"Out flew a red-golden dragon - not life-size, but terribly life-like: fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion."As far as I can recall, this is the only simile Tolkien uses of an anachronistic nature. Whenever I read the line, it draws me out of the story ever so slightly, but it's not that big a quibble.
One change in the overall story made this chapter for me: the flashback to the battle with Azog before the gates of Moria and the origin of Thorin's surname of Oakenshield. It's not in The Hobbit; rather, it's additional material included in the appendices to Lord Of The Rings, which are included after the conclusion in Return Of The King. Scenes of Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel debating their courses of action against The Necromancer - they make up the 'White Council' mentioned in Rings - helped give some sense of the epic scope of Tolkien's legendarium and linked the two trilogies. Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum was well and truly done. There was one pair of riddles exchanged that wasn't in the movie, but the omission seems to have harmed the movie little if at all.
I'll admit that the appearance of Radagast in both movies was a little bit on the goofy side, even though his introduction is also a setup for The Necromancer and the perils of Mirkwood. I guess I was also mostly comfortable with the addition of Azog as an additional antagonist pursuing Thorin and his companions, and I had figured that The Desolation Of Smaug would treat the story just as well. I wasn't as impressed.
One of the things that I missed was the introduction of the dwarves (as well as the wizard and hobbit) to Beorn. I liked how, in the original novel, Gandalf uses a clever tactic to open Beorn up to aiding the party. Instead of introducing everyone at once, Gandalf and Bilbo begin the introductions; and they continue with the dwarves coming two at a time, intentionally interrupting Gandalf's tale of their journey so far. This effectively keeps Beorn on the edge of his seat, and gradually opens up the idea of helping out so many of them. It also demonstrates Gandalf's wits to complement his wizardry, and that's why it's one of my own favorite events in the tale. That said, I was impressed with Gandalf's investigation into the return of Sauron, right until the reveal - and the somewhat cheesy Eye manifestation. Cutting that down to just a foreboding flash would have been less annoying and a bit more startling.
Also, one of my obsessive re-readings of Return Of The King took me into the appendices again. I was reminded that at the end of the battle before Moria, when Azog was defeated, he was beheaded by Dain Ironfoot - the same character that leads the dwarves in the Battle Of Five Armies - and his head placed on a pike before the gates. To a purist fan, the addition of Azog to the story involves an act of narrative necromancy (ironically enough) and would likely end up grating. I'm kind of unhappy with it myself. Since Bolg, alleged son of Azog, is the orc captain in the climactic battle, the writers could have used him instead. Revenge would not be an unreasonable motive for the crooked goblins of Middle-Earth.
I was interested by the glimpse we get of Bard - a well-rounded family man - and I was intrigued by the reinterpretation of the 'black arrow' as a bow-fired artillery dart instead of a typical arrow. That said, one of the most important parts of the climax, ostensibly to be seen in The Battle Of The Five Armies, is Bard's downing of Smaug. The plot thread of the hole in Smaug's gold-encrusted underbelly, Bilbo's discovery of this fatal weakness, and the eavesdropping thrush passing the information to Bard at his last stand is supposed to be a key part of it. I guess this isn't necessary, with the apparent change to one loose scale in his hide as Smaug's weak point. The idea of a dragon who is wise to his one weakness - his soft underbelly - and does something about it - lying on the hoard so that the treasure embeds itself into his skin - is such a fantastical element and a treat for the imagination. I cannot fathom why nothing was made of it at all.
The two gripes I have that stick the hardest are the subplots concerning the elves and the social unrest in Esgaroth, and the overblown 'battle' between the dwarves and Smaug. To me, the subplots are unnecessary and therefore distracting. While I had expected a likely appearance by Legolas to visually connect the two trilogies, I wasn't enthralled by the Legolas-Tauriel-Kili love triangle. It simply felt like it didn't belong. Just a glimpse into Thranduil's realm would have been enough. That's all we get in the book. And we didn't need to see the spectre of class envy dragged into Esgaroth. It was all unnecessary talk, and added nothing to the core story, the one I paid nine bucks to see. The 'battle' was too implausible, even for a fantasy story; and it dragged on, no pun intended.
None of these additions came from Tolkien-authored source material, as far as I know. And Tolkien's story is what I'm missing. Somehow, Peter Jackson forgot how he made The Lord Of The Rings, and it shows in the prequel trilogy. I would have been happy with two movies, with truer additions and interpretations, and less fanfiction. So, yeah, maybe when this winter comes and the last movie comes out, I'll stay home and read the book instead. I'm sorely tempted to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment