# The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey - A Purist's Review



## Thorin (Dec 18, 2012)

*The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*

Well. After 9 years of reviews such as these, this dusty old curmudgeon from the First Age of this forum has returned with another. Many of the newbies here don't know my tradition of these types of reviews as I have put one out for all the LotR movies and their extended editions. So for all the newbies and in honor of my ancient friends and foes alike, I dedicate this review to you. 

(Spoiler Alert)
TH: AUJ - 7/10

Some might be surprised by my score knowing my past history with these films. Unlike LoTR, I went into The Hobbit:AUJ without any expectations. Knowing PJ's tendency to skew the story, characters and dialogue, I went fully expecting it to continue...and it did. However, not on the disastrous scale of much of LoTR. I also knew and accepted that there were many things about TH that would need to be fleshed out, changed and added to make a decent movie (never mind three!) of TH. The tone is more child like, more storybook-like and not so serious as LoTR.

THE GOOD

* Of course visually and authentically, PJ and WETA out-did themselves once again in bringing Middle Earth back to life. From the Shire to Rivendell to the mountains.
* Unlike LoTR, casting for the most part was done well. I did feel that Thorin and a few of the younger dwarves like Fili and Kili were not very Dwarf-looking, but I guess they can't all be coming out of the chute looking like Balin and the others. It just seemed weird to me. They seemed too human.
* References to the grander scope of Middle Earth history. With Elrond talking about the swords of Gondolin and Gandalf about the 5 wizards, it was nice to have those ancient references weaved throughout the story, even though the vast majority of viewers would have missed those references. 
* Despite a few minor changes, Bilbo's encounter with Gollum was given a pretty decent go by PJ. As usual these changes were quite unnecessary but that's PJ for you.
*Despite a few changes again, thought the encounter with the 3 cave trolls was done well
* Back flashes to Dwarf history. It was nice to see Dwarfs featured for a change and being shown doing what they do in their kingdoms. LoTR was all focused on Men and Elves, and TH gave us a much better glimpse to the world of Dwarves. PJ portrayed this well.
* I like that PJ used the events surrounding the Hobbit that we find in the appendices of the LoTR and other ME sources to be shown as well. The concept of the Necromancer and the discussion of it by members of the White Council added a back story that was ME authenticated. It's an extra treat for those fans of ME.

THE BAD

* Radagast's role - Of course a complete PJ fabrication in regards to the events of TH. It didn't bother me too much that he did this, but I felt that there was way too much time given to Radagast and that he was made to be much more foolish then he should have been. Something that I felt really could have been left out of the story.
* Gandalf and the moth part II: What is it with Gandalf speaking to butterflies or whatever once again? Twice in a row, PJ?? 
* Goblin Cave: I felt that too much time was spent in this scene and that the Goblin king was a bit over the top
* Stone monsters: I'm a little perplexed by what exactly this was about and how exactly they are explained in the grand scope of things that live in ME. It seemed bizarre to me and just another way for PJ to flaunt his 'creative' mind in thinking he can wield the story of ME like a kid waving a gun. Seemed stupid to me for some reason
*Azog sub-plot - Like Lurtz before him, Azog seems thrown in there for some sort of arch-villain role. Considering Azog was dead long before this and there was no such grudge match between the orc and Thorin in the book, another one of PJ's long history of adding in his own story thinking he can improve on the greatness of Tolkien's characters. Having said that however, I can't wait for Thorin to take his head off by the end of the movie. 

THE UGLY
Surprisingly...nothing stood out that couldn't be just considered 'bad'

THE SURPRISING
* Was completely surprised that the dwarves and the plates in Bilbo's house was left in! To me I thought this was a 'childish' scene that would be the first to go. As I said before, I approached this movie from the book Hobbit's perspective and not how it meshed in with PJ's version of LoTR. It seemed out of place for that, but not for a movie portrayal of the book. I enjoyed seeing it. However, having said that, I truly hope that PJ leaves out the spiders of Mirkwood chanting 'attercop' and other such nonsensical phrases. That should fall by the wayside like Bombadil had to happen in LoTR

Well, there it is. Less curmudgeonly than some might have expected, but I suppose time has softened me somewhat. I am looking forward to seeing what PJ can do to make the rest of the Hobbit come to life (Smaug, Battle of 5 armies and Beorn, anyone?) and hope that he doesn't turn it into a schmozzle of Pj-isms and other nonsense fabrications that he is known for. I hold my breath.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 18, 2012)

Spoilers in this reply, just a heads up.

I really liked the movie and I agree with your review almost entirely. I loved the 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' scene, thought it was awesome he kept it in, but thought he'd find it useless as a scene just like he did with Tom Bombadil. 
I hated that Azog was there. Let's just resurrect a character that was already dead by this time and add a subplot. Azog was killed in TA 2799 but the events of the Hobbit occurred in TA 2941, 142 years later. If anything, the Orc that was chasing the company should have been Bolg, Azog's son, with a climax in the final battle of Five Armies (where Bolg died in The Hobbit). I mean I understand that directors can't follow their movie's respected novels completely (look at PJ, nuff said), but this is just completely idiotic. At least let the history happen the way it was meant to. 
Radagast was good, though a little too bumbling, as you said and I didn't like the sled of rabbits, thought that was kind of cheesy. When he's leading the orcs away while the company is trying to escape, he randomly just disappears when the elves show up.

All in all I liked it, just the Azog part really bugged me the most. I have to say the Dol Guldur scene was cool, though what happened to the Nazgul being invisible? I could clearly see the Witch King. And I do like the way he portrayed Sauron, not just a floating fiery eye.


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 18, 2012)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Spoilers in this reply, just a heads up.
> 
> I mean I understand that directors can't follow their movie's respected novels completely



Hi Erestor (and Thorin), I have to say I disagree with this. There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the plot, storyline, history and intention of the author to the letter. I understand entirely that they may need to remove unnecessary content, but they absolutely don't need to re-write their own version of The Hobbit, or for that matter the LOTR's simply because they own the rights and they think it might appeal to the popcorn-munching masses. The work of Tolkien has stood the test of time long before and after these movie's will have been and gone. I have to agree with Ciryaher on the point he raised in another thread that had Guillermo Del Toro been given free reign and a suitable budget this might have been an entirely different film. In fact, I believe Del Toro would have delivered something altogether more in line with the spirit of Tolkien's written work that PJ ever could. Then again, I wonder did studio bosses panic and think Del Toro's version might have appealed to less of an audience as it would likely have been so close to the books, that many of the paying public might not want to see it? I guess that's why they stuck with PJ, he has no scruples, morals or sense of loyalty to the author and as such was perfect to make this cinematically appealing to the masses.

