The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, A Review

Last night, I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for the first time.  I had heard a lot about it– from some sources, that it deviated from the book in bad ways; from others, that it was extremely good no matter what; from still others, that the entire Lord of the Rings and Hobbit story is a Harry Potter ripoff.  After shrugging to the first group, hmming at the second group, and not even bothering with the third group, I got the chance to see it myself.  This review will be as spoiler-free as I can make it without being vague.

Overall, I thought it was great.  The movie only encompasses a third of the book, which is strange considering that every book of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy took a single movie.  The Hobbit is dense, but in order to make the book into three movies they added a few subplots, such as the Azog, the pale orc.  Gandalf briefly mentions Azog in the book, but they never went into the full history as they did in the movie.  Tolkien never said much about him.  In the movie, however, Azog pursues the Fellowship of the Dwarves and instigates the Warg battle just after Bilbo finds the Ring.

In the past, I’ve hated movies because they deviated slightly from the book.  Considering how much of a Tolkien nerd I am, I’m surprised this movie didn’t bother me more.  I’m surprised, but not confused.  I’ve studied a lot of story structure lately, especially movie story structure.  Most movies follow the same structure, the Hollywood Formula.  I won’t go much into it, but this formula makes just about any movie amazing.  If Thorin’s history with Azog hadn’t been added, it wouldn’t have followed the Hollywood Formula and definitely wouldn’t have been a success.  I encourage you to study the Formula, test it on your favorite movies, and then watch the Hobbit with it in mind.  (For those wondering, Bilbo is the protagonist, Thorin is the dynamic character, and Gandalf is the antagonist.  I thought I’d make it easier.)

Other than Azog, the movie stayed remarkably close to the book.  I was surprised when the storm giants appeared, since I had no memory of them.  They are, however, mentioned in a chapter called Over Hill and Under Hill.  I believe that is the only place Tolkien ever mentions them, however; the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and various appendices say nothing of them, to my knowledge.

I enjoyed the different references to the Silmarillion and Middle Earth’s history.  Radagast, who we will get to later, mentions the spiders of Mirkwood as the “spawn of Ungoliant.”  Ungoliant was the giant spider who ravaged the world trying to find enough light to quench her thirst.  Shelob was also a descendant of Ungoliant.  The Witch King of Angmar, who is mentioned briefly in the Trilogy movies, was spoken of in more depth.  The Necromancer, whose name signifies raising spirits from the dead, was surprising to me; in the book, the Necromancer is a far-off evil, never really connected to Sauron in more than name.  Here, the Necromancer raises the Witch King of Angmar from the dead, which allows him to become Sauron’s lieutenant in the Trilogy.

But this brings up another point.  The corruption of Mirkwood was never spoken of so much in the Hobbit as in this first third of the movie.  If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that one of the sequels features Gandalf’s quest to drive the Necromancer out of Mirkwood.  In fact, I’m sure of it.  In the book, Gandalf’s occasional absences are attributed to his scouting out Dol Guldur, the Necromancer’s lair.  Considering how much they put into Radagast’s discoveries, I think they’ll do even more for Gandalf’s.  But Radagast’s story is another part that was never in the book.  It wasn’t necessary for Tolkien to add, but the way that they build up to Mirkwood in the movie required it.  Radagast discovered the Necromancer, after all.  I believe Mirkwood and the Necromancer has a big part later in the story, so in this case, Radagast was necessary.  In Tolkien’s case, where he follows the journey of a single hobbit and brushes aside the larger problems of Middle Earth, it wasn’t.  Radagast’s part in this movie was meant to foreshadow the events of the next two, and it was done remarkably well.  Some people object to Radagast’s character; I don’t.  The wizards were sent to Middle Earth to help out, but inconspicuously.  Wizards weren’t allowed to aspire to power, as Saruman did– they were meant to work in the background for the good of everyone.  Radagast does this, and though he acts a little loopy, he’s quite competent.  If you noticed, he didn’t die when the Witch King attacked.  He can perform magic.  He’s comic relief at times, but he isn’t incompetent.  Gandalf is old, wise, and powerful; Radagast is old, wise, powerful, and a little silly.  There isn’t much difference.

The humor of the movie was excellent.  There were many lines straight from the book, which had quite a few humorous scenes itself.  The dwarves’ arrival in Bilbo’s hole was extremely well done, yet making so many of them fall through the door at once robbed them of their personalities.  We knew Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili and Kili, but the others were muddled together.  Ori was distinctive, since he was the young, silly one (in the book the youngest are Fili and Kili).  Bombur was distinctive because he’s fat.  Bofur became distinctive eventually, but the others– Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Dori and Nori– were nearly invisible.  Few lines, fewer close-ups, and fewer personality traits.  Of course, there are thirteen dwarves in all– how are we to keep them all straight?  And having them all come in individually would take forever.  So the eight of them fall through the door at once and we have no way to remember them all.  We sacrifice distinct characters for pacing, but pacing is more important in a three-hour movie.

The prologue at the beginning was reminiscent of the Trilogy; Galadriel narrating the Ring’s journey from liquid metal to Bilbo’s pocket was an enormous infodump, but helpful.  Similarly, Thorin’s history told by Bilbo was long and involved, but it got us asking questions that won’t be answered until the final movie.  This is an extremely good tactic for writing a story that meanders a lot, by the way.  You can keep the pacing as quick as you want, but if you don’t have a bunch of unanswered questions, you won’t keep the reader’s interest through the long slog toward the final battle.  Showing Smaug’s eye at the end of the movie kept the questions alive as well, since we hadn’t heard anything of him after the prologue.

Balin’s story about Thorin’s battle with Azog was less necessary, however.  It gave good background and it introduced Azog, but it felt irrelevant at the time.  I have no idea how else they could have told that story, but it didn’t feel right.

One interesting thing I noticed is the scale.  Especially in the battle I just mentioned, everyone looked enormous.  I thought Azog was a cave troll at first.  All the orcs looked huge.  Only the dwarves and Bilbo looked normally sized.  In the Trilogy, the hobbits and Gimli always looked short compared to Boromir, Aragorn, and Legolas.  In the Hobbit, everyone else looked huge.  In Rivendell, we finally get a sense of their true size, but before then it’s hard to realize.  The Great Goblin, for instance, looked troll-sized.  Of course, he was also extremely fat, but nevertheless.

One thing I did find irking was Riddles in the Dark.  Bilbo’s game with Gollum, as entertaining as it was, was entirely unnecessary.  Yes, it tells how Bilbo got the Ring and yes, it shows exactly how it got away from Gollum and yes, it’s a great part of the book, but no, it wasn’t entirely necessary.  It took away from the pacing, which as I have said, is more important than most other things in a long movie.  They kept some suspense up, but they kept the audience laughing too much.  We were too at ease with Bilbo’s predicament.  Gollum was great, but it took away from the story a little too much.  If there had been more urgency about the dwarves’ situation as well, perhaps it could have been more successful, but Bilbo was too much the main character at that point.

The three trolls could have been labeled unnecessary as well, except that they provided a real consequence of the growing evil in Middle Earth.  I had never thought of it that way until then.  Once again, this foreshadowed the events of the sequels and kept the occasionally silly events of the book relevant.

Another thing that irked me was the Elven swords Glamdring and Orcrist.  Gandalf told Bilbo that Sting was made by the elves, so it would glow blue when orcs are near.  Glamdring didn’t.  Orcrist didn’t.  And yet Gandalf said that they were elven-made as well.  Perhaps Sting was the only sword with a built-in flashlight.  Who knows?

Overall, it was extremely well done.  The movie largely stayed true to the book, the Trilogy, and the rest of Middle Earth’s history.  The characters were usually memorable, and the writing was good.  If you haven’t watched the movie, but you’ve read this far, you have my deepest condolences for your loss.  Now to wait for the next one.

Advertisements
Previous Post
Leave a comment

85 Comments

  1. Great to see an in-depth review of the film – thanks for sharing! I’ve not read the books myself (I know, I know…) so can’t comment on the adaptation, but the two things that struck me the most were humour and colour. The humour is self-explanatory; you summed it up brilliantly. When I say the colour, I mean it in the simplest, most amateur way possible. It just looked really, really pretty. Especially the Shire scenes. My eyes were happy-drunk.

