That was a terrible movie. Sorry, folks. But that movie just lacks a coherent screenplay. It’s a piece of crap. Talk about pogosticking all over the plot with no apparent reason — this story was hard to follow and I not only know the source material very well, I read a fair share of spy reports leading up to the release. I loved “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and I would happily pay good money to see it in the theater again. I doubt I’ll see “The Desolation of Smaug” in the theater again unless some life-changing force truly compels me to do so. This is just a horrible movie that deserves to be forgotten as quickly as possible. And that is all the negativity I’m going to share with you. The rest of this article will cover what I actually appreciated about the movie.
The Casting Was Excellent — Say what you will about the man, but Peter Jackson has incredible taste in actors. I think he and his team did a fantastic job of picking really fine actors for these roles. It’s just a pity that they were … but I digress.
The Locations and Sets were Top-notch — You didn’t need the “Come to New Zealand” promo before the movie to feel a strong compulsion to get on a plane and fly to the other side of the globe. All you had to do was look at New Zealand through the lens of this powerful cinematography to fall in love with Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth all over again.
The CGI Was Exceptional, Especially Smaug — The spiders were great. Mirkwood was great (if a little short for my taste). Heck, even Sauron was great. In fact, I sensed that Peter was trying to respond to many of the criticisms about the LoTR films’ Sauron (the firey eye) by showing that he truly is a shape-shifter (and I hope that is not giving away too much of the film for those of you who have not yet seen it). This Sauron better matches Tolkien’s explanations of what he was like — although the history is still radically different from that in the books.
The Orcs and Wargs were, in my opinion, most excellent. I could not tell where the make-up ended and the computer enhancement began. Not that I consider myself adept enough at detecting such transitions that I need to make a point of them, but for a fairly unsophisticated CGI viewer I was convinced enough of the reality of these creatures to not be annoyed by their renderings. I think people who hated the Wargs of “The Two Towers” will finally be able to put their distaste aside and say they have finally nailed the critters at Weta.
I was glad to see Radagast’s sled, if only for a brief time. It’s a shame people didn’t like that little flourish in the first movie. Seeing it gave me a little comfort on this wild ride of disjointed … but I digress.
Let’s talk about Smaug. Wow. I have never seen a more incredible film dragon. He sets a new standard, and it’s not just the CGI artists who deserve credit for that. I credit the director and the actor (Benedict Cumberbatch) for pulling off the most convincing Tolkien-like dragon I have ever — in my entire life — seen in film or television. You cannot praise their investment in Smaug enough. I just wish his storyline had made … but I digress.
Lake-town looked pretty good, too. It was not what I imagined, but it was far, far better than I feared it might be. I liked this Lake-town. It’s a pity it doesn’t survive. It’s bit more grim and gritty than the Lake-town Tolkien describes in The Hobbit but I think that’s okay.
And there is a “flashback” scene set in Bree (credible enough, in my opinion) where (I think) Peter Jackson is almost the first person you see in the town. Looking at the buildings, I see they updated their design from a pseudo-Tudorian massacre of Tolkien’s original concept to a more stone village concept; and yet, it still looks so much like the Bree of “The Fellowship of the Rings”. The update was well-done. And probably only I ever cared that they did not depict Bree as a stone village in the first movie. I am now officially mollified on the point. Thank you, Peter and Company.
Let’s talk about Smaug some more. I mean, damn that’s one fine film dragon. You just want to take him home and use him as a watch-dragon or something. Unfortunately, I think the sequence went a little too long and his terror was undermined by how the story played out. Oh well, done is done and none mends the better as forgiveness — or something like that. I’ll learn to forgive the length of the Smaug sequence in time, I am sure.
I have to point out one thing (and this may be true of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Conversation With Smaug” picture, too): there is far more gold in Peter Jackson’s Erebor than has ever been mined and refined in real history. All the gold in the world today would constitute a tiny fraction of Smaug’s hoard. I think they went overboard on that (even though I know it wasn’t all gold). Still, it was an impressive gold hoard. I can hardly blame the dragon for wanting it.
