The Lord of the Rings

Whether the criticism is fair or not, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has certainly received its share. I stand by my initial review of the movie yet I can definitely understand where people are coming from. In making three movies, the only thing Peter Jackson has proved so far is that two films would have been enough. There and Back Again will have to prove itself this Christmas. Yet whether that film is good or not, the base criticism will remain: it isn’t the book. At the conclusion of this trilogy there still will be no faithful, live-action adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s book. It seems that The Hobbit was just destined to be swallowed up by Lord of the Rings, the epic film trilogy that preceded it.

If only it could have been like that animated version that was created by Rankin/Bass back in 1977. That adaptation was nearly spot on (for those Tolkien fans out there who haven’t seen it – do so). If only Rankin/Bass had continued adapting Tolkien stories, maybe then we’d have a complete set of faithful adaptations. Well, they did do one other – just one other. The Return of the King was released in 1980. Yes… The Return of the King… because nobody has time for beginnings and middles anymore. Actually it had a lot more to do with the fact that there was an animated version of the first part of The Lord of the Rings released around the same time (also check that one out… it is interesting to say the least – more on that later). Anyway, point is they tried their hand at Lord of the Rings… and it felt way too much like the Hobbit.

For starters, examine the cover they went with for the DVD release. Notice anything? Hobbits and dwarves, front and center. Now it’s understandable to put Frodo and Sam on the cover as they are two of the main characters in both the book and the film. Where is Aragorn you may ask? Not important: at least not as important as those two dwarves, neither of whom is Gimli by the way. Also, is that a dragon in the upper corner… what?

In some cases: covers can be misleading. After all, they are the product of marketing campaigns and not the filmmakers. Suffice it to say: the marketing was trying to make this resemble the Hobbit as much as possible. Sound familiar?

Fun fact: there is actually a hobbit on this poster!

So marketing is on the same page. But how is the Return of the King content-wise? It is not an epic. Not by any stretch of the imagination. This version of J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterpiece is framed as the simple story of two hobbits simply walking into Mordor. Yes, Aragorn is in the film but is barely featured in it. Legolas and Gimli are cut altogether and there is very little focus on the battles. In fairness, for being only 98 minutes long, the film does manage to include an awful lot, it is merely simplified.

For the record, I always like how they made the Witch King look in this. Too bad the rest of the Nazgul look laughable. — For the record, I always liked how they made the Witch King look in this. Too bad the rest of the Nazgul appear laughable.

In watching Rankin/Bass’ version of Return of the King, the audience really does get the hobbit-sized version. The story is revealed to us by the hobbits after all (with the aid of a minstrel, hired by Gandalf, cause why not) so they naturally take center stage. The more epic parts of the story are barely touched upon because hobbits are not interested in that sort of thing.

This is a photo of everyone who has a major role in the film. Sorry for the small size but please note: half of them are hobbits.

Back again from the Hobbit are the musical numbers. I am aware Tolkien included songs in his work but can someone please tell me on what page can “Where There’s a Whip There’s a Way” is found? Seriously, I used to love that song as a kid: totally my jam.

My point is this: all of this has happened before and all this will happen again. Tolkien, and books as a platform, enjoy an advantage that films, particularly blockbusters, do not. They can change tone. The Hobbit is nothing like the Lord of the Rings. It was written long before Tolkien ever envisioned Sauron or the Nazgul or anything like that. It didn’t matter because the Hobbit was written first. Peter Jackson never had that luxury.

Rest assured, the hobbit bromance is in tact.

If he were to make a version of the Hobbit as it was originally created, then non-Tolkien fans would have had a few questions, namely: where is Gandalf throughout most of this movie, it seems kind of convenient that he just vanishes and appears as plot dictates. Why does the all powerful ring have no effect on Bilbo Baggins (who wears it for long stretches of time in the book). What was the dwarves’ plan for dealing with Smaug? Why does no one in Lake Town think it’s a bad idea for thirteen dwarves and a hobbit to go wake up a dragon? Why are the elves such jerks (still a valid question)? Why does Bilbo even care about these dwarves (seriously, if you think Thorin is an ass in the movie…)?

Anyway, I’m not making excuses for Jackson’s epic. “Why is there an elf-dwarf love story” is also a valid question.

There is a weakness in Hollywood that success merits only additional success. The child-friendly version of the Hobbit created by Rankin/Bass was a huge hit, therefore a child-like version of Return of the King is the way to go. An epic version of the Lord of the Rings was a masterpiece so Bilbo better get epic with it. The good news is this: the books still exist and will always exist. People will keep falling in love with the story and maybe one day Hollywood will get it right. If not, you can rest comfortably knowing that, after it’s all done, some rapid fan will edit down Peter Jackson’s trilogy to one movie and release that cut. After all, it didn’t take long for Jar Jar Binks to vanish from Star Wars.

