Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
The Positive Outcomes of Changes from Book-AUJ

Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


Apr 24 2015, 2:00pm

Post #1 of 15 (1949 views)
Shortcut
The Positive Outcomes of Changes from Book-AUJ Can't Post

Well, I feel like not everyone is looking at the positive outcomes of all these changes, so I posted why some of these decisions were necessary. I did all of AUJ as of now, and I'd like to hear if you have any additions, or if I missed a few scenes (I probably did). I also didn't do character appearances (except for A + B) because they didn't really change anything from the book.

1. Azog and Bolg-
Azog was needed to establish an orc that would lead Dol Guldur, but also the one that would lead the armies to The Battle of the Five Armies. Building up a villain was important because in a movie world, it wouldn't be possible to kill off a major character with a villain no one really knows. They were CGI because although prosthetics give a base in realism with the faces under them, the CGI was necessary because in LOTR, there are many examples of faces jumping and shaking during fighting and walking. Also orcs had limited facial movements, and CGI gave them more abilities. However, many orcs in the movie aren't CGI, and are prosthetics. All orcs in Dale, except for the shots entering the city, are prosthetics. A lot of orcs also had CGI bodies, but a green screen head (because of what was stated before most likely).This is probably because they had to bring more to the main orcs, and also because they said they wanted something different then the prosthetics they were filmed in.

2. Radagast-
Radagast is actually mentioned in the book, Radagast was needed for the Dol Guldur subplot, and would of been a good opportunity to show him, since he was cut from The Fellowship of the Ring. I think Radagast is one of the examples of them being thoughtful about the book and keeping the books' in his children's fantasy genre, yet also keep its gritty feeling.

3. Rivendell/Warg Chase/The White Council
I think the Warg Chase was necessary, when JRR Tolkien went back into his Hobbit notes, he made the orcs more involved. He even mentioned it with Beorn, with the orc head on the spike at his home. It was also a great way to add tension to release in calm and beautiful Rivendell.

Rivendell got us to find out the importance of these swords, and also see the dwarves relation to elves. These scenes were important, because you realize why they dislike each other, otherwise than Thranduil turning away from Smaug's Original Attack.

The White Council and the Dol Guldur subplot was important because it ultimately gave you more of a sense of the grand scheme of everything, It was written by JRR Tolkien himself, and while not everything in Dol Guldur in the book happened during The Hobbit, it wouldn't make sense to have a main character such as Gandalf go away, and then if we do see him being in the middle of a situation we never heard about.

"As the snowflakes cover my fallen brothers,
I will say this last goodbye."


marary
Lorien

Apr 24 2015, 2:10pm

Post #2 of 15 (1893 views)
Shortcut
Thorin and Co.'s motivation [In reply to] Can't Post

It's mostly about reclaiming treasure in the Hobbit book. The film really shifts the focus of the quest to be about reclaiming the homeland (rather than treasure) of Erebor.

Also, Gandalf's strategic motivation in getting Smaug out of the mountain and the dwarves back in.

All from the appendices, of course, but I thought this was one of the best parts of the movies. GREAT idea from a thematic perspective!


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 24 2015, 2:32pm

Post #3 of 15 (1882 views)
Shortcut
Thoughts on these changes. [In reply to] Can't Post

Azog and Bolg - I do quite like both characters. I also thought they looked really good. I might have handled them differently but in the end I enjoyed the ride we took with them.

Radagast - I was really glad we got to see him in this trilogy. I didn't care for the bird poop at all. That was my main complaint about him as a character. He's about what I had in my mind to be honest. Someone who lives in the woods and doesn't get around people much is going to be a crazy dude. I also liked how they used him within the confines of the Dol Guldur stuff. It made him an important part of the Middle-earth story.

The White Council - I LOVED this part and the parts from BOFTA. These great minds of Middle-earth being together and trying figure out what was going on was fun. I also enjoyed how they took on Sauron in BOTFA. For me this is exactly how I imagined them to be both in discussion and action.



Elessar
Valinor


Apr 24 2015, 2:36pm

Post #4 of 15 (1877 views)
Shortcut
Thorin and Gandalf [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved how they handled Thorin. In the books he's a total jerk from the start to nearly the finish. When he's dying I feel bad for Bilbo because he is losing a friend but I don't feel too much for Thorin. In the movie I still feel bad for Bilbo but with Thorin I feel bad because in the end he was trying to do what was right for his people. I also thought the dragon sickness was one of his best parts. Really nailed the nastiness money can do to people and it felt just like book Thorin.