Unfortunately I don't believe any film studio will commit a huge budget to remaking either the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit in his lifetime, if they do, then I hope Del Toro gets his opportunity to shine.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 18, 2012)

Ancalagon said:


> Hi Erestor (and Thorin), I have to say I disagree with this. There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the plot, storyline, history and intention of the author to the letter. I understand entirely that they may need to remove unnecessary content, but they absolutely don't need to re-write their own version of The Hobbit, or for that matter the LOTR's simply because they own the rights and they think it might appeal to the popcorn-munching masses. The work of Tolkien has stood the test of time long before and after these movie's will have been and gone. I have to agree with Ciryaher on the point he raised in another thread that had Guillermo Del Toro been given free reign and a suitable budget this might have been an entirely different film. In fact, I believe Del Toro would have delivered something altogether more in line with the spirit of Tolkien's written work that PJ ever could. Then again, I wonder did studio bosses panic and think Del Toro's version might have appealed to less of an audience as it would likely have been so close to the books, that many of the paying public might not want to see it? I guess that's why they stuck with PJ, he has no scruples, morals or sense of loyalty to the author and as such was perfect to make this cinematically appealing to the masses.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't believe any film studio will commit a huge budget to remaking either the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit in his lifetime, if they do, then I hope Del Toro gets his opportunity to shine.



Ancalagon I agree with you and that's really what I meant...sorry I didn't word it correctly lol :*D


----------



## Bucky (Dec 19, 2012)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Spoilers in this reply, just a heads up.
> 
> I have to say the Dol Guldur scene was cool, though what happened to the Nazgul being invisible? I could clearly see the Witch King. And I do like the way he portrayed Sauron, not just a floating fiery eye.



*Sauron has grown up to be a lighthouse yet. :*D

Honestly, they had me there too until the bit about the Witch-king's body & the sword...

Absurd.

The Witch-king's body is buried?

Oh, come now.*


----------



## BelDain (Dec 20, 2012)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*



Thorin said:


> * Stone monsters: I'm a little perplexed by what exactly this was about and how exactly they are explained in the grand scope of things that live in ME. It seemed bizarre to me and just another way for PJ to flaunt his 'creative' mind in thinking he can wield the story of ME like a kid waving a gun. Seemed stupid to me for some reason




The stone giants tossing boulders in the mountains was one of the few things actually in the novel that they put in the movie! Their inclusion completely suprised me. I thought for sure they'd be cut out as something too unexplainable and deemed unnecessary.
Of course true to PJ it went over the top with the mountain path splitting apart and that they had actually been walking on one of the giants. That was just dumb.

Unfortunately for me I decided to read the book a few weeks before seeing the movie. It made the movie rather unenjoyable because the whole time I just wanted to see The Hobbit in film form and so from start to finish of the movie basically everything that happened made me think, "that wasn't the way it was in the book...that wasn't the way it was in the book."
The conversation with Gandalf, the way the dwarves arrived, how Bilbo left the Shire, the orcs chasing them, the reason they found the trolls, Bilbo not being silent when sneaking up on the trolls, how Bilbo was discovered by the trolls, how they escaped the trolls, what they did with the troll gold, why they lost their ponies, how they found Rivendell, how the elves behaved, the white council at this point, Radagast, how the dwarves left Rivendell, how they found the cave, how Bilbo discovered Gollum, how Gandalf saved the dwarves, how Bilbo escaped Gollum, how Bilbo escaped the goblins, why the wargs attacked the company, having the orcs instead of the goblins from the cave, Bilbo not needing help to get into the trees, Thorin jumping out of the tree and attacking, Bilbo attacking, why the eagles rescued them, cutting out the Lord of the Eagles, Carrock wasn't in the middle of the river, and many other smaller things. It was a completely different story.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 20, 2012)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*



BelDain said:


> The stone giants tossing boulders in the mountains was one of the few things actually in the novel that they put in the movie! Their inclusion completely suprised me. I thought for sure they'd be cut out as something too unexplainable and deemed unnecessary.
> Of course true to PJ it went over the top with the mountain path splitting apart and that they had actually been walking on one of the giants. That was just dumb.
> 
> Unfortunately for me I decided to read the book a few weeks before seeing the movie. It made the movie rather unenjoyable because the whole time I just wanted to see The Hobbit in film form and so from start to finish of the movie basically everything that happened made me think, "that wasn't the way it was in the book...that wasn't the way it was in the book."
> The conversation with Gandalf, the way the dwarves arrived, how Bilbo left the Shire, the orcs chasing them, the reason they found the trolls, Bilbo not being silent when sneaking up on the trolls, how Bilbo was discovered by the trolls, how they escaped the trolls, what they did with the troll gold, why they lost their ponies, how they found Rivendell, how the elves behaved, the white council at this point, Radagast, how the dwarves left Rivendell, how they found the cave, how Bilbo discovered Gollum, how Gandalf saved the dwarves, how Bilbo escaped Gollum, how Bilbo escaped the goblins, why the wargs attacked the company, having the orcs instead of the goblins from the cave, Bilbo not needing help to get into the trees, Thorin jumping out of the tree and attacking, Bilbo attacking, why the eagles rescued them, cutting out the Lord of the Eagles, Carrock wasn't in the middle of the river, and many other smaller things. It was a completely different story.



Don't forget that PJ also resurrected Azog from the grave


----------



## Bucky (Dec 21, 2012)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*



BelDain said:


> Of course true to PJ it went over the top with the mountain path splitting apart and that they had actually been walking on one of the giants. That was just dumb.



*Well put...

This is the point I was making in my review (that nobody reads now, lol).

The whole movie proceeds this way: With one scene after another that is so absurdly unbelievable ~ even in the scope of the world in which the are set, or compared to TLOR, that they just become laughable to think our heroes would survive them.

Therefore, there is no tension, no excitement in the action scenes, the 'chase' scenes so to speak, just a resignation that one more 'can you top this' moment of CGI magic greater than the last unbelievable stunt is about to appear on the screen ad nauseum.*


----------



## BelDain (Dec 21, 2012)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*



Bucky said:


> *Well put...
> 
> This is the point I was making in my review (that nobody reads now, lol).
> 
> ...