    The most interesting thing about the viewing experience for me was that I saw it dubbed in French (I currently live in the south of France). I’m conversational in French, but not fluent, and though my listening skills are far better than my speaking skills I was worried I wouldn’t be able to follow the progression of the story. Luckily, I could. There’s so much to see that missing the odd word isn’t the end of the world. To be fair though, Gandalf does talk really flipping slowly. That’s probably the real reason I could keep up…

    Reply
  2. Robyn Hoode

     /  January 28, 2013

    I loved the movie, but by the end of it, I would flinch every time something flew at me. I also was afraid that it would end with us thinking Thorin was dead. I disagree about those two scenes not being necessary. We needed those scenes for later so that Thorin despite those events would realize that he was wrong about Bilbo. Besides, you are forgetting that Bilbo needs that Ring later. What if someone who has never read the books or seen LOTR thinks oh this looks like a good movie and goes to see it. They need to know about Gollum and the Ring. As for the part about the swords, I don’t know. I don’t remember Tolkien saying anything about the other two swords glowing. Maybe Sting was the only one with a flashlight.

    Reply
    • Thorin never knew about the riddles, and they could have had Bilbo pick up the Ring, Gollum see him, him put it on, Gollum realize his precious is gone, Bilbo almost kill Gollum but refrain. It would have been much easier. But I agree, the troll scene did more than it seemed.

      Reply
  3. Nice review and I’ll have a look at that Hollywood formula. So it would appear that they’re making The Hobbit more of a direct prequel to the Lord of the Rings — less of a separate adventure….

    As for the glowing swords, Sting was not the only one with an in-built torch. When Gandalf kills the Great Goblin it says, “Suddenly a sword flashed in its own light. Bilbo saw it go right through the Great Goblin as he stood dumbfounded in his rage.”

    And yes, wasn’t the Great Goblin huge?! I suppose that’s why he is called “Great”, but he was still quite astonishing.

    Reply
    • It is a separate adventure in that it’s mostly about dwarves and Smaug and less about Sauron and his Ring. It’s more of a prequel in that it ties in to the Trilogy extremely well.

      Yes, the Great Goblin was massive. His voice was too high, though– at least, so it seemed. Bad guys aren’t supposed to make jokes, either.

      Reply
  4. Erin

     /  January 28, 2013

    Finally. Someone who doesn’t agree with the critics and isn’t bashing the movie. THANK YOU.

    I’ve seen The Hobbit twice already (I actually attended our theater’s midnight premiere) and, as a huge Tolkien fan, enjoyed the snippets that hinted at the LOTR trilogy and Middle Earth history. I absolutely loved the movie, and I think people are judging it too harshly.

    Also, about the Riddles part, I did find it a bit unnecessary as well, but Tolkien’s really the one to blame for that. Obviously he was the one who wrote the book, and if the movie had omitted that scene, fans would be outraged. I do think the scene helped build Bilbo’s character a little more – we see that this little hobbit from the Shire has enough confidence to face a totally creepy, deformed creature that has conversations with himself. Besides, the whole Riddles in the Dark was extremely entertaining to watch.

    Reply
    • Tolkien could pull it off– Riddles in the Dark is just his style. It fits the rest of the Hobbit, in fact. If he was trying to get published in this century, half of it would have been cut.

      Reply
  5. Charley R

     /  January 29, 2013

    Wonderful review! Personally I approve of the up-scaling of the movie a bit. Admittedly, Tolkien wrote The Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings, hence why not a lot of the rest of Middle Earth is involved. However, making it in the order they are, the movie crew I think have made a really good decision in panning out to show more of Middle Earth as they go along, especially the bits that came up again in Lord of the Rings – hence the necessity of Riddles in the Dark. Cutting that out of the film, I think, would have been pretty unforgivable because its so iconic, and it shows how Bilbo gets the Ring, and on and on with the ramifications there. That, and it gave Bilbo a chance to solve a problem on his own without help from Gandalf or the dwarves, which he doesn’t really get a lot of the time.

    Also, RE Azog; I personally approved of that too. Mainly because, when I read the book, Thorin just seemed really selfish to me, because he wanted to take back the Mountain, but only because he felt it was his right. Showing his story, I think, the film gave us some more sympathetic reasoning behind him, and made him that bit more relatable through it. What’s more Azog does come from the Appendices, so it’s not as if they just conjured him up out of nowhere – which I also approved of very highly.

