It was a cue that the overall tone of the final Hobbit film had been altered when it’s subtitle was changed from There and Back Again to The Battle of the Five Armies. And while the film has its fair share of dazzling moments, it does prove what many fans had bemoaned from the very start of this enterprise: it should have been two films, not three.
Minor spoilers for the film (and book) below.
First thing’s first—the over-expansion of these films leads to one of their greatest missteps in the very first fifteen minutes. It is basically a reverse of the situation in the Lord of the Rings trilogy; in the books, Boromir dies at the start of The Two Towers, but for a film, that resonance isn’t going to play at the very start of a new film. Here, the opposite decision is made regarding Smaug’s attack, and the cognitive dissonance it causes is acute. Wait, who is that dragon again? Where were we when the last film ended? What are we concerned about? You remember Bard the Bowman, right kids? When all three films are available to marathon it won’t be so noticeable, but to jump right in on the action with exactly zero setup is a mistake that should have been reconsidered back when the second movie was released.
That said, it’s bothersome to hear people claim that Peter Jackson has “George Lucas’d” his films because he has proven himself to be a far more conscientious filmmaker in the long run. When the outcry over the 48 frames-per-second release occurred on the first Hobbit movie, Jackson went out of his way to make certain that the next two films looked better at 48fps. It’s most evident in the final installment; the higher frame rate is seamlessly integrated this time around, providing a more immersive sense to the world, but never distracting. Frame rate aside, it’s been hinted in several places that the studio stepped in far more often on these films than they did in LOTR—even the opening is jarring in this film, with the Warner Brothers logo displayed more prominently than it ever was before.
The studio’s interference is particularly glaring in the case of Tauriel’s love triangle with Kili and Legolas, something that the actress actively negotiated against in these films. It’s depressing to watch these scenes pan out because they distract from the core narrative in the worst possible way, making Tauriel’s addition to the world far less welcome than it might have been. Her function in the story as a foil to King Thranduil’s arrogance and distance was an excellent way of weaving a new female presence into the story—if only she weren’t constantly waylaid by emotions that she was literally given all of ten minutes to develop. You can almost see her railing against the higher-up mandate in several of these scenes. Both she and Orlando Bloom appear intent on bucking the studio’s influence by flat-out refusing to have chemistry, but that only makes their scenes together seem outright superfluous (because they are).
Even though the film is two-and-a-half hours long, we get surprisingly little of the core band. It is right for Jackson to put the primary focus on Thorin in these (too few) scenes, and he does, but the rest of the dwarves—who started out in An Unexpected Journey with much clearer characters and voices—all get lost as a result, with the exception of Balin and Dwalin. And sort of Kili. When Thorin does get his due, we see what was intended by this telling all along—Jackson’s desire to give the dwarven king and his band some degree of dignity and empathy, rather than making them out as haughty misers.
The addition of items from the Silmarillion and the LOTR appendices to the Hobbit’s plot line have been the cause of a great deal of controversy, and while these additions were fairly well assimilated into the narrative in the previous films, it basically falls apart here. There’s simply too much information; less active Tolkien fans are likely to get lost in these proceedings because there aren’t enough through lines to tie all these disparate pieces together. We see Sauron get driven from Dol Guldur (and Galadriel is spectacular to that effect), but that isn’t as tied in to the orc armies as it needs to be. Azog—the big bad papa orc for this entire trilogy—is far too important still, and it confuses the issue of who’s truly in charge here, him or Sauron?
When the film does what it is supposed to do, and focuses on the relationships between Bilbo and Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf, Thorin and his kin, Bard and his family, even Tauriel and Legolas and Thranduil, the movie utterly shines. It’s a comfort in some ways, but it also throws the film’s issues into sharp relief. There is a lot of great material here and it doesn’t get anywhere near the focus is deserves. With so many puzzle pieces, it reads like an extended edition already (and Jackson has announced that he still has 30 minutes of additional footage to tack on), and the result is a sloppiness that could have easily been avoided.
It’s too bad that there are so many plots to put attention on because the actual Battle of the Five Armies gets less attention than it needs. It’s particularly heartbreaking because these sort of battle scenes are one of Jackson’s forte, and all the usual emotional punches that he layers into them are present… only to get waylaid by several other arcs that need resolving. It really does feel like the studio wanted more for their money, and just pushed for as many toppings on the hamburger that they could possibly achieve. The end result isn’t edible, but at least the execs feel like they got what they paid for.
