Adaptation by Vague Recollection

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

My opinion is that many of the 'changes' were perhaps due to decisions on how to fill the gap resulting from the decision to have a third film...

The additions certainly are. Supposedly the ludicrous and utterly pointless chase sequence around the interior of the Mountain at the end of the second film was invented purely to pad the running time once the "trilogy" decision had been made.

This of course completely and openly contradicts the reasons Peter Jackson and his team expressed when the trilogy announcement was first made. At that time they claimed the change to a trilogy was to accommodate the presentation of material they had already filmed and were loath to lose.

I suppose they could hardly come out and say "We've been forced to cut it as a trilogy so that it will make more money for greedy, shameless studio executives in Hollywood" but it almost seems crass to effectively admit that the excuses they originally gave were fiction.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

The additions certainly are. Supposedly the ludicrous and utterly pointless chase sequence around the interior of the Mountain at the end of the second film was invented purely to pad the running time once the "trilogy" decision had been made. [...]

You are partially right. This sequence was a result of the idea to turn the story into a trilogy. And yes, it was a dull and boring sequence. However, I don't think the chase sequence at the end of the second film was 'purely' there to pad out the running time. It had a function in the context of the movies. It was invented so that the end of the second film wouldn't feel as anticlimactic as it would have otherwise. It's questionable if it did the job well, but it had a purpose.

[Faramir Jones]

Leaf, I've read what you said here:

However, I don't think the chase sequence at the end of the second film was 'purely' there to pad out the running time. It had a function in the context of the movies. It was invented so that the end of the second film wouldn't feel as anticlimactic as it would have otherwise. It's questionable if it did the job well, but it had a purpose.

You're probably right about the function of the chase sequence. However, it was, in my view, a complete failure. It would have been best to have ended the second film with the death of Smaug; the third film would then have nicely opened with dealing with the consequences of his death, showing that this did not automatically lead to a 'happily ever after'. This struck me when I first read the book, and still does; but Jackson and others couldn't get that right...

[Leaf]

I think the general problem is a kind of incompatibility between typical fantasy-action film motifs and Tolkien's style of writing. The Hobbit novel subverts a lot of expectations.

To name a few:

1. The main antagonist (Smaug) only appears briefly in the story and his demise doesn't accompany the end of the story.

2. It isn't the protagonist who resolves this situation; This is accomplished by a minor character (Bard) who appears very late in the story and is just barely fleshed out.

3. There's no brave hero-character in shining armor, who's struggling against opposition and eventually overcomes his enemies by force and skill. Instead, the protagonist is a Hobbit, which is virtually the opposite of this concept.


Those things weren't seen as a charming detour from the usual fairy tale-route, but as risks which could potentially alienate a general audience from the movies. So they decided to play it safe. That's the reason why we got this mess of subplots and extra stuff (i.e. the Bard back-story) and a complete shift in perspective towards Thorin's story arc. From this viewpoint you can deduce a lot of changes, I think. Especially Bilbo's involvement (or the lack of) and his role in the story.

We have to keep in mind that those movies had a combined budged of about $600 million! And I can understand that, with that kind of investment, you decide to play it safe and just reproduce those well known and proved concepts. It's a shame, really. We won't even ever be able to tell if a general audience is really so petty-minded and resistening to change as this thinking makes them out to be.

Addendum:

I think it's wrong to pin this problem (and the blame) on some supposedly mean-spirited and greedy individuals. It's just the consequence and the logic of an industry that primarily creates content, not as works of art, but as products. That doesn't mean that this duality can't produce some very movies, which are a compromise between art and profit, but as movies are getting more and more expensive to make, innovation and progress seems to cease.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Leaf, that's an excellent analysis- for the first part. But for the latter part I doubt seriously that it was a matter of studio-driven bottom line thinking- Jackson could make anything with the Tolkien brand on it and it would sell like hotcakes. He's like the Beatles, nobody is going to tell him what to do, and if he had filmed a vertbatim rendition of the book T/W would have rubber-stamped its release.