    As for the scaling issue, well, we’ve only got Gandalf for comparison with the dwarves, and he’s forever disappearing, and with no other taller members of the company it’s no wonder we thought they all looked huge. But, again, a problem that couldn’t really be avoided there.

    One tiny qualm I DO have is referencing the corruption of Mirkwood – I swear it was always Mirkwood, or am I missing something? I thought the film-makers had added in the corruptive part for dramatic tension, but if I’m wrong I’ll put that objection back where it came from.

    Like you, I’m a huge Tolkien nerd, but overall I really loved the film, and the changes it made with relevance to matching The Hobbit up to the scale of the trilogy.

    Can’t wait for the next film, myself. I want to see what they do with this necromancer!

    Reply
    • Robyn Hoode

       /  January 29, 2013

      Out of curiosity, how big of a Tolkien fan are you– the kind that dresses like a hobbit, the kind that speaks Elvish, or the kind that wishes they could speak Elvish and wouldn’t dress as a hobbit (at least not the furry feet) except for Halloween? This is coming from another Tolkien fan… what are we called anyway? You know– One Direction fans are called Directioners, girls who are fans of the movie Cars are called Carfs… so what are Tolkien fans?

      Reply
      • Charley R

         /  January 29, 2013

        We’re Tolkienists, as far as I know. I’m a pretty big fan – I’ve read most of his major works, save for the Unfinished Tales which I have yet to get my hands on, and I would love to speak Elvish if only I weren’t too lazy to inflict an additional thing to learn on myself on top of my already work-strewn life. I’d be a happy dresser-upper, too, if only I had the means to get a decent costume, haha!

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 29, 2013

        I like Tolkienist. One of the others I heard was Ringer– which makes us sound like we’re playing horseshoes.
        The Lord of the Rings is at the top of my favorite books list (I’ve read it 4 times!) and I need to read The Hobbit again. I need to read the Silmarilion and the Lost Tales book I have. I’ve read The Children of Huron (can have ‘Bad Books’ for $500, Alex?) and Roverrandom.
        I need to find out where I can learn Elvish. And I would dress up if I had a good costume. What am I saying, I don’t have any LOTR costumes, 😦 good or other wise.

      • Charley R

         /  January 30, 2013

        Heh heh, I’ve read LOTR quite a few times, but not in recent years – must amend that, if only I had my own copies of the books! I’ve read the family copies, and we’ve lost the Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King. likewise, I read the Children of Hurin, but that was also a very long time ago. Need my own copy of that too. And the Lost Tales. I need my own copy of EVERYTHING Tolkien, heh heh.

        We ought to amend this lack of decent LOTR costume, my friend. Then we could be mad Tolkienists together! I think “Ringer” applies more to LOTR fans than fans of Tolkien’s works on the whole. I prefer it as it’s more encompassing.

      • I hear Ringer a lot, but I think that sounds silly too, so I’ve always just used Tolkienite 🙂

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 30, 2013

        Tolkienite… I like it. 🙂

      • Sounds like a rare mineral.

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 31, 2013

        Well, it’s kind of like Kryptonite… only it won’t kill us. It might cause insanity, but those of us who are authors… we’re already insane or close to it. No worries, then 🙂

      • Indeed, indeed. Tolkienite is corrupting, like the Ring– it seizes everyone who comes near it and draws them in. But it’s a good corruption.

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 31, 2013

        It is not corrupting! It’s mine! My own! My precious!

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 31, 2013

        Also, and I hate to say it, but my sister is proof that’s it’s not corrupting. She is not a Tolkienite-ist. (?) She’s a Carf. She’d pick Cars 1 or 2 any day over LOTR.

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  February 25, 2013

        Hate to be ignorant, but what is “QED”?

      • Quod erat demonstrandum. Which is to be demonstrated. Basically, case in point.

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  February 26, 2013

        Ah, I see.

    • I *coughcough* haven’t actually read the Appendices *cough*. Except for the parts about calendars and languages. But I’ll get to them soon. I’m interested in Azog now.

      I enjoyed it when they showed Azog and the orcs in council atop Weathertop. That was interesting.

      What do you mean? The corruption of Mirkwood might not have been mentioned much in the book, but it was obvious since there were elves in Mirkwood and yet it was an evil place. It had to suddenly become evil, which is what we saw in the movie.

      Reply
      • Ha, the parts about calendars and languages confused me and I stopped reading them after a while. I’m more interested in what happened to the characters later anyway.

