Visiting Disneyland immediately after
the release of the second Lord of the Rings movie was a lot of fun. I
remember walking down the side-walk at Downtown Disney, going into
the movie-prop shop, to Tomorrowland and basically all over. I wasn't really even paying
attention to what we were doing or what rides we were going on
because I was too busy discussing invisible bullet-points to “Things
that sucked in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'” with my big
brother (and fellow Tolkien fan.)
It went something like this:
“Oh, my gosh. That was so dumb.
Faramir didn't try to take Frodo and Sam back to Gondor in the book.”
“I know!
he was a totally different character. And the whole thing with him
beating up Gollum.”
“Ugh...That was so stupid!”
“Aragon falling over the cliff did
not make sense at all.”
“Because there's now way we could
like, find out that information except by accident! Not like we sent
scouts out or anything.”
“Oh, my gosh! And they totally gutted
the Ents.”
“No kidding! They didn't even have
Quickbeam!”
(etc. etc)
Eventually, after a few hours of
complaining, I came to a realization:
“Hey, CJ? You know, I think we
really liked this movie.”
“Yeah," My brother admitted "but it's fun to complain
about.”
We didn't really hate the movie, I think that simply by complaining about it we were (in a weird way) celebrating it. It was fun to: 1) “see” your fav. Character
on screen, and 2) see a creative person's unique vision
of the story (and it was fun to talk about how ours was better!)
In that spirit, I would like to discuss
“Things That Sucked About The Hobbit”
“Azog...Hmm...that name sounds familiar, I
thought the one who killed Thorin's granddad died.”
*Looks in
the book*
“Ooh! He did die. His son Blog would
have been the one to pursue the dwarves and fight them in the Battle
of Five Armies.”
Boo! Not only did they loose the
opportunity to expand the role of the goblin armies, they also lost
the opportunity to explore them as sentient (albeit corrupt) beings.
The roles could have been reversed a bit, with Blog trying to take
revenge on the people who killed his father. That would have
actually been true and it would have led up to the climax
of “The Hobbit” better then side-stepping what Tolkien wrote.
I understand what they were trying to
do, and in a way I think they did it too well. Thorin Oakenshield is
the most broody, majestic dwarf ever. While I think (especially after
reviewing the Appendicies on him...but that will take up a whole
post!) this is fairly consistent with Tolkien's vision of the
character, I also think they painted him a bit too one dimensionally.
Thorin knows how to have fun when he wants, and while he might be
prejudiced, he is not racist and DOES NOT hate ALL the elves.
As with the previous heading, I
understand they were trying to develop the antagonism between dwarves
and elves. And establishing the darker, somewhat self-serving nature
of elves by having the Wood-Elves show up right when the dragon takes
over the Lonely Mountain and turn around and leave without an
explanation was a nice touch. Makes me hope that Thorin goes
completely crazy when the Wood-Elf king does the complete opposite
for humans once the
(spoiler alert)
The dragon is killed.
(end spoiler)
:P
Emotionally, it evokes sympathy for
the Dwarves and prejudice against elves. Practically though, it
doesn't make sense that the wealthy Party-King Thranduil would be
willing to render military aid (before he knew it was a dragon) but
NOT be willing to render assistance to helpless refugees of a allied
nation.
I don't really have a big problem with
the whole White Council scene (Except for the fact that its boring
and takes away time from Bilbo and the Dwarves that could have been
way more entertaining and establish Bilbo's relationship with the
elves and contrast it with that of the Dwarves. Which in turn would
establish Bilbo as even more of an outsider and out of his element,
so much so that he doesn't mind being teased cuz' he knows it's all
in good fun. And that the Elves are basically good-natured but except
for a few like Lindir. (really deserves it's own bullet point, I
guess))
Seriously! I wish the would have shown
Saruman as an amiable guy. He's supposed to be someone Gandalf
thought he could turn to in a time of need, someone who has all
answers. Now they paint him as that bossy guy Gandalf can
barely stand to be around. And you (the viewers) are like... “Well
of course Saruman turned evil! He's a prick!”
Take note! Everyone
Gandalf tries to help thinks he is a prick! EVERYONE in freaking
LAKETOWN thinks Bard is a nay-saying prick RIGHT before they make him
their liege-lord.
The “good guys=nice/bad guys=mean”
may seem convenient to the narrative of the story but it doesn't ring
true...or even work particularly well.
It's not that I don't appreciate
starting the Hobbit at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring, it's
great to tie them together and there is a pre-exisiting link, as
Bilbo is writing down the story in Fellowship of the Ring's Extended
Version anyways.
Also
There are some parallels that are
organically a part of the Hobbit/Rings franchise. Whether it is
“Expected” or “Unexpected”, there is going to be a party in
both stories. And, of course, you can't cross middle earth without
making a pit-stop in Rivendell. And if you try to cross over (not
under) the Misty Mountains there is going to be a storm and your
travel plans will be diverted. Eventually eagles fly everyone into
the sunset/sunrise but not to the Lonely Mount Doom because even
though they're afraid of human shepherds, but not of orc/goblin
armies. Nope...
(Ahem...)
However,
Peter Jackson took the visual imagery
to the extreme, causing some awkward moments. I'm thinking
particularly of when Bilbo puts on the ring the first time. Like in
the book, Bilbo is a bit OCD and we see Bilbo running with his hand
in his pocket so the ring doesn't fall out.
It would be perfectly
natural for him to simply slip on the ring at that point. It would be
more secure on his finger, he wouldn't worry about loosing it so
much. But, no....
BECUZ we MUST MATCH THE OTHER MOVIE PRECIOusSSSSSSSSS!!!!
I'm not talking about the songs sung
by the dwarves etc. I actually really enjoyed those. I'm talking
about the musical score; much of which is re-used from FOTR. I
undertand using “The Shire” music, and some of the character
themes, what I hate is when they use the exact same music overlay
over a completely different moment.
For instance, when Thorin takes on the
Azog the Albino Orc they play the same music played in FOTR's
Weathertop...you know...when Frodo gets stabbed by the Witch-king and
Aragon comes and chases them away.
The same low base beats (goes like this: Dun, dun, dun,
dun, dun, dun, dun, dun—Dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnn) Completely
different moments! For Thorin, this is a highly-emotional personal
battle and for the Hobbit'sin FTOR it's about escaping an eminent
threat. It's pretty distracting when the same emotion is being played
in the background.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, I think they did exactly
what I was afraid they would do with the film: make it so grand and
epic you loose sight of the personal journey of Bilbo becoming a
better man/Hobbit.
In the book, Bilbo really is helpless:
he doesn't even know how to climb a tree, he can't as fast as the
dwarves (sometimes they even take turns carrying him) so much so
that, when he reveals himself to be capable to great heroism,
cunning, (and treachery) it's a huge surprise because no one would
have suspected him of it.
Did that stop me from enjoying the
film? No. I did enjoy Peter Jackson's version, I just like mine better.
