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:
Hobbit Accuracy to Books vs LOTR Accuracy to Books
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


May 21 2015, 10:20pm

Post #1 of 37 (2264 views)
Shortcut
Hobbit Accuracy to Books vs LOTR Accuracy to Books Can't Post

I disagree with people who say that LOTR was more Tolkien than The Hobbit, I'm not saying that there isn't parts that is inaccurate, of course there is a bunch in both! I actually think, they both have the same amount. I don't mean to denounce LOTR, but LOTR has a large amount of in-accurateness too.

LOTR changed characters, took out major scenes, changed settings, changed plot, and changed events. Major Characters such as Frodo, Aragorn, Elrond, Sam, Faramir, Denethor, and Arwen. Faramir and Denethor a lot more than the others, because Faramir was kind to Gollum and helped Frodo and Sam with their quest in the book, whereas in the movie he wanted to bring them to Gondor and hurts Gollum. Denethor was wise, but overwhelmed by Sauron, but in the movie he wasn't. In The Two Towers, Frodo was moved a lot farther away then he was in the book. In The Return of the King Movie, Sam left Frodo because Frodo told him to go, but in the books he stood with him all the way to Cirith Ungol until Frodo was taken. Another one would be Tom Bombadil, who was completely omitted and was a major character, because of this I'm glad we got some time with Beorn in the Theatrical Cut, even if it wasn't a lot.

However The Hobbit does have inaccuracy, it doesn't change any major plots or characters. All characters stay relatively the same, with almost no changes in everything otherwise than appearance for Thorin. People also don't realize that almost every scene in The Hobbit made it into either the Movie or the Extended Edition (Don't take me for granted, but I think the Feast of Starlight and Feast in Laketown were the only ones that didn't appear in both versions of the movies). As many people know on these forums, Tolkien wrote about Dol Guldur and the White Council, The Battle of the Five Armies, and more. Other parts that are changed are inconsistencies as JRR Tolkien didn't finish Middle-Earth's history yet, such as the Elvenking. It would be assumed that Legolas lived during The Hobbit, although he wasn't present from what we know of in the book. Some characters that lack character development (I mean like they weren't described, in a child's story this is okay, but in a movie it's a little bit harder to go by if you want the audience to care about characters) weren't entirely new characters, many of them picked up traits and back stories of other similar characters, just so they would still stay true to the heart of Tolkien. Peter Jackson also tried to pick up lines that were used from Tolkien to make sure his dialogue would be Tolkien's as much as possible, hence "Bred for War," for Gandalf and Legolas.

While The Hobbit may have added a lot in, it still keeps all the scenes in and stays true to the characters and theme of the book and I don't think its' justified to praise Lord of the Rings for being a good adaptation, then complain about The Hobbit. They both have their faults at being an adaptation, but they both are great sets of movies (in my opinion).

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

(This post was edited by Hobbity Hobbit on May 21 2015, 10:24pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 21 2015, 11:27pm

Post #2 of 37 (2143 views)
Shortcut
Well, I can't agree, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

I will concede that we have to look beyond the book of The Hobbit to Tolkien's larger legendarium (mostly the Appendices) to see the most significant differences.

- The Greenwood becomes Mirkwood thousands of years later.
- The White Council doesn't become concerned about the Necromancer or Dol Guldur until the time of Thorin's quest.
- The Nazgul are entombed and not active in the East of South.
- The nature and timeframe for the Watchful Peace is greatly altered.

And so on. Most of the changes are historical in nature rather than to the immediate narrative.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 22 2015, 3:37am

Post #3 of 37 (2085 views)
Shortcut
JRRT wrote it, Sir PJ Adapted it, 80 years Later?// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

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


AshNazg
Gondor


May 22 2015, 11:28am

Post #4 of 37 (2030 views)
Shortcut
Whaaaat?! [In reply to] Can't Post

" The Hobbit does have inaccuracy, it doesn't change any major plots or characters. All characters stay relatively the same, with almost no changes in everything otherwise than appearance for Thorin."

Everything, literally everything in The Hobbit movie either doesn't happen in the book or happens differently in the book. If people like the films, then that's fine. But you cannot argue that it is in any way accurate to the book. Bilbo and Gandalf are the only characters similar in any way to their book counterparts, and their story arcs play out in a very different way.

At least LotR we saw events and characters similar to what was described in the book (although I'll never forgive the elves at Helm's Deep). The Hobbit basically threw the book out the window and started from scratch, while giving little references here and there to the book and LotR - just for consistency.

There are very, very few moments in The Hobbit that actually played out anything like the book.


