In 1999, the first episode of the prequel Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was released in theaters. The return of the intergalactic saga tears apart the community of fans who will never be welded again. Today, 21 years after this comeback, George Lucas' trilogy returns, rightly or wrongly, to grace. A generation of young fans who grew up with the prequel has grown up and defends it to death. The aim here is not to revive the debate. But to talk about another trilogy of prequels much more unloved than the prelogy. namely The Hobbit.
Focus on the Hobbit saga
Started 8 years ago, it is interesting to return to The Hobbit today. The path of this trilogy adapted from the eponymous book, which precedes The Lord of the Rings, is quite strange. Considered one of the most exciting projects of the 2010s, the conclusion of Tolkien's saga finally ended in indifference. While Amazon is preparing to draw its series, it is not impossible that The Hobbit benefits from a reassessment by fans, as is the case of many works before it.
Writing about The Hobbit trilogy is an interesting choice, as few have dwelt on the trilogy itself. The Lord of the Rings, and its little brother are works that depend on each of the other opuses. It is therefore important to consider each trilogy in its entirety. However, for The Hobbit, few people dwell on the entire work. We talk about its chaotic production, starting with the excellent videographer Mr.Reel.
So we're going to look at it from a more cinematic point of view. And to be fair, we'll talk about movie versions here. Since your writer did not have the long versions in hand. Focus then:
The Hobbit: a saga that is at the top of the basket of current blockbusters
By reviewing The Hobbit in its entirety and comparing it with the majority of current blockbusters (especially within the MCU), it is unfortunately impossible not to suffer from the comparison. The Hobbit , in terms of staging, crushes the current production with the exception of a few miracles such as Fury Road or the John Wick trilogy. To summarize the plot for the bottom three who fell asleep, Peter Jackson makes us follow the path of Bilbo, a hobbit, these creatures very close to the English gentleman in a tiny format with huge hairy feet. Our brave Bilbo has a quiet life in his comfortable Hobbit hole before a magician, Gandalf, interferes and leads him on a quest with 13 dwarves. A journey to recover their restful treasures between the legs of a dragon living in the heart of a mountain.
This very simple story is however the best that has been offered to the public in terms of Heroic Fantasy since The Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. It is rare to have more than 10 minutes without having at least one Dantesque vision. The climax appears in the climax of the second part: The Desolation of Smaug. The wrath of the awakened dragon provokes one of the best moments of action we've seen in the decade. This breathtaking scene is the best thing about this trilogy.
It is difficult here to summarize all the epic scenes present in The Hobbit. Peter Jackson, by his camera movements, by the variation of scale even more ambitious than The Lord of the Rings, succeeds in a real tour de force of a frenzy and a crazy imagination. It is indeed not every day that you can see a dwarf riding a pig throwing himself into a confrontation with orcas. To name just one scene.
The cast is simply perfect. Starting with the unforgettable Martin Freeman absolutely perfect as Bilbo. Richard Armitage plays a quasi-Shakespearean Thörin. All the other members of the dwarf troupe are interpreted in an extremely endearing way. We will obviously note Benedict Cumberbatch who manages to make a terrifying and fascinating Smaug. The confrontation between Smaug and Bilbo is sure to bring a small smile to fans of the Sherlock series. By seeing an opposition between Holmes and Watson. Ian McKellen is obviously still imperial in Gandalf.
But then what do we blame this damn Hobbit?
Well, it is above all his scenario, and in particular the adaptation of the book. Indeed, transforming a small book of 400 pages into a trilogy of almost 9 hours is problematic. Peter Jackson had to lengthen his script compared to the book, not shorten. Which is not necessarily negative: the confrontation between the dwarves and the dragon becomes simply epic. The battle of 5 armies becomes Dantesque while non-existent in Tolkien's work.
Jackson also allows himself to multiply subplots. The one about Sauron, absent in the books, comes directly from Tolkien. More precisely 150 pages that form the appendices of The Lord of the Rings. It is therefore difficult to be more faithful to Tolkien and the chronology of Middle-earth. On the other hand, difficult to defend the love triangle composed of Filli, Tauriel and Legolas. It is impossible to understand its presence or usefulness. Very clearly, this subplot is not very effective. Far too artificial to move anyone except a 13 and 1/2 year old girl (and still it is disrespectful to these poor girls).
Peter Jackson is also accused of having betrayed the initial spirit of the book , much more childish, close to the children's tale. It is quite ironic to note that it is nevertheless the first opus, the most faithful to the book, which will be criticized for being too childish. In addition, the trilogy is much less dark than The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson tries to introduce a humor much more present than in the first trilogy. A rather heavy humor, but which finally does not disorient too much in an adventure composed of 13 dwarves.
A sequel that is not up to the Lord of the Rings
The other glaring problems of The Hobbit strangely suggest that he is a kind of bastard child between technological ambition and nostalgic will. As if he had gathered the reproaches, make the last two Star Wars trilogies. If Peter Jackson has fun from a staged point of view, he sometimes goes too far in his desire for CGI.
If the visual effects of Weta Digitals are just extraordinary, we can still spot many green backgrounds whose inlay remains questionable. The level of finish, however, is much higher than many current superhero movies that are more like VFX porridge than movies. Jackson's freedom of means pushes him to commit many abuses, and this is particularly visible in The Battle of the Five Armies, which features a Legolas imitating a Sonic on cocaine jumping from stone to stone over the void.
The nostalgic aspect is due in particular to the resumption of all the iconography of the Lord of the Rings, with the whole team back at the controls. Whether in photography, scenery or music. Everything is done to recall the first trip to Middle-earth. But the transition to digital, and more precisely to the HFR, does not help, causing an almost clean side to the image, unlike the much more organic one of the first part. Howard Shore uses the same instrumental tones for the new soundtracks while gleefully picking from his previous work. The plot centered on Legolas is very clearly useless. It's as if Jackson didn't dare to stray from what he had already achieved.
Nevertheless, The Hobbit remains a real moment of great spectacle, spectacular, epic and much more ambitious than what we can see in current blockbusters. So much so, that one can feel almost nostalgic to see the disappearance of such ambitious, and daredevil projects. These are always works at the top of the Heroic-Fantasy basket, with visions capable of rivaling the fury of John Milius' Conan . The Hobbit is not a shameful work. Without competing with The Lord of the Rings, it will surely have the merit of having attracted neophytes to Tolkien's universe. But also to extend the universe glimpsed between 2001 and 2003. Finally, the major asset of this Hobbit : to offer us a last journey into the universe of Middle-earth. And that's worth 11 Oscars.
https://youtu.be/tiy7peMH3g8