Gandalf wanting to make sure the Dragon wasn't a tool that could be used is great. I wish that idea had been used by Tolkien himself within the confides of the actual story. I think it would have added some great behind the scenes depth to his role within the books.



MEM
The Shire


Apr 24 2015, 5:37pm

Post #5 of 15 (1804 views)
Shortcut
Re: Thorin & Co's motivation [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It's mostly about reclaiming treasure in the Hobbit book. The film really shifts the focus of the quest to be about reclaiming the homeland (rather than treasure) of Erebor.

Also, Gandalf's strategic motivation in getting Smaug out of the mountain and the dwarves back in.

All from the appendices, of course, but I thought this was one of the best parts of the movies. GREAT idea from a thematic perspective!


I definitely agree with the change of focus here. I think it would have been a lot harder to identify with the dwarves if all they cared about was their treasure.

I think all the extra additions (Radagast, White Council) weren't really extra because they were mostly in the appendices, and didn't Tolkien plan on re-writing The Hobbit to align with LOTR more closely?


In Reply To
Azog was needed to establish an orc that would lead Dol Guldur, but also the one that would lead the armies to The Battle of the Five Armies. Building up a villain was important because in a movie world, it wouldn't be possible to kill off a major character with a villain no one really knows.


I just realized that something similar happens with Boromir in FOTR - the orc that kills him is the main bad guy. I also think the finale scene between Azog/Thorin works because they've established their history of conflict.


In Reply To
I loved how they handled Thorin. In the books he's a total jerk from the start to nearly the finish. When he's dying I feel bad for Bilbo because he is losing a friend but I don't feel too much for Thorin. In the movie I still feel bad for Bilbo but with Thorin I feel bad because in the end he was trying to do what was right for his people. I also thought the dragon sickness was one of his best parts. Really nailed the nastiness money can do to people and it felt just like book Thorin.


One thing my dad said to me after watching BOTFA was that it started out as this big battle but then narrowed down to the personal stories. I really felt for Thorin and Bilbo through the films; I like the character/relationship arc, or whatever you want to call it, that PJ developed here. In the book, we really only get that at the very end, with Thorin getting angry at Bilbo and then apologizing. Thorin's apology to Bilbo in AUJ really set up my belief in his ability to change in BOTFA.

I'm a Middle-Earth Munchkin.


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 24 2015, 6:43pm

Post #6 of 15 (1775 views)
Shortcut
I agree with your Dad [In reply to] Can't Post

Well said on your part as well.



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 24 2015, 7:39pm

Post #7 of 15 (1743 views)
Shortcut
Difference between book & movie [In reply to] Can't Post

This is easy for me to say, because I really didn't like the book very much. I wondered why mention a Necromancer and then not even follow up, and just where did Gandalf disappear to? I suppose in the book he was supposed to be a mysterious character, but I thought the Dol Goldur subplot definitely added to the movie.

I also liked that PJ fleshed out the dwarves, not just Thorin but all of them, especially Fili & Kili. We can complain ad nauseum about their being under-utilized in BOT5A, but it doesn't change the fact that giving them each a distinct look, and not just different colored hoods, was very necessary for both the story and the visuals of a movie.

However, I have to disagree with you on Azog and Radaghast. I think the movie would have been just fine without either of them. I'm not saying they hurt the movie, only that it would have been fine without them. I am rather undecided about the Warg chase - it was a great visual with great on location scenery, but it probably went on too long. Even I can get tired of hearing Gandalf scream "RUUUUUN!!!!"

AUJ was certainly the movie that was closest to the book in structure, I will wait to comment on the other two for your posts.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


dubulous
Rohan

Apr 24 2015, 8:45pm

Post #8 of 15 (1717 views)
Shortcut
A few things [In reply to] Can't Post

I think fleshing out Bard's characters was one of the best things they've done in all these six movies. And I know some will disagree but I also think they did well with Thranduil, and to me he was a more interesting and likeable character than the Thranduil of the book.

I also loved the the inclusion of the White Council, even though the rushed up Dol Guldur sequence ended up being quite a let down.


