The Hobbit Trilogy

"I'm looking for someone to share in an adventure."

'The Hobbit’ trilogy has finally wrapped after a long, bloated and strenuous 6 years since pre-production started in 2008.

The way I went to see ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy is a reflection of the sheer disappointment that I felt after each one passed.

2012

‘An Unexpected Journey’

I excitedly queued up and was first in line to see it.

2013

‘The Desolation of Smaug’

I went to see it... Hopeful.

2015

‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ 

I happened to catch it on a Wednesday afternoon a couple of weeks before it left the cinema… 
More of an obligatory watch to finish the trilogy.

I’m going to discuss the three films as the trilogy, treating them like one continuing story as trilogies tend to be.

After the overwhelming success and popularity of ‘The Lord of the Rings', it was too good to be true when it was announced that ‘The Hobbit’ was in the works. Initially, visionary director Guillermo Del Toro was to take the helm and, without a shadow of a doubt, it could have and would have been an extraordinary adventure.

Del Toro could have brought a different style to the story with his background with films like ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ and ‘Hellboy’. “The Hobbit’ is much more of a children’s book than ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy was and had a much lighter, almost fairytale like feel to it that becomes progressively darker. It would have suited Del Toro to the ground. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ meets ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’... safe to say I was more than excited.

Unfortunately, after so many delays and issues, Del Toro left the project. There were rumours of various directors that could take over but, after many negotiations with New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers, it was confirmed that Peter Jackson was to take over and direct the two films.

A rocky start to say the least…

I had faith in Peter Jackson though. After all, he made ‘The Lord of the Rings’ so it’ll be just as good right?

Unfortunately not...

I became extremely worried after hearing the news that it was now going to become a trilogy instead of two films like first planned. 

There was a long debate as to whether or not it was simply a money grabbing campaign to spread it over three films or a creative decision that would best serve the story. I preferred to believe it was the latter but I was still sceptical. One book to be split into three films? How is that possible when they made three ’The Lord of the Rings’ books in three films? Granted, there was a lot of content missing from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ that would have been nice to see in the films but splitting a book like ‘The Hobbit’ into three?

My fears were all realised. 

The structure of the three films are totally off. 

‘An Unexpected Journey’ was so bloated and long that it became boring and tedious. 

‘The Desolation of Smaug’ was relatively well balanced and ’The Battle of the Five Armies’ was simply all action. 

If they had shortened the long-winded ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and combined that with half of ’The Desolation of Smaug’ then it could have been a well paced and interesting first film.

Cut down the wearisome, mindless action of ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ and attach that to the last half of ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ and it could have worked as a nice finale.

Instead of three broken films, you would then have ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ and ‘The Hobbit: There and Back Again' to evenly finish our time in Middle Earth.

Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.

In hindsight, Peter Jackson was the wrong director for the job. 

‘The Hobbit’ is an entirely different beast to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and should have been treated as such. I really shouldn’t compare ‘The Hobbit’ to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ but because of the way Jackson made ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy it makes it impossible not to.

’The Hobbit' was desperately trying to be another ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and it just didn’t work. It tried to have a similar tone to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ because of Jackson’s heavy influence when it should have been it's own style. 
Del Toro would have brought a darker and more magical edge to it that would have suited the more childish aspects of the story. However, with Jackson’s serious tone, it becomes a pantomime of melodrama and silliness when we deal with some of the more "unrealistic" characters and plot points. 

Del Toro had spoken about using futuristic animatronics that would take a ten year leap into the future for the creatures in the film which would have been amazing to see. It would have been reminiscent of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' with the gritty practical effects. You would start in the happy and golden shire at the beginning of the journey and slowly descend into a dark, nightmarish fairytale. This would have been interesting to experience rather than the epic films Peter Jackson tried to make them in an attempt to tie them into 'The Lord of the Rings'.

We ended up with a huge amount of extremely fake and silly looking CGI (Computer Generated Images) that end up taking you out of the film. It got to the stage that I wasn't sure what was real anymore, rather than what was CGI. A terrible mistake after how great ‘The Lord of the Rings’ looked with the practical effects and miniature work. The CGI in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ was ground breaking but it wasn’t over-used. The CGI was only used when something couldn’t be done practically and all of the CGI that was used looked so incredible that you forgot that it wasn’t real.

The fact that they were planning on using a real actor to portray Bolg (one of the Orc villains) in the film but later swapped the practical costume and make-up out in favour of a completely CG character, really upset me. When you see the photographs and concept art for the original character, it looks fantastic! However, we are given a totally two-dimensional CG character that has no weight or power and he becomes totally unbelievable.

CGI Bolg

 Original Bolg

Peter Jackson has said in the past that he wished all of the orcs in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ could have been CG and that way of thinking terrifies me as a movie lover.

