The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Talkback *Spoilers*

[MegaGearMax]

I liked it better than the first one.

 

Smaug kicks so much ass! I'm glad that he wasn't like the Kraken--appears for five minutes and then he's defeated. The next movie must begin with a bang!

The dwarf in a barrel during the river scene was awesome!

Bilbo is a beast compared to Frodo. Facing down a dragon, killing orcs and giant spiders, tricking trolls, figuring out puzzles...

Legolas looks so much thicker...more buff now. It has been like 10 years since Orlando Bloom last donned the elf ears.

[SCB]

Well the last Hobbit film was ruined for me with the high frame rate (HFR) version which I promised myself never to do again. The regular version of this installment brought me back to the LOTR Middle Earth from the last decade I fell in love with.

This one was really good, super long as expected, but very good. Although it felt extremely obvious Peter Jackson was stretching every inch of this story as long as possible to make a third three hour movie. That's not news however, so let's get to the movie.

Gandalf, Bilbo, and the pre-fellow ship are still on their way to Smaug, but there's still a ton of complicated lands and dangers on their way. My favorite parts were when the elves show up on screen. Legolas is amazing to watch, as is Evangeline Lily. She's basically the female Legolas and I meant that in the best way possible. Also really liked the Bard character. Still don't like Thorin, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to.

We finally get to see Smaug and he's amazing to watch and listen to. Although, this was one of the things you could feel being stretched out for screen time.

When the movie ended, everyone groaned and boo'd and not in a good way. They could feel the producers and studios saying "cha-ching!" as they marketed the final installment.

All that being said, worth seeing.

[The All American]

Well the last Hobbit film was ruined for me with the high frame rate (HFR) version which I promised myself never to do again. The regular version of this installment brought me back to the LOTR Middle Earth from the last decade I fell in love with.

This one was really good, super long as expected, but very good. Although it felt extremely obvious Peter Jackson was stretching every inch of this story as long as possible to make a third three hour movie. That's not news however, so let's get to the movie.

Gandalf, Bilbo, and the pre-fellow ship are still on their way to Smaug, but there's still a ton of complicated lands and dangers on their way. My favorite parts were when the elves show up on screen. Legolas is amazing to watch, as is Evangeline Lily. She's basically the female Legolas and I meant that in the best way possible. Also really liked the Bard character. Still don't like Thorin, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to.

We finally get to see Smaug and he's amazing to watch and listen to. Although, this was one of the things you could feel being stretched out for screen time.

When the movie ended, everyone groaned and boo'd and not in a good way. They could feel the producers and studios saying "cha-ching!" as they marketed the final installment.

All that being said, worth seeing.

I remember those same groans when I went to see Back to the Future 2 back in the day! I agree Peter Jackson is really stretching these movies too thin.

I'm a huge fan of the first three films and Tolkien's works in general. I love how these films have brought Middle-Earth to light. Quite honestly, they could continue making stuff from the Appendices and I'd be fine with it. It's just inserting too much of that into the Hobbit films ends up breaking up the adventure of Bilbo and the Dwarves.

I'd prefer if the Hobbit were two films, and the Dol Guldur/Battle of the North its own film.

[Firefly]

Everybody at my theater groaned at the ending, too. I enjoyed the movie, but I can't help but feel they could have easily done the Hobbit in two films. The barrel sequence was fun.

[Alexx]

I enjoyed it as the movie it is! I do kinda still want a totally Hobbit movie - like off the book with less diversions - but as a movie prequel to the LotR movies, I'm highly enjoying it.

That said, there are still a few things they could have added from the book without sacrificing the movie story, I think. Little stuff here and there, though, so I don't really have any complaints.

[SCB]

I don't think I've liked Orlando Bloom in any other role.

Also love Ian's portrayal of Gandalf. The way he says things is awesome.

I dig the inter species love story.

Smaug vs the Balrog would be epic.

Spider scenes also really well done.

Is it true Viggo turned down these films because Aragorn wasn't in The Hobbit?

