The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Tried and Failed to Rekindle Peter Jackson’s Magic

Paste’s Jacob Oller asked me (provided I was not “already Tolkiened out”) to look back at either 2002’s The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers or 2012’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, as the former turns 20 this month and the latter 10. Because I am never Tolkiened out, I took him up on it. And because I can’t look away from a train wreck, I picked The Hobbit, the most disappointing franchise film in more than a decade when it came out. I did it because every last damned thing we’re seeing in theaters now pretty much is An Unexpected Journey to a T: An overproduced, underthought, obligatory continuation of a franchise that is a blithe waste of everybody’s time, more an excuse to sell themed tie-in meals at chain restaurants and licensed videogames than an actual movie.
Here it comes, you must be thinking: A guy who is going to go on about a movie he hates for no reason. I’m not doing that. I’m actually going to talk about what there is to like in The Hobbit, Valar preserve me. The core of all Tolkien’s work is tragedy: The kingdom that has fallen, the light that has faded, the song whose last echo has been lost to the void. All we can do is our best, and it will never be as great as Annuminas, which was but a pale imitation of Westernesse, which couldn’t hold a candle to Gondolin, and so forth. The tree that grows atop Minas Tirith will never be the equal of its sires in the Undying Lands. It’s kind of fitting that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was never going to be as good or as important as Peter Jackson’s original trilogy of films. I’m also quite sure nobody at Warner Bros. grasps the irony.
You, the person reading this, are also dragging your feet through the end stages of capitalism. And so you, too, must understand the unbearable situation of having before you a task that you do not want to complete, and yet must. Money has changed hands, promises have been made. There are any number of ways you might try (just try) to make it better in defiance of all the ways the person paying you demands that it must suck. So you ask the right questions, try to push the scope of the project toward something that might be useful or, failing that, at least beautiful. Something you, personally, can be proud of, if nothing else. Something the folks working under you won’t actively resent you for making them create.
Peter Jackson is on record as saying that he had not conceived of The Hobbit as a trilogy, that he was doing it because it was going to be made one way or another once the original director, Guillermo del Toro, departed from the project. Jackson is on record as saying that he basically winged it: He did not have the long pre-production time that he had on LOTR, a trilogy that looks every bit as if someone spent long years agonizing over how it would look and feel. His interviews are those of a broken man. He did not want to make this fucking thing, and yet he not only made it, but made an appalling amount of it. But it is worth acknowledging that you can really see where he was trying.
Those who watch The Hobbit trilogy and then fire up Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings are treated to a story that seems like a cohesive whole, even in light of the difference in quality. Howard Shore’s score, the reappearance of Ian Holm as Bilbo and Elijah Wood as Frodo, a million other little bits of continuity, all hang together surprisingly well for films that were started a decade apart from each other. Prequels pretty universally feel off-kilter in comparison with the movies they follow. The Hobbit trilogy’s tone may veer wildly where LOTR is consistent throughout, but the Hobbit movies do still manage to feel of a piece with LOTR a lot of the time.