The Hobbit Stinks!! Part 3

Now that I've gotten all that nostalgia off of my chest...

I have to be straight with you, when we got out of the theater and everyone in my party was gushing over the movie and saying, "I can't think of anything they did wrong." 

I was thinking, "Welll...I can think of like five things." But I didn't say anything cuz that would be a JERK thing to do...

Just like those guys in the back of the theater who were bashing Legolas and talking about how stupid the dwarves were RIGHT BEFORE THE FRIKIN' MOVIE!

------------------

If you haven't seen the movie, this post will probably not make any sense to you. And even if you have seen it, there's no guarantee that my command of the english language will be decipherable.

But just in case: Be advised, this post contains spoilers for The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies.

This post is the third and last in a series exploring why the movies in The Hobbit Franchise Stink.

Here is part one (I also explain what it means for a movie to stink in this post, it's not always a bad thing)

Here is part two 

Here is Part Three:

Changes That Didn't Stink (as bad)

• Attack on Dol Guldur 

I'd been waiting for this scene ever since I found out they were expanding The Hobbit's plot beyond Bilbo's POV. Gandalf tells Bilbo about how he and the rest of the White Council stormed the Necromancer's lair and drove him out of Mirkwood. A bunch of magic people casting out a dark sourceror sounds preety cool, it's even cooler when the Necromancer is actually a disguised Sauron and the "Magic People" are all your favorite mentor-characters from LOTR

IT FINALLY HAPPENS!!! and it did not disappoint. In LOTR, you feel like you're seeing them waining, here you get to see them fight in their hay-day.

(they should do this more often)

My only gripe is: the scene was over pretty fast. :(

• Thranduil

This one is mixed for me. Thranduil in the movies is a very different type of person than he is in the book. Its as if they took a guy with the exact same tragic back story and had him deal with that trauma in a completely different way. 

Thranduil is a seriously damaged dude.

(And not just cuz of his face)

I was watching waiting for the moment when this character was going to get confronted with the magnitude of the destruction that's going on around him. (and kinda go "hey, maybe I should not be such a jerkface") A moment moves him to pity his destitute human neighbors, or recognize/regret his role in magnifying a political dispute.

That moment did not happen

(Don't even get your hopes up for a Thorin/Thranduil reconciliation...not going to happen...)

Thranduil has so many examples of good behavior around him. Bard, Bilbo, Gandalf, Tauriel, Legolas and he takes absolutely none of them to heart. 

I won't say he's heartless, but he might be the most cold-hearted primary character in these movies. When helps the people of Laketown, but makes it clear he's only doing this so he can get his monies. He has this moment during the battle where he stops and looks around at the loss of life around him, but wherase in the book takes into the account the loss of all life (goblins, dwarves, humans, elves) Thranduil is ONLY looking at his own people.

He has this great opportunity to tell his son that he loves him and he chooses not to. And the reconciliation arc between himself and Tauriel is very self-referential. He's talking about her heartbreak, but he's really talking about his own. 

In general, Thranduil is beyond empathy for anything that doesn't affect him personally. AND HE DOESN'T CHANGE.

Usually, this is the type of thing I would find completely irritating in a story, but in this case it made sense. Thranduil is (in a sense) dead on the inside. 

In a story that deals with issues like grief and loss, it's meaningful to have a character who is so irremediably damaged by them.

(On a side note: I really would have loved to see Thranduil finally getting his hands on those diamonds. I really would have loved to know if it was worth it to him.)

• Thorin

I was very close to putting this on the list of thinks that stink, but I think that (despite some inconsistencies and one pretty cheesy moment) it was meaningful.

In the movie, the gold sickness pretty much ONLY effects Thorin. And the manner in which it affects him resembles an episode of psychosis: complete with paranoia and hallucinations. 

The thing I don't like about this alteration is that it robs the story of a moral complexity. If you'd like to read more about moral complexity in The Hobbit, I'd like to suggest this post: In Defense of Bilbo Baggins

For Book!Thorin confronting the reality of a five-sided battle is what made him re-evalute his priories. 

(It's one thing to think, "OMGosh I hate those guys I wish they would all just die." and then sitting there, watching it happen.)

Movie!Thorin overcomes Gold Sickness by confronting his own feelings of guilt and inadequacy...by himself...in one scene. 

It sounds cheesy, and I thought it was at first too...

But in Tolkien's world, people become heroes by embracing humility, and the journey Thorin goes on in this version of the story embraces that morality. 

Even though he's a king and he's prideful and he's gained all of this wealth and power

He still sees himself as the guy who was reduced

 to fixing other people's stuff for a living.

 It's clear that Thorin's "pride" at the beginning of the movie is corrupt. It doesn't stem from self-confidence; it exists to cover up some really, really severe self-esteem issues. 

I think the most compelling personal journey in the series is when Thorin chooses to drop that facade. Thorin chooses a humility and, unlike the hobbit main characters in the story, it does not come naturally to him. But ultimately, it's a choice of self-acceptance and self-affirmation. 

There is a saying I read that goes: "True pride and true humility are exactly the same thing."

Subconsciously I think I've always realized this, but in recent years I've come to know that it's not a concept that a lot of people understand. For that reason, I'm very glad it was included in this movie.

If you'd like to read more about hubris: there's a pretty cool article from Aloha International.

• Killing the dragon-

It was over in like five minutes, but it was a super intense five minutes...not like they were trying to get it over with. The fact that they were able to reinforce a father/child trust relationship in the midst of all that was amazing.

• Romantic Subplot

People who are not fond of this romance will hate this movie. The story-arc pretty much follows their most negative expectations...

(It's a straight up love story. Not even a love triangle. Tauriel never loved Legolas I don't know why people kept thinking that she did, she seemed totally uncomfortable and weirded out when thranduil suggests it And Legolas discovers that his feelings for Tauriel because he identifies her with his mother.) 

As a person who never hated the idea of romance in this story, I was not at all offended. In fact I thought it was really meaningful. 

Remember that Hobbit Radio Drama from BBC I mentioned in my last post?

(No mormonhippie, I don't.) 

The radio drama introduces Rivendell as a community of elves with mixed-race heritage and introduces the king of Rivendell "Elrond Half-elven". 

Well, I automatically assumed that some of their ancestors were dwarves. So it wasn't hard for me to imagine a dwarf/elf relationship when I was first exposed to the story.

Nowhere in Tolkien's work is the possibility of such a union contradicted and the one time this elf chick's jealous elf-boyfriend says anything like "elves and mortals aren't supposed to get married except for, like, one or two times" (In The Children of Hurin)...Tolkien contradicts that by creating a whole other community of mortal half-elves (in Return of the King). This leads me to believe that inter-racial marriage in middle earth was fairly common, even though it probably wasn't talked about a whole lot. 

So, as a response to the question, "Why did they need an elf/dwarf romance??" 

 In a story that's about the importance of compromise, reconciling differences, and appreciating the beauty in other people I say:

"WHY THE HECK NOT??!?!?!"

Can't think of anything that could present these themes in a better way than an inter-racial romance. And although it didn't quite turn out the way I thought it would, it emphasized a sense of the sense of permanent personal loss that was absent in other aspects of the story.

*On a side note: 

Elrond, man...can you imagine what it would be like

 to watch your TWIN brother grow old and die 

while you stay young forever? #ugh #feels

I'm not saying these were improvements upon the book, because most of them are not. But I do understand why these alterations were made and I believe they were appropriate given the change from literary to cinematic format. 

And Now... 

The Things That Stink about "The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies"

• Music

I really didn't notice any new themes when  I watched he movie. I bought the soundtrack on CD to try and listen to it more closely...and the first CD sounds like relaxing background music.

 Kinda lame, especially when most of the movie is fight scenes and all they can play is 'LET'S ALL FREAKING FALL ASLEEP' music

I guess after 5 movies you run out of ideas.

Sad story: The second CD (the one with the credit's song that I really wanted to listen to) split in half before we could even take it out of the container.

 /Cry. 

Billy Boyd has a fantastic voice and the song that he sings during the credits is a lovely tribute to all the people who've spent their lives creating these movies. 

• Azog and Bolg, The Albino Goblins Who Magically Transformed Into Orcs...

They finally mention that these two guys are family (Legolas refers to Bolg as "the spawn of Azog" ) 

But that's about it.  The Book!Hobbit provided this excellent template for exploring the fact that goblins and orcs are people (I mean...corrupt evil people but still) . I think it would have been cool if Bolg's motivation were seeking revenge for the death of his dad (like in the book). But that road was not taken, and I'm disappointed.  

