Right when I was around 8 years old my dad showed me and my sister The Lord of the Rings movies. He covered our eyes for the gory scenes and occasionally would pause it and help us understand something and it was great. For years after we continued to rewatch them and each time I learned something new. When The Hobbit trilogy came out it was even more exciting. We have all extended versions of everything and we watch the trilogy’s at least twice a year. Not until recently did I decide to start reading the books. I love to read and I’m pretty fast and can usually finish a book in a day in 3 days, of course that varies in length.
This year I started with The Hobbit.
I enjoyed The Hobbit, it was short and sweet. It wasn’t too complicated, like I expected it would be, but it was good. The story itself didn’t seem pointless which I find to happen in some prequels that are made up about movies. Because it is a book and the finding of the ring happens in it, it’s a very major and necessary story I believe. I don’t recall to many differences between the book and the movie but some of the major things would be the love story between the elf and the dwarf. For the sake of the movie and keeping people interested I understand why that was put in, I personally didn’t care for it though. And obviously, the strong female elf character was put in for the sake of our time. If there wasn’t a female character then that would not have been taken lightly.
Another major difference is Azog the Defiler. Although he is still in the books he doesn’t play as big of a role as he does in the movies. The entire scene in The Battle of Five Armies with Thorin and Azog on the ice doesn’t happen in the books and it added a solid hour onto the final movie. A lot of other little areas where Azog pops in don’t happen in the books either.
There are a couple of little things that Peter Jackson changed like when the dwarfs are captured by the trolls and that whole story is slightly different as well as when they escape (which Bilbo doesn’t help them escape) and they run down to the forest, the Wargs don’t talk to them and the whole scene with them in the trees is twisted. All for the sake of the movie and keeping it “Hollywood” but nevertheless Peter Jackson does a great job of making sure not to go too far with it all.
One other thing that was added was the whole fight scene with Smaug. The dwarfs don’t do anything to stop the dragon from going to the town, he simply fly’s away just like that. So one may be asking, how did Peter Jackson make three long movies out of this small book? And the answer is, he added some things. To give him credit, he took J.R.R Tolkien’s writing and descriptions and made them come to life. He read between the lines but he did it the best possible way he could and overall made great movies.
In all the books and characters are a little old fashioned and the language is different oppose to the movies but I wouldn’t change that. That is one significant feature in Tolkien’s books, his language and the way the character’s act. The actors in the movies were bound to be more exciting and not so bland.
The Hobbit was a great little tale and I love the movies. In conclusion, I must say that I enjoy the movies more though. Having seen them first that might have been an influence, or the fact I was born in this society of exciting, thrilling, adventurous movies, or that I’m just more of a visual learner and seeing the movies really helped me understand the book more. Whatever it may be I would suggest both the book and the movies to you if you haven’t seen them.