The Five Most Irritating Ways Peter Jackson's The Hobbit Deviated From The Book

true detective /hannibal / dc movies / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel

The Five Most Irritating Ways Peter Jackson's The Hobbit Deviated From The Book

By Joanna Robinson | Seriously Random Lists | December 17, 2012 | Comments ()


Did I like The Hobbit? I did. Was the Gollum sequence everything I could have asked for and more? It was! He sang, he talked to himself, I was terrified and delighted all at once! But clocking in at 2 hours and 49 minutes (with, let's say, an estimated 8 hours total for the trilogy) one can't help but turn an eye to the ways in which the running time might have been trimmed. And while I'm no filmmaker and certainly wouldn't presume to know more about what story elements should be cut, I do know THAT ADDING SH*T THAT IS NOT IN THE BOOK WILL NOT HELP YOU COME IN UNDER THREE HOURS. Yeah, sometimes you have to change stuff from book to film. Film is a different medium, yadda yadda yadda. But whereas the changes in the original Lord Of The Rings trilogy had to do with cuts (no time for hippies, Tom Bombadil...lo siento Faramir/Eowyn shippers), Jackson has gone the other way this time. What I'm saying is that he's delved too greedily and too deep. I'm no Silmarillion-thumping purist, but here are five deviations that rubbed me the wrong way. Caution, 75 year-old spoilers.

Azog The Defiler: While it is strictly canon that an orc named Azog fought the dwarves at Khazad-dûm and that he killed Thorin's grandpa, this pale mother*cker does not feature in The Hobbit. Not even a little bit. There is no "big bad" chasing Bilbo & Co. and, if there were, he certainly could have looked a lot better.
An all-CGI character is tricksy to pull off. Doubly so if you don't have the benefit of having Andy Serkis give it life, give it weight, make it real. No offense to this guy, but I'm not sure a featured role in "Spartacus" prepared him to bring the proper degree of menace to this role. Think of the thundering hooves of the Ringwraiths. Think of the terrifying snarl of the Uruk-hai. Now think of this weightless worm of a creature on his CGI'd Warg. Disappointing. Unnecessary.
Presumably we'll see his pale, non-menacing face again in the second or third film, once things get a little tense between Laketown, dwarves and elves. Thankfully, however, I suspect whatever issues I have with Azog will not carry over to Smaug. In Cumberbatch We Trust.

The Galadriel and Gandalf Love Story: Who the what now? I was as happy as anyone else to see Cate Blanchett return. She's not in the book. That's fine. But what was THIS? What purpose did it serve? To humanize Gandalf? True, fine, it didn't take up much time. But it chafed.

Radagast The Brown: We don't have time for Tom Bombadil but we'll manufacture an entire sequence with some addled, guano-smeared wizard on a rabbit sleigh? Like Azog, Radagast is canon, but plays NO part in "The Hobbit." Many will say that the sillier tone of the Radagast sequence fits with the child-like nature of "The Hobbit" itself. That thinking got me through the snot and bum jokes in the Troll sequence, but did nothing for me here. Sylvester McCoy did a bang-up job with what he was given, but what he was given was bird crap. And that Warg chase scene with Radagast, the dwarves, Gandalf and Bilbo was some of the sloppiest action I've seen in a long while. Harrumph.

Amping Up The Role Of Legolas's Dwarf Racist Party Dad, Thranduil: Okay, first of all, if you don't know yet, that poncey, bitchy, stag-riding elf who coldly denied the dwarves when they were being slaughtered by Smaug? That's Legolas's dad (aka Lee Pace). He's a party dude and a bit of a racist. He'll play a bigger part in the next film (along with, one assumes, Evangeline Lilly's made-up elven warrior princess). The issue with playing up the racism angle is it makes both Thranduil and Thorin look like unreasonable asses. Thorin's hysterics (and quick reversal) in Rivendell were particularly off-putting. The dwarf/elf racism was played for laughs between Gimli and Legolas in the original trilogy, but making it a serious issue is a mistake. If, however, this is just one big machination to bring back Orlando Bloom, well, then, I'm okay with it.

