Why Is the Hobbit Movie So Different From the Book?

35 comments

Q: Why Is the Hobbit Movie So Different From the Book?

ANSWER: There is a certain amount of creative license that enters into any film adaptation of a book. And history teaches us that no matter how faithful (or unfaithful) a film adaptation is with respect to its original source, someone will complain about the movie’s (un)faithfulness to the books.

For example, I loved the first two “Harry Potter” movies, which I felt were extremely imaginative and creative. I had never seen children’s movies before where the actors were actually called upon to ACT. Compare the lively, engaged performances of the adults in “Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone” with the wooden performances of otherwise perfectly good actors in classic children’s films like “Mio in the Land of Faraway”, “The Witches”, “The Neverending Story”, and so on. You almost have to go back to Edmund Guinn in “Miracle on 34th Street” to see anything like an adult actor taking a children’s story seriously enough to treat it with respect (well, “Mary Poppins” and “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” were pretty good).

But I digress from the main point. Movies can be very faithful to the book, and one of the criticisms that my Harry Potter fan friends who had read the books before watching the movies complained about was that the movies were boring and predictable. They followed the books very closely (even while cutting out a bit of material).

But then along came “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”, which Alfonso Cuarón directed — totally changing the tone and character of the film franchise — and people complained that his film was too UNLIKE the book. Talk about injecting a Goldilocks Syndrome into a fanbase, you just cannot find people agreeing on when the “Harry Potter” movies are just right even up to the last film (which some people hate for all sorts of reasons — but I loved it).

So, to return to Middle-earth — Peter Jackson has to deal with a number of unusual challenges most film-makers don’t deal with when adapting books to movies.

  • He must remain faithful to the world he created for his “Lord of the Rings” trilogy
  • He must help the audience learn about and love dozens of characters, some of whom will die
  • He must anticipate and explain in-world issues that are only explained in books he cannot legally adapt to film
  • He must make a complete story that runs from beginning to end and makes sense (within itself) all the way through

There are some changes from the books that have perplexed fans, such as the comical (but, in my opinion, delightfully charming) Radagast (played by veteran actor Sylvestor McCoy). Radagast is only mentioned in The Hobbit, so why include him in the movie? I think one reason is that Peter didn’t have the luxury of including Radagast in “The Fellowship of the Ring” (one of the criticisms that many people leveled at him). Radagast is an interesting anecdotal character (he never appears in a “present-tense” scene) who plays a pivotal role in one part of the literary story (Saruman uses him to trick Gandalf into visiting Isengard). You don’t really need Radagast to get Gandalf to Isengard, as Peter ably demonstrated.

But Radagast does show us that Gandalf is not the only “good” wizard wandering around Middle-earth. He creates depth for the order of the Istari in both the books and the movies. So I think the decision to find a role for Radagast in “The Hobbit” was a good one. Furthermore, Saruman’s contempt for Radagast needs explanation. Making Radagast a wise-but-comical character justifies that contempt while allowing him to play an important role in protecting Middle-earth. Despite the fact he rides in a sled pulled by rabbits, Radagast comes across as someone who can deal with considerably dangerous creatures and survive (after all, they are Rhosgobel rabbits!).

I don’t know why Peter Jackson elected to portray Radagast as he has but I must say I really enjoyed Sylvester McCoy’s appearance in “The Hobbit” and I wouldn’t change a thing.

More importantly, because “The Hobbit” trilogy is so closely associated with the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, it was necessary to continue some of the ideas introduced into Peter Jackson’s first three movies. Continuity is one of the biggest problems that plagues the Tolkien books, and if Peter Jackson is able to maintain some inter-trilogy continuity then at least his film-world won’t be jarringly divided between PHASE ONE and PHASE TWO. Unplanned sequels often fail to live up to the standards set by popular movies.

The complexity of the story in The Hobbit is marred by the brevity of the book. The book was actually written very hastily, based on an incomplete manuscript that Tolkien had composed with no real hope of publishing. He shared it with a family friend who happened to have a connection in the publishing industry — and after the friend showed the partial manuscript to the publisher they asked for a full book.

