Spoilers ahead! Not great ones, I gloss over bunches of detail.

I’ve recently been re-watching The Hobbit Trilogy as well as going through The Hobbit audiobook—I only drive a couple times a week, but I’m on the road for a couple hours each trip so I have time for such things. Before any naysayers come at me, I have also physically read The Hobbit and have a nice hardcover edition that my brother bought… for my kids, but I don’t trust them with it… 

To further support my interest in Tolkien, I have also read, listened to, and watched The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and have listened to and attempted to read The Silmarillion—at least I can reference it when portions of the audiobook strike a particular interest. I have purchased further Tolkien works, including The Complete History of Middle-Earth (which I have not read), non-Tolkien-penned items like A Tolkien Bestiary, The Atlas of Middle-earth, some sketchbooks by Alan Lee and John Howe (Ted Nasmith is a more classical Tolkien artist, but I prefer Lee/How), and an outdated Guide to Middle-Earth. All in all—my collection may not yet be complete—but as Professor Tolkien spent over four decades of his life writing about Middle-Earth, I have time.

Medium Matters

This is a topic that bears repeating even though I’ve just started it. The people complaining about how much was left out of the movies or what was added in need to really accept that you can’t cram everything from a book into a film, and not everything in the film is going to translate well to the screen so is likely to be removed. I’ll be getting into more specific changes below, but I know there was a complaint about The Hobbit having too many films. But, considering all the material Tolkien wrote, they could have put out a new chunk of movie every year for a decade at least,  being the same length as the other extended editions.

Comparing the Plots

Alright, let’s start looking at the differences in how Jackson et al. handled their plot versus how Tolkien did. I’m not likely to go through every possible difference, but I think some large points are worth diving into.

If you want a really thorough list—go here. 

An Unexpected Party

The interaction between Gandalf and Bilbo is hilarious, as is the arrival of the dwarves (at least up until Thorin). I prefer the film adaptation here because I enjoyed the consistency of an adventure encroaching upon Bilbo’s otherwise quiet and respectable existence. The “good morning” conversation, the look on Bilbo’s face when Dwalin arrives, and the dishes scene were a touch silly, but Bilbo reading his contract with Bofur helping to explain Smaug was fun (Bofur was my favorite dwarf in the films), and the song of the dwarves was poignant and heartfelt. While the book talks about how important Thorin is, I feel like the movies really characterized it better. 

One of the things I liked about the movies was the added humor of the dwarves, but at times I admit I thought it silly. I mentioned the dishes, but their eating is horrible, plus the belching, the naked fighting in the fountains of Rivendell—it reminded me of how Gimli was mostly comic relief in the Lord of the Rings films, which I found unfortunate, but I understand how having some comedy helps such a long film experience. I just wish some things could have been spread around more. I know; I know; Merry and Pippin… but they had real character development while Gimli just got along with Legolas—which I should discuss more in a later post.

Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire

There are a couple of important antagonists added to the storyline that, while they do exist in the Tolkien-verse, they do not play the parts that the films put them into. This is obviously for dramatic effect and allows for a more targeted drama to unfold, but more diehard fans undoubtedly find these changes without merit. These characters being Azog the Defiler and his “spawn,” Bolg. While Azog did kill Thror, and the war between the dwarves and the orcs did take place, and did take place in front of Moria, and Thrain and Thorin were both there, and Thorin gained Oakenshield as a moniker, it was Dain II, Ironfoot, who killed Azog. Further complications arise when it would be Bolg who would die at the Battle of Five Armies, which takes place during the events of the last film of the trilogy—150 years after the death of Azog. One more thing: Beorn kills Bolg, not Legolas.

That said, I enjoy this hunt and I enjoy that Azog is not afraid of the Necromancer, whom he serves. His bloodlust in the film seems at least partially warranted, though racial tensions seem to be a common theme in Tolkien’s work—which makes sense given it’s a common theme in reality. I also enjoy how the moment right near the end of the first film, where Thorin faces down Azog in what is sure to be a suicide mission, is when Bilbo throws himself into the fray to defend the Dwarven king, his friend. It gives Bilbo a chance to be heroic in a way even he would have never expected. In the book they are attacked by wargs who are waiting for the same goblins from whom the Company of Thorin had recently fled… this would have been a most horrible fate. Since there were two more films, you have to think at least some of them survived.

Aiwendil and Aulendil

Now we come to two more characters of great import that are barely mentioned in the original Hobbit. The first of which is Radagast the Brown, one of the Five Wizards, or Istari. He is mentioned in a passing fashion by Gandalf, and his only known contribution seems to have been getting Gandalf both captured and freed from Orthanc—which would take place during The Lord of the Rings and not during The Hobbit. In print, he seems like something of a recluse, inasmuch he spent most of his time in the woods near his home, being on the edge of what was known as Mirkwood. A lover of birds, herbs, and other animals, it’s also unclear if he left that area after the fall of Sauron. As he did not leave for the Undying Lands with Gandalf, et al., his final fate is unknown.

In film, however, he proves to be both simple and useful, silly but sweet. Played by a former Doctor Who, Radagast was given a fair amount of screen time for being barely more relevant than the Blue Wizards, who are not named by Gandalf at all (their names are told in Unfinished Tales, so I’m not sure why Gandalf forgot them in the film unless it was for legal reasons). Radagast would assist Gandalf in areas that are discussed in deeper readings of Tolkien’s work, especially as he parted ways from Thorin, Bilbo, et al. However, those deeper readings also do not include Radagast as being of any great importance. 