The John McClane-ing Of Bilbo Baggins: "The Hobbit" is, at its core, a very small and simple story. For all the giants and wolves and trolls and goblins and dragons, this is a really story about a comfy little Hobbit who doesn't really want an adventure. He's blustered out the door by Gandalf (this plays out a bit differently in the movie where it's much more Bilbo's idea) and throughout his journey thinks back longingly on his cozy home. Martin Freeman was perfectly cast. Just perfect. But the bravery that Bilbo eventually shows is a slow to come and hard won. It has a lot more to with the ring and nothing at all to do with charging out of a flaming tree and attacking Orcs and wolves. Bilbo is not an action hero. He's a sneak. A thief. A clever, tricksy little hobbit who finds his courage when he needs it most. Bilbo is a bit craven, actually. Those shades of grey are lost when you turn him into a fighter. He's not Frodo, nor would we want him to be. It's the quiet moments that work the best in this film. Bilbo's worried conversation with Bofur (the excellent James Nesbitt) or the cannily encouraging words from Gandalf. More of that and fewer sword fights please.
Thumbnail image for the-hobbit-movie-2012-bilbo-baggins-banner-header.jpg

This might all sound negative and finicky but I do want to reiterate that I enjoyed the movie. I just think it could have been better with a bit of restraint. I'd like to think that Peter Jackson made The Hobbit into three films because he loves Middle-Earth and couldn't bear to leave it. The cynic in me thinks it feels like a money grab. Then again, Jackson gave us so much. Haunting dwarfsong, a game of riddles and a Conchord. For that, we thank him.

The Year in Review: The Enlow Movie Awards for Best in Sh*t-Show | The Essex County Trilogy by Jeff Lemire

Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.

Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not

  • W.N Walker

    ok clearly you forgot something about the hobbit that was changed for the film which allowed peter to add Raddagast and the white council moment.
    in the book the Necromancer was already a known evil in the world
    in the movie the Necromancer has just shown up and needed to be discovered

  • Ring Lord

    I think you are all a bunch of Tolkien Purist whiners! Who wants to see a book on film? This is an adaption... not a word for word recreation of a book... if you placed the Hobbit on film as the book was written (which is impossible) you would have a ridiculous film... it certainly would not be making over a billion dollars world wide... I love Tolkien's writing, but I also love Peter Jackson vision of Middle-earth... you know why? Because I'm not so unrealistic, as to think you can put a book on screen exactly as written. It would be unwatchable.

  • Morgan

    I absolutely loved everything about the movie.

    While the addition of Azog was definitely not expected I didn't hate him. I think he was added partially to help add some bulk to an overall straight forward story. I think he was also added to appeal to the adult audience as well. My one qualm with him, was that I would have loved if he was not completely CGI because that was quite obvious. It made him seem less real and terrifying that if he had been a real person in makeup and all. And that goes for goblins and all as well. I'm sure CGI is cheaper and easier than having extras in full costume, but I think it lost some of the realistic feel that was just so fantastic in LOTR.

    As for the Galadriel/Gandalf love story, quite honestly the thought never crossed my mind with that scene until Ian McKellan made some comment about thinking they were together at some point in the past. Now I can kind of see it, but still not really.

    I thought the addition of Radagast was fantastic. I love animals and he's such a unique character. He added a certain charm. I loved how he helped introduce the necromancer (who I'm thrilled they're adding to the movie) and the spiders. I do agree that chase scene seemed off.

    I thought the way Thranduil was introduced was perfect. It seemed quite natural and not at all amped up to me.

    I do agree with the "John McClane-ing" of Bilbo. Though I do see why they did it that way, I do think it will undermine the way the dwarves gradually begin to respect and rely on him as the story progresses.

  • vladb

    You totally nailed it about "Bilbo the action hero" - this scene was there solely to resolve his narrative arc for the first film, and it bothered me the most. Bilbo is NOT a warrior yet, he's barely growing into his burglar role. I wish PJ would at least stopped short of Bilbo killing orcs - maybe a shot of him starting to un toward Thorin and then other dwarves joining in would have been enough... Oh well, I'm sure a competent fan edit will take care of this later ;)

  • Stephen

    I agree with everything you said except, the racism thing. I thought it was relatively true to the source, not overdone, and ultimately gives Legolas and Gimli's friendship much more depth.

