The Tolkien Nerd’s Guide to The Hobbit
Peter Jackson’s blockbuster movie draws upon stories behind stories behind stories, just as J.R.R. Tolkien’s original works did.
- By Rachel Nuwer
- Illustration by Rose Eveleth
- Smithsonian.com, January 03, 2013, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 2)
One other discrepancy exists, however: in Tolkien’s books, Mirkwood forest fell to darkness about 2,000 years before Bilbo’s journey, but for dramatic effect Jackson moved those events up to present day. Unlike the map depicted in The Hobbit (the book), Thorin’s version in the movie reads “Greenwood the Great” in place of “Mirkwood,” demonstrating Jackson’s attention to detail.
The White Council
In the Hobbit movie, Elrond and company form a White Council, where Gandalf urges his powerful colleagues to take action against the growing darkness in Mirkwood but wizard Saruman the White shoots him down (not yet turned evil as he is in the earlier film trilogy, but he’s starting to think about it). All of these details are covered in the Lord of the Rings and its appendices, though the Council’s discussions and decision to take action against the Necromancer occur over a period of 490 years in the series.
“At heart, Jackson and his team did a careful job of scouring The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for more information about events at the time of Bilbo’s journey,” Rateliff said. “They made good use of these to flesh out events that occur off-stage in Tolkien’s original book, like the meeting of the White Council.”
Radagast the Brown
In the movie, Bilbo and the dwarves face imminent death by an approaching orc horde in the western lands of Eriador (not 100 percent clear since this meeting never took place in the books), when the wizard Radagast the Brown turns up with his sled of rabbits to save the day. Though a Jackson addition, this scene does pay homage to Tolkien with two much-appreciated nerd references. First, Gandalf warns that his friend cannot outrun the wolf-like Wargs, since they are from Gundobad. This seemingly made-up label actually refers to Mount Gundobad, the goblin kingdom to the north of Mirkwood forest. Radagast is not having it, however. “These are Rhosgobel rabbits, I’d like to see them try!” he retorts, making a second reference to his equally obscure homestead of Rhosgobel.
Radagast himself appears only briefly in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit when Gandalf mentions his existence. Radagast’s central role in the film—especially the rabbit chase scene, which made Drout wonder “if George Lucas was allowed to touch the script”—is Jackson’s invention.
(See the full-version infographic of where these plot points came from)
Ungoliant the spider
Even Ungoliant, an evil spirit who originated “before the world” and takes the form of a massive spider, gets a brief citation. “Ungoliant is mentioned in The Lord of the Rings in the description of Shelob, ‘last child of Ungoliant,’” Drout said. “But you’d only know the significance of the word Ungoliant if you’d read The Silmarillion.”
Potential plot threads for the next films
Having a handle on the Tolkien lore can also clue fans in on potential scenes to come in the second and third Hobbit movies. (Warning: for those who prefer to avoid possible spoilers, skip this section!) For example: Will viewers be treated to a flashback of Gandalf wandering into the dungeon of Dol Guldur to recover the map and key for the Lonely Mountain from Thorin’s crazed, imprisoned father, Thráin? Will Galadriel’s forces take on the Necromancer as detailed in the appendices and hinted at in The Hobbit when she reassures Gandalf, “If you need me, call and I will come?” And will Bilbo meet an intriguing 10-year-old named Aragorn in Rivendell on his journey back to Hobbiton?
Of course, some fans will never be satisfied by Hollywood’s stab at Tolkien, no matter how faithful the films are to the original works. When technology reaches the point that Tolkien zealots can produce their own movies, however, this may change. “Some nerdy person like I was when I was 14 will sit in a basement for three years and come out with a film that perfectly renders everything,” Drout predicted. “At that point, there will be nothing that intellectual property lawyers can do to stop it.”
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (16)
+ View All Comments
The graphic is wrong, by the way: the two items attributed to the Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion are both available: either in The Hobbit or the appendices of The Return of the King. The description of the Misty Mountains adventure is also wrong: they are all captured (except Gandalf) and Bilbo is lost, he doesn't escape. Did they even read the book?
