The decision to expand J.R.R. Tolkien’s enchanting (and short – pun unintended) “The Hobbit” into a sprawling trilogy was met with skepticism from fans. The overall sentiment was… Why? The answer, of course, was money. Peter Jackson originally wanted it to be two films, but the financial cost for such a series made three movies more viable and (in the end) less risky and more profitable.
To reclaim the narrative’s charm and pacing, condensing the saga into two films should have been the plan all along. The first installment could encapsulate the journey to the Lonely Mountain, ending with the menacing reveal of Smaug, creating a tension-filled cliffhanger. The second film would then encompass the dragon’s downfall and the ensuing Battle of Five Armies, providing a balanced and cohesive storyline.
Here’s three main reasons to maintain the Director’s original vision.
Erasing Unnecessary Romance: Tauriel’s Tale
The introduction of Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel injected an unnecessary romantic subplot that felt out of place in Tolkien’s world. While Lilly’s performance was commendable, her character’s love triangle with Kili and Legolas detracted from the core narrative. Removing this subplot would not only stay truer to the source material but also allow for deeper exploration of the existing characters and their arcs, such as the development of Bilbo’s bravery and Thorin’s descent into madness over the Arkenstone.
A Cliffhanging Conclusion: Ending on the Edge
A successful adaptation of “The Hobbit” should not only entertain but also remain faithful to the spirit of the book. Ending the first movie with the cliffhanger of Smaug’s awakening would align perfectly with this philosophy. This moment in the book is pivotal, filled with dread and anticipation, and capturing this on screen would provide a natural and thrilling conclusion to the first film, setting the stage for the epic finale.
Narrative Momentum and Tension
Stretching the relatively slim novel into a trilogy resulted in padded scenes, dilution of the main plot, and the introduction of unnecessary story elements that detracted from the original’s pacing and excitement. In a two-film structure, each scene and subplot would need to justify its presence more rigorously, ensuring that only content that directly serves the narrative and character development is included. This approach would eliminate the feeling of drag that some viewers experienced in the trilogy, where certain sequences felt like they were included merely to extend the runtime.
Condensing the story into two movies would also allow for a more intense and focused buildup of suspense, as the journey of Bilbo and the dwarves would face fewer interruptions and side quests. The streamlined narrative would keep the audience more engaged, as each film would have a clear, strong arc, leading to a more rewarding and emotionally impactful climax.
Final Thoughts
“The Hobbit” movies, while visually stunning and ambitious, veered away from the simplicity and coherence of Tolkien’s narrative. By refocusing on the heart of the story, reducing the number of movies to two, removing extraneous subplots, and ending with a book-based cliffhanger, the films could become a more authentic and satisfying adaptation of the beloved classic. In reimagining these elements, we can honor the source material and deliver a cinematic experience that resonates with both hardcore Tolkien fans and casual viewers alike.
And, if they had done it this way, I bet it would have made more money.