How can you favour CG characters (that don’t ever look as real or have as much emotion) over a practical character that comes alive on screen. You can physically see and feel the character and that brings the reality of it home. They interact with the environment differently and they bring out performances in the other actors that a CG character just can't. There isn’t another orc in the series that comes close to matching Lurtz from ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ in terror or on-screen presence. Why is that? It’s because it’s a real actor! 

One CGI aspect of ‘The Hobbit’ that I actually really enjoyed was Smaug the dragon in ‘The Desolation of Smaug’. He was menacing, articulate and actually extremely intimidating. You got a sense of the sheer size and power of him with his booming voice and piercing eyes. It was quite a spectacle to watch him in 3-D in the IMAX. They seemed to have spent a lot more time working on him than any of the other effects because he seems to outshine any of the other CGI that is featured in the other two films.

Another issue I had with the CGI was how the environments looked. You get an organic feel from the ‘The Lord of the Rings’ sets and locations, they look like they could exist and some of them actually did. They went above and beyond to build and create realistic sets and miniatures to give the audience a more immersive image of Middle Earth that drew everyone in. I get that maybe they were going for a more dreamy effect for the locations as it is a more lighthearted film but you can't have it both ways when they're also creating a dark and moody tone for the rest of the film. I always remember seeing the original locations in 'The Lord of the Rings' for the first time. Rivendell was breathtaking, Rohan was majestic and Moria was haunting.

What we get in ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy is awful looking CGI environments that look more like a Thomas Kinkade painting, not that there's anything wrong with a Thomas Kinkade painting, it’s just that this is Middle Earth we’re dealing with, not Disney...

(Rivendell from 'The Hobbit')

(Thomas Kinkade)

Martin Freeman was a good choice for Bilbo, I can say that much for it. He captured the essence of Bilbo and I honestly can’t think of an other actor that I would have rather seen in that role. His prudish attitude and mannerisms are so representative of Bilbo and the Hobbit lifestyle that he blends right into Middle Earth with ease.

The famous scene with Gollum from the book was also a memorable moment. It actually felt like great cinema and like we were getting a flavour of how good the films could have been. It felt closer to the feel of the book and it gave us a ray of hope that we never really felt again.

Most of the action sequences in ‘The Hobbit’ looked like a ride that you would see in Disneyland. They were ridiculous in the context that they were in. If Del Toro had done a similar sequence in the almost fairytale like style then it probably would have been acceptable in that world. For instance, the Barrel sequence in ’The Desolation of Smaug’ was absolutely ridiculous but it should have been a memorable moment from the book that just didn’t translate in Jackson's vision.

This being said, some of the more traditional action sequences from 'The Battle of the Five Armies' was actually quite enjoyable. When it wasn't silly and exaggerated, it was quite a sight with all the various armies all joining in one place for an epic showdown. I revelled in seeing the Dwarven army for the first time, something that you never get a taste of in 'The Lord of the Rings'. However, despite all of the huge action and intricate set pieces, I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed as I've seen them all before and I've seen them done better. It felt like a video game that was made as a spin off for 'The Lord of the Rings', it's exciting to play but I'd rather see the real thing in the movie. 

There's a lot of convenient stalling when villains are allowing heroes to have their "touching" moment and (just when you think all hope is gone) there's suddenly someone there to rescue them! You quickly catch on to it and it becomes predictable. They do it so often that it's almost laughable.

The characters that we knew and loved from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ became caricatures of themselves. We didn’t care for anyone, not even Gandalf… All of his lines were like cheap rip-offs of the extraordinarily heart-felt moments he gave us in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, which is heartbreaking to say. Don't get me wrong, Ian Mckellen is a phenomenal actor but he even said that he broke down crying on the set because of the lack of human interaction working with the green screen and the excessive use of special effects.

"I cried, actually. I cried. Then I said out loud, 'This is not why I became an actor'."

It's so hard to actually care for any of the characters in the film. For instance, the forced love story between dwarf number 7 and the elf lady just totally missed the mark. You never spend enough genuine time with any of the characters to develop a bond that, if broken, would render you helpless. Even when some of the main characters start dying it's hard to care. 
Comparatively in 'The Lord of the Rings' when a character is dying or in danger, you can't help but cling onto the edge of your seat in the hope that they'll survive. Sometimes even bringing a tear to your eye. Unfortunately, this just never happens in any of 'The Hobbit' movies, even though they were trying their best to get that same reaction. 

Overall, the trilogy as a whole is a total misfire. There was so much money pumped into three films that shouldn’t have been made by a director that just needs to learn to let go. A disappointing end to what could have been a half decent set of films had Del Toro made them.

Although, we did get a great song out of the 'The Desolation of Smaug' by Ed Sheeran. I'd say that was a small consolation. 

Just stick to 'The Lord of the Rings' and forget this trilogy ever happened.