Posted by David on March 24,2013 | 11:56 PM
I disagree with some assertions! "Yet those fans who went on to immerse themselves in J.R.R. Tolkien’s wider lore will find inspiration." Nope. I am annoyed at the misreadings, additions, and fabrications that Jackson et al included in what should have been a tightly woven, faster moving tale. Cutting actual story details to make room for additional unnecessary backstory, prologues, and brand new material out of their imagination isn't inspiring, it's bad movie-making. Seen his King Kong? "For the most part, director Peter Jackson does not exercise an extra heaping of artistic license." I disagree. There are too many "additions" to list here, starting with nearly every bit of the prologue about Erebor and Smaug. “Elrond could have quite easily have said, ‘Hey, thanks for bringing that back, we wondered what came of that sword over the last 7,000 years,’ but he doesn’t,” Rateliff said. No, he couldn't, because he didn't say it in The Hobbit. Mr. Rateliff, you now have zero credibility. You can't treat characters like they are actually alive, making decisions: the author didn't have him say it, so he couldn't have said it. "With Jackson's obfuscation about where the many threads came from, it would be easy for even the mild Tolkien fanatic to get confused. Recognizing some of these twists may help dubious fans be more supportive of Bilbo’s tri-installment cinematic journey—and also appreciate Jackson’s own celebrated nerdery." No and no. I am a Tolkien nerd, and it wasn't even slightly confusing, just annoying. I knew Azog was dead. I knew Thror wasn't killed in battle. The White Council was around for a long time before the events in The Hobbit (about the time Smeagol and Deagol find the ring, in fact), she just chose the wrong word, "formed" instead of "convened." She nails the end, however. Peter Jackson is the one making the movies, not me or any other literalist, until the technology catches up, and so he gets to do what he wants.
Posted by David on March 24,2013 | 11:54 PM
This actually makes me a bit more curious about the Hobbit Trilogy, as at least some of the padding sounds interesting. As to the Tolkien Estate and movies, some of the reactions is probably just economic, but there is also fear of a really bad version. In the published Letters of JRR Tolkien, one finds Tolkien's spleen-filled a summary of screen play proposal so truly horrible it could gain Jackson forgiveness for almost anything he did.
Posted by Oscar on January 22,2013 | 10:06 PM
Great article enjoyed the read.
Posted by Georgia on January 9,2013 | 06:14 AM
Mount GundAbad Just sayin' ;)
Posted by Marc on January 7,2013 | 06:15 PM
Just from reading this article I know this is one movie I will NOT be seeing; it reads like a monumental excuse for padding the story-line to make the film more 'marketable.' And I firmly agree with Christopher Tolkien's attitude, especially after seeing the shambles Disney made out of C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles. Fortunately T.S. Eliot refused Disney's offer to animate his poems (they made "The Aristocats" instead) - and the final result was Webber's CATS.
Posted by Shir-El on January 7,2013 | 05:00 PM
The one major error that Ms Nuwer (and apparently every one else) totally overlooks is the key fact that the One Ring stops the aging process. A person in possesion of the Ring does not age, and will look the same after 60 (or 100 or 1000) years after finding it. Indeed, for all his toothless gauntness, Gollum appears far younger than the "old" Bilbo even though on their first meeting he is several hundreds of years older. Yet when Bilbo finally gives up the Ring, he seems to have aged considerably from the character that found it under the Misty Mountains. As he was already "middle-aged" for a Hobbit, there is no reason the same actor could have portrayed him in both movies, IMO.
Posted by John Jones on January 6,2013 | 09:30 AM
I wish the Tolkien Estate wasn't so antagonistic about Hollywood making film versions of the books. I understand some of what they're getting at, but movies attract a wider audience than books, so if they embrace the films then they'll get more positive exposure than if they try to fight them. I'm reading The Children of Húrin right now, and it would make an excellent film—if Christopher Tolkien wasn't such a Scrooge about it. He has handled his position superbly and I really appreciate the work he's done to get JRRT's other stories out there, but Christopher is doing the Tolkien Estate more harm than good by fighting Hollywood so much.
Posted by Cillendor on January 5,2013 | 05:44 AM
10 year old Estel you mean. And that would be Wellywood's "stab at Tolkien", if that's how you would put it. But very good article, very thorough examination. I noticed many of these things in the movie, and am glad they're there.
Posted by on January 4,2013 | 08:12 PM
In Jackson's take, Aragorn would be about 27 not 10.
Posted by Joe zz on January 4,2013 | 04:31 PM
The Silmarilion was published in 1977, not 1983.
Posted by Oren on January 4,2013 | 01:35 PM
It's Middle-earth and not Middle Earth. Please show some more respect to the source material.
Posted by Oren on January 4,2013 | 01:29 PM
The inclusion of "The Quest of Erebor" in THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT might have given Jackson a loophole for the extent of it's inclusion in THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY.
Posted by Otaku-sempai on January 4,2013 | 11:47 AM
Gundabad is really spelled with an A, not O.
Posted by Merlkir on January 4,2013 | 06:54 AM
+ View All Comments