Greetings, reader!
I'm doing a few posts concerning Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth films this December, because The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) turns ten years old this month, and I recently re-watched both trilogies. I still have a lot of mixed feelings about the polarizing prequel trilogy: I certainly don't hate them like many fans do, but rather enjoy a great deal of things in them, while also recognizing that they do fall short in many regards. So, I've listed my own top fives of what The Hobbit films did right, what they did wrong, and what fall into the grey area of mixed feelings. I hope you enjoy!
#5 in wrong: The villains
I get the impulse to have more individual villains: in the book, it's basically just Smaug and then a faceless mass of orcs, goblins and other such groups, and one might think that a villain with a name and somewhat of a personality would make the plot more accessible on the big screen.
But it ends up as a half measure: we spend a lot of time learning the backstory of the orc leader Azog (who is only mentioned once in the book) and the motives of secondary orc leader Bolg (a character original to the films), only for the characters not to be very interesting. The trilogy's take on Smaug is alright, but the loads of time we spend on semi-generic secondary villains is a bit much.
#5 in mixed feelings: Tauriel
I still don't exactly know how I feel about this one; unlike the incel fans who heard "female character" and retreated to scream in their Gollum caves, I do very much see the need to add a woman into the story when you're making three films based on a book that has, and this is true, no female characters. I don't exactly fault Tolkien himself for the male-dominance of the books, as he grew up in a time of all-boys' schools and the army et cetera, so men pretty much were the life he knew apart from his mother and wife. But for modern audiences, three films of just guys would feel a bit too testosterone-sausagefest-nowhere-near-the-Bechdel-test.
But I do, very begrudgingly as not to liken myself to the fans who dislike Tauriel for the wrong reasons, admit that the character could've been done better. For all the screentime she has, her arch and character relationships aren't all that interesting. So, the need for the character was there and I will always defend her addition, but her storylines still do drag especially the second film a bit (this should go without saying but NOT BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, but because Peter Jackson and company aren't the character-writers that Tolkien was).
#5 in right: Connecting to the White Council / Necromancer storyline
This one was a no-brainer, but I still give points for it. In the original book, Gandalf just kind of disappear onto various side quests every now and then, returning to the main group eventually, always with some quick excuse on what he was doing. We don't follow his POV on these misadventures, and we learn only very little about what he's up to. Tolkien himself seems to have come up with the answer later, as the appendixes to the Lord of the Rings books explain how the villain Sauron was growing in power already during the events of The Hobbit, and Gandalf's absence was due to his role in the White Council, investigating Sauron's possible return.
So, when making the movie adaptations in a world where the Lord of the Rings movies already exist, it's just natural to bring the White Council storyline, largely adapted from the appendixes, into the story. It's a well-reasoned way to bring back beloved characters like Galadriel and Saruman, who wouldn't otherwise be in the story, as well as perfecting the "Lord of the Rings prequel" feel with the Sauron lore.
Some complain that this storyline was just cheap fan service, but I wholeheartedly disagree - it makes sense so show this subplot, it ties into the story and makes the LOTR connection stronger, and it is also based on Tolkien's literature (I swear, many of the reasons that the more negatively charged fans have for over-hating the Hobbit movies are so far-fetched that one can only reach those opinions when entering the cinema with a very strong "I want to dislike this film and complain about it so I can sound smart on the internet" attitude).
#4 in wrong: Over-wacky action sequences
And here's one where I (at least for the most part) agree with the haters. One of the reasons that the Hobbit trilogy, for all its strengths and enjoyable aspects, isn't nearly as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, becomes abundantly clear when you compare the action sequences in the two. To a certain point, I understand what they were going for - the Hobbit book is more lighthearted and child-friendly than the darker and more dramatic The Lord of the Rings, so scaling back the intensity of the action sequences to some degree would've been fine and understandable.
But, the Hobbit films (especially The Battle of the Five Armies) go about ten steps too far into that direction - a bit of wackiness would be called for, but no one wants to see Legolas falling off a bridge only to save himself by jumping upwards on top of individual falling pieces of debris like a video game ninja. So yeah, they definitely went overboard with that one.