[Optimus Prime]

Is it true Viggo turned down these films because Aragorn wasn't in The Hobbit?

Yes, and would it made any kind of sense to have him in it, anyway? Aragorn would have been in his 20's at the time of the Hobbit, and Viggo is 55. They would have had to de-age him ala Jeff Bridges in TRON: Legacy.

[Ornclown]

The book? Timeless and supremely wonderful.

The movie? Awesome and a fun time.

As a movie based on the book? Not very good.

I'll spare all of my complaints about the looseness of PJ's adaptation (since I'm sure you all have them too) and post what I loved about this movie.

-The escape from the Wood Elf Stronghold (barrel scene) was freakin' fun-as-hell! The cinematography here was amazing!
-Smaug. I think the guys over at Weta workshop really did this character justice. I love dragons, and this version of Smaug is second only to my imagination!
-The Mirkwood (spider assailants) scene. This was pretty awesome for two reasons: 1) it explains how Bilbo can understand "spider-talk" and 2) Bilbo kills the hell outta some big ol' spiders! Plus, when he climbs to the top of the trees is one of my favorite parts of the book...
-Beorn. I wasn't sure they were even going to include this part of the book.

Yes, and would it made any kind of sense to have him in it, anyway? Aragorn would have been in his 20's at the time of the Hobbit, and Viggo is 55. They would have had to de-age him ala Jeff Bridges in TRON: Legacy.

Plus, it would have been ABSOLUTELY stupid and ludicrous to have his character in the Hobbit.... (just as it is with Legolas.)

[lucas]

Plus, it would have been ABSOLUTELY stupid and ludicrous to have his character in the Hobbit.... (just as it is with Legolas.)

Aragorn would have been a 10 year old boy (born T.A. 2931) at the time Thorin & Company were in Imladris (in T.A. 2941). Aragorn's father was killed when Aragorn was just two years old, and his mother Gilraen took him to Imladris to be raised in the house of Elrond. So I was kind of hoping that in the background there would be a 10 year old boy called Estel, which is what Aragorn was called at the time. But yeah, it would have been stupid to have Viggo play him.

Legolas, on the other hand, was an important character to include. From the second that I heard The Hobbit was green lit, I knew he would be included. He was the son of the Elvenking in Mirkwood. Even though he was not mentioned in the narrative of the book The Hobbit, he definitely would have been involved in the captivity of the dwarves.

One of the things that I love about these movie adaptations of The Hobbit is that they do a good job of fitting the narrative withing the greater realm of Tolkien's mythology. When he wrote the original book, he did not intend for it to be a part of his greater mythology. However, when his publisher requested a sequel, and he began developing it, he discovered that these stories could, in fact, fit within the opus of his life. So LOTR is written within that framework, but The Hobbit wasn't really. Several of the names he borrowed from what he had established already (Elrond and Gondolin being two of them), but it was mostly written to be an independent children's story. When I read The Hobbit, I like it fine for what it is, but it doesn't really feel "Tolkien" to me. Jackson's movies thus far have helped that narrative to feel like it belongs in the greater story, though, or at least Peter Jackson's interpretation of the greater story.

In the case of this particular movie, there are tons of changes. This has the most changed of any of the five movies released so far. Some of the additions have their roots with source material from Tolkien outside of The Hobbit, but some of them are completely added specifically for the movie. For the most part, I am fine with the changes. I have one or two minor nitpicks, but despite the changes, the overall story remains the same.

I am known by those who know me to be somewhat of a Tolkien expert. So as to help them sort through what was changed, I have prepared a few paragraphs describing them as best as I remembered them after my first viewing. I will now copy and paste those paragraphs below in spoiler tags so that y'all can possibly benefit as well.

 

TDOS begins in Bree. It is a scene in which Thorin meets Gandalf. This is not from the original story, but it does have its roots with Tolkien. As is common, though, Jackson changes it around a bit. In the Tolkien source material, it is Thorin who seeks out Gandalf. However, in the movie it is Gandalf who seeks out Thorin.

