Q: How Much Padding is There in Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” Trilogy?
ANSWER: Ever since it was announced that Peter Jackson would do three movies instead of the two that Guillermo del Toro had committed to, people have been complaining about all the “padding” that would be necessary to stretch the story of The Hobbit out to three films.
The book is shorter than the story, if that makes sense. Tolkien glosses over a lot of events that, in a work like The Lord of the Rings, would be given full authorial attention. Tolkien not only has Frodo and the boys visit the three stone trolls, he treats his readers to Sam’s famous song. In The Hobbit Bilbo rushes through the countryside on his way to the troll encounter; Frodo takes weeks to get there, stopping in the woods of the Shire, the Marish, the Buckland, the Old Forest, the house of Tom Bombadil, the Barrow-downs, Bree, Weathertop, and the Midgewater Marsh.
We should be grateful, I think, that Peter decided against including Bombadil in his “Hobbit” movies (he should have been in LoTR, but I digress).
So, yes, there are new characters (Azog and his band of bully boys, Radagast and the Rhosgobel Rabbits) and the whole sub-plot with the Orcs hunting Thorin Oakenshield, but I doubt you could reasonably tell the entire story of The Hobbit in one movie, so you have to answer two questions: where does the first film end and what is its source for real tension and drama? An episodic journey, where Bilbo and friends have basically one or two random encounters, might work in a book but that makes for a weak movie.
I don’t see the Azog sub-plot as being used to stretch out the story so much as to make Thorin’s character more interesting for the audience. Peter’s Middle-earth history is so much unlike Tolkien’s history that I don’t have a problem with changing Azog’s role in the cinematic film world. I don’t really even have a problem with the White Council meeting improbably coming together in Rivendell just in time to allow Thorin and the boys to “escape” (although that was a bit odd).
I thought the Radagast sequence was interesting, entertaining. Of course it was used to introduce the threat from Dol Guldur, which I consider to be a bit of necessary exposition to explain Gandalf’s departure from the company in the second movie. Although Peter could have handled all this differently, something still needed to be included.
Hence, while many people complain about the length of the first movie it has always struck me as being almost perfect. It ends with the company’s escape from the Goblin town and sets up an expectation for a great Mirkwood adventure (personally, I don’t think the expectation was met).
And here is where I find the whole film story misses a great opportunity. The interlude with the Eagles of the Misty Mountains in the book was interesting but not essential. It helps to explain why Gandalf leads the company to Beorn; in the movie, Peter eliminates those tedious details and just has the orcs implausibly (in my opinion) chase the travelers right up to Beorn’s door (how did they find the company after the Eagles rescued them?).
So whereas the first movie only adds a few details and hardly omits any, the second movie starts out by chopping out a whole chapter and a half. When we do meet Beorn he looks more like a space alien mole-man than the hearty mannish warrior of the book. And the Beorn of the book is an interesting fellow who is so fearsome the orcs don’t venture anywhere near his house. The book uses Beorn himself to create the tension and suspense, making Beorn much more convincingly dangerous and powerful. I don’t think movie-Beorn matches book-Beorn in power and depth so far.
Lacking this material, the second movie moves on quickly to Mirkwood. Now there you follow the company to the enchanted stream in the book but they head right into the spiders in the movie. And in the book it takes days, weeks for them to get to the eastern side of the forest where the spiders capture them. In the movie they seem to run into the spiders right away. So movie-Mirkwood seems rather small to me.
Having cut out the enchanted stream, the hart and the white deer, and the long (tedious) trek along the elf-path (not to mention the horns blowing in the distance), Peter does a fine job with the spiders (he likes his monsters). He even includes the little detail about Bilbo being able to understand the spiders, which I thought was a nice touch.
But instead of treating the audience to three dwarf-intrusions into Wood elf forest glade parties, we just get to see Legolas and the lads (and lass) save the day by slaughtering spiders right and left. So, okay, we’ve lost more details and sort of replaced them with a little bit of elf archery.
Then we proceed on to the dwarves’ incarceration. We don’t see much of Bilbo’s skulking about Thranduil’s halls nor of his communication with Thorin and the boys; instead, Thranduil interrogates Thorin, insults him, and tosses everyone in jail where Tauriel promptly becomes intrigued by the gregarious Kili. But before that little nuance can go anywhere Bilbo trots the dwarves down to the wine cellar and tosses them all into the river.
