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
For readers of The Hobbit, which became an almost overnight classic following its 1937 debut, the new movie may elicit some puzzlement. Seemingly extraneous flourishes clog up what many remember as a simple fairy tale, and random characters appear at every twist and turn throughout Middle Earth.
Yet those fans who went on to immerse themselves in J.R.R. Tolkien’s wider lore will find inspiration. For the most part, director Peter Jackson does not exercise an extra heaping of artistic license. Rather, Jackson—reportedly something of a nerd himself—borrows from the larger Tolkien literature to create a rich Hobbit tableau.
“Jackson knows the lore pretty well and wanted to bring that larger material in there wherever he could,” said Michael Drout, an English professor at Wheaton College who founded the academic journal Tolkien Studies and edited the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. It’s this so-called textuality—or texts behind texts behind other texts—that lends Tolkien’s work the air of reality, he said, and which Jackson seeks to capture in his films.
Jackson isn’t free to tap into any detail he wants from Tolkien’s wider works, however. “He had a very difficult task in that the movie rights extend only to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings,” said John Rateliff, an independent Tolkien scholar and author of The History of the Hobbit. “He’s well aware that there’s a great deal more material set in that world, but contractually not allowed to use that material in the movies.”
More information about some of the plot threads from The Hobbit movie appear in Unfinished Tales (published posthumously by Tolkien’s son, Christopher, in 1980), for example, and The Silmarillion (also published posthumously, in 1977), but Jackson can only hint at the content of these rich texts.
Throughout the film, Jackson tiptoes around this problem, alluding to the larger Tolkien universe when he can. For instance, the mysterious blue wizards, who Gandalf briefly mentions to Bilbo in the movie, are identified by name only in Unfinished Tales, hence Gandalf conveniently “forgetting their names” to spare Jackson a potential lawsuit.
Similarly, while Hugo Weaving’s elf lord of Rivendell, Elrond, recognizes that one of the swords recovered from the troll cave hails back to the goblin wars and once belonged to the king of Gondolin, an Elven city that fell to darkness, he fails to mention the king’s name, Turgon, and does not add that Turgon is actually his own great-grandfather. These details come from The Silmarillion and The Book of Lost Tales (published posthumously, in 1983 and 1984). “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.
At one point, Jackson edges dangerously close to the fine line of intellectual rights. “The Quest of Erebor,” a story contained in Unfinished Tales, retells the opening chapter of The Hobbit from Gandalf’s point of view. In it, Gandalf justifies his uncanny attraction to Bilbo, a hobbit with “a love of tales” and “eagerness in his bright eyes.” In the film, Gandalf chidingly asks when Bilbo became more interested in china and doilies than in adventure, mirroring those lines from Unfinished Tales. “I wonder if the Tolkien estate will sue over it,” Drout said. “They are litigious.”
Some of the other references are easy to spot, like Frodo’s appearance at the beginning of the The Hobbit harkening back to The Fellowship of the Ring. Others are more cryptic, however. 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.
(See the full-version infographic of where these plot points came from)
Azog the Orc
The big bad from the first movie, for example, is only briefly mentioned in The Hobbit, but more devoted readers recognized this scene from Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings (the appendices are found at the end of The Return of the King, the third book in the trilogy): a battle between orc and dwarf raged at the east gate of Moria. The dwarf prince Thorin, grandson of the King Under the Mountain, received a mighty blow, cleaving his shield in two. Taking up a protective oak branch in its stead, Thorin began pummeling his foes, earning him the moniker Thorin Oakenshield.
Still, Jackson doesn’t get it exactly right. This business of Thorin amputating the arm of Azog, the albino orc king, for example, is poppycock so far as the books are concerned. According to Tolkien, Azog first brutally murders Thorin’s grandfather in a one-on-one encounter, and there’s no arm amputating or all-consuming vendetta following the dwarf-verus-orc showdown—which Azog does not survive. “I was calling Azog “Mobi-Orc,” like a cross between Moby Dick and Captain Ahab,” Drout said of his reaction while watching The Hobbit. “He’s got the missing limb and is after his enemy like Ahab is after the whale.”
Dol Guldur and the Darkness
One of The Hobbit’s more mysterious characters was the Necromancer, described only as a dark sorcerer of unknown origins.
Elrond describes “a time of watchful peace” after the first fall of Sauron and the taking of the One Ring, depicted in the battle with Isildur in the Fellowship of the Ring movie. But a darkness may be gathering at Dol Guldur, “the hill of sorcery” in Mirkwood forest where the Necromancer reportedly takes up shop. Radagast confirms these rumors by producing the Witch King's sword. These details (save the sword—that’s a Hollywood addition) mostly took place offstage in Tolkien’s The Hobbit, but Jackson weaves them into his version.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (16)
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
Nice article ! Though I need to correct you.... the sword was the Witch King's not the Necromancer's
Posted by Neil Ince on January 4,2013 | 05:37 AM
Thanks for this fun and enlightening read. I'll be happier still if we give a nod to Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh, also key in piecing this story together. And while we're about it, here's a shout-out to Stephen Colbert, who beat them all in a Tolkien trivia contest :)
Posted by Djuna Ivereigh on January 3,2013 | 08:43 PM