There are a some very strange additions to Middle-earth on this go-around that feel entirely gratuitous, particularly when the fifth and final army arrives on the scene. They are creature-y and odd and require much more explanation that they’re given. (Guillermo del Toro helped with these scripts and these really do read like his sort of additions, so one has to wonder…) In addition, the appearance of Thorin’s cousin Dain is entirely jarring because—for some inexplicable reason—he is rendered entirely in CGI. Which is uncanny in the extreme and causes all of his scenes to be filmed at odd angles, as though they were trying to hide it. I assume there was an actual reason for this decision, but it had unfortunate results.
Certain additions to Tolkien’s story are bound to divide the hardcore fans, but they are still fun to consider here. For example, the question of Legolas’ maternity gets addressed, and for my part, I enjoyed the background given. Jackson also grandfathers in certain aspects of his LOTR films, and it’s pretty great—he gives reason for the Aragorn-Legolas buddy-buddy situation in those movies, something that never actually occurred in the books, but remains one of fandom’s favorite aspects of the films. A prominent death on screen also mirrors Boromir’s farewell with excellent parallels in both dialogue and visuals. So there are touches here and there, places where everything feels cohesive. Instead of extended editions, perhaps Jackson could go the opposite route and shave The Hobbit down to two films, as he originally intended. I’d watch that director’s cut in a hot second.
So it’s a bittersweet farewell, but it was fun all the same. With any luck, the full Middle-earth marathons will make everything flow together, and either way, it’s a journey that I was happy to take.
Emmet Asher-Perrin still cried a lot during the battle scenes and death scenes, and scenes that alluded to the battle scenes and death scenes. You can bug her on Twitter and Tumblr. Read more of her work here and elsewhere.
I agree with many of your points but there are a couple I disagree with.
1) I didn’t think that jumping right in with Smaug was a bad decision when I saw it. For me, once Smaug attacks the city his role his importance is gone. And honestly, I’m struck by how Smaug isn’t all the important even in the book. I mean he’s the biggest hurdle in the Dwarves returning but the climax of the book is the Battle of Five Armies. In hindsight, I think Peter Jackson did a fascinating job giving Smaug lingering importance after his death with the idea that Thorin’s obsession is a residual effect of Smaug’s presence over the years. And the mental toll that it took on Bilbo.
2) I thought the creature-y-ness of the final battle scene was awesome. It was reminiscent of the moment the oliphants first showed up in the original LotR. I wanted the fantastical elements that were more present in the Hobbit’s fairy-tale-esque to come out in this trilogy and they definitely did. Also King Dane’s steed was awesome. I will say my only disappointment was that it seemed they were setting up an appearence by a Balrog but that never happened.
I would absolutely buy the two-disc edition of
The Hobbit: There
The Hobbit: Back Again
Most reviewers I have read claim that Desolation of Smaug was the best of the 3. I did enjoy it, but I would not have put it as a clear favorite amongst the first 2 Hobbit movies (haven’t seen last one yet). However, after Jackson released the extended edition, I can agree that Desolation is better than Unexpected. My hope is that Battle of 5 Armies will be equally improved by its extended edition.
The book should have been made into ONE film. I wasn’t excited about the first movie and thought it was decent enough when I finally saw it (not in the theaters). I couldn’t bring myself to watch all of the second movie despite being on a transatlantic flight with little else to do. I have no desire to go see this one. The Hobbit is even better than the Lord of the Rings but Jackson has made it so much worse (I’m not as willing to let him off the hook as Emily).
I will see this, but everything I’m reading makes it clear that this movie is going totally off the deep ending into fan fiction–Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit,” not J.R.R. Tolkien’s. It’s really disconcerting, trying to reconcile admiration for the obvious craft and enthusiasm that went into these movies with the sinking feeling that none of it is right.
Was anyone else bothered by the over-use of slow motion in the battle? Admittedly Jackson has been doing that for ages, all the way back to the LotR trilogy, but it got really obnoxious during this long, pondering walrus of a battle. And the slow-mo damsel-cam was offensively bad.
Also, damn it, Azog, that’s not how armor works in water!
I think for these movies to work, you have to accept The Hobbit as the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Which probably is not what Prof. Tolkien intended for it, but it is what lies behind Mr. Jackson’s adaptation.
I think it’s sometimes forgotten that The Hobbit is a book with little dialogue, few character beats, and most of the action glossed. To make The Hobbit in one film would, I think, have been to ignore the fact that The Hobbit covers more ground even than Fellowship, just with fewer words. It really needed two films.
As much as Jackson has chosen to own the three film decision, I suspect we have the studio to thank. I find it very hard to believe that a director would willingly dispose of a quarter of his two films and redo it all by choice–and what did we lose in the process? Gandalf looking into the palantir and fighting off the ringwraiths. Galadriel tearing down Dol Guldur. Avoiding the warg chase before Rivendell. The scene with Thorin embracing Bilbo happening in the most sensible place–after the barrels. Less action. Not having the third act battle between Smaug and the dwarves. Avoding the Tauriel romance. It’s sad to think of what might have been.
There was much to enjoy about this film, particularly the beginning and ending. But it’s clear from commentary from the writers that all kinds of good things were axed, rearranged, and forced to change in the shift to three films.
I await a fan edit that makes two films of this, or one very, very long one. Because there is a wonderful, beautiful film in there. I respect Jackson and his work, and I wish there had been less meddling in it.
The attempts to connect the Hobbit and LotR movies at the end should have been left out. There is no reason why Thranduil should send Legolas to Aragorn except to connect the movies, and the focus on the ring at the end didn’t make sense either (Gandalf doesn’t know yet that it is important).
I liked most of the rest of the movie.
For someone that reads and re-reads Tolkien, you would be well advised to not think about it too much, sit back and watch the very pretty pictures. Not knocking Peter Jackson, this is the sort of movie he does, very well. I understand this will be his last venture in Middle Earth, but there is this unfinished George Lucas/ Chris Claremont series, Shadow Moon, Shadow Dawn and Shadow Star that would shine with Jackson’s touch, and lack the horde of nitpickers we Tolkien fans can be.
I’m sure one day I’ll pick up all three Extended editions and watch them
all back to back and probably thoroughly enjoy them,but I’m also hoping
that someone tries to edit them down to one or two films, and I look
forward to seeing that too.
I had the good fortune to see these films as a whole, ie. the Marathon. Taken as one movie it flowed together better than I had expected. Yes, this is Peter Jackson and company’s interpretation. Any book to film is an interpretation. If you want a Hobbit that clings fairly closely to the book, and if you want a light hearted children’s movie, Rankin Bass did it fairly well. Jackson’s interpretation attempts to do what Prof. Tolkien himself was thinking of; integrate the story of Bilbo and the Ring into the larger narrative. Proof: Tolkien went and revised the Riddles in the Dark chapter from the original innocuous version.
Given infinite time it’s possible that Tolkien would have gone back and completely revised The Hobbit into a completely different book, a prequel to LOTR. The man was an inveterate reviser, constantly rewriting everything he had ever written. It would have been a mistake; the movies prove that I think. And maybe he wouldn’t have done it after all–he managed to restrain his reinterpretation of The Hobbit into the LOTR story mostly to the appendices.
SPOILER TIME! I thought some of Tauriel’s final lines in her exchange with Thranduil were frankly embarrassing — like a Twilight Zone episode about a robot who learns to love. And I think they significantly dropped the ball by not giving her a proper exit from the franchise — either killing her off or having her say she’s heading to the Grey Havens to sail into the Undying West.
Still, I was mostly entertained.
Tolkien did in fact attempt a rewrite of The Hobbit in the 50’s, if I recall correctly, but abandoned it in short order. He intended to recast the entire novel in line with the tone and content of LotR. What he completed is found in The History of The Hobbit volumes…and it’s rather dry and lifeless. If the author didn’t think it a good idea, why did PJ and the studios think it would be?!
The sin isn’t that he changed Tolkien’s work; it’s that he made it so much worse.
The sin? No sin. We got to see movies that were fairly good that may never have happened without PJ. As I life long reader, I say HUZZAH!
I’ve read a few reviews now (here, on io9, etc.) that all seem to be finding some faults with the Hobbit movies. That has not been my experience. I saw this latest one on Tuesday night, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I loved all the LotR movies (yes, even all the endings upon endings), and re-watch the extended versions regularly. Similarly with the two Hobbit films out on disc already.
I liked and still like the idea to do these as multiple movies, because it better connects this Hobbit trilogy to the LotR trilogy.
In fact, I’d say that while I enjoy reading the books, I like the experience of watching these movies more. And, I don’t like reading the Silmarillion, which to me reads like all the begant sections of the bible, and always struck me as notes instead of a complete story. However, having elements from that in these movies serves in my opinion to enhance the movies.
