[[foldercontrol]]

!!''Literature/TheHobbit'' (the book)
* How is it that Gandalf emphatically warns Bilbo and the dwarves not to mention skins or any other animal product around Beorn, yet later the book casually mentions that Beorn provided them with water skins? Were they made from goblin skin?
** Most likely, he made them after an animal had died a natural death. There's a difference between respecting nature and avoiding waste go hand in hand. He won't kill or hurt the animals, but he also isn't going to waste what they leave behind out of a sense of sentimentality. If anything, it shows the depth of Beorn's generosity, since he's giving these random people the water skins made from an animal he knew well and respected.
** The really confusing thing is that he's called a skin-changer, implying that he uses a flayed bear-rug to shapeshift. How does he explain that one to his animal friends? Maybe the term is just poetic.
*** Tolkein meant it in the sense of "shapeshifter". Beorn shows up in bear form several times in the story.
*** In any case, Beorn almost certainly doesn't need an actual bearskin to shapeshift, since when Gandalf is infodumping he makes it plain he's unsure if Beorn is a man who can change into a bear or a bear who can change into a man (though he thinks the former is more likely). If Beorn needed a bearskin, that would be pretty solid proof that he's "really" a man.
** Notably, during the Company's stay at his home, Beorn snuck off and killed a warg, afterwards nailing its skin to a tree outside his house, so he wasn't adverse to skinning his enemies. Perhaps the water-skins were made from wargs he'd killed in the past?
* Why is it that the Dwarves are so woefully underprepared for their journey? They know they're going on a dangerous quest and attempt to kill Smaug who has proven so far to be unbeatable. Yet until they find the Trolls cave they carry no weapons or any of such sort, their supplies run low often, they keep getting into predictaments and if not for Bilbo and Gandalf I'd be surprised if they could make it out of The Shire without getting into trouble. Except for Glóin and another one (Óin I think) carrying lighter fluid and oil for torches they don't really have anything. Did Thorin not realize that hey maybe going into Troll infested forests and Goblin infested mountains you might need to protect yourselves with weapons and armor in case you ran into trouble?
** They ''do'' carry supplies quite often on pack-ponies. It's just that the dangers of their journey means that they lose said supplies quite often (due to the animals taking fright and bolting into a river, being eaten by goblins, having to be left at Mirkwood's edge because they're on loan from Beorn). As for the weapons and armor, they might have been planning to obtain them later on and just took the opportunity to raid the trolls' lair when it came up. Armor is also quite heavy to travel in, and their general idea seems to have been to avoid trouble as much as possible--for instance, if they had ''known'' the pass in the Misty Mountains was now infested with goblins, they would have chosen a different path.
** Smaug beat a dwarven army with embedded defenses and a ring of power. Thorin didn't even bring a sword. Little bit of a gap there.
*** Of couse, Thorin and company may hae figured that if Smaug can beat a dwarven army with embedded defenses and a ring of power, then why bother to bring a lot of heavy armor and weapons that are just going to be useless against him anyway?
** All that being said, what was Thorin's plan to retake the Mountain, anyway? What was he going to ''do'', exactly, with a handful of Dwarves, a Hobbit, and a Wizard who can't be relied on to actually be there half the time? The Dwarves don't even have up-to-date information about whether the Dragon is even still there, let alone how they can take him down! We as readers know that the whole Quest for Erebor was orchestrated by Gandalf as part of his elaborate plan to eliminate Smaug, but Thorin doesn't know this. In fact Thorin doesn't seem to know much about the situation, nor does he have the patience or humility to ask for help. He comes across less as a great King of Dwarves and more as a hotheaded, stubborn fool, leading a bunch of bigger fools blindly through the wilderness.
*** He didn't have one. It was a thievery mission. Getting Smaug killed was just... a lucky side-effect.
* Why is it called the "Battle of Five Armies"? There were armies of dwarves, elves, men, and eagles fighting goblins and wargs. Given that the wargs are every bit as sentient as the eagles, and apparently live free in the wilderness rather than being permanent mounts for the goblins, why don't they count as a separate (sixth) army of bad guys?
** I was always under the impression that Five Armies in reference are indeed dwarves, elves, men, goblins and wargs. The eagles must not count because they're more... air force? Beorn's kind of an army of one...
** Eagles and Beorn don't count because they weren't a part of the massing armies that led to the battle. They came in at the last minute. And though they weren't insignificant, their numbers don't qualify them as an "army", anyway. A couple of dozen troops doesn't make for an army even under the most desperate circumstances.
** I assume the Wargs are counted with the Goblins, as the two races were basically united in the same army.
*** This is not the case in the book. The Wargs are an army of their own. I quote:
--> So began the battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the Wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves.
* I just wondered about when Gandalf tricked Beorn into having so many visitors by having them only come a few at a time until there were all in. Did Gandalf pull the same trick with Bilbo at the start of the book? Because the dwarfs came to his door bit by bit as well until the last few fell into the room with Gandalf, was this to stop Bilbo turning them away at once like beorn would have? Knowing Gandalf it could be true or it might be coincidence.
* Something I've wondered recently rereading the book. Why didn't Bilbo offer his share of the gold to the Man of Lake Town and the Elves? A fourteenth share is still very large and he only wound up taking only two small chests containing gold and silver back anyway. It’s his anyway to do as he pleases since he did his job as the burglar and I’m sure that would’ve been more than enough to restore Dale and appease the Elves considering how much Gold there was. Would’ve saved a lot of trouble if he had done that instead.
