Reel Rumbles #43: ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring’ vs. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’
In This Corner…
One is the first chapter in an epic trilogy based on the first of three massive novels set in Middle-earth, the fictional world created by author J.R.R. Tolkien. The other is the first chapter in an epic trilogy based on a 100-page children’s book set in that same world (with additional material plundered from Tolkien’s appendices to his work, and from the screenwriters’ imaginations). Ultimately, they are epic films about high adventure, fantastical creatures, magic, swordplay, camaraderie, and magnificent New Zealand landscapes. Eleven years separate their theatrical releases; did that time allow Peter Jackson to craft a superior new adventure, or just continue to prove that the first movie in a franchise is often the best? Step into the Reel Rumbles ring and find out as we pit The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring vs. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Round One: Story
Unlike much of the free world, I am a massive fan of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films… and yet, I have never read the books by J.R.R. Tolkien. This is not without any effort whatsoever, but I found the first few chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring much too dry to slog through, and I once quit reading The Hobbit halfway through and never saw fit to go back. As such, my perspective on these stories is a bit more unique: I can really judge them only as films.
On the face of it, An Unexpected Journey seems something of a re-tread of The Fellowship of the Ring. A Hobbit comes to be in the possession of the One Ring (one is given the Ring at the outset of his journey; the other stumbles upon it partway through). He joins an eccentric wizard and a Fellowship (or Company) of adventurers on an epic quest to face an implacable enemy. Said journey will involve many close shaves, heroic battles, and… walking. Lots and lots of walking.
The Hobbit, the book, was first published in 1937. The Fellowship of the Ring, the first installment of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, came much later, in 1954. Being unfamiliar with the books, I’m left to wonder: Was The Lord of the Rings just an expansion of The Hobbit‘s basic structure for a more adult readership? I guess I can’t speak to that, but as a fan of the films, I know that The Fellowship of the Ring got here first. As such, it lands the first blow in this battle.
Advantage: The Fellowship of the Ring
Round Two: Script
Structurally, these two films are so similar that I sometimes wondered during An Unexpected Journey whether Jackson and his co-writers didn’t just insert new characters into their Fellowship of the Ring script. This is a bit unfair, as The Hobbit does contain scenes that are unique, particularly the “Riddles in the Dark” sequence with Gollum (easily the best scene in the entire film), but the similarities are indeed there.
Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) winds up bearing a striking resemblance to Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen): He spends the movie leading the Company, protecting the lead Hobbit, and winding up in an epic confrontation with a big, ugly villain. Thorin, however, is much more sullen than Aragorn, reluctant to have the halfling as a part of his crew. He actively seeks his displaced position as king, whereas Aragorn avoids it. (In these ways, Thorin also bears some resemblance to Sean Bean‘s Boromir.) In the film’s final battle, Thorin comes across as much more ineffectual than Aragorn, being saved by the Hobbit Baggins, rather than the other way around. His nemesis, Azog the Defiler, while creepy, is not quite as outright scary as the Uruk-hai, Lurtz, whom Aragorn battles at the end of Fellowship.
Ian McKellen‘s Gandalf the Grey, meanwhile, spends much more time in The Hobbit parting ways with the Company, and going on a myriad of little side-quests. (How he gallivants all over Middle-earth so fast while the dwarves just stumble around on their way to the Lonely Mountain is unexplained; I guess it’s just because he’s a wizard.) And here’s where it becomes more obvious to someone who hasn’t read the books that The Hobbit‘s script has been padded. Despite being nearly 15 minutes shorter than Fellowship, An Unexpected Journey feels a bit overlong, and that’s because Fellowship‘s screenplay is actually more streamlined.
Instead of getting the Company of Dwarves from Bag End to the Lonely Mountain in the most efficient way possible, there are all the detours: having Gandalf meet with Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman; bringing in Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) to give CPR to a hedgehog; having Eagles drop the Company at the top of the most improbable rocky pinnacle in all of Middle-earth, instead of just taking them all the way to their destination! In a way, An Unexpected Journey feels a little like the LOTR trilogy in microcosm (complete with the Eagle deus ex machina), while Fellowship stays the course, bringing the heroes together and having them stick to their journey all the way through (leaving the next installment, The Two Towers, to do a bit of the meandering).
Advantage: The Fellowship of the Ring
Round Three: Performances
Here’s where The Hobbit scores its most effectual blow, so let’s get it out of the way right now: Martin Freeman completely owns the role of Bilbo Baggins, and is every inch a more lovable hero than Elijah Wood‘s Frodo. Some of that has to do with the script: There’s a bit more natural humor injected into The Hobbit, where Frodo in Fellowship has the weight of the world thrust upon his shoulders from the get-go. Still, Freeman walks away with this one.