In the 1930s children’s literature was still expected to provide very minimal details. As anyone who has read The History of the Hobbit (by John Rateliff) should know, J.R.R. Tolkien actually cut out a fair amount of material from his story in preparing it for publication. Although those cuts simplified the story enough to make it a good children’s book (it was nominated for two awards when first published) they led to some confusion as Tolkien reworked the story.

In an interview published in April 2013, several of the actors in the movie offered explanations of some of the changes (including extending the first film to almost 3 hours). Andy Serkis pointed out that the large number of “main” characters demanded a lot of exposition. Richard Armitage said “when it comes to the Battle of Five Armies [in ‘Part 3’], you’re going to be glad that [Peter Jackson] took time in Bag End to get to know those characters.”

It doesn’t matter that the book is so short. The book’s characterizations are wooden, formulaic, and almost pointless. The Dwarves are really there to provide crowd scenes for Bilbo’s adventure, not to actually participate in the adventure — except when Bilbo needs to rescue someone to prove his worth. The Thorin Oakenshield of the book hardly comes across as a great leader given his inability to treat anyone with dignity and respect. Had Richard Armitage been asked to play Thorin exactly like the character in the book people would have hated him for destroying the character; instead, he brought Thorin to life and probably portrayed Thorin closer to how Tolkien imagined a great descendant of Durin’s Line than most people see in the literary story.

Some people will never let go of the differences between the movies and the books, and I find that unfortunate. I think that someday another director will be given the opportunity to adapt both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to film and when that happens people will unfairly compare that director’s work to Peter Jackson’s work. Maybe such criticisms will be justified, but they are inevitable.

Everyone who tells the story tells it differently and I think the longer, more thoughtful presentation will eventually earn a lot of accolades because it sets the pace for being more honest and faithful to the needs of the audience; if you just follow the book exactly the audience will hardly have any time to learn about and come to care about any of the characters. I think Balin won many more hearts in the movie than in the book. When you go back and watch “The Fellowship of the Ring”, and you see Gimli’s grief at discovering Balin’s tomb, you now at least have a reason to grieve with him.

See also:

[ Submit A Question ] Have a question you would like to see featured here? Use this form to contact Michael Martinez. If you think you see an error in an article and the comments are closed, you’re welcome to use the form to point it out. Thank you.
 
[ Once Daily Digest Subscriptions ]

Use this form to subscribe or manage your email subscription for blog updated notifcations.

You may read our GDPR-compliant Privacy Policy here.

Tags

35 comments

  1. I normally don’t comment on posts, but that was an amazing article! I thoroughly agree with you! Peter Jackson really thought through everything and knew that we had to LOVE the characters and not just see them. To be honest, I thought AUJ was too short haha! If I had any complaints it would be how they interjected Azog in, now I don’t think he should be out entirely, but something felt slightly off, maybe he should have come in at a later point, idk. The decision to add him in made sense though.

    1. Obviously, neither you nor the author are familiar with the term, “literary adaptation.” It does not include resurrecting long-dead characters and inventing new ones, altering the core storyline and structure, or creating new sub-plots and relationships. Nor does it involve re-writing the canon on which the story rests.

      It is, when done properly, the distillation of the author’s ideas and their transference from print to film. When done improperly, movies like AUJ are produced. Like it, don’t like it – doesn’t change a thing. There ARE standards; there ARE limitations; there IS a line when adaptation becomes alteration. Jackson not only violated those standards and limitations, but crossed that line by a mile with his first Hobbit film.

      If you want to understand how it’s supposed to be done, try reading the following books, then watch the films. Perhaps then you’ll see the difference between “literary adaptation” and “based on a book by JRR Tolkien”:

      To Kill A Mockingbird. Watership Down. One Flew Over the Cuckcoo’s Nest. Schindler’s List. Apocalypse Now. The English Patient. The Ten Commandments. The Maltese Falcon. Rebecca.

      1. I approved your comment because I believe in allowing people to express their different points of view. But as a survivor of the Tolkien fan group flamewars my tolerance is somewhat brittle.

        We all get a little testy from time to time; no one is perfect. I would prefer not to see flame wars in these comments, however.

        Thank you to everyone for commenting.

      2. And yet, there are people who have exactly the same gripes as you about all those movies. Gee, you think maybe it could be a matter of opinion?