** He technically did. He gave away the Arkenstone.
** Indeed. Bilbo's plan was to steal the Arkenstone and force Thorin to buy it out from Bard with Bilbo's fourteenth share. And it would have worked if not for Thorin's plan to recover the Arkenstone by force with Dáin's help, and for... other complications.
----
[[folder:Gandalf's epic ''Quest of Erebor''-gambit]]
* If Gandalf is one of the wisest and most powerful people on Middle-earth, someone who's basically needed to keep things running as they should, why exactly does he spend so much time in ''The Hobbit'' just hanging around with a bunch of dwarves? Doesn't he have better things to do than find them a burglar and periodically rescue them from the trouble they get into? It's not so blatant in ''The Hobbit'' proper but once you start reading the other books you really start to wonder.
** See above regarding the vital strategic necessity of making sure that Smaug is dead before Sauron can recruit him. Remember that by the chronology the events of the ''The Hobbit'' occur almost ''immediately'' after Gandalf has just finished confirming that 'The Necromancer of Dol Guldur' is in fact Sauron, and not some lesser evil.
*** Didn't a simple hobbit kill Smaug?
**** Nope. Smaug was killed by Bard, a guardsman from Esgaroth who just happened to descend from the King of Dale. All Bilbo did was flatter Smaug until he stupidly showed off the weak point he didn't know he had, information that reached Bard at the 11th hour.
**** And both the simple hobbit being in position to speak to Smaug ''and'' Smaug's follow-up attack on Esgaroth, where he died, were both a direct result of Gandalf helping manipulate Thorin's expedition into existence in the first place. Left to their own devices, Smaug would have spent the next several decades peacefully sleeping on his pile of gold, until the War of the Ring started and Sauron made him an offer.
** In one of the ''Unfinished Tales'', it's stated that Gandalf had two reasons for helping Thorin on this quest. First, he knew Smaug needed to be dealt with lest Sauron come up with a way to use him. Second, he wanted to re-establish a Dwarf kingdom at the Lonely Mountain. He was afraid that Sauron would use the same route that Bilbo and the Dwarves used in order to attack Rivendell, and that without the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain and the men of Dale, there weren't enough "good" people in the North to stop him. Finally, it's also implied that on some level, Gandalf had retained enough of his divine knowledge to have an inkling that something else important was going to happen if Bilbo came on this quest.
** Also, as to the "something more important to do", he did, in fact several times after getting over the Misty Mountains he tells the Dwarves he has pressing matters elsewhere, is already running late, and has to go, till finally he does leave them before entering Mirkwood. The pressing business he was hurrying off to? Driving Sauron out of Dol Guldor with the rest of the White Council.
** This is actually covered in the appendices to [=LotR=], where Gandalf mentions how Thorin just ''happened'' to show up grumbling about the dragon in Bree while the wizard was thinking about how to deal with the Smaug problem. It wouldn't take a genius to go "Hey! I bet the dwarves who are holding an epic grudge can kill my dragon problem!" That way he would be free to deal with Sauron on his own.
** Outside the story, Tolkien, from what I understand, wrote the hobbit separately from the Lord of the Rings world, and only later put the two together.
* Another reason, expressed in ''Unfinished Tales'', is because Thorin insisted on it. Given how cynical and contemptuous he was of Bilbo, he agreed to take him only on the condition that Gandalf came along to look after his 'darling' until Bilbo had proved his worth. Gandalf's own route was also largely the same as the dwarves- he had to go east too, and then likely over the mountains himself (going via the Gap of Rohan would have been far too far), so Gandalf agreed.
* Okay, so Gandalf engineered the quest to kill off Smaug so that Sauron couldn't recruit him later. What made Gandalf think that the dwarves plus Bilbo would be able to do away with Smaug? The dwarves had been no match for Smaug when he had first attacked, even though they were stronger and more numerous then, and Smaug was weaker. Okay, yes, it all worked out in the end, through a process Gandalf really could not have foreseen, but wouldn't Gandalf have thought at the beginning that he was sending these people to their deaths?
** It seems likely that Gandalf originally had a plan in place, but it required him to be in the neighborhood - he may have had some dragon-slaying weapon or secret all lined up, but when he abruptly had to go deal with the Dol Guldur situation, he simply had to hope that things would not come to a head until he had a chance to get back.
* Rather than steal the Arkenstone, give it to Thorin's supposed "enemies", and pissing the shit out of Thorin (''[[OhCrap AND THE 500 dwarven warriors from the Iron Hills sent as reinforcements,]]''), why didn't Bilbo simply offer his fourteenth share for the sake of peace to begin with? In the end, he only wound up with two small chests of gold&silver anyway, he knew from the start there was no way he could have lugged his entire share home. He even said, after the Arkenstone was shown to Thorin, that Thorin could use Bilbo's fourteenth share to pay for the exchange. Why not offer his share to begin with? Y'know, rather than make everyone more hostile by stealing a valuable heirloom ''and giving it to their enemies''. I know it all worked out fine in the end, but still.