So far we’ve LOST many details from the book. What ensues next is a madcap chase down the river (completely unlike the book story). I guess it eats up a lot of screen time. Logistically the orc attack on the escaping dwarves keeps Azog in the storyline. Of course, we are treated to seeing Gandalf and Radagast (I love the Rhosgobel rabbits!) investigate Dol Guldur (which is not in the book, completely contrary to what is written in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings, and one of the most confusing things in the whole movie).
So Gandalf and Radagast confront Sauron and finally confirm for movie audiences that, yes, Sauron doesn’t just look like a giant eye — he embeds a shadowy remnant of his Second Age armored body in the eye as its pupil. So very cool. I actually like that shot but it was rather gratuitous. I think the whole Dol Guldur sequence should be counted as padding along with the river chase. I’m not so sure about the Kili-Tauriel chat in the dungeon, though, because that was — well, it was different.
Somewhere we meet Bard. Technically the meeting with Bard is a complete fabrication, differing completely from what is in the book, and I don’t see the sense of it. But Bard the shifty smuggler (in the book he is a captain of archers in the City Guard) can be easily bought so that he smuggles the dwarves into Lake-town, thus cleverly avoiding orcs, elves, and curious gate-wardens. This is all different from the book but is it padding?
The problem with labeling everything as padding is that if it’s just replacing or condensing many of the details of the book then we’re not really being fed MORE information just to make the movie longer.
Of course, the scene in Bree with Gandalf and Thorin is not to be found in The Hobbit but a similar scene is provided in The Lord of the Rings. The only real change made is to add the hints about Thorin being hunted (are those guys half-orcs?). I don’t see this as padding so much as necessary exposition. It’s a pity Tolkien didn’t think to write this scene for the book.
The whole Lake-town sequence (in the movie) is bizarre. I don’t understand the point of a lot of the sneaking around. I suppose we’ll see some real drama and tension between Bard and the Master of Lake-town in the third movie and that will build upon what we saw in “Desolation of Smaug”. If that’s the case then I’ll venture the guess that Peter felt the tension between the two characters in the book was too brief and weak to make the transition to film.
But with orcs, elves, dwarves, and the Master’s spies all sneaking around Lake-town I really felt like we had left The Hobbit behind and entered the world of “Dungeons and Dragons” or something. The history lesson tied this sequence of scenes to the first movie’s historical flashback scenes, so there is some continuity there. And the exposition actually makes a little more sense in the movie than in the book (because Tolkien just glossed right over it).
I don’t think the whole Lake-town sequence counts as padding because it completely rewrites the book version AND ties together a few sub-plot points (the history behind the quest, the connection between Bard and Girion, and it brings Tauriel back together with the Morgul-wounded Kili, who is inexplicably “fading fast”).
You must have a Lake-town sequence. The way Peter tells the story reminds me of “The Life of Pi”. You can have Tolkien’s version, where the dwarves are received warmly and they heal and then move along, or you can have Peter Jackson’s version, where all manner of intrigues come together in James Bondian fashion. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense but at least the people who complained about Peter’s superbly-done “Unexpected Party” sequence in the first movie didn’t have to suffer through more banquets and speeches (as in the book).
Getting to the mountain takes virtually no screen time, whereas in the book Tolkien describes the journey succinctly and even provides a conversation between Bilbo and the men from Lake-town.
Once they reach the mountain, Tolkien takes Bilbo and the dwarves all over the place. They have multiple conversations, do lots of boring stuff, and eventually end up on the “doorstep” and have to wait for the old thrush to crack his snails. In the movie it’s “Wham!” “BAM!” “Thorin, get upset and leave!” and then POOF! Bilbo finds the keyhole. I was disappointed.
Not done with eliminating numerous details from the book, Peter then throws Bilbo down the tunnel to confront Smaug. Now this was the scene I was most anticipating. Tolkien included some great dialogue in the book and made Smaug look like a mighty powerful dragon.
