Christ Centered Gamer

That was the least of the changes that bothered me. Tolkien himself gone back and changed items to tie it better with Lord of the Rings, and wished to do even more. They also drew from some surrounding canon lore.

The book doesn't speak of orcs of any kind chasing them after they find the elvish weapons and treasure. There were few references that even HINTED at Sauron's existance, if any at all and this was my point. It was a book that could stand on it's own, and the LOTRO the movie references were so blatent that they became annoying at best.

Sauron did have a fortress in Mirkwood, Dol Guldor, headed by witch-king that Radagast the Brown did spy on, if my understanding serves me.

The orcs were introduced too early, and while Azog is an actual character and I can forgive bringing him into the hobbit story, they made him such a stereotypical villain, it was disappointing.

But the book doesn't mention any of that stuff.

I believe I remember there was a reference to a necromancer, and this is Sauron.
Even if it's not in the book, pulling from surrounding Middle Earth lore is perfectly acceptable.

ArchAngel wrote:I believe I remember there was a reference to a necromancer, and this is Sauron.
Even if it's not in the book, pulling from surrounding Middle Earth lore is perfectly acceptable.

Yes, there was a reference of a necromancer being dealt with. But, making it such a blatent tie in to Lord of the Rings was what kind've irritated me. The book could have lasted on it's own initiative without the blatant "Sauron is coming" references that were often used. One or two references at best, yes, I can find that acceptable, especially given the lore (only in the established and public works of fiction, that is. Interviews and comments made that were not in the books do not count as canon lore, even if they were the writer's own comments). To me, the protection of canon lore is important, because it protects the story. If people had started to take into account of what a writer says in an interview or such drivel, then they may as well not bother writing the story in the first place. How would Romeo and Juliet had been, if Shakespear had changed the ending to "Romeo and Juliet survived and killed everyone in their family to cease continuation of the fued." during a conversation? Think of all of the literary works that would have been ruined by this. This is why this bugs me the most.

But Tolkien tied Sauron as the necromancer, and Gandalf met with others to learn how to deal with it, including reducing his influence in the north by killing Smaug.

Yes, but Sauron's name is never directly mentioned. The book did infact do quite well not as a Lord of the Rings prequal, but as the Hobbit. A book that was more or less a standalone work of fiction that utilized and begun the Tolkien lore and started it all. I'll concede that the necromancer was Sauron, but the Hobbit was the Hobbit and not Lord of the Rings Episode I, if you catch the reference. Think of it as the marvel movies that lead up to the Avengers movie. They weren't Avengers Part I, but Iron Man and so on. They used the same contiuity and movie lore, but were not really true prequals to the avengers movie. See my point?

Yes, but even Tolkien himself went back and changed the Hobbit to make it more in line with Lord of the Rings and he wrote surrounding lore to tie it further. The Hobbit was written first and independently, but Tolkien turned it into a prequel. These books are separate books on their own, but there's parts of a bigger part of the story of Middle Earth.

I've listened to the audio book, and there really aren't as many tie in references (besides Elrond and so on) that connect it so blatantly as a prequal. It was more "Hobbit" then "Lord of the Rings prequel" and you know it. There were many goblin references, but never orcs, to the best of my abilities. And though Radagast IS mentioned, it never at all mentions him meeting Gandalf while he is in the company of the fourteen. There were more "Peter Jackson" tie-ins, then there were "Tolkien" tie-ins. If you can understand what I mean.

Yes, Radagast met Gandalf elsewhere. Frankly, the bigger sin was how cheesy his character was handled. He was more of a gag than a wizard.
No movie can perfectly mimic a book. There are simply too different of a medium. If one tried, it would be terrible. Slight dips in plots have to be forgivable. What shouldn't be in the spirit of the story and the spirit of the characters. Those change everything. Keeping the movie in line with the spirit of both the Hobbit and the meta story of Middle Earth is fine. The gimics they added that cheapened the whole thing isn't.

Yes, I agree.

the hobbit in 3D that is insane!!