Were there things that bothered me? Absolutely, although the spinning shots in a couple of places would not have been so bad if I had not been dizzy. No, what bothered me were the kind of minutiae that no one else should care about. It’s not worth raking the movie over the coals just because Peter Jackson and his team didn’t do the movie the way I think I would want to.
What struck me most as I left the theater was that they had done a superb job of showing how Bard earns his crown. To a lesser extent Dain earns his crown too, but it’s just a darn shame they cut Billy Connolly’s part short. Not that I want to complain, but a hugely important section of the story was omitted from the very end. The poor fans of Middle-earth who don’t pay attention to the minutiae of the book will never know about a dozen things (although I suspect they will cover some of these points in the Inevitable Edit–I mean, the Extended Edition Director’s Supreme Final Money-making Cut).
When we left off at the end of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” (a truly horrible movie in my opinion), the gold-soaked dragon — having been foiled in his attempt to eat 13 Dwarves (you have to wonder how he conquered the Kingdom Under the Mountain to begin with) — flew off to punish the people of Lake-town for sending those irksome dwarves his way. Oh, the price we pay for disturbing a sleeping dragon!
Well, the opening to “The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies” is interesting enough. Everyone gets to see their favorite dragon meet a suitable end. He actually is a mean dragon after all. Right up until Bard does the deed. Smaug dies an ignoble death for a dragon in the finest tradition that even a Tolkien should love (although it doesn’t happen quite the way it goes in the book, but who is counting?).
One of the things I really enjoyed about the dragon sequence was seeing Bard’s son Bain. That’s all I will say. Yes, including the character is a departure from the book. Let’s move on.
Inside the impossibly huge Erebor with its impossibly huge pile of gold (yes, it’s a fantasy movie, but there is more gold in Erebor than has been mined in all of human history — did I say I would not dwell on the minutiae? Shame on me) Thorin and Company go back to being characters rather than ducks in a shooting gallery. Sadly, there is not enough time for all the dwarves to show their characters but I really enjoyed Richard Armitage’s performance.
To say that Thorin’s obsession with treasure was a little over the top is not an understatement, but my only complaint about this part of the story is that there was inadequate follow-through. The film touches on some of Tolkien’s more interesting ideas about dragons and gold but it may spend a little too much time on the touching and not enough on the resolving. But Richard Armitage shines as Thorin again because finally he has a chance to show some damned emotion (as do Balin and Dwalin — you gotta love those brothers).
And despite my greatest fear (that Bilbo would be lost in his own movie) there was plenty of Martin Freeman to go around. It does not make up for the sad story-telling in the second movie (which deprived Bilbo of the full glory he was due for the sake of the barrel-ride from Utumno) but every scene with Bilbo is packed with emotion, meaning, and even a little bit of foreshadowing. Gosh-darn it, Peter Jackson has finally mastered the style of foreshadowing that doesn’t give everything away.
I recall people complaining about the obvious foreshadowing in the “Lord of the Rings” movies, and we need not revisit old battlefields well grown-over by now. But the subtlety in these little flickers of the imagination just really impressed me. Were they in the book? No, but I don’t think that matters. Of course, I think everyone understood what was being foreshadowed most of the time because much of it looks ahead (back) to “The Lord of the Rings” movies.
Alas! Middle-earth’s history becomes even more mangled than before. The method by which all the armies are brought together (which serves two purposes) really did not demand a history lesson from Legolas. The strange, twisted history of Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth really makes no sense. They should have stayed with the history in the books. It’s not like they would have been obligated to film it all through these six movies. The history was an unpleasant distraction for me because I know it just doesn’t work.
Watch the wiki sites. They will dress up the history of Angmar with undisclaimed stuff right out of the movies. People will be mocking and ridiculing Angmar historians for decades to come.
And then there are the female characters. The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Callia interviewed me about the female characters in the movie. As so often happens with media stories, he and I said far more to each other than could be included in the final article (that is just the way it works). He asked me what I thought of Tauriel and I told him I didn’t really have a problem with her being in the film story. No, she’s not Tolkien’s character but this is not Tolkien’s movie (which is probably why so many Tolkien purists are offended by these movies).
Except for the touch of romance, Tauriel’s relationship with Kili is not that much different from Galadriel’s relationship with Gimli; why people have to be upset over the Tauriel-Kili thing, I don’t know. You all sound like Thingol staring down angrily at Beren when he asks for Luthien’s hand. And it’s a good thing the Elf king didn’t have his way with that interracial relationship, isn’t it?
Our discussion about the other female character did not “make the cut” in the final article. It was, I thought, the more interesting part of the character. I cannot say much about Tauriel other than that she is not in the book; but Mr. Callia asked if I thought Galadriel should have been included in the movie.
“Frankly,” I said, “I would have been upset if she were NOT in the movie.”
But there appear to be people who think Galadriel was made to look too powerful. Personally, I don’t think so. If anything, I think she should have been more powerful than they portrayed her. Yes, Galadriel in “The Hobbit” is too weak. She needs more cow bell, or something.
The thing about Galadriel is that by the end of the Third Age she is incredibly powerful. She is ancient, one of the relatively few Noldor remaining in Middle-earth who had been born in Valinor, and she was Melian’s disciple. So, believe me, Galadriel is not anywhere near over the top. She’s not perfect, but she’s far more believable (to me) from a Tolkien purist point of view than I think most people realize.
I love Radagast. Wish there had been more screen time with him (although I hope they edit out the bird poop in some future edition).
Orlando Bloom is his usual superb athletic self. They really did give Leggy too much screen time but I say that only because most of what Peter Jackson does with Legolas is fling him around like pizza dough that just thins out farther and farther from the center. How many more stunts can this guy do in the movies?
What is really cool about Orlando Bloom (as an actor) is that he can take just about any banal line and make it sound like he just walked off the street and asked for a menu. I mean, everything he says comes out sounding fluid and natural, and not just in the movies where he plays an elf. His delivery is very studied and he just handles the dialog as if he talks that way every day. That’s damn fine acting, sir. Damn fine acting.
Sir Ian McKellen does not disappoint. He is, unfortunately, underused in several of his scenes. But I understand why they did that. The story needed to explain something that J.R.R. Tolkien never explained. The one scene for which there is absolutely no detail provided in any Tolkien book is the White Counil’s battle with Sauron. Dol Guldur disappoints me in oh-so-many ways in these movies, but it works within the context. Sauron is pretty cool, too. He’s more of a character in his fleeting few seconds of “The Hobbit” than he was in the “Lord of the Rings” movies (which is not a dig at Peter because he wasn’t much of a character in the books, either).