** Because it wasn't about value, it was about ''leverage''. Giving the Arkenstone to the men and elves meant that they had something that Thorin would really want--something he would be willing to bargain for and negotiate for. Bilbo's share of the gold? Thorin wouldn't have cared one wit about it. It was about getting ''Thorin'' to cooperate, not the men and elves.
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:Smaug and dragons]]
* Why are dragons so poorly adapted physically? Specifically, why are they armored on their backs, but not on their bellies? How does it make sense to give a flying creature an armored back but not an armored underside? Who or what is going to attack a dragon from above?
** This is pretty easy, actually. The first dragons ''weren't'' flyers - they were basically huge snakes with legs, and their bodies were so low to the ground that the odds of someone attacking their bellies was miniscule (Túrin in TheSilmarillion had to attack the dragon Glaurung while he was crossing a gorge in order to even have a shot at attacking him from below). Winged dragons were a later "model", and nobody ever called Morgoth the most practical or thorough of engineers- he probably just figured out how to slap wings on the basic creatures he already had and declared it "good enough".
** Perhaps this is why dragons like Smaug have a huge love of gold and other precious metals. An insurance of having armor for the soft-underbelly.
** Also, you have to consider that evolution isn't just a species getting better over time for no reason; it requires environmental pressure. The dragons never evolved projection for their bellies after developing flight because at that point, nothing was killing them frequently enough to affect their reproduction, and Arda is so relatively young that no dragon had the right set of mutations to pass on a set of hard-bellied traits.
** Winged dragons aren't due to evolution. They were due to genetic engineering by Morgoth. The answer is simple: winged dragons were first unveiled at the final battle of the first age as Morgoth's last defense against the armies of Valinor. They were literally prototypes that he never got to perfect.
** It should be noted that evolution in general simply doesn't happen in Middle-Earth. It runs on a mixture of creationism and lamarcianism. Evil creatures in particular don't evolve, much. They find themselves a comfortable niche and get increasingly stuck in it, unless driven by an external force. This is visible in any corrupt creature from Gollum to the Balrog of Moria, and even Sauron and Morgoth, himself.
* Do dragons go extinct at some point in the overall universe? I remember that they were described as no longer being as great when Elrond is discussing the ring in ''Fellowship'', but I'm not sure.
** Dragons are still around during ''LoTR'', most likely. Gandalf only says that there is almost certainly no dragon alive powerful enough to harm the One Ring (and speculates that likely no dragon ''ever'', not even Ancalagon, who was considered the most powerful, could have done it). This is a mistake people commonly make, actually. I do believe it's established that after Smaug's death there was never another dragon of his epic stature, however.
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:The Necromancer]]
* Why did the Necromancer, who was of course really Sauron, imprison and torture Thráin, Thorin's father? What was he hoping to achieve? He took Thráin's ring of power, the last of the dwarven rings, but then never did anything with it. And he hardly had to imprison Thráin for any great length of time or torture him just to get his ring. Why not try to subvert Thráin? Why not offer to help him defeat Smaug and get his treasure and his kingdom back in exchange for his ring and his fealty?
** Revenge, for the rings not being able to corrupt the dwarves.
*** If that's true, then Sauron was an idiot. What does that actually achieve? And he misses a huge opportunity.
*** Opportunity for what? Dwarves aren't short humans with beards; they're stated as having been made in the beginning to withstand the domination of others (which, of course, is why the rings did little more than make them greedy). Even in the pits of Dol Guldur, Thráin would in all likelihood tell Sauron to go fuck himself before agreeing to serve him. Look at Fellowship; Sauron promises Dáin the three taken dwarf-rings and the Mines of Moria in exchange for one measly hobbit; Dáin sends Glóin and Gimli to Rivendell to warn Bilbo and takes up his axe.
**** Just because one dwarf, who was already the ruler of a wealthy kingdom, resisted temptation, does not mean that any and all dwarves will resist temptation. Thráin was, after all, in much more desperate circumstances. And even if Thráin refused to be bribed, what did holding him and torturing him accomplish, once Sauron had his ring? It just seems pointless.
*** When did Sauron become the paragon of PragmaticVillainy?
**** To elaborate, Sauron hates anyone and anything he can't control. Though we know very little about what actually went down between him and Thráin, one would assume that if he made such an offer and Thráin threw it in his face (and remember that though the dwarves as a whole tend to stay out of wars with whoever the current Dark Lord is, Durin's Folk have traditionally opposed Sauron, so their king- even a king in exile- certainly wouldn't bow down to an ancestral enemy for any reason) Sauron would easily be angry enough to have him tortured.
** Another reason could be to extract information from Thráin (whether or not Thráin would actually tell Sauron anything is, as others have noted, up for debate). As King of a prominent (if at that point at their lowest) dwarven house, Thráin might have been in the possession of a lot of knowledge that Sauron would find useful for his purposes.
[[/folder]]
----
----
!!''WesternAnimation/TheHobbit'' (animated)

* When the men of Lake-town and the wood elves both demand a share of the treasure after the death of the dragon Smaug, Bilbo instantly agrees with Bard, the new king of Lake-town, and the wood elf king, that there is more than enough treasure to go around, and that all three factions should get a share. Now, Bilbo is clearly presented as being in the right, and as being the reasonable, sensible one, in contrast to the greedy and intransigent dwarf king Thorin. Except that Bilbo is offering to give away treasure that does not belong to him; he could offer to pay the men and elves out of his own fourteenth of the treasure, but does not, even though he ends up keeping much less than a fourteenth anyway. Secondly, the Lake-towners have a reasonable claim, since they helped the dwarves and were, after all, the ones who killed Smaug in the first place, and Bilbo and the dwarves brought Smaug's wrath down on Lake-town, leading to much suffering for its residents. But the wood elves actively hindered the dwarves, imprisoning them without any provocation. Why should they get a share? In fact, how are the wood elves any different from the goblins in this story? The book version is somewhat different, since there the elves are acting in conjunction with the humans, so the elf claim can be argued to be subsidiary to or an extension of the human claim. In the animated movie, however, the elves have simply shown up with their army and demanded a share of what is, after all, Thorin and the dwarves' rightful property, and no one thinks to point out that this is nothing but plain banditry.
** In the book, Bilbo does indeed try to use his own share for that purpose and has to manipulate things to try and get Thorin to let him.
** In the book, it is also pointed out that a goodly amount of the gold was taken by Smaug from Dale, so Bard and his people have a legitimate claim to a share of the treasure.
** When they arrive the elves mention having suffered from attacks by Smaug, which they blame the dwarves for since their hoard was what drew him to the region. They're basically suing for damages.
** "My people have suffered greatly from the wyrm through the years--we demand retribution!"
*** The probelm with the first two replies is that they begin "In the book." In the book, the story is a little different, as I pointed out in the original comment. As for the second two, the elves do indeed have a grievance with Smaug, but they cannot justly ask the dwarves to pay for damages caused by Smaug. That's like arguing that since I have a nice house, that tempted a thief into robbing my house, and, in the process, the thief stole your car to make his getaway, therefore I owe you for the loss of your car.

!!''Film/TheHobbit'' (movie)

[[folder:The adaptation approach]]
* Why were the movie versions [[AdaptationExpansion designed as prequels]] to ''Film/TheLordOfTheRings''? The original book was written first and can be taken as a stand-alone adventure. But Jackson and co. shoehorned Frodo and other LOTR elements into the movies and added a lot of stuff inspired by stuff Tolkien wrote (not directly from since they don't have the rights). Why couldn't the movies be their own thing above all, not "Previously in Middle-earth"? It may also bring to mind the ''Franchise/StarWars'' prequels. The original trilogy, especially the first movie on its own, could be taken as a stand-alone epic. By and large, the prequel trilogy only exists to set up the original.
** If Peter Jackson had his way, he would have made The Hobbit before The Lord of the Rings. It just so happened a different company already bought the rights to The Hobbit and planned to make a movie themselves, only they never got around to it. Jackson decided not to wait ten years and bought the available LotR rights. And I don't know about others, but this troper thought the huge amounts of familiar sights and sounds from the LotR trilogy was a very nice touch for fans.
** Note that Tolkien revisited the events of ''Literature/TheHobbit'' in "The Quest of Erebor" from ''Unfinished Tales'', writing from Gandalf's perspective [[OlderThanTheyThink in the vein of the more serious LOTR]]. To this end [[OlderThanTheyThink he even tried rewriting]] ''The Hobbit'' from the start, apart from the One Ring-related retcons in the latest published edition. But he abandoned the attempt at a "serious ''Hobbit''" rewrite when he was told it "wasn't really ''The Hobbit'' anymore".
** Predictably these concerns have been echoed by many critics, even the comparisons to the Star Wars prequels. Many of the critics' complaints are against the PanderingToTheBase - glorified {{Fanservice}} and {{Fanfiction}} ({{Padding}} under another name), excessive [[ContinuityNod Continuity Nods]]/[[MythologyGag Mythology Gags]], and whatnot, in sum making the story into something it's not.
** Because the movies would be weak if they were by-the-book adaptations. The Hobbit is, for the first half at least, a pretty episodic book which, translated into a movie, would seem more like a [[RandomEventsPlot bunch of stuff that happens]] than an actual story. The new material provides framing for the encounters in the book (the trolls were attracted by the rise of the Necromancer, for example, and the spiders are similarly foreshadowed as coming with Sauron - not to mention Azog providing for the Frying Pan chapter).
** Are you knocking the [[WesternAnimation/TheHobbit cartoon]] then? Sure it cut some things but it kept its focus clear, unlike this film - ''the story of Bilbo, the Hobbit.''
* One might also ask why they had to make three movies instead of two or even one; with less movies, there would be less charges of PanderingToTheBase, {{Padding}}.
** The answer to this question is pretty clearly MoneyDearBoy.
*** This is quite unlikely, actually. All signs point to that Peter Jackson came up with the idea of a trilogy fairly late in the game and the studio just accepted it. While the money probably is the studio's motivation, what got Peter Jackson into making a trilogy was the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of footage that he can't fit into two movies and can't bear to part with them. It was the same deal that got him to create the completely unprecedented Extended Editions for the ''Film/LordOfTheRings'' trilogy. For good or ill, Jackson wants as much content in his movies as he can possibly get away with and doesn't care about accusations. He also wants to keep the 48 fps fresh in people's minds to keep it from being reduced into a mere curiosity, so stretching the movies further and motivating other filmmakers to continue using the HRF technology is probably a motivating factor, as well. He wants ''Film/TheHobbit'' to go into film history as a technological milestone like the LotR once was.