• Bilbo

In terms of acting, I think this movie might be the first time I looked at the character and saw Bilbo and not Martin Freeman (and that was mostly due to his interaction's with Thorin). It's unfortunate that, as far as characterization, Bilbo never succeeds on his own merits. 

 Like I have mentioned before, I don't think this is the actor's fault. The writers gutted Bilbo's personality and either deleted or redistributed everything that made him a unique and engaging character to character's like Tauriel or Legolas. 

His character arc began and finished in the first film, and quality of this series has suffered for it.

• The Battle

I'm not going to go into detail on this one; I'm just going to say that Professor Tolkien wrote out a very involved, dynamic, and compelling battle scene... that I would have LOVED to see on screen...and the filmmakers pretty much scrapped it. Also, it really stinks that Wargs aren't represented as one of the five armies, I liked the idea that wargs are sentient and have their own government and everything, but no...in the movies they're just cool looking horses. 

One thing I did like was that Bilbo was a bit more involved and didn't get knocked out until the end.  

• Pacing (I'm not talking about people walking back and forth, or that actor who plays Thranduil)

An adverse effect of stretching one small book into three big movies is that you have to fill the movies with fluff. (I wouldn't mind the fluff if they included the parts of the story with substance as well; unfortunately they don't) 

But there is another problem as well-

Do you remember this moment? 

(The Bilbo/Thorin hug?)

It's sweet

And awkward.

And says a lot about their relationship.

In the book, there is no single definite moment in which Bilbo "wins" Thorin's affection and friendship. Bilbo and Thorin don't emotionally get to the "Hug" stage until the final act. 

It's sweet

Because Bilbo has been hungering for acceptance and respect since day #1. He's no longer the dorky little brother who needs protecting, Thorin makes it clear that he's respected and valued as an equal.

It's awkward 

Because Bilbo is contemplating treachery. He's just spend this whole book building these relationships with these people and he's about to give it all up. 

It's gut-wrenching and ultimately tragic and it did not translate well to the movie because they built the Thorin/Bilbo relationship in one scene two movies ago.

• Alfrid Wormtongue (I don't care if that's not his real last name)

This character started out pretty interesting. He's an a bit of an inept opportunist; he's not evil, but he's not particularly noble or good. He's morally ambigous and, at the start, it makes him a breath of fresh air. 

Until his third fourth FIFTH vignette...Then you're just hoping he dies as soon as possible. 

• Good vs. Evil

This aspect of the story wouldn't have been so bad IF THE HOBBIT WERE IN FACT A STORY ABOUT GOOD and EVIL...

I'm very embarrassed that some fairly intelligent people (Like Peter Jackson, the three movie reviewers I read today, and millions of movie-viewers all over the world) think that this story is about good and evil

Guys....

The Lord of The Rings is a story about Good vs. Evil...

The Hobbit is a story about Right vs. Wrong

That may seem nitpicky, but it's an important distinction. None of the characters are confronting evil, they are confronting each other (and themselves).

Conclusion:

This movie would have been absolutely wonderful if it weren't for the book. The book, according to new line cinema, is a pesky juvenile fairytale novella that  just isn't worthy of the big screen...that is...until Peter Jackson came along and fixed it.

To be fair, Peter Jackson didn't want to do the job; and I have the feeling that, instead of resigning himself to it as an obligation...as something that he had to do...

he owned it... (a little too much so)

Like, 'If I'm going to do this job, I'm going to do it my way.'

I can't say I resent him for pressing his advantage, especially when he's sacrificed so much of his life and health for something that he apparently didn't want to do in the first place.

I am a bit pissed at people who look down on The Hobbit because it's a more of a fairy tale that just happens to exist in a world of high fantasy. This is not an opinion that was created by the hobbit-movies, but I am seeing it expressed more as people are exploring the source material for the hobbit movies and finding something lacking.

(If you have a general distaste for fairy tales...and I mean, like, Grim-Brothers stuff...the old folk-tales type stuff but hold High Fantasy in regard....PHLEESE DO NOT READ THE HOBBIT!!!

I would also recommend that you refrain from reading The Smith of Wootton Major, Leaf by Niggle or any of JRR Tolkien's works outside of The Lord of the Rings.

