It was understandable that there was incredible dissatisfaction when The Hobbit trilogy came out in theaters, since a book of approximately 300 pages is not enough to fill 8 hours of movie. The list of differences is very extensive and there are already videos on Youtube explaining them, but I want to focus on the most important and easy to understand differences. You may notice that, more than anything else, they are scenes/characters added by the director to fill in those gaps.
The first difference is that Azog, the evil goblin, is actually mentioned only once in the book, when we are told that he killed Thorin's grandfather, and it turns out that he died long before the events of The Hobbit. The director decided to make him one of the main villains in the trilogy, so that adds all some chase and action scenes that we don't see in the book.
.
The White Council scenes, with Saruman and Galadriel do not occur in the book, but it was nice to see them after The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Also the whole Dol Guldur act had already happened before the story of The Hobbit began, as it was in those dungeons that Gandalf met Thain, Thorin's father, who gave him the map and the key, an event that happens differently in the movie.
Radagast, the brown wizard, is one of the five wizards of Middle-earth and that's all we know from how briefly J.R.R Tolkien mentions him to us. The whole aspect of his eccentric personality and his constant role in the first installment The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, was the director's invention, where he even helps the main characters escape from a group of goblins.
We will witness in The Desolation of Smaug and The Battle of the Five Armies the reappearance of Legolas, our favorite elf, who really only had an inconsequential mention in the book.
Unlike this one, who did exist in Middle-earth, in The Hobbit movie we see a totally new character, since she doesn't even appear in *The Lord of the Rings, and that is Tauriel, giving the trilogy a strong and shrewd female character. Needless to say, if Tauriel does not exist in the book, much less her romance with the dwarf Kili.
The director developed Bard as a character, giving him a whole story and context behind, which I felt was very necessary and made more sense than his simple appearance to slay Smaug, the dragon, as it was in the book.
Bilbo Baggins is one of my favorite characters of this classic, so I thought it was important how he was transferred to the big screen, because there were some things that detracted from his importance. For example, in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, he receives his dagger Sting by Gandalf, after having found it in the troll cave; instead, in the book, Bilbo himself found and chose this particular dagger.
One of the great displays of bravery by this character that they omitted from the movie happens in the spider scenes. Instead of fending them off with his dagger, as we could see, Bilbo actually throws simple rocks at them and sings songs to enrage them; to me, it has much more value and meaning that he defended and rescued the dwarves with simple rocks as weapons (although he did use Sting, finally naming her).
Don't get me wrong, Smaug's appearance is one of my favorite scenes in the entire trilogy and I would give anything to see it in the cinema, but I feel it lost a bit of power by not explaining to the audience all the context behind it. In the book, we are explained that dragons love riddles, as they are creatures that have lived too long and there are few things that don't bore them. Every word Bilbo says in this scene has a good reason and he calls himself the "luck-wearer" and "barrel-rider", so that Smaug wastes his time trying to figure out what he means.
When we watch the movie without knowing this, we don't realize that every word Bilbo chooses is like a well thought out chess move, so that Smaug doesn't find out where or with whom he is coming from, as he might direct his fury towards the dwarves or the people of Laketown. In this scene it would seem that Bilbo survived only by luck, taking the credit away from one of the bravest characters in The Hobbit.
S P A N I S H
Fue entendible que existiera un increíble descontento cuando salió en cines la trilogía de El Hobbit, puesto que un libro de aproximadamente 300 páginas no es suficiente para llenar 8 horas de película. La lista de diferencias es muy extensa y ya existen videos en Youtube bastante explicativos sobre la misma, pero yo quiero enfocarme en las diferencias más importantes y fáciles de comprender. Podrán notar que, más que todo, son escenas/personajes agregados por el director para rellenar esos huecos.
La primera diferencia es que Azog, el goblin malvado, en realidad, es mencionado solo una vez en el libro, cuando nos cuentan que mató al abuelo de Thorin y resulta que murió mucho tiempo antes de los eventos de El Hobbit. El director decidió volverlo uno de los principales villanos en la trilogía, así que eso le agrega todas unas escenas de persecución y acción que no vemos en el libro.
.
Las escenas del Concejo Blanco, con Saruman y Galadriel no ocurren en el libro, pero fue agradable verlos después de la trilogía de El Señor de los Anillos. También todo el acto de Dol Guldur ya había sucedido antes de comenzar la historia de El Hobbit, pues en esos calabozos fue en donde Gandalf encontró a Thain, el padre de Thorin, quien le dio el mapa y la llave, suceso que ocurre de manera distinta en la película.
Radagast, el hechicero marrón, es uno de los cinco hechiceros de la Tierra Media y eso es todo lo que sabemos por lo breve que nos los menciona J.R.R Tolkien. Todo el aspecto de su personalidad excéntrica y su rol constante en la primera entrega El Hobbit: Un Viaje Inesperado, fue invención del director, donde incluso ayuda a los personajes principales a escapar de un grupo de goblins.
Seremos testigos en La desolación de Smaug y La Batalla de los Cinco Ejércitos de la reaparición de Legolas, nuestro elfo favorito, quien realmente solo tuvo una mención sin relevancia en el libro
Al contrario de este, que sí existió en la Tierra Media, en la película de El Hobbit vemos a un personaje totalmente nuevo, puesto que ni aparece en *El Señor de los Anillos, y es Tauriel, otorgándole a la trilogía un personaje femenino fuerte y sagaz. Está demás decir que, si Tauriel no existe en el libro, mucho menos su romance con el enano Kili.
El director desarrolló a Bard como personaje, dándole todo una historia y contexto detrás, cosa que sentí muy necesaria y con más sentido que su simple aparición para asesinar a Smaug, el dragón, como lo fue en el libro.
Bilbo Baggins es uno de mis personajes favoritos de este clásico, por ello me pareció importante el cómo lo trasladaron a la gran pantalla, pues hubieron algunas cosas que le restaron su importancia. Por ejemplo, en El Hobbit: Un Viaje Inesperado, recibe su daga Sting por Gandalf, después de haberla encontrado en la cueva de los trolls; en cambio, en el libro, el propio Bilbo encontró y eligió esta daga en particular.
Una de las grandes muestras de valentía de este personaje que omitieron en la película sucede en la escenas de las arañas. En vez de valerse con su daga, como pudimos ver, Bilbo en realidad les tira simples piedras y canta canciones para enfurecerlas; para mí, tiene mucho más valor y significado que haya defendido y rescatado a los enanos con simples rocas como armas (aunque sí utilizó a Sting, nombrandola finalmente)
No me malinterpreten, la aparición de Smaug es una de mis escenas favoritas de toda la trilogía y daría lo que fuera por verla en el cine, pero siento que perdió un poco de poder al no explicarle a la audiencia todo el contexto detrás. En el libro, nos explican que los dragones aman los acertijos, pues son criaturas que han vivido demasiado tiempo y son pocas las cosas que no les aburren. Cada palabra que dice Bilbo en esta escena tiene una buena razón y se hace llamar el "portador de la suerte" y "barrel-rider", para que Smaug pierda el tiempo tratando de averiguar a qué se refiere.
Cuando vemos la película sin conocer esto, no nos damos cuenta de que cada palabra que elige Bilbo es como un movimiento de ajedrez bien pensado, para que Smaug no descubra de dónde ni con quién viene, pues podría dirigir su furia hacia los enanos o la gente de Laketown. En esta escena pareciera que Bilbo sobrevivió solo por suerte, quitando el crédito a uno de los personajes más valientes de El Hobbit.
F u e n t e s / S o u r c e s
Todos los gifs fueron tomados por mí
All gifs were taken by me
Images
As a LOTR Fan, thanks for the nice analysis. I am thinking to start reading "Dragonlance" series, have you read them already? If so,what is your idea about these series?
I hadn't heard of that saga, tbh but from what I could read on goodreads it has good reviews. I'll take a look at the first book. Thanks for your comment and recommendation!
I like to read and especially historical novels like ancient egypt and I like fantasy. I have also just ordered them. But I guess there are better series out there like Wheel of Time, or books of Brandon Sanderson, and some which are not known too much. I check them from here as well, http://bestfantasybooks.com/top25-fantasy-books.php
The article you sent me is very useful, thank you very much!. I sometimes run out of titles to read, so I can always use suggestions for fantasy books
You are welcome, yeah I have also clarified some series from there, and added to my queue. THE FIRST LAW series from JOE ABERCROMBIE is one of them for me, pls check as well. Are you watching The Witcher series as well?
I will check it out!
No, I haven't seen "The Witcher" yet, it doesn't really catch my attention, have you watched it, what's your opinion about it?
Among the fantasy series in production, it so far the best. Far fat better than for eg, wheel of Time. I strongly recommend it, 1st season first 3 episodes would be confusing but on 4th episode, you will understand everything crystal clear. Go for it, you won't regret.
Yes, there is a different fantasy world in the screen of the cinema.
I grew up watching the films and reading the books of The Lord of the Rings simultaneously. I think it is good to still talk about the films and the books together. This is especially true that another of my favorite fantasy worlds has now come to the screen in the form of a show on Amazon Prime Video. That one is The Wheel of Time and it is the second most important fantasy world to me.
Talking about LOTR will never go out of style, in my opinion. I did understand that a fantasy TV show by that name came out recently, but I didn't know it was based on some books. Did you like the adaptation? Thanks for ur comment, btw<3
I am a long time fan of The Wheel of Time books, and I had read them many years before the TV show was made. I read them in high school and afterwards. Consequently, it is hard for me to say very much about the TV show. The Wheel of Time show has pretty good casting; in general the characters feel very much like the people from the books.
I am writing more about it. I will post it here on Hive soon, but I think I will post in the the Books community.
It's difficult for us readers to separate the book and the adaptation, especially when it comes to our expectations. I hope you publish the post soon to read it and know more about this saga!
Congratulations @galistea! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 200 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 200 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!