Gandalf is almost completely relegated to deus ex machina in this movie. I’m not sure that could have been done any other way. He is, by the time he reaches Dale in the book, essentially just a binding agent (a kind of deus ex machina). There are three really good Gandalf scenes, one of which is right out of the book. I swear, you can give Ian McKellen a grape to work with and he’ll hand back a full bottle of wine. Those few moments he has when he is actually allowed to act remind me of just how disappointed I was when he did not win an academy award for his performance as Gandalf in “The Fellowship of the Ring”. Hollywood, you can be so cruel and stupid.
And about Bard and Dain. These are two very dissimilar characters who should have come together on-screen, but I never see them together. Each has his own story and the movie almost shows them. Both characters were cheated, although Bard gets a lot of screen time. What I liked about Bard in this movie (in addition to his slaying of the dragon) is that he has a soul, he has some passion. He cares about something. In the book Bard is kind of a cardboard character with really very little to do except show up at the right moments to do some dering-do. Luke Evans’ only downside in this movie was the fact that Bard had to deal with Alfrid.
Why on Earth did they include such an insipid character in the movie? He really contributed nothing to the story. His job was done in the second movie (which deviated from the book so much I dare not recall the details). I guess they really love their pantomime in New Zealand, but if it had been me I would have brought in Michael Hurst as Edith Longbottom.
Poor Billy Connolly gets off to a great start. He’s really an incredible actor with more energy than a four-year run of Meerkat Manor, but he just gets rolling and then …
We move on to the climactic scenes with Thorin, Fili, Kili, and Bilbo. It’s very different from the book but there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. I mean you could feel the audience’s pain when Thorin’s family makes their last stand. You really want to hate those orcs. This was, without a doubt, the best part of the movie. Seriously, if you’re going to abandon Tolkien and start telling your own story you might as well just tell the best damn story you can.
Despite some reservations I had going in I thought the movie was mostly well-done. It has been two years since I reviewed “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and I remain convinced that it was the best of the three films. That is how I have always felt about “The Fellowship of the Ring”. It was the best of the three “Lord of the Rings” movies.
Both these films were more faithful to the source material than their sequels, and that was inevitable simply because it takes time for the absence of important characters (like Bombadil) and events (like the three encounters with the Wood-elves in the forest) to be felt in the movie. Where Bombadil’s absence hurt most was in:
- Aragorn’s inexplicable ability to arm four hobbits at Weathertop
- Merry and Pippin’s rapid acclimitization to the world of the Ents
- The absence of that rich, detailed history of Eriador in all six movies
Where the dwarves’ disruptions of the elvish partying in the forest hurts is in the ridiculously artificial elf-dwarf conflict that plays out in this film. There is one touching scene where Lee Pace (Thranduil) looks down at some of his fallen people and I can imagine him seeing them laughing and singing in the forest, exactly as Tolkien pictured them in the book.
It’s a poignant moment of loss, the meaning of which is probably lost on many people in the audience, because it gives Thranduil’s pride in his own immortality a different context. His arrogance vanishes quickly and this is a turning point for him in the story, but it is not well-written. Pace plays stern, aggressive characters very well but I think he could have handled a kindler, gentler Thranduil just fine.
Maybe the best Thranduil scene unfolds in Dale where he meets with Bard, Gandalf, and Bilbo. This is very closely styled on the scene in the book and was well done. There was just one minor detail about Thranduil and Gandalf that — but we won’t dwell on that.
Overall “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” does well. It delivers on the promise of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and you can almost forget about the travesty of the middle movie. Seriously, you could almost watch the first and third movie back-to-back and not miss much because there was just nothing for the dwarven characters to do in “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” except look like cute little teddy bears on a long barrel ride from Utumno. With “The Battle of the Five Armies” we get our thirteen interesting dwarves back and their final scene is quite touching.
The story is almost as much about how Bard earns his crown as it is about how Bilbo completes his quest (and sets into motion other things that play out in “The Lord of the Rings”). But we don’t get to see enough Bard and Dain. In fact, if I had to share just one complaint about this movie then it would be that it is too short. There was more story to tell and I think it should have been told.
But this is what happens when film-makers listen to the silly complaints of their audiences. The book is short but the story is not and the fact they keep cutting details from the story only makes it harder to understand why people complain about all the “padding”. Except for the barrel ride from Utumno it’s not like there was a lot of padding (well, some of the Lake-town stuff was padding but it was at least justifiable for the sake of allowing the audience to get to know the people).
I hope to see this movie in the theater again, although next time it won’t be in 3-D. I really wish they would give up on that technology. It spoils the movie.
See also:
- Why Are Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel in The Hobbit?
- How is Thranduil Different from the Book?
- Why Did Thranduil Refuse to Help the Dwarves of Erebor?
- Is Tauriel in the Book, the Hobbit?
- Why Did Peter Jackson Change Azog from the Book?
- How Many Soldiers Fought in the Battle of Five Armies?
You actually make me want to see it! Well done! 🙂
Brilliant! Basically exactly what I thought the movie 🙂 except I would not be able to put it so eloquently as you did. Don’t hate on the 3D too much, I am generally not a fan of the 3d or HFR but I saw it at the IMAX and thought it was the most incredible thing I had ever seen. After 10 minutes I didn’t even notice it, it became apart of the movie. You must remember that one of Peter Jackson’s objectives with the movies that he makes is to push the bounds of cinema technology, and it is exactly what he has done. It may not be for everyone, but it definitely doesn’t spoil it for everyone, nor will it be given up.
I saw it last weekend and I’m a little less inclined to be kind than you were, but despite that I’ve been willing to give it another chance next weekend.
The problem as I see it is that PJ has this incredibly bad habit of cutting important material from the books and then introducing his own (inferior) material to make up the length. To this day I’m convinced that the theatrical cut of DoS would have and should have been the best of the three if we had gotten more Beorn, more Mirkwood and the Thrain material in Dol Guldur in exchange for removing or reducing the barrel ride, the Orc attack on Lake-town and the 20 minutes of draconic slapstick at the end.
In the commentary on the EE of DoS both Jackson and Walsh freely admit that when they went from two movies to three most of that movie had to be pretty much pulled out of their asses, and it shows, but that’s no excuse for the butchery that they ended up doing.
This one was at least better than that.
Having watched all three movies now, I’d have to say I agree with your entire comment here – quite emphatically.
And the seams don’t work as well in three movies. It was somewhat deflating to see the drama of Smaug’s imolation of Laketown and his sudden, unlikely death at the hands of Bard reduced to a prologue in this final movie. In a two movie set, that would be avoided, with that sequence moved deeper into the second movie. THE HOBBIT is fundamentally a story about a Hobbit on an unlikely quest to help defeat a dragon. As Jackson films the story, both the Hobbit and the Dragon get moved to almost secondary roles.
Better yet, however, would have been to lens THE HOBBIT as one movie, which was the original intention, and drop other material and stories into another movie or perhaps some other media (like a mini-series). As Gullermo del Toro once observed, “The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial ‘break point’.” Gullermo’s assessment seems borne out to me by the way the trilogy turned out.
