Over the past month and a half, Centaur and I have been having a literary debate about whether The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books or the films by Peter Jackson are better than each other. Rythbyrt has told me that there's a defense for saying that the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films might be better (at least in some ways) than The Lord of the Rings books. Centaur hotly disagrees. Last time, Centaur went first and argued for why The Hobbit book was better than the Jackson films . . . and today, I'm not exactly going to disagree with him, but rather, I'd like to focus on the things that the Jackson trilogy changed that actually improved on what was in the books (*gasp* *horror* *gasp*).
I think I agree with both Centaur and Rythbyrt that The Hobbit book is better than the films - on the whole. It's quite defendable to think that The Hobbit book is better than the Jackson films - and it's also defendable to think that the animated Rankin Bass classic film of The Hobbit is better than the Jackson trilogy - but there are things that I don't like in the book (or that just confuse me) that I think a departure in the films made them better. As such, I've moderated the title of this post from the stronger statement I made about The Lord of the Rings trilogy and will instead focus only how how I think The Hobbit films improved on the book. Let's start off with . . .
Reason #1: Distinct Dwarves
One of the things that Peter Jackson said he feared about The Hobbit in his production diaries is that there are so many Dwarves - fifteen lead protagonists is a lot (before you get into guys like Bard, Thranduil, and of course, Legolas - let's not forget about Legolas). If you read the book, most of the Dwarves are learned about in pairs - Balin and Dwalin are the best scouts and have longer beards than the others, Kili and Fili are the youngest and have the best eyesight, Oin and Gloin are the best at making fires, and Dori and Nori order more breakfast than the rest (though everyone likes food).
There are a few situations where a single Dwarf gains some renown away from the others - Dori is the strongest, Thorin is the most revered and probably the best in battle, and Bombur is, of course, the fattest (large enough for two - this comes up a LOT, much to his chagrin). The sad thing is that the other three Dwarves (Bifur, Bofur, and Ori) are basically just referenced in passing so that we don't forget that they're there. Ori is said to have had the best handwriting in The Fellowship of the Ring, but in The Hobbit, he's quite forgettable.
And this leads to my first (gentle) critique of the book: the book doesn't need all these Dwarves. Yes, Tolkien wanted an unlucky number without Bilbo (13 Dwarves), but 6 is also a bit of an unlucky number (an incomplete number, at least, since it's one short of seven). If the company was trimmed down to just Thorin, Balin (who was the scout - and would show up in the next series), Kili (who was the agile one), Gloin (who was good at making fires - and whose son would show up in the next book), Dori (who was the strong man), and Bombur (who we have to have in the story), the Company would have been just fine - and any reasonable film maker who wasn't basing his story off of a beloved book would probably be tempted to do this. The only change that would be needed for Fellowship is that Dori would probably be the scribe, not Ori, and Oin wouldn't have gone to Moria with Balin (since he wouldn't have been in the story).
Of course, the main argument for having all these Dwarves in the first place is probably that they're going to take on a dragon - and six Dwarves can't possibly do that. Also, thirteen is a very unlucky number and so we need to pile in the Dwarves. What we get in the films, however, is a surprising amount of diversity among the Dwarves. While you might not be able to keep them all straight (and their screen time is certainly not equal - which is true to the book), there aren't any carbon copies in the film. Balin and Dwalin are distinct, Kili and Fili are distinct, and Oin and Gloin are distinct - and there are even references in the films to their specialties from the book, like when Gloin says, "Right, let's make a fire!" when they're on the doorstep of Goblin-town.
I also really like what was done with Bofur - a guy who basically has no personality in the book and becomes one of the most beloved Dwarves in the films (#myFave). The scenes between Bofur and Bilbo before they go into Goblin-town and in the extended cut of the Battle of Five Armies before Bilbo sneaks off to Dale are gold - and they add so much to the story, despite not actually being in the book. You can disagree if you like with how the films departed from the story, but I think making each Dwarf his own guy - and each individually interesting and valuable - was an excellent choice.
Each of the Dwarves also has their own fighting style and weapon of choice, which leads us to my second point . . .
Reason #2: Only Two Swords, a Staff, and a Dagger
This may be the simplest of the critiques for any reader to accept - but where are the weapons in this book? We have thirteen Dwarves, a Hobbit, and a Wizard in our starting company and besides Gandalf, no one seems to have thought there would be any fighting involved on their way to steal a gem from a dragon. Gandalf has a staff - everyone else has improvised weapons at best, like short knives (which they do not use as weapons - ever). The first weapons they acquire are in a Troll cave (after they almost get eaten by the owners of that particular dwelling) and they later get some bows from Beorn - and that's it. Honestly, I don't know how they thought they'd make it . . .
. . . and this isn't a problem in the films. From the very beginning, we see that they expect the wild to be . . . well, wild. They come ready for a fight - and while there are action scenes in the films that were not in the movies (just from the first movie, these include in the Troll-shaws, near the secret passage to Rivendell, and while/after they leave Goblin-town), it's clear to all that these guys have come ready for a fight with a dragon at the end of their journey and for any other encounter that occurs along the way. Since we know Gimli was a fighter (both in the books and in the films), it's good that the Dwarves that we have on screen aren't just stumbling into predicament after predicament like they are in the book.
Okay, time to revisit a critique of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy . . .
Reason #3: Broader Scope (While Staying True to the Story)
One of the things I mentioned in passing in my article on The Lord of the Rings is that for the sake of time, a lot of the broader scope of what's going on during the War of the Ring had to be cut (specifically in the Council of Elrond). In The Hobbit, the story is very much focused on Bilbo's story - everything that happens occurs around Bilbo and other things that are happening (like Gandalf's fight against the Necromancer in Dol Guldur or what happened to the Dwarves while Bilbo and Gollum were playing a riddle game) have to be summarized for Bilbo later (or we get a brief summary from the narrator). All of this is fine - it makes the book very accessible and the streamlined nature of it makes the book easy to follow for readers of basically all ages.
What the movies did, however, was tease out from the extended Tolkien compendium of knowledge (specifically the Tale of Years at the end of The Return of the King) all of the things that are happening and sought to provide the broader scope of Middle-Earth that was missing in the Lord of the Rings films. This means the story has to jump some, but that's to be expected. We want to hear what's going on in Middle-Earth from the members of the White Council (and in that discussion, see how Saruman's corruption begins to manifest). We want to see where Gandalf goes when he departs from the Company at Mirkwood. We want to see what the forces of Evil are doing so we can get spooky premonitions of what's coming. All of this makes for a better film - and while there's nothing wrong with the book, I think adding all of this was a good choice.
There were other things that were added to the films too, which leads us to my final point . . .
Reason #4: Synergy with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy
The Hobbit films are particularly enjoyable if you saw The Lord of the Rings trilogy in the ten years between the film projects - whether it's actors reprising their previous roles (Legolas, Frodo, Old Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, and of course Gollum), oblique references to characters who were in the Lord of the Rings films but not in the Hobbit book (Aragorn and Gimli), and showing places we've already been to (Rivendell and the Shire), there's much to be enjoyed if you were already a big fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's not hard to see the ties between both film sets and (for the most part) they look like they live in the same universe.
This isn't true of the book, though - and that's probably due to the intended age of the reader. Tolkien's writing style in the Hobbit is intended to be enjoyed by a younger audience - the narrator is playful and sometimes sarcastic, which is great for keeping younger children as well as adults engaged (as is the constant use of analogies to modern sympathies). This reads very differently from The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which has a higher tone and not as much playfulness in its narration (though admittedly, the description of Bilbo's gifts after the Unexpected Party is quite humorous). This doesn't make one or the other bad, but it does make The Hobbit feel a bit "other" when compared to The Lord of the Rings books when you read it. For some readers . . . this is a good thing.
Additionally, the names of places - and even characters - in The Hobbit don't seem to be the same as those in The Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, we get mostly "user-friendly" names of places, such as "Lake-town" or "Goblin-town" or "the Lonely Mountain", while in The Lord of the Rings, we get "Esgaroth", "Minas Tirith", and "Orodruin" (though admittedly, both books refer to Khazad-Dum as "Moria", not "Dwarf-town"). The assumption in The Lord of the Rings seems to be that by using these more exotic names, you'll just accept the odd-sounding tones as new words. The mix of user-friendly and exotic names in The Hobbit makes it feel a bit more distant from The Lord of the Rings books - at least to me.
In the films, this is handled as best they could by using multiple names for each place - such as Imladris and Rivendell or Erebor and The Lonely Mountain. The films couldn't rename places like Goblin-town or Lake-town, but the only references to Goblin-town are from the Goblins themselves and Lake-town is only sometimes referred to by its name (Thorin addresses "the Master of the Town on the Lake", which makes it sound a bit more grand or a translation from another language). I feel like this is as good of an integration as anyone can do.
You also see this with characters - the Great Goblin of Goblin-town has no name (this is true of the movies too), the Master of Lake-town has no name (this is also true of the movies), the Lord of the Eagles isn't named (we have to wait until Fellowship for his name), and the King of the Wood Elves has no name either (we learn this from Fellowship too). Perhaps these names were omitted for the same reason as the user-friendly place names - to avoid odd-sounding words - but if the intention was to keep kids from stumbling on odd-sounding words, I can tell you that the names of Tolkien's characters have had no impact on my kids (they use the names of the characters all the time).
To be fair to the book, there are odd-names that are used of other characters who aren't part of the Company - such as Bolg (and an oblique reference to his dad, Azog), Beorn, Elrond, and Bard. These names are pretty easy to say, so maybe that's why they're allowed? If we're going to do it for these guys, though, it seems like some other characters - Thranduil especially - should have gotten a name-drop.
But that's the thing about a movie trilogy: everyone's going to get a name (or when no name is given, at least their title). In fact, characters like Tauriel, Alfrid, Braga, and Lindir who are going to be used to move the plot will even be given names even though they don't show up in the book (though Lindir's name is dropped in Fellowship). It's one of those things that makes the entire world seem a bit more believable (and one of the things I like most about the first chapter of The Return of the King, where we learn the names of a bunch of Fiefdom lords of Gondor - most of whom aren't referenced at all after their arrival at Minas Tirith) - and in this case, I think it was an improvement to make sure major and minor characters were named in the films (though I do think that not making up names for the Master or the Goblin King was a good choice, so as not to step on any more toes than necessary).
Conclusion
I'm certain I have persuaded no one that The Hobbit movies were definitively better than The Hobbit book (especially myself), but hopefully you can find something to appreciate about The Hobbit movies from what's written here. I love the book - and I read the Andy Serkis narration on Audible in January for the first time and LOVED it - and hope that you find time to read it this year. You should also watch the films because they are, in their own way, good (perhaps not VERY good, but still good). If you enjoyed this series (or if you didn't), let us know in the comments. While I don't think there will be any other "literary corner" posts this year, I have an idea brewing for next year, so let us know if you liked this format. Until next time, happy hobbying!
No comments:
Post a Comment