Aaron, I enjoyed your views on Peter Jackson's film adaptation of
The Hobbit. I agreed with some and disagreed with others. In terms of '
how Jackson regressed the Orcs and Goblins':
Tolkien was no fool. He knew that he needed a competent adversary to build the drama - and so the Goblins and Orcs within The Hobbit always seemed very competent to me, indicative of a wider civilization, capable of negotiation and reason, which made them all the more dangerous to our heroes.
I do not see the Orcs in Tolkien's story as being evil for the sake of evil. Bolg is attempting to avenge his father, and I think that's a wonderful motivation. We could have had more of him growing as a commander, seeing his genuine hurt and why it was so important to get his revenge.
I agree completely with you here. Tolkien was clear at the start that while goblins made no beautiful things, they made many
clever ones, and suspected that they designed later weaponry.
In the book, they are clearly a threat. Despite the killing of the Great Goblin and others by Gandalf, they were able to quickly reorganise themselves, so as to chase after him, Bilbo and the dwarves. It's clear that the latter needed to get out of the Mountains quickly to survive.
Even after that happened, the goblins and their warg allies trapped the fifteen, who were clearly going to be killed (even Gandalf), before being rescued by the eagles. Later still, the goblins plotted to try and grab the treasure in the Lonely Mountain, after hearing of Smaug's death, not to mention avenging the death of the Great Goblin. Also, Bolg wanted to avenge his father's death at the hands of Thorin's cousin, Dain.
But what did the films give us? Azog, who was already dead. It would have been very simple to have had Bolg instead, who was at least in the book, and who had a comprehensible motive for revenge against the dwarves. 'Hello, my name is Bolg, son of Azog. Your cousin killed my father. Prepare to die'.
It would have hammered home the dual nature of Thorin, too. As both hero and plunderer. And been more faithful to the book, which almost seems to me to be reminiscent of morality plays - with a heroic King eventually being undone at the height of his triumph by his own hubris, whereas the humble Hobbit is graced with the right to go back home and enjoy the fruits of peace.
I disagree with you here. Thorin and the dwarves are presented for a long time as more merchants than warriors. It's only later, and increasingly after Thorin proudly proclaimed his identity to the Lake-men, that their warrior side became particularly evident, although to be fair to Tolkien, he never let the readers forget it.
You're right about Thorin's hubris; but it was, I think, more complicated than it first looks. Tolkien wove a complex web of law and morality within which Thorin and the other characters operated.
Yes, Thorin was affected by the dragon sickness. But also, we saw some Lake-men unfairly claiming that the dwarves
deliberately stirred up Smaug against them. For Thorin and his people, who suffered at that dragon's hands, this must have been seen by them as a dreadful insult.
Also, the treasure, leaving aside Bard's personal and hereditary claim to a share, and the Lake-men's right to compensation for help already given, was the property of the dwarves, not Smaug; so the Lake-men could claim no legal right to any compensation.
This left the issue of their
moral claim, which would also be politically expedient for Thorin to recognise, to ensure that the newly restored kingdom had good relations with its neighbours. But then Bard, also affected by the dragon sickness, insulted Thorin through his messenger, referring to him as 'calling himself' king, in other words being a so-called (i.e. illegitimate) king, provoking Thorin to attack the messenger, an assault on an ambassador being generally regarded as unacceptable behaviour.
In short, Tolkien portrayed Thorin as being in the wrong, in refusing to admit the moral claim of the Lake-people. However, he showed that monarch acting the way he did due to two provocations, first he and his people being blamed for deliberately stirring up Smaug against the Lake; and second, his royal title being treated as illegitimate. How would one expect a monarch and people to so react, having recently taken back what was rightfully theirs?
There was simply so much more they could have done, but I fear that Jackson, whilst viewing his insertions as "padding out a children's story", actually underestimated the hidden depths of Tolkien's story.
This issue of law and morality I already mentioned is, I believe, a particular example of such '
hidden depths'.
I take solace in the fact that one day it will probably be made again, and hope they have better luck the next time around!
I certainly hope that this will be the case!