I’m with you re being disappointed that the destruction of Laketown was reduced to the status of a prologue. I’ve been looking forward to that for 2 years, since I was involved in the filming of those scenes (I’m a Laketowner in films 2 & 3).
It’s good to see you enjoyed the film. I still don’t get your hatred for Part Two, I found that immensely superior to the first film. The plot decisions are easy to understand and the barre chase was there for good fun. It is no different than adding a wary chase against the Rohirrim on the way to Helms deep, which wasn’t in the book in the first place. I also don’t understand yor dislike for Dol Guldur, I found the depiction to be perfect. It’s supposed to be this vile, awful crumbled fortress. The fact is that nobody will be pleased no matter what Jackson does. It’s a shame because he’s the only film maker who could bring Tolkeins words into a vivid experience at th movies that has encouraged groups of all agthe s to read Tolkein.
Why do some people hate cats? The first movie made sense to me. It followed the book relatively closely, built up a lot of good character development, and was an interesting story. The second movie featured a bunch of actors running around the landscape for no apparent reason. And even Peter Jackson has admitted that it was “fluffed up”.
As for Dol Guldur, they depicted it as an ancient ruin. In the books it was an ancient but occupied and usable fortress. Why did they have to make it a ruin? why couldn’t it be a real fortress?
For that matter, why did they have to invent all the nonsense about the Men of the North burying the Nazgul? Why did they have to rewrite Middle-earth’s history? It’s not like they were advancing the story any.
I think other film-makers could have done about as well as Peter Jackson. They would all face the same challenges and they would all make compromises. I don’t have a problem with compromises in general. I just have a problem with bad film-making and Peter skimped on “The Desolation of Smaug”. It’s just a really bad movie.
Sorry Michael, but for me, the first film did feel padded out. While the fist 45 minutes does establish the characters, it has slow and uneven pacing. Screenwriting teaches you to enter a scene as late as possible and leave as soon as possible. The first film did not do that. In part two, there was a sense of urgency with the film. They go from one place to another but that’s in the book as well. We slowly see bilbo being attached by the ring and its effects, which subtley influences Smaug and Thorin
As for Dol Guldur, you’ve always said an adaptation is an adaptation and words don’t always translate well to screen. It’s in the same league as fell beasts looking more like dragons than birds. Is it really that big of a deal?
As far as the ring wraiths, I think the writers are working with what’s been established in the trilogy. You may not agree with my explanation of the nazgul but I think the tombs were there to make the rise of Sauron a bigger impact. To explain further, the nazgul were hanging arojnd during the time of Bilbo in the appendices. Within the context of the ring though, you’d have to explain why they don’t come after Bilbo the more he puts it on. The nazgul being at dol guldur makes sense because they are close servants to Sauron so it make sense that they’d be at his side, similar to the Red Guards being close to Palpatine.
The lake town stuff in part two I felt was well handled. I believe they made it a sort of fascist environment to make an obstacle for Bard as he transforms into the lord of Dale. And the filmmakers have stated it was their intention to make the story gradually darker.
I don’t agree with everything that Jackson has done with the hobbit. Azog, for example I feel IS an unnecessary deviation. Bolg works fine as Thorins nemesis and there’s no need for Azog to be kept alive. His character comes off as one note and out of a video game made for World of Warcraft. His motivation of a revenge story is hard to sustain over three films because the stakes aren’t that high.
Please don’t judge me for liking part two more. Saying that the film fails because it doesn’t do what you feel it should do is not a valid statement.
I understand if you are not on board with Jackson but I feel like a lesser filmmaker would’ve done the film injustice. When you watch the behind the scenes you can see the love that Jackson and his team have for Tolkien. You can’t please everyone after having high expectations coming off of the trilogy
By the way, Dogs are just better companions than cats.
Jackson also admitted the Film Two was a better film. Part One is just as fluffed up. For example, the Radagast chase that didn’t happen or the fight between Azog and Thorin. The second film does deviate moreso I agree but I felt the film made the characters more engaging. They aren’t just sitting around, they’re out through obstacles.
Yes another filmmaker could’ve done a decent job but can we imagine another cinematic world of middle earth at this point? To me that’s a sign of excellence.
I don’t think Smaug is a bad film so of course I will find value in it. I don’t think the hobbit needed to be three films. There are certainly questionable choices but there is also great filmmaking( Smaug and Bilbo, mirk wood spiders
“You may not agree with my explanation of the nazgul but I think the tombs were there to make the rise of Sauron a bigger impact.”
I agree that the tombs were there to give the rise of Sauron a greater impact. However, in the published books Sauron has already been around for thousands of years. Tolkien did not have him “rise” and return suddenly, except in that he returned to Mordor and openly proclaimed himself after his true identity had already been discerned by the Wise.
This is just one of many examples of how the writers changed the history of Middle-earth in ways that I just don’t see add to the story-telling. It would have been a much more emotional story in my opinion if the heroes finally came to a resolution of a thousands-of-years conflict than to just beat the most recent bad guy to show up.
In the books everyone had to live under the threat of Sauron’s shadow for two thousand years. They didn’t know who he was at first but he gradually eroded away the old friendships and alliances. So the relief expressed by the people of Gondor and the Elves at Sauron’s eventually downfall strikes me as being much more convincing. They had literally grown up in his shadow and knew nothing else but the looming threat of his eventual victory over all of Middle-earth. They really had no hope.
Michael, in principle I agree with you. But most movie goers are not that well versed with Middle Earth history. For them there wouldn’t have been the emotional impact you describe. Since Sauron’s action radius is still pretty much limited to Dol Guldur, the presence of the ring wraiths, who seem to be more mobile even without riding horses or winged Nessies, drives the threat home more powerfully for the casual viewer, IMO. My chief complaint is, as my son pointed out to me, that The Nine are far too powerful already. That diminishes the ring wraiths as depicted in FOTR, who seem to be less powerful and more relying on their evil aura and stealth. The way Sauron and his servants are shown in the Hobbit trilogy, it’s completely unfathomable how Gandalf can be so casual about Bilbo’s ring, which he only starts to investigate many decades later.
Another major quibble I have, is that Galadriel actually uses her ring in Dol Guldur against Sauron. Since Tolkien explicitly stated, that they were never used against Sauron and have always been hidden away, thus remaining unsullied, Galadriel’s open show of ring power goes against the grain of what the three unspoilt rings are supposed to be and why according to Tolkien they shouldn’t be used against the Dark Lord. But the majority of movie goers won’t see anything wrong with Galadriel using the ring.