These stories will NOT live up to your expectations, PLEASE DON'T READ THEM....

also you suck)

It wouldn't be so bad if these movies weren't called "The Hobbit: [Insert Subtitle Here]" That title suggests the story is actually about one particular character having all these things happen to him....

and that's NOT what these movies are about.

I used to think it would be cool if they made a movie called "Thorin and Company" (because it sounds cool) and it would emphasize this colorful group of people and the different roles each member had (with emphasis on the burglar, of course). That would be epic... (I need to make a poster)

But that's not even what this movie did.

A lot of people like to pretend that Peter Jackson was using Tolkien's unfinished tales/history of middle earth to "fluff" the hobbit story with a history of middle earth (like Thorin's backstory, Thranduil's people, and Azog's background etc.)

(by people who like to fool themselves into thinking that The Hobbit films honor Tolkien's vision of middle earth) 

 if that's the case, he did a pretty bad job at that because those storylines were misrepresented as well.


So what does this movie NOT suck at?

It's good fanfiction.

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way (not all fanfiction is bad) but it's less of an adaption than it is a re-creation. 

I can accept it as an affectionate nod to Tolkien (or rather the Lord of the Rings movies), but it does not necessarily honor the source material. 

The Hobbit Stinks!

Visiting Disneyland immediately after the release of the second Lord of the Rings movie was a lot of fun. I remember walking down the side-walk at Downtown Disney, going into the movie-prop shop, to Tomorrowland and basically all over. I wasn't really even paying attention to what we were doing or what rides we were going on because I was too busy discussing invisible bullet-points to “Things that sucked in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'” with my big brother (and fellow Tolkien fan.)

It went something like this:

“Oh, my gosh. That was so dumb. Faramir didn't try to take Frodo and Sam back to Gondor in the book.”
“I know! he was a totally different character. And the whole thing with him beating up Gollum.”

“Ugh...That was so stupid!”

“Aragon falling over the cliff did not make sense at all.”

“Because there's now way we could like, find out that information except by accident! Not like we sent scouts out or anything.”

“Oh, my gosh! And they totally gutted the Ents.”

“No kidding! They didn't even have Quickbeam!”

(etc. etc)

Eventually, after a few hours of complaining, I came to a realization:

“Hey, CJ? You know, I think we really liked this movie.”

“Yeah," My brother admitted "but it's fun to complain about.”

We didn't really hate the movie, I think that simply by complaining about it we were (in a weird way) celebrating it. It was fun to: 1) “see” your fav. Character on screen, and 2) see a creative person's unique vision of the story (and it was fun to talk about how ours was better!)

In that spirit, I would like to discuss “Things That Sucked About The Hobbit”

• Azog the Goblin Who Was Magically Turned Into An Albino Orc

“Azog...Hmm...that name sounds familiar, I thought the one who killed Thorin's granddad died.” 

*Looks in the book*

“Ooh! He did die. His son Blog would have been the one to pursue the dwarves and fight them in the Battle of Five Armies.”

Boo! Not only did they loose the opportunity to expand the role of the goblin armies, they also lost the opportunity to explore them as sentient (albeit corrupt) beings. The roles could have been reversed a bit, with Blog trying to take revenge on the people who killed his father. That would have actually been true and it would have led up to the climax of “The Hobbit” better then side-stepping what Tolkien wrote.

• Thorin “Grumpy-pants” Oakenface

I understand what they were trying to do, and in a way I think they did it too well. Thorin Oakenshield is the most broody, majestic dwarf ever. While I think (especially after reviewing the Appendicies on him...but that will take up a whole post!) this is fairly consistent with Tolkien's vision of the character, I also think they painted him a bit too one dimensionally. Thorin knows how to have fun when he wants, and while he might be prejudiced, he is not racist and DOES NOT hate ALL the elves.

• Dwarves V. Elves

As with the previous heading, I understand they were trying to develop the antagonism between dwarves and elves. And establishing the darker, somewhat self-serving nature of elves by having the Wood-Elves show up right when the dragon takes over the Lonely Mountain and turn around and leave without an explanation was a nice touch. Makes me hope that Thorin goes completely crazy when the Wood-Elf king does the complete opposite for humans once the

(spoiler alert)

The dragon is killed.

(end spoiler)

:P

Emotionally, it evokes sympathy for the Dwarves and prejudice against elves. Practically though, it doesn't make sense that the wealthy Party-King Thranduil would be willing to render military aid (before he knew it was a dragon) but NOT be willing to render assistance to helpless refugees of a allied nation.