  2. I have to say I completely disagree. While I can see some additions like the White Council/ DolGuldur subplot, Radagast sure, Legolas yeah sure for a cameo only, But adding character like Azog the fork monster? What is the sense in that? Seriously wouldn’t Bolg who was actually in the story, be able to serve the same purpose? And why does the Hobbit need to be about the ring and Sauron which is where these films seem to be leading. The Necromancer was 2 sentences in the Hobbit and not much more in the appendices. The story of the Hobbit wasn’t about him or the ring. It was about Bilbo and the dwarfs journey. Sauron and the ring get 15 minutes of prologue at the beginning of FOTR no more explanation is needed about either of them. The necromancer was in hiding trying to not be discovered the ring is no significance OTHER THAN it helps Bilbo as a tool would. Another change the trolls why would Bilbo willingly go into their camp knowing what they are? How did nobody hear the troll uprooting trees and causing enough damage to look like a bulldozer cut through the forest to take their ponies? Why did the dwarfs stop in broad daylight to camp? What was wrong with them losing their ponies and supplies in the river, in the dark, then seeing a fire in the distance, they are cold wet and hungry so they send their “burglar” to investigate. Makes much more sense to me than what Jackson wrote. Which is where I have the majority of my issues with his take on the Hobbit. The constant need to rewrite the source material instead of adapting it. Adapting it would be putting the book from one medium to another with minor changes, additions, or embellishments. Jackson has almost completely rewritten every single scenario from the book into something similar but yet different.

    That’s not what I wanted to see. I would have preferred something in the style of Jackson’s own LOTR. Where Jackson himself kept saying keep things real. They are “lucky enough to film in the real places where these real events took place” ALL that seems to be gone this time around. I see no respect being paid to the source material its all about how can we change it to make it fit into this more complex mold we want it to. Not taking into consideration how much they are taking the situations and story out of context from what it should have been

      1. Probably. Purists have no filter to tell them when enough is enough. Pretty ironic when you consider that’s what they accuse Jackson of.

        1. for the record I’m not a purist but I do feel the story in the book is far superior to the mess Jackson has presented.I don’t mind changes if they have a purpose something NONE of Jackson changes have at this point. Unless you consider changing the story into something else and then his changes make complete sense.

      2. Maybe… Why is it ok to brown nose Peter Jackson with every comment? Or say how great the films are when clearly many people feel they weren’t. I’m not the only one who feels Jackson completely missed the mark, there are many who feel that way. Sorry If you don’t like hearing it but I have the right to say it since many who feel this way won’t because of rabid fans of Jackson’s middle earth who feel the man can do no wrong.

        Jackson has taken a good story that needed only minor embellishment and completely rewritten it taking 90% of it out of context to turn it into something it never was. How is that adapting a story?It’s not its writing your own story with elements of Tolkien’s story.I love how people say a few changes have they bothered to read the book? there are more changes than I can count to Jackson’s version of the Hobbit and IMO and the opinion of many that wasn’t the right way to go. So I have no problem speaking up for people who think these films are horrible adaptation of a Tolkien classic.

          1. I’m not saying if they like the movie they are a brown noser. Not at all. But there are those who every time you turn around are denouncing the flaws by making excuses and throwing unbelievable praise. Throwing the highest praise to Jackson for making these films. I’ve had someone actually say and I laughed so hard I cried that Jackson’s hobbit is “better than Tolkien’s” If there is another term for such fanboyism I would have used that but I couldn’t think of one.

            I’m glad people like Jackson’s films but, in many peoples opinions, compared to the Tolkien source material the films are severely flawed. Not saying the source material is completely perfect, but it flows and makes sense (sometimes in a childlike way). It may not be as complex as LOTR but IMO it doesn’t need to be. The contradiction to canon, the complete rewrite of many scenes, the additions that make no sense.I guess its easy for some people to overlook how different the scenarios are from book to film. I guess I’m not one of those that well trollshaws has 3 trolls and Bilbo in it so as long as they get that right I’m ok with it. It’s the details Tolkien wrote into the scene that are completely missing in the film that many people wanted to see. Not Jackson’s made up content.