The movie then jumps ahead a year to shortly after the end of AUJ. In the book, Gandalf takes the company to Beorn’s, but Beorn is not in his bear form yet. They go into his house two at a time and ask for help. After he agrees to help them, it is when he goes out at night that they find out about his bear form.

When the company reaches Mirkwood, in the book it was always Gandalf’s intention to leave them. He didn’t receive a special message from Galadriel telling him to do so, as seen in the movie. He had to go meet with the White Council. The book does not clarify who all is in the White Council, but other Tolkien source material indicates that it would have been at least Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Radagast, and Gandalf.

Continuing on the Gandalf storyline: His visit (actually, visits) to Dol Guldur takes place far earlier in the Tolkien source material. He actually visited the first time about 900 years prior to the events of the book and movies. At that time, Sauron was not ready to combat him, so he retreated and came back about 400 years later. Then, about 100 years prior to the events of the book and movies, Gandalf again visits Dol Guldur. This time, he finds Thrain, Thorin’s father. Thrain had been the keeper of the last Dwarven ring, and Sauron had imprisoned him and taken it away. It was when Gandalf found Thrain in Dol Guldur that he received the map and key to Erebor (the Lonely Mountain).

Returning to Thorin and Company: It took them much longer to get through Mirkwood than portrayed in the movie. In fact, they did not encounter the spiders until they were most of the way through it. And how they did so was completely different. They did, indeed, send Bilbo up the tree to see how much further the forest was, but actually, in the book, he could not see anything beyond the forest. He descended the tree and gave the dwarves the bad news that the forest continued on forever. They were actually in a low spot, though, so Bilbo just couldn’t see over a hill.

On to the spiders (and the elves): In the book, the company is out of supplies in the forest. At night they see a fire off in the distance, so they leave the trail to see what is going on. They find the fire in the middle of a clearing, and there are a bunch of elves partying around it. As soon as the dwarves enter the clearing, though, the fire goes out and the elves disappear. This happens a few times, and actually different members of the company fall under an enchantment as it happens. Eventually, Bilbo gets separated from the rest of the company, and the dwarves get captured by the spiders. (Bilbo was never captured, despite what was seen in the movie.) Bilbo puts on the Ring (he never takes it off around the spiders, despite what was seen in the movie), taunts the spiders, leads them away from the dwarves, and eventually circles back and frees the dwarves.

It is after the dwarves are freed from the spiders that they are captured by the elves. They are weakened by spider poison and put up no defense. And they are put in cells separated from each other so that they cannot communicate and plot together. They are also held for quite a while before Bilbo comes up with a plan to save them. He sneaks into the elven kingdom as shown in the movie, though.

Regarding the elves: Neither Legolas nor Tauriel were in the book. Tauriel was actually completely made up for the movie. Tolkien source material identifies Thranduil as the Sindarin (grey elves) king of the Silvan (green elves) of Mirkwood. Thranduil is not named in the narrative of the book, though. He is just called the Elvenking. Tolkien source material also identifies Legolas as Thranduil’s son. As elves are very long-lived, it makes perfect sense that Legolas would be one of the Mirkwood elves seen in this movie. Even though Tauriel is made up, I like how she is portrayed as a Silvan elf. The Sindar were a higher order of elves, so it makes sense that Thranduil would kind of look down on her and not want Legolas to court her.

The dwarf escape was completely changed for the movie, too. In the book, Bilbo just leads them to the empty barrels and hides them. The elves are actually the ones that send the barrels (filled with dwarves) into the river, and they float all the way to Lake Town that way.

I suppose that I should say something about Azog and Bolg, too. In the Tolkien source material, Azog was actually killed something like 150 years prior to the time of the narrative. He was killed by Dain, Thorin’s cousin, at the battle outside the gates of Moria that is shown in flashbacks in AUJ. So he does not come up in the narrative at all. Bolg does not come into the narrative until the end when he leads the orcs (goblins in the book; in Tolkien lore, goblins and orcs are basically the same species, not different as seen in the movies) to the Battle of Five Armies.

In the book, the dwarves are not found by Bard. They are just found by lake men when they go to recover the barrels. They are then immediately taken to the Master of Lake Town. The movie portrays the Master pretty well, though. He doesn’t like the dwarves, but he sees that the people are excited to have them there. So he pretends to be excited, too. The dwarves stay in Lake Town for quite a while, and then they are sent on to Erebor with a bunch of supplies. All of the dwarves go on to Erebor instead of the four staying behind as in the movie.

Once they arrive at Erebor, not all of them go up to the ledge where the secret door is. They set up a camp lower down for their supplies. Then they set up ropes in which they climb back and forth from the camp to the ledge.

The entire time that Bilbo is around Smaug, he leaves the Ring on. The first time that he goes down, Smaug does not wake up immediately. Bilbo grabs the closest thing that he can find (a golden cup), grabs it, and runs back up to the dwarves. After a little time, though, Smaug stirs, notices the cup is missing, becomes angry, and leaves the mountain. All of the dwarves hide in the tunnel, but Smaug destroys their supplies and eats their ponies. Because he ate the ponies, he could tell that there were dwarves nearby. He could not place Bilbo’s species, though. Then Smaug goes back into the mountain and settles down.

Eventually the dwarves send Bilbo back down. This time, Smaug is awake and converses with Bilbo. Through their conversation, Smaug becomes angry and then leaves to go destroy Lake Town. The dwarves hide in the tunnel and mountain again when Smaug leaves. There is no big chase scene between the dwarves and Smaug as seen in the movie.

The Black Arrow is not an oversized arrow that is shot from an oversized bow. It is just a standard-sized arrow shot from a regular bow. It likely has some enchantments on it, but the source material never elaborates. It just says that it has never failed Bard.

[Dragon78]

I loved the movie just as I loved the last one.

I also like to the elf/dwarf love story.

I like that the dwarves are not useless like they are in the book.

I like that they show were Gandalf goes when he is not with the group.

I like that they added a female character.

I like the Bard and his back story.

I love the Barrel fight.

I love how they did Smaug.

[Thatman]

I don't know - I wasn't too crazy about the movie - but the thing is, I liked pretty much everything in the movie (Smaug was incredible, and the barrel sequence was a lot of fun. Loved the nod to Gimli as well.) I just felt that all the elements added up did not make for a good movie. It just felt very stretched to me, with unnecessary padding. So while I liked all the ingredients, somehow I just didn't like the finished product as much as I'd hoped.

[Bonehead]

First off, I loved the film. The crowd in my theater had the same the reaction to the ending. But honestly, why would anyone think that we'd see Smaug's death in the second film knowing it was a trilogy?

Did anybody else think the flashback at the Prancing Pony should have been in AUJ?

Smaug was just outstanding. Every scene he was in was breathtaking. Having said that, the Orcs still looked bad. Not AUJ bad but still not up to par. Azog did look a bit better but Blog...ugh. Why in the world Jackson replaced that great looking practical effects Blog for that CGI version is beyond me.

Tauriel wasn't as bad as I expected. It's a shame though how Jackson had to go back on his word about the "love triangle" after promising Evangeline Lilly. The reasoning behind it though makes sense.

Yes, and would it made any kind of sense to have him in it, anyway? Aragorn would have been in his 20's at the time of the Hobbit, and Viggo is 55.

I agree. Aragorn had really no place in the story.

I'm glad Liv Tyler passed as well. She was to have a small cameo scene with Bilbo that was replaced by Jackson to a scene between Bilbo and Elrond which was in the extended edition of AUJ.

Plus, it would have been ABSOLUTELY stupid and ludicrous to have his character in the Hobbit.... (just as it is with Legolas.)

I disagree about Legolas. He's Thranduil's son so of course he'd be in Mirkwood when Bilbo and the Dwarfs came through on their way to Erebor. The only reason he wasn't in the book to begin with is cause Tolkien hadn't created him yet. If Rings had been written first and the Hobbiit second, he would have been included. Tolkien loved to reference stuff from the Hobbit in Rings so why wouldn't he of done the same if the novels had beet written in reverse?