The Directing Was Okay — There were points I liked and points I didn’t like about the directing. Is it really necessary to place blame? I don’t know. I think the positive aspects included the controversial story with Tauriel, though. Regardless of what you think of the storyline itself (and I care not to dwell on that here), I think Peter did exactly what needed to be done to guide his actors through what appears to me to be a very complicated character set up. Tauriel may or may not strike you as fulfilling your idea of a Tolkien Silvan Elf (maid…warrior) but she is a darned fine film elf maid warrior. She could easily have her own movie, her own television show.
Sure, Evangeline Lilly deserves a LOT of credit for pulling off a character that isn’t found in the books and that must conform to Peter’s imagery about Middle-earth while still evoking something that resembles a Tolkien elf (despite the goofy pointy ears [J.R.R. Tolkien’s Elves do NOT have pointed ears]). I can see why she won the role. She’s a powerful actress and she has that almost timeless beauty you sort of expect from a Middle-earth Elf (although I would love to see what they might do with Eöl, Maeglin, and the sons of Fëanor).
But someone has to guide these actors through their scenes. I give credit to the director for teaching Evangeline Lilly how to deliver what I expect of a Peter Jackson Elf (and I have expected better than some of his Elf actors were able to deliver in past films). Maybe spending so much screen time with Orlando Bloom — who epitomizes Elfhood the world over — forced Evangeline to step up her game. She was not in any way overshadowed by Orli and I think that is exactly what the director was trying to ensure — that Tauriel would seem as powerful and interesting as Legolas.
In fact, since we know that Legolas will be in “The Fellowship of the Ring” it’s hard for the audience to feel much fear for his sake. So they did keep me wondering what would happen next with Tauriel — not because of the storyline, but because of the execution of the character and how she moved through her part of the tale.
Let’s talk about Smaug some more. How do you direct a dragon? I’m guessing you direct the actor and let the artists figure out how to portray the dragon. I could almost see Benedict Cumberbatch slithering through a green room, following precision cues and evoking exactly the right emotions the director called for. Who directed Smaug? Was it Peter Jackson or Andy Serkis? I guess I haven’t read enough spy reports. But despite my reservations about the screenplay, I think Smaug might just tip the movie for at least one Academy Award and a whole slew of other equally desirable forms of recognition. Is there even an award category for “Best CGI Character Direction”? I hope so. Put my non-binding vote down for that right now.
In the Final Analysis — I doubt my opinion will find much support among viewers. Maybe it will. One guy got up and left halfway through the movie. And as far as I could tell, everyone in that crowd was a hard-core Peter Jackson Middle-earth fan. Maybe he got an emergency call and had to go back to work. I dunno. But there was no applause, not much laughter, and perhaps just a little too much stunned silence around me. It’s hard to gauge what an audience is thinking when they walk out of a theater without saying a word.
I hope the next movie is better. I am not agonizing over how faithful it is to the books. They left the books far behind before they ever started writing the script. As I have pointed out before, there are legal restrictions on what kind of source material they can use but they are also trying to maintain some continuity with the “Lord of the Rings” Middle-earth, and that was but a hollow shell of Tolkien’s rich, deeply historied imaginary “time in our past”.
All the great things I can say about this movie won’t make it a good movie. It is, in fact, a very bad movie. A nearly total piece of crap. And despite the fine acting from so many people about the only saving grace is Smaug.
By the way — Beorn’s name is, I am pretty sure, supposed to be pronounced bern, not bee-orn. But I’m no linguist.
So, take all that for what it’s worth. If you want to disagree with me in the comments below, feel free to but I will delete any nastiness — all insults, personal remarks, etc. You are free to love or hate the movie as you wish, but here on Xenite.Org everyone has to behave nicely.
Good review Michael. It’s weird how little screen-time Bilbo actually gets here, but when he does show up and do his thing, he’s easily the best part of the whole movie.
There are things I wanted to say about Bilbo’s role, some negative, mostly good, but I felt I would have been giving away too much of the plot. Martin Freeman is a most excellent Bilbo and I do wish he had had more screen time.
