海角大神

The last 鈥淗obbit鈥� film (we presume), 鈥�The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,鈥� hits theaters in a couple of weeks, and with its release, the story of Bilbo Baggins's adventure will be over (time will tell whether more stories set in J.R.R. Tolkien鈥檚 world of Middle-earth will come to theaters). So how will the 鈥淗obbit鈥� movie series be remembered? As the inevitably inferior younger sibling of the critically acclaimed and box office smash 鈥�Lord of the Rings鈥� trilogy, or as its own satisfying movie series?

The 鈥淗obbit鈥� film trilogy always had a lot to live up to. When director Peter Jackson, previously of such films as 鈥淗eavenly Creatures鈥� and 鈥淭he Frighteners,鈥� took on the task of adapting Tolkien鈥檚 most famous work, the groundbreaking fantasy trilogy 鈥淭he Lord of the Rings,鈥� many were doubtful. 鈥淩ings鈥� is full of expensive battle scenes, takes place in geographically diverse landscapes, and includes many fictional languages, like Elvish. How would a director bring a creature like Gollum to the screen? And Jackson went ahead and shot all three movies at the same time, before the first was released and he knew whether it was a success. At the time, Monitor writer Bonnie Churchill noted that 鈥渕any are calling [the decision to shoot all three] 鈥楬ollywood鈥檚 biggest gamble鈥欌�� the reported $270 million for the three films is still daunting, especially because, as Jackson points out, 鈥榝antasy films in Hollywood have seldom been a successful genre.鈥欌�澛�

But we all know how that turned out. The first 鈥淩ings鈥� movie, 鈥淭he Fellowship of the Ring,鈥� became the second-highest-grossing movie of 2001, while the second, 鈥淭he Two Towers,鈥� became 2002's number two film, and the trilogy鈥檚 finale, 鈥淭he Return of the King,鈥� was the top-grossing movie of 2003, according to the website . All three were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars and 鈥淜ing鈥� won, still the only fantasy film to take the prize.听

So the adaptation of Tolkien鈥檚 previous work set in Middle-earth seemed inevitable. The book, which clocks in at more than 300 pages (鈥淩ings,鈥� when combined, is over 1,000) was first set to be filmed as two movies, then Jackson announced it would be three, with supplemental material by Tolkien also figuring into the story. This is a decision that displeased some fans 鈥� writer Mike Fleming Jr. titled his article about the decision 鈥淪ay It Isn鈥檛 So!,鈥� writing, 鈥淭here wasn鈥檛 a wasted second in聽LOTR鈥� I read The Hobbit numerous times and I don鈥檛 think that Bilbo Baggins has three films in him鈥� and writer Kara Warner writing, 鈥淲e can鈥檛 ignore the fact that a third movie will make loads of money no matter how pure and good the intentions that go into it,鈥� though she noted that 鈥淛ackson is not just a writer/director, he鈥檚 a total fanboy himself and knows how important Tolkien鈥檚 work is to the massive fanbase.鈥澛�

And many reviewers remarked on the decision to make two films three when writing about the first movie. Michael Phillips of the wrote that 鈥渢urning the relatively slim 1937 volume 鈥淭he Hobbit鈥� into a trilogy, peddling seven or eight hours of cine-mythology, suggests a better deal for the producers than for audiences鈥� and critic Bob Mendello wrote of the movie, 鈥淵ou鈥檒l sense that there鈥檚 a bit of padding going on here鈥� it's mostly technology this time rather than story that's providing the depth.鈥� Overall, 鈥淭he Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey鈥� holds a score of out of 100 on the review aggregator website Metacritic, while 鈥淭he Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,鈥� the second film, scored a . 鈥淎rmies,鈥� the final film, has only been reviewed by a few publications so far but currently holds a .听

It鈥檚 true that 鈥淟ord of the Rings鈥� provided an extremely high standard to live up to when adapting the 鈥淗obbit鈥� films, and the 鈥淗obbit鈥� movies do have their entertaining points. But when looking back at the 鈥淗obbit鈥� movies, many will most likely point to the decision to split the story into three films as having stopped the movies from being all they could be. In addition, there鈥檚 the unavoidable fact that, since the 鈥淗obbit鈥� movies followed 鈥淩ings,鈥� some felt Tolkien fatigue. (Monitor film critic Peter Rainer wrote in his review of 鈥淯nexpected,鈥� 鈥淢y first thought in watching 鈥楾he Hobbit鈥� was: Do we really need this movie? It was my last thought, too鈥� By the time the last of the 鈥淩ings鈥� movies wrapped, I had had quite enough of orcs and dwarves and rings and Gandalf and Middle-earth.鈥�)

However, if the "Hobbit" movies had never been adapted, many fans probably would have called it one of the biggest missed opportunities in Hollywood history. In the "Hobbit" films, 鈥淟ord of the Rings鈥� fans got to check in again with heroes Bilbo, Gandalf, Legolas the elf, and others, and meet new ones like elf maiden Tauriel (an addition some critics praised), and for some, that鈥檚 enough.