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:White Council business]]
* Why doesn't Gandalf explain the blade was found ''at'' Dol Guldur? Saruman seems to think the two events are unrelated.
** To me it seems that Gandalf did make it pretty clear. Saruman just doesn't trust the reliability of the eyewitness, Radagast, who in his words "uses too much mushrooms". The finding place is also not nearly as important as the question of whether the dagger actually is a genuine Morgul blade or not.
*** Saruman might also be intentionally acting as an ObstructiveBureaucrat to disguise his true thoughts and intentions.
*** In the books, Saruman is well aware at this time that Sauron is the Necromancer and is searching for the One Ring. He objects to the White Council taking action because he's hoping for the Ring to show itself so that he can claim it for himself.
*** In the books the rest of the White Council also know about the Necromancer's true identity, at this point. There really isn't evidence about what Saruman knows either way in the movie, and it's likely to stay that way; the most likely way that Peter Jackson is going to take the Saruman-angle is to have moments where Saruman seems to be obstructing the Council for no good reason, but does nothing that could directly be interpreted as a sign of treachery.
*** Remember as well that, as a prequel, the movie must be coherent with the Lord of the Rings. That means, for example, that Gandalf will not realize the nature of Bilbo's ring yet, and that Saruman will not show any visible interest in getting the Ring for himself or allying with Sauron: if he did, Gandalf would have never gone by his own will to seek Saruman's help at the begining of that movie.
** Don't Morgul blades disintegrate in the sunlight? The sun was rising during that scene, yet the blade remained intact.
*** In the books, yes. But in the movies a Morgul blade dissolved in the dark of the night when Aragorn touched it. Radagast, Gandalf, and Elrond are all powerful magic users. They may presumably know how to touch a morgul blade without causing it to disintegrate. Aragorn not so much.
*** Radagast didn't touch it when he disarmed the Witch-King, and both he and Gandalf kept it wrapped up. Presumably the touch of the living on their hilts destroys such ghost-wielded weapons.
*** In the Fellowship movie, the tip of the blade that Aragorn picks up has already broken off in Frodo. The blade that Radagast recovers is intact. That might explain why one crumbled and the other did not; the one that stabbed Frodo had already done its dirty work.
*** It's said that the blades break apart and disintergate after they've been used to pierce flesh. Since Radagast stopped his attack the Blade wasn't able to break apart.
* Saruman claims in the film that Sauron is gone for good. Weren't the Istari specifically sent in the Third Age to combat Sauron? So, why didn't Gandalf just subtly point out during their council that, if they really were as safe as Saruman was claiming, they would have received word that it was time to depart for home by now?
** This is, a little simplied, what Saruman was saying in the books. It's wishful thinking in their part, and they all would want to be right. Though notably Saruman's declaration contains a caveat that he was actively speaking against in the books: that ''if'' the One Ring is found, Sauron will be a threat again. In the books he did his best to convince the Council that Andúin had taken the Ring all the way to the Sea, and that it lies unreachable for everybody until the lands and seas shift.
*** Ah, so he isn't saying "Sauron is dead and we're safe forever (so our job is technically done)", he's saying "Sauron couldn't possibly be growing in power and influence again without his Ring, which all evidence points to him not having yet, so the trouble you see must be unrelated to him"?
*** I believe it's closer to "Sauron can't truly revive without the One Ring, and if he had the One Ring he would already be openly displaying himself".
* Radagast has a bird's nest on his head, which is leaking bird shit down the side of his face and beard. Why is the bird shitting in its own nest? Does it get trapped under his hat? If so, why would the bird willingly use that nest?
** Coz birds do that? I've owned four birds, and they shit anywhere, Including their nests (Especially their nests). As for why they stay there, they like the company? The fact that being near him pretty much is the safest bet from predators? And he's no doubt got good access to food if they need it?
** They actually shit straight out of their nest. They just don't bother to go further than simply stick their backsides right outside the nest, leading the crap fall exactly where you see.
* In ''The Lord of the Rings'', Saruman says that Sauron cannot assume his [[BlackKnight humanoid form]] without the One Ring - which is supported by the fact that he only appears as a giant flaming eyeball, but Radagast's encounter with him in ''The Hobbit'' shows he's [[LivingShadow well on his way to doing so]]. Why is Jackson contradicting himself?
** We have yet to see the White Council fight with him. It's possible that he has the ability to assume a humanoid form ''now'', but his defeat (which we have not seen yet) changed that.
** From what we see in ''Unexpected Journey'', the Necromancer manifests as a humanoid figure of smoke and shadow- not exactly a ''physical'' form ''per se''. In ''Fellowship'', Saruman says that Sauron can't take a physical form yet, not that he can't manifest at all (otherwise, he wouldn't even be able to control his empire).
*** Key words: "Saruman says". It may well be that Saruman, who is a traitor, is simply lying about Sauron's ability to manifest.
**** Gollum when he was interrogated in Mordor was said to have seen him himself, so perhaps he can take a seeable form yet only as a shadow form made of smoke, he can't take a physical form and interact just yet since he lacks the ring.
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:Misty Mountains, Goblin Cave, Gollum]]
* Why did they show Ori's face after the Goblin King ordered the youngest killed? We can assume that he is one of the youngest, or that he's just plain horrified, but why him in particular? Unless Fíli and Kíli's ages were changed for the movie (which doesn't seem to be the case) they would be the ones to show the strongest reaction.
** The dwarves ages were changed around for the film. It is explicitly stated in film materials that Ori is the youngest, followed by Kíli and Fíli. Other age changes can also be assumed by physical appearance and behavior (i.e. Balin seems to be cast as 'oldest' and mentor to Thorin, who's actually the oldest) and appearance in flashback scenes (Thorin and Balin were youths/children during Smaug's attack; some other dwarves appear in Azanulbizar despite having been too young).
* Why did the Eagles leave the party at the top of a tall, difficult-to-get-down-from rock formation?
** Because they are eagles and think like eagles. If you rescue a dog in the street and want to protect him, you would take him home, even when your home is not what the street dog is used to. Same for the eagles: they rescued the dwarfes, and took them home for the moment. Then Gandalf will be more precise on where do they want to go.
** Because the eagles want to give the dwarves and Bilbo and Gandalf protection from the bloodthirsty, revenge-seeking goblins and wargs on the ground below while they fetch dinner.
** It's not difficult to climb down, the Carrock has steps going down and they are even visible in the film.
** Better yet, why didn't the Eagles take them to the Lonely Mountain? It seemed that at most it would be a two hour flight for them.
*** The books give a few reasons: ''Literature/TheHobbit'' tells that the Eagles fear woodsmen and other people who would shoot them down to defend their sheep, while ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' gives an even more pragmatic reason, that for all their size and strength, the Eagles are still flesh and blood, and carrying large burdens like people is a serious strain, and they physically can't carry them for more than a few miles without exhausting themselves.
*** Did you miss the part about the ''Dragon'' that lives in the Lonely Mountain? The eagles have an ample. fire-breathing reason to avoid the place like the plague.
*** Plus, the eagles aren't necessarily at liberty to travel that far from the mountain range where they live. They probably have nestlings to care for and territories to defend.
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:Elves of Mirkwood, Mirkwood]]
* Why did Thranduil personally lead an army of Elves in full battle array to Erebor, stay long enough to catch Thorin's attention, and then deliberately abandon the Dwarves? He already knew that Smaug was in the Lonely Mountain, and that Smaug was too powerful for his Elves to deal with (otherwise, why lead his army away?). Why come to the battle at all and why allow his army to be seen? It's almost like Thranduil rode out on his elk to say, "Hey, just wanted to make sure you know that we're intentionally not coming to your aid! Hope this doesn't foster any lifelong estrangement between our peoples! Alright, bye!"
** Most likely they had heard or received messengers of Smaug attacking Erebor and they went to go to their aid but by the time they got there it was a lost cause as it shows on his face that he's loathing what he's about to do. Perhaps there was an alliance or treaty of friendship between the Mirkwood and Erebor before but when they got to it and saw the destruction he knows that it was hopeless and if they engaged Smaug they would most likely die as well and two kingdoms would've been destroyed in the span of a day.
** He might have been tracking Smaug, hoping he had not yet conquered the mountain where Elves and the Dwarves could engage the dragon in the open, where the Sylvan archers would have an easier time fighting the Dragon. After seeing Smaug had already made his way inside Erebor and torn the dwarf defender asunder, he stopped, considered, then turned back, deciding the battle was not winnable.
** Or the elves didn't know ''which'' dragon (there are others) had attacked Dale and Erebor, and were hoping to face a less formidable foe. When Thranduil realized it was freakin' ''Smaug'', he realized his army didn't have a prayer of doing anything except getting roasted if they confronted the creature.
** My question is why they just flatly turned and retreated. There was a lot they could have done short of engaging Smaug directly: helping to evacuate the wounded and non-combatants for one. But they just leave.
** According to the book, Thorin and some friends were outside when Smaug attacked. The only survivors from Erebor itself were a few dwarves who escaped through a secret side door that nobody but the king knew about. Smaug attacked the main entrance and killed every dwarf that tried to escape. There simply weren't any wounded and non-combatants to rescue. Cue Fridge Horror.
** Or, less charitably, he was there in case Smaug decided he wasn't finished with Erebor and was going to keep rampaging on towards Mirkwood and points beyond. When Smaug seemed content to settle down in the Lonely Mountain, he thought "Not my problem, then" and left. Any of the explanations is as likely as the next, without a statement from the film to make it clear.
[[/folder]]
----
* In ''Film/TheLordOfTheRings'', Sting is the only Elvish blade to glow blue in the presence of orcs. Fine, since it would have taken extra time to explain Glamdring's glow (and possibly Haldir's troops in ''The Two Towers''.) However, in ''Film/TheHobbit'', Elrond specifically states that both Glamdring and Orcrist would glow blue in the presence of orcs and goblins (and, by implication, Bilbo's as-yet-unnamed blade would too). But in practice, Bilbo's short sword shines brighter than a lightsaber, brighter than it ever did in ''Film/TheLordOfTheRings'', and Orcrist and Glamdring never do. At best, they have a faint gleam that looks more like a trick of the eyes than a real glow, even in the goblin kingdom where they should've shone like torches. What gives?
** In the film Elrond never says Glamdring and Orcrist would glow. It's Gandalf who says that to Bilbo, and he's only referring to Sting. One might wonder why the two others, having the same origin and being legendary weapons, do not glow, as they do in the book, but no one actually ever claims they ''should'' glow. So it's technically not a plot hole. Also had Glamdring glowed now, it would raise the question of why it no longer does in ''The Lord of the Rings''. Presumably the film makers decided to make the two sword consistent, and keep Sting the way it was, since its the only one whose glow is ever relevant to the plot.
*** Agreed with the above. Glamdring and Orcist glowed in the book, but the directors/editors/producers/etc. in LotR forgot that Glamdring glowed too until it was too late to change it, since they were focused on Sting. Eventually they decided that only Sting glowed, thus making it unique. They probably just wanted to keep Sting unique.
*** Gandalf specifically says, "This is an Elvish blade, '''which means''' it glows blue in the presence of orcs..." If he doesn't mean to imply that all elvish blades glow, that's pretty poor writing on the screenwriter's part.
** Could be FridgeBrilliance: As Sting isn't large enough to have been a primary weapon for an elf warrior, it makes sense that it would be given a secondary property -- detection of orcs/goblins -- that would compliment the powers of the orc-''killing'' sword which a dagger like Sting was originally paired up with.
*** Except that the elves in the books saw no problem with having Glamdring and Orcrist glow. It's not like it detracts from the combat effectiveness of the blade, and if it did you wouldn't choose another blade to give the 'orc proximity sensor' property to, you'd pick something like a ring that you wouldn't have to devote another hand to.
*** Which is really irrelevant; the movie is a different continuity, and in that continuity the elves' blades in general do not glow around Orcs. Only Sting does.
** You say Sting glows brighter? I didn't notice. But if it did, it's probably because so many years have passed and the light has dulled. The batteries, I mean, uh . . . mystical elf magic obviously doesn't last that long, and so it dulls with time.
* I've had this query ever since Lord of the Rings. Sting is a sword which glows blue when Orcs / Goblins are close. Thorin's company knew they were haunted by Orcs. And even if they didn't, they at least knew Goblins were unpleasant and should better be avoided. So why sheath Sting at all? Why not have Bilbo's job be Orc / Goblin detector and just keep holding it unsheathed, and whenever it glows blue inform the gang? The sequence always seems to go: Somebody notices Sting is glowing blue, oops, too late, Orcs are already all over us.
** Because you don't run around with a gun in your hand and your finger on the trigger either, do you? Sting is a weapon. A sharp weapon. And for the one time that it warns you of Orcs, there's 99 times that you're climbing over rocks, riding horses, or jumping from stone to stone where having a naked blade out is a ''bad idea''.
* I know that in the book, Gandalf sent the dwarves and Bilbo on their journey to keep Smaug and Sauron from assisting and allying with one another. In the film, Gandalf did not realize that Sauron has made a foothold in Dol Guldur yet so what is his motivation for sending Thorin and Co. on this quest?
** Gandalf doesn't yet know that Sauron is active in Mirkwood, but he ''does'' know that Sauron is still out there somewhere and will eventually try to return to power. Wizards (and elves, for that matter) play the long game.
** Better see the film again. Gandalf did not "send" the dwarfes to the Lonely Mountain, it was their own idea and they would have gone anyway, with or without Gandalf, with or without the help or blessing of TheOmniscientCouncilOfVagueness in Rivendell.
** Thorin was the one who wanted to reclaim Erebor and kill Smaug; Gandalf thought it was a good idea because of the possibility of Smaug allying with Sauron and so put his support behind Thorin's expedition, going so far as to choose their burglar for them. From Thorin's perspective the quest was all his and Gandalf just helped out; from the perspective of most of the Wise (and Sauron) it would look much more like a piece Gandalf has put into play; I think Gandalf himself would think of it as seeing something already in motion (or about to be in motion) and greasing the wheels for it.
** Even without any prospect of Smaug allying with Sauron there are very good reasons for Gandalf supporting the quest given he suspects Sauron's imminent resurgence - Erebor is perhaps the most impenetrable stronghold in Rhovanion and the dwarves are some of the hardiest and most tenacious of the free peoples; returning them to their homeland and prosperity will greatly strengthen the region when war inevitably comes - it will certainly help to block Sauron's armies from passing north of Mirkwood, creating a barrier right from the Grey Mountains to the sea. Gandalf comments in the books (probably The Quest for Erebor) how the War of the Ring wasn't won solely on the fields of Pelennor, but also outside the gates of Erebor and other locations - just as Gandalf rallies Rohan and Gondor during the war itself, here he's rallying the dwarves and preparing them for the impending conflict.
* Why did the film try to push the dwarf king's greed as if that was the cause of Smaug's attack? Even if he was a bit obsessed, he was still a king of a prosperous nation that was literally sitting on a gold mine. Their treasury would still contain mounds of gold no matter what the king's attitude was. Did Smaug just spawn in when they hit a gold cap?
** I got the impression that Thrór's greed had somehow attracted Smaug, as if he could sense it or something. Alternatively, there's a line in Fellowship about how 'The Dwarves delved too deep and too greedily'; maybe the same thing applies here. Had they not been so greedy, Smaug might have gone somewhere else.
** It may have been that Thor's strange behaviour attracted attention until word of the vast fourtune reached Smaug. It could also have been that one of the the dwarf rings of power which was part of the treasure caused it (it did make dwarves more greedy) and had a lasting effect on Thrór, Smaug and later Thorin. Although the book implies that it was Smaug that left the "Dragon sickness" on the gold and Thrór was never struck with it as he had it before Smaug.