Both films benefit greatly from the presence of Sir Ian McKellen in the role of Gandalf. The character is crucial to both films, and it seems as though nobody else could possibly play him.
It’s in the rest of the casting where the battle is decided. Again, it may be unfairly unbalanced by weaknesses in the script, but there are deciding factors here nonetheless.
With nine members in the Fellowship of the Ring, there is ample enough time in three hours to give everyone their due. All the characters become fully fleshed out – even the somewhat bland Legolas (Orlando Bloom).
In The Hobbit, there are 13 Dwarves in the Company, and some of them get the short shrift. Notable is Bombur (Stephen Hunter): several jokes are made at the expense of his weight, but I don’t recall him uttering a single line during the course of the film. This becomes the problem with many of the Dwarves; they are so indistinct as to be nearly impossible to tell apart.
There are exceptions, of course. The burly Dwalin (Graham McTavish) is the first to arrive at Bilbo’s home in Bag End, and makes an impression with his gruff manner and bald, tattooed pate. Balin (Ken Stott) is an endearing old sage. Kili (Aidan Turner) is the Dwarven equivalent to Fellowship‘s Legolas, handsome and good with bow and arrow. James Nesbitt‘s Bofur gets a good scene when Bilbo decides to part company with the Dwarves. But almost everyone else gets lost in the shuffle. It is, of course, faithful to the book to have 13 Dwarves in the Company, and for all I know, Bombur could be the big star of this year’s The Desolation of Smaug, but An Unexpected Journey suffers by not allowing the actors playing the Dwarves to give them distinct voices.
Then there are the returning actors from the Rings trilogy. Elijah Wood and Ian Holm appear in a bland introduction that serves only to give The Hobbit trilogy a closer tie to Rings, but don’t really do anything to enhance the tale. (After all, this one’s all about the younger Bilbo played by Freeman.) And while it’s nice to see Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett returning as Elrond and Galadriel in the White Council scene, Christopher Lee‘s Saruman seems almost bored to be there. (Reportedly, Lee originally had no intention of returning for The Hobbit. Perhaps this affected his performance.)
Ultimately, some characters get short-changed by either a lack of screen time, or a lack of conviction in roles that only serve as padding for a thinner story – thus tipping the scales in this round towards Fellowship once again.
Advantage: The Fellowship of the Ring
Round Four: Direction
In 43 Reel Rumbles in 3 years of the Flickchart Blog, this entry marks the first time that two films have been pitted against each other that were directed by the same person. In one sense, this should almost make this last round easy: with 11 years and more major films like King Kong and The Lovely Bones between them, the Peter Jackson who directed The Hobbit is more experienced than the Peter Jackson who directed The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, in some ways it shows. There are action sequences in The Hobbit that are elaborate and epic enough to truly rival – if not surpass – anything in Rings.
By the same token, it seems that all PJ knows how to make anymore are really, really long movies. In Fellowship‘s case, at the end of three hours in the theater, I was literally on the edge of my seat – ready for more. In the case of The Hobbit, I felt the length. Jackson is forgetting how to work more ruthlessly with an editor, and save what should be saved for his Extended Version DVDs. Fellowship is longer than The Hobbit, but doesn’t feel like it.
Advantage: The Fellowship of the Ring
And the Winner Is…
When I viewed The Hobbit in glorious 2D, it was a welcome return to Middle-earth, but The Fellowship of the Ring is my #1 film on Flickchart for a reason. There is plenty of promise in An Unexpected Journey for great things to come in the sequels, but as fun as it is, it can’t topple the true lord of these Rings films. The winner here, by way of TOTAL KNOCKOUT, is The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
- Discuss The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring vs. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
- Rank The Fellowship of the Ring vs. An Unexpected Journey on your Flickchart
- Re-rank The Fellowship of the Ring
- Re-rank An Unexpected Journey
- Rank all the Lord of the Rings movies on your Flickchart
- Get Personal Recommendations for the Best Fantasy Adventure Films You Haven’t Seen
Fellowship of the Ring is also my #1 film on Flickchart.
I may be among the few that found The Hobbit to be a vast improvement on the original three films. While the epic scale of the original three, combined with great acting (rivaling, but not beating or losing against that of The Hobbit), and a wonderfully rich story (one of the few aspects where the originals top The Hobbit) give the original films a few bonuses, I found them to be somewhat lacking. I found myself more bored than excited a lot of the time, though the third film was much more fast paced. The Hobbit, I found, rarely felt dull. I actually thought the pacing was great, and the humor kept things lively and engaging. I can’t see myself re-seeing the original three anytime soon, but I’d be more than happy to return to The Hobbit.
Fellowship is the better film, no argument there. But The Hobbit was more fun to watch. It did drag on in some spots for me, but not enough knock the film for it.