I just finished reading The Hobbit last night. I have seen all the movies. I think though that if I had read the book first I would be rather disappointed and not like the movies so much. I’m usually a book purist when it comes to film adaptations. For instance, I really prefer the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice instead of the new Kiera Knightly one. I think that both book and movie have their merits here. I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and the movies.
For the movies I did like all the parts of the movie that weren’t in the book. The one thing though I wish they hadn’t done is the use of Orcs in the films. There is no character in the book that is an orc, and they could have used a goblin instead, though goblins are more terrible to look at as they have depicted them.
Legolas and Tauriel do not come into the book. However, I did like the little romance between Kili and Tauriel. Radagast only is mentioned a couple times and doesn’t come into the book at all. Thorin’s death in the book is much less dramatic in the book than in the movie. The end of the battle in the movie drew tears on my part. I suppose the movie had much more romance in a way to die than the book did. I did like how the movies went more into individual dwarves than the book. I liked the depth of character of Balin, though he must have an extraordinary long life. In the book he and Gandalf come to visit Bilbo long after their quest is over. Evidently Dain, the cousin that Thorin called upon to help takes over as King Under the Mountain after Thorin’s death.
It wasn’t clear to me why the movie left out some of the stuff in the book, while adding so much that wasn’t there. You’d think that they’d take the whole book and then add stuff. There are plenty of Hobbit purists out there and they’ve written plenty of articles about differences and the merits of each. These are my thoughts. I hope that more people read the book because of the movie.