Strays from the book...and cheapens the story

Rating: 3/10 (26 January 2013)

First, let me say the Lord of the Rings movies were all first-rate and stayed pretty close to the original Tolkien books. Unfortunately, The Hobbit is not, because it does not. It really is a bad movie by design. Choices were made to add slapstick comedy and fabricate added story lines which bloat, rather than add, to the movie, and quite simply to stray from the book liberally (presumably) for commercial reasons. The choice to do so is curious given the overwhelming success (commercial and critical) of the LOTR formula of being faithful to the books.
Radagast, for example, who was mentioned in name only in the book, appears in the movie as something of an idiot wizard riding a sleigh powered by eight tiny... bunnies. I'm not kidding. This is perhaps the worst example of how Peter Jackson has botched the story and put the LOTR movie franchise at risk of ruin, presumably to appeal to a younger crowd and stretch it into 3 movies for commercial purposes. There are many other examples of this, which cause you to leave Tolkien's world and wonder why the story was cheapened and botched at the hands of a director who did so well with the LOTR trilogy.
I didn't mind fleshing out the 'necromancer' story line that was only hinted at in the book. But so many of the best scenes in the first part of the book were all disappointing in the movie, having been altered for the worse.
Lastly, I don't like how they changed the character of Bilbo Baggins. In the book, Bilbo (and the dwarfs for that matter) are basically out- matched and scared when the meet up with each of the foes in the first part of the book. Bilbo, after reluctantly joining the group, is basically scared and miserable the whole first part of the book. In the movie, Bilbo is portrayed more as a home-body who'd just rather be at home, but not terribly scared of trolls or orcs or goblins or dragons, they're just not really his cup of tea. And the somewhat fabricated theme toward the end of Bilbo deciding to help the dwarfs 'find their home' and help them get their home back is another disappointing alteration.
There are many smaller details of the movie that also work to cheapen it, but I think you get the picture. The only reason for 2-stars instead of 1-star is the production values, which are as good as the LOTR trilogy. The movie is nominated for a makeup and production design Academy Awards, but a telling comparison with the LOTR trilogy is the absence of any nominations for writing or direction or picture. Both 'Fellowship' & 'Return' won best adapted screenplay,and were nominated for Best Picture ('Return' won). The Hobbit could be nominated for worst-adapted screenplay- and seems was a conscious, if incredibly poor, choice by the writers and director- who did so well adapting LOTR to the screen.
Equally disappointing is what might have been. Instead of adding superfluous story lines, they could have made The Hobbit much smaller in scale compared to LOTR (which it is) and more personal. Instead of starting with a Bilbo that is something of a home-body and not into adventures, they could have started with a Bilbo who secretly always wanted to go on an adventure- but was too afraid and too conforming to society to do so- until Gandalf pushed him along (in the book Bilbo was always into maps, etc. which is meant to suggest this). From there, they could have portrayed the company of dwarfs as serious and determined in their purpose, but totally unprepared for the challenges that awaited them. There could have also been some focus on how miserable Bilbo was in the conditions- the mud, no food,and longing for home- and the friction and disrespect for him by most of the dwarfs. They might have also included how the elves made fun of them when they arrived in Rivendell, and Gandalf's own disdain for many of their failings, and that their adventure isn't his main concern. Adding a troll scene that was true to the book would make a far more compelling Act I.
Act II could have started with the company entering the mountains and the cave scene. Instead of having them fall hundreds of feet through a trap door unscathed, followed by an hour of slapstick gore battle sequences, they could have had the goblins catch them and bring them chained through the tight confines of the dark tunnels in the book, rather than the expansive open pits in the movie. Being faithful to the book in this case would have led to more suspense and terror- like when the Black Riders first appeared in 'Fellowship'. That would have set the stage for Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, and a more tense, drawn-out riddle scene where Bilbo is more at risk and Gollum in control. After a tense escape from the tunnels- once again finding themselves out-matched by the goblins and wargs as they get trapped a top burning pine trees (as in the book), only to be saved once again- this time by the eagles. Expanding the 'necromancer' story line, which I thought a worthwhile addition, might add some time and make it about a 2 hour movie, with still plenty of plot for an additional 2 hour finale.
As it was, I came away thinking of a line that Gandalf used after recounting the story of Bullroarer Took to Bilbo early in the movie. When Bilbo replied "you made that up" Gandalf replied, "all good stories have some embellishments." Perhaps this line served as a bad excuse for what was to follow. The Hobbit already was a good fantasy story, as time has proved. It didn't need slapstick and gore embellishments. It's too bad Peter Jackson couldn't leave well enough alone- to the ruin of the LOTR movie franchise.