We have come to it at last, the great review vent rambling of our time. I'm going to be approaching the trilogy here from several angles that matter most to me. This will be a long post, and it will not be complete; only the things I loved or hated most will be featured.
Cinematography
I always thought that a big reason why the Star Wars prequels didn't work well for me was that the cinematography felt so different even though it was set in the same universe. Sure, the scripts (especially dialogue) were pretty bad, but then again, the original Star Wars films didn't exactly have fantastic writing either. To me, the visuals rather than the writing defined that universe.
Back before AUJ was released, Peter Jackson and co. claimed they wanted their Hobbit films to fit 'seamlessly' into the Lord of the Rings films; to go from a lighter start to a darker ending that leads into the themes and atmosphere present in LotR. I loved this. A big part of what made LotR so awesome for me was the realism of the cinematography; the slightly grainy, muted visuals, the miniatures, the wonderful matte paintings; these served to create a visual universe that felt distinct, real and serious, but with a subtle fey quality to it.
The Hobbit films were shot digitally, in 3d, with huge resolution and in HFR. The production diaries hyped this new development, spending a lot of time explaining the merits of this technology and how Peter Jackson wanted to use The Hobbit as a vehicle for pushing it forward. According to the production team, this meant that miniatures and matte paintings could no longer be used because they would look fake, and that CGI was now the way to go.
When I first saw AUJ, the cinematography took me right out of the film at the very start. It looks much too sharp, much too clean. The same goes for DoS and now BoFA. Shots of Dale, Erebor, Laketown, the barren plains of the Desolation of Smaug, they're all much too bright, too starkly portrayed. Think of the beautiful wideshots of Rivendell in FotR and RotK, and compare them to the crispness and minute detail of the digital version of The Hobbit. And then of course there is the awful presence of the orange and teal tint in AUJ. The things I did like about the cinematography were the things I also liked about LotR; the close-ups and the wideshots of beautiful New Zealand.
I don't understand why these decisions were made; yes, pushing technology forward is a good cause, but not at the cost of visual continuity, not at the cost of what created LotR's praised look and feel. Had they decided to forego 3D HFR and instead opted to use the same techniques they used for LotR I think both the continuity and visual integrity of these films would have been much improved. If they had indeed chosen early to preserve that fantastic LotR look, I think the integrity of that decision would have rippled into other areas of production, creating better films overall. 'Ah, so this is what we'll be doing'.
Design
I loved most of the designs for these films, from locations and sets to costumes and make-up. A lot of the designs felt fresh, even after decades of artists portraying these characters. I appreciate some of the more daring design choices, such as Radagast and Beorn, and I similarly appreciate the callbacks to LotR I saw in dwarven costumes.
One flaw that I felt kept returning however was the overdone grandeur of some sets. In LotR, PJ's design brief was to keep things as grounded in reality as possible, to pretend that they were unearthing remnants of a world that once existed, that they were recreating things as they once were. This brief I feel was a stroke of singular genius that defined much of the visual succes of the LotR trilogy, and I feel it was not quite as present in The Hobbit. Erebor looks so grand, so impossible huge, that it could never have been (and dwarfs (pun intended) Moria in comparison). The amount of gold in Erebor is completely over-the-top that it kept taking me out of the film. There are other examples, such as Thranduil's Halls, Rivendell's crystal star-gazing table, and also Mount Gundabad in BoFA. Some of the Dwarven armor and weaponry is much too high fantasy. Also, Thorin's beard should have been long.
Most things were great though. Beorn's House was wonderful, Laketown felt real, and the somber atmosphere of Dale in BoFA came across well. The design of Goblin Town felt original (though the lighting felt off). Gollum's Cave looked fantastic.
Writing
Well, here we go. The writing in these films is a garbled mess. It's awful at some very basic levels, with moments of redemption offered mostly by scenes and dialogue taken straight from the book. I'm going to have to subdivide this a bit further.
- General writing
When starting to write a script for something like this, I think it's highly advisable to set down a set of clear themes, and work towards achieving them throughout the writing process. For The Hobbit, the themes I was looking for were adventure, greed, corruption, redemption, the love of home, friends and family, the hidden courage of Bilbo, and with the addition of the Dol Guldur subplot, reluctance or difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that the image of a peaceful world is soon to be shattered. Most of these themes were represented in some way, but the manner in which they were felt inconsistent, often hamfisted, and poorly thought out. I understand that in any adaptation from page to screen, changes need to be made. I do not understand, however, how the people responsible for adapting the huge tale of LotR into a magnificent film that captures the most important themes and events in a great way botched adapting 300 pages so fucking badly.
