The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

I don’t know why I didn't learn from last year. Especially when I've watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again only recently. Not having read the book since last year (and therefore having forgotten most of the detail) I expected to enjoy the first film a good deal more on a second viewing. Unfortunately though, DVDs come without a massive cinema screen, 3D, and surround sound, and it lost a lot of depth without those. There just seemed to be an awful lot of slapstick humour and unlikely survival after falling down cliffs and getting smashed against rocks.

They’re both wonderful films, don’t get me wrong, but my main overriding feeling after watching both of them has been one of annoyance. Why take a book, turn it into a film, and spend half the film telling a story that is not that book? I know, I know, the Necromancer is definitely there in the book, be it only mentioned briefly, and it’s important to include it to flesh out the story and explain why Gandalf buggers off for a film and a half. I don’t really have a problem with that and it adds necessary complexity. It also gets Sauron involved too – come join the party Sauron – why not? Stick to the plot though! We don’t need new stuff. We don’t need a love story. We don’t need Kíli getting hit with a Morgul arrow. I’m thoroughly convinced that the only reason that little plot twist was added was to a) justify the continuing presence of elfs in the film, and b) so that everyone can be pleased that they knew they had to use Kingsfoil/Athelas (“I remember that because they did that in LOTR – yay”). Of course this means that half the dwarfs stay in Laketown and don’t get to go to the Lonely Mountain as per the entire point of the quest. Silly.

Also I’m a bit hazy on the detail in the book but I’m pretty sure that restarting the ancient dwarven smelters with irritation-induced dragon fire wasn’t how they originally fought Smaug. Good job they started alright though eh!? And does Smaug really need to be hit with a special kind of arrow? And do we really care that much that some dude’s grandfather missed him during the last battle – it’s not exactly his fault. It’s all just creating characters for the sake of giving people a bigger part than they would do otherwise. They’ll be bringing Gollum back next.

I do approve of a kick-ass female elf though. No harm in adding her at all – if they had just stuck to the plot and written her out when they all escaped from the elfs hidden in the barrels. We didn't need either the stupid love triangle (oh there’s a female character – she absolutely has to fall in love) or the battle in the barrels with the orcs by the river. That was gratuitous use of 3D effects in my book.

I think the invention of 3D is very bad for films. In the same way that the diamond slippers in The Wizard of Oz were turned into ruby slippers to make full use of the technicolour technology, films these days are written around exciting 3D scenes. They’re crow-barred in where they’re unnecessary and unwelcome. It’s the equivalent of the running away from the goblins in the mountain scene in the first film.

It’s my fault for having Lord of the Rings up on a pedestal. It’s so amazing though – and every time I re-watch it I think it’s amazing. Even Orlando bloody Bloom. God he’s a muppet in this film. He doesn’t look like Legolas did in LOTR (Bloom is ten years older though I suppose so that’s not really fair, although his hair also isn’t right somehow) and he’s even more poncey than ever. A mixture of the Legolas elfiness and the doe-eyed soppiness he exhibited so humourously badly in Pirate’s of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (“Elizabeth… sigh”). What a wally. Gandalf doesn't look the same either. His nose is different and his hat is too cartoony. It should be less structured and less felty. Am I really asking too much? These films are for some of the biggest geeks out there and they of all people are going to notice inconsistency.

I shouldn't compare it to LOTR. That will get us nowhere. I also need to stop comparing it to the book or, more importantly, my memory of the book. Let us begin.

It’s a really good film. Visually it’s really impressive and the animation is near flawless, particularly with the treasure in Erebor when it all slides down like a little avalanche. Superb! Each individual character is awesome and I was genuinely worried when Gandalf was losing his fight against the Necromancer. Smaug is a wonderful dragon, and the next film is going to be great with more of him in it.

I just need to learn how to enjoy it. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I am not one of the many people in the world that have been waiting for The Hobbit film since God only knows when. Nor was I even particularly interested in it during most of the build-up. That is, until I saw the trailer for the first time and realised quite what the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey meant – more Lord of the Rings! It includes the same actors as the LOTR, reprising their roles from the trilogy, and the music’s the same. It was the music that got me – it contains the same themes and is in the same style and suddenly I was eagerly anticipating the release of this film. Because I love Lord of the Rings. Completely, stupidly love it. I’ve seen all three God knows how many times, I’ve done the thing of watching all the extended versions back to back, know most of the actors’ names, and memorised a decent quantity of the script.

So obviously I read the books, or rather book. Once will do – I can hold my head up high and say I’ve read it but never need to worry about it again. I didn’t go on to read The Hobbit though. That is something I’ve rectified, I’m currently reading it and I made sure I’d read at least enough to cover the first film before I went. But possibly that’s what ruined the film for me.

It looks phenomenal – there’s no two ways about that. I felt compelled (unlike with most films) to splash out and watch it in 3D, and in the high frame rate that everyone keeps banging on about. The end result is gob-smacking. The hills and the mountains look ridiculously good and the depth given by the 3D made me completely forget I was watching a film. In a good way.

The problem with 3D is when there’s action; or close-ups. My eyes can’t keep up and it goes a bit too blurry for me to remain in my disbelief-suspended film-watching mode. Which is mostly why I don’t normally watch non-animated films in 3D. I don’t know if there’s technology that needs improving there, or just that my eyes are crap, but it spoils it. If it wasn’t for that then I would call the visuals pretty near perfect. 

Incidentally the HFR didn’t bother me at all. Maybe it needed a little getting used to but probably no more than normal 3D would have done.

I had a slight worry about Martin Freeman being Bilbo. He didn’t seem right for it at first but I will hold my hand up and confess I was completely wrong – he did a very good job and it worked really well. It is, of course, always nice to see Ian McKellen and again, Andy Serkis produced a crazy-good Gollum. What I wasn’t expecting was to recognise so many other faces. LOTR didn’t contain that many well-known actors and although it was natural that a few more would jump on the Tolkien band-wagon faces such as those belonging to James Nesbitt (Cold Feet, Bloody Sunday), and Aiden Turner (Being Human, Desperate Romantics) were a surprise.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but my number one pet hate with adapted screenplays is when they change the book. Obviously you have to change the book a little – miss bits out, possibly re-order some stuff so it makes sense for the screen, but don’t just make things up. Especially for absolutely no reason. The slightly altered ending of the American version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo springs to mind as a pointless, completely unnecessary change. I won’t mention anything specific about The Hobbit because someone geekier than me will point me straight to the part of the Silmarillion, or the precise LOTR appendix from which it was taken but suffice it to say, enough was different to the book to make me really quite annoyed by the end. And not in a slightly rolling the eyes kind of way. Properly annoyed.

But I’m ignoring that. It’s more Lord of the Rings and I’m determined to love it in the end. I’ll watch it differently next time, and not just because I won’t have the fancy-pants technology.