[SCB]

Smaug didn't have to die, but they really milked every minute imaginable with Smaug in that one place. When Smaug finally broke out and flew away, it was almost a relief for me that part was finally over. But the audience in my theater sensed, "you better not end it at this moment...oh fuuuuuuu!"

[Bonehead]

Forgot to mention earlier but I gotta say that the CGI golden statue the dwarfs made looked horrible. How could the CGI on Smaug look so awesome but the statue looks so bad?

[RyDell]

I liked the movie overall. I think that Tauriel was one of the best parts of the movie... she was amazing on screen. I liked how Bolg got a haircut for this movie. I was expecting more to happen at Dol Guldor in this movie... I remember seeing scenes with Beorn there. Loved how they did the Spider speech but I feel that scene could have been extended a little further in the movie, to make it more similar to the novel. The Smaug part was really drawn out, but was really cool. The whole "being corrupted by the Arkenstone" seems to forced as it is too similar to the ring. Also I found it very interesting that Smaug knew of the precious.

So here's my question... did Smaug exist during the time of Sauron?

Next question... my 9 year old came up with this one:
What if Bilbo just got rid of the ring in Erebor and threw it onto the mountain of gold? Would Smaug then protect it as his own treasure? The Nazgul wouldn't be able to get it as "no man can kill them.." but a dragon probably could. And lastly... could Sauron challenge Smaug and be victorious? What say you?

[lucas]

The whole "being corrupted by the Arkenstone" seems to forced as it is too similar to the ring.

In the greater Tolkien mythology, it is really the

 

last of the seven dwarf rings that is the corrupting factor. Thror, Thorin's grandfather, had this, and it got passed on to Thrain, Thorin's father. Thrain was captured by Sauron and held in Dol Guldur about 100 years before the narrative of The Hobbit takes place. Gandalf found him there, which is when he received the map and key to Erebor. There have been a couple of hints about the dwarf ring in the first two movies, so I think that they may still go there for the third.

So here's my question... did Smaug exist during the time of Sauron?

Well, technically speaking, The Hobbit takes "during the time of Sauron". He was defeated at the end of the Second Age, and about 1000 years later is when he took the guess of the Necromancer of Mirkwood. The Hobbit takes place during year 2941 of the Third Age, and in the next year, Sauron secretly returns to Mordor. T.A. 2951 is when Sauron openly declares his return. Smaug takes Erebor in T.A. 2770. I don't think that the year of his birth is indicated anywhere, but I do seem to recall reading somewhere that he was a young dragon when he took the dwarven kingdom. So I doubt that he was around while Sauron was reigning in the Second Age.

One of Gandalf's concerns prior to the events of The Hobbit is that Sauron would make use of Smaug. Thus, part of his support for Thorin was based upon removing the world of that possibility. It doesn't seem like Smaug and Sauron were ever aligned, though.

Next question... my 9 year old came up with this one:
What if Bilbo just got rid of the ring in Erebor and threw it onto the mountain of gold? Would Smaug then protect it as his own treasure? The Nazgul wouldn't be able to get it as "no man can kill them.." but a dragon probably could. And lastly... could Sauron challenge Smaug and be victorious? What say you?

This one's a harder question to answer. If Bilbo would have lost the ring in Erebor, I'm sure that Smaug would have found it. Rings of Power have a way of getting themselves found. Sauron was originally a greater entity than a dragon would have been, but a large part of his power went into the One Ring, so he was diminished without it. So I think that it's conceivable that Smaug with the Ring could have been a match for Sauron. At the same time, though, dragons (in Tolkien's mythology) were evil beings created to serve Morgoth. Morgoth had been removed from the world, but Sauron was his chief lieutenant. So I also think that it is conceivable that Smaug would have surrendered the ring to Sauron.

[wyldman11]

Yes and no, Smaug is actually a pretty old dragon as I recall. The problem is the no is the fact that much of what happens in Lord of the Rings hadn't really reached what we got in the books at that point. The Hobbit was published in 1937, the LOTR trilogy released in 1954-55. In fact Tolkien went back to edit The Hobbit to bring it more in line with LOTR.