Some examples:
- Fili and Kili were not mentioned as being Thorin's nephews in AUJ and barely so in DoS, making their significant emotional climax in BoFA feel somewhat sudden and underdeveloped. Also, if you want to have a coherent trilogy and have their deaths feel significant, it might be wise to include a real sense of danger in the first and second film so that their gruesome ends do not feel quite as jarring as they did here. Seriously, they all survived Goblin Town, the Barrels sequence, and a giant, intelligent dragon chasing them, but they get killed on a scouting mission? I know this was in the book, but it doesn't work so well on film.
- They set up the theme of righteous vengeance for Beorn, whose kin was tortured and killed by Azog, only to give it absolutely zero pay-off. Beorn does not get to kill Bolg (Azog's family), or do anything significant in the story's climax, making his introduction and story feel utterly pointless.
- The Nazgûl (and the Morgul Blade) are extensively set up in AUJ and DoS. Why were they not at Dol Guldur in DoS to battle Gandalf rather than Azog? The only pay-off the Morgul Blade and Nazgûl Tombs scenes get are 9 ghostly figures that get swatted aside by Saruman and Elrond in BoFA. Yes, they prompted Gandalf to visit Dol Guldur, but could this not have been motivated differently? Trolls had come down, a pack of Orcs had attacked them, the Goblins of Goblin Town were highly active and numerous, Beorn could have captured and killed an Orc bearing the Great Eye of Sauron, etc. They could even have been attacked by Dol Guldur orcs at the Edge of Mirkwood (and get protected by awesome Beorn), prompting Gandalf to travel south to Dol Guldur instead. All this would have kept the subplot of Sauron wanting Thorin dead (to prevent Erebor from rising again) intact.
- Characters
Phillipa Boyens stated that she felt The Hobbit lacked 'feminine energy'. I don't really agree (not with the addition of Galadriel), but I guess it's a valid point. To this end they created Tauriel, a Captain of Thranduil's Realm. I quite liked this. Evangeline Lilly's initial portrayal was stern and felt Elvish in a more grounded way, which, considering her character is a Wood Elf, felt very fitting. And then they ruined it by introducing Kili as her love interest. I don't understand why this female character absolutely had to have a romantic love interest (in DoS it could have been mistaken as being platonic, but BoFA seals the deal). It feels like unnecessary audience-pandering, and, combined with how Tauriel behaved so emotionally and irrationally (a long-standing female stereotype), I think her arc was rather sexist.
Then there is Legolas. Frankly, Orlando Bloom was too old to play him, causing this Legolas to look, feel, and behave completely different from the one in LotR. The fact that they gave him exponentially more screen time than Beorn (an iconic character that had a crucial role in the final battle) is nothing short of selling off their integrity for more asses in theater seats. Yes, Legolas would have been there at the time, but that does not mean he needs to get top billing in a film about a Hobbit and a Company of Dwarves, and taking away Beorn's spotlight. I would have loved for him have gotten a cameo, maybe even a few lines and some awesome displays of archery. Oh well.
Azog. Completely unnecessary. He should have been killed (by Dain, good way to set him up) in the Azanulbizar flashback, with a shot of Bolg retreating in fear and hatred. Then the company could have been pursued by Bolg, Nazgûl could have been at Dol Guldur, and Thorin's final duel would have been versus Bolg and his terrifying bodyguard. This could still have taken place at Ravenhill, with Thorin, Fili, Kili, Dwalin and Bilbo, with Fili and Kili getting killed in front of Thorin while scouting the area, and Thorin dueling Bolg to the death (with Beorn crushing his bodyguard and carrying off both the unconscious Bilbo and mortally wounded Thorin). Tauriel's story would have been different here, with her being more of a captain and taking her most loyal warriors to assist Thorin in 'cutting off the head of the snake' and arriving too late. I think this approach would have worked much better (if given time to be properly developed).
Dain was barely set up and felt way too modern in his speech. Billy Connolly can do more than just play himself, so I'm blaming PJ for this. It felt too much like Dain playing Billy Connolly instead of the other way around.
- What I did like
I liked pretty much everything that came straight from the book. I loved how much time they spent in Bag End, the Gollum encounter, Bilbo's awkward interactions with the Dwarves and others.
Bilbo was written well, his role in BoFA being especially poignant and dramatic. Very enjoyable to watch. Thorin was written a bit differently from the book, but it felt to me as an improvement; his character had more depth and deeper motivation, making his death feel all the more painful. I loved Thranduil, who was also written differently from the book, being more haughty and less kind, which was refreshing. He was very different from the Elves we already knew; Elrond and the like. Very independent and quite unique in his thinking. I liked the (necessary) expansion of Bard's character, and though Alfrid popped up way too often in BoFA, I thought his character was well delivered.