Freeman is a wonderful Bilbo, who got too little screen time and emotional interaction with the dwarves here. All the actors are great. I especially like Lee Pace as malicious and world wary Thranduil, while I think, it was a mistake to bring back Bloom as Legolas. He is too old now to play a character, who is 60 years younger than in the LOTR movies ( You could argue, that elves have such a long life span, that it doesn’t really matter, but somehow, there are subtle changes in Orlando Bloom, which make it less credible). Also, his character (I don’t have any problems with Legolas being present per se) is not really well developed. I couldn’t blame Tauriel, if she choose Kili and his feisty humor over Legolas, lol!
As an avid reader of your writings, I was awaiting your review eagerly. Like you, and unlike many critics, I loved the first movie. Like you, and unlike most critics, I hated the second one. And it was not at all because of the departures from the original story. I found myself liking Tauriel much more than Legolas, who morphed into a kind of Ninja Elf with long knifes and gravity defying stunts, devoid of his youthful charme of the LOTR movies. It’s a pity, because there were so many elements to like in the film, some of them magnificent like Smaug the Terrible, who will go hands down as the greatest dragon in film history. All of the actors could have been great, if the script had only let them. I was more than okay with Bard’s fleshed out role. So, what makes this a bad movie, despite so many great elements in it? The editing is terrible. There are far too many ork killings in it, which makes it boring and tedious, especially, since they rarely do any harm (with one notable exception),and thus cease to be terrifying. A lot of the action has this amusement park believe suspending quality, which becomes very tedious after a while as well. The world of Middle Earth is just less real than in the LOTR films. The tapestry of music, which is so incredibly good in the LOTR films, is a deafening assault on the hearing sense. The dialogs (and that includes sadly also the dialog between Smaug and Bilbo, which is a gem of sparkling irony in the book, and Cumberbatch’s wonderful voice can only partly save it) are forgettable and devoid of humor and emotion. Worst of all, they manage, that I stopped caring for Thorin,whom I thought to be wonderful in the first movie. They just didn’t use the potential of this well set up figure and his great actor. The story arc and why we should care, is somehow completely lost as well. It’s a complete mystery to me, why most critics see this movie as an improvement over the first installment.
Oh well… thanks, Michael, for the great writing on this site.
[…] I have published my review of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” on Xenite.Org. I was not very pleased with the movie. […]
Yes, I was disappointed as well, and not because it departed so far, so many times, from the text of the book. I was disappointed because it doesn’t work well as a narrative on screen. Time and again, Bilbo seemed to disappear from his own movie – just as he did the last one.
While it can be nice as a Tolkien fan to see Dol Guldur at extended length, or learn of the political machinations of Laketown, or even explore the deep forges of Erebor, I fear what’s lost is the power of the narrative that has, well, a hobbit as its narrative focus. In Peter Jackson’s trilogy, Bilbo often seems to be a mere afterthought. The Desolation of Smaug makes a great point, halfway through, to signpost that Bilbo is now a different hobbit, one more self-confident and courageous. But we have hardly spent enough time with him to see this transformation at work; it’s been swamped by 12 different hyperkinetic CGI action sequences (all impressive, to be sure), and half a dozen subplots, increasingly drawn more from Jackson’s imagination rather than other supplementary Tolkien material.
Jackson tries to do too much – and the movie suffers for it.
P.S. I do want to add that I second every word of Michael’s on Smaug: “Let’s talk about Smaug some more. I mean, damn that’s one fine film dragon. You just want to take him home and use him as a watch-dragon or something. Unfortunately, I think the sequence went a little too long and his terror was undermined by how the story played out.”
And that does seem to be the size of it. Fantastic dragon. But very disappointing movie. And even the magnificently realized Smaug can’t save it.
Who wouldn’t want a dragon, who talks with Benedict Cumberbatch’s voice? I’d gladly purchase a copy of ‘How To Train Your Dragon’ and take him in anytime, just for the fun of having brilliant conversations with him. He’d just have to get along with my body guard King Kong and my other dragon, Toothless, who is for cuddles.
It’s a mystery to me, how Peter Jackson could go so wrong. The first installment of the trilogy was fine, and the ingredients for a truly great movie were all there.I was prepared to defend Jackson against his critics, who did him often wrong IMO. I’m especially allergic against critics, who really haven’t done their home work, like the one, who claimed, there were no orcs in the book, so there shouldn’t be any in the movie. Well, the critters were called goblins in the book, but they sure were the same pest as the orcs in the LOTR books.But this time around, Peter Jackson really blew it. The greatest dragon in film history deserved a better movie.
