I don't expect a great answer till all parts are released, but at least, as per the current knowledge, what elements (plot, characters, events, ideas, dialog, items etc..) are known to be in Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" movie(s), which are taken from Tolkien legendarium (e.g. LOTR, Silmarillion, letters etc...) but NOT in the original "Hobbit" novel?

  • Find out on Friday (for most of us)
    – BBlake
    Commented Dec 10, 2012 at 14:13
  • 1
    @BBlake I'm planning to skip the movie in protest (pointless, but still...) of the story being butchered to make more money. Commented Dec 11, 2012 at 5:30
  • 21
    I am a lifelong Tolkien fan. I grew up being read and reading and re-reading and re-reading again and again the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. I have no problem whatsoever with Jackson taking a bit of Hollywood license in his version. I enjoy the books for what they are and I have enjoyed and will enjoy the movies for what they are.
    – BBlake
    Commented Dec 11, 2012 at 12:30
  • 1
    @Ward You should read The Hobbit again. You may find that you're not quite as precious about it as you think you are. It is very childish. Commented Dec 15, 2012 at 1:09
  • Related meta discussion.
    – user1027
    Commented Dec 17, 2012 at 16:15

5 Answers 5


Just saw it! Many Tales are woven together that are only barely mentioned in The Hobbit. I'll just quickly write that a lot of the expanded material comes from the writings that were still about Middle Earth and mostly the Appendices of LOTR. Some of the material may also have come from earlier drafts of both The Hobbit and LOTR within its appendices.

Radagast the Brown gets a much more extensive treatment than I would have ever expected and liberties were definitely taken with the timeline Tolkien indicates in his writing vs. what is depicted in the movie. There were also additional bits that needed to occur in order to cohesively string together the other tales.

Of course some scenes from the book are shortened or deleted (as one expects from movies), but at the same time, other scenes are lengthened significantly. For example, the book mentions the hobbits only seeing stone giants playing a game in the distance. The stone giants have a much more prominent part to play in the movie - though they still have no lines.

In the book, there is only a tiny piece written about Gandalf's acquiring of the key and map and the book only mentions the necromancer twice as well as only mentions a council between the elves and wizards - these events are greatly expanded in the movie/movies. An extensive background piece on Erebor and its fall is placed near the beginning of the movie as is a bit between Bilbo and Frodo (on the same day of the one hundred eleventieth birthday party) that creates a sense of the entire movie being a big flashback. I believe that many of the smaller additional pieces comes from combining a short bit in the LOTR Appendices titled, "Journey to Dol Guldur" Though, again I am only working from memory here.

When the movie is depicting scenes from the book The Hobbit it stays fairly true to the book throughout even down to word-for-word dialogue (with the exception of a "hunt" and related additions I will allow you to watch to find out more about.) There are changes here and there such as where exactly Bilbo gets stuck and loses his buttons and some of the dialogue, but the story is definitely there. Thorin also comes to the party at Bilbo's late instead of arriving with the last group of dwarves as he does in the book. The story is just alternating with other stories too so you are taken back and forth between word for word accuracy and completely separate non-hobbit bits. For fans of the book it might be a bit jarring (it was for me).

I was disturbed somewhat by a mismatch with Tolkien's timeline of events and the one used to piece together the movie and still can't really decide how I feel about the additions -even a year later. What bothers me most is the idea of Azog hunting and chasing the dwarves throughout the entire story. Bilbo almost seems to lose his innocence and naivete just a little too soon for me as a result of this particular story arch. At the same time it enriches the audience understanding of Thorin and the plight of the dwarves. Of course it also adds opportunities for action sequences during the company's travels. Some of the light-heartedness of the story and its humor is missing.

The movie version delves into the rich complexities that make Middle Earth so engaging a place, and, perhaps the changes do make the story more cohesive with the LotR. The changes certainly make it more cohesive with the movie version of LotR. I would simply argue that you should definitely not go expecting to see The Hobbit, but rather go expecting to see an explanation of the finding of the ring. Including beautiful cinamotography and a chorus of engaging, relatable characters. Film making is just such a different beast than writing a story in books after all.

  • 1
    I think given what they could have done, they remained remarkably faithful. Granted, it's not "The Hobbit" in the sense that it's nowhere near as simplistic and childish as that book, but the lore seemed largely solid, despite the most obvious changes. Commented Dec 15, 2012 at 1:13
  • 2
    I agree that it somehow managed to stay remarkably faithful despite the changes - I'm more on the fence than it may sound. It was still a spectacular movie and respectful if not reverent toward the orignial material. Commented Dec 15, 2012 at 4:10
  • Jackson & co are legally only allowed use the Hobbit and LotR; all other works are specifically not licensed and still belong to the Tolkien Estate. They were a little bit naughty with their reference to the two Blue Wizards, which is UT material and should not have been used.
    – user8719
    Commented Dec 1, 2013 at 21:04
  • @JimmyShelter Good to know. Most of this was written right after seeing the movie on premier night last year adn done just from memory. As you know from other questions, it has been a long time since I've cracked open anything (including the appendices) other than just the stories themselves. I'll correct as appropriate - thank you. Commented Dec 1, 2013 at 23:44

Elements of the character of Tauriel are from non-Hobbit canon.

We know that she's a red-haired Silvan Elf, so let's examine how a Silvan elf can have red hair.