Exactly. Riding the slick rock knees of stone giants on a precariously narrow precipice and never falling off? No problem.
Bilbo who just said he never used a sword in his life then successfully defending himself against a goblin fighter? Totally believable.
Running pelmel across narrow rope and board bridges fighting a vast goblin host and no one gets hurt at all? Amazing.
Bilbo falling down who knows how far onto rocks into a cave far below into some large fungi with no injury? Of course.
The wooden bridge tumbling down slopes and plummeting against cave walls to the depths of the mountain intact? Sure.
The wargs being strong enough to push down all the huge trees yet the one at the end hanging by a root with all 14 of them in it never falls? OK!


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 22, 2012)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*



BelDain said:


> Exactly. Riding the slick rock knees of stone giants on a precariously narrow precipice and never falling off? No problem.
> Bilbo who just said he never used a sword in his life then successfully defending himself against a goblin fighter? Totally believable.
> Running pelmel across narrow rope and board bridges fighting a vast goblin host and no one gets hurt at all? Amazing.
> Bilbo falling down who knows how far onto rocks into a cave far below into some large fungi with no injury? Of course.
> ...



These observations took me out of the story far more than Azog's resurrection did. It was like watching a computer game rather than a film. The tree would have worked if it had been in any way more substantial than the others; but it wasn't.

PJ did a character amalgamation, keeping the same Orc king from TA2799 through to (I'm presuming) The Battle of the Five Armies; where I'm expecting Dain to despatch Azog the way he should have 150 years previously, instead of Bolg (unless Thorin sees him off before his own demise; or unless Thorin survives until that final battle). I was more concerned that PJ would have characters straying from the personalities Tolkien had given them; and so far I haven't seen that.

I also enjoyed that I really wasn't sure what would happen next. Radagast added a childlike element that existed in the book; but his bunny sleigh was a tad unbelievable. Maybe we were being set up to 'believe' Beorn's household setup in the next film.

I also noticed that The Carrock was bear-shaped. Nice touch.


----------



## BelDain (Dec 24, 2012)

Do you think they will cut out Beorn and Bolg altogether and have the Five Armies battle culminate in a Thorin/Azog fight instead? That would be a massive and unfortunate rewrite of the story of The Hobbit but given what they've done already it seems plausible.

Besides all the silly stuff what I didn't enjoy was how Jackson felt the need to speed up the development of the characters in the first movie rather than letting the arcs play out over the whole story. Making Bilbo way more than he was at the beginning leaves little to develop through the spiders and elves episodes and Thorin completely embracing Bilbo by the end of the first movie seems to leave little need for that development.


----------



## Valandil (Dec 24, 2012)

BelDain said:


> Do you think they will cut out Beorn and Bolg altogether and have the Five Armies battle culminate in a Thorin/Azog fight instead? That would be a massive and unfortunate rewrite of the story of The Hobbit but given what they've done already it seems plausible.
> :
> :



I don't think so. I think Azog will be there to die in Bolg's place. But there is a Beorn cast, and I suppose he'll probably show up for the Battle of 5 Armies.


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 26, 2012)

My jaw literally dropped seeing a 7/10 from Thorin. Being a FAD, I have to rate it slightly higher, of course, but I agree with the vast majority of the points made. 

On the Good and the Ugly, I am in complete agreement. 

The Bad:
-Not annoyed with the addition Azog. At all. And this surprises even me, to an extent. From a film perspective, he "works" as a character. From a purist perspective it is an obvious gripe; however, since the LotR movies, I have drifted even further from my Tolkien roots, and perhaps this is why I am not upset. At least it wasn't a Lurtz or a "bulbous orc" or some other completely fictional character. And Azog sounds cooler than Bolg. 

In addition to the rest of the Bad, or perhaps in the summation of it, I would add...well, the exact term escapes me at the moment. Overzealous special effects? Over-the-top Hollywood-ization? The Matrix problem? Several people here have already mentioned the scenes in question: riding the goblin scaffolding to the bottom of the cave, riding rock giants, cave floors opening to giant goblin chutes, and one tenacious tree root. These could clearly have been done more concisely and realistically, but I don't see them ruining my movie experience, by any stretch of the imagination. 

I know I don't have the book knowledge that I used to, and that even back then it was inferior to many or most here. But I read and reread (and reread) The Hobbit in my childhood and onward, and I cannot shake the fact that this move "feels" like The Hobbit to me, in a way that none of the LotR movies did. So much of the little stuff that made an impression on me as a child reading the novel was brought back to my memory watching this movie that I walked out smiling more than I have in quite a while. I can't wait to see what's coming next.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Dec 27, 2012)

Gandalf White said:


> I know I don't have the book knowledge that I used to, and that even back then it was inferior to many or most here. But I read and reread (and reread) The Hobbit in my childhood and onward, and* I cannot shake the fact that this move "feels" like The Hobbit to me*, in a way that none of the LotR movies did. So much of the little stuff that made an impression on me as a child reading the novel was brought back to my memory watching this movie that I walked out smiling more than I have in quite a while.



I had quite the opposite experience for most of the film, which I've seen twice now.

All the business with 'Azog,' Radagast and the council seems to make the Company's journey quite secondary to the story of the movie. When I read the books I feel like I'm traveling with Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves. When they get to Mirkwood in the next movie they're going to be just a tiny element in the story in a framework that we understand a lot better than they do, with the whole necromancer/Sauron insight the viewers have. In the books it's quite different - the reader experiences the new environments and information as the Company does, for the most part. The focus on Thorin's distaste for the Elves etc. also didn't help.

I think they could have done far better having Bilbo impress Balin and the other dwarves as he did in the books with his reappearance after the goblin cave instead of making him into some brave, violent hero when Azog faces Thorin in the trees. That's really going to diminish the worth of the spider scene in Mirkwood. And I'm not looking forward to Thorin when he meets Thranduil and goes on and on about how they supposedly betrayed the dwarves of Erebor.

On a side note - I didn't see the necromancer really bring anyone back from the dead, but it looked like Radagast and Gandalf did  

I enjoyed watching the movie because I knew what I was getting into, but it's certainly not the experience of The Hobbit for me.


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 27, 2012)

Prince of Cats said:


> All the business with 'Azog,' Radagast and the council seems to make the Company's journey quite secondary to the story of the movie. When I read the books I feel like I'm traveling with Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves. When they get to Mirkwood in the next movie they're going to be just a tiny element in the story in a framework that we understand a lot better than they do, with the whole necromancer/Sauron insight the viewers have. In the books it's quite different - the reader experiences the new environments and information as the Company does, for the most part. The focus on Thorin's distaste for the Elves etc. also didn't help.



Well, to each his/her own. Do you think the movie could or should have been filmed without incorporating the larger story? I don't, and I'm enjoying the incorporated backstory if I am going to be perfectly honest.