** Smaug sensed or heard of a large pile of gold in one place and wanted to have it. It's not much more complicated than that. If Thrór hadn't been so greedy, he wouldn't have gathered all the gold they dug up to a single hoard. He would have invested it and used it for trade with other nations and if the gold was spread out more far that way, Smaug wouldn't have bothered with it, or would at least have been forced to pick out of several smaller targets, instead of one big one.
** My instict is it occurred that way for the same reason as Thranduil showing up with an army - the practicalities of adaptation. In this case it's foreshadowing the film's reason for Thorin's fall from grace, which it appears by the stressing of 'dragon-sickness' as an actual 'mental' condition which Thrór and his bloodline are prone to. It has less to do with Smaug (who as you rightly point out would attack such a prosperous kingdom as Erebor regardless of it's King's attitudes) than it does about illuminating a weakness InTheBlood of a main character. Personally I felt the portrayal of Thrór was rather flanderized, making him seem more of a doddery riches-obsessed fool than a wise king who refounded a kingdom and ruled in such a way as to instigate a golden age of prosperity, but it's not a film about Thrór so his purpose is to illustrate points that impact on the wider story and key characters.
* Related question: If you know dragons are a thing that exists in your world, and you're obsessed with your gold, shouldn't you have an anti-dragon defense plan set up for your gold stash? Seems like some ballista or weighted nets or something could have been set up.
** Dragons were very rare after the War of Wrath where Morgoth was thrown to the Outer Void, and Great Dragons even more so. Smaug belongs to the latter category and is believed to be the LastOfHisKind. In short, dragons were a distant rumour as far as Erebor was concerned, something that was a problem in the distant North and East, not at their own doorstep. Besides, they had excellent defenses that could have held entire armies at bay. Since no-one alive had experienced an actual dragon attack, at least one as terrible as Smaug's, they were thoroughly unprepared for the real thing.
** With something like Smaug, anti-dragon defenses can best be summed up as "pray a dragon doesn't notice you."
*** This, pretty much. What anti-dragon defenses could there be? Erebor was already about as hardened and impenetrable as it could get, on the defense side. On the offense side, weapons large enough to hurt most dragons would be in the "siege weaponry" size category, which for people at their level of development would have been too slow to arm and aim to do much good against a dragon.
* How does Radagast get past the Misty Mountains on his bunny sled? He comes all the way from Mirkwood to the other side and is talking about the events of Dol Guldur as if they happened five minutes ago. It kind of takes away from the whole "epic journey" part of The Hobbit if a side character can just flit through most of the journey in a few minutes.
** Why do you imagine that it happened five minutes ago? It's clearly a flashback that can have taken place anywhere from several days to several weeks ago. Gandalf even implies later in his speech with the White Council that it's been awhile since the Necromancer's manifestation, if the people of the forest have had time to change the name of the place, already. Also, the Misty Mountains aren't impassable. Radagast could have taken the southern route and gone through the Gap of Rohan, guarded by the fortress of his faithful colleague, Saruman the White. Since Dol Guldur lies in the southern Mirkwood it wouldn't have been nearly as great a detour for Radagast as it would be for Gandalf and the Company.
** Or Radagast could have traveled through the Pass of Caradhras like the Fellowship tried in LotR before they got snowed out and went to Moria.
*** The Pass of Caradhras is a last-resort path in by itself, extremely dangerous and occasionally haunted by a malevolent GeniusLoci. There are many passes going over the Misty Mountains in the north, but the Gap of Rohan would make most sense for Radagast, considering his method of transport; that sled would be a serious hindrance on narrow mountain paths and rabbits need to eat.
* In the book version, Gandalf keeps the trolls arguing about how to cook the dwarves for what was presumably several hours. Bilbo tries to do this in the film, but only manages to buy a couple extra minutes. This turns out to be enough as the sun rises and the trolls turn to stone. But FridgeLogic dictates that, for this to have worked, sunrise must have already been very close. Even if Bilbo and Gandalf hadn't done anything, the trolls still would have been killed halfway through their meal. Stupid though they might have been, they've presumably managed to avoid the sun all of their lives and should have known it was time to take shelter.
** They DID have a cave very nearby; they may have been intending to cook them quickly and then finish their supper inside before going to bed for the day.
** It's also considerably easier to just write "The trolls were kept arguing for hours" than it is to show it in a movie in a non-tiresome fashion. Just take the medium into account and assume there's some time compression going on.
* In the prologue in the ''Fellowship of the Ring'' film, the Ring is seen bouncing off a cliff in its abandonment of Gollum, Bilbo picks the Ring up, and then Gollum is shrieking about losing his precious. In the ''Hobbit'' film, the Ring falls out of Gollum's pocket, Bilbo finds it a few seconds later, and Gollum doesn't figure out that the Ring is lost/taken by Bilbo until Bilbo's "what I have got in my pocket?" question during the riddle game. Are we supposed to see the inconsistencies as {{Retcon}}s, or is the prologue meant to be a representation of the events and the events in the film are what "really" happened?
** Clearly a representation. After all, Bilbo is no longer being played by Ian Holm in it either, and Gollum looks different.
** The prologue was narrated by Galadriel, who probably never saw Bilbo until he was old, and also didn't entirely know the circumstances, so that was the way she pictured it [[FridgeBrilliance in her head]].
------