There's one group of Elves in Tolkien that we know have red hair: some of the Noldor. In The Shibboleth of Feanor we learn that:

Ambarussa 'top-russet' must have referred to hair: the first and last of Nerdanel's children had the reddish hair of her kin.

Furthermore, in Quendi and Eldar we learn that of the Second Kindred, who were originally in proportion 56 out of 144 of the Elves, 28 became Eldar and the other 28 were Avari. These 28 who became Eldar were the Noldor, but the other 28 remained in Middle-earth.

It is said that of the small clan of the Minyar none became Avari. The Tatyar were evenly divided.

Now, Appendix A to the History of Galadriel and Celeborn gives one origin for the Silvan Elves, stating that they originally belonged to the Third Kindred:

The Silvan Elves (Tawarwaith) were in origin Teleri, and so remoter kin of the Sindar, though even longer separated from them than the Teleri of Valinor. They were descended from those of the Teleri who, on the Great Journey, were daunted by the Misty Mountains and lingered in the Vale of Anduin, and so never reached Beleriand or the Sea.

However an alternate tradition, in the original drafts for the LotR Appendices, gives a different origin:

Remnants of the Telerian Elves (of Doriath in ancient Beleriand) establish realms in the woodlands far eastward, but most of these peoples are Avari or East-elves. The chief of these were Thranduil who ruled in the north of Greenwood the Great beyond Anduin.

Bringing all of this together, an in-canon source for Tauriel is that she belongs to the Avari of the Second Kindred who were subsequently ruled by Sindarin Kings from Doriath.

A rather neat side-effect of this is that it offers another explanation for Thranduil's disdain for her in the movie; the Sindar of Doriath had a disliking for many of the Noldor as a result of the Kinslayings, and as (1) Tauriel is descended from the same Kindred as the Noldor (and especially is distantly related to the Feanorians), and (2) Thranduil has origins in Doriath, everything becomes clear.

Of course, this all uses sources that Peter Jackson is not allowed to use, so you'll probably never get official confirmation from him that this was his intention, but all of the evidence fits.

  • 2
    This should get reposted on overthinkingit.com! Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 17:59
  • 2
    @DVK - if you're gonna do a job, do it properly...!
    – user8719
    Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 19:43

Radagast the Brown (in Mirkwood & west of Bruinen river when distracting the pursuing orc pack) and the White Council. The WC meeting (in Rivendell) is provided much later than in the books to help highlight the growing threat from Dol Guldur. In the extended version of the film there's some extra scenes at Hobbiton that doesn't happen in Chapter 1 of the book, but interesting.

Elrond has a short scene with Bilbo in Rivendell talking about the reputation of Hobbits as 'resilient' and 'enjoying the comforts of home' and also stresses he can stay in Rivendell "if that is your wish". Not in the book, but a nice addition for the extended movie version.

The Dwarves, led by Bifur, sing the Man in the Moon song in the dinner scene in Rivendell, which of course doesn't happen in the book. But nice to see it done.

Another is that the Witch-King of Angmar was killed in his war against Arnor, & buried in the 'High Fells of Rhudar' that Gandalf later visits in the 2nd Hobbit film. In reality he isn't killed but rides away on his black horse after the Elves intervene in the Battle of Carn Dhum. Added in the White Council scene in Hobbit film#1, I guess for dramatic effect, etc.

Another is Gandalf using a moth to obtain help from the Great Eagles of the Misty Mountains near the end of H1, in reality they're attracted by the smoke & flames so come to investigate.

  • Is "Man in the Moon" from LOTR or from Jackson's imagination? For the rest of them, it would improve the answer if you pointed specifically where from outside the Hobbit the particular event was covered. Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 14:02
  • Frodo sings the song in the Prancing Pony in the LotR book itself. The PJ version is a shorter version of the song though.
    – user20178
    Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 16:47
  • much better. BTW, by "where" I meant "where in non-hobbit books", not "where in geography of Middle-Earth", sorry for confusion :) Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 17:07
  • Another is the Bilbo narrated story about the history of the Lonely Mountain & the Smaug attack. That's done by the Dwarves in their 'unexpected party' drop in to Bilbo in Bag End.
    – user20178
    Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 17:08

The "chance" meeting of Gandalf and Thorin in Bree is from The Lord of the Rings Appendix A. Gandalf had some concerns about how Sauron, now rising in power, might use the dragon.

  • Yes, they met near or outside Bree and then traveled to the Blue Mountains together and talked there.
    – user20178
    Commented Jan 17, 2014 at 7:16

Frodo isn't in the original text, though he might be in later versions, I'm not sure. He's listed on the IMDB page though.

  • 5
    Or Legolas, or Gladriel, or in fact any female character to speak of except for a brief mention of Bilbo's mother, who is unnamed. Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 6:46
  • 1
    Frodo is only in the movie very briefly. Legolas is not. Galadriel is the one woman that really does show up in the movie and she is also present only briefly. Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 12:27
  • @balancedmama I've heard it is planned that Legolas will appear in at least one of the movies. He is after all the prince of the wood elves. Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 15:46
  • @JackBNimble yes, and perhaps he will. I guess I should clarify that I am speaking only of the first installment. Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 16:02
  • @balancedmama Galadriel doesn't appear so briefly. Her character has a presence at least as strong as Elrond's, even though she isn't present at all in the book.
    – Andres F.
    Commented Dec 17, 2012 at 20:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.