#4 in mixed feelings: The Lord of the Rings easter eggs
Here's a broad spectrum of storytelling choices, where some instances stick the landing and others don't. Naturally, the filmmakers wanted to do easter eggs and connections to the beloved film trilogy - cynics will say that all fan service is superficial and bad, but I disagree, as it can be done right and makes for nostalgia and fun when kept in check and justified by the plot.
In addition to the obvious connections that come straight from the book, the film came up with other ways to connect to The Lord of the Rings, and some of them really work - Legolas being around makes perfect sense as he was the Prince of Mirkwood at the time when the dwarves pass through, and the only reason he isn't in the book is that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first and hadn't come up with the character yet, so of course it's smart to use this to bring back a beloved character from the films. I even like the stuff like Gloin mentioning his 'wee lad Gimli' to Legolas, just so fans of the movies can have knowing chuckle about the eventual bromance being teased - it's cheesy, but fun.
But just like with the wacky action scenes, the third film especially does go a bit over the line with the connections - Thranduil telling Legolas to seek out Aragorn is more than a bit heavy-handed and random, for example. So, I like the easter eggs for the most part, but quite a few of them could've been cut from the end product.
#4 in right: A vast majority of the locations (and most of the events) from the book
See, here's another thing that the "The Hobbit movies were 1/10 and completely terrible and ruined my childhood and killed my parents" crowd (I might be exaggerating a bit, but not much - they're a dramatic bunch) totally disregards and/or takes for granted. For all the things that the films could've done better, I massively appreciate how much thought went into creating so many beloved locations from a book very nostalgic to me, places that I always hoped to see on the big screen. Mirkwood looks just as mystically beautiful as it's supposed to, while the Carrock is properly majestic, the Lonely Mountain looms large, and the set design of Laketown feels just right.
The same goes for most of the events in the plot. While there's a lot that the films add, and many moments from the book are expanded with more backstory and phases, that doesn't take away from the fact that all of the best parts from the book are there, and we get to see them unfold in a manner mostly very loyal to the source material. The dwarves' humorous arrival at Bag End, Bilbo's tense encounter with Gollum, the chaotic escape from the Misty Mountains, Bilbo using the Ring to fool the spiders, the dramatic despair turned into inspiring hope at the doorstep of Erebor et cetera - a lot of the book's greatness translates well onto the big screen.
#3 in wrong: Many of the original creations
Sure, some of the material that Peter Jackson and company more or less invented for the films, in order to really pad the runtimes admist everything adapted from the book, is good. But quite a bit of it is, well, not. Did we really need the extra action sequence of wargs attacking the heroes in the first film, the subplot of some of the dwarves staying behind in Laketown and one of them almost dying only to be dramatically healed in the process, or the character Alfrid? Seriously, and this is coming from someone who likes and defends the Hobbit films more than any other Tolkien fan I know, Alfrid sucks.
#3 in mixed feelings: Pretty much the entire third film
Much like how season 4 of Stranger Things was definitely the show's best AND worst season with its varying quality and record-breaking pluses and minuses, The Battle of the Five Armies is definitely my favorite Hobbit film in many ways, and my least favorite in many others (in my all-taken-into-account ranking, I put in the middle after lots of deliberation, because the good sides alone make it better than The Desolation of Smaug, but the bad sides alone make it worse than An Unexpected Journey). So, yeah, mixed feelings on the whole film.
The book's climactic events, such as the death of Smaug and the titular battle, are adapted into a film that could be a masterpiece if it was about an hour shorter. The six last chapters of the book simply aren't enough for a two-and-a-half hour movie, and the film's answer to this dilemma was to drag the battle out to a ridiculous degree.