Goldeneye
Lorien


Apr 24 2015, 8:59pm

Post #9 of 15 (1713 views)
Shortcut
Positive changes [In reply to] Can't Post

The fleshing out of Bard's character was one of the best changes the filmmakers made to The Hobbit. For committing such a heroic, important act in the book he was ridiculously underwritten. Luke Evans brought the character to life.

The actual Battle of Five Armies was too brief in the book to carry over to the big screen, but at the same time Peter Jackson went totally overboard by making a whole movie based on it. The base problem lies with the book itself, because the battle is somewhat anticlimactic after the story builds to the showdown with Smaug. It's almost like there are two climaxes.

Adding more depth to Thranduil WOULD have been nice, had they not spent much of his screentime being the disapproving king/father to the whole Legolas/Tauriel affair.


marary
Lorien

Apr 24 2015, 9:44pm

Post #10 of 15 (1685 views)
Shortcut
to be fair [In reply to] Can't Post

Thranduil was loads more sympathetic in the film than in the book (cantankerous and callous as he was), though I definitely feel for the more negative opinions regarding his character.

Strongly agree with the above posters that fleshing out Bard was a good move. Giving him a family and a previously existing penchant for justice-driven trouble making was brilliant. I just loved the guy. Also makes it really fun to go back and read the book. Grim-faced Book Bard had a history of being outspoken about the threat of floods and hard winters and whatnot-- people put him down for this, but they also respected him in a way. I'd say they capitalized quite well on one of the few canon-character traits he had!

I quite enjoy the fact that Thorin went out in style, facing down his personal arch-nemesis.

Also, Thorin having a personal arch-nemesis. Oh my goodness.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Apr 24 2015, 11:39pm

Post #11 of 15 (1646 views)
Shortcut
ALL of what has been written here is SSOoo..Correct [In reply to] Can't Post

The Fleshing out of Characters like
Bard was Brillent...

and rather whan write anything new...
Bomby
would jus' like to say that the reasons are
Explained in the Commentaries..

THERE, PJ & Phillipa explain WHY?

Often bom,thinks it's a good idea to
re-LOOK @ what they said. To
re-Fresh your memory

Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


Bombadil
Half-elven


Apr 24 2015, 11:47pm

Post #12 of 15 (1639 views)
Shortcut
Appendices 8..IT's ALL there.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


Bombadil
Half-elven


Apr 25 2015, 2:34am

Post #13 of 15 (1586 views)
Shortcut
Maybe we jus' List what was Perfect..? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hobbiton & BagEnd was Perfect!
The Lonely Mountain was Perfect...
The City of Dale in it's Glory was Perfect!
The Costumes were Perfect!

ADD one or Three when
you have the Time...

Count..Oour Blessings...

{This might put us all in
a State of POSITIVE Perfection,,..?}

HeartWinkWink

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"

(This post was edited by Bombadil on Apr 25 2015, 2:35am)


DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell

Apr 26 2015, 12:07am

Post #14 of 15 (1408 views)
Shortcut
agreed! [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I also liked that PJ fleshed out the dwarves, not just Thorin but all of them, especially Fili & Kili. We can complain ad nauseum about their being under-utilized in BOT5A, but it doesn't change the fact that giving them each a distinct look, and not just different colored hoods, was very necessary for both the story and the visuals of a movie.


Definitely my favorite "deviation" from the book.Smile

And I love all of the parts from the appendices that were added back, like Azanulbizar, the White Council, Thorin and Gandalf's meeting in Bree etc. As MEM mentioned, I think Tolkien planned to re-write the hobbit, and I could easily imagine these would have been added back in his version too.



Elthir
Grey Havens

Apr 26 2015, 1:48pm

Post #15 of 15 (1344 views)
Shortcut
rewriting The Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I think all the extra additions (Radagast, White Council) weren't really extra because they were mostly in the appendices, and didn't Tolkien plan on re-writing The Hobbit to align with LOTR more closely?



For the 1960 Hobbit Tolkien did begin this, but he abandoned the project.

Although rewriting The Hobbit does not necessarily mean adding Radagast or scenes with the White Council in any case -- in the 1960 text (as far as it got) we can see, for example, JRRT trying to smooth over inconsistencie with The Lord of the Rings, or make corrections -- like with respect to the phases of the moon, or why Gandalf could not read the runes...

... on Orcrist!

Anyway Tolkien revised The Hobbit twice -- the second time in the 1960s, following the Ace Books controversy.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Apr 26 2015, 2:00pm)

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.