Finally, the point that doesn’t seem to get brought up enough is that I feel these succeed wildly as prequels to the LotR movies – in fact, the best prequels we’ve seen. They are gorgeous, epic in scale, tell a heartfelt story about real characters with action and humor, but they don’t eclipse the intensity of the LotR movies – they very definitely build towards them. Not a mean accomplishment, and one I feel is ever the more successful because it is done during movies that also succeed in their own right.
Perhaps reviews should move away from “right vs. wrong” and “good vs. bad” and stick more to enjoyed or didn’t. For I don’t know as I’m qualified to make a value judgement, but I certainly enjoyed this movie, and will continue to enjoy it with each re-watch, only wishing that it was longer so I’d have more to enjoy. YMMV.
I absolutely loved the final Hobbit movie. It was too short though! The only thing I did not like was the forced love story between Tauriel and Kili (or Fili, whichever it was). Everything else was great – the epicness, the self sacrifice, the character transformation.
I saw it yesterday and will be seeing it again today and again on Sunday. I hope the extended version DVD shows him stopping in Rivendell and the Troll cave on the way back.
I think the films should have been made into two rather than three, but overall, I think they did an excellent job adapting the Hobbit into a film. The fact is, The Hobbit, as written by Tolkien, is a bit disappointing – it’s a children’s book, filled with a degree of silliness not present in any of the other works on Middle Earth, and very brief. But the core story is in some ways richer than the story of Lord of the Rings: it involves characters that are far more complex and morally ambiguous, for example. Thorin and Thranduil in particular are characters who are neither ‘strictly good’ nor ‘strictly evil,’ like most of the characters in LotR (Boromir is sort of an exception, but he isn’t really a main character and his flaws are largely caused by the magic of the Ring anyway). For the most part, the expansions or changes which were added to these Hobbit films only made the story better (with some obvious exceptions, like seeing a fat old Legolas and his pseudo-girlfriend who fell in love with a dwarf based on a five second conversation they had – that was just ridiculous). Losing the ‘tra-la-la-la-la-ly’ song at Elrond’s, for example, is one of the best decisions they could make. Realizing that the trolls are a few weeks’ journey from the Shire (whereas in the Hobbit they meet the trolls on the first day, if I remember) and adjusting that, also a good decision. Having Gandalf be slightly more proactive about fighting the trolls was an excellent choice as well. And I could go on.
By contrast, I disliked every change to the Lord of the Rings story. They utterly ruined the characters of Faramir and Gandalf with their changes, and other changes felt superfluous. Also, Martin Freeman makes a FAR better hobbit than any of the actors they had in the Fellowship in those films.
What I would like to see would be a remake of the LotR movies, redone with the same kind of care and attention that they used to make the Hobbit trilogy. Because I think they did a much better job adapting the Hobbit than they did with LotR.
One note on the ‘creatury’ stuff: while those kinds of creatures weren’t brought up in The Hobbit or in LotR directly, it is worth noting that Gandalf does mention there were many strange creatures under the earth when he went down into the abyss with the balrog, so I didn’t feel like it was all that out of place to see the creatures we had.
A lot of people love The Hobbit, the book, because it’s utterly different in tone from LOTR. And they dislike LOTR. Several of my friends are this way. To them, Jackson destroyed a story they loved to tie his movies into a story he loved. You all may agree with Jackson. They just feel the way I did after seeing the travesty that was The Dark is Rising movie or others that Hollywood has trashed because they didn’t understand what it was that people loved in a book. Or more likely they didn’t care about preserving it.
I will admit the following statements:
1. I am thankful that Guillermo del Toro did not direct.
2. I truly loved how one of my favorite actors of all time, Christopher Lee, was kicking ass was taking names during the fight scene with the Nazgul.
3. I accept the distance between a novel and a screenplay is a long, complicated way, so I took no pre-concieved notions into the theater with me.
4. Legolas looked cute flying a bat. Beorn looked scary riding an eagle.
5. I really enjoyed the movie.
6. I didn’t take enough tissues.
7. I will be going back to see it again.
The forced love triangle (I’m happy to learn the actors did not approve) made Legolas into an entirely different character, cold and domineering and bossy and jealous completely unlike the person I liked so much from LoTR who seemed to be seeing so much of the world for the first time. And it made Tauriel a borderline distress damsel. WHY do creators consistently seem to believe that a a story, any story, simply can’t function without a romance or five?
There were so many forced parallels with elements from LoTR that didn’t need to be… ah well. I was happy to be in a nice quiet theater for a couple of hours.
Galadriel was magnificent and Thranduil was awesome.
Although the post and comments make a lot of valid points about the movie, I truly enjoyed as a visual spectacle, an adventure, and also for some terrific performances.
I recall when the LOTR movies came out, people raged against them–probably the same folks who now unfavorably compare the Hobbit Trilogy with the first one.
I already left a big long comment on Jeff’s post but I will say I had no problem with the tie ins to Lord of the Rings – I actually really enjoyed those and what have liked to see a few more (maybe in an epilogue). I just really hate all the time wasted on overblown battle scenes that went on far too long.
“When the film does what it is supposed to do, and focuses on the relationships between Bilbo and Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf, Thorin and his kin, Bard and his family, even Tauriel and Legolas and Thranduil, the movie utterly shines.” – yes, THIS. And in fact, I would not have minded some more quiet moments between Kili and Tauriel getting to know each other, so that the final scene would have some weight (and I would have vastly preferred it if instead, Kili would have died defendning Thorin).
It is totally my fanon now that Legolas’s mom taught him all his moves.
So I didn’t notice at all that Dain was CGI.
Which makes me wonder all the more why they couldn’t use CGI to put Martin Freeman’s face on the little person double in the long shots of Bilbo and Gandalf walking back to the Shire, or maybe just digitally insert him entirely since the proportions were different as well. It was incredibly jarring to see very obviously Not Bilbo in those shots.
Then again, it makes me wonder why all the hobbits were not cast as little people from the get-go…
so, has anyone actually done the MATH on that Aragorn-Legolas deal? Events in LOTR happen about 60 years after Hobbit (Bilbo was in his 50’s in Hobbit, 111 when LOTR occurs) If Legolas went to meet Aragorn right after Hobbit, Aragorn would have had to be at least in his 70’s in LOTR! That dude is well preserved, if that’s the case! This is the ‘peppble in the shoe’ for me in this movie – otherwise I loved it.
I did not read the books, but have seen all three movies. With that said I agree with many of your points but some are flying over my head. The most prominent being there should have only been two movies. I felt very disconnected throughout the film. All of the feeling built during the other films were distant and stale. Add that to the character changes and instant action, I had to fight off the new feelings too quickly to enjoy the story. You did shead light on somethings that were confusing to me while in the theater. I believe it invoovled all the different plots with no ties to what was going on or what I thought I knew about the story. I’m hoping a marathon of the films will change my mind concerning my overall thoughts of the last film. But it may take reading the books to truelly appreciate everything that was going on.
@27 – Aragorn is in his 80s in the Lord of the Rings, actually (and there IS a scene in the extended editions where he tells Eowyn his age). He’s a Dunedain, and they have long life. So, in the ‘real’ timeline, I think Aragorn would actually only be a child during the events in the Hobbit.
But, also, PJ has greatly compressed the timelines in general, as there is supposed to be something like 12 years in between Bilbo’s going away party and Frodo actually leaving the Shire). So, in order for Aragorn to be the right age in Lord of the Rings when we finally meet him, it actually does end up working out that Aragorn may be in his 20s or so during the movie version of the timeline.
I can’t believe this movie was 150 minutes, and Beorn got maybe 1.25 seconds. If there was one thing I expected PJ to do, it was to put in so much extraneous battle that I’d be sick of watching Beorn kick ass by the end.
Of all the things that Jackson stuffed into the movies (and there definitely should have been only two!), Alfrid is the absolute worst!! I thought at first that Tauriel was going to be the worst addition but, boy, was I wrong.
And speaking of Tauriel, she did not fall in love with a dwarf as Kili (and Thorin, of course) were NOT dwarves but undersized humans! Given the visual characterization of all the dwarves in all 6 movies, puting a little (very little in Kili’s case) facial hair on Thorin and Kili does not make them dwarves.
I also got really tired of surfer-dude/Road Runner/generic cartoon character Legolas, who should not have been in the Hobbit movies at all.
Overall I felt mostly disappointed in this latest movie, although I can’t really point to any one thing that made it disappointing. I do remember my first thought when the credits started to roll at the end was that they should have said “Very, very loosely based on Tolkien”. Maybe the extended edition and the eventual Blu-Ray box set will go down better. I hope so.
I’m still trying to understand what they did to Legolas’ face. He was hardly recognizable. Did they do a CGI over it for some reason? To make him look younger than in TOTR?