  • TheOriginalMRod

    I loved the shit out of the movie. But I agree do not make Bilbo an action hero, that felt awfully forced. He should be reluctant and clumsily, accidentally brave, not some small Rambo for the love...

  • Yvette54

    What are you talking? There was no hint of any Galadriel/Gandalf love story in the film, and she wasn't randomly included just for kicks. If you truly read "The
    Hobbit," do you remember Gandalf leaving the party of dwarves and
    Bilbo at one point? Which is why they got captured by the King
    (Legolas's Dad).

    The reason Gandalf left was to attend a meeting of the White Council, of which Saruman was the Head. Galadriel (but not her husband) was a member of the White Council. That's why she was there (in the film Saruman said that 'he' summoned her). The meeting of Elrond, Saruman, Gandalf, and Galadriel was the meeting eluded to in the book. It was at 'that' meeting where Gandalf persuaded the Council to drive the Dark Necromancer (whom they discovered was really Sauron) out of Dol Guldur (he moved on to Mordor) despite Saruman advising against the action.

    Finally, both Galadriel and her husband Celeborn both adored Gandalf. In the "Fellowship of the Ring" novel it was actually Celeborn who asked after Gandalf and said that he greatly wished to speak to him again. So why read so much into Galadriel telling a troubled friend that if he needed her help she'd come to his aid? I think the aid she meant was more like the aid she gave Frodo (in the film) while he was still near the Spider's lair, in how she
    appeared to him and pulled him to his feet when he felt he couldn't go
    any farther.

    My big snit about the films in general is the exclusive of the elf Glorfindel and Elrond's twin sons, who hung out with the Rangers of the North and loved to kill Orcs because their mother Celebrian (the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn) had been kidnapped and tortured by Orcs and left Middle Earth soon after because she couldn't get over the memory of whatever was done to her. I would have much rather had the brothers in the film rather than Arwen.

    Oh and after being captured by them in the Misty Mountains, they 'were' pursued by Goblins and Wargs 'and' were saved/rescued by the Giant Eagles (er, that's 'why' they needed rescuing), who took them to Beorn (remember him? ... he could shape-shift into a giant bear), who I doubt will make it into the film.

  • Beorn has already been cast, so yeah, he'll be in the next two films.

  • Strand

    Still yet to see this (Australia) but the buzz from the international press seems confirm every fear I had. I could understand splitting it into 2 movies if Jackson was being particularly fastidious about it but three?

    Then I read about all the extras, the new characters, the ret-conning.... ohhhh boy. I'm sure I'll enjoy this, but while LOTR seemed like the best of adaptations: well-made, succinct, cut the parts that needed to be cut. This just seems like the complete opposite. A shameless studio cash-grab triple-dipping at the box office. I just hope this won't be as bloated and self-indulgent as the Star Wars prequels.

  • Christopher

    Hooray for fan edits!

  • Fact: I loved this movie, but it is far from perfect. I agree on most counts - I did like the inclusion of Radagast. Minus the bird shit on his face.
    I really did miss morally conflicted Bilbo though. I mean, I understand that no one wants to see him wandering around for two movies being a bit of a prat, but still. You'd think with 9 hours to work with, Jackson could work in some subtle character development. Oh well.

  • Gandalf the White

    A little research in Tolkien's mythology of Middle Earth would go a long way here. Radagast and Bombadil are NOT the same person, the "racisim" is actually an ancient strife between the two different gods that created the race of dwarves and races of elves (elves were supposed to "awake" first); that played out between the two races until the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth. Jackson has worked in the backstory that was going on behind the scenes in the Hobbit, mainly the return of Sauron aka the Necromancer to Middle Earth. It all ties together from start to finish of Tolkien's work. You are welcome to your opinon, but for the love of all that is holy, know what you are talking about so you don't seem like a moron.