I’m not sure if this was a well made film, and for the most part it is not a question of the success or otherwise of the adaptation of Tolkien’s world. I have severe reservations over the camera angles. The pre-title scene was utterly uninspiring. I am unsure about the the haphazard plot, and I did not enjoy aspects of the Necromancer. But Orlando was a lot better than I feared, as was Tauriel, and Bard, and Smaug. I think I take more positives from the film than you have, but you speak much sense (especially ref. Beorn), as always. I liked the first one more, I think.
However, my three friends with whom I saw this, the second film, loved the film. Seriously, loved it, more than the first. Adjectives used after included tense and funny. I cannot explain why this praise was enjoyed, but I am not a film critic.
I think this is more important than the ramblings of us clowns – certainly it is enough to make me reconsider my areas of distaste. For now, I remain an optimist, and far more displeasure will have to be inflicted upon me to rob me of that.
I completely agree with your assessment and would most likely agree with any specific criticisms you have of the film as well. Too many deviation, additions and alterations to what Tolkien wrote and implied. Also, Peter Jackson’s amusement park ride action sequences have soured me on him directing related to Tolkien in the future if that is ever possible.
The raft escape sequence specifically became a cartoonish escapade into nonsense that I was frankly embarrassed by.
Don’t even get me started in the Tauriel/Kili dynamic. That was awkward, awkward, awkward.
Peter Jackson blew it on a nearly Lucas-like level with this film. I look forward to the next interpretation of The Hobbit in 30ish years by someone else.
I think we are on the same page. I just submitted an egregiously verbose comment to this blog that is under review. I linger a bit on the Lucas/Jackson paradox: with success comes crap. Roll on Roland.
I’m really glad you pointed out the few positives here as well as the negative; Smaug was incredible, and the conversations between him and Bilbo had be on the edge of my seat. That being said, I was pretty bummed walking out of that film too. I knew there’d be divergences from the book, but Jackson went up the bend, around the corner, and about 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the original story, with no signs of turning back. It was certainly epic, but it kills me that kids being introduced to The Hobbit by this film will know so little of the actual text unless they really seek it out. The Hobbit is such a great story as is- I see no reason why Jackson, Walsh, Boyens and del Toro felt the need to abandon it so blatantly for their own re-imagining.
I think the film moved to fast through the scenes. I liked Tauriel and Beorn, to me Bard was made too much of an outlaw type to my tastes. I see him and Tauriel coming together in the next film unless Peter Jackson takes the dwarf and elf relationship further. I see more of a puppy love between the Kili and Tauriel and something more mature with Bard and Tauriel, however the Battle of Five armies might put Tauriel in a bind to protect the King Thranduil as Kili will protect Thorin at the end. Many surprises in store for next the Movie. I liked this more because more about the elves in it.
I am sorry Michael, we have a major disagreement.
As a fan of a the first film, I was still let down by the fact the pacing was very slow. I understand it was being faithfully to the book, but I felt at the same time, it could have been tighter with that same impact of faithfulness.
Seeing the second film, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this. I found the pacing to be tight and the plot to be actually easy to follow. I felt I got to know the dwarves more because we didn’t’ stop just to see them bouncing up and down. We got to know them with more sense of urgency. It was more clear now that Sauron was the man behind everything was preparing to march against lake town.
I actually felt that this was still Bilbo’s story. He was the one who discovered the keyhole, releases the dwarves, confronts smaug. I would also like to keep in mind, that these are the chapters of the book where Bilbo does sit out some parts. But we cannot just look into Bilbo’s perspective, we need to let other characters speak to let the story breathe, much like the lord of the rings films did.
I understand you are a student of Tolkien. But I do not think it is fair to use spy reports to judge the film, given that those can be very invalid we should judge the film on its own. Keep in mind, that this is the middle chapter of a film, so you are never going to get the same level of satisfaction or conclusion. Also, I think the reason why people were not clapping because it ended abruptly. So I would say that Jackson did a good job.