> I think they could have done far better having Bilbo impress Balin and the other dwarves as he did in the books with his reappearance after the goblin cave instead of making him into some brave, violent hero when Azog faces Thorin in the trees. That's really going to diminish the worth of the spider scene in Mirkwood. And I'm not looking forward to Thorin when he meets Thranduil and goes on and on about how they supposedly betrayed the dwarves of Erebor



Almost without exception, a movie could always do something better in regards to text translation. I don't disagree in this case. To those who know the story word-for-word, this could no doubt be detrimental to their enjoyment. Given the length of time between readings, I no longer have that issue. Still, I was actually afraid to see this movie; LotR I enjoy, The Hobbit I love, and I did not want to be disappointed. I ended up going by accident and while I can spot the story deviations and cringe dutifully at the PJ-isms, I am reminded of my first time reading this awesome, awesome story, and that's what matters most to me.



> On a side note - I didn't see the necromancer really bring anyone back from the dead, but it looked like Radagast and Gandalf did



Don't get it.


----------



## Mike (Dec 27, 2012)

Well, he *is* a necromancer.


----------



## Elostirion (Dec 29, 2012)

*Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - a purist's review*

Ancalagon said earlier _"There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the plot, storyline, history and intention of the author to the letter. I understand entirely that they may need to remove unnecessary content, but they absolutely don't need to re-write their own version of The Hobbit, or for that matter the LOTR's simply because they own the rights and they think it might appeal to the popcorn-munching masses. The work of Tolkien has stood the test of time long before and after these movie's will have been and gone. I have to agree with Ciryaher on the point he raised in another thread that had Guillermo Del Toro been given free reign and a suitable budget this might have been an entirely different film. In fact, I believe Del Toro would have delivered something altogether more in line with the spirit of Tolkien's written work that PJ ever could."_

I strongly believe that Del Toro should be given a budget of $billions by Bill Gates and then told to spend the next few years creating narratively faithful cinematic versions of The Silmarillion, UT, CoH and tLotR. He can make them as long as he likes - 2, 3, 4 hours, I don't care. 'Nuff said. (LoL! deeply wistful thinking...)


----------



## hairyhobbit (Jan 7, 2013)

*It is very hard to be a purist, and a lover of PJ's work at the same time... There are moments when both are done very well in the Hobbit, but then there are some simply horrific changes to the story in the movie...*

I approached watching the Hobbit open minded, and was delighted for roughly first 45 min, well scripted and thought out beginning... Sadly it didn't last, with Pj seemingly at any chance using his creative license to butcher the original story.. I felt like there were scenes that simply were so far over the top, and without meaning.. Felt like it was padding! 

A couple of big negatives were the fact that several of the dwarves looked way too close to the human race..why? 

Too numerous and unrealistic warg/orcs scenes, including the big fight in the Misty Mountains, I just wanted it over with, it was like here we go another fight scene.

The rock trolls, was plain stupid and over the top.. why?

The Rivendell scene, with the antagonistic drawves, not necessary, and inaccurate.why?

Thorin and Bilbo fighting Azog, stupid addition, as was the over the top tree falling scene..

Some positives, the first 45 min, the trolls, the music and scenery,Bilbo's character was quite good (Freeman is great in the role, as he is in other work), link with Dol Guldor/Sauron, Radagast (except for the bunny scenes and the chase away from wargs, silly)..

The riddle scene between Bilbo and Gollum was nicely done, except for why PJ could not stick with Bilbo falling behind the dwarves, rather than falling a country mile down I do not know..Why does he assume that the majority of viewers are idiots and need something big or exciting to happen at each new scene ?? Infuriating.

Ancalagon, I totally agree with you mate...

On a side note, my wife (who has never read the book or even really liked LOTR movies in the past) LOVED the Hobbit, as did my 3 young kids.... So did Pj do a good job for the masses, yes!! For purists, NO..

When PJ follows the book closer in LOTR he does it very well in many parts.. With the Hobbit he lets his imagination run unchecked, and spoils this story. I am hoping that there is an extended edition, perhaps helping out the real Tolkien lovers.
Such a shame, what could have been!
:*down:*down


----------



## hairyhobbit (Jan 7, 2013)

Changed my mind (I have a copy of it and re watching it with kids now)... 

Having seen it a second time, I can truly say that this a very,very poor adaptation.. Most definately the WORST of all Tolkien adaptions... 

Sorry PJ.. This is beyond ridiculous, such huge inaccuracies in both character and storyline, and intent by Tolkien...

This movie truly is an insult to any purist, and most importantly Tolkien himself!! 

The made up sub stories/plots, the meaningless relentless predictable fighting scenes are a mockery of Tolkien... 

What were you thinking PJ? 

You had a fantastic story to begin with, some minor tweaks for the big screen, whilst honouring Tolkien.. Sadly, u let yourself down.:****(


----------



## Dís (Jan 8, 2013)

You have a copy of it? Bad, bad boy (or girl)!

Ever since I saw the first Lord of the Rings movie I have found myself developing a multiple personality disorder as far as Tolkien-movies are concerned. I notice everything that differs from the books knowing them almost by heart, but I notice also when the film works as a different medium. 

Take Balin, for instance. he is completely out-of-character in the film. In the book he is one of the few, very few, dwarves who gain a distinct personality at all. When he is about to go to battle, Bilbo names four dwarves he obviously cares for: Balin and Bombur, Fili and Kili. Actually, aside from Thorin the most clearly depicted dwarf is Bombur, he also has the most lines. Fili and Kili are just FiliandKili, but Balin sometimes reacts to Bilbo. I think, Tolkien took this hint at some kind of friendship between Balin and Bilbo into The Lord of the Rings. But Balin is one of the younger dwarves. He was 17 years younger than Thorin and a mere toddler at the sacking of Erebor (he was 7). So, to make him into the friendly and sensible grey-beard, the "elder statesman" as he has been called, is certainly out of canon.

Still, for the movie it works. Balin adds to the image of dwarves in general. If there were only Thorin, Dwalin and Gloín the distasteful comparison to Klingons I have read on the web would perhaps even be justified (I don't want to delve into presenting Fili and Kili as eye-candy to the teenage-girls in the audience). Tolkien's dwarves in the hobbit DO resemble garden-gnomes, with their hoods and tassels, and they are more or less a constant plural (the dwarves said, the dwarves did, Bilbo and the dwarves etc. etc.). This works well in a story where even if the acting subject is a plural, something happens. It wouldn't work in a movie. I remember Elrond's Council in the Fellowship where several dwarves were sitting around all looking like Gimli. They were just plain boring. So, for The Hobbit a dwarvish individuality had to created and it couldn't be taken from the book only, because that does not provide it.