  • Cinjun

    Research is good - you should do some. Yes, the dwarves "came early" into Arda, but there was no strife among the Valar - a reprimand of Aule was the result. The dwarf-elf conflict is traced more to the attack on Thingol of Doriath.

  • Strand

    "Radagast and Bombadil are NOT the same person"

    Where does it say that Radagast and Bombadil are they same person? The author found it curious that while the film didn't include Tom Bombadil (despite its generous length), it somehow found the time to layer mounds of bullshit mythology onto a bullet point of a character like Radagast the Brown.

    If you're going call someone a moron, maybe exercise a little restraint instead of impulsively white-knighting every creative decision of this film. I've been a Tolkien nerd all my life, but fans like you are the worst. You're the fanboy who was 'debunking' plot holes in the Star Wars prequels by pointing out inconsequential ret-conned EU 'facts' that were added after the fact.

  • Wednesday

    A moron? You have to go into what is being mostly marketed as a children's fantasy with a freakin' PhD in Tolkein Mythology just to escape being insulted as a moron?

    Please. I have no problem with a knowledge of Middle Earth enhancing the film experience. But it should not be *required* to make the movie feel consistent and internally logical. You're plonking down your nine dollars to be entertained for an afternoon, not to provide fodder for your dissertation.

    As far as the books are concerned, I enjoyed Lord of the Rings. I liked The Hobbit for what it was. I found The Silmarillion boring as hell, and I love mythologies generally. I'm probably not going to even see this movie simply because I'd want to see The Hobbit, not The Hobbit as the spoonful of sugar to make Jackson's interpretation of the backstory more palatable.

  • Kryik

    It's so sad that you let reviewers think for you. You could find it quite enjoyable were you to see it but no, you act like a sheep.

  • fracas

    Orlando Bloom is almost definitely going to be in the next one, as Legolas is in the Mirkwood spider LEGO set (along with a freckled elf lass who I assume is Evangeline Lilly). Yes, there's a LEGO Legolas and a LEGO lass.

  • Robert

    I disagree on your reading of Bilbo's decision. He adamantly said there was no way he would sign the contract. He woke up and it was signed with Gandalf as a witness and took that as his cue that he had to go because he agreed. The only difference from the book was that they didn't get Bilbo tanked to trick him into signing it. We don't know how it was signed, but it was, and not willingly by Bilbo. That's the essence of Tolkien's gambit.

  • Morgan

    When he woke up it wasn't signed at all. There were three places for a signature. The first said "signed" and was signed by Thorin. The second said "witness" and was signed by Balin. The third said "burglar" and had been left blank since Bilbo hadn't signed it.

    Bilbo was never tricked into signing anything, in the book or the movie.

  • JoannaRobinson

    I thought the contract wasn't signed by Bilbo yet when the camera lingered on it...but to know for certain I SHALL HAVE TO WATCH IT AGAIN.

  • Robert

    I'm pretty sure Bilbo was the top signature and Gandalf (or another G name) was the witness. I also have to watch it again when my head is clear so I can try the 48FPS 3D. My head would have exploded on Friday night if I tried.

  • JoannaRobinson

    I thought it was Balin. We shall see, Robert, we shall see.

  • It was Balin.

  • fracas

    Yes. Thorin was the main signatory, Balin signed it as the witness, and there was a blank space for the burglar.

  • Meghanf

    Not really on topic, but why don't Glamdring and Orcrist glow like Sting does? I've seen it twice now (midnight Friday by myself and Saturday matinee with a family member) and it drove me nuts both times.

  • Ingrid

    I just saw the movie -an hour ago- while I wasn't completely disappointed it did dull my interest in going to the theaters to see the second and third films.

    If Jackson hadn't included all this canon storylines this could have easily been one movie. Probably one really great movie.

    Forcing in everything from the canons created this divide in tone. The Pale Orc is character you'd see in a movie for teens and up, what his love for severed hands. The trolls and goblins are more from a kids movie: dumb, easily outwitted, cartoony violence.

