Adaptation by Vague Recollection

[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.

[Leaf]

Well, this might be true. However, I have a feeling that this decisions were not, so much, caused by sheer incompetency ("vague memory", "out of ideas") but were deliberate attempts to improve the marketabilty of these movies, by adjusting them (in scope and style) to fit into a. their previous LotR trilogy and b. other stuff a general audience already knows and likes. I can't, of course, prove this but I wanted to offer another perspective besides the usual "PJ-Is-A-Dummy" argument.

[Faramir Jones]

Leaf, I'm only speaking for myself; but I never thought that Peter Jackson was a 'dummy'. I felt that he and others didn't have the abilities to properly adapt Tolkien's works, in particular The Hobbit, in terms of plot and characterisation.

I therefore agree with what William said here:

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;

I would have liked to have seen what Guillermo Del Toro would have made of The Hobbit, at least because I would have seen more adaptations of Tolkien's works.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Well, this might be true. However, I have a feeling that this decisions were not, so much, caused by sheer incompetency ("vague memory", "out of ideas") but were deliberate attempts to improve the marketabilty of these movies, by adjusting them (in scope and style) to fit into a. their previous LotR trilogy and b. other stuff a general audience already knows and likes. I can't, of course, prove this but I wanted to offer another perspective besides the usual "PJ-Is-A-Dummy" argument.

If you don't mind my saying so, I think that's a bit of a strawman,Leaf. Many, many people have argued that the "Hollywoodification" was a commercial decision- often this is expressed in terms of "selling out". If anything, I'd say that's the most common view. However, these movies were practically guaranteed a large audience- they could have afforded to take a few risks. There's every reason, however to think PJ & Co weren't all that enthusiastic this time around; what I'm saying is, that's also a situation in writers turn in hackwork.

Not that it's entirely one thing or the other, of course- Tauriel is pretty blatantly there for commercial appeal.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

If you don't mind my saying so, I think that's a bit of a strawman,Leaf. [...]

I don't mind at all. But I hope you believe me, when I tell you, that my goal wasn't winning the argument by asserting false statements. I merely chose this wording for the sake of shortness and clarity (and to be a little bit polemic about it, I must confess).

Many, many people have argued that the "Hollywoodification" was a commercial decision- often this is expressed in terms of "selling out". If anything, I'd say that's the most common view.

Yes, many people have argued that. However, those people mostly applied this notion to the most obvious excesses, like Tauriel, or the fact that the Hobbit was split into three movies. My original concern was to argue, that this problem roots deeper and affects more plot points, than just those obvious characteristics. Take the examples I gave a few posts ago. Those aren't things that PJ or the Screenwriters simply overlooked, misjudged or misunderstood. I find it hard to believe that the problem was the lack of ideas or a 'vague memory' (even though the result may feel this way). I'm thinking this way, because those things are relatively easy to spot and even easier to implement in the movie. If they wanted to only have a short appearance by Smaug, they could have done that. If they wanted to make Bilbo the real protagonist of this story, they could have done that. And if they wanted to have the dragonslayer appear, without a convoluted backstory, they could have done that as well. But, clearly, they didn't want to write the movies in that way. Instead, they chose to strip the story of those unconventional motifs.

However, these movies were practically guaranteed a large audience- they could have afforded to take a few risks.

Guaranteed by whom? Common sense? Personally, I think you are right, but one might want to have a little more assurance if you're handling a budget that size. The Hobbit trilogy's budget was more than twice as big as the one for all LotR movies. And even if one would accept that a large audience is practically guaranteed, you can always earn more money.

There's every reason, however to think PJ & Co weren't all that enthusiastic this time around; what I'm saying is, that's also a situation in writers turn in hackwork.

Not that it's entirely one thing or the other, of course- Tauriel is pretty blatantly there for commercial appeal.

You are right. It most certainly is a mixture of both elements. And as I said before, we can't prove or check the motivation behind those decisions anyways, which makes this discussion moot.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Guaranteed by whom? Common sense? Personally, I think you are right, but one might want to have a little more assurance if you're handling a budget that size. The Hobbit trilogy's budget was more than twice as big as the one for all LotR movies. And even if one would accept that a large audiance is practically guaranteed, you can always earn more money.

I think you're right here, and I think it's interesting as an example of Warner Bros.' approach as opposed to that of New Line, who distributed the earlier films. (New Line was involved in the production of the "The Hobbit" films, but not the distribution) Oddly enough, "The Lord of the Rings" was almost certainly the more ambitious and risky project - Peter Jackson was not an established director at the time to nearly the extent he is now, and a complete film adaptation of the notoriously "unfilmable" text had never been really tried before - and yet the story in many respects and in terms of details arguably survived "intact" to a greater extent than in the case of "The Hobbit".

That, of course, may just be Warner Bros.' way, as opposed to New Line, even with a director who by the time of "The Hobbit" was a big deal and a fairly guaranteed product: hands-on and with a focus on making the story more marketable.

It's a bit startling that the budget for "The Hobbit trilogy" was so much greater. Surely inflation alone can't have accounted for that. But I suppose the returning actors are pricier now, in many cases as a result of the earlier films, and they were using more advanced effects technology.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Those aren't things that PJ or the Screenwriters simply overlooked, misjudged or misunderstood. I find it hard to believe that the problem was the lack of ideas or a 'vague memory' (even though the result may feel this way). I'm thinking this way, because those things are relatively easy to spot and even easier to implement in the movie. If they wanted to only have a short appearance by Smaug, they could have done that. If they wanted to make Bilbo the real protagonist of this story, they could have done that. And if they wanted to have the dragonslayer appear, without a convoluted backstory, they could have done that as well. But, clearly, they didn't want to write the movies in that way. Instead, they chose to strip the story of those unconventional motifs.

Well, that's in part what I was trying to say, that they *chose* to- i.e. didn't *have* to.

It's said that Jackson was put under great pressure by the studio to give LotR the standard "Hollywood Treatment" (i.e. complete butchery) but dug in his heels and refused to do so; I'm sure he could have won such a battle this time around too.