The Hobbit (novel)/Headscratchers

The Hobbit (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.

The Hobbit (movie)

 * The movie versions are designed as prequels to The Lord of the Rings. The original book was written first and can be taken as a stand-alone adventure. No chance of this for the movie versions, because they're shoehorning Frodo and other LOTR elements in them.
 * It uncomfortably brings to mind the Star Wars 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.
 * Note that Tolkien revisited the events of The Hobbit in "The Quest of Erebor" from Unfinished Tales, writing from Gandalf's perspective in the vein of the more serious LOTR.
 * To this end 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".
 * Does the concept of reserving judgment till there's something on the screen to judge resonate with anyone?
 * I call Pandering to the Base as I see it.
 * But you can't make that statement with authority when there is no film to speak of. It seems like just the kind of Hatedom that can't bear to wait for something to come out to start bashing it.
 * "Where there's smoke, there's fire."