“I will not risk this trilogy for the sake of one book.”

The past weekend in Montreal was humid and rainy making it downright unpleasant to be outside (apart from going for the occasional run). As a result, the weather prompted the decision for a Lord of the Rings Extended Edition marathon. Really I will look for any excuse to do this – I love those movies. But wait, there’s another one now. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has not received the same reception as its predecessors. Overall the feelings have been positive but there are a lot of fans of the book out there who did not take kindly to Peter Jackson’s liberally epic adaptation (well the first part of it anyway). I am not one of those fans. I love The Hobbit, it is one of my favorite books but I take no issue with the first part of Jackson’s trilogy. Yes there are some scenes that obviously exist solely for the sake of setup (White Council, I’m looking at you) but as long as there is a pay off in the later films, I’m fine with it. The movie trilogy is not the simple story but then it never had a chance to be. Going back to a simple adventure after the release of Lord of the Rings would have been a difficult if not impossible tonal shift.

But reviews aside, this is not a review. The only reason I mention the fact that there are those who like and not the other is because I find it odd. Really, after watching the two back-to-back (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey followed by Fellowship of the Ring), those two movies are very similar. Both films carry a lighthearted tone and are adventure/journey movies with a subplot of pursuit. I could write more but, in the case of this article, let’s let pictures be worth thousands of words.

Both films begin with a fairly epic prologue before cutting to the Shire for Bilbo's 111th birthday. — Both films begin with a fairly epic prologue before cutting to the Shire for Bilbo’s 111th birthday.

Both films then have a hobbit who is shaken out of his normal life by an unexpected visit from Gandalf.

We are then introduced to new characters including the obvious comic relief.

And a disgraced figure of noble heritage.

I will interrupt right here to acknowledge a difference. In the Fellowship of the Ring, the full fellowship is not formed until they reach Rivendell. In An Unexpected Journey, the full fellowship is formed right away. It is a difference, however let’s keep going and see how much it really breaks up the structural similarities.

Both parties encounter difficulties when Gandalf is strangely absent from a situation he should be present in.

Luckily they receive some speedy aid to help them reach safety. (Incidentally the above quote is included because it is just that awesome).

Where the party briefly rests... — Where the party briefly rests…

And there is a council wherein new information is revealed. Most of this information isn't relevant until later films. — And there is a council wherein new information is revealed. Most of this information isn’t relevant until later films.

Well back on the road again. Both parties first take mountain roads where they suffer from extreme weather which turns out not to be related to normal weather patterns.

To a gave teaming with orcs/goblins. — To a cave teaming with orcs/goblins.

Here we encounter another diversion. There is no equivalent of Lothlórien in An Unexpected Journey. Wait, maybe there is. In Lothlórien, Frodo is tempted by the ring. There is a pause in the action while he has dialogue with a being who knows more about the ring than he does. This being (Galadriel) reveals to Frodo the dangers of what happens when one becomes too absorbed by the ring and does not resist its temptations. Frodo then leaves with a new resolve for his quest. Hmm, might there be something similar in An Unexpected Journey?

Once that's done we got pursuit again. — Once that’s done we got pursuit again.

Ending in a face-off between the pursuer and the disgraced noble character. — Climaxing in a face-off between the pursuer and the disgraced noble character.

Ending with a scene celebrating friendship.

An ending forecasting darker challenges to come. — And forecasting darker challenges to come.

So there you have it. There are a few other scene similarities there that I didn’t mention but I think I made my point.

Yes, there are differences to be sure. Overall the main difference in the films comes down to tone. The Fellowship of the Ring is darker with more focus on the presence of evil (since the ring is the focus) whereas An Unexpected Journey focuses more on being a light adventure. Both films end of relatively high notes. No one dies at the end of An Unexpected Journey (sorry Sean Bean) but Thorin comes near death in a scene that is set up incredibly similar to Lurtz’s execution of Boromir. Are the two movies exactly the same: no. Is it valid to like one and not the other: sure. But you have to admit, they are quite similar in terms of their setup.

For any out there who still doubt me, I encourage watching the two films together… followed by The Two Towers and The Return of the King (extended editions of course) cause why not? As we look ahead to the next two Hobbit films, I can’t help but wonder if the trend will continue. I’m calling it right now: The Desolation of Smaug will end on a down note. Smaug will be destroyed, signifying the end of a great battle (like Helms Deep) and a new, more powerful threat (the Necromancer) will take center stage. Just a prediction.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Remember That Animated Return of the King Movie?

An Unexpected Journey Unexpectedly a lot like the Fellowship of the Ring