However, I realize that this is not The Hobbit that we know as children. This is the hobbit in context with the lord of the rings. We knew that coming into the film. In contrast to your opinion, I was glad we did not see the silly Radagast sled. We are at the point where the story is getting gradually darker. Jackson himself has stated several times that he is making more of Six part Middle-Earth film saga. So it is important to accept that, not that I am saying that you haven’t.
I understand that this is your viewing experience. It seems as though you have more positive things to say than negative.
Great Comments! Michael I fear I will agree with you even though I have not yet seen this film. I came away from the first film loathing so much alteration of Tolkien’s work, and I see this will be no different, yet it seems very seldom the case where a film can do justice to a book. I will be going to see the film, I will acknowledge that there are some things MR. Jackson portrays majestically, and others which make me cringe.
Thank you for your very enjoyable review, Mr. Martinez. I have always liked your analyses and have followed your writings on Middle-earth for a number of years. I have not yet seen the movie but I plan to do so regardless of any particular review. I use them to provide a point of reference and it helps a great deal to read them and remember the reviewer so that I will have context for any future reviews. I love Tolkien, but I realize that movies are never, ever the books one reads and one has to come to a movie for a different experience. You have provided some thoughts as to what I will be looking for. I saw the first movie in IMAX 3-D where I sat about 10 rows up, right in the center and was quite unimpressed with the presentation, although I liked the movie itself. I’ll be looking for a showing of the 48fps version if it’s available as I’m curious to see how that appears. Having read very positive reviews and very negative reviews of Part 2 has not changed my enthusiasm to see it. I’ll come back after that and give you my thoughts. Thank you again.
Count me in as one of those who enjoyed the first of the trilogy more than I expected but who hated this second film. I hope the third is better than the first.
I wish I hadn’t wasted my money on digital 3D HFR and just saw it on 2D instead.
I’ve enjoyed your writings on Tolkien but I am baffled by this review. How are we to evaluate your negative regard for The Desolation of Smaug if you refuse to tell us just what was it about the movie that so displeases you, and why you think it is “just a horrible movie that deserves to be forgotten as quickly as possible”?
I don’t think the plot really works. I think the characterizations are weak for the most part. And I am not happy with a lot of the directing. I just don’t want to go on ad nauseum about the things I don’t like.
The first movie was much better. It was better paced, provided better characterizations, and the directing was excellent. It’s almost like this movie was edited in response to the criticisms many people directed at the first movie. A lot of people complained about the length of the film but I feel it was necessary.
Peter should have stood his ground as an artistic director, if he really was trying to please more people this time around.
I am sorry but the pacing in the first film was not better. This is where we will disagree. The pacing of the first film was uneven. It moves slow for about two thirds and then picks up once the goblin tunnels are reached. I feel that being faithful to the book is different from creating a good movie. Things that were left in the theatrical cut in the first half of the film could have been left for the extended edition. These little scenes that go on longer than needed tests the patience of people not familiar with the book. In regards to the second film. I felt the characters gave more impact in this film because it was faster paced. The book is faster paced so I think the film should be faster paced. The film is not perfect but I feel Jackson is doing Tolkien a service in making it more accessible for the average audience. In making deviations to make the film entertaining, he is likely to bring more people interested in the books (those who have not read them). I also understand that you were not fond of Return of the King, which I consider to be the best of the trilogy. I understand your frustrations with the deviations but I feel that you should reconsider this film upon seeing it a second time or watching the extended film.
As opposed to the last film. I want to actually see this film a second time. The first film I only saw twice because I felt it was more of an obligation. In fact, I thought less of it the second time I saw it. Even if you are going to use material from Tolkien’s other writings, you have to realize that you are still taking a single book into three epic films. So the fast pacing is necessary to justify its existence.
Agree with you, Michael. I watched ‘Unexpected Journey’ for the second time recently, and it was the extended edition. I was amazed again, how much I liked that movie. The extensions were excellent and added important background information. Tastes differ wildly, but to me it’s a complete mystery, how the first movie was snubbed by many critics, while the second scored some rave reviews. If, as I think, too, Jackson reacted with his editing choices to the harsh reviews for the first movie, it doesn’t bode well for the final installment. I hope, artistic freedom rules. Even with his tendency to go overboard with theme park like action sequences, Peter Jackson can do so much better.