Fortunately, Peter Jacksons knows about Unfinished Tales and History of MIddle-Earth, where a more complex picture of the dwarves is available, and let this influence the movie. So, we ended up with 13 individual dwarves which are not entirely in-canon but convey the idea of Tolkien's dwarves better than a one-to-one presentation from the book would have done.

To make a book into a movie is some kind of alchemy. The media are so different, if you try to do it with the book dominating the movie you end up with a slide-show to music and talking (like Harry Potter 1 and 2 which are virtually unbearable). if you let the movie dominate the book you end up with something like "The wizard of Earthsea" (Ursula K. LeGuin) or "The Dark is Rising" (Susan Cooper) which were both butchered into non-recognition. In my opinion, Jackson did neither, which enables me to go on loving the books in their own domain and enjoying the movies simultaneously, and I even keep my inner pictures from reading intact because of the different media used.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jan 9, 2013)

Dís said:


> But Balin is one of the younger dwarves. He was 17 years younger than Thorin and a mere toddler at the sacking of Erebor (he was 7). So, to make him into the friendly and sensible grey-beard, the "elder statesman" as he has been called, is certainly out of canon


 I thought he was still the eldest after Thorin


----------



## BelDain (Jan 10, 2013)

Thorin wasn't even in Erebor during Smaug's attack and he wasn't the one that fought and defeated Azog. Thorin in the movie is a completely different character than the one in the book. So it's no surprise that Balin or any of the other dwarves are completely different characters.
We see in Lord of the Rings the tomb of Balin in Moria. Balin was the second oldest in the Erebor company but still a couple decades younger than Thorin. He seems much more elderly in this movie. It would be weird that this old dwarf who readily questioned the need to even try to retake Erebor, as portrayed in PJ's Hobbit, is the one that took off after the Erebor quest to try and reclaim Moria.


----------



## Dís (Jan 10, 2013)

Gandalf White said:


> I know I don't have the book knowledge that I used to, and that even back then it was inferior to many or most here. But I read and reread (and reread) The Hobbit in my childhood and onward, and I cannot shake the fact that this move "feels" like The Hobbit to me, in a way that none of the LotR movies did. So much of the little stuff that made an impression on me as a child reading the novel was brought back to my memory watching this movie that I walked out smiling more than I have in quite a while. I can't wait to see what's coming next.



I experience the same thing when re-(and re-)reading it. For instance it's mentioned in the book that Oín and Gloín are specially skilled in building a fire. And here's Thorin ordering Oín to make a fire for camp and Gloín wanting to do it in the cave in the mountains. I enjoy these details. In my view, they show love for the book.


----------



## Dís (Jan 10, 2013)

BelDain said:


> Thorin wasn't even in Erebor during Smaug's attack and he wasn't the one that fought and defeated Azog. Thorin in the movie is a completely different character than the one in the book. So it's no surprise that Balin or any of the other dwarves are completely different characters.
> We see in Lord of the Rings the tomb of Balin in Moria. Balin was the second oldest in the Erebor company but still a couple decades younger than Thorin. He seems much more elderly in this movie. It would be weird that this old dwarf who readily questioned the need to even try to retake Erebor, as portrayed in PJ's Hobbit, is the one that took off after the Erebor quest to try and reclaim Moria.



True, true. Balin was 17 years younger than Thorin and a mere toddler at the sacking of Erebor. Still, in the book he is described as "enormously old looking". He was 178 years old, but dwarves can reach 250 or more. Thorin, of course, was neigh on 200. It would have been fun to see these seniors leading the company ;-). But, really, Tolkien himself played foul to these inner pictures, when he described Thorin in "The Quest to Erebor" in UNfinished Tales. He is much more warrior-like there and so is Balin in The LOrd of the Rings. Don't forget, both were written after The Hobbit, and though some changes were added to the second edition, the story expanded and left The Hobbit behind, in a way.


----------



## hairyhobbit (Jan 13, 2013)

I am not going to let small details, like age differences.inconsistancies of drawves bother me, get over them..very small..

To me, there are way too many significant changes in The Hobbit than necessary, which spoil this from a purists point of view... 

Is it just me, or is there so much stupid stuff added and predictable and boring fighting scenes, things are out of place. Several scenes ar just plain BAD!!

Love more thoughts here.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jan 14, 2013)

The whole Azog business marred several great moments of the book for me. Maybe we can make a list  

First up: the scene of the wargs and goblins' meeting. What is lost:
1.) establishment of wargs as their own and intelligent entity
2.) same with the eagles
3.) Bilbo becomes a hero through bravery and violence instead of guile and loses his anti-hero status
4.) Gradual development of the trust between Thorin and Bilbo simplified to 1 moment
5.) What else am I missing?


----------



## Dís (Jan 14, 2013)

Let's see what was added or twisted.
As far as I can see it was -

1. the dwarves don't have coloured beards (can't say I miss that)

2. the dwarves don't carry a variety of musical instruments (can't say I miss that, either. It would have been awkward to carry them on ponies. Even Tolkien himself never mentions them again, maybe they left them at Bag-End?)

3. The dwarves help themselves to food instead of asking Bilbo to play host and serve them (though they politely offered THEIR serving to him in greeting). This does alter the story-line, for it alters Bilbo's standing with them. He is really more of a servant to them in the book and more of a pet in the film. 

4. Thorin is made into eye-candy for female audience and warrior-role-model for the male part. Lovely, but out-of-canon.

5. The dwarves really despise Bilbo, at least Thorin does so openly. They don't expect him to come at all, while in the book they expect him to arrive at a meeting-point set by them - and punctually. See N° 3.

6. The whole AZog-plot is pure JAckson-fiction. Azog did kill Thror, but not in battle, and he himself was killed by Dain afterwards. He just serves to give the bad guys a recognizable face. The book does not really have personal bad guys, it's just "the goblins" - an amorphal mass - and "the Necromancer" on the outskirts of the story, but with no real significance for THIS one. Remember, it's a children's book. It was meant to be thrilling when read before bedtime, but not to cause nightmares. Azog really serves to embellish Thorin's background, the alluring aura of the desperate, flawed but heroic character part of which is due to a hard childhood (home sacked by a dragon, help refused by a god-like figure like Thranduil, grandfather beheaded before his eyes, father driven into madness - it would make for a couple of sessions with an able shrink). I must admit I totally fall for that in the film - but out-of-canon as can be. (The Azanulbizar episode also makes for the first superfluous fighting-scene in the movie. A few seconds less dwarves being tossed by orcs wouldn't have harmed the plot)

7. Rhadagast - he is obviously an addition, He is mentioned in The Hobbit but never appears, and he appears in The Lord of the Rings, but only briefly. He may be meant to add an element of humour the film hardly lacks without. I like him, especially his house which looks uncannily like the one my family provides for me (or I for my family, well, we live in it together), but for a purist - out-of-canon and out-of-the -question.