I agree with Sab, you can’t fit everything be it one film or two films. They made similar history changes in the Lotr films. For example, the time between gandalfs departure and return to the shire is shortened to a few days? That is one example of many. On the other hand, the question of why the writers changed it is best answered in that perhaps they felt it would be simpler or be better dramatically “this way.” As Corey Olsen said, you may not agree with it but it doesn’t mean that they don’t have a good reason. Now I agree that some changes are indeed questionable but Jackson and his writers usually have a good reason to make the change. It’s inevitable that fans of be it Tolkien or Star Wars get possessive of what WE think it should be or want it to be. Game of Thrones faces similar issues. You can’t please everyone no matter what you do.
“Why did they have to make it a ruin? why couldn’t it be a real fortress?”
Undoubtedly because ruins are more romantic and visually dramatic than usable fortresses, especially when you have John Howe and Alan Lee able to crank out striking fantasy calendar renderings at will.
Jackon’s movies are at their strongest in visualizations, which are generally more faithful to (indeed, occasionally even improving upon) source material than his narrative and characters. But the visualization of Dol Guldur is one of the rare instances where he has a misfire.
The problem here is that the Warg chase on the way to Helm’s Deep is another one of those “cut important material from the books and introduce own inferior material” cases I mentioned above. It’s a pointless action sequence that has no bearing whatsoever on the overall story (no, the “adventures” comprising the first half of the Hobbit are different as they show development of Bilbo’s character). The whole conceit of Aragorn falling off a cliff and then coming back has no purpose even in the framework of the movie: “boo-hoo he’s dead, yayy he’s alive, OK let’s move on as if that didn’t even happen then”.
I take serious issue with the statement that Jackson is the only film-maker who could have done these. He’s certainly the only one who could have done Jackson’s own take on them, but there are plenty of other good film-makers (and yes, I’m admitting that Jackson is a good film-maker: Brain Dead, Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles were awesome).
Actually, I thought that the Warg chase in Two Towers was one of the instances where a Jacksonian invention actually worked on some level – certainly it was very well staged and visualized (the build up, and the slow-motion of the final approach of each force, were well crafted), and it was an acceptable way to ratchet up the sense of threat that Saruman’s armies posed to Rohan and the refugees of Edoras.
(Of course, Jackson then stomps all over what advantage he gained from the new sequence by perfectly reversing Theoden’s and Gandalf’s positions on whether to fight or hole up in reaction to Saruman’s invasion – it doesn’t even make sense in terms of narrative or what we’ve been told about the character of Theoden and the Rohirrim. It is as if Jackson does not trust his audience to integrate Gandalf urging prudence in the face of overwhelming force with his main role of inspiriting the forces of the West.)
Otherwise, however, too often the new side stories and sequences don’t work in Jackson’s movies – not because they deviate from the book, but because they make the movies less effective as *movies,* detracting from narrative focus, pacing, and even characterization.
Agree with you here. The only complaint I have about the warg chase is, that the wargs don’t look very convincing and they move kinda jumpy and jerky. The wargs in the Hobbit trilogy are immensely improved. And Aragorn going MIA for a while was introduced IMO not for the emotional reactions of the audience (I think nobody who sees someone falling over a cliff in a film without the impact being shown believes that person to be dead, especially if it is one of the main characters in the middle of the second part of a trilogy). I think this plot device was introduced not only for giving the audience an exciting action scene but also for highlighting Aragorn’s attachment to Arwen and Eowin’s love for Aragorn, as shown by her reaction when she learns about his death and later when he comes back unharmed. It works quite well IMO.
However that also touches your other complaint: that Jackson’s self invented side-plots often don’t work very well, not because they deviate from the source material, but because they interrupt the flow of the movie. I would go further : they often don’t work and feel disruptive because Jackson doesn’t develop them properly. That’s why they feel out of place. Eowin’s story is a good example. In this case it isn’t even invented but only highlighted by Aragorn going missing for a while. And it’s an important side story because it leads to Eowin’s suicidal ride into the battle where she’s destined to kill none other than the witch king of Angmar. After that Jackson just forgets about her and her hopeless love for Aragorn, which he had highlighted with the invented warg rider episode. And he leaves out one of the most beautiful love stories Tolkien has ever written: the developing love between Eowin and Faramir in the house of healing. Even in the ext. edition he deals with it only in a very clipped form. If I have a complaint about the Tauriel/Kili thing, it’s not my objection to an invented story line or to a love story between a dwarf and an elf. I feel it’s disruptive and not credible because it was never developed properly. The audience has no chance to invest emotions into this love story. Same with the back story of Thranduil Jackson started to hint at in DOS. He intrigues us and then more or less drops it in the final movie. What about this white gem necklace, which led him to some pretty bad decision making? Did he retrieve it and why was it so important to him? Phillippa Boyens apparently said it belonged to Thranduil’dead wife. That would somewhat explain his cryptic remark to Legolas that his mother loved him. But we don’t get any further explanations. None. And it doesn’t make sense without more information. And that’s why it doesn’t work, feels disruptive and a bit corny. If Jackson goes out on a limb with a new story line he should develop it properly. Otherwise it doesn’t work and feels shoved in. He introduces invented plot lines but then goes only half throttle, as if he doesn’t have the heart to follow through properly. There’s a time problem of course. But if he would shorten or drop just a few CGI action sequences like the stone giants fight, the barrel ride or the dragon gilding there would be plenty of time to integrate invented and original side plots properly.
It is, as I said below, a script and editing problem.
“…but also for highlighting Aragorn’s attachment to Arwen and Eowin’s love for Aragorn”
Oh, I think it’s quite clear that it was another attempt by Jackson/Fran/Philippa to work Arwen into the movie at every possible opportunity. No doubt about it.
It’s a toughie; To give their wedding emotional power, the relationship has to be fleshed out, and it simply isn’t in Tolkien’s narrative. And there are only so many opportunities to do so, short of dropping Arwen into the Fellowship (something Jackson actually experimented with). So, aside from dropping her in for Glorfindel, we’re left with only cutaways, flashbacks, or dream sequences. Most of them not terribly satisfying, but I am not without sympathy for Jackson’s dilemma in working in a relationship Tolkien entirely restricted to an appendix.
As for Eowyn: “After that Jackson just forgets about her.” This *was* a failing of the theatrical cut. And if I could include only one thing from the Extended Edition of ROTK, it would be the two post-battle scenes with Eowyn and Faramir – “The Houses of Healing,” and “The Captain and the White Lady.” The characters of Eowyn and Faramir are built up too much to give up on giving their characters closure; they also accent Aragorn’s role. It’s only an extra few minutes, and if necessary you can purchase them through trimming back battle sequences. Unlike you, I am still inclined to think these scenes answer that need adequately, however.
One the whole, the script and editing problems were not too much of a problem in LOTR, though they’re there. In THE HOBBIT, however, they’re all over the place.
Richard, did Jackson really contemplate to include Arwen into the Fellowship? What a terrible idea! Good that we were spared!