I’m not getting this review at all. First you enumerate lots of stuff which is great or at least ok. Then you end it with saying it’s a terribly bad movie. Huh? I give you credit for not dwelling on the negative parts because that is all most of the so-called fans seem to do and if you ask me it is more about making yourself feel superior than making a well-based judgement of the movie. As you do, but I would like you to explain more why you find it so terrible.
If anything, these movies ARE great because they give us so much to discuss! I think a work of art can be simply stunning and beautiful – or it can make you think, discover details, discuss what the writer/director/artist might have thought when he made it the way it is – and that certainly happens here!
So yes, I agree that there are certainly flaws in the storyline. But I would actually prefer to discuss those than just reading judgements like “this is a bad movie”, “the pacing is wrong” blahblah.
For example: A major flaw in the storyline is Bofur, Oin, Fili and the injured Kili turning up at Bard’s door saying “noone else will help them”. That’s a real mistake: The dwarves have just been cheered by the entire population of laketown and feasted by the Master (hence Bofur’s hangover). I’m pretty sure someone would have helped them. Only the scriptwriters needed them at Bard’s house for the story to go on.
Or the totally overlooked fact that a flirt between Kili and Tauriel has one major problem apart from all considerations concerning race, heritage etc: An immortal and a mortal (even if he has the long life span of a dwarf) have a real problem having a future for their relationship…
OR: Galadriel speaks to Gandalf in a telepathic way on the borders of Mirkwood. Why does he need to physically send Radagast off from Dol Guldur to summon her help then?
OR: is it a good idea that Gandalf ends up in that cage in Dol Guldur or is it just a boring repetition of Orthanc?
Thranduil and the woodland realm are great and there is a lot of character developement there, the dragon is great, Laketown is great, the portrayal of Bard is great if you ask me, there’s too little of Beorn but he’s great too, Stephen Fry is brilliant as the master (and I’m convinced we’ll see more of him in the 3rd movie), Thorin’s character is developped further in an interesting way, Bilbo’s character is developped further and IMHO brillantly so and close to the spirit of the book. The dragon scenes are long but not too long and I for my part liked the dwarves’ strategy for attacking the dragon because it is so dwarvish.
And so on. I’d say that makes at least an interesting and ok, if not totally great movie. IMHO all these points would make for an interesting discussion instead of a general negative judgement.
I did like the first movie better than the second,too. I’m probably more lenient because it IS the middle part of a trilogy and I believe that only as a trilogy everything will make complete sense.
I appreciate people’s frustration with my holding back on the review. I just don’t want to dwell on the negative stuff. Nor did I want to spoil the movie for people who had not yet seen it. Maybe in a few weeks I’ll write a more detailed review listing the points I don’t like.
Or perhaps instead of reviewing the movie I could just go into greater detail about what I think Peter was doing with certain points. Dr. Corey Olsen wrote a review for the Wall Street Journal in which he explained some of Peter’s connections to the books. It is true that some of the things for which Peter is criticized, especially by “purists”, are areas where he tries to stay true to the spirit of the books. I guess you could say he does that in a roundabout way.
And some people have been asking if Peter isn’t dipping into forbidden material, perhaps borrowing from books like Unfinished Tales. I hesitate to make such comparisons because that could lead to all sorts of lawsuits if too many people believe that is going on. I certainly could not prove they were using source material they are not allowed to use.
Right now I just don’t have much time for any Tolkien controversies.
thanks for your reply. I really look forward to reading your thoughts about what you think Peter Jackson ist doing!
Agree completely…it was almost mindless action for over two hours as the improbable kills and characters surfing on everything just would not stop. Why are there 5-10 scenes of characters surfing on something?
The molten gold and the “mold” were just ridiculous. Did the Dwarves even go down into Smaug’s lair in the book? Why add that?
This is by far the worst of the 5 Jackson Tolkien movies. Jackson has achieved the power of George Lucas…put anything you want on a screen and nobody questions it.
This movie is a Tolkien Theme Park and Legolas is Jackson’s Mickey Mouse.
Michael,
I enjoy your analysis. I think PJ & Co had the skills to do a respectable Tolkien adaptation, but they decided to make block busters, instead of art.