No, the problem I think is that neither Jackson nor Boyens has the vision or sensitivity to let Tolkien take them out of their very narrow comfort zone of cliches and hackneyed tropes; PJ's idol after all is Harryhausen not Fellini. This is the guy who filmed and almost kept a RotK finale featuring Aragorn dueling Sauron mano a mano......

[Nolwë_Namiel]

I have to confess that I've not yet seen Parts 2 and 3 but this is the review I wrote for Part 1. I will eventually watch the next two, but I'm not in any hurry and have been waiting for the rental fees to drop before viewing them.

Let’s start with the positives:

Elrond - a pleasant surprise. Feeling as I did about the way he was portrayed in the trilogy, I found him somewhat transformed in AUJ. Here he presents a more “Elf-like“ demeanour, if I may use that term, extending genuine hospitality to a less than friendly group of Dwarfs; and wielding a sword while leading his guard against some enemies, even if all we saw were glimpses of capes and horses' legs.

Thorin - as presented in the AUJ, I liked him. Although the character was sharp-tongued and moody, it didn't strike a false note with me. I think the early scenes of Smaug's arrival, and the destruction of Dale and Erebor, set the tone very nicely with regard to his temperament and burning drive to regain his kingdom. It will be interesting to see how he fares in the next two parts.

Bilbo - I didn’t find Bilbo one thing or another, frankly; the portrayal was okay. There were a couple of nice moments: his confusion when the Dwarfs start arriving; and his show of "Hobbit" courage when Thorin is injured during the Orc attack. Otherwise, his persona just seemed to be over-whelmed by those of the Dwarfs.

Now for the negatives:

The Dwarfs - after falling in love with Gimli, who at least looked and acted like a dwarf (at least in accordance with my imagination), I was appalled when I saw the companions. To borrow a phrase from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, let me count the ways:

Firstly, with regard to the beards (or lack thereof): those Dwarfs who had beards, sported beards so outrageous (think Balin) that I found myself focusing on the damn things, instead of listening to what they were saying. As for those who were essentially beardless, did Gimli not jest with Éowyn about the bearded aspects of his people in TTT, or did I imagine the entire conversation? As for the costuming: for a war-like race they certainly eschew the wearing of any kind of armour, preferring instead the "waifs from a Dickensian musical" look.

Secondly, what’s with the swords? If memory serves, axes and maces are Dwarfs' weapons of choice. It hardly seems logical that a race only four feet in height would use swords against much taller opponents. Well, I guess they could cut them off at the knees and then stab them, but that seems like a waste of time and effort. Tolkien did give Thorin Orcrist, but I've always felt he meant it to be more symbolic of his status, than a weapon he would actually use in battle.

Finally, what happened their manners and intelligence? When they arrive at Bilbo’s door, they act like a bunch of hooligans. No wonder he was reluctant to join them on their quest. When they arrive in Rivendell, they act like children, although Thorin comes around somewhat when he finds out Elrond can be of use to him. And, with the exception of Balin, they come across as uneducated rubes. Why treat these characters with such disrespect? Fodder for jokes? Even the seven dwarfs in Snow White were treated with more dignity.

The Great Goblin - er, at first I had no idea what I was looking at: he looked like a giant gummy goblin with a ...... thing hanging off his chin? Then I realised, oh dear, that is his chin. Good grief! Didn’t anybody look at him and go: "What the hell were we thinking?" Mind you, he did have a spiffy education for a goblin; sounded like a fake English barrister. I’m surprised his minions didn’t off him just so they didn’t have to listen to his precious accent.

The Three Trolls and Azog - OMG! What can I say? Ugh!

Galadriel - looked great, or rather I think she looked great. Not sure: it seemed as though she were being filmed through several layers of gauze. Perhaps to obscure the effects of aging we mortals tend to display after two decades? Also, I know the Eldar had telepathic capability, but I didn’t realise they could teleport so it came as a surprise when she “popped” out of her scene with Gandalf without so much as a fare ye well.

Gandalf (with apologies to Gando) - looked a tad peaked if I may say so. There were a several times when I thought the old geezer, well, looked like an old geezer. Oddly enough, Saruman looked much the same, but then he had the moxie to stay seated during his scenes.