One of the changes is in the original the ring was just a ring and Gollum willingly let the ring go when he lost the riddle game. Tolkien uses a literary device of having Gandalf have Bilbo tell what really happened when he found out which ring it was later.

In the Unfinished Tales, Gandalf is afraid that Sauron would ally with Smaug and part of the reason he pushed for all this to happen.

[Ornclown]

Legolas, on the other hand, was an important character to include. From the second that I heard The Hobbit was green lit, I knew he would be included. He was the son of the Elvenking in Mirkwood. Even though he was not mentioned in the narrative of the book The Hobbit, he definitely would have been involved in the captivity of the dwarves.

I disagree about Legolas. He's Thranduil's son so of course he'd be in Mirkwood when Bilbo and the Dwarfs came through on their way to Erebor. The only reason he wasn't in the book to begin with is cause Tolkien hadn't created him yet. If Rings had been written first and the Hobbiit second, he would have been included. Tolkien loved to reference stuff from the Hobbit in Rings so why wouldn't he of done the same if the novels had beet written in reverse?

These are both valid reasons and make sense. I guess I was just surprised to see Legolas play such a large part in the movie (going all the way into Lake Town even) when his character didn't really exist (yet) in the Hobbit. I will say this though, PJ really knows how to make an exciting scene out of nothing! Legolas kicks so much Orc (Goblin) butt during the 'barrel scene'! Even though it was nowhere close to what happens in the book (basically nothing...), it was one of my favorite scenes.

I also like to the elf/dwarf love story.

Doesn't Tolkien explain, somewhere along the line, that Elves absolutely hate Dwarves - and vice versa?

This was one aspect of the movie I really, really did not like - at all....

Did anybody else think the flashback at the Prancing Pony should have been in AUJ?

I believe this was by design. It serves the purpose of quickly re-introducing the overarching plot and two of the main protagonists to those viewers who haven't seen the first movie for some time. (BTW, this is also where Peter Jackson makes his cameo!)

Well, technically speaking, The Hobbit takes "during the time of Sauron". He was defeated at the end of the Second Age, and about 1000 years later is when he took the guess of the Necromancer of Mirkwood. The Hobbit takes place during year 2941 of the Third Age, and in the next year, Sauron secretly returns to Mordor. T.A. 2951 is when Sauron openly declares his return. Smaug takes Erebor in T.A. 2770. I don't think that the year of his birth is indicated anywhere, but I do seem to recall reading somewhere that he was a young dragon when he took the dwarven kingdom. So I doubt that he was around while Sauron was reigning in the Second Age.

In the Hobbit, Smaug is referred to as a vile worm who grew large by eating the Dwarves of Erebor and the men of the surrounding lands... I know this doesn't reference his age at all, but I like to think of Smaug as a young (generally speaking, seeing as how long their life-spans really are...) dragon who was, at one time, able to fit through the halls and tunnels of Erebor before growing older and much larger.

[lucas]

Doesn't Tolkien explain, somewhere along the line, that Elves absolutely hate Dwarves - and vice versa?

This was one aspect of the movie I really, really did not like - at all....

Yeah, that was the one part of the movie that I didn't like at all, either.

In Tolkien, relations between dwarves and elves were complicated. In the First Age, the elf king Thingol (Elrond's great, great grandfather) had in his possession a Silmaril that had been recovered from the crown of Morgoth. He asked dwarves from the ancient dwarf kingdom Belegost to put the Silmaril in an extremely beautiful necklace called the Nauglamír. Once the dwarves completed this task, they decided that they wanted to keep it for themselves, so they slew Thingol and ran off. This eventually lead to a big battle, and Thingol's kingdom was pretty much destroyed. Then the victorious dwarves were killed by ents, and the Nauglamír, still containing the Silmaril, was given to Thingol's daughter. So this has strained relationships between elves and dwarves ever since.

Still, there were times that they collaborated and got along. In the Second Age, the elves who spearheaded the forging of the Rings of Power settle outside the west gates of Khazad-dûm, and they had great connections with the dwarves. Once Sauron declared himself and made war on the elves, though, the dwarves sealed off their kingdom, and it eventually became known as Moria.

The elves of Mirkwood were Silvan elves, but Thranduil, who settled there and became their king after the First Age, was a Sindar from Thingol's kingdom. So he would have had an especially bitter grudge against the dwarves. He likely had alright interactions with them when they settled Erebor, but he certainly had no love for them.

[Optimus Prime]

From what I recall, the Dwarves were created first, by the Vala Aule and in secret so he could teach them his craft. However, Iluvatar knew of their creation and despite allowing their continued existence, refused to let them "awaken" before the Elves, who Iluvatar had called "the Firstborn." Therefore, the seven "Fathers of the Dwarves" were locked away in stone chambers to await said awakening. As for their relations with the Elves, between the First and most of the Second Age they had friendly relations. It was when Moira was closed that the Dwarves became mistrustful of the Elves.

[Ridureyu]

Yes, The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug is different from the book.

Just like Frankenstein, The Wizard of Oz, Dracula, Snow White, Jaws, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast (okay, almost all Disney movies. Pretend I added like thirty here), Jurassic Park, The Princess Bride, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Shining, The Thing, The Maltese Falcon, Kiss Me Deadly, Nosferatu, The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, Dune, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, All the Harry Potters, The Silence of the Lambs, The Shining, Fight Club, Goodfellas, The Godfather, Everything Sherlock Holmes Ever...

[Ornclown]

From what I recall, the Dwarves were created first, by the Vala Aule and in secret so he could teach them his craft. However, Iluvatar knew of their creation and despite allowing their continued existence, refused to let them "awaken" before the Elves, who Iluvatar had called "the Firstborn." Therefore, the seven "Fathers of the Dwarves" were locked away in stone chambers to await said awakening. As for their relations with the Elves, between the First and most of the Second Age they had friendly relations. It was when Moira was closed that the Dwarves became mistrustful of the Elves.

Yeah, that was the one part of the movie that I didn't like at all, either.

In Tolkien, relations between dwarves and elves were complicated. In the First Age, the elf king Thingol (Elrond's great, great grandfather) had in his possession a Silmaril that had been recovered from the crown of Morgoth. He asked dwarves from the ancient dwarf kingdom Belegost to put the Silmaril in an extremely beautiful necklace called the Nauglamír. Once the dwarves completed this task, they decided that they wanted to keep it for themselves, so they slew Thingol and ran off. This eventually lead to a big battle, and Thingol's kingdom was pretty much destroyed. Then the victorious elves were killed by ents, and the Nauglamír, still containing the Silmaril, was given to Thingol's daughter. So this has strained relationships between elves and dwarves ever since.

Still, there were times that they collaborated and got along. In the Second Age, the elves who spearheaded the forging of the Rings of Power settle outside the west gates of Khazad-dûm, and they had great connections with the dwarves. Once Sauron declared himself and made war on the elves, though, the dwarves sealed off their kingdom, and it eventually became known as Moria.

The elves of Mirkwood were Silvan elves, but Thranduil, who settled there and became their king after the First Age, was a Sindar from Thingol's kingdom. So he would have had an especially bitter grudge against the dwarves. He likely had alright interactions with them when they settled Erebor, but he certainly had no love for them.

This brings up another point of stress between Elves and Dwarves. When the Dwarves saw that the Elves failed to come to their aid at Erebor, they mistook their absence for a cowardly act and slight against Dwarven kind.

Awesome, thanks for the background guys! And lucas, bravo on your Tolkien history/knowledge, I love all of the insight!

Although I am not especially fond of the Peter Jackson LotR trilogy, I do enjoy the fact that it gets fans, old and new, to discuss all things Middle Earth... This is such an exciting and wondrous universe that is well worth getting lost in - for years! This is another aspect of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy that I can really get behind: bringing attention back to one of the greatest stories/adventures ever written!!