On one hand, I understand why many fans consider the film a complete flop and the easily worst out of the trilogy, as all of the trilogy's worst moments come here (the over-wacky Legolas stunts, too much lazy Alfrid humor), but on the other hand, I always defend aspects of the film because it also has all of the trilogy's greatest moments (the main dwarves' epic charge into battle from the gates of Erebor, the wholesome moment between Bilbo and Gandalf after the battle, the final scene that works as such a perfect bookend for Jackson's six-film saga). So, yeah, its lowpoints are lowpoints for the whole trilogy, but the same logic also applies to highpoints - so, in total, a very mixed-feelings gray area.
#3 in right: The feel of Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth
Again, this is something that the "the Hobbit films were 1/10 garbage that ruined my childhood" elitists just take for granted to an infuriating degree. Say what you will about the Hobbit films, there is objectively a lot to like if you loved The Lord of the Rings and watch them with an "I want to enjoy cinema" attitude instead of an "I want to complain on the internet so everyone sees what a smart little critic I am" one. I hate to be the 'it could be worse' guy, but seriously - imagine if the Hobbit films would've been directed by someone else than Peter Jackson, filmed somewhere else than New Zealand, and scored by someone else than Howard Shore?
While I obviously agree that the films aren't as good as The Lord of the Rings, I still enjoy the Hobbit films a lot, and a big part of that comes from the fact that all flaws notwithstanding, it is the magical world we fell in love with in The Lord of the Rings. The music is great, the scenery feels mostly the same (yes, they used too much CGI, but still, Rivendell looks like Rivendell and that makes me squeal with joy), and a lot of the magical atmosphere from the Lord of the Rings movies is present here as well.
I love the Lord of the Rings movies so much that I loved to return to that magical world for three more films, and that makes it very hard for me to understand the people who supposedly love The Lord of the Rings so much that they can't find anything positive about these films made by the same people and taking place in the same world.
#2 in wrong: EVERYTHING being expanded
Yeah, there are many valid opinions for and against The Hobbit being split into three films. But, since Jackson wanted a trilogy - couldn't they at least be shorter? Three solid two-hour films would've been plenty to adapt everything from the book without feeling rushed, and even adding some non-book material in good taste. But, Peter Jackson did the mistake of trying to recreate the epic-length feel of The Lord of the Rings movies - needless to say, that feel works better when your source material is three books and not one.
All three movies being as long as they are means that there is too much filler material, and while the 'event X from the book happens in the movie as well, but as an expanded version with more backstory and steps and dramatics and fallout' touch works on some storylines, it falls flat with many others.
#2 in mixed feelings: The grave sin of simply not being The Lord of the Rings
Yeah, this one is tough. I'd argue that this is the biggest reason why so many claim to passionately hate these movies. No matter how many things The Hobbit trilogy does right, there's no getting past the fact that it isn't, couldn't possibly be, and was never going to be as great as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. My take is that many fans couldn't get past that, in order to find a 'well, let's still enjoy this one and its good parts' attitude - for a certain kind of fan, it's easier to hate and to want to hate the less-good franchise expansion, thus turning a blind eye to its respectable parts and focusing (even endlessly nitpicking) on the bad.
For me, it's in the 'mixed feelings' bracket, because on one hand - yes, it's not nearly as good as The Lord of the Rings, I obviously admit that, and that is a clear minus when forming an opinion of these movies. But on the other hand, I wasn't realistically expecting them to be as good either, because who the hell could make the greatest film trilogy of all time and then fully repeat that again with a completely different source material?
So, it's a very unfair comparison (I mean, the trilogies can and should be compared, but not in the "I will completely disavow these films, no matter how many things they do right, if they aren't as great as the greatest film trilogy of all time" sense that so many have chosen). If the LOTR trilogy is a 10/10, then surely The Hobbit films are worth a 7 or an 8 - which means that they're still really good! So, in my opinion, the films not being The Lord of the Rings is a valid point to make when discussing why they aren't as good, but an absolutely bullshit reasoning for hating the films and not finding anything to enjoy in them.
#2 in right: The lighter adventure feel being faithful to the Hobbit book
As is the running theme with the "Things the movies did right" portion of the list, this is yet another major positive that the hate-train elitist fans simply don't bother to think about or engage with. In J.R.R. Tolkien's bibliography, The Hobbit is a much lighter, more whimsical and family-friendly adventure tale than the Lord of the Rings books, that are much heavier, more dramatic and intense. This is something that peter Jackson understood, thus giving his Hobbit adaptations a lighter tone than his previous trilogy.
Fans love to complain about how the Hobbit films are too kid-friendly, too light, too song-and-dance and thus not as epic as The Lord of the Rings. These 'fans' either haven't read their Tolkien or at the very least didn't understand it, because this lighter tone is loyal to the books. I will admit that some of the wacky elements go overboard in the action sequences, as I discussed in #4 of the 'wrong' portion, but for the most part, the films feel less heavy and intense in comparison to the LOTR films with pretty much the exact difference in tone that the corresponding books have.
#1 in wrong: Over-reliance on CGI
Yeah, this is a big one. While I will defend many of the visual aspects in the films, I will criticize many others, as there is no getting away from the fact that despite visual techniques in Hollywood getting better and better during the decade between the trilogies, the Hobbit films do not look as magical and genuine as the Lord of the Rings movies.
This is largely because of the over-use of CGI, which came across as the filmmakers not trusting the New Zealand scenery and practical effects that did a lot of the heavy lifting (with the CGI being an addition only when needed and in good taste) in the LOTR movies. Doing everything with CGI just makes many of the scenes feel plastic, a bit too cartoonish, and like you're watching a video game.
#1 in mixed feelings: The decision to split them into three movies
I'll probably never quite know where I land with this one. Was it a good decision to split The Hobbit into three films or not? There is no easy answer. Many will say that it 100% was a bad decision, and it is an easy criticism to make - but I always see that as a bit of a cop-out. The writer in me says that it can't possibly be that simple, as making the Hobbit adaptation into one movie (or a compromise two) would've brought its own problems, and the end result would've had its own problems. It's really hard to estimate what the best option would've been, and I mostly like the one they went with - I see the reasoning for the split, it gave us three films with their own vibe and identity and I enjoy all three despite their flaws, and pretty much every good part from the book is adapted because they didn't have to cut anything out due to runtime stress.
Still, I do see how a one-film approach would've had the positive of having less film-only filler material, and how two films might have been the best of both worlds (not as hurried as a one-film adaptation but not as over-full as a trilogy) - but then again, it could've been the worst of both worlds (a bit too full like the trilogy, but also a bit too hurried like the hypothetical one-film approach) just as easily. So, I still have mixed feelings about this one, as the three-film adaptation certainly had its positives and its negatives, and it's hard to compare to the potential other versions that we never got to see.
#1 in right: Casting
If there's one thing that I get truly defensive about when discussing the Hobbit films, it's the casting. Say what you will about the rest - I understand not liking any of the aspects I had in the 'mixed feelings' category, and I'm even willing to swallow not liking the other things I had in the 'did right' column (I will still respect you as a human if you don't like the White Council storyline or somehow don't think that the lighter feel is book-accurate) - but if you criticize the casting, we're in for a big debate.
Martin Freeman is pitch-perfect as Bilbo, as is Richard Armitage as Thorin. Many of the smaller supporting roles are also thoroughly decent, such as Lee Pace as Thranduil and Luke Evans as Bard, but these two major roles are especially praiseworthy - despite not being in The Lord of the Rings, they both make my list of the top 10 greatest acting performances in the entire six-film saga, up there with performances like Christopher Lee as Saruman and Andy Serkis as Smeagol et cetera.
Bilbo and Thorin are fantastic characters in the book, and everything interesting about them translates so well into the acting performances, whether it's Freeman bringing out Bilbo's nervous jitters turning into careful confidence throughout the adventure, or Armitage's gripping portrayal of Thorin's ambition slowly turning into corruption, until his eventual moment of redemption. These actors were the right people for the job, and that is a hill I'm willing to die on.
Thank you for reading! Tune in next week for another Middle-Earth list, as I rank all of the major changes from book to movie in both the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies, from worst to best.
No comments:
Post a Comment