Peter’s dragonistic farce commences after Smaug wakes up fully. Sure, Smaug is way cooler than any movie dragon I have ever seen up until now, but all that wonderful characterization is destroyed by the endless chase scene where Smaug — who had destroyed the dwarves of Erebor and the men of Dale 200 years before — can barely wander around the mountain, spouting inane threats.
Here be padding.
The movie’s end really doesn’t make any sense. Failing to hurt the dwarves Smaug the Wimpy gets all huffy and decides he’ll go scorch Lake-town instead. In the book he seals the mountain and nearly kills the dwarves as they cower in the secret tunnel. While that may not have been the most dramatic scene in Peter’s opinion, I think it would have worked better if he had gone with the shorter conflict, had the tunnel cave in, and then forced the dwarves to walk down the tunnel. It would have been better to end the movie with them not knowing what happened to the dragon.
So, yes, there is padding in “The Hobbit”, both films so far, but frankly I just don’t see that much. Peter Jackson has once again managed to cut out a LOT of the detail that Tolkien provided, and he has once again reduced an important character (Bombadil in the first trilogy, Beorn in this one) to an audience complaint.
When people complain about “all the padding” that “stretches this story into three movies” I have to say that I shake my head. Now, if you want to complain about how Peter changed and shortened the story — I’ll agree with you on that.
See also:
- What Is the History of Dol Guldur?
- Why Did Thranduil Refuse to Help the Dwarves of Erebor?
- Is Tauriel in the Book, The Hobbit?
- Review of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”
- Why Does Tolkien’s World Lack Women?
- Why Is the Hobbit Movie So Different from the Book?
- How Does Galadriel Get to Rivendell in “The Hobbit”?
- Why Did Peter Jackson Change “The Hobbit”?
- How Faithful is Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” to Tolkien’s Book?
- Why Did Peter Jackson Change Azog from the Book?
- On Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” – Richard Armitage Defines Thorin Oakenshield
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
I might forgive PJ just about anything if only he had not presented Radagast as a crap-faced comedy prop. Saruman’s conceited nature should have been countered with a sober and wise Radagast, exposing Saruman’s poor judgment.
I would have to disagree with you on that because Radagast in the Unfinished Tales and LOTR is referred to by Saruman as a fool, and as being used by Saruman for his evil purposes. Radagast also became more enamoured by the plants and animals than helping the peoples of Middle Earth (yes I know the argument can be made for Yavannah sending him over to Middle Earth to watch over nature, but I believe all the Istari were supposed to watch over the peoples of Middle Earth not primarily the nature), so that would make it seem like he was more of a foolish Istari (if there can be foolish Isari.) And I think based on the little amount of description Tolkien gave of Radagast, I think the movies accurately portrayed him for the most part.
Great in debth analysis of the second movie, Michael! I agree with all points. Even with your soft spot for Radagast and his rabbits. The first movie was almost perfect, IMO (even, if I could’ve done without some of the amusement park ride scenes in the goblin caves), culminating in a chilling and heartbreaking encounter with Gollum. I had high hopes for the second movie. Especially I was looking forward to Bilbo’s dialog with Smaug, which is simply brilliant in the book. The casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug, was a stroke of genius, which raised my expectation even higher. But alas, this encounter disappointed me most of all. Somehow Tolkien’s brilliant dialog doesn’t take off. It’s not really the fault of the actors or the special effect guys, who created a magnificent dragon, it’s more a matter of direction and timing. And you’re right. The endless chase makes Smaug literally smaller. Unfortunately, the 3D effects don’t help matters. They often make things look smaller from some perspectives.The Jabberwocky from ‘Alice’ is equally disappointing for that reason.
The big question for me is, how could Peter Jackson go so wrong, when he did so many things right in the first movie? Have the harsh reviews he received for the first part, played a role in this? Maybe, but most of the material was filmed before the first movie came out, so that cannot be the whole story.It might’ve played a part, though, in a few regrettable editorial choices.
What are your thoughts re: Thranduil and Legolas? I thought Lee Pace’s Thranduil completely overshadowed Orlando’s Legolas; and I’ve got a hunch, that Peter Jackson invented a back story for Thranduil, which might stray dangerously close to the forbidden territory of the ‘Silmarillion’.
