The Lord of the Rings has been a part of my life since I was 7 or 8 years old. Though this semester will be my first time reading the books for myself, the movies intrigued me at an early age. Most of the imaginary adventures of my childhood were taken with Strider, Legolas, and Gimli, or with Merry and Pippin in some sort of mischief. I can certainly say that I dearly love Jackson's movies, and I don't believe that this will change with the reading of the books.
Of course, being a slow reader, and being a bit slow to catch on to particular series of books (and even TV series), I've often seen the movie rendition of a story before I've actually read the book. Now before you raise your cries of "Sinner!" and your gasps of horror, hear me out. I love books. I love stories! But again, I'm a little slow when it comes to reading, and between reading for school and everything else you do as a kid and later a young adult, reading books does not always fit in to the agenda (though I'm doing my best to amend that lately). So, yes, I have seen most of the Harry Potter movies, and only just finished book 3 of the series a few weeks ago. However, did that ruin the book for me? Well, the story is not as suspenseful perhaps, and I have more of an idea of what happens then I would otherwise. But I would say I still loved the book as much as I would if I hadn't seen the movie first. Perhaps because I'd only seen the 3rd movie once and so reading the book was like rediscovering the story again (and then, when I watched the movie afterwards, I was sorely disappointed about many things that were left out).
So that age-old question arises: is it a crime to read the books after having seen the movies? Well, here's my philosophy: you are more likely to enjoy the suspense and characters more in the book if you don't see the movie first. Nevertheless, if you happen to see the movies before you read the books, the books can still hold innumerable riches for you. Plus, there's a bit of a benefit to seeing the movie first: if the movie wasn't very good (or even if it was good), (most often) the book can only be better and more enjoyable than the movie was.
Well, that was a rather long tangent.... But now to get to the main subject mentioned in the title. "The Hobbit." Did I like the book better? And did Jackson's movies do it credit?
To the first: Yes. Definitely. The book was magical and a great adventure for my imagination.
To the second: I've been critical of Jackson's movies, as have most people who are great fans of Tolkien's work. But, I think perhaps we're being unfair to say they were totally off-the-mark.
(1) Keep in mind that some decisions (making the book into three movies when it probably could have been done in one or two; Tauriel and Kili's "romance"; among others) were not entirely Jackson's decisions. With any movie, you've got people to please: producers, who are paying for the movie, for one. And, sometimes, in order to get a project that you love off the ground, you have to concede to decisions that you're not always a fan of.
(2) Certain things that Jackson chose to do, while not central in the book, do have some foundation there. For example, Azog, the White Orc:
Ugly lookin' fella, ain't he? My thoughts exactly. What the heck is he doing in the movie? I mean, he's mentioned in the book, but he's not a major character. Yes, exactly.
I'm not a big fan of this decision to make him a major villain throughout all 3 movies. There are plenty of villains and antagonists in the original story: goblins, Gollum, wolves (Wargs, to be more exact), Mirkwood spiders (shudder), elves who imprison dwarves (not that they're villains, but they are antagonists), Smaug, and more goblins. Plenty of villains! Why do you need Azog? Well, you don't really. But the decision is not unfounded: a consistent villain throughout a series of movies is not a bad idea; in fact it can be a very good one. For instance, in Harry Potter, Voldemort is consistently the one behind the bad things going on, though his bidding is often done by his agents. Furthermore, by making Azog a major character and showing his alliance with Bolg, whom we don't encounter in the book at all until the Battle of the Five Armies, you build up more of a resentment of the leader of the goblin army. So, while Jackson may not be a purist about sticking to the plot of the book, he is a smart filmmaker and knows how to make us dislike the villains. Is that a very good reason for including Azog? Well, if I were making the movie, I would not have done the same. I'll say that much.
I did find it interesting, though, that Azog's chosen steed is in the book. The white Warg, though not of major importance, does show up after the dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo have escaped the goblin caves. So Jackson's incorporation of that was interesting; though it could have been just as cool if the wolves had shown up alone and then the goblins had come and started the fire, like in the book.
(3) What about all the stuff with Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel? I don't think this was necessary; but, for those who may never read the books, it could be helpful and interesting to see some of the background to the Lord of the Rings. It answers some of the questions of how Saruman became evil and where Gandalf was when he wasn't with the dwarves. But this could have been done similarly to how Tolkien did it in the book: told and not seen.
(4) Kili and Tauriel: Ick! No! Nonono. Stop it right now. Obviously, dwarves and elves do not have good relationships going. While there are exceptions (Gimli and Legolas, but much later on), and I wouldn't say it's true that in "The Hobbit" the dwarves and elves hate each other (as it is made to seem in the movie with Thorin's ultimate dislike of the woodland folk, which is not at all an aspect of Tolkien's story), the likelihood of a romance = 0. However, this was another of those decisions that I don't believe Jackson was at the root of. He didn't want to put that in there; but because it would be appealing to the teenaged audience, romance in the film is a good move for bringing in revenue. And, since the producer's paying, most of the time the producer gets what he wants. I won't even put a picture of them in here because...ew. Just no.
