Why I’m okay with a trilogy (Hobbit spoilers)

So, as all the world knows, Peter Jackson has finally undertaken the making of The Hobbit into a three part film. There is a lot of hype going around about that fact that it IS a three part film. It was a tiny book! How the heck are they going to stretch it into three movies!? It’s going to be so ridiculous!

That’s what I thought at first too.

But I don’t think that any more.

After reading up a lot on the making of the films, the main points of contention that I had were as follows:

1: The Hobbit was made as a children’s book for Tolkien’s kids. The action scenes in the books are generally very short because they are geared to hold the attention of children.

2: Peter Jackson has said firmly that he’s making it less child-like than the book (note: none of the dwarfs’ hair are unnatural colors like in the book).

3: It’s being stretched into a trilogy. Why would they do this? HOW would they do this?

I will address the first and second points together because they tie in with one another as well as the movie adaptations of The Lord of the Rings.

I was actually really concerned that it was going to have a childlike feel. In the book it works, but on film it would just be so cheesy and stupid. I’m actually really glad that Jackson decided to make it a more serious movie. One, it will be more believeable. Part of making a movie like this is in successfully suspending the audience’s disbelief. This would have been very, very hard if the dwarves were running around with blue and yellow beards. Second, if he had made it more childlike, the story would feel too much unlike Lord of the Rings and the idea of connecting the two as part of the same overall storyline would be hard. Yes, the threat of the ring is nowhere near as great in The Hobbit, and yes, there is a generally more lighthearted feel in the world in The Hobbit, but the threat is still there and the evil is still there, even if he is just a Necromancer off in the south of Mirkwood somewhere. I am glad that Jackson took this approach to it (and really, could you imagine Aidan Turner (who plays Kili) running around with a bright yellow beard? Omg how ridiculous).

Yes, this is going to steer away from the rather light hearted feeling that the book took toward the whole adventure, but really, think about the things that Thorin & Co. went through! They were nearly eaten by giants, they were kidnapped by goblins and nearly killed, almost got eaten by giant effing spiders, they were run up trees by Wargs and nearly burned to death, they were imprisoned for days and days in the cave of the elf king, then got all stuffed into empty barrells and were tossed in the river and nearly drowned. Then of course there was the dragon, then a war, and then Thorin DIES!

It’s actually a very violent book. I think the more realistic approach will do it a great deal of justice.

The biggest and most exciting thing though, is going to be the fact that the movie is a trilogy.

I didn’t like this idea at first because I didn’t at first understand Jackson’s thinking behind it. I thought his intent was just to take the content of the book and stretch it out.

But, of course, he’s Peter Jackson and I should have more faith in him.

For anyone who loves J.R.R. Tolkien as much as I do, you know that his creation of the world of Middle Earth was so much more than just the books and the maps. It’s an entire history, a cultural phenomenon, a complete and vibrant world that was his life’s work. There is so, so, so much more than just what we read in the books.

Take The Hobbit. Why are the dwarves doing this? Why are they going on this seemingly impossible journey to confront a seemingly impossible foe? What happened all those years ago? How did they become exiled and how have they been spending their time since having their kingdom stolen from them? How did they even surivive in the first place? What kind of battle must that have been?

There are small hints all throughout the book that are never expanded on… but that exist in Tolkien’s personal writings. We get small glimpses of the days when Smaug first came to the mountain. Glimpses of what the dwarf kingdom of the Lonely Mountain was like BEFORE Smaug. Glimpses of Dale in its days of glory.

Think of it like this:

The book itself, The Hobbit, is not the actual story. It’s only an exerpt of the bigger history. A single point in the long saga of the dwarves. There are hints about their relationships with the other peoples of Middle Earth, the Elves and Men, their wars with the Goblins. 

Jackson is turning the book into a trilogy for the purposes of expanding on all of this. All of these things that Tolkien created in relation to the dwarves that was never present in the books. 

How. Amazing. Is that!?

The Silmarillion was primarily about Elves and Men, The Lord of the Rings about Hobbits and Elves and Men. 

How cool would it be to get to know the Dwarves a little better? They are always so underestimated. People don’t think too much about them, mostly because they’ve only ever read or watched the Lord of the Rings, and the only Dwarf we ever really get to know in those books is Gimli. There are more in one scene at the Council of Elrond, but that’s it.

Did you know that the Drwarvs were created by one of the Valar who went against Iluvatar during the making of the world?

Not that that will have anything to do with the story of the Hobbit, but you get my point. There is so much we don’t know about them.

When I learned it was Jackson’s intent in creating a trilogy to expand on who they were as a people, I was suddenly okay with it. We get a bit of an idea about each Dwarf’s character in the book, but we knew very little about their lives prior to the Unexpected Party. I would LOVE to see something about their hardships and their lives before meeting Bilbo Baggins.

Anyway, that’s all for now. I’m off work and going home.
Good night!