Adaptations – Page 4 – Colin McMahon

Hobbit Changes Part One: In Defense of Tauriel

Posted on January 15, 2015 by Colin McMahon

Well, it is done. Peter Jackson’s Hobbit movies are out. Love them or hate them: the journey is over. Now comes the time for internet reflection. As with any hyped production, there were a lot of gut reactions to The Hobbit. One casting decision in particular appeared to irk some fans. In 2011, Evangeline Lilly was announced as Tauriel, a wood elf of Mirkwood. To say that the majority of people reacted with a “hmmm, that’s interesting, let’s wait and see” attitude would be a bit of an overstatement. The immediate reaction came more in the form of comments like these. There was even a wonderful little song put together, have a look:

Fun fact: that video was published on December 15th of 2013, just two days after The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug was released. Either these artists were very moved to write, shoot, edit, and release a song in two days or… it was made before any of them had even seen the film. For the record, there is nothing innately wrong with this. People are allowed to have opinions and reactions of any kind to fictional characters – there are bigger problems in the world to deal with.

One of the many more important problems gripping our world.

But that said, there is also an innate problem of jumping to conclusions and facing new material with a closed mind. Also I titled this blog post with “in Defense of Tauriel” so I am going to defend her inclusion in this Hobbit trilogy. While Tauriel “may not be in the book,” she brings many improvements to the story of The Hobbit. First and most obvious is the addition of a woman in a world where vaginas are more mythical than dragons.

Eowyn is great but it is nice to see that there was more than one active woman in Middle Earth.

Now that I got my cleverness out-of-the-way, let’s dive into the more substantial contributions. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings did not exist. In short: the Hobbit was written in a vacuum that has not existed since (and never will again). As with any simple story that was later expanded into a full universe, there are inconsistencies. For starters, let’s talk about those wood elves: what a bunch of dicks.

Seriously, how are these people good guys? When reading the Hobbit, the wood elves are terrible. The are greedy, selfish, and imprison the dwarves for basically no reason (starving dwarves stole food, can you believe their nerve?). Sure they don’t want to directly kill them like the goblins do, but is rotting in a cell really that much of an upgrade over a quick death? And once the dragon is dead and the dwarves and men are having a stupid (but kinda legitimate) battle over the treasure, the elves show up and pretty much declare it is theirs because….

They’re assholes.

"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how pretty I am." — “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over how pretty I am.”

As much as some people like to claim that the Hobbit is a perfect book and that all problems came from Satan (Peter Jackson), the reality is that this was one of the biggest problems in the story. If we are to believe that the elves are good guys (and Lord of the Rings seems to say so) then they cannot be so easily compared to the bad guys.

A good way to do this while staying true to the book is to keep Thranduil a jerk while adding two elf protagonists who are a bit more relatable. Enter Legolas and Tauriel:

People can make jokes but this is the scene of the movie that argues that the elves should actually you know, do something positive.

Sure, neither one is in the book but where else (as prince of the Mirkwood elves) would Legolas be and again, it is nice to have a character calling the elves out on their hypocrisy.

The other great contribution that Tauriel makes is Kíli . Now, I say this as a huge Tolkien fan and as someone who loved the book: I never gave a sh*t when Fíli and Kíli died. I know I know, burn me at the stake. The Hobbit was a book about Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and twelve other dwarves with different names who were all basically also Thorin. There was no real difference between them. Yes, some were fatter and some were taller and some were older but really: who cared. It is a mark of poor storytelling to have so many named characters with so little character between them. Yes, I just criticized Tolkien: deal with it.

Even with three movies, can you name all the dwarves?

When I saw the Battle of the Five Armies in theaters, I heard something I did not expect. Gasping. People gasped when Kíli died. Now, people who read the book would not gasp since they would know it was coming. Generally also, people do not gasp at the deaths of characters they do not care about. What then could be the reason?

Tauriel made people care. The love story made people care. Was it a perfect love story? Not by any stretch, but it was better than Twilight and it worked the way that Jackson had designed it to. By including a new character, he was able to add to the character of the dwarves.

Okay... I will give you that. The dialogue in this scene sounded right out of high school. — Okay… I will give you that. The dialogue in this scene sounded right out of high school.

So while she was a lady, Tauriel was added for more than just her gender difference. She improves upon weak areas of the book and allowed for people who have never read the Hobbit as children to care a little bit more about this Middle Earth journey. Was the addition a successful one? Maybe or maybe not (that’s a matter of opinion), but it was a defensible one.

Part Two here.

There and Back Again: Reviewing The Hobbit (The Battle of the Five Armies)

Posted on December 16, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Yesterday I had a rare and unexpected privilege. I was able to watch all three films of Peter Jackson‘s The Hobbit trilogy, back-to-back-to-back. I say rare because cinemas do not offer this kind of experience nearly enough, and unexpected because: they’re good, really good together. Certain films, even great ones like Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, gain very little from the trilogy viewing experience. They were created as separate entities and each tell their own story. In the case of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, however, the experience is much like The Lord of the Rings. All three films feel like they are parts to the same giant epic. The Unexpected Journey introduces audiences back to Middle Earth; The Desolation of Smaug escalates the conflict while building to the climax; and then there is The Battle of the Five Armies – what an ending it is.

In a film that echoes the overall strengths and weaknesses of the trilogy it concludes, The Battle of the Five Armies is over-the-top spectacle fueled by the simple heart of the story it is telling. Those out there who lamented the limited presence of actor Martin Freeman in The Desolation of Smaug can breathe a sigh: he is much more involved in this film. Indeed, it can be argued that the best scenes of the movie come before the blockbuster titular battle sequence.

One of the benefits of three movies allowed Jackson to develop individual personalities and presences for each of the dwarves in the company. This allows for more investment in the battle.

By breaking the story into three portions, Peter Jackson is able to give each their own feel. The Battle of the Five Armies plays out like a tragedy, with all sides building to a war that few truly want. Each leader has their own personality but is depicted as small in the events that are rapidly spiraling out of control. Whether it is the gold-driven insanity of Richard Armitage‘s Thorin, the reluctant responsibility of Luke Evans‘ Bard, or the seeming indifference of Lee Pace‘s Thranduil: every leader talks of peace while preparing for war.

Bard and Legolas are two of the more reasonable voices leading to the battle.

Here is where the not-so-subtle moral message of movie is hammered down. Greed is bad. Gold is not worth more than lives and the world would be a better place if more people treated jewels with as little value as hobbits do. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq still fresh in everyone’s minds, there are definite parallels to be drawn. A war fought solely over money while many innocents are caught and killed in the crossfire: not as fantastical as we’d all like it to be.

Certain cynics have already dismissed Jackson’s newest trilogy as a Lord of the Rings cash-in, but after watching it all play out it is clear that this was not the case. The reality is a situation very similar to 2005’s King Kong. Peter Jackson has the spirit of a child, the love of a fan… and enough money to create Middle Earth in his own image. While The Hobbit trilogy does take its bombastic nature to a fault, there is a purity running underneath it, and a sincerity that is greatly appreciated.

The controversial addition of Evangeline Lilly's Tauriel ultimately adds heart and even more of a sense of loss in The Battle of the Five Armies. — The controversial addition of Evangeline Lilly‘s Tauriel ultimately adds heart and even more of a sense of loss in *The Battle of the Five Armies*.

Lightning may not have struck twice, but it was close. In the end, The Battle of the Five Armies serves as an immensely fun and satisfying conclusion to a trilogy done well enough to stand on its own. As the ending credits roll, one cannot help but feel a sense of sadness and gratitude at the sheer spectacle that is Peter Jackson and his Middle Earth epics. It is only a shame that the story is now truly done.

Harry Realities: Voldemort is a Dweeb

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Lord Voldemort: the Dark Lord, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, You-Know-Who… That Guy. Everyone knows the story of Harry Potter (available in seven books or eight movies). Lord Voldemort is the evil villain and main antagonist of the books. He is a murderer, his most prominent victims being Harry’s parents. Many people have drawn comparisons between Voldemort and the likes of Hitler and Satan. At first glance it makes sense, I mean he did bring the wizarding world to its knees before being defeated by a conveniently resurrected teenage Messiah. Hold on one moment… teenage? Yes, J.K. Rowling may want Voldemort to come off as threatening but really – who is she kidding? Let’s take a good look at “the Dark Lord” of the Harry Potter universe as he is presented.

The Dark Mark

Here is the definition on the Harry Potter Wiki (of course there’s one): “The Dark Mark is the symbol of Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters. It refers both to a magically induced brand that every Death Eater bears on his or her inner left forearm, and to the same symbol conjured in the air by the spell Morsmordre.”

Sounds pretty cool, like an evil-summoning rally cry. How does it actually look?

Oh wow… a snake and a skull. That’s really bad-ass. Not the type of thing that would be included in EVERY SINGLE WASHABLE TATTOO SET FOR KIDS EVER.

I'm going to guess that Voldemort was either at a dollar store or a pharmacy when he came up with the design. — I’m going to guess that Voldemort was either at a dollar store or a pharmacy when he came up with the design.

This does not look like an evil logo. This is trying too hard. It is the type of thing that someone named Devlin would get when he is sixteen to “express his dark and tortured soul.” Evil does need to try and be evil. It can look as simple as this:

Moving on.