8. The Trolls tricked by Bilbo. Obviously meant to bolster up the antagonistic Bilbo-Thorin relationship (I am waiting for fanfiction pairing them in a slash-story. SO NOT!), and add some humour (Worms!), while in the book it really shows Gandalf's ability and also, for the first time, introduces his connection with Rivendell. BTW - that Gandalfs walks out on them because he quarreled with Thorin is also out-of-character and sheds a different light on the wizard altogether. In the book he is much more aloof and independent, while in the film he acts like the true leader of the endeavour. I'm curious if and how he will leave them on their own at the fringes of Mirkwood.

9. Thorin, and dwarves in general, being antagonistic to Rivendell. That there is scarce love between elves and dwarves Tolkien mentions several times, but at least in The HObbit he gives no reason (except that elves make fun of beards). Thranduil did not appear at the sacking of Erebor and the dwarves gladly accept the hospitality of Rivendell and spend a very refreshing spa-time there. 

10. The Orcs specifically hunting them down for personal reasons. See N° 6. Next lengthy fighting scene. And a lot of orc-talk, a language Tolkien never developed in such detail. I often think it must be tedious to be an orc in the movie. No fanfictions, no merchandise, no fan-clubs, no sticks hidden in cornflakes-boxes with your picture, *sigh*...

11. I must say, Goblin Town I like a lot and it prettily puts into pictures what is words in the book. I found it a bit long at first, but thoroughly enjoyed it in HFR.

12. Gollum would have been quite different if we hadn't seen him in The Two Towers. Gollum in the book is just plain dark and evil-minded. Andy-Serkis-Gollum is able to arouse pity not only in Bilbo's heart but in the audience's, too. There is nothing humourous about Gollum in the book and he never appears again after Bilbo escaped from him. So, everything shown to embellish this character is drawn from The Lord of the Rings and pays tribute to the chronology of filming the books.

13. The whole climax at the cliff. Bilbo neither plans to leave the dwarves because his feelings were hurt, nor does he come back because he suddenly empathizes with them. These are worthy and suitable emotions especially for a time that sees a lot of uprooting and displacing of people and has to face the subject of "Home" in less romantic circumstances - but it is out-of-canon twice squared.

14. The scene with the wargs and the burning pine-tress and all. Very dramatic in the film, rather comical in the book (remember, it's just the middle of the book, not the concluding scene of the first film) complete with a goblin-sung song. In the film: Lots of action, lots of special effects (did you know there were only two eagles filmed for the animation? The leader's name is Mina, a very pretty female golden eagle), lots of emotions, beautiful emotions - but not in-canon at all.

Okay, that's my view of alterations. I must say that I like most of them in the movie, but then, I'm not a purist in that way that I expected the film to be the book set to moving pictures. The way the film altered the story makes me enjoy the book more, because I can add the pictures and emotions to the otherwise very little individualized dwarves, and knowing the book makes me enjoy the movie more, because I know what it REALLY was. Makes me feel vastly superior to all those kiddies ooing and aaahing in the cinema at scenes they barely understand ;*)


----------



## Mahanaxar (Jan 14, 2013)

Prince of Cats said:


> 5.) What else am I missing?



Honestly, I think the whole Azog affair was just to make the movie longer... these unnecessary changes in script did more harm then good.

1. I didn't like how they made a "CGI-Azog".
2. Bilbo, a barbaric fighter? come on... I don't think Bilbo would charge at a Goblin to save Thorin like that. It is very inconsistent with Bilbo's character... I mean sure Merry, Pippin, Samwise and The great Bullroarer Took did it, but Bilbo was always sly and depended on cleverness rather than blunt force.
3. The scene where the company climbs the trees: 
- I wanted to see the conversation between Thorondor and Gandalf.
- I wanted to hear the songs the Goblins sang when they had the company cornered in the trees! I mean sure, "Blunt the knives and bend the forks" was fun, but I really wanted some " Burn, burn tree and fern! Shrivel and scorch! A fizzling torch. To light the night for our delight, Ya hey! " 
4. The Goblin king was TOO CARTOON-LIKE ! Seriously.


Finally, I have a note to add: 
How is PJ going to address Azog in the upcoming movies ? We all know that Azog was slain in the Battle of Azanulbizar by Dain. In the Battle of Five armies scene, we see Dain and his host come to the aid of Thorin. 
THE QUESTION IS : Would PJ let Dain kill Azog as mentioned in the book (not entirely accurate in the context of timeline, but still... ) OR would he let Thorin have his revenge and kill Azog himself ? 

This whole situation is messed up... thoughts?


----------



## Dís (Jan 14, 2013)

Well, my dear brother Thorin has already shown he is not a match for Azog, really, hasn't he? I mean - to be tossed about by a she-warg like a rag-doll, it's hardly dignified for the King under the Mountain.
On a more serious note - it depends on how PJ develops the character of Thorin. Armitage says in an interview Thorin will become much less likable in the coming movies and I see some logic in that, because he will have competition. Orlando Bloom is still waiting for his scene and so is Luke Evans as Bard. So, if PJ drops Thorin as the heart-breaker in the next film, he might bring him to utter ruin and arrange for his resurrection - morally - totally from repentance. Thorin realizing on his death-bed how wrong he was not only in judging Bilbo - again and again - but also in thinking he was the most powerful dwarf ever spawned and able to revenge his grandfather, father and ancestors single-handed. This would also serve the message underlying the book that brute force is not the answer, re-connect the Thorin fofrom the third film with the shining figure of the first and increase the use of tissues a lot. 

If he decides on giving Thorin a chance to rather join the ranks of heroes, i.e. Bard and LEgolas, most probably, he might give him his revenge in the end and let him finish Azog off. But if this was a poll, I'd vote for Dain and the utter military ruin of Thorin. It'd be more of a tear-jerke and the audience loves that (so do I :*D)


----------



## Mike (Jan 14, 2013)

Welp, I've seen it. The Riddles in the Dark bit was great and I liked the trolls, but otherwise...the additional stuff added in felt really forced and out-of-place. Radagast's bunny sled made me cringe, and for some reason, despite there being 13 dwarves around, Middle Earth felt curiously...empty, compared to the trilogy. The framing narrative felt especially unnecessary--why not just start with "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit" instead of a long sequence of extended narration that would've fit more naturally just interspersed throughout the film instead of shoved into the beginning.