I sent a lengthy reaction to TH DOS to TheOneRing.Net, that few read. Perhaps I said too much 🙂 If you have the patience here’s it is:
*****************************************
Old Man Spoils “The Hobbit” Without Spoilers
“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is my favorite Peter Jackson Tolkien movie so far. What a relief! My Middle-earth schizophrenia is cured. The book worm is not at war with the movie slug. After seeing this latest installment of Bilbo’s tale I no longer ruminate on Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s works. The chasm separating the films and books is now too wide, the abyss too deep to consider bridging the gap. Perhaps the fact that I thought the movies were worthy of consideration is a testament to my respect for Jackson’s efforts.
Internet comments oft-suggest that Jackson’s films are a great boon to the Tolkien estate because they shine a light on Middle-earth, exposing it to millions who might otherwise have not heard of it. The implication being that Christopher Tolkien and other descendants should be thankful for what Jackson has done for them. The defense for this argument usually involves increased book sales. I disagree, not that more books are being purchased, but that this alone serves the Tolkien family legacy. Despite protests to the contrary Jackson did not save Middle-earth from oblivion. Tolkien’s books were already among the most beloved ever written, and it was by adapting them that Sir Jackson became a household name. It is Jackson & Company who should thank Tolkien for providing such a powerful vehicle for success. Perhaps they do. And as regards this boon I imagine J.R.R.Tolkien would be ambivalent. And the fact that his estate has not sold the film rights to “The Silmarillion” implies that profit is not their primary concern.
Having read much by and about Tolkien for four decades I believe he would be perplexed and frankly vexed by the crop of fan boys and girls that currently swoon over these films. Professor Tolkien obviously found appreciation gratifying, but the Middle-earth-obsessed oppressed him. The overzealous who called in the middle of the night or appeared at his home annoyed the Oxford don. I also think he would take offense at the lengthy dances of death scenes, especially in “The Hobbit” films. War and violence loomed large in his works, but he loathed them. I doubt Tolkien would find the choreographed slaughter of orcs as humorous as do modern audiences. I get it, but I find it discordant within the context of Bilbo’s early journeys. The body count game played by Gimli and Legolas at Helm’s Deep in “The Two Towers” has truly been blown out of proportion. I have hesitated to pull the money card when it comes to these films, but it seems they are appealing to the lucrative video gamer crowd over more serious fans of these works. I have heard that game revenues currently exceed those of the movie industry.
For many years I enjoyed Middle-earth without any animated or filmed adaptations. I have only recently become aware of the rare and peculiar foreign fare produced in the 1960s and 1970s. Those were blessed times indeed. Even as a youth I found the animated debacles an embarrassment. I saw Ralph Bakshi’s film when it appeared in theaters. It had some small merit, but essentially the animated “Hobbit” and LOTR films are of little worth when compared to reading the books.
For the record I am not a “purist;” I realize a book is not a film. Even an unabridged audio book is a form of passive absorption that significantly differs from actually reading a story. I tend to judge film adaptations by how well they replicate the experience of having read something, even if details are changed or eliminated — unless the film is purposefully intended to be a reinterpretation, like turning Shelley into “Young Frankenstein,” or Dick into “Blade Runner.”
When I heard that “The Fellowship of the Ring” was being filmed, my initial reaction was trepidation. I was interested but full of doubt. That the first live action LOTR movie by a major studio was not a catastrophe came as a surprise to me. I was impressed by this earnest attempt to convert Tolkien to film. In the beginning Jackson & Company seemed intent on being faithful to the source material. A great deal of money and Jackson’s reputation were at stake, and the mission was clearly to produce the best adaptation possible. It was obvious Jackson was a genuine fan, and for the principle participants it seemed a labor of love. In my opinion the result is laudable but significantly flawed. Some story changes make more sense than others.
I gradually developed what I called my love-hate relationship with the movies. I tried to enjoy the sweet bits and forgive the sour ones. I own the extended edition of the trilogy so I am not a hater per se. I thoroughly enjoy the special features and have nothing but admiration for the brilliant artists and craftsmen of the Weta Workshop, and of course Jackson’s work behind the scenes is extraordinary. I appreciate the appearance of these films, the landscapes, sets, costumes and effects, even some of the acting, but in most respects I feel my initial doubts were well-founded. He achieved the look, but not the substance. Jackson made a bold attempt to film the unfilmable. He exceeded my expectations, but fell short of my hopes.