    3. Without Azog its just 13 dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard walking around. That worked in the book, but on screen you really need to have a threat. In The Lord of the Rings it helped that they had a ring that needed to be taken to Mordor to be distroyed, but you still had the ever looming threat of Nazgul to move things along. You don’t have that as clearly in The Hobbit book because they’re going to find something, not lose something.

      1. There would be a serious threat: from orcs even if there was no Azog in movie, but if adding a really recurring villain is necessary, it would be better to have Bolg as one.

  3. Wonderful points all around. I agree. My only real beef with the movie has nothing to do with fidelity*, but rather with the length of it. And that’s not about what Jackson does or doesn’t put in, but the way he draaawwwwsssss out scenes that really don’t need to be so long. That orc battle could have been cut in half and still been great. The scenes of Radagast riding around on his rabbit sled likewise went on too long. Jackson needs someone sitting next to him saying, “Okay, ENOUGH already.”

    People who go on about fidelity to the book have little knowledge about how to adapt from page to screen. You can never put a book onscreen. No matter how close you come, it’s never going to be the same, and that’s simply because every reader sees a different movie in their heads when they read a book. I envy those people who got to see these films without having read the books, because they have no cemented expectations as to what this or that person should look or sound like, and could just take the performances and the film on its own merits.

    * (My one big gripe about fidelity was the troll scene. Why make it into a fight? What was the point of that? There was no need for a battle at that point, and just made Jackson look like one of those nerdboys who can’t enjoy a story unless somebody’s whacking somebody else with a sword. Too bad.)

  4. I completely agree with this outstanding and well presented article. As far as story decisions, character decisions, and background I am in total agreement. I have to insert, one of the things I am not very happy with was the old argument about the high frame rate and 3-D. I love Peter Jackson’s presentation of the Hobbit so far, but…………I found that one of the things I loved so much about the Lord of the Rings was the liberal use of anything that would get the moment across the best. From simple techniques of forced perspective, the liberal use of models, real villains and characters, and only those computer generated characters that absolutely needed to be filled. So in my opinion, the evil characters have not provided depth or fear, especially Azog. I didn’t like the decision of using a goblin or orc tongue for Azog, it seemed to slow the film’s momentum. Plus Azog just doesn’t feel gritty or dirty or scary enough. He looks good, but the color is the key, and making him real would have been better because he needs to be gritty, and have a feeling of hate. I just never feel Azog really hates Thorin, but the scene with Aragorn and the Uruk captain at the end of Fellowship was masterful. The emotion, hate, arrogance just seemed to pop out of the character and screen for me. But not with Azog, or the Goblin King. Or maybe it was the forced lighting changes in the movie because of the cameras used just didn’t make the depth of character look real. Which is strange considering it was shot in 3-D. But that flyover of the mountains at the beginning of the Two Towers was absolutely majestic. And the lighting of the beacons in the Return of the King truly elicited an emotional response. But the rock giant battle didn’t feel huge or majestic, because it looked like the rest of the movie. At least that’s my impression. But again I feel that in the LOTR Peter Jackson pulled out all the tricks of the trade, and instead of being forced to adjust to the cameras like in the Hobbit, his liberal use of every cinematographic trick and technique used since the first films was genius. At least for me. When you see the chase scene in Moria for the Lord of the Rings it is epic because they use what works the best just for the moment. And only what was needed for the moment. By adjusting the entire movie for a camera standard has hurt the story telling ability in the Hobbit movies. It is a great movie an adaptation of the Hobbit so far, but I think it fell short of epic solely because of the requirements of the story being based upon the camera and not the emotion being conveyed. Still awesome.

  5. Wow!! That was an amazing article!
    I agree with every thing you said!
    It’s so true!! I swear people feel that if they make a book into a movie they have to hate on it! I adored everything about AuJ (at first I thought Radagast was a bit… Weird but he’s grown on me). I can totally understand why PJ made many of the changes, and I am so so so happy he took the time so you can know the characters. When I read the book, none of the dwarves had a face or personality to me, they were just a lot of too many rhyming names.
    I think PJ has done an amaing Job with all the middle-earth movies so far, and I think Desolation of Smaug will be even better than AUJ 🙂

  6. Thank Heaven someone else sees my point of view. I’ve read all of Tolkien’s books, and I’ve seen all the movies, and I really love both. It just annoys me to death when purists condemn Peter Jackson’s amazing adaptations just for a few changes. To me, so long as the changes make sense, I’m fine with them. The only thing that would anger me would be either a dramatic change in location (ergo, instead of Rohan, London,) or a romance where there was none (ergo Susaspian from the Narnia movies.) That said, I can’t wait for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. I was immensely pleased with An Unexpected Journey. I’m giving Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt until he again proves the purists wrong.