But the most serious problem I had was simple: _The Hobbit_, as a book, is Bilbo's story, and a tightly-focused one at that. Whereas the movie meanders along several plot-threads that put Bilbo into the background. For all that time spent in Rivendell, we barely ever see Bilbo, and I found things only really picked up again after the Troll incident when we entered Goblin town. Only for the Azog subplot to re-focus attention again (and it isn't even resolved!).

Back in the FAD vs. NPW days, Jackson, Walsh's and Boyens' additions were called "gratuitous PJisms". In _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, _the PJisms feel like take up more screentime than anything from Tolkien does.


----------



## BelDain (Jan 14, 2013)

Mahanaxar said:


> Finally, I have a note to add:
> How is PJ going to address Azog in the upcoming movies ? We all know that Azog was slain in the Battle of Azanulbizar by Dain. In the Battle of Five armies scene, we see Dain and his host come to the aid of Thorin.
> THE QUESTION IS : Would PJ let Dain kill Azog as mentioned in the book (not entirely accurate in the context of timeline, but still... ) OR would he let Thorin have his revenge and kill Azog himself ?
> 
> This whole situation is messed up... thoughts?




This is what I worry about. It changes the whole climax of the story. Is PJ going to not have Bolg at all because he's brought in Azog artificially? Will it be someone besides Beorn who ends up saving everyone and destroying Bolg/Azog?


----------



## Bucky (Jan 14, 2013)

Dis writes:

>>>>> I'm curious if and how he will leave them on their own at the fringes of Mirkwood.

To go search/'uncover the mystery' of the Nazgul/Witch-king's grave. I avoid spoilers, but this one I heard somewhere. It makes perfect sense, no?

As for Azog dying at Thorin's hand, perhaps, but he'll die & in DOS too. I was at the IMDB site reading the review of AUJ & saw the cast list. Sure enough, there IS a Bolg listed.

So, at some point, Azog must die & Bolg will come on down fron Gundabad not only to seek Smaug's treasure, but for revenge.


----------



## Dís (Jan 15, 2013)

As far as I read Bolg was the orc heavily draped with fur-mats at Azanulbizar. It would be thrilling to see an orcish family-relationship. If Bolg still is Azog's son, what about his mother? Or do orcs spawn somehow? And I wonder what orc-children would look like. Anyway, the goblin scribe is also meant to be a son of the Goblin King. 
It really does not make a lot of sense. Somewhere in creating the Hobbit Tolkien must have thought of the orcs as more than just evil faces, individuals with relations and history. In The Lord of the Rings this was surely abandoned. The only hint at them being more than moving mass-weapon is Gandalf, I think, mentioning they will travel far if they have a captain to avenge.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 16, 2013)

Dís said:


> As far as I read Bolg was the orc heavily draped with fur-mats at Azanulbizar. It would be thrilling to see an orcish family-relationship. If Bolg still is Azog's son, what about his mother? Or do orcs spawn somehow? And I wonder what orc-children would look like. Anyway, the goblin scribe is also meant to be a son of the Goblin King.
> It really does not make a lot of sense. Somewhere in creating the Hobbit Tolkien must have thought of the orcs as more than just evil faces, individuals with relations and history. In The Lord of the Rings this was surely abandoned. The only hint at them being more than moving mass-weapon is Gandalf, I think, mentioning they will travel far if they have a captain to avenge.



*No, never abandoned, just not mentioned as directly.

There's the Appendices about 'evil things begin to multiply' in the Tale of years TA 1050 or 1350.

How else do living things 'multiply'?

..Especially when Orcs were perverted from Elves and/or Men, as HoME Volume 10 clearly says?*


----------



## Dís (Jan 16, 2013)

Eggs? Cloning?
Humans are currently perverting the human way to multiply. I trust Morgoth to work a much more massive change to the natural process intended by Illuvatar.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 17, 2013)

Dís said:


> Eggs? Cloning?
> Humans are currently perverting the human way to multiply. I trust Morgoth to work a much more massive change to the natural process intended by Illuvatar.



*This isn't Star Wars.

And eggs? Orcs came from Men and/or Elves. They don't hatch young out of eggs. Therefore, Orcs wouldn't.

Tolkien never worked that way. PJ just did in one scene from HIS imagination.


*


----------



## Dís (Jan 17, 2013)

star wars?????? sorry, don,t get the joke.
orcs do not 'come from' men or elves at least not evolutionary. they were evolved by Melkor and we simply do not know how or to what degree he corrupted them. fact is that in The Hobbit Tolkien introduces Bolg son of Azog - Bolg is in the movie, btw - and grants the goblins finer feelings, likes and dislikes, while in The Lord of the Rings he does not, although he mentions orcs by name there. if an orc has a son thee is a hint at family ties, that's all. Tolkien did not pursue that motive any further though. even a son does not necessarily mean that orcs multiply the same way men and elves do. an argumentum ex nihilo - he didn't say it wasn't therefore it was - isn't helpful.


----------



## Turgon of Gondolin (Jan 17, 2013)

BelDain said:


> Do you think they will cut out Beorn and Bolg altogether and have the Five Armies battle culminate in a Thorin/Azog fight instead? That would be a massive and unfortunate rewrite of the story of The Hobbit but given what they've done already it seems plausible.


At this point I expect to see Bilbo turn into a mighty warrior, rally the combined armies of the Dwarves and Elves to fight the Orcs, and then defeat Bolg in single combat. Oh, and then ride an eagle back to the Shire.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 18, 2013)

Dís said:


> star wars?????? sorry, don,t get the joke.
> orcs do not 'come from' men or elves at least not evolutionary. they were evolved by Melkor and we simply do not know how or to what degree he corrupted them. fact is that in The Hobbit Tolkien introduces Bolg son of Azog - Bolg is in the movie, btw - and grants the goblins finer feelings, likes and dislikes, while in The Lord of the Rings he does not, although he mentions orcs by name there. if an orc has a son thee is a hint at family ties, that's all. Tolkien did not pursue that motive any further though. even a son does not necessarily mean that orcs multiply the same way men and elves do. an argumentum ex nihilo - he didn't say it wasn't therefore it was - isn't helpful.