Personally, I enjoyed Radagast. A little bit of comic relief, he did show a side of the wizards that neither Gandalf nor Saruman really projected—a love of the animals. Of course, Gandalf loves animals and has made friends with very important creatures, like Shadowfax and Gwaihir, but his concerns in the films are ever about Sauron. Saurman’s concerns are ever about knowledge and power, and Radagast’s is about the creatures living in trees and very low to the ground. Almost feels intentional… 

This brings us to the other character who is barely mentioned in The Hobbit, but those deeper readings I mentioned fill in some very interesting gaps—Sauron. During this time he is primarily referred to as The Necromancer, but Gandalf and the White Council would eventually sniff out the truth at Dol Guldur. I need not go into too much about Sauron as a character, but for those unaware, he’s the “Big Bad” in The Lord of the Rings, for he is indeed Lord of the Rings. In the film he’s a looming problem, a thing to be resolved. Just as in the LotR films, Elrond wants something done now; Saruman will advise caution and essentially ignore the situation for now. Wait and watch.

I enjoy his presence in the film because it not only gives Gandalf something to do, but it’s a reason to bring back other fan favorite characters like Elrond, Galadriel, and the Nazgul, and because it happened in Tolkien’s works, which makes it even more exciting.

The Eagles

I would think these would be side characters almost everybody knows, given the constant meme around, “Why didn’t the Eagles just fly them to Mordor?” That said, these creatures bear discussion because they’re actually quite interesting of their own accord, and I sort of wish more had been done to show that they’re more than just big-ass birds who can be beckoned (like an Uber) by using a moth. Gwaihir the Windlord is descended from the greatest Eagle who ever lived, and being a Great Eagle, could speak in the Common Tongue. They could just talk to you if they so chose, but the films left that out. Now, it should be mentioned here that it seems unlikely that Gwaihir was amongst the Eagles to have flown around during The Hobbit, but he was indeed in The Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, the Great Eagles are pretty neat and I wish they were shown as more than just an “oh shit” taxi service.

Extra Characters

The Elves

Here’s where things get really hairy, because this is where the bulk of the rage seems to come into play. It’s not the existence of the elves, or even having the Elvenking from the Hobbit be Thranduil, father of Legolas, but it’s the inclusion of Legolas—who we know,and Tauriel—who never existed. I’m naturally going to say, much of the vitriol comes from the fact that this is a she-elf with screen time where The Hobbit story itself is pretty much a sausage party—or cocktail weenie party, but I see no issue with this character. She adds a certain depth, at least to Kili, who falls for her. But this doesn’t carry the same weight that Aragorn/Arwen does in The LotR films (Arwen doesn’t belong either; it’s supposed to be Glorfindel who helps after Weathertop). It’s barely a distraction to the overall plot of the film, and adding a pseudo-love triangle with Legolas did nothing other than give Orlando Bloom’s differently-colored-eyes something else to look at.

In keeping with some of Tolkien’s themes, she is a Sylvan elf, which is not of the same pure Elven line of Thranduil and Legolas, and thus she is looked down upon by the King of Mirkwood as part of that pesky racism we all know and loathe but keep on having. 

The Master & Alfrid

Any excuse to put Stephen Fry on screen is a good one, so I was pleased to have him portray The Master of Lake-town, but he’s also supposed to survive and suffer a more dire fate than in the film. However, he does a fine job representing greed and the exploitation of the general population as a pretty good politician who knows how to distract his constituency. However, he has a sidekick, which would not be unusual given his position, and could be one the “Master’s counselors,” except this sidekick is someone called Alfrid Lickspittle (who had too much screen time). 

A weasel, a worm, a spiteful and childish wielder of The Master’s power, he was a low-rent Grima Wormtongue who could have disappeared from the screen after only a couple of moments. Instead, he survives longer than The Master, whose death isn’t very interesting. Alfrid’s easily my least favorite character—one of the few mistakes made with these movies, in my opinion.

Similarities

There were several similarities between the trilogies, either by characters being added, specific moments, or lines, like “Kingsfoil,” and, “it’s a weed.” I enjoyed those callbacks, if you will. I even enjoyed the addition of Tauriel to partially parallel Arwen, though Alfrid, as I just mentioned, is no Grima. The site I linked to, back towards the beginning, complains about these similarities between the films, but I enjoyed the certain cyclical nature of how some things change and some things stay the same. 

Conclusion

I’m rambling; time to wrap this up.

The books and the films should stand the test of time. While written primarily for children, The Hobbit films are grounded firmly in the more violent tendencies of the cinematic age in which they were made, and are meant to parallel the earlier LotR films in style to further grant a certain consistency. I can only hope the Amazon series does something similarly grounded, but avoids the pitfalls of a Game-of-Thrones-level of sex and violence. Plenty of intrigue available without making everyone naked and dripping blood… 

Anyway, I think the films do a wonderful thing by introducing people to Tolkien’s world, and I’m just glad that more of it is coming. I hope more people do crack open the books as well, because there is such a richness to the world, and the detail and the passion Tolkien gave to it is inspirational.