Skaan
Lorien


May 22 2015, 11:31am

Post #5 of 37 (2025 views)
Shortcut
Do you honestly believe everything you just wrote? [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Quote
At least LotR we saw events and characters similar to what was described in the book


This describes pretty much 70% of what happens in the Hobbit movies aswell and you know it.


(This post was edited by Skaan on May 22 2015, 11:33am)


Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


May 22 2015, 11:58am

Post #6 of 37 (2012 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, [In reply to] Can't Post

almost all of it happens, there are some scenes that are changed, but it's still in the movie.

Also, if you read my post above, actually I believe The Hobbit stays closer to the book with characters then Lord of the Rings. JRRT never wrote about Bard or Thranduil to a great extent, so they needed to expand his character more, but they generally are the same people in the book. We also saw almost all the people mentioned in the book. In Lord of the Rings Denethor completely changes, and Faramir isn't as nice as he was in the book. Frodo is a lot weaker then he was in the book, and less wise. Merry in the book is mature, and in the movie he is closer to Pippin.

There's more here http://www.theonering.com/...ings-general-changes. I still love Lord of the Rings, but like before I don't really think its justified to say The Hobbit isn't a good adaptation, while praising Lord of the Rings about being a good adaptation. I get that you don't share the same ideas as me, but I still think that The Hobbit does stay close to the book, and Lord of the Rings does too to a similar extent.

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


Morthoron
Gondor


May 22 2015, 1:07pm

Post #7 of 37 (1987 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm, off the top of my head.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Characters that did not yet exist, were mentioned in passing in the book or were invented for The Hobbit films:
Tauriel (invented)
Alfrid (invented)
Legolas (did not appear in the book)
Radagast (did not appear in the book)
The Nazgul (did not appear in the book)
Saruman (did not appear in the book)
Galadriel (did not appear in the book)
Azog (mentioned, but was already dead)
Sauron (mentioned as the Necromancer)
Bard's children (invented)
Were-worms (mentioned)
Assorted bunnies, hedgehogs, rams and elk (invented)


That is a serious amount of dialogue, screen time and plot devoted to characters/creatures that weren't in the book, received passing mention in the book, or were simply invented for the films; in fact, there are several long scenes where a character that did not yet exist (Legolas) is with a character that was invented (Tauriel) spouting dialogue that was never said. That did not happen in the LotR films.


Granted, there were several egregious individual occurrences that were inserted into the LotR films (Arwen at the Ford, Aragorn falling off a cliff and frenching his horse, Elves at Helm's Deep, "Arwen is dying", cranky Denethor, muddled Faramir, green scrubbing bubbles at Minas Tirith, etc.), but for the most part there was not any wholesale fan-fiction inventions that kept recurring through all the films like in The Hobbit trilogy. In the LotR films, the most faithful was The Fellowship of the Ring (except Arwen drowning Nazgul, of course), and the least faithful was The Two Towers, and I believe that, generally speaking, most critics and viewers rate FotR much higher than TTT.


I think it is safe to say that at least a third to a half of The Hobbit trilogy was invented for the films and did not occur in the book. It got to the point where it was welcomed when a scene in the film actually appeared as it did in the book. HEY, I REMEMBER THAT!

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

May 22 2015, 1:41pm

Post #8 of 37 (1971 views)
Shortcut
It depends on how you measure "faithfulness" [In reply to] Can't Post

If you judge it by how much of the book is actually captured by the film, FOTR is actually by far the least faithful of the six films. Seven chapters in the book are complete absent from the film, and several others (most notably the Council of Elrond, are present in name only). I think FOTR generally gets a pass because it was the first live action Middle-earth film and was so much better than what many of us feared. In retrospect, however, it is my considered opinion that it is the worst of the six films. Not an opinion that is widely shared, obviously.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 22 2015, 1:54pm

Post #9 of 37 (1966 views)
Shortcut
I get what you're saying and agree about the Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

None of the additions and changes in the Hobbit actually affected the bones of the story. The dwarves and Bilbo went every place they were supposed to go and everybody who died in the book died in the movie. Azog, as an example, took up a fair amount of screen time, but he never actually affected or changed the story. Because of him the dwarves shot off a few arrows and ran to Rivendell instead of walking, but the end result was the same - hobbit and dwarves in Rivendell, all present and accounted for. The rest of the movie is the same, with lots of people and creatures running around doing this and that and fighting and talking, but Bilbo and the Company always end up where they are supposed to be, moving the story forward to cover the same events in the book. The only important change, for me, was leaving the funeral out of the theatrical cut, because I consider the scene with Orcrist and the Arkenstone to be pretty important, but at least now I have something to still look forward to when the EE comes out.