He just didn't seem to be the Gandalf I loved in the trilogy. If the old Gandalf had arrived at Bilbo’s and seen the mess the Dwarfs had made, he would have given them the rough side of his tongue, not treated it as some sort of joke.

There seemed to be a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, quality to his acting at times that had me wondering how Ian McKellan, the actor, really felt about Gandalf, the Wizard, this go round.

Gollum - there was something really "off" about this performance. Perhaps it was the audio, that put me off. If I hadn’t been familiar with the scene and known what the riddles were, I would have been lost, the quality of the sound was that poor (at least in the version I watched).

Also, the Smeagol-Gollum-Smeagol transitioning does not occur until he encounters Frodo and the Ring some sixty years hence, and I'm not sure why it was included here since it didn't add anything of value to the sequence.

My overall impression:

Too often, I found myself watching scenes and going: “A yes" ….. (pick a scene of your own) - my personal favourite is the butterfly going to the Great Eagles for help.

Gandalf seems to have some kind of contract with the lepidopterae population of Middle-earth, such that he will only use them in times of crisis like some personalised 911 service.

The ease with which I was able to make these comparisons began to annoy me as the film progressed. It was almost as if they were using a reworked version of the LoTR script for some of the sequences: "Hey, folks, rather than waste time coming up with a new scenario, let's just reuse the one we used in in the trilogy."

At least they made no real attempt to disguise this apparent laziness. PJ even went so far as to have the Dwarfs, with Bilbo and Gandalf, strung out across the same ridge of the same mountain as he had .... (come on, you can name them) .... in TTT.

Weta, who are known world-wide for their superlative CGI creations, must have been closed for holidays during filming, how else can you explain the amateurish work? I couldn't believe how cheesy the wolves? wargs? looked. If Weta weren't on holiday, then what happened to the awesome craftsmanship of twenty years ago? I was again left wondering about the depth of the committment to the project.

Finally, we come to the length of too many of the scenes. They went on and on and on and could have done with some serious editing. The escape from Khazad-dûm the goblin lair, being the one that springs to mind . They reminded of Bilbo's comment: “I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.” Or, in this case, to much film spread over too little script.

Mind you, watching The Hobbit - AUJ did do one thing. It made me realize just how special the Lord of the Rings films were, and still are. The magic that captivated me is still there, lurking on discs I can see on the shelf across the room from where I'm sitting, waiting patiently for me to to take them out of their sleeves and watch them again.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Leaf, that's an excellent analysis- for the first part. But for the latter part I doubt seriously that it was a matter of studio-driven bottom line thinking- Jackson could make anything with the Tolkien brand on it and it would sell like hotcakes. He's like the Beatles, nobody is going to tell him what to do, and if he had filmed a vertbatim rendition of the book T/W would have rubber-stamped its release.

No, the problem I think is that neither Jackson nor Boyens has the vision or sensitivity to let Tolkien take them out of their very narrow comfort zone of cliches and hackneyed tropes; PJ's idol after all is Harryhausen not Fellini. This is the guy who filmed and almost kept a RotK finale featuring Aragorn dueling Sauron mano a mano......

I don't necessarily think that it was the producers, or the studio, who enforced this kind of decisions. It might very well be that Peter Jackson (and/or the writers) himself is thinking in this manner. I just find it curious that "their very narrow comfort zone of cliches and hackneyed tropes", as you put it, coincides with typical (and financially successful) movie tropes. But you are right, I don't think that subtlety is PJ's strong suite. A quality which is badly needed for a story like the Hobbit. He definitely wasn't the best man for the job, in that regard.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I don't necessarily think that it was the producers, or the studio, who enforced this kind of decisions. It might very well be that Peter Jackson (and/or the writers) himself is thinking in this manner. I just find it curious that "their very narrow comfort zone of cliches and hackneyed tropes", as you put it, coincides with typical (and financially successful) movie tropes.

They're what filmmakers tend to fall back on when they're out of ideas.