    You have scenes of that Ragagash the brown, who's especially a Snow White-esqes wizard trying to save a hedgehog (which went on forever) to Gollum tenderizing a dead orc with a boulder talking about eating his meat.

    I haven't read the book series (yet). If Jackson wanted to use so much canon how about explain some of the history of Middle Earth. What did the Witch King do exactly- was he good and became corrupt? How much did he conquer? Who were his allies? Are descendents of his allies still around? How big was previous war? How long? Scale of armies invovled? What races of people got the original rings? What happened to the other rings? I would have been interested in adding stuff in if it expanded the world instead of trying to make so many connections to the LOTR series.

  • Kryik

    Also, do try not to berate teens, it makes you come across as immature yourself. There was nothing wrong with liking Azog and you seem to be quite alone in disliking the dead Goblin aspect of the Smeagol scenes.

  • Kryik

    Jackson doesn't have the rights to that stuff, it isn't The Hobbit. You could honestly just do a quick Google search to find out all that stuff and yes, obviously the Witch King became corrupt. He conquered the kingdom of Arnor, for one.

  • DarthCorleone

    I agree with you that Jackson was trying to have it both ways in terms of making a movie for the younger set that was faithful to the book and something that would fit with the more adult LOTR movie universe that he had established, and tonally it made the movie feel a little off in spots.

  • Optimus Rhyme

    I'm still not sure if I should have felt so emotional about a hedgehog. I think it was the music that got me. My cynical brain should've laughed at it.

  • InternetMagpie


  • The CG looked exceptional in 48fps so I had no issues with the pale orc

  • John G.

    Thank you. I didn't know what she was talking about. That Orc looked amazing in 48FPS and 3D

  • pomeroy

    So it looks awesome in a format that most people won't see?


  • John G.

    All formats are available. I don't understand what the problem is. the 3D HFS does have that weird "too real" effect in some scenes, but some of the CG looks amazing. Rather than force everyone to watch it one way, you get the choice.

  • John W

    8 hours! That's almost an entire season of Game of Thrones! Heck I could read the Hobbit in 8 hours. Three times! What a waste.

  • Kryik

    You just presume it's a waste. Why? Are those other things you mentioned a waste? No? Then why should this be? Idiot.

  • Jim Slemaker

    A little harsh, I think. Or just nitpicking. I really enjoyed the movie. I went in worried about the pace, but I found myself fully engulfed in the Middle Earth Jackson created. Gollum was fantastic, as noted. I did, however, dislike strongly the 48 fps version, especially the interior sequences, which reminded me so much of the look of daytime soap operas. And the 3D added nothing to my experience. My advice: see the 2D, 24 fps version.

  • BWeaves

    Good to know. As mentioned somewhere else, my theater is showing it in FOUR freaking formats, 3 of them different 3-D formats. I can't decide, so I'll just stick with the 2D.

  • True_Blue

    Seconded on all points. Go with the cheaper ticket.

  • DarthCorleone

    Great piece. I agree with a lot and disagree with a little.

    As someone who read the book many times as a child and listened to the good radio drama even more times on road trips, I enjoyed this new telling in general. It's a beloved story for me, so I'm open to a new take on it. But, yes, the bloat...oh, the bloat, Peter. Why? (O.k. I know why. It is the money, and the studio is probably more responsible for that than he is.)

    I actually liked Azog and his white warg. If I were eight years old, that would be the action figure set I'd want after seeing this movie. Yeah, his appearance is taking liberties, but I don't mind personalizing a primary antagonist a bit, especially given how by-the-numbers the plot of The Hobbit is, moving from action set piece to the next.

    The Radagast stuff was so goofy and out of left field that I enjoyed it simply out of my affection for animals in general, although I do agree that the chase sequence was ridiculous in its geography and credibility.

    Speaking of credibility in action, the cartoon physics of the action sequences bothered me. I realize it's more of a kids' movie than LOTR, and I was willing to give it some latitude for that, but it got to a point where it was undermining the suspense and taking me out of the movie. (Yes, it is possible to make it suspenseful even when I know this story as well as I do.)