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


Smaug the iron
Gondor

May 22 2015, 1:56pm

Post #10 of 37 (1962 views)
Shortcut
Characters [In reply to] Can't Post

not in the LOTR films Radagast, Glorfindel,Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Beregond,Bergil,Imrahil, Elladan, Elrohir, Halbarad and the Dúnedain, Ghân-buri-Ghân.
Characters not in LOTR books Madril,Lurtz, Freda, Éothain, Morwen, Haleth Son of Háma.
AND Arwen, Haldir, Elrond and Galadriel in Two Towers


Morthoron
Gondor


May 22 2015, 2:02pm

Post #11 of 37 (1961 views)
Shortcut
I understand what you're saying, V... [In reply to] Can't Post

But from an objective standpoint, even the most rigid canonistas understood that the omission of the 7 chapters (including the entire section regarding the Old Forest, the Barrow Downs and Bombadil) was necessary for time compression purposes. If that had remained in, how long would it take to tell FotR? Four hours? Five hours? The issue was never what was omitted due to time constraints, rather, it was what was added in - the inventions, silly side scripting - that was more egregious.


If you take something out, don't pad the rest with nonsense, and I don't think that really occurred until The Two Towers, where filler oftentimes overtook the story itself. In particular, the incredibly long sequences where they fight wargs, Aragorn falls off a cliff and French kisses his horse, and then the entire section where ignoble Faramir drags Frodo and Sam off to Osgiliath, only to let them go after he discovers his "quality".Tongue


It is the additions, not the subtractions that count, mathematically speaking. Wink

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



TheHutt
Gondor


May 22 2015, 2:45pm

Post #12 of 37 (1946 views)
Shortcut
Radagast [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Characters that did not yet exist, were mentioned in passing in the book or were invented for The Hobbit films:
Radagast (did not appear in the book)

As a matter of fact, Radagast was mentioned in the book.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Booklet - Custom Booklet Project



Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

May 22 2015, 2:55pm

Post #13 of 37 (1940 views)
Shortcut
That's only one opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

You say it is the additions that count not the subtractions. I disagree with that completely. FOTR is the least captured book, by any objective standard.
Plus, there is plenty of nonsense in it, such as the ridiculous scene in which Merry and Pippin join up with Frodo, and almost everything involving Saruman, from the Orc pods to the Wizard Fu.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Smaug the iron
Gondor

May 22 2015, 3:05pm

Post #14 of 37 (1933 views)
Shortcut
And [In reply to] Can't Post

Saruman is not in Many Colours.


(This post was edited by Smaug the iron on May 22 2015, 3:08pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 22 2015, 3:38pm

Post #15 of 37 (1925 views)
Shortcut
Thranduil and Bard [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
JRRT never wrote about Bard or Thranduil to a great extent, so they needed to expand his character more, but they generally are the same people in the book.


That is not as true as you might think. The roles of Bard and the Elvenking are almost completely reversed in TH:BotFA with Bard reluctant to start a fight and Thranduil as the warmonger who sees no point in parleying with Thorin.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 22 2015, 3:41pm)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

May 22 2015, 4:00pm

Post #16 of 37 (1911 views)
Shortcut
Plus [In reply to] Can't Post

There is the small matter of the fact that in FOTR the main character, Frodo Baggins, pretty much only exists in name, whereas in the The Hobbit the main character, Bilbo Baggins, is almost straight from the book.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Morthoron
Gondor


May 22 2015, 6:16pm

Post #17 of 37 (1864 views)
Shortcut
Well, I won't defend Peter Jackson, in any case... [In reply to] Can't Post

Although I find it humorous I've somehow gotten to that point. I will agree that we differ, opinion-wise, on which was more egregious of the LotR movies, FotR or TTT (which would be my choice for the silliest). Obviously, we could spend all day picking apart each of the six movies and find mind-blowing, far-fetched or completely idiotic moves by Jackson, Boyens, et al.



Quote
There is the small matter of the fact that in FOTR the main character, Frodo Baggins, pretty much only exists in name, whereas in the The Hobbit the main character, Bilbo Baggins, is almost straight from the book.




Bilbo Baggins? The character for whom "The Hobbit" book is entitled? I would suggest in the case of the films, the title is purely ironic. Yes, from a character standpoint Bilbo Baggins of the films follows the book character, however the movies reflect nothing of the spirit of the books, and Bilbo's most heroic moments are often minimized or ignored in order to expand invented plot points.