    1. “It just annoys me to death when purists condemn Peter Jackson’s amazing adaptations just for a few changes.”

      Too true. What I find truly horrendous is the way so many purists insist that Jackson can’t possibly be a Tolkien fan simply because they don’t agree with the way he’s making these movies. Whereas I can guarantee you if any of them made a Tolkien movie, other purists would be saying exactly the same thing about them. It’s an ingrained arrogance and lack of humility that is incomprehensible to me, and I can only attribute it to what I referenced in my own comment – the ignorance of how adaptations are written and how films are made. People who know about filmmaking and/or have personal experience of it just don’t say things like that, because they understand the process and know that petty criticisms of that sort are nonsensical and self-serving. One of the first things you learn in screenwriting is “be prepared to cut the thing you love the most”, because there is nothing – NOTHING – that is sacred when it comes to putting a story onscreen. The material must adapt to the camera, and not the other way around, or you end up with an unwatchable mess. It is refreshing to read someone like Martinez who actually understands the real problems in adaptation and knows how to look at one and see the solutions that are there, rather than the details that are not.

  12. Personally I wouldn’t see anything bad in portraying Thorin as he was in book (with extension from Appendices after all they have rights to this material and background story of quest gives important hints on the characters motives and personality), he showed there that at times he really can lead to victory, can easily assume dominant role but still has many flaws and had his own moments when retained cool head in dangerous situation. I have mixed reaction to Armitage portrayal of this character. Radagast on the other hand is clearly over the top, I understand creating some wimsical character but in movie he was just nuts :), at least a bit of dignity would be welcome. There are also moments in the movie which are just pure nonsense, when in book there was at least enough explanation.

  13. Thanks for the great article! I have of late stopped reading comments and articles on what Peter Jackson should and shouldn’t have done with the movie due to never-ending complaints about AUJ. I REALLY enjoyed it and really enjoyed the fact that Jackson fleshed out the story, even if some of it seemed unnecessary. If I want a purist version of The Hobbit, I can walk over to my bookshelf and read the book any day I want. Otherwise I want to see Middle Earth brought to life visually and spectacularly and I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. Compared to many other fantasy films that we’ve been given since LOTR (Eragon, Inkheart, The Last Airbender, Percy Jackson), AUG was fantastic in comparison. As a long time fantasy fan I have eagerly awaited every film adaptation of books that come along (they are few and far between in the fantasy genre) and LOTR & The Hobbit films are really the best I have ever come across and should receive accolades for not only pleasing a good chunk of fans, but also bringing non-fantasy fans into the theatre and maybe even too the books. I think there is a positive side this that no-one seems to acknowledge when they spread their hate-on all over the web. So again thank you for this wonderful positive article.

  15. The book had a fast pace to it but the film dragged on. The goblin king and the whole fight scene was over the top and cartoonish, a total turnoff. The scene with the trolls was humorous in the book, but was lost in the film. Adding bits from lost tales to tie it all together in a timeline is one thing but to fail to grasp what’s going on in the book is a shame. I didn’t buy this DVD. To disappointed.

  16. I’m going to disagree. I was very disappointed with the Movie. I can’t think of a change that Jackson has made to Tolkien that has improved the story. Didn’t like elves at Helm’s Deep. Didn’t like Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath. I was meh with the Arwen stuff. Didn’t like the dwarf tossing jokes. However, I enjoyed all of the LOTR movies because the changes were fairly minor. I hated the Hobbit. The changes which were NOT minor were bad enough, but the cartoonish action scenes were terrible.

    When I compare a book to a movie. I will say to myself, “Okay, that makes sense to do that” or “That’s an interesting or different take on that”. However, while watching the first Hobbit I kept saying “That makes no sense.” and “That’s just stupid and/or gross”.

    There’s probably a decent 2 hour movie to be made from the Hobbit Part 1 and I’d like to see someone try to make a cut.