(5) Legolas: Well, I take the opinion of the "How it Should Have Ended Video:"
Legolas isn't part of "The Hobbit." I'm sure Tolkien had another place in mind where he would have been during the time that all of this was taking place. At least a cameo in Mirkwood would have been all right; but...did he really need to be in the movie? I would say "no." There are more than enough characters you can develop in this story without adding another one, or two for that matter (*cough*Tauriel*cough*).
(6) Beorn: Beorn could have certainly been given more screen time, and it would have been well-spent. He's a very interesting character, and I would have liked to have seen more of him. But, I was definitely guilty of watching: "Battle of the Five Armies" and saying "Oh come on!" in my head when Beorn just turns up in the battle. It seemed unnecessary to me. But then, I'm reading the book, and "...Oh. Beorn was there. In fact, he killed Bolg. ...Why wasn't that in the movie?!" Well, we were too busy finishing of Azog, I guess. However, I can't say that I'm not a little annoyed by the fact that Legolas gets Beorn's role of finishing off the ugly orc leader. And, while I'm on the subject of things I was wrong about...: I thought that more of the dwarves died in the Battle of the Five Armies than did in the movie. But I was wrong. Just Thorin, Fili, and Kili. Though I wished they had stuck with Fili and Kili's courageous act to shield Thorin's body when he was wounded.
(7) Smaug: ...No complaints.
You want: awesome, scary-looking, huge, intimidating, intelligent, fire-breathing, red dragon. You get: exactly that! And, bonus: he's voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. Who did a splendid job of it, I might add.
(8) Alfred: ....Yeah....what was the point of that one?
I thought I'd get an answer by the end...but that never happened. Seriously...who is this guy?
(9) Thorin:
I was actually surprised as I read Tolkien's book again and found how minor of a role Thorin seems to have in the beginning of the story. I mean, it is the account of Bilbo's adventures; but for someone as important at the end of the story as Thorin, it seemed a little odd. But Tolkien knew what he was doing. To talk too much about Thorin would have meant talking less about Bilbo, the hero of the story. But, Jackson's decision to make Thorin a more central character is not one that I object to. Among the dwarves, Thorin would have been the leader. And I liked watching his character develop throughout the movies. Some things (the obsession with the Arkenstone, his dislike of elves (which is nowhere in the book)) may have been slightly overdone. But I only say that the Arkenstone business was overdone because the movie failed to show the other dwarves being a bit overcome with the lust for treasure. It wasn't just Thorin. But, all-in-all, I liked Thorin's representation. And, hey, it's Richard Armitage, who does a great job of being a king who wants his throne back, and has a bit of a pride problem.
(10) Bilbo Baggins:
Personally, I don't think they could've picked anyone better to portray our friend Mr. Baggins. Martin Freeman, I salute you. Best Bilbo ever! From his sneaking about the hobbit hole to make sure everyone was gone, to riding a pony, to encountering trolls, to riddles with Gollum (which was perfect) and Smaug, and everything else that Bilbo did, it was done exceptionally well. And, just as I almost cried as I finished reading "The Hobbit" and reached the part where Thorin dies, I almost cried when it happened in the movie, too (though under circumstances quite different from the book). And, at the end when Bilbo calls Thorin his friend, ...oh man. Pulling on the heartstrings.
Still, Tolkien's writing of Bilbo Baggins in the book is so fantastic that I don't think it can be outdone. As I read, I found myself relating to Bilbo so many times. I think there's a little of him in each of us: a side that loves adventure, and a side that longs for hearth and home. Also, like him, we don't fully realize what we're capable of until we're put in a situation where we're hard pressed and our true colors begin to show. That's what's a remarkable thing about Gandalf as a Christ-figure in Tolkien's books: he sees in Bilbo more than Bilbo sees in himself, and he gets Bilbo involved in a great adventure that will help him to discover who and what he truly is: a little hobbit in a great world, yes; but a little hobbit who can make a difference nonetheless.
So, while not a perfect representation (few movies are, unfortunately), in the words of Bofur: "Well, that could've been worse." I would have liked to see a movie that stayed closer to the book, certainly. But I can't argue with the characterizations of Bilbo, Gandalf, the dwarves, Smaug, and Gollum. While I read the book, I heard Martin Freeman's voice when I would read Bilbo's parts. I heard Ian McKellen when Gandalf is scolding Bilbo and the dwarves. I heard Richard Armitage talking about the Kingdom Under the Mountain. I heard the kind old voice of Balin, the lighthearted voice of Bofur, and so on and so forth. So I must thank Peter Jackson for bringing them to life.
But, I'm sure Jackson would agree with me that Tolkien's books are almost impossible to match in their ability to fill us with wonder. The genius of this mythology that Tolkien himself created is amazing! He achieved things in his writing that I can only dream of.
And so, I salute the great creator of Middle-Earth, and look forward to the next adventure: "The Fellowship of the Ring."
"Farewell, dear Bilbo...until our next meeting."