Getting brief glimpses of the character (however canonically portrayed) while the film focuses on psychotropic wizards gone native, sledding bunnies, Mary-Sue Elfesses, matinee idol man-dwarves, resurrected orcs, fan-fic elf/dwarf romances, matrix elves, green-teethed villains, spice worms from Arrakis and Galadriel gone postal, is, in my opinion, a perfect example of a terrible adaptation.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on May 22 2015, 6:18pm)


lonelymountainhermit
Lorien


May 22 2015, 6:31pm

Post #18 of 37 (1853 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

It's like their only source material was the description on the back of the paperback.


Bishop
Gondor


May 22 2015, 7:03pm

Post #19 of 37 (1844 views)
Shortcut
Jackson took liberties with both trilogies [In reply to] Can't Post

But I think LOTR were better films hands down. Plus adapting LOTR and TH books respectively are completely different animals. I think it's a bit of folly to try and judge the merits of each trilogy only by the types of changes Jackson made from the text.

The task at hand was a tough one for Jackson, The Hobbit being a completely different kind of storytelling in tone and scope. But personally I didn't want a LOTR style version of The Hobbit. I just wanted The Hobbit, a charming and personal story told from Bilbo's perspective. I didn't want the epic scale, the incessant tie-ins and visual parallels between trilogies, the constant reminder that the ring is dangerous with the ring theme playing literally every time someone mentions it or Bilbo looks at it, etc. Most importantly, taking the focus off of Bilbo for any reason was the biggest mistake the filmmakers made because every time Martin Freeman is onscreen the film just lights up.


Smaug the iron
Gondor

May 22 2015, 7:29pm

Post #20 of 37 (1819 views)
Shortcut
Bilbo [In reply to] Can't Post

have more screen time in DOS then Frodo have in Two Towers.
And The ring theme only plays 4 time in AUJ, 1 time in DOS and 1 time in BOFA.


Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


May 22 2015, 7:30pm

Post #21 of 37 (1815 views)
Shortcut
Thanks Elarie! [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, that's what I meant, I changed course a little bit there. What I meant was both stories stay true to their stories, but still have changes and in both trilogies, some of them are major. I'm not saying that one trilogy is better than the other, I like them both the same. What I mean is that The Hobbit gets called out for not being "Tolkien", while Lord of the Rings is called "Tolkien", but both have major changes (and Lord of the Rings more than The Hobbit, but they make sense in both trilogies). What I mean is that both trilogies have their times where they are not the book, but both of them have times where they're exactly the book.

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


Smaug the iron
Gondor

May 22 2015, 7:38pm

Post #22 of 37 (1806 views)
Shortcut
So [In reply to] Can't Post

Bilbo finding the ring, saving Thorin, saving the dwarfs from the spiders and from the elfs and The dealing with the arkenstone is ignored or minimized.


Bishop
Gondor


May 22 2015, 7:40pm

Post #23 of 37 (1807 views)
Shortcut
I think Frodo [In reply to] Can't Post

Had plenty of screentime across LOTR, given the scope of the story. Do you think he had too much or too little? How about Bilbo? Perfect amount of screentime? Not to my tastes.

On the ring it's not just about the ring theme. It's that the ring was overplayed as THE Ring IMO. I know that's exactly what it is, and this is the challenge I was talking about earlier. But I found the parallels overbearing. For example, the same shot of falling backwards and the ring magically landing and sliding onto the finger? Come on now. It's like Jackson was saying "Hey remember that awesome shot from FOTR? Well here it is again!". Or "Remember that time that Gandalf sent a moth? Well here's that same moment. In case you forgot what it sounded like here's the same score from that moment too. Forget the fact that the eagles must be more than 3 minutes away by moth. Who cares! Remember how great that moment was!!!!".


(This post was edited by Bishop on May 22 2015, 7:45pm)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


May 22 2015, 7:45pm

Post #24 of 37 (1795 views)
Shortcut
Certainly in the case of Bilbo rescuing the Dwarves from the spiders... [In reply to] Can't Post

I've only sat through DoS twice (and EE once) so I may be forgetting, but don't the Elves arrive straight after Bilbo has massacred the millipede-thing to retrieve his Precious? I don't remember the Dwarves having a chance to thank Bilb? - if they even realized it was him that cut them down and not Ninja-Tauriel? Unsure




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Smaug the iron
Gondor

May 22 2015, 7:57pm

Post #25 of 37 (1786 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes they never thank Bilbo but I think they know it was him because the elves arrive after the dwarfs have fight the spiders for awhile so I don.t think the dwarfs think it is the elves that save them.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.