I agree that the editing problems weren’t that aggravating in the LOTR movies, but, as you say the theatrical audience really deserved closure for Eowin and Faramir, especially since Eowin’s character is emotionally so well defined in the film – and then she’s last seen smiling happily besides Faramir at Aragorn’s and Arwen’s wedding, which doesn’t make any sense if you don’t know the book. I have to watch the ext. edition again. I don’t recall everything clearly, I only remember being still dissatisfied, because it’s the one love story Tolkien created which really had an emotional impact for me. But others would’ve greatly preferred Sarumans demise in the Shire by Wormtongue. While the end in the Shire is very important for the book I have some sympathy for Peter Jackson here. It would’ve been very difficult to include it without being anticlimactic after all the emotional scenes in Gondor. Jackson was already accused of having too many endings for ROTK – unjustly as I think. And it seems to have affected his handling of the last Hobbit movie.
Re: Eowin and Faramir and difference in perception on how it was handled in the ext. edition, I might actually have never seen the full ext. edition, since there are 13 extra minutes on blue-ray. I’ve only seen the first ext. edition. When we talk about maddening cash grabs – it certainly was around long before the Hobbit trilogy.
Peter Jackson is a maddening director.
On the plus side, he has given us a grand and coherent visualization of Middle Earth. Some of his casting decisions were pure genius. I cannot imagine a more perfect Gandalf or Bilbo. Aragorn, Galadriel, Saruman are great. Legolas and Thranduil are wonderful elves.With CGI and the magnificent Andy Serkis I rank Gollum as one of Jackson’s greatest and most important achievements. Again CGI plus Benedict Cumberbatch’s input and voice added up to the best – if slightly misused – dragon in film history.
Those are no mean feats and it remains debatable if another director would’ve been able to pull it off differently but just as good. We will never know…
Peter Jackson’s weak points are: Script and editing problems througout all six movies (IMO the first installments of each trilogy are least defective), an obsession with too long action sequences and CGI at the expense of more character development or coherent story telling and a penchant to run off with invented plot lines, which don’t do anything for the overall story and take up valuable screen time. Although I have to say that not all deviations from the books are bad IMO. I like Thorin’s character as invented by Peter Jackson. I like Thranduil’s fleshed out character. Bard is a wonderful and much more interesting character than in the book. I’m even good with the presence of Tauriel and her love for Kili. But that subplot underlines another problem with Peter Jackson’s movies: his tendency to build up intriguing story lines which remain underdeveloped and/or unresolved. Tauriel and Kili simply have too little screen time together to make this love story believable (and if you go for such a thing at all you should do it right – or leave it). Thranduil’s back story and motivations are hinted at in DOS, but nothing gets really resolved in the last movie. I really got the feeling that PJ had much more in mind here but choose to drop it for whatever reason.
And that brings us to PJ and his critics. IMO he’s never getting praised or condemned for that matter for the right reasons. And he seems to overreact to (just and unjust) criticism by making bad editorial choices. As one poster at theoneringnet wrote: Somewhere buried in this heap of material PJ created for this trilogy there is a really, really good movie version of Tolkien’s book. The editors just didn’t find it. Why that’s so I can’t say. P J’s editing choices were always debatable but something has gone seriously wrong with this trilogy – and I agree with Michael: it’s not the fact that it was made as a trilogy. The Hobbit is a slim book but the story line is densely packed especially if you treat it as a prequel to LOTR. As Tolkien has done himself. Nothing wrong there.
All that considered I didn’t expect to enjoy the last movie but I actually did, while I’m fully aware of the film’s flaws. I agree with most of Michael’s assessments. He said it all.
Go by all means and watch the film. It’s well worth it. And it probably will be our last theatrical outing to Middle Earth… or will it? Am I the only one who detected a huge opening for more movies set in Middle Earth, though not necessarily by Peter Jackson and more in the way of fan fiction. I won’t elaborate right now because I don’t want to spoil, but some of the plot decisions make me think that they wanted to keep the door open for another outing to Middle Earth. 😉
Peter Jackson and his critics: a loaded chapter.
I think many critics don’t assess him fairly, one way or another. And I’m not just talking about the Middle Earth movies. His remake of King Kong and the critical reaction reflects this in a nutshell. I wrote above, I feel, Jackson very often got praised as well as criticized for the wrong reasons. And that affected his future choices -not in a good way.
What are the reasons for this IMO strange history of critical reception? Well, part of it is of PJ’s own doing. He habitually accumulates heaps of material which could be edited into great movies, but the editing is often poor and action/CGI heavy, thus giving his ALWAYS great actors too little screen time to develop their characters and the story line. For many critics that’s a deal breaker. For them it ruins the film and theater going experience. His widely condemned ‘King Kong’ is a good example. I for one cannot understand how anyone can say with a straight face that the original Merian Cooper movie is better. Have they seen it lately? It’s terribly dated, the special effects look ridiculous nowadays, the actors are mediocre and at times it’s racist and sexist. Of course it has an iconic and influential place in film history, but for my modern views it just doesn’t punch anymore. Now, IMHO PJ’s version has a great story line, wonderful actors, is emotionally engaging and technically awesome – all ingredients for a great movie…. if there wasn’t that overindulgences into wild chases, one CGI creature after another, more chases with more creatures, and so on. I loved the film anyway. Andy Serkis’ Kong couldn’t be more perfect, but for many movie goers and critics these wonderful scenes are drowned in the action/GGI stuff and they can’t get over it. And, while the movie is one of my all time favorites I also skip many action sequences where Kong isn’t present because they bore me. I think this movie would’ve gotten a much better critical reception if the film had been quite a bit shorter and better edited.
Another problem with the critical reception of PJ’s movies is the fact that he dared to tackle iconic material with cult status. That is notoriously difficult to handle, because there will be always people who will dislike it – no matter how the movie is done – just because it doesn’t meet their special expectations. And a vocal minority will always claim that it was silly to do the movie in the first place. That happened with ‘King Kong’, where many fans and critics felt for sentimental reasons that trying to best Merian Cooper was a sacrilege. A minority of Tolkien fans felt the same way with LOTR and later the Hobbit adaptation. Early this year Viggo Mortensen did an interview for the Telegraph which was very interesting. While he was very critical of PJ’s overuse of action/CGI effects then and now, he pointed out how lucky we were, that PJ got so many things right in FOTR and that it was so well received overall. He said the whole movie making process was a mess, many scenes of the latter parts hadn’t even been shot, when the first movie hit the theaters. The whole thing would’ve gone straight to DVD if they hadn’t made so much money with FOTR. And while this movie also had it’s share of die hard purist critics it was overall well received even by the fans of the book.
These days the LOTR trilogy acquired an iconic cult status in it’s own right. So, when PJ tackled the Hobbit he was not only up against purist Tolkien fans but against die hard fans of his earlier LOTR trilogy. And since the book has a VERY different flavor than the LOTR books with a different group of fans (for many the book is a cherished childhood memory and they belong to a very different group of readers than the fantasy lovers who dig the darker and more grown up LOTR books. Tolkien himself was quite aware of this problem), PJ was in a precarious postion as soon as the project was announced. There was simply no way to please everybody: the different fan groups of the books, the fans of the first trilogy and the casual blockbuster movie goers. Of course the trilogy was bound to make heaps of money, since the latter two groups – no matter how much they grumbled – would certainly go and see the movie. But it was kind of foreseeable that PJ was bound to end up with a very mixed bag of reviews. And for me it’s very symptomatic that especially the reviews of AUJ are all over the place. What some critics liked was condemned by others, thus reflecting the make up of the different types of audiences.
My comment has become quite an essay on the critical reception of Peter Jackson movies and why the relationship between him and his critics is so fraught with complications. That said, it’s still a puzzle to me why the trilogy didn’t turn out better. All the necessary ingredients for a masterpiece were there. Has it something to do with the problematic and conflicted history of the production? With the ‘bad guys from WB’, who were only after the money, artistic value be dammed? Or was it the hubris of a now iconic director who endulged his obsessions and idiosyncrasies without anyone standing him down? Hard to say… it was probably a bit of all. While I still enjoyed much of the trilogy 🙂 , I can’t help but mourn the wasted potential. This could’ve been so much better (:
Now that is good analysis, I myself have noted loads of problems with hobbit movies and sometimes could not understand the choices which made no sense and was amazed that filmmakers actually would CUT out material from book which is already short enough. So many things would be good if only they were treated differently, even Tauriel could work better if she was say, one of the spies that Elvenking sent, (also showing more of his involvement in the worldly affairs instead of isolationistic behaviour in movie).
By the way Michael you pointed that Bard Bowman in book is cardboard, well he is introduced very late into story but there are some basics upon which he can be worked upon, first he is this grim, silent, serious looking, dark brooding warrior type :), he has pretty pessimistic view on life, yet has certain charisma, he is also very resourceful, does not hesitate to take lead when others fail, can be humble and yet sometimes can be rash and show pride (especially that when he kills dragon he starts to look up towards his legacy, while before he was simply ordinary man among many even though descendant of Girion. He speaks little but does a lot and sometimes actions speak more than words. He certainly has some leadership and military skills as captain of company of archers of the militia or guard of Esgaroth (not to mention proficiency at archery 🙂 ). One of the weirder decisions in movie is to make him some sort of smuggler at odds with Master (who brings fishes to…a town build on a lake haha, I also could not stand this Grima Wormtongue expy) the sort of political conflict is only drawn by Tolkien after the destruction of the town when Master reveleas himself to be true cunning politician, quickly changing moods of the crowd when they raise against him. Manipulative and cowardly as Master is, he is also a good businessman, maybe that’s what I lacked in film version of Master of Lake-town (maybe I expected him to be this kind of leader like Dodge of Venice or soemthing like it hehe).
Michael and I go way back on Middle-Earth but one other thing that has been common between us during that time is that we almost NEVER agree on movies. That said, Desolation is the one major exception I can think of- I also found it to be largely ridiculous. And I did like the first film alot too as he did.
Its a shame too because it does have its moments- in particular the scenes in Mirkwood. But most if it was pretty stupid, and the whole encounter with Smaug was just ruined by how it progressed. In many ways the original animated Hobbit was superior in this area in particular. And I for one, even though I like Ian McKellan and Benedict Cumberbatch tremendously, will always hear in my head the voices of the actors from that for Gandalf (John Huston) and Smaug (Richard Boone) and believe no one can beat them.
I was okay with the Dol Guldur stuff, and my teenage son (who has also read the book) absolutely LOVED that part- particularly the fight between Gandalf and Sauron. My point being everyone has their own perspective on what is good or not on film, regardless of how true it is or isn’t to it source material.
So, I am encouraged that MM liked part 3 and I look forward to seeing it soon. Hopefully this won’t mean I will hate as is apparently the case with all other movie series we comment on!
Here’s an interesting and intelligent review which shows beautifully the many angles from which one can look at the trilogy:
http://reverseshot.com/reviews/entry/1974/hobbit_battle
First let me state. The opening scenes in Hobbiton and Bag End from Fotr and UJ, are by far my most favorite parts of either trilogy. Showing the Hobbit lifestyle made me grin uncontrollably. Then seeing Bag End turned to shambles by the boys was magical to me.
Regarding the ‘voices’ in the animated version: I grew up watching Richard Boone in Westerns. I SEE Paladin when I hear that voice. Benji Cumberpatch is much more ‘unknown’ to this Yank and so I wasn’t forced to erase his face from Smaug’s when-ever he spoke.
In the same vein, some of the early casting rumours for the first Trilogy included Sean Connery. While I loved his Spanish peacock in the original Highlander, I would have HATED him as Gandalf.(if that was the character he would have assumed.) James Bond needs no staff nor help from a teeny tiny moth. I have too much history with actors like Connery to be able to clearly see them as other characters.
Finally Galadriel. I want an entire movie of her just walking throughout Lothlorien. Nothing more. She defines grace and loveliness. But I can’t think that our Noldorian Princess could just whip out an energy blast. Her power should have come from the earth and been cast by her voice. While Saruman and Elrond held off the Nine(note held off, not defeat), she could have sung an ancient Elvish song of revelation and forced Sauron to see that his ‘fair’ form was nothing but a cloak. Galadriel’s power would have caused Sauron to perceive that his attempt of hiding inside the powerful armored knight was just that…a disguise and once exposed he would have been forced to flee.
No need for the Devilish She Elf. Far more ‘power’ could have been delivered from her Adamant stand against Sauron. Oh well.
Well, I saw the movie too Sunday night, and did enjoy it. Thought it was really the best of the 3. I agree with Michael’s review to a good extent and would just add the following:
While he admits being bothered by some of the minutia that does not match the books, the one that really gets me throughout all 3 movies is Thorin and Kili not having the Dwarvish noses that the rest do. What is the deal with that? I fear it is just to make them more handsome as one of the leads and a romantic interest.
Speaking of which, I really kindof liked the romance between Kili and Tauriel, I found it genuinely touching.
Really liked seeing the White Council kick caboose at Dol Guldur, particularly Saruman and Galadriel. Agree it was a good move to show her really wielding that massive power she has.
I liked Legolas in this movie far better than in the previous two, Orlando really did a superb job with his role in the wrap up of this trilogy.
Unlike Michael, I could take or leave Radaghast. He is just too goofy in these movies. I’m glad he wasn’t in this last one more. I think I know why Michael likes him, he has a soft spot for goofy characters (ala Jar Jar!)- just a friendly jab, buddy!
Beorn had a nice cameo that really should have been expanded, I expect it will be in the Directors Cut. I sure hope so anyway.
I always love when the Eagles show up, I have such a soft spot for them. That was my favorite part in the first movie too.
Really liked Dain too, wish he had more screen time. Expect he will in the aforementioned Directors Cut. Billy Connolly did a great job with him.
Yes, the stupid Alfrid character had WAY too much screen time, that really annoyed me. Michael your guess as to why this was is as good as any.
So, the five armies were- Dwarves, Elves, Men, Orcs, and Eagles? Or was it Dwarves, Elves, Eagles, and the two Orc armies, since the Men of Lake Town weren’t really much of an army? And what happened to the Wargs? Didn’t Tolkien say for the book they were the 5th army, not the Eagles? Or Michael was that your speculation at one point, I can’t remember now…
Anyway, good movie, I enjoyed it.
To me it looked like Men, Elves, Dwarves and two Orc armies (Gundabad and Dol Guldur).
Interesting point about Legolas. He was one of my favorite characters in the LOTR movies, but I was really bothered by him in DOS. Not because he was present per se – that is only logical and quite allright with me. But I thought – and still think, that Orlando Bloom, whom I normally like, has changed too much. He isn’t the innocent wide eyed 20 year old novice of FOTR anymore. But he’s playing someone supposed to be younger in the Hobbit trilogy. That and his CGI stunts really bothered me. But for some reason I was less bothered by his latest performance. Which is funny because his stunts were even more over the top. But there was an urgency in his actions now -he wasn’t only fighting evil guys, he was trying to protect someone he loved. And if he had to bend matter and the laws of physics along the way he would do it, war trolls, rubble and orcs be damned. That had some strange poetic ring to it and I actually enjoyed it.
As to the five armees: dwarves, orks, elfs, men and eagles IMO. No warg armee, which makes sense in P. Jacksons Hobbitverse. The wargs are only present for being ridden by the orgs, not as a self organized group.
Re Dain, he so deserved more screen time! I was lucky enough to see Sirs Peter and Richard giving the finishing touches to his armour, and got to banter briefly with Billy Connolly in the catering tent, but Billy clearly wasn’t well (I think he ended up leaving early) and I suspect that they may simply not have filmed enough of him, hence the CGI’ing of Dain which a lot of people are complaining about. He was still inspirational 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUNxlT86Dtk
Hello Michael,
As with your others, I think this was a thoughtful and fair review. Oddly, I was the only one of my party last night to agree with your assessment that this final installment was better than the last. People have different expectations going in, it seems.
Just one more note I might add beyond what I have said in other comments in this thread: The Battle of the Five Armies suffers from most of the same flaws as the previous two movies, but I am struck by the way that the supposed Battle of the title is fragmented into a series of almost unrelated fights, making it hard to make a coherent sense of the whole, no matter how many sweeping aerial pan shots were thrown in. As Jackson tells, it, it might better to make “Battle” plural. I think this was a likely result of the decision to expand out to three movies – tight construction and narrative focus went out the window once again as Jackson and Fran and Philippa worked feverishly to flesh out the hours of additional screentime. Yes, Jackson achieved some emotional power with the last stands of Thorin, Kili and Fili the way he chose to film them, but the movie overall suffers from a lack of focus as a result.
Someday, someone will film THE HOBBIT again, as a single standalone movie. I’d like to see what that might turn out like.
Having been critical, I should offer praise for what Jackson does well – mainly, his success at visualizing Middle Earth. I absolutely love the raw, hard, titanic power of the aesthetics of Erebor, and Eastern European stylings of Dale (a place i would love to live in) and Laketown, the loving detail given to clothing, armor, weapons throughout.
I also love the depiction of the Dwarves, especially Dain Ironfoot, spitting out Scottish accented insults while riding his war-boar in front of the serried ranks of his Dwarven army.
The Elves, on the other hand, seem too upmarket – they are Wood Elves of Mirkwood, not Noldorin warriors of the Second Age. They should look a little more rustic, a little wilder, more green in their outfits. Oh well. A rare misfire from Jackson.
“Both these films were more faithful to the source material than their sequels, and that was inevitable simply because it takes time for the absence of important characters (like Bombadil) and events (like the three encounters with the Wood-elves in the forest) to be felt in the movie”
Please forgive me but the point here is lost on me. Are you implying that because the consequences of cuts in the Fellowship of the Ring are felt in subsequent movies, the sequels were in themselves less faithful to the source material directly because of e.g no Tom Bombadil and having to write around that? Or is it that you think the first movie was as true as possible to the script and the sequels went off on a grand, action-packed tangent?
The example of Merry and Pippin while with the Ents seems to be very weak in my mind. Compared to Rivendell, Balrogs and Lothlorien, Ents would hardly unsettle the two hobbits too much.
Matthew, I’m sorry for taking so long to answer you. It’s just that when you take something integral to the early part of the story and replace it with something else (even something that is not critical to the main plot, like Bombadil) then you set up a new chain of events that gradually departs from the original story.
Bombadil’s influence is felt all the way through Tolkien’s story, but you have to extract all those moments and tie them together before it becomes obvious that he does have an impact throughout the story.
The encounters with the Wood-elves in the forest give the reader a chance to see them as a merry, “good” people who are not bothering anyone. They are annoyed at being approached by the Dwarves but they tolerated the Dwarves’ interruptions the first two times. It was only after the third disruption of their festivities that they took Thorin prisoner. Everything proceeds from there in the book. The Elvenking is actually much more sympathetic in the book than in the movies. Thranduil is a real cad in the second movie (in my opinion), which is very un-Tolkien in my view. He softens up a bit in the third movie but they should not have forced themselves to soften the character that way.
So I see it.
Did PJ continue to portray Radagast according to Saruman’s conceited view of him as a s**t-faced buffoon? >:( By far the most disappointing aspect of all 6 movies for me, and a misuse of Sylvester McCoy.
Loved your review. Yes, Alfrid was infuriatingly given too much screen time. But I did like the choice to expand the Laketown community and the inclusion of Bard’s family.
I have just returned from my first viewing of the last installment, and I just want to say, that I recognize this as probably the end of an era. I doubt anyone will film Middle-earth stories for some time, what with the owners of Tolkien’s estate most likely not authorizing another movie or series any time soon. The two trilogies have covered 13-14 years of our lives and changed the way we and lots of others relate to Tolkien, his original stories, and the movies made from them. Lots of internet sites have come and gone, books been written, new fans have been introduced, discussions, arguments, and disagreements been made. But it was sort of sad walking out of the theater knowing that only in ‘reruns’ will we be able to again vicariously experience our time in Middle-earth for the foreseeable future..
