I have several overarching problems with the films in addition to the problems I have with each one. First, here is my fundamental problem with the adaptation issues. I don’t mind changes, additions, or omissions necessarily (though with three films to spread out, the idea of omitting things in The Hobbit besides basic changes required of going from the book medium to the film medium is much less justifiable than with LOTR). But I do have a problem when those changes, additions, or omissions lead to things in the movies that are poor substitutes for what was in the book, and end up making the movies worse. I will have plenty of chances to explain what I mean on this point because most of these adaptation decisions were wrong as far as I can tell. Adaptation decisions like I am describing seem to disrespect the source material when the film representation of it comes off like a caricature and the filmmakers act as if they know how to make scenes better than they were in the book (rather than simply better fit for a different medium). I am by no means a purist, but I simply cannot see how The Hobbit films were good adaptations by any measure.
Second, most of the character portrayals in all of the movies outside of the ones I mentioned above were either nondescript or were positively bad, which I attribute more to the writing than the acting. While The Hobbit was limited in how much development it could give to thirteen Dwarves, The Hobbit films had much more room to let each Dwarf speak and let the audience get to know each Dwarf beyond their distinctive appearances. Instead, some Dwarves saw their roles shrink. No Dwarf better exemplifies this point than Bombur, a massively overweight Dwarf who had a minor speaking role in the book and had exactly 0 words of speech over the course of three films. Kili had a larger part as a young romantic, but I will get to problems with that aspect of his character later. But of the characters that appear in all three films, none suffered more than Radagast the Brown. He was a Wizard who mostly kept to himself, having contact with the birds, beasts, and people mostly around Rhosgobel (southwest Mirkwood) and hearing tidings that they brought him, but he did not involve himself in the affairs of Middle-earth like Gandalf or even like his film counterpart. While I was fine with the concept of his role expanding beyond the single reference to him in the original book (particularly since he was a member of the White Council, who take action in The Hobbit), the movies expanded that role by making him a bumbling fool who is off his rocker with bird crap in his hair. While he was never a deep character, there was enough information on him from the LOTR books to make a character of him without resorting to cheap attempts at making him nothing but comic relief. I will have occasion to talk about others such as Legolas, Tauriel, Beorn, and more over the course of the more specific reviews.
Third, though The Hobbit films are prequels to LOTR, the fact that they have come out after LOTR has led the filmmakers to overplay scenes or force references to the LOTR films in the fashion of winks as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face at the audience. It is as if our reactions should be a heavily winking and giggling, “Oh, I get that reference because I saw The Lord of the Rings.” In a way, these contrived references seem like a weak attempt at transference in that the filmmakers are trying to manipulate the audience to transfer their thoughts and feelings about LOTR to The Hobbit because of these connections. I will mention others, but I settle for referencing three examples here, one from each movie.
In An Unexpected Journey, when Sméagol drops the Ring, not only does the camera linger on it, but the picture goes to slow motion and an ominous theme associated with LOTR and especially with the One Ring plays out a little later as the filmmakers try everything to draw attention to the significance of this moment. The audience knows it is important, we know that LOTR is all about the quest to destroy this Ring. This excessive focus and attempt at transference were unnecessary. I think the scene would have been more effective if it had opted for the book’s understatement of the significance of this scene: “He guessed as well as he could, and crawled along for a good way, till suddenly his hand met what felt like a tiny ring of cold metal lying on the floor of the tunnel. It was a turning point in his career, but he did not know it. He put the ring in his pocket almost without thinking; certainly it did not seem of any particular use at the moment.” Since the audience knows the significance of this moment, following the book’s style would create a great sense of dramatic irony, rather than smashing us in the face with its importance.
In The Desolation of Smaug, Legolas and his squad of Elves of the Woodland Realm are confiscating the weapons and searching the belongings of the Dwarves. At one point, Legolas finds Glóin’s locket with two pictures in it. He asks him if one is a picture of his brother, to which Glóin responds that it is his wife. And Legolas describes the child’s picture as a “horrid creature, goblin mutant,” to which Glóin responds that it is ‘my wee lad, Gimli.” Legolas raises an eyebrow and the scene ends. The only way this reference could have been more forced and obvious is if Legolas turned to the camera and stared like Ben from Parks and Recreation.
In The Battle of the Five Armies, Legolas, due to Tauriel’s influence and his dad being a jerk, decides to leave the Woodland Realm behind (which never happened prior to the events of LOTR). Thranduil advises him to go to the Dúnedain and seek out a young Ranger called Strider, whose real name he would need to discover for himself. While he tells him this, another theme from LOTR not so subtly plays; namely, the Fellowship theme that would become especially associated with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in The Two Towers. The linkage to LOTR, the dramatic pause, and the placement of this instruction at the end of Legolas’s presence in the films all combine to make a sledgehammer-to-the-face reference that was inserted where it was because the filmmakers knew that Aragorn did not fit into this story. This contrived reference fails because it screws with the chronology that Tolkien put so much work into filling and reconciling, on top of making a connection that was never there in LOTR. The events of The Hobbit take place in the year 2941 of the Third Age, at which time Aragorn was 10 years old. He was not even a Ranger at this time in his life and he had been given the name Estel (“hope”) while his identity was kept secret during his residence in Rivendell. Even Aragorn did not know his name was Aragorn until 10 more years after the events of The Hobbit. He joined his kinsmen in the Rangers—as their Chieftain, like his father before him—sometime after learning who he truly was. In short: 1) Legolas never became disillusioned with the Woodland Realm, leading him to find his way elsewhere at this time in his life; 2) Aragorn was not yet a Ranger and not yet called Strider; 3) Aragorn was 10 at the time and did not know who he was; 4) Thranduil would thus know nothing about him yet and could not tell Legolas of him (unless he read LOTR, too); 5) these contradictions of chronology and characterization all happened because the filmmakers wanted to force an exaggerated “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” gesture to the audience, instead of telling their story properly.
Fourth, one of the aspects of the movies that first turned me against them was their action. I know the LOTR movies had more focus on action, especially battles or skirmishes, than the books did, but I could understand that focus given the different medium. Between the three films, the action had a few stunts here and there that were special and only one that I would truly call “over the top” (but in a good way). It was the scene when Legolas took down the Oliphaunt and the Haradrim on top of it. The stunt was still acceptable because it was not nonsensical in context, it looked cool, it was unique, and it was there to relieve tension that had built up during the course of a long battle sequence with some comic relief from Gimli’s response. The Hobbit took that scene and made most of the action sequences like it but worse. Even by the end of the first movie I thought that the action sequences made The Hobbit feel more like Pirates of the Caribbean than LOTR. I have two overarching issues with these action sequences, and I will have occasion to mention other problems later. One, when the characters are so constantly in over-the-top peril only to escape with nary a scratch, it takes the audience out of the action, because what is the point of investing in the action when all of the tension is fake, as we come to expect through overexposure to absurd levels of peril? Two, Balin mentions early in the first movie that most of the Dwarves are not warriors. But with their perfect coordination and skill in constantly being able to escape these perilous situations, you would never know it, which thus creates an acute incoherency about the characters.
Finally, my last general problem with the movies is how they look. I know they came out over a decade after LOTR and people had high expectations of how the movies would look. But to me they seemed too polished, too neat (when they do not come off as too awful). They did not have the sense of realism that the sets, intricately designed items, and less saturated colors of the LOTR films had. Of course, the original LOTR films revolutionized CGI in movies, especially with their battle sequences and the motion capture of Sméagol/Gollum. But The Hobbit films rely on CGI way too much. In their attempts to make fantasy seem real, they end up making the visuals look fake. This problem is akin to the different visual styles of the Star Wars original trilogy and the prequel trilogy.