*Star Wars... You know, like clones all over the place? :*confused:

As far as Orcs coming from Men and/or Elves originally, have you ever read History of Middle-earth, Volume Ten, Myths Transformed #8-9?
If not, you need to.

Tolkien never settled the question whether it was Elves, Men or both, but it was one or both. And, there is no 'evolution' in Tolkien's world. Not even a 'theory' like our's.*


----------



## Dís (Jan 18, 2013)

Ah, the clone troops. Well, I never thought of them that way. Too much Republic Commando, I guess ;-).



Bucky said:


> *And, there is no 'evolution' in Tolkien's world. Not even a 'theory' like our's.*



Well, that's exactly what I said. 

As for the rest - to my information Tolkien himself never settled the question of the Orc's origin and hinted at several different answers in various books or slips. In The Silmarillion it is said they were made "in mockery of Elves". This might mean Melkor was really capable of creating life by himself, an idea Tolkien never pursued any further and, in fact, clearly abandoned later. He abided by St. Thomas Aquinas as far as the nature and creative power of evil is concerned: it has none. So, the idea that Melkor created a life form similar to the Elves in (eternal?) life to openly mock Iluvatar, seems very far fetched.

Tolkien also hinted at the possibility Melkor caught some Elves and tortured them by making them into a new life-form, twisted, marred, evil not in origin but in its utter dependency on him. 

Even an animalic origin is possible as well as a supernatural, Maia, one, but that's not very likely.
The one thing none of the sources, as far as I know them, not History of Middle-Earth and not The Silmarillion or the more popular books, answers is, how Orcs actually multiply. Is their marriage or giving in marriage among them? Arte they capable of anything like love? Do they choose mates and be true to them? Do they actually have feelings? Does Azog feel anything for his "son" Bolg? Who was Bolg's mother? Did she give birth or did she litter?

The problem behind these questions is: are Orcs humanoid (or elvoid?) life-forms? Are they capable to choose between good and evil? Do they know they are evil? Do they have free will and a conscience? 
If they were Elves to begin with, they should, at least in principle have all this. Because then they'd be a creation by Iluvatar, originally, and thus comparable in their inborn rights to Elves and Men.

If they weren't Elves to begin with, were they kelvar? "Created" by Yavanna? Is it possible they are utterly evil, then?

If they were neither, how come they have life, can speak, take decisions, have - if nasty - feelings?
Tolkien has been accused of latent racism because of the Orcs. They were called to resemble asians too much or to just be a projection of everything loathsome to a majority of people which can be hated and destroyed without qualms (something in Gollum's case was firmly denied).

I think it's a pity Tolkien never drove deeper into the problem of Orc-rights. It would have lead to a more thorough analysis of the meaning of good and evil in his work. Still, as it is, there is obviously stuff to talk about in abundance. :*)


----------



## Bucky (Jan 18, 2013)

Dis, I'm not going to turn this into a theological discussion, even being a Christian myself.

I'd prefer to stick to the text of Tolkien's works, which I'm really not sure how well you know to be quite honest. Why?

The quote about 'being made in mockery of' was Treebeard referring to Ents & The Lord of the Rings, not Elves & The Silmarillion.

Again, have you read his two essays in Myths Transformed #8 & 9? Yes or no?

Can you give me a simple yes or no & stay on topic?


----------



## Dís (Jan 19, 2013)

I read them, i quoted them, if I mixed up names it's because the book is downstairs and I relied entirely on Tolkien's text which I have known and read and re-read for the past 35 years. I don't know why you seem to not notice that but I'm, really fed up with this now. You are obviously not interested in discussing Tolkien but just need to be right. Have a nice life.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 28, 2013)

*iTunes Free 'book' of the film*

Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd share the link to the iTunes 'book' of the film, discovered whilst looking for a free read: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/book/hobbit-unexpected-journey/id589047570?mt=11


----------



## Bucky (Jan 28, 2013)

Prince of Cats said:


> I had quite the opposite experience for most of the film, which I've seen twice now.
> 
> All the business with 'Azog,' Radagast and the council seems to make the Company's journey quite secondary to the story of the movie. When I read the books I feel like I'm traveling with Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves. When they get to Mirkwood in the next movie they're going to be just a tiny element in the story in a framework that we understand a lot better than they do, with the whole necromancer/Sauron insight the viewers have. In the books it's quite different - the reader experiences the new environments and information as the Company does, for the most part. The focus on Thorin's distaste for the Elves etc. also didn't help.
> 
> ...



* I perty much agree with this & disagree with GtG rebuttal, lol.

I know changes must be made, but these changes...

Egads!

Well, other than the Necromancer thingy ~ Witch-king 'raised from the dead' aside, which makes no sense.

And yes, I do understand the Rads & Gandalf 'raising somebody from the dead':

Rads blows smoke or whatever into the chipmunk or whatever the lil' animal is at the beginning of the flick & certainly appears to come back to life, as does the whole forest.

Gandalf certainly 'lays hands' on Thorin, & 'he recovers'.. Is he dead> I don't think so as he gives credit to BILBO, not Gandalf, but he's certainly healed by Gandalf at the least.

On a final note, I'm NOT reminded of the books, TH or TLOR when I watch these movies....

In fact, I'm reading TLOR for the first time in about 4-5 years now & I'm finding TONS of things I didn't recall with a movie clouded mind, especially since I've been given the gift to read & see many details when reading another book. :*eek: :*rolleyes:

Like, I now know exactly who Tolkien intended Tom Bombadil to be. :*confused:*


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 4, 2013)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*

By God, Thorin, your review provides a thoroughly delightful read! You make me want to actually _go see_ the damn thing now! My enthusiasm is getting fired up!

Barley


----------



## Thorin (Oct 31, 2013)

*Re: The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey: A Purist's Review*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> By God, Thorin, your review provides a thoroughly delightful read! You make me want to actually _go see_ the damn thing now! My enthusiasm is getting fired up!
> 
> Barley



Ha Ha Barliman! I'm glad! I miss this forum and I have scarcely been on as of late. This is the first time I've been back since this review. I am currently reading it with my students as a novel study in grade 7 and I am going to hopefully buy the EE this weekend and in a little bit, show them that. We should be done by the time the Desolation of Smaug comes out and I want to have a field trip to the theater with them. Luckily I can fill them in on a lot of the back story that PJ deals with (the changes with Azog, the Council of the Wise, who Radagast was etc). And prepare them for some of the major changes. 

I'm looking forward to sharing this Tolkien experience with them!


----------