  19. Good job on this blog post. My sentiments exactly on Balin. Ken Stott’s performance of him really won me over. As did Martin Freeman as bilbo. I have my lityle aesthetic nitpicks about the film, but I really appreciate P.J.’s casting choices and the actors’ thoughtful performances which reflect an overall respect of J.R.R.T.’s source material.

  20. No matter what you do, you cannot please all the people all the time. Peter Jackson has taken a relatively small novel and expanded it for viewing. He broadened the characters and gives us a more in-depth look at who they are. He has woven a richer tapestry for us to enjoy.

  21. Maybe I missed someone else making this point, but LOTR and The Silmarillion are not novels in the typical sense: they are pseudo-histories. As such, once the author has opened up his imaginary world and its historical antecedents to others, there remains lots of room for exploration and elaboration. For the most part, Jackson and Co. have been faithful to the world that Tolkien created while granting themselves liberty to expand our view of it. It is a testimony to Tolkien’s genius that this was even possible. There was no need to slavishly transduce every page of the books into video. The books will always stand as Tolkien’s definitive introduction to Middle Earth. Peter Jackson and his amazingly talented team have used their cinematic skills to broaden and deepen our understanding and appreciation to that imaginary realm.

  22. First: If my suspicions are correct at to why Azog is in the movie, I’m going to LOL at all the people complaining about him being in Part I. (Hint: Dain Ironfoot getting name-dropped in AUJ.)

    Also, when it comes to adaptations of books to film, I usually tend to think book fans/purist would make terrible filmmakes. Because at the end of the day, a majority of them don’t seem to understand the difference between the language of film and the language of a written book, and how a person comes to both. With a book, a person is more willing to let their imagination fill in any blanks, especially when it comes to characterization. They can put a book down and take time away from it whenever they want, and then pick it back up again in time.

    A film is different. With a film, you are at the mercy of the director, especially when it comes to running time. (Hence The Scouring of the Shire being cut from the LOTR movie, because it would have added an extra 30 minutes – at least – to an already 3 1/2 hour movie that – people who’ve never read the book – were already complaining had too many endings without it. If another 1/2 hour had been added in for the Scouring of the Shire general movie audiences would have revolted).

    When adapting a book, you have to adapt the story so that it makes sense to movie goers who haven’t read the book and *probably never will.* You have to make these people *care* about these characters, and not fall back on lazy “it’s in the book” justifications as to why some characters do what they do, or why the story goes the way it does. Why would any general movies goer – who’s never read the book – care about book!Thorin? Translating that character directly from the book onto the screen would have had people *hating* him, and just seeing him as someone to have to put up with in the next two movies. Why should any movie goer care about all the rest of the dwarves? If we’re going to adapt them exactly as they were from the books, then all of them would be little more than dead-weight on film, and people would have been asking if their characters served any point whatsoever, and why weren’t they just cut out?

    Or, as I hinted above, take Dain Ironfoot. Why the heck should general film audiences – again who’ve never read the book and probably never will – care about this guy? Or, for that matter, like him at all? In fact, given what happens with him at the end of the story, you really run the risk of general audiences *hating* Dain Ironfoot. (Especially if you did manage to get them liking Thorin and the other members of the company).

    A good film maker, when adapting a book, looks at the book and is smart enough to ask these kinds of questions when adapting the story to film. Why should people – again, who never read the book and probably never will – *care* about any of this story, or the characters in it? Will they willing sit for 2 and 1/2, even 3 hours, to watch this story unfold?

    Was Peter Jackson perfect in adapting the stories of Middle-earth to the screen? No. Nobody would be perfect. But what Jackson and his team understand, IMO, is the language of film, and how narrative storytelling works on film as opposed to a book. They didn’t pull a World War Z, where the only thing the book and the movies have in common is the title.

    So yeah, again still tend to think a large segment of book fans/purist would make terrible film makers. Just as there are filmmakers out there who, IMO, would make mediocre book writers.

Comments are closed.

You are welcome to use the contact form to share your thoughts about this article. We close comments after a few days to prevent comment spam.

We also welcome discussion at the J.R.R. Tolkien and Middle-earth Forum on SF-Fandom. Free registration is required to post.