Who loves J.R.R. Tolkien? (Come on Middle Earth fans, raise your hands).
Now, who has read the Hobbit book? How about seen all three movies? How about even both? I can tell you that I have both read and seen The Hobbit, and can personally tell you that they are NOT the same (as expected). However, there were some things that I was pleased and disappointed in for both the book and the movie.
Firstly, the first movie versus the first part of the book. This movie, subtitled “An Unexpected Journey,” was one that I was very impressed with. It followed the book extremely well (better than most movies) and those scenes that were added in, they were extremely funny and/or transitioned into an important scene better than the book explained it. In fact, I was very impressed when they incorporated the line that both one of the dwarfs and Gandalf say (“Out of the frying pan…and into the fire”), which is the title of the chapter that has the scene in the book. I was also happy when the movie makers also put in one of my favorite parts (the song) in the movie, and the scenes were very accurately dramatized. Although I hate the part of adding Orcs in (there are no Orcs in the book), it really accurately leads up to Lord of the Rings, which is what it’s supposed to do. However, Gladriel is not supposed to be the movie. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings books, but they were published the other way around. Tolkien also grew up in an all boys school, so he never was really around girls, and thusly never put them into his earlier stories. However, Gladriel does open up a scene in a later movie, so I’ll appreciate that. Also, in the book, the dwarfs seemed like they were parading around, so I’m glad that the movie makers changed it to the dwarves acting more secretive.
Next, second part of book versus the second movie, subtitled “Desolation of Smaug.” Many of the scenes do actually happen, although I greatly dislike the whole Kili and lady elf romance thing. First of all, there are no ladies in the book, and second of all, it wasn’t going to last because Kili dies at the end of the book. Also, the whole Gandalf going to the castle was made up, but it does make a lot of sense, explaining where Gandalf went and who was the so called Necromancer whose named popped up sometimes in the book. In the book, Gandalf just randomly says that he’s leaving, while in the movie, he’s actually got a purpose (although rumor says that the whole story of Gandalf going to the Necromancer’s place is actually a side short story that Tolkien just never published, along with some other fillers in the movies). But I also feel that some scenes were too overdrawn, such as Kili getting shoot with a poison arrow, and Legolas liking someone ( he also doesn’t show up in the book).
And finally, the third part of the book versus the third movie, subtitled “The Battle of the Five Armies.” Spoilers for those who haven’t watched it! Personally, after I watched the second movie, I was wondering how the movie makers were going to do a hundred pages in a two and a half hour movie, but it seems like they did. I’ll start with the things I liked. I liked how they really emphasized the dragon’s curse: greed. Especially with Thorin, who definitely has it in the book. Next, in the book, they just suddenly introduce Bard, and five pages later, he kills the dragon, whereas in the movie, they introduce Bard, and you get to like him, and then he kills the dragon, so I like the movie better. Also, the chapter in the book where Bard kills Smaug is titled “Fire and Ice”, but I didn’t get why it was called that until I saw the movie, where Smaug is raging fire over Laketown, which is in the middle of winter and has ice caps in the rivers. Also, I liked how they introduced Gladriel’s real side, because I never knew that about her (in case you guys are wondering, Gladriel’s usual look is magic; her real side is shown in the third movie, and she looks scary). Finally, I liked that they used The Hobbit end scene with the Hobbits taking his stuff very well, and I also like how the battle was done, which is more explained in what I dislike.
Now for what I dislike: Although I like how they lengthened the battle and showed how the main characters who died in the book die (unlike the book, which gives the whole battle scene less than five whole pages), I dislike how they overextended it! The killing of Smaug only took twenty minutes, even though it was a whole chapter, whereas a five page battle scene took over an hour. Also, why did the orcs and trolls take two whole armies?! In the book, the five armies are the humans, elves, dwarfs, then on the other side, wargals and goblins. Although I liked it better as a battle for the strategic placeholder (movie) then as a chasing after hobbits for invaded our territory (book), I want the five armies to stay the same, or at least bring back the goblins that you introduced in the first movie! Additionally on the too drawn out, we get it, it was a battle, at least SHORTEN IT! And finally, there is great part in the first movie where Nori and some other dwarfs bury treasure from the trolls in order to get it back later. This happens in the book, and in the end of the book, Bilbo and Gandalf do get back. I wish that they put that in the movie, maybe even by cutting down some battle time!
But anyways, if you’ve watched the movie and haven’t read the book, or vice versa, please do!
-Megan V., grade 9