    I wish "Riddles In The Dark" had been even longer. When I first learned this was almost three hours long, I fully expected the scene to be the centerpiece of the climax (which it more or less was), and I hoped they would go ahead and give us all the riddles. They could have amped up the tension with Gollum's slow paddle back across the pond to find the Ring as opposed to having him figure out immediately that Bilbo had it. Plus, it's a shame we're all done with Andy Serkis' Gollum now, and giving him even more before his exit would have been cool.

    You're absolutely right about the "John McClane-ing" of Bilbo. I can see why they did it; they wanted to give Bilbo something of a self-contained arc - particularly in his relationship with Thorin - in the very first movie. That's a major deviation from the story, though, and it's going to undermine the satisfying way that the dwarves more gradually found faith in Bilbo as Tolkien originally told it. (That said, it could make the Arkenstone payoff even more resonant.) It also undermines the scene in which Bilbo names his sword.

  • John G.

    I agree. I didn't mind the Radagast scenes at all, but I love animals too. The Disney animated scene where all the silly Dwarves throw plates around the house made me almost leave, though. I didn't, because my ticket was $400 or something ridiculous like that.

  • Three_nineteen

    The plate-throwing and dwarf-singing in Bilbo's house are in the book.

    ETA: I think. It's been over 10 years since I've read it. The song is in there, because I recognized the words. Maybe not the plate-throwing?

  • Max Shelley

    just got to the point in the book where the movie stopped about 10 minutes ago, that scene is completely in the book!

  • Claus

    I have to say, the only ones of those that bothered me were turning Bilbo into McClain, and the unnecessary presence of Azog. I agree that it eliminates some of the shading of Bilbo's character (although I did appreciate the scene with Bofur when he tries to leave the party, so that partially makes up for it). I very much enjoyed Radagast's part and I disagree with the reviewer (forget which one) who compared him to Jar Jar Binks. In a way, he comes across very much like the Doctor in that he's basically got this innocuous "I love animals" demeanor, yet he has a core of confident badassitude that shines through when necessary. His scenes were the first ones that made me think, "OK, I can take my 10-year-old daughter to see this".

    As for Azog, well, I can go either way on whether it's a good add. He definitely could stand to be more menacing as a mini-boss, but it does add some tension to the pre-Misty-Mountains bits that was otherwise a little bit lacking. And it was kind of a nice touch to see the orcs at Weathertop.

    The Thranduil part in the prelude was very logically placed, I think, and necessary to set up the antagonism between the elves and dwarves that you see later on in Mirkwood.

  • Lisa Beee

    Yes! The Conchord!
    I saw him and turned to my sister, pointed with glee, and slapped my face loudly where a beard should be. She snorted with laughter and our friend who sat between us remembered why we aren't allowed to go to movies in public places together.

    All in all I did enjoy this movie too. Martin Freeman is just a perfect Bilbo (I mean, was he even acting in that scene with Gollum or was that sass all his?)
    Oh but those mountain-rock monster fights that looked like rock-em-sock-em robots? I can't recall that form the novel, but sometimes my nitwittery just makes me inexplicably miss things.
    Also I agree about the CGI white Orc nonsense. We don't need him! We also don't need all the orcs and goblins to be in CGI when they were so terrifying and memorable as real people in costume in all the LOTR films! Ah well, the good and the bad do balance out.

  • BlackRabbit

    The rock monsters were stone giants, who are never mentioned again. ;) I think Tolkien threw them in for fun and later hoped we wouldn't remember them in LOTR.

  • AudioSuede

    I never read the book, so I had no idea what was true to the original and what wasn't. However, I did feel jostled around by this film; in the last trilogy, the party was split up and had to take different paths, so their often surprising and hastily introduced villains made sense. This time, it's like there are so many villains and obstacles and random events that seem so pointless to the quest (in what way does the Necromancer currently have any effect on Bilbo's journey?), and not even knowing the plot of the book, I kept thinking, "Did Jackson shoehorn this action scene in here to keep the story moving? Because it feels like it."