I won’t say anything about Desolation of Smaug (otherwise I would again fell into rage spilling 🙂 but if talking about padding in first movie, sequence in goblin town could have been shorter, the same with Stone Giants (while it’s good they were inserted, the whole action sequence is unbelievable and ruins the performance, come on all those insane stunts and nobody gets hurt, clearly PJ took over the top scenes up to eleven :):). The scene of falling many many meters down the hole to goblin tunnels is completely unnecessary, a simpler scene of capture would be much better. Good special effects are..good but those things we are given, gee I think he really should learn something about subtlety or at least know when to stop the implausible things to make a small nod to reality :).
Overall I think this suffers from the same problems as Jackson’s Two Towers – it’s a middle movie with no setup and no resolution, so Jackson stuffs it full of extraneous action sequences to compensate. In the same way as the Two Towers had a lot of very weird changes made to the book storyline, so does this one.
My major issue with this movie is not with the fact that stuff was added, but the fact that a LOT of material from the book was cut to make room for it. An extra 20 minutes in Mirkwood (which if done even halfway well could have been a very spooky and tense set-piece), for example, with the enchanted stream, the hunts, etc could have and should have been there instead of the 20 minutes of unnecessary slapstick at the end – not the other way around.
This is an interesting post, but I still disagree with a good deal of it. I think it has been edited intentionally to hold the interest of the average filmgoer, and frankly I love just about everything about it. I also enjoyed AUJ, but I think a lot of the flaws in the former film were rectified here. I am almost positive we will see considerably more of Mirkwood and Beorn in the Extended Edition DVD’s – and PJ himself has said it is the EE’s that are considered the “authoritative” version of the films. For example, in the theatrical version of *ROTK,* Frodo and Sam enter Mordor and without much futher ado – wham! They are at Mt. Doom. The EE is a lot more detailed and tells the story much more coherently – and it’s also much more lengthy (but more satisfying, imho) than the theatrical version. I do think the orc chases generally make sense; for example, in the book, Beorn patrols outside his house to guard against threats to the company, as I recall. I love Beorn and think he will be given due time onscreen in the EE, just as I understand that there was considerable material shot for the Mirkwood sequences that wasn’t used in the theatrical version. And Smaug – don’t diss Smaug! I have seen the movie four times, and every time I have left the theatre shaking after the encounter with Smaug – particularly the one-on-one between Bilbo and the dragon. He is as awesome as he was rumoured to be, and I cannot credit PJ, Cumberbatch and Freeman enough for the achievement. I do think that the confrontation – and showing Smaug’s frustration and rage because he is unable in the short term to destroy the dwarves and Bilbo, gives a plausible rationale for why he would head off in a blind rage to destroy Laketown. I just like the way they choose to show that developing over the way it’s done in the book – having the dragon munching on the ponies, etc. etc. Also, ending it suddenly with black screen makes a stunning impact, which is just capped off by Ed Sheeran’s remarkable end titles song. I think the lavish production is a natural consequence of *The Hobbit* coming after PJ’s *LOTR.* In other words, he has people’s expectations to meet. In a way, I think something similar would have happened to the book if Tolkien had happened to write it after *LOTR.* People would have expected him to provide more detail, and in addition, he would have had many details already worked out in his head which he did not when the book was originally published – like the name of the king of the Mirkwood Elves, and the fact that he had a son named Legolas. And, yes, I think it likely that if he had had it to do over again, he probably would have included a significant female character or two. 🙂 BTW, the fact that he would likely have significantly revised the book is evidenced by the revised Chapter 5, “Riddles in the Dark,” which replaced the original version – in which Gollum *gave* the Ring to Bilbo for winning the riddle game. His revision made Gollum a far more menacing, darker character than in the original version.
Tolkien would have changed his story simply to add a ‘strong female character’? You realize this is the standard line so deservedly parodied and mocked?
Sure why not add romance? Slapstick? A strong female lead because hey, The Hobbit was not complete without it. Perhaps he would have been sure to change the setting to be more inclusive and diverse, maybe a gaia worshiping heroine?
MODERATOR’S NOTE: This comment has been edited to comply with Xenite.Org’s Posting Policy.
