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

[Prince of Cats]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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. :*)