So there's a reason why there were no posts these past two weeks. Yes, we have a legitimate reason. You wanna know that reason?
Yes, I went on a two-week vacation with my family. We went all over Alaska, saw lots and lots of mountains, and went on an awesome boat cruise where we saw a few whales! It was a pretty awesome trip.
So now that's over with, I can talk about other things. What other things, you ask? I'm going to talk about movies vs. books. This is something I am very passionate about. I take that back: I am VERY passionate about this topic.
Are you ready?
Okay, here goes.
The Book Was Better:
Yes, I did just pick the Hobbit as one of my first monologues of rage. No, I do not plan on being easy on the writers, but I will try to be fair. I know fans everywhere have talked about this constantly since its release, but I feel like there are some things the writers have forgotten about Middle-Earth history. I'm going to bring those things up, while also being angry about some things that I have a full right to be angry about.
Before we go any farther, I must address the one glaring fault in this trilogy:
I have one question for you, Peter Jackson. WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY??????? Why would you take a book that has been around for over 75 years, which included no romance, was intended as an adventure book, and is respected and known around the world, and add a girl who doesn't exist at all in Middle-Earth and a character who wasn't aware that this was happening, if he was actually alive at that point? Because I don't know what could prompt you to make that decision.
Okay now that's over with, I can talk about a few things that I realized while re-reading The Hobbit. Firstly, even though the movie has it's flaws and was not true to the book, Peter Jackson added a ton of backstory that the book didn't necessarily have, and used Gandalf to tie the story into the LOTR trilogy. When we see Gandalf meet the Necromancer, we see the origins of Sauron. We learn a lot about Sauron that we might not have known before, and we learn a few things about Gandalf, too. The "creatively named" (as Faith put it) White Orc may not have been in the book, but he was a part of the history of the story. Thorin's grandfather was killed by a massive orc named Azog, and while it was mentioned briefly, it DID HAPPEN. Was it the right choice to add this White Orc into the movie as an instigator for some more action? I don't really know.
The last thing I'm going to discuss heavily is the fact that The Hobbit is one book. Let me repeat that: The Hobbit is one book. How many movies were made? Three. Three movies, and each ran for three hours. Something is wrong here.
Now I'm not saying that they should have made this book into a two hour single film. That would also have been wrong. To turn The Hobbit into a standard movie would have left a lot of important things out. I could even understand two three-hour films. Anything to cover the book completely! But when you're adding things to the movie which weren't in the book and are not giving us vital backstory (again, I can understand Gandalf's solo missions after he "dies"), the movie gets longer. I'm no director, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been a trilogy if they'd stuck to the book.
On a lighter note: Martin Freeman put Bilbo Baggins in human form for me. I mean, how can you resist that darling little hobbit! Those adorable hedgehog expressions! And Smaug was voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch! I would watch those movies a hundred times for Bilbo Baggins!
And of course, if you watch the epic movie, you will miss all of Tolkien's wonderful storytelling! The Hobbit is lighter reading than LOTR, and one of my favorite books. The movies are still okay, but the book is better.