Production Journal | videography • motion graphics • sound design

The Hobbit has been in theatres now for close to a month, garnering both praise and criticism for its story-telling and visuals. For the record, I’m not a film snob – in fact, I’ll readily admit that I enjoy good CG eye-candy as much as I do the story (this, in itself, is an excommunicable sin among film lovers). However, I think The Hobbit movie serves as a great springboard for discussing some foundational story-telling principles. While the following four concepts aren’t even remotely new ideas, they are indeed personal reiterations, warranted by seeing a beloved childhood book brought to life by cinema.

[Disclaimer: this post contains more than your recommended daily intake of nerdiness. Also, spoilers. You’ve been warned.]

1) In cinema, conflict is everything.

In good stories, the plot must be driven with purpose. We find interest when there’s contrast – contrast we get only from well-placed conflict. In fact, some would say that conflict IS the story. If the protagonist makes his/her way through a series of random encounters, we haven’t really experienced a conflict as much as some amusing mishaps. In short, we need a compelling reason to feel emotionally connected to our characters.

In the Hobbit book, we experience a rather linear story of seemingly random events. Orcs aren’t pursuing Thorin. We have no idea that Dwarves harbor a grudge against Elves. The Arkenstone isn’t even mentioned until the last half, while the Necromancer barely receives an honorable mention. There is no real thread – just a bunch of isolated – albeit, highly enjoyable – encounters (all this said from a huge Tolkien fan).

Jackson’s writers had a unique challenge: create conflict without fundamentally altering the story. They had a beloved novel to adhere to and the weight of massive Middle-earth canon to support. But without conflict, you can’t drive a story. While many fans are crying foul at larger additions such as the White Council, it’s the subtler changes that make the biggest impact. Take the Trollshaws scene: in the book, the Dwarves are captured one-by-one by their stupidy. In the Jackson’s iteration, the Dwarves are forced to surrender when Biblo is in a life-or-death situation. Fantastic use of conflict.

While such conflicts were more of embelishments than outright fabrications, they helped evolve the Hobbit from a sequence of random events to a true conflict-driven story. I think Gandalf said it best in the beginning: “All good stories deserve embellishment.” I would add that all good stories deserve good conflict.

2) The writers had to make Tolkien “show it, not say it.”

I used to think, like many Tolkien fans, that Jackson showed too much too fast. In the Lord of the Rings, we saw scenes from Mordor and Isengard long before we ever have mention of them in the book. We experience a lot of great action merely through second-hand retelling. While I don’t think this was a sin as much as it was Tolkien’s style (he did, afterall, write it more for himself than for an audience), I think cinema affords a better format to “show it, not say it.”

Jackson and his team picked up on this and decided to deliberately show what was normally only discussed in dialog, adding great interest, not just because they had to the tools and because it’s a visual medium, but because it makes for better story-telling. I think about the first thirty minutes of Disney Pixar’s WALL-E. Not a word spoken. But how powerful!

It will be interesting to see how Jackson and his writers approach the Necromancer and the Battle of Five Armies. No doubt, there will be some heavy doses of epicness. But why take the easy way out and simply delegate it to dialog like in the book?

3) The tools and techniques must bend to the story, not vice versa.

I’m amazed at how visionary Jackson’s team and techniques on the Lord of the Rings seem, even in light of today’s innovations. Many of my mentors have taught me that problem-solving trumps know-how. In other words, you need to know how to make the tools work the way you want, rather than be limited by what’s in front of you. But that’s not the point, is it?

The rule of thumb is if people don’t notice it and feel immersed, you’ve done your job. Spin that and say that if people comment on ‘what a cool visual effect’ that was, then you haven’t adequately done your job. This applies to anyone involved in post production, from the editor, to the texture artists, to the rotoscopers.

I can’t vouch for Jackson’s work on the Hobbit; it was chock full of much more CG environments and characters than the Rings trilogy. While I thought there were some scenes in which they went all George Lucas with the CG, I felt overall that most techniques were demonstrated masterfully and were immersive. But that’s my opinion.

4) Cliche bad guys are absolutely comical.

My biggest complaint: Azog, the pale orc, was completely non-threatening. Sure, he was busting heads in the Moria flashback, but the rest of the film is chock full of cliche one-liners like, “Drink their blood,” and “Bring me his head.” Those farcical albino goblins.

Do you realize how many times over the world would have ended if bad guys would just shut up and kill the hero, already? It was a cheap device for scripting in a last-minute rescue, and it made our chief antagonist seem more like a gnat in your ear, evoking more of an embarrassed chuckle than a sense of dread.

All that to say, character carries a lot of weight in the story. Azog was shallow, and it showed. Sometimes, pure evil doesn’t seem as evil as a bad guy we can empathize with.

How did you feel about the film? What are your favorite examples in cinema of the filmmaking concepts above?