The Death Eaters

“The Death Eaters… was the name given to followers of Lord Voldemort. The group primarily consisted of wizards and witches who were radical pure blood supremacists and who practised the Dark Arts with reckless abandon and without regard to or fear of wizarding law.”

Every villain needs followers and Voldemort is no exception. As a man obsessed with power and blood supremacy, it only makes sense that he would call his followers “death eaters”… except that it doesn’t. Where did that name come from? Were “Doom Bringers” and “Pain Makers” taken? Do they feed off the death they create – are they cannibals? I’m going to guess it just sounded better than “Evil Evildoers.”

At least they look cool right?

Someone's ready for the Slayer concert. — Someone’s ready for the Slayer concert.

The Name “Voldemort”

God, how smug is the Tom Riddle when he explains this to Harry:

Ladies and gentlemen: Lord Voldemort has some daddy issues. Seriously, first the tattoo and now a new name? How much of this is screaming “you’re not the boss of me!” to anyone who will listen.

Tom Riddle Sr: “Tom, pick up your clothes. Did you clean your room like I told you?”

Tom Riddle Jr: “My name is Voldemort, dad! Voldemort! I am a great wizard!”

Tom Riddle Sr: “Sounds like one ‘great wizard’ isn’t getting any pizza this evening.”

Tom Riddle Jr.: “I hate you so much!”

Seriously, it would be like if Adolf Hitler renamed himself Nazi Maximus.

The Snake Thing

Every edgy teenager who wants to be taken seriously needs an edgy pet. Dogs and cats: only conformists have the loyalty of those creatures. Voldemort got into snakes in a big way. He has a pet snake (not an innuendo), he can speak to snakes, he even received body modification to make himself look more like a snake. Voldemort’s kind of a big deal in the snake world.

We get it man, you like snakes. No one cares.

I get it, snakes are a symbol of evil in the Old Testament. J.K. Rowling was going biblical in her villains. It is just a little silly in this day and age. You know what else was evil in the Old Testament: women. Seriously, they were the source of a lot more problems than the snake. They were even closely involved in the whole snake debacle in the garden. So if Voldemort really wanted to be Old Testament evil, he should have lost his “snake” and gone for an operation.

Voldemort playing with his pet snake... still no innuendo. — Voldemort playing with his pet snake… still no innuendo.

He is Evil to Everyone

“Voldemort was a psychopath will all the classic traits: lack of empathy, incapacity for remorse, grandiosity, selfishness, and violence. He was highly intelligent, as evidenced by his top performance at Hogwarts and his tremendous magical achievements, but his interests were narrowly focused on the usefulness of people, objects, and powers to his goals. His inability to see the larger picture and inattention to events and powers that were not immediately useful to him was a serious flaw that led to most of his setbacks and ultimately his downfall.”

Yeah… people like that never gain a lot of power. In a world where people can be killed with a wand and a couple words (or a gun), fear is not enough to attain sublime power. Even if readers believe that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard who ever lived (and the next point speaks against that), he is still not immortal. Sure, he has the horcruxes so he will come back to life… eventually, but still – Voldemort is just one man. Every dictator in history has possessed the ability to manipulate. Voldemort is just too busy trying to be cool – I mean evil.

Harry Potter

Last but not least, a villain can be defined by the protagonist he is opposing. Voldemort, supposedly the greatest wizard who ever lived, has a teenager for an arch-enemy. Sure, Harry is supposed to be gifted… but seriously. There is still a gap between strong student and greatest ever. It would be like if Stephen Hawking battled a college student with a strong G.P.A. Harry is not even the most intelligent person among his friends and yet: he is still able to outwit the Dark Lord on a regular basis.

Yeah, Voldemort is really terrifying. Remember that time he lost to an eleven year old?

Does this look like the face of mercy to you?

Bottom line: J.K. Rowling tried too hard. Voldemort is a cartoon bad guy, complete with evil laugh and sidekick. It is simply not possible to take him seriously. Yes, he is a murderer, yes he hurts people… but seriously – he is kind of a dweeb. Maybe Voldemort will amount to something when he finally grows

On a more serious note, I uncovered an excerpt from an interview with J.K. Rowling that I would like to share:

“Ravleen: How much does the fact that voldemort was conceived under a love potion have to do with his nonability to understand love is it more symbolic

J.K. Rowling: It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union – but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him. The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union.”

Yes, it seems like sex matters to J.K. Rowling, and bad people only come from loveless unions… or single parents. I may be reading too much into this but I stand by that: every time J.K. Rowling opens her mouth, the magic of Harry Potter dies that much more.