The BoFA ending was also splendid. The auction scene and the transition to Old Bilbo (the inclusion of Ian Holm and even Elijah Wood in AUJ I did not mind at all) were touching and properly delivered.
Conclusion
Overall, these films were disappointing to me. There were bits I really liked, but overarching feeling is that it could have been so much more. These films needed a smaller budget, better writers, and PJ should have been director only. As it stands he has gotten credit as writer, producer, and director, whereas I feel he is only fit as a director. He should not have the creative freedom that comes with unlimited money and a say in everything. I don't doubt it would have also been better for his health. These films needed a stronger, more independent producer, who together with PJ should have had more balls to tell WB to get their pandering, money-grubbing fingers away from the content of the film. There should have also been someone to tell PJ to get real and quit changing scripts until the last minute. That might have prevented the miriad of loose threads and Dain being fully fucking CGI.
So you know better, huh?
Well, maybe. Obviously I'm not a director responsible for managing a gigantic circus of people (that I also created, but nevermind that), and I don't know what it's like to have WB breathing down my neck on every creative decision I make. But tell me if the following changes would not have made these films (even) more enjoyable for you:
- Proper visual continuity with LotR. Just because this is (originally) a children's novel doesn't mean it has to sometimes look like a cartoon.
- No Azog. Have him killed by Dain at Azanulbizar and motivate Bolg's allegiance with Sauron and chasing of Thorin.
- Radagast does not encounter the Necromancer, but several Nazgûl and perhaps some scary orcs at Dol Guldur.
- No Orc chase scene in AUJ. Instead Gandalf, Radagast, and the Company fight off some orc scouts, then head to Rivendell. This creates action without a need for silly rabbit sled chasing.
- Proper representation of the Dwarven race. No food fight in Rivendell, no fountain bathing, no burning of furniture (what the hell?). Dwarves being stoic can be written into funny exchanges also.
- The White Council not believing Radagast's claims about the Nazgûl instead of any Necromancer. Galadriel explicitly tells Gandalf that to convince Saruman, he needs evidence. This sets up the Tombs and also cements Saruman as being the wisest and in charge, making his fall in LotR more interesting.
- No Stone Giant battle. They can be seen throwing rocks in the distance, but this action setpiece was just one too many for me, especially with the Goblin Town stuff to follow soon after. The time spent on this battle could be spent on Gandalf in the Tombs instead.
- No insane escape from Goblin Town. Make it feel more dangerous, more like Moria in FotR. This helps create a sense of weight, of reality, and that people can get hurt. Perhaps a dwarf or two could sustain an actual wound here (Dwalin getting a cut across his face while saving Fili/Kili?). Important for BoFA.
- Bolg first appears after the escape from Goblin Town. This will work if he has gotten enough exposition during the Azanulbizar flashback.
- Eagles save the day. Gandalf explains why they can't carry them all the way to Erebor after Bofur or whoever asks.
- Beorn prompts Gandalf to go to Dol Guldur.
- Gandalf fights the Nazgûl at Dol Guldur, almost wins (callback to that great scene in the FotR book where Gandalf fights 5 Nazgûl on Weathertop), gets overtaken by Sauron.
- Tauriel is an actual captain. Legolas is featured but is reclusive like his father, a true Princeling. This makes his arc in LotR more interesting.
- After the Barrel chase, Bolg gives up and heads north to gather his armies. Tauriel follows him and reports back to Thranduil once he arrives at Dale.
- No silly Smaug vs. Dwarves scene. The book had it right, with the Dwarves cowering outside of the Hidden Door and being forced inside by Smaug's wrath.
- If you really want to have the Dwarven Windlance set up, give it some god-damn screentime in BoFA. Make it fail if you really need another false twist. Don't just build it up and then cut it.
- Change the Dol Guldur subplot to have some more weight; Sauron meant to gather his Nazgûl and other dread forces at Dol Guldur to assist Bolg's Gundabad army, but gets prevented from doing this by the White Council. No army from Dol Guldur.
- Galadriel at Dol Guldur: Less dark, more light. Use the Light of Eärendil to drive back the darkness of Sauron (neat callback to the Silmarillion). Also maybe wear some boots and that chestplate we saw in FotR. Wise women really do wear protective clothing when venturing into extreme peril.
I could write a whole lot more (and might do so if this thread gets any replies), but I'm about ready to move on and go on to rewatch these films every so often and pick out scenes I like and fast-forward through the ones I don't. There are some great scenes in this trilogy, and I have watched certain bits of AUJ and DoS many times by now.
If you've read through all of this, congratulations on reaching the end of this cathargic novel.
).
