Its the end of an era: the culmination of almost twenty years of creative work by Peter Jackson and a sprawling cast to adapt two of the most important literary works in the history of the written word. But did Peter Jackson manage to pull off two trilogies perfectly? Well no, but then the Hobbit was always a more difficult sell: its not as compelling, not as dark and not as grown-up as the Lord Of The Rings, and plainly put, its just not as interesting. But there was lot in there to justify adaptation, even if the method remains questionable. At the end of the day, The Hobbit trilogy is just good enough: it is forever condemned to be the little brother of an over-achiever, whose merits will always have that caveat but its not quite the Lord Of The Rings is it? In truth, a lot of that is well-placed: its too long as a trilogy, it lacks the resonance of the other trilogy - perhaps because the text just isnt as good in the first place - and it feels like Peter Jackson was significantly more invested in the idea of the thing than any audience possibly could be. He wanted everyone to love it, but his fandom was at times a little more insistent than the delivery of his production. So now that the final film is out, its time to look at some of the biggest issues with Jacksons vision. Inevitably spoilers do follow. If you do not wish to read discussion of some of the major plot points of The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies, turn away now.
