The second of the Peter Jackson movies The Hobbit trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug strays further from the source material in both positive and negative ways. Because of this, I have mixed feelings about the movie, although I still believe it’s worthy of watching, unlike some more recent tripe produced for film and streaming television.
Looking Back at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
One addition I find enriches the plot, especially for the nature of a movie, is the inclusion of Azog the Defiler as a continuing villain and pursuer. We first saw Azog, who is from the Tolkien lore, in An Unexpected Journey. However, in the book the threats are more environmental, until the party reaches the Lonely Mountain, which wouldn’t have translated as well to film. Having a single villain for all three movies provides continuity and it translates better for the screen.
While I have some issues with how the Necromancer is portrayed in The Desolation of Smaug, it is a nice touch that Azog’s actions aren’t just random but are being directed by the shadowy figure. That adds a little more weight to the threat the white orc and his minions present to the dwarves and their cause.
Unfortunately, some of my favorite events from the book either feel rushed or are entirely skipped. Bilbo spends precious little time marveling at the butterflies fluttering above the forest. We never get to see those elf parties in the woods portrayed. How Beorn is introduced and the amount of screen time he gets is disappointing since I find him one of the most fascinating elements of the book.
However, the sequence with the spiders, while different from the novel, I thought was well done. It felt like the stakes were high and the scene keeps you on the edge of your seat, even though you know Bilbo at least gets through the threat alive.
I have to admit, in comparison to the first movie, I think the second relies on more contrivances and cheap nostalgia to carry the narravite forward, which I believe were entirely unnecessary. For example, the meeting of Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield at The Prancing Pony too closely mirrors the scene in the same setting from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
One might write that off as just coincidence (which I don’t believe for a second it is) or even as a good thing. Fair enough, but the digging up of Orlando Bloom to play Legolas, a character who isn’t even mentioned in The Hobbit by Tolkien, was an obvious move to try getting people unfamiliar with the Middle Earth books but who have positive feelings for the LOTR movies into theater seats. Besides the awkward stuffing of Legolas into the film, complete with contrived tasks to put him in the center of the action, there’s the plain fact the immortal elf looks older and just doesn’t move the same despite The Hobbit being a prequel to the LOTR. Picky? Sure, but it takes the viewer out of he suspension of disbelief.
Speaking of elven characters who didn’t exist in the book, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, was created by the filmmakers and used for some bizarre elf-dwarf “love” debacle. Legolas completes the weird love triangle and the whole thing feels too contrived and out of place, coming off more ridiculous than anything.
While Jackson and his team took liberties with the LOTR books as they adapted them into film, I feel like most of those changes were done with less cynicism and greater respect for the tone of the source material. This major change to the plot of The Hobbit smacks of a film producer brashly demanding in a pre-production meeting that a love story had to exist in the trilogy, “because everyone knows you have to have one of those.” Somehow, the book became a classic without the inclusion of such a thing – go figure.
These and other flaws aside, I still find The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug to be entertaining enough to watch every few years. But to completely honest, I think Tolkien’s novel, The Hobbit, is far superior to the film adaptations on just about every level.
Image via Warner Bros. Pictures
Steven Symes 