I think it’s odd that the duel between Gandalf and Sauron should be considered padding, even though it is a major scene in the movie’s storyline of Gandalf’s adventure after he leaves Thorin’s company. It is a scene that these movies have been building up to from the moment Radagast was introduced in AUJ. It finally reveals who or what the necromancer is, adds to the dramatic complication, raises the stakes, takes the story to a different direction and sets up what is to come in the third movie.
On the other hand scenes like company’s encounter with trolls and spiders don’t get criticized as padding although in the book, these are isolated events that have little to do with the rest of the story.
I completely agree- great job! Personally, I was most dissapointed with the whole smaug chase scene. Really, in the books, the dwarfs are kinda wimpy (and I have a lot to back that up, so dont get mad at me for saying that. I love the dwarfs wimpy or not!!)until the battle of five armies- but in the movie it was way different.
Dwarves wimpy..naaah they can ,,fight fiercely when cornered” or something like that it is clearly stated in book, fiercely fighting the trolls but of course they are captured, Thorin was badass enough to charge alone on the three of those creatures (the quote may not accurate) but they are not all professional warriors (only some of them have experience in battle), they are exiles ,,facing the scorn of men” vagabonds and not the noble, altrusitic heroes (not yet anyway, they fell low but hey are still Durin’s folk and have their values) they fight for survival in harsh cruel world so they think about themselves first and their profit. They complain for such is their nature, previous life in poverty and then short reprieval of better fate in Blue Mountains made them a little more spoiled so to speak. Also the quest is suppose to be based on stealth and secrcy not strength of arms, so they have little weapons (they are mostly craftsmen and merchants so they took tools for example just in case but loose this baggage to orc robbers and get new ones in Lake-town :). Only part of dwarves are directly related to line of Durin others are well dwarven commoners, but even members of royal and noble dwarven houses were forced to work, even mine coal like lowly workers. This info is all from books The Hobbit and appendices. The movie acknowledges this in part Thorin’s company are ,,not the best nor brightest” dwarves (and then it proceeds to contradict itself showing an overwhelming great prowess in battle). Even in book dwarves put up fight in Goblin Town Thorin and Gandalf kill many orcs (later they are ambushed by stealthy orcs outrunning them in tunnels and dwarves fight them in complete darkness) then they are fighting very well against giant spiders (even though weakened by effects of paralyzing venom of descendants from the brood of Shelob, fun fact: the orcs have their elixirs to take care of that like the one given to Frodo after they put him in Cirith Ungol hahaha, it’s this invigorating orc-draught which Merry and Pippin are given to restore their strength and vitality :). It’s far from wimpy when the business becomes serious they can manage 🙂 so their amazign performance in Battle of Five Armies when Thorin’s charisma allows him to gain temporay command over forces of elves, dwarves of Dain and men of Esgaroth during his glorious charge at the enemy forces. In this battle even silly goblins/orcs singing songs turn into real deal making wise moves on the battlefield (securing flanks, helding reserves, this Bolg really knew how to wage battle not to mention he had troops of fiercely loyal personal guard of elite orc warriors as badass as Bolg himself in the core, also Wargs as independent intelligent, participants were obeying his commands :). Thorin also shows he can be witty and cunning in book and is a good archer, despite his anger and pride issues he can maintain cool head at times of danger and think clearly, showing real skills of a leader. Hobbit might be considered a children’s book but it has unusually lots of grim elements and serious matters :).
To be precise, some of the dwarves during trolls encounter ,,fought like mad when cornered” because some where captured by complete surprise because you know they DIDN”T know who is there and trolls are smart enough to make an ambush :). Thorin of course doesn’t get himself captured and fights well against them using only a burning branch 🙂 until he gets caught too.
I will not see the second movie until it is free on cable. The first one should have had Chuck Jones film it the movie was that much of a cartoon.
Two movies could have been made a Hobbit and a White Council war on Dol Goldur. None of the cartoon junk was needed or wanted.