That said, I also understand that in the movie industry, especially with action-adventure films – of which these 6 were part – that with an action-adventure movie being made, regardless of who the director is, it has to be more action filled, more adventurous, more dazzling than then any preceding films. The average fan expects it, the director (like Thorin’s dragon sickness) is blinded by it, the backers demand it to increase ticket sales and their profits. Such is the problem with all prequels to action adventure films. How to resolve the problem that they have to be even more death defying even when the source material is tamer, or the fan base is expecting a more innocent type production.
I’m now supposed to accept that Legolas shows up at the Council of Elrond as a wide-eyed innocent who has a slight distrust of dwarves, despite having almost fought along side of Gimli’s father, and stood almost side by side with Thorin in the final battle sequence and then goes off in search of Strider to find himself? That’s but one example of how these movies had to top the LOTR movie trilogy and yet somehow give us early insights into characters that we have come to love. It’s going to be jarring to see that final scene with Thranduil and Legolas and then about 45 minutes later, see him show up at Rivendell, with people barely knowing who he is. I also watched the battle scenes and basically thought to myself, ok, here’s the siege of Gondor scene, here’s the (recovered) King fighting a final battle with a major villain scene. Here’s the lackey who somehow people put up with even when he has no power at all. At least Peter Jackson gave more romance time to Kili and Tauriel then he ever did to Eowyn and Faramir.
Yet, I enjoyed all three of The Hobbit movies. I enjoy the cinema experience and I seldom if ever come into a theater with any great expectations except that I want to be entertained, I want to be challenged, and I want my emotions played with. To me, these three (and the preceding three) did just that. The final song by Billy Boyd was extremely fitting…and very sad. We will go on with our lives, maybe even look at the EE versions, discuss the movies a little more, but it’s still good-bye to an era. Peter Jackson may not be a great director, but he gave us 6 films of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth. To paraphrase what a great playwright once wrote -The evil that Peter Jackson did, will live after him, the good will be interred in his bones. I expect some day, we’ll all slowly understand that he accomplished something that we will cherish as a completed work, exceeding the work of Bakshi and Rankin/Bass. And it will stand until such a time probably when we’re all old and grey or passed on, when some new director thinks s/he can do it better, and gets the permissions and financing. Then we’ll understand how good or not so good these six were. I personally liked them.
Hey Michael!
I was wondering, do you think you could elaborate on the White Council battle with Sauron? I was wondering what are your thoughts on Galadriel using her darker self to battle Sauron? Did you feel like it made sense that she would fight fire with fire because I interpreted that Sauron was trying to possess her and brought out the dark side within her.
Excellent review! I have read many blogs and reviews on these movies and this was one of the best reviews I have read. One thing I see often (not here) is that some people feel the story of The Hobbit is not as great as the story in Lord of the Rings. I see their point, the story in LOTR is the battle between good and evil, a noble cause. The story in TH is basically reclaiming the mountain, the gold and the crown. But I liked that Jackson made Smaug an agent of Sauron. I don’t remember that in the book (although I could be wrong.) I think it was hinted at, but not outright stated. That made the story of TH more sweeping.
A common storyline in both LOTR and TH is the exiled leader who is terrified of following in his ancestor’s footsteps – in Thorin’s case, the madness of his grandfather, in Aragorn’s case, the weakness of Isildur. But they do find the strength and will to overcome and be a hero at the end (my favorite kind of story). Thorin does it by himself in Battle of the Five Armies but I did not like Jackson’s change in the Return of the King Extended Version at the end where they are all at the Black Gate, Sauron whispers to Aragorn. Aragorn hesitates, confused and obviously this next moment is huge in the story. In the cut version, Aragorn overcomes this moment of temptation, turns and fights. In the Extended version, Gandalf, seeing the hesitation, waves his hand, and THEN Aragorn turns to fight. It implied Aragorn either was not strong enough and Gandalf sensed it, or else Gandalf did not have enough faith in Aragorn and wanted to make sure things went right. either way, that bothers me.
Finally, I used to wonder why this story was not called “The Adventures of Thorin Oakenshield”. But now that I’m older I realize that although Thorin seems like the protagonist, it is really the hobbit in the story who is the most remarkable and who shines throughout. Tolkien is making the statement once again about the meek inheriting the earth.
One final thought that I had after seeing Battle of the Five Armies for the fifth time. I have a few questions about the final battle between Thorin and Azog. They fight like crazy, and when the eagles come, Azog suddenly stops and looks away for the longest time. Why didn’t Thorin strike? That gets me. He just stands there. Also, there are stairs nearby., Why wouldn’t he go up a few stairs and gain the higher ground? He is a seasoned warrior. And also after Azog goes down under the ice, instead of leaving Thorin just stays there and waits, hynotized by Azog’s face going by. He actually follows Azog’s body under the ice for several steps. Why? It was almost like he was waiting. At the end, Thorin gave up willingly. It makes me feel like he knew his purpose was over. It’s like he knew it was his time. I just had that feeling.
While I am far from completely happy about the Hobbit films in every regard I think I hold the opposing view on many of these points brought up in your article. I’m not mad about that, I just find these divisions in the fanbase interesting discussion points.
First, to the female characters. Personally, I didn’t like much of the Kili-Tauriel stuff because A) The dialog given to their characters and people who interact with them was quite cheesy to be honest. “Do you think she could have loved me?” “Because it was real.” etc. and B) It undermines significant relationships/events in the LotR films. The athelas healing scene in DOS severely undermines Arwen’s and Elrond’s rescue of Frodo in FotR. Their relationship also undermines the significance of Gimli’s admiration for Galadriel (a platonic thing in the books and movies BTW). I’m not against the inter-racial relationship element in Tolkien’s works or anything like that (I love the Beren and Luthien story), but I don’t think it was handled very well in the Hobbit films. It just came off as cheesy and undermined elements of their own later/earlier LotR films.
I was a bit confused by Galadriel’s visual depiction. I agree in that she should be powerful, but why was she so dark and menacing? She’s supposed to be a force for good, right? The only sense I can make out of it is that exerting such great power is a very dangerous thing to do and could turn ill if handled improperly.
As to Alfred, he was certainly overdone, but he serves a distinct purpose in the film. In a way he takes over the role of the Master in the book and provides a foil to Bard and even to Thorin (in terms of the dragon-sickness). Plus, from a cinematic viewpoint some comedic relief was needed (but not nearly to the extent portrayed in the final film).
Overall I tend to find that I agree with most of the things PJ & Co. have done with the story in concept, but I find the execution to be a bit disappointing or confusing at times. When looking at the fanbase in general I think most of the division really stems from the fact that Peter Jackson tried to tell the story of The Hobbit, a whimsical children’s bedtime story, in the style of The Lord of the Rings.
Anyhow, it was an interesting analysis of the final film.