• Sauruman the Stick-In-The-Mud

I don't really have a big problem with the whole White Council scene (Except for the fact that its boring and takes away time from Bilbo and the Dwarves that could have been way more entertaining and establish Bilbo's relationship with the elves and contrast it with that of the Dwarves. Which in turn would establish Bilbo as even more of an outsider and out of his element, so much so that he doesn't mind being teased cuz' he knows it's all in good fun. And that the Elves are basically good-natured but except for a few like Lindir. (really deserves it's own bullet point, I guess))

Seriously! I wish the would have shown Saruman as an amiable guy. He's supposed to be someone Gandalf thought he could turn to in a time of need, someone who has all answers. Now they paint him as that bossy guy Gandalf can barely stand to be around. And you (the viewers) are like... “Well of course Saruman turned evil! He's a prick!” 

Take note! Everyone Gandalf tries to help thinks he is a prick! EVERYONE in freaking LAKETOWN thinks Bard is a nay-saying prick RIGHT before they make him their liege-lord.

The “good guys=nice/bad guys=mean” may seem convenient to the narrative of the story but it doesn't ring true...or even work particularly well.

• Mirror Imaging (*Jazz hands*)/Foreshadowing
  
  
  
  
  

It's not that I don't appreciate starting the Hobbit at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring, it's great to tie them together and there is a pre-exisiting link, as Bilbo is writing down the story in Fellowship of the Ring's Extended Version anyways.

Also

There are some parallels that are organically a part of the Hobbit/Rings franchise. Whether it is “Expected” or “Unexpected”, there is going to be a party in both stories. And, of course, you can't cross middle earth without making a pit-stop in Rivendell. And if you try to cross over (not under) the Misty Mountains there is going to be a storm and your travel plans will be diverted. Eventually eagles fly everyone into the sunset/sunrise but not to the Lonely Mount Doom because even though they're afraid of human shepherds, but not of orc/goblin armies. Nope...

(Ahem...)

However,

Peter Jackson took the visual imagery to the extreme, causing some awkward moments. I'm thinking particularly of when Bilbo puts on the ring the first time. Like in the book, Bilbo is a bit OCD and we see Bilbo running with his hand in his pocket so the ring doesn't fall out.

It would be perfectly natural for him to simply slip on the ring at that point. It would be more secure on his finger, he wouldn't worry about loosing it so much. But, no....

BECUZ we MUST MATCH THE OTHER MOVIE PRECIOusSSSSSSSSS!!!!

• Music

I'm not talking about the songs sung by the dwarves etc. I actually really enjoyed those. I'm talking about the musical score; much of which is re-used from FOTR. I undertand using “The Shire” music, and some of the character themes, what I hate is when they use the exact same music overlay over a completely different moment.

For instance, when Thorin takes on the Azog the Albino Orc they play the same music played in FOTR's Weathertop...you know...when Frodo gets stabbed by the Witch-king and Aragon comes and chases them away.

The same low base beats (goes like this: Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun—Dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnn) Completely different moments! For Thorin, this is a highly-emotional personal battle and for the Hobbit'sin FTOR it's about escaping an eminent threat. It's pretty distracting when the same emotion is being played in the background.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, I think they did exactly what I was afraid they would do with the film: make it so grand and epic you loose sight of the personal journey of Bilbo becoming a better man/Hobbit.

In the book, Bilbo really is helpless: he doesn't even know how to climb a tree, he can't as fast as the dwarves (sometimes they even take turns carrying him) so much so that, when he reveals himself to be capable to great heroism, cunning, (and treachery) it's a huge surprise because no one would have suspected him of it.

Did that stop me from enjoying the film? No. I did enjoy Peter Jackson's version,  I just like mine better.  

Filming "The Hobbit" Starts Valentine's Day!

FINALLY! after years of bickering the filmmakers are finally ready to move forward.
Let's take a look at what they've got for us so far...
The Cast:
Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins



Yup, there's a definite resemblance to the old Bilbo. I haven't seen this guy much, I know he played Dr. Watson a version of Sherlock Holmes (Watson is my fav. character in those stories so I might end up watching it) and he's a comedian who does the UK's "Office" (I don't watch The Office...either version. However, the little snippets I have seen are pretty funny)


The Good: Bilbo will most likely be a funny, witty, out of his element hobbit who eventually discovers his heroic qualities. This is good. The hallmark of "The Hobbits" appeal, for me, is this guy's character arc. Particularly after the dragon is killed and everyone gets gold fever. Bilbo is the only one willing to do the right thing, even if it means betraying his friends.