At the very least a faithful adaptation should evoke similar cognitive responses. For instance a film about a funny book should be funny. As an example “The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling” by Henry Fielding is a long and complex novel, 800 pages give or take, and yet a wonderful movie version was produced with merely a two-hour run time. Although much of the plot was cut, the essence remained. I am truly a fan of both book and film. I would posit that “A Princess Bride” is another example of a film that differs from the book, but remains true to its form.
Rather than nit pick plot points, changes and omissions, problems of tone and characterization, I will boil it down to my fundamental problem with the LOTR films. As someone who has immersed himself in The Legendarium, one of the defining characteristics is its verisimilitude. Many fans like me can inhabit Middle-earth as a second home. We sense the grandeur and experience the charm, and for those that are as lucky as I am, there is what can only be described as belief. This is attributable to Tolkien’s singular literary achievement. A brilliantly strange work of imagination, wonderfully written, based on a life-long obsession, augmented by years of advanced study in among other things history and philology. I am of course biased, and am aware that many find his work unreadable. On the other hand, granting that there are some exceptional moments, my takeaways from the screen versions are gratuitous violence and cringe-worthy platitudes. And the over-the-top and protracted action sequences destroy any attempted illusion of actually being in Middle-earth. I know that sounds strange, but the films lose the reality so carefully crafted in the books.
The dearer a book is to someone the harder it is to appreciate the movie I suspect, but the shark has been so profoundly jumped in the “Desolation of Smaug” that any remaining emotional connection I have between the books and these films is severed. Ironically, that is a very good thing for me. I enjoyed the second Hobbit movie more than any of the others. I struggled to enjoy the LOTR trilogy and the first “Hobbit” film. The myriad flaws that I perceived in them weighed heavy on me, and I had to be of two minds to watch them. Part of me liked them, another did not. Now I can catch a glimpse of Middle-earth free from care.
In Jackson’s defense I think science fiction and fantasy books are the most difficult to adapt. Period pieces or modern dramas can mimic reality, whereas building imaginary worlds, based on more subjective realities, is a far greater challenge. I have heard it said that Tolkien’s landscapes are as much characters of his works as the folks that inhabit them. I will grant that the films get that right, but unfortunately there is more to the books than The Shire and Misty Mountains. And there is now the question of ever increasing plot and character deviations. I have read comments by others who question the amount of time spent creating new subplots and characters, rather than using that time and energy on the original story. I think the answer is they are doing that because they can.
As a boy I was a Star Wars fanatic. I was a repeat viewer when that meant going back to the theater a dozen times. A time before it was available on Betamax or LaserDisc. Alas, I remain as a witness to the release of the prequel trilogy. I’m afraid that like Lucas, Jackson has transformed from being a hungry innovator, to a Titan surrounded by sycophants. With success and the adulation of fans around the globe, they are both free to indulge their whims, spectacular as they may be. To my mind the more fun they have the less interesting their movies become. How the maker of “THX1138” could produce “The Phantom Menace” is a more bizarre tale than the science fiction depicted in the films themselves. Jackson’s global popularity enabled him to romp through Middle-earth in “The Hobbit(s)” instead of striving for something more significant. Yea, what Tolkien needed was a hot she-elf kickin’ orc arse! Just like Shakespeare needed Hamlet wielding a machine gun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z9Ismh1elM). Arnold at his best. Too bad Peter didn’t do a parody like The Harvard Lampoon’s “Bored of the Rings,” that I could have taken seriously! I think the legacy of Lucas and Jackson will be the advancement of film technology, not great film making.
I look forward to the final installment of “The Hobbit,” but part of me wishes that there were no Tolkien films. The books are what count for me. I have a warm spot in my heart for Sir Peter Jackson, but there is also a blot in the pit of my stomach that thinks the films resemble Ungoliant, a bloated monstrosity that grew fat by sucking the light out of Middle-earth.