I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that Tolkien “glosses over” Bilbo’s journey from the Shire to his encounter with the Trolls compared to Frodo’s much more lengthy and detailed journey to get to the same geographic location. You’re comparing apples to oranges. The REASON Frodo made the much longer journey is because he was trying to keep his leaving the Shire a secret for as long as possible and he was trying to avoid the Ringwraiths who were pursuing him. That is why he avoided using the main roads. Bilbo and company didn’t have these issues. They just had an ordinary, uneventful “pony ride” up until the weather turned nasty and they encountered the trolls. I’m sure if Frodo hadn’t been carrying the One Ring and hadn’t had to hide from every Tom, Dick and Harry, he would have taken the main roads and his journey probably would have started out as uneventful as Bilbo’s. I think it just goes to show what a much more dangerous place Middle Earth has become between the time of Bilbo and that of Frodo owing to the fact that Sauron has sensed The Ring has been found and has put his plans in motion.
Well we get brief descrption that at first they travelled through lands of hobbits with good roads then another where people spoke strangely with an inn or two and farmer or dwarf going for his own business (so first Shire then Bree-land adn it’s surroundings, possibly passing by Forsaken Inn day ride east of Bree, all the time going by the ancient dwarven-made Great East Road) then they venture into land of hills with dark ruins of castles and forts ,,wicked looking” ones (former Rhudaur) and passing the Last Bridge (though some say there’s a small inconsistensy about the distance to troll camp from the river Mitheithel/the Hoarwell) so it’s highly connected I would say that Tolkien developped more the lands at this first stage after The Hobbit. Also it is brilliantly remarked that about peaceful uneventful period of time there’s not much to tell and only those horrible situations are worth the longer tale, so first stages of journey were uneventful simply because they followed the road Frodo was country-crossing :).
If ‘The Hobbit’ book had been written in the same sort of voice as ‘The Lord Of The Rings’, with the same level of detail and characterisation, then it would have been almost as long as that book. Hence both can be turned into movie trilogies.
The Hobbit movies aren’t padded, they just ‘show’ where the book often ‘told’. And yes, they still shrink the story, necessarily.
I missed the part in the hobbit where Radagast was a stoner with hygine problems, the chase by the _dead_ Azog, the Wile E Coyote freefall through goblin town. The whole movie was special effects looking for a story.
Del Toro would have made something magical. Jackson gave us the worst thing he could, “Peter Jackson’s Hobbit”
I honestly, I think that the drive to make a book like The Hobbit into an epic is what ultimately caused its downfall. Two movies I can understand because the world of Tolkien is vast and showing such a world is much different than telling, but there’s really no substance in between all of the orc fights or action sequences.
Beorn, Thranduil, even Laketown all just seemed like temporary stopping points instead of interesting and character driven narratives. How can your movie be almost 3 hours long and not include the most popular scenes from the story?
To me it just seems like, in an effort to keep with the serious tone of LotR, PJ and co. had to sacrifice the true messages and fun that’s sprinkled into the book. I mean, no matter what people say, it’s a children’s book and an introduction to the world of Tolkien, when sacrifice the nature of the book, you’re going to run into problems.
I just watched TH:DOS for the first time. Empty theater except for me, so I had no outside influences. Yes, there was a lot of padding, but some of it also provided for some backstory. The part with Gandalf and Dol Guldur will allow for the orcs/goblins and wargs to show up at Erebor in part 3. Of course, I really don’t think the eagles are going to rescue Gandalf. I certainly missed the stream of forgetfulness, the elven forest feasts, but I liked Bilbo popping out on top of the forest canopy with all the butterflies. Maybe the sequences with the spiders were a little more difficult to create which forced PJ to shorten them, but maybe they’re also on the cutting room floor. I did get a little tired of Azog and/or Bolg (and horde) being everywhere at a moments notice. Maybe they hitched rides with the eagles. I actually enjoyed the movie because although I’m a Tolkien fanatic, I have never allowed myself to demand or expect any movie adaptation of any novel (much less anything Middle-earth) to follow the book storyline. Two different mediums, so two different approaches. Except for the bird’s nest scene, Radagast was adequate in this one. I wasn’t sure I was going like Tauriel, but she played the part with such enthusiasm that I found myself caring about her and Kili. And although I saw more than just passing interest between the two, I never saw any serious romance (like Aragorn and Arwen or even Sam and Rosie. (btw, there are 14 mentions of women/females/girls in the book ‘The Hobbit’). I also understand that PJ and the studios also have to cater to much a wider audience than 14 year old fan boys who seem to fill the message boards. I also considered the glow of Tauriel to be more Kili’s view of her than any ‘Light of Valinor’. Even if PJ doesn’t know the difference between a Sindarin, a Silven and Noldor elf. I did think that all the ‘villains’ way to easily figured out Thorin’s plan and didn’t just completely laugh it off and immediately forget about it. 13 dwarves retaking a dragon’s lair? When a whole complete army of dwarves couldn’t keep him out? Really? But I also really liked Thranduil’s portrayal. All these ‘kings’ are greedy in one way or another, aren’t they? Except for Bard not being in the local militia, I liked his portrayal. Finally, in the book, I did think that keeping the dwarves penned up in the closed barrels for as long as they did was stretching things. I like how PJ changed it around but still allowed the barrel bit to work, and then tie Bard in. I enjoyed the movie and am looking forward to seeing it again on HBO and next winter, Part 3.