The Not As Good: Unlike the hobbits of LOTR, Bilbo becomes an action character. With the help of the ring (yes, it's lowercase in this book!) Bilbo is able to take on a group of Shelob's spawn. (think ROTK Sam/Shelob fight scene on steroids) I have a hard time imagining that from this guy. I will refrain from final judgment until I have seen the finished product.
I find it funny that this is the guy from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which the main character is also whisked away from home on a grand adventure.


Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield

(Noble face, Blue eyes and a prominent nose, consistent with other adaptions of Thorin...you know you want to see this guy in the blue hoodie ;))

This one is a bit of a shocker for me. Kinda like when I went to see Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe for the first time and OH MY GOSH. OH. MY. GOSH. MR. TUMNIS IS HOT! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? (Apparently because filmmakers did not want us to see a little girl enter the home of a middle-aged, male, stranger. While I can agree with their logic, it was still a bit of a shocker.) Here, I think, it's for a slightly different reason.


The Good: All we have seen of Peter Jackson's Dwarves is pretty much Gimli. One Dwarf can't, and shouldn't, represent the entire race. Dwarves need their prideful, snobby, good looking heroes as well as their gruffy, loyal sidekicks. Since there are thirteen Dwarvish members of Thorin's Company I think they are going to emphasize how each is different. I think this is good, the group's dynamics are an interesting part of the book (they frequently disagree on a correct course of action it will be fun to play up that side, especially when Bilbo has to take over leadership after Gandalf leaves)

The Not As Good: This incredibly hot guy will most likely be covered in a prosthetic face and beard. :(
He better be a pretty good actor, because what is the freaking use of hiring a good looking actor like this and covering him up?

Alterations from the book:

Ok, so in the book Gandalf spends all of ten seconds filling Bilbo in on where he went after leaving the company. The Necromancer (who turns out to be Sauron) is gaining power. Gandalf and his groupies (Gandalf's "cousin" Radagast, Saurman, two unnamed wizards, Galadriel etc.) get together to expel him from his current home.
This will be a MAJOR part in the movie(s). I don't object to including it, but they are making a whole other movie so they can do it.
They will also be including Frodo and his parents (what. the. heck.)

No I'm not sure if this is the actual actors who will portray them, but certainly looks like it.
Please, this is "The Hobbit" not LOTR part 4.




This may not end up in the movie, but there is a rumored sub-plot in which a female Wood elf named Itaril falls in love. While I applaud their attempt to bring us a wider variety of female actiony elves, I could only see this contributing to the story if she dies in the battle of five armies. If they wrote this character only to have her ogling over some other elvish hottie like Orlando Bloom I will be severely disappointed. If they are going to add a love story to The Hobbit, make it an interesting one (Elves and Dwarves are supposed to not like each other. If they REALLY want to make this interesting, she should develop an interest in on of the prisoners, preferably Thorin)

Other possible changes: Bard the Bowman is likely to be a VERY small part as both Jackson and Del Toro have said he is not cinematic enough. BOO!
The Arkenstone-heart of The Lonely Mountain is a big part of Bilbo's evolution...that has been omitted from a previous cartoon adaption. I haven't heard if they will include it here.

Because "The Hobbit" is a more child friendly read, several inhabitants of middle earth are portrayed differently in each book. Stone Trolls and goblins are sentient, The Eagles can also talk A shape-shifting, nature loving Bear/Man tentatively takes the Dwarves in, And although they are good-looking, Wood Elves (the kind that live in Mirkwood, Legolas' kind) were born in middle earth and are not, NOT the angelic beings of middle earth (as they are portrayed to be in LOTR) All these fantastic elements that make "The Hobbit" fresh and unique will wilt if they stick to the depiction they used in LOTR.

In Tolkien's novels, we see the world through the hobbits eyes. While this is a bit of a hindrance in the LOTR, it also made it easier to adapt to a movie. But his perspective is what defines "The Hobbit".

With all the alterations to beef up LOTR, I hope they don't make "The Hobbit" all about "The Ring"