Okay, being a fairly big Tolkien geek, I can't help but spot quite a few changes from the book, even though I haven't read it in a while. Some I can kind of understand, others just leave me confused.
I don't recall any of this business with Azog, for instance. Oh, the battle outside Moria where Thorin earned his name I recall (though whether it was from The Hobbit or supplementary material I don't recall), and the whole "chased up some trees" bit, but I'm fairly certain the Orc attacks before they reach Rivendell were invented whole cloth, and if there was a named Orc King at the battle outside Moria, I'm pretty sure Thorin was supposed to have killed him there. The Orcs that chased them outside the Misty Mountains were supposed to be the same ones that they were fleeing from the caverns, too, not a separate group.
Now, all that isn't necessarily a bad addition or anything, but I can't help but worry that it was added solely to pad the story out to more movies, as it wasn't really necessary. And on that note, this one ended pretty much where I would've expected for the story if it were being done in two movies, so I'm now very curious how it ends up as three. There's really no other logical stopping point I can think of for the second movie unless they stretch the Murkwood sequences out
way too long and end at Dale, before they head up to Erebor.
Now, on to other changes, more the ones that bug me as they seem pointless:
- The way the Dwarves are captured in the Misty Mountains. Trapdoors that spill them into a bucket-like cage instead of a hidden door in the back of the cave that Orcs use to sneak up on them while they sleep? Um, why?
- The whole White Council sequence. There's a number of parts to this:
- It gives the impression that the White Council was not a thing that existed before, that this gathering is solely because Saruman is concerned about Gandalf encouraging the Dwarves to go after Smaug. Why?
- Saruman denies that Sauron could possibly return. Even though that's the whole reason he and the other Istari were sent to Middle-Earth in the first place. Um, what? I mean, I know he was starting to contemplate seeking the ring and betraying his duty at this point, but denying that the whole reason he's even in Middle Earth could possibly be a concern seems like a pretty dumb way to go about it, and should be ringing all sorts of alarm bells with everyone else present.
- The whole deal with the Necromancer seems to have been altered substantially. Originally he had been around for quite some time, and Gandalf had discovered that he was Sauron some time ago - in fact, it was at the same time as he found Thorin's father, Thrain, locked up in Dol Guldur, and was given the key and map that play such an important role in this story. Now the Necromancer is just turning up - which is going to make how Mirkwood gets into the state it's supposed to be in so fast very strange - and Radagast discovered this instead? I mean, I understand the desire to get Radagast into the movie, particularly since the goofy version of him they went with fits well into the Hobbit's lighter tone, but couldn't they have done that with him as a part of the White Council instead? Also, he didn't find out that the Necromancer is Sauron, which is kind of important information. And if Gandalf didn't get the key and map from Thrain at Dol Guldur, where did he get them?
- The Morgul blade stuck out to me. This may be overly nitpicky, but I can't help it. When that's brought up, they say that it was buried with the Witch-King... but he was never killed. In fact, it was when he escaped after the fall of Angmar that one of the Elves present at that battle made the prediction that he would not be felled by the hand of any man, which was important in LotR. Sorry, not really important when you get down to it, since when the prediction was made doesn't matter for viewers of the movie who aren't Tolkien geeks, that one just bugs me personally.
- It also seems like they might be trying to imply some romantic interest between Galadriel and Gandalf. Big problem with that: Galadriel is married (heck, her husband should probably be part of the White Council). I hope I'm just misinterpreting there, and they're only trying to imply a strong friendship, which would make sense, but given the prevalence of romantic subplots in media today I can't help but be worried they're trying to shoehorn one in here.
- The Giants. Now yes, there is mention of Giants in The Hobbit - the only mention of them anywhere in Tolkien's writings, in fact - but they're just said to stand atop the mountains throwing rocks at each other, making it dangerous, not to be made of rock and seem to be part of the mountain. Again, not important, but I get the feeling that change was made solely to show off some 3D effects given the way some of those scenes were shown. (I did not see the movie in 3D. 3D is not worth any extra cost in my opinion.)
Now, on the flip side there, I should mention that there are changes that didn't bug me, and I readily acknowledge were a good move. Like with the Trolls, for instance. The removal of the talking purse was obviously a good call, and having the Dwarves try to rescue Bilbo and get captured when the Trolls threatened to kill him instead of stumbling in and being captured one by one like idiots was as well. And actually, I kind of wish they had made one more change there - alter the Trolls' design, so that their turning to stone in daylight when the Trolls in LotR don't becomes a matter of them being a different species of Troll. Also would explain their ability to talk instead of just grunt like animals like the LotR ones. Oh well, missed opportunity.
I also liked how they managed to make the Dwarves look different and mostly distinct. While I didn't manage to get all of them down, I can certainly recognize Thorin, Balin, Bombur, and Fili and Kili (though I can't tell those two apart) on sight now, as well as one other whose name I don't recall ever putting to his face (the one that Bilbo talks to in the cave in the Misty Mountains before the Dwarves are captured). I could have done without the cliché fat jokes with Bombur though (and yes, I know he was fat in the book). And there is still about half of the company that don't stand out, but I can't fault them there, as thirteen such characters is a bit much even for a lengthy movie adaptation of the story.
Anyway though, as I said, on the whole, I liked it. Aside from what I've said so far, my main criticism would be that the beginning drags on too much, but once the adventure gets started, it's genuinely quite good throughout, aside from a couple of hard-to-follow action sequences. I am definitely looking forward to the remaining movies, and I do think there is ample proof here that multiple movies were called for... though as I said earlier, I don't know about three instead of two. We'll see how the second turns out before I pass any judgment on that though.