[lucas]

This brings up another point of stress between Elves and Dwarves. When the Dwarves saw that the Elves failed to come to their aid at Erebor, they mistook their absence for a cowardly act and slight against Dwarven kind.

Awesome, thanks for the background guys! And lucas, bravo on your Tolkien history/knowledge, I love all of the insight!

Although I am not especially fond of the Peter Jackson LotR trilogy, I do enjoy the fact that it gets fans, old and new, to discuss all things Middle Earth... This is such an exciting and wondrous universe that is well worth getting lost in - for years! This is another aspect of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy that I can really get behind: bringing attention back to one of the greatest stories/adventures ever written!!

Thanks! I love a number of "geeky" things: MOTU, Marvel movies, Star Wars, Star Trek. But Tolkien's mythology is what I love and have studied the most.

I also love the Jackson interpretations. I definitely nitpick them as I view them, but for the most part I have found them to be about the best movie adaptations of the stories that can be made. The Tolkien Estate, with his son Christopher at the helm, has been very critical and non-supportive of them, though, and this makes me sad. They seem to think that Jackson has ruined the mythology. I think, on the other hand, that it has exposed far more people to it. Sure, not everyone who sees the movies will go on and read the books, but I think that the books are getting far more readers now than they would without the movies. It is also my understanding that J.R.R. Tolkien himself actually supported other people dabbling in his mythology, making music, artwork, etc. based on it. Extending that to modern cinema, I have to think that he would be ok with it. Christopher has done an amazing job preserving his father's legacy, but I think that he needs to lighten up and allow others to interpret it within their own contexts, too.

[wyldman11]

In the anime for Record of Lodoss War, Parn asks the party's dwarf (whose name escapes me atm), that he thought dwarves hated elves when he helps Deedlit and elf. The dwarf responds basically they may not get along as races that well but that doesn't mean they shouldn't respect one another. I also believe he had just complimented the Deedlit.

Many have noticed that the generic elf vs dwarf is almost upper class vs lower class, where both tend to have different ideals on things such as art, beauty, love, philosophy etc. And much like those two classes some within them absolutely hate others from the other class, others love them, but most often they aren't sure how to handle each other because it's like two different worlds.

Now was that Tolkien's intent I am not sure. I also am not sure Tolkien was fully satisfied with how some of that played out just yet. He had an idea for what he wanted to do but was never quite satisfied. Which is part of the reason I have been told the Silmarillion can be a chore to get through as it to some extent piece mail. I have intended to read it for years but just haven't gotten around to it. I would like to read the other books again also (The Hobbit is one of the few works of fiction I have read more than once).

[lucas]

Now was that Tolkien's intent I am not sure. I also am not sure Tolkien was fully satisfied with how some of that played out just yet. He had an idea for what he wanted to do but was never quite satisfied. Which is part of the reason I have been told the Silmarillion can be a chore to get through as it to some extent piece mail. I have intended to read it for years but just haven't gotten around to it. I would like to read the other books again also (The Hobbit is one of the few works of fiction I have read more than once).

The Silmarillion, in its published from, was edited by Christopher Tolkien as best as he thought possible at the time of its publishing. It covers about 37,000 years worth of "history". So it's not really narrative or story as The Hobbit & LOTR are. It is more like reading a Western Civilization textbook vs. a narrative describing an exciting year in the life of a person who lived in that Western Civilization.

After its publication, Christopher kind of regretted doing so. He wasn't sure that it was a fair representation of his father's lifelong work. He expanded upon it originally with the publication of Unfinished Tales, and this publication contains a lot of Christopher's commentary. Then, he published 12 volumes in a series called History of Middle Earth. These volumes trace all of his father's developments, from the very earliest drafts up until he died. Volumes 1-5 deal with the pre-LOTR developments, 6-9 deal with how the LOTR was shaped and fit within the greater mythology, and 10-12 covers Tolkien's post-LOTR revisions to The Silmarillion, many of which were made to help it line up with what had been published. None of this is light reading, but for those interested in such things, it can be pretty fascinating.