      • Indeed. I felt like I was reading stuff out of sequence (which is a horrific notion), and wanted to read the appendices at the time in the story when they took place.

      • Charley R

         /  January 30, 2013

        Heh heh, Azog only gets a very brief mention – he’s not a major character, but I think he gets about half a sentence to himself – but yes, he’s in there. I’ve only pillaged the appendices for areas of personal interest, never read them end to end. Ought to do that some time.

        Ah yes, I see. The Hobbit book doesn’t really expound upon how it came to be corrupted, though. I just assumed that it had either always been that way, or had at least been that way for a very long time. I don’t know if the corruption is taking place at the time of the quest itself, which is what the movie seemed to insinuate, is what I mean.

      • I’ll read the Appendices eventually.

        I thought so too, which is why I was pleased with the Radagast scenes in the movie. I always thought Mirkwood was always evil.

      • Charley R

         /  February 1, 2013

        Heh heh, I didn’t know, but I like the alteration – makes it more interesting in the grand scheme, with the return of Sauron et al getting a bit more attention to tie it to Middle Earth, rather than just being a one-off story.

      • Precisely. We actually get to see how Sauron was before he was a giant eye.

      • Charley R

         /  February 2, 2013

        Indeed!

      • That’s what I was going to say to whatever clever thing you were going to say. But, since “indeed” is quite clever enough…

        Indeed!

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  February 2, 2013

        Indeed.

    • It was actually Greenwood the Great before Sauron took up at Dol Goldur and started rotting the forest. Then it started to become known as Mirkwood. Following the events of Return of the King, it actually gets a whole new pretty name (since its healed), but I forget what it is just now.

      Reply
  6. Nice review, and I laughed at the part about people thinking LotR is an HP ripoff.

    I agree with everything you wrote except for Radagast and Riddles in the Dark. I think Radagast was necessary to the plot, but I didn’t want him to be comic relief.

    I thought Riddles in the Dark was important. I didn’t notice any problems with the pacing and even if there were, it’s SUCH an important part of the story. It’s the point where I started to love Tolkien’s books; before that I was just slogging through the story.

    Reply
  7. I’m glad you didn’t hate it 😀
    It seems people who actually know more of Tolkien appreciate it more.
    I was rather confused as to why they didn’t actually have Gandalf say it was the Sting as well.
    As for the riddles scene, that is one of my FAVORITE parts in the book, and the way I pictured it while reading came out quite accurate. I personally thought it was rather tense with Bilbo (and his wonderful facial expressions) being in that terrified state that makes you kind of numb to how actually terrifying it is, therefore acting rather more trivial than you would think one might act. I was thinking of the book the entire time, so perhaps I got more from it while thinking of the text and my emotions while reading it.

    Also I apologize if my sentences are weird. I keep getting distracted.

    Reply
    • No problem– it’s translatable.

      Every scene is ideally supposed to entertain the audience, develop a character, and move the plot forward, all at once. The riddle contest only entertained, and slightly showed Gollum’s backstory. There was no plot development. Yes, it’s a game for Bilbo’s survival, but Gollum reneges on the agreement anyway. They could have just had Gollum tackle Bilbo, Bilbo accidentally slip on the Ring, and that is that. Furthermore, having Bilbo actually see the Ring before he puts it in his pocket is a mistake. In the book, Bilbo just feels something and puts it in his pocket, which creates the question, “What have I got in my pocket?” This way, he knew what he had in his pocket– a gold ring.

      Reply
      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 31, 2013

        Riddles in the Dark provided the necessary means of how Bilbo later gets the dwarves out of prison (the elves get them, remember?) aka the Ring.

      • I’m talking about the riddle contest, not the encounter with Gollum, nor the finding of the Ring. Just the riddles.

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 31, 2013

        A Riddle Game without Riddles is useless. And they left some of them out!

      • Just take out the riddle game– it has nothing to do with the Ring, or Bilbo’s ability to get out. Gollum didn’t honor the agreement anyway.