I have to say I have enjoyed both movies immensely. But at the same time just as with LOTR there are parts which really bothered me, for the most part because they were not the way I envisioned them (except destroying the Witch King- Gandalf showdown, which was simply unforgivable) but I don’t really see a lot of padding. For me, they key to understanding these movies comes from the scene between Gandalf and Bilbo at Bag-End. Gandalf tells the story of Bullroarer Took winning the battle and inventing golf at the same time. Bilbo says ‘did you make that up?’ and Gandalf says- ‘All good stories deserve embellishment.’ But I think what Jackson has mostly done is reverse embellish to fit the grand scale of the previous movies. After seeing Rivendell in LOTR, you can’t go back to the tra-la-la elves of the Hobbit. Truthfully, the only thing that’s really bothered me so far (apart from thinking- ‘Wait- he’s the Doctor’-everytime I see Radagast, is Gandalf vanquished and captured at the end of DOS. I would have liked to have seen a flashback of his trials in Dol Guldur, meeting the dwarf and getting the map, which would set up the showdown between Sauron and the White Counsel. I fear now it will become more of a rescue mission of some sort, though I don’t know how they will include Christopher Lee since he’s 91 years old and was shot completely in green screen in the first movie.
I will agree with you Michael that the confrontation with Smaug went on too long and was a touch silly. However, we will disagree that Smaug is wimpy. Thorin standing up to Smaug is much more dramatically intriguing on a filmmaking level. Ask yourself this, would Thorin in the LOTR appendices cower in the tunnel the way he does the hobbit ? Are we to believe that he is the King Under The Mountain when he and the dwarves do nothing to help Bilbo out and just runs away from the dragon that killed his people?
In regards to the Mirkwood scenes, I thought Jackson did a great job with that. I am kind of glad we didn’t spend so much time in Mirkwood, how much time is really necessary? The inclusion of Legolas fighting the spiders was done to give the film a sense of urgency. You may not like the inclusion of Legolas fighting but it’s about the same as what he does in the Rings trilogy. Legolas being the prince of the kingdom makes it more reasonable that he would have a larger role to play.
As for Beorn, I don’t think the scene was too brief, I think their stay there had to be trimmed for running time purposes as much of the criticism of the first film came from the fact that it was way too long, at least I think so. His role will be prominent in the third film.
The Lake Town scenes make sense. It makes more sense to flesh out the politics and dramatize more. The sneaking around is obviously intended because they don’t want to be seen by other people. The reason why Thorin promises to share the gold is because he wants them to let him go to the mountain, plain and simple. Bard’s conflict with the Master of Laketown is not fully fleshed out yet because the focus is getting to the dragon. Further showing the politics of that would be more distracting.
As of now, Gandalf’s visit to Dol Guldur does not contradict what tolkien wrote because Tolkien never said that Gandalf didn’t go there a third time. All we know is that the white council drives out Sauron but Jackson is dramatizing it.
You don’t have to like the film but I am not sure that saying the film is a piece of crap because it did not do what you wanted it do is very valid. I have my own quibbles with the film but I know that it is an adaptation. I think much of your complaints can be answered when you see the extended cut of the film. So while I won’t urge you to change your option, I do encourage that you give the film a second chance.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/12/13/how-faithful-are-the-hobbit-films-to-tolkiens-books/
I also suggest checking out Corey Olsen’s take on the new film.