    Also, SPOILER, we got the deus ex machina eagles again. Because we needed to be reminded that their long-ass walk is completely unnecessary with an entire fleet of flying creatures happy to take our heroes from burning forests all the way to the destination they've been trying to reach for the whole movie, just like in the last series. Joy.

  • Kryik

    The Eagles aren't subservient creatures, moron, they don't just live to help others. They rescue Gandalf when he's in danger, but they're not about to just take him wherever the heck he wants to go on a whim. They live their own lives too, if he's not in life threatening danger they can't just be expected to be his personal transports. Also, the Necromancer is in the book and the White Council DO go after him, it has purpose for the overall series, nit just The Hobbit.

  • Михаило Мандић


    Why are you calling AudioSuede a moron?
    I mean, you KNOW that the Eagles are not Gandalf's servansts, but during the course of 4 films, we see Gandalf summoning the eagles with a moth, and we are NOTexplained how the eagles actually work.

    It is easy to know that for us who have read the books, but if you have only watched the films, you WOULD get an impression that the eagles can be summoned by Gandalf practically at any time. It's the filmmakers fault for not explaining.

    And as for your last line - I do like the White Council vs Necromancer story, and how it ties to both Hobbit and LotR. But the films are called The Hobbit - a story of Bilbo Baggins, and yet, we will have at least 1/3 of the films dealing with things that don't have anything to do with the titular character.

  • Max Shelley

    the book handles the eagles much better though, I think if jackson had actualy included the scene where they went back to the eagle's eyrie so we could see that the eagles weren't just gandalf's servants (the whole spell to call them with the dragonfly thing makes it seem as if they are) as it is in both movies the eagles don't speak and just seem like middle earth taxi's that don't get used when they should

  • Jerce

    I like this article and agree with most of it.
    However, every time I read the word cannon a tiny drop of blood came out of my nose.
    Have pity on my hypertension, would you?

  • jj

    She's obviously in need of an intensive regiment on the tenants of sloppy orthography.

  • JoannaRobinson


  • DarthCorleone

    I assure you that Joanna knows the correct word. She just got brain-homophoned while typing.

  • Quatermain

    Homophonia is bad and should be discouraged, especially on the Internet.

  • DemonWaterPolo

    Sot fucking on. My thoughts precisely, written much better than I could.

  • Bert_McGurt

    Awww, look. Bat-Boy's all grown up and his name is Azog.

  • Tinkerville

    "Thranduil...aka Lee Pace"

    In the theater I was so shocked to see him onscreen I literally yelped, "Holy shit, it's Lee Pace!" like an obnoxious asshole. I had no idea he was going to be in it and my mind was sufficiently blown. Apparently it doesn't take much to do that. Ok, carry on. I would agree with all of this.

  • AngelenoEwok

    One of my best friend did that at Hal Sparks' cameo in Spider-Man 2.

    Fun fact of the day: Lee Pace and Matt Bomer went to High School together.

  • Tinkerville

    And now I've got some fanfic to write, brb.

  • Rooks

    I distinctly remember whispering "it's the pie-maker!" under my breath, and dying a little inside. I knew he'd be in it, but I... I wasn't prepared. *sniffles*

  • Enrique del Castillo

    Haven't seen the movie yet (don't have 3 hours to waste in a mediocre movie at the moment) and these things trouble me since I loved the book except the dwarf/elf racism. I mean, this kind of makes the friendship between Legolas and Gimli in the LOTR is kind of more interesting if their relatives didn't get along before, doesn't it?

  • Kryik

    You sound really snot nosed and arrogant calling it mediocre before viewing it personally. I also highly doubt you don't have the time, doesn't really matter, but it just sounds like you made up some lame excuse to badmouth the movie, frankly.

  • FrayedMachine

    I saw it, I pretty much loved everything. I don't really mind the changes as I have heard that things that were added to the movie came from the Appendices, though I wouldn't be able to confirm any of that since I haven't read them yet. ... though I really feel like I want to.

    But yeah, I agree with the racism aspect and how it makes Legolas and Gimli's relationship all the more interesting that way.

blog comments powered by Disqus