  8. Really good review (one of the most thoughtful I’ve seen on the movie). I am glad I wasn’t the only one bothered by the fact that Orcrist and Glamdring never glowed. Incidentally, my Glamdring replica doesn’t either 😛

    Something interesting to note is that Peter Jackson only has rights to adapt material from The Hobbit and LotR. He cannot touch material from The Silmlarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc, and if he even makes minor references, the Tolkien estate can be rather litigious. So it means that certain things have to be left vague or unexplained. One big wink PJ made at the estate was when Gandalf mentions the blue wizards but he “can’t quite recall their names.” This is because, while the name “blue wizards,” are mentioned in LotR, they are only given specific names in The Silmarillion. I wish they would be more flexible with the rights, as some of the backstories are amazing and would really add some nice color to some of the stories. In fact, I would love to see an entire movie about Beren and Luthien.

    I agree about the slight fudging of the Azog story as well…definitely not such a major character in the book, but the movies needed a central villain outside of Smaug, and he was a reasonable choice.

    I think the only point I disagreed on was Riddles in the Dark. I thought that was hands down the best scene in the movie. The pacing, the delivery, the build-up, were all on point. I actually liked the fact that it took us out of the setting of the rest of the story for a bit, as it puts additional emphasis on the importance of what actually happens in that cave.

    Can’t wait to see what they do with the Desolation of Smaug…Beorn should be an interesting character, and I can’t wait to see more of Thranduil.

    Reply
    • That’s very interesting… I never knew about the rights agreement before. You’re right, a Beren and Luthien story would be interesting, but only to true Tolkien geeks. Many people know the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, but much fewer know the Silmarillion, or have actually read Aragorn’s poem about Luthien.

      Reply
      • I think the story is one of those universally “beautiful” stories that could stand on its own. It’s a tragic love story (and incidentally, Tolkien referred to him and his wife as Beren and Luthien, and it is inked on their tombstones). But, alas, we won’t see it in our lifetimes.

      • Technically, since it’s mentioned in the Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson could say something about it, though he probably couldn’t tell the complete story.

      • Robyn Hoode

         /  January 31, 2013

        I think he does in the extended edition. The hobbits and Aragorn are in a swamp for the night, Frodo looks up and Aragorn is singing in Elvish. I think Aragorn said it was Beren and Luthien he was singing about.

      • You are right Robyn- Aragorn is singing the song of Beren and Luthien and briefly tells Frodo about it. The Silmarillion, though, has a lot more detail, a full story (which talks about all of the great things they both did, and the enormous sacrifice Luthien makes), but unfortunately that won’t ever be told because those details are there and only there.

      • Indeed. The talking wolf, Beren losing his hand– all these treasures, lost in copyright agreements.

  9. kd5bjo

     /  July 29, 2013

    Interesting; I had pegged Thorin as the protagonist, Azog the antagonist, and Bilbo the dynamic character for this movie.

    Reply
    • Indeed? Thorin doesn’t even appear until twenty minutes into the movie. He definitely has a separate plotline against Azog, and the dynamic character thing works both ways, but I think Bilbo was the protagonist.

      Reply
      • kd5bjo

         /  August 3, 2013

        While Thorin himself doesn’t show up for 20 minutes, the primary driving force of the movie is his desire to retrieve the Arkenstone which is set up in the opening scenes of the movie; If Bilbo is the protagonist, what is his clearly-defined concrete goal? Unfortunately, it’s been a while since I saw the movie and my mind’s a bit fuzzy on details.

      • Does Thorin achieve his goal within the bounds of the movie? No, they don’t even see the Arkenstone again. The protagonist must either achieve his goal or give it up. Bilbo’s goal is actually to stay home. Gandalf is the antagonist, keeping him from staying home. At the end of the movie, he decides he doesn’t want to go home after all, and thereby gives up his goal.

  10. Harry potter ripoff? What?

    Erm, okay. Right.

    None of us remembered the storm giants, either, so my brother went and pulled the book out to try to find it. He’s read it like four times, though, so I think he knew right where to look for it…

    I’ve heard a lot of people say they didn’t like the riddles scene. I personally did, but I can see why it slowed the movie down. I guess the biggest reason it was in there was because was because it was one of the best things from the book. (At least, as far as I remember. It’s been a while since I read the book.)

    *sings the cleaning up the dishes song from the beginning of the movie* *realizes she doesn’t remember the lyrics and pretends to sing it instead*

    Reply
  1. Gandalf’s Middle Earth Decision Flow Chart | SERENDIPITY

Comment! I'll reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: