‘Hobbit’ Spoilers: Smaug the Dragon’s Screen Time in the Trilogy

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:28 pm,

The Hobbit Spoilers Smaug Benedict Cumberbatch Hobbit Spoilers: Smaug the Dragons Screen Time in the Trilogy

For those (isolated pockets of people) not overly familiar with the world of author J.R.R. Tolkien – who only know his name in association with the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy – then director Peter Jackson’s upcoming prequel trilogy, The Hobbit, will be something of a mystery. In short explanation, The Hobbit chronicles the adventures of Bilbo Baggins – the elderly uncle of Frodo Baggins in Lord of the Rings - and the epic adventure which he embarked upon that would, in part, alter the fate of Middle-Earth, and inspire Frodo’s mission to destroy the evil ring of Sauron.

In The Hobbit, however, the evil foe is not Sauron, but rather Smaug, an evil and ancient dragon who lays claim to the treasure-filled mountain of Erebor (aka, the Lonely Mountain). With The Hobbit being split into a trilogy of films, fans have long questioned just how much Smaug we will get in each installment. Today we have an answer to that question.



« 1 2»

TAGS: The hobbit
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I can see them altering the details surrounding Smaug’s death, to extend his presence into the third film; perhaps even have him as a pawn of the Necromancer.

    The hard-core fans who despise all and any changes from a source material will hate it, but I think it’ll make for a better third movie.

  2. The Hobbit, as a book, is dated and overly boring young adult fiction that is hard to read and even harder to enjoy.

    I expect the movie(s) to be better, but that isn’t to say they will be great – the source does not justify three movies. Not even close.

    But, whatever, they need their money but they won’t be getting mine ;)

    • Adam…in your opinion.

      • Well, that goes without saying. All internet comments comprise of opinions…

    • @ Adam
      I respectfully disagree with everything you said about The Hobbit.
      Especially saying that it’s hard to read. IMO and most others The Hobbit is the easiest read of all TLotR material.
      I guess it’s just different strokes for different folks.

      • I didn’t mean grammatically hard to read, I meant hard to read because it fails to entertain. Should’ve made that clear – maybe apparent when I referred to it as a young adult novel that it would be an easy to read book with little entertainment value. Especially compared to The Silmarillion.

        The simple fact is, this (Hobbit) is no way near as good as the trilogy of books that followed it. And A LOT of people are expecting that kind of experience, without having read the book – a book that is very different in tone, content and enjoyability.

        • It isn’t a young adult book, that term didn’t exist when the book was written 75 years ago, and it was written exclusively for children. Tolkien didn’t have adults in mind when he wrote it. It was from a completely different era so of course it reads and is paced differently to modern books.

        • “The simple fact is, this (Hobbit) is no way near as good as the trilogy of books that followed it”

          Not a fact. Just an opinion. Simple might be right though.

          • J.J.R.T. spent years laying the foundation of the mythology of Middle Earth before he ever wrote The Hobbit. A “simple” novel was probably the best way to get people interested in his world.Then they wanted more. Lord of the Rings followed and eventually books like the Similarion.

            • Whoops meant J.R.R.T. so ashamed.

            • the hobbit was written after the Lord of the Rings…

              • The Hobbit was written before The Lord of the Rings.

        • Well, I read the Hobbit the first time in 1973 and was 23 years old. Could not put it down and my education level is now a Master’s Degree. It was entertaining, held my attention and the first time I read it was an all day session one Saturday. I have read it several times since then and also the Lord of the Rings. I saw the opening and have purchased the DVD. Well worth the money and the imagination of Tolkien in the creation of whole worlds and languages and cultures. A Life Long Fan…

    • Completely disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
      Just out of curiosity, what would you conciser to be great (and entertaining) literature?

      • *consider

      • I read it and didn’t enjoy it. still great literature but bored me.

        on another note its sad to see such a talent be a dragon…..

        • He’s also doing the motion capture for the Necromancer (Sauron) but oddly not voicing that character.

        • Who wouldn’t want to be a dragon? Dragons are freaking awesome! ;)

          • ^^

          • Could not have said it any better myself, Avenger!!

            After The Avengers, this was/is my most anticipated movie of 2012. I loved the book growing up and I just re-read it last year and still enjoyed it. Different strokes for different folks. I think the films are going to be just as good as the LOTR films.

          • Dragons are awesome but he has the skill of a lead actor

            • Well, a dragon just happens to be the main villain of this book. It’s not sad, he’s plenty excited about it, and it’s a classic character with a lot of dialogue. By no means will his talent be shortchanged.

    • Calling a 75 year old children’s book dated is a fairly obvious statement. But thank you for making it.

      I also suspect cars, planes and films from 75 years ago are dated.

      • well i´ve listened to it on cd-book,and it´s very entertaining and with very dark scenes. o.k you are right it was published at the beginning for children,but that doesn´t mean that this book is childish. sorry,but very lame comment about the book from you.

        • Where did I say it was childish?

          Maybe the lame part, is that you listened to a book instead of reading it.

          • you have written a-75 year old children´s book- and – it was written exclusevely for children-. how often will you write that it was made for children(childrish-what´s the difference,it´s no negative word) i have understand it and it´s your opinion what i do respect. but i had it so often on chats,when i did said that i have listened to something or did watched something or did read wikipedia,the people do came with the same teacherish(new word) wisery to tell me to read a book to understand the sources. listen,mr.dr.sam.beckett i do read a lot of books,but i don´t play the wisea.. !

    • Really??? You found The Hobbit hard to read???? We read it in school when I was in 6th grade(in 87′)…. are you used to reading dr. suess or something???

  3. Can’t wait! Four months away! I would call Gollum’s appearance a bit more than a cameo, as Bilbo’s interaction with him filled a chapter in the book, but obviously, he will likely only be in the first part of the trilogy. Looking forward to revisiting Middle Earth!

  4. Never read the book – but how much was left out of the original film? I love the three animated movies, edited properly into one movie I enjoy watching that more than the overblown live action trilogy…

  5. When exactly did he make these comments? Because it sounds like it was before the announcement that it was to be a trilogy, thus rendering it pointless as the films will be re cut to purpose it being three films instead of two.

    • I just went to the source that this article provides (http://cumberbatchweb.tumblr.com/post/29780696578/quote-re-smaug-in-the-hobbit) and the writer states, and I quote “Of course the interview took place before the film was split into 3 so his appearances may be more evenly spaced.”

      • I thought as much.

    • According to Collider’s article he did make those comments before they announced a trilogy.

  6. I stand by my breakdown, It seems pretty clear (to me) how you would split the films.

    • Not to be argumentative, but there’s no confirmation that the third film will be a bridge to LOTR.
      That was Del Toro’s plan, not Jackson’s. Del Toro is quoted as saying the first film would be The Hobbit and the second film would serve as the bridge.
      Truth is, we simply don’t know.

      • and THAT is my one sticking point as well. Until we know it will be one or the other, even speculation seems a bit premature.

  7. We have no evidence so far that the third movie will be a bridge film to the LotR. The stuff that we know for sure will be added from the appendices in the movies will be the events that are going on during the events of the Hobbit story but doesn’t directly accect Bilbo & Co.

  8. Ok, people am i the only person who noticed the typo? Its Rivendell, not Riverdale. Its LOTR not Archie comics. ;)

  9. Leaving the appearance of Smaug as a type of cliffhanger to lead until the next film makes sense. It’s the only place in the book that would be a good jumping off point. Of course, who knows how much there will be in terms of the other stuff that Jackson is throwing in. As well, we don’t know the running time of at least the first film. I find it unlikely that they will be as long as the LotR films. Of course, Jackson’s reputation is for films with long theatrical run times and even longer extended versions. But who’s to say that the Hobbit films will be that long, or can even be that long?

  10. I first discovered The Hobbit back in ’76 when I was 12. A local radio station was playing an audio version of the story narrated by Nicol Williamson (he was Merlin in the 1981 movie “Excalibur”). And he also did all the voices. I’ve been hooked even since.

  11. I have read the Hobbit dozens of times and I love it every single time. It is not at all boring or tastless (my opinion of course). at least we get a quick glimpse of smaug. i was suspecting something like this near the end of the first film. i think the first movie will take the dwarves and hobbit to lake town. then, the second movie would end at the death of smaug and the elves, men, etc. arriving at the mountain. the third movie would mainly be the battle of five armies.

  12. “elves of Riverdale”???

  13. Of course we’ll see Smaug in the first film. When Thorin tells his story to Bilbo and the dinner table I would bet they do a flashback to Smaug taking the mountain from the dwarves.

    Also a TV Spot aired last night with footage of Smaug.

  14. Is anyone else forgetting just how much Peter Jackson changed The Lord of the Rings while adapting it to the big screen? The Hobbit was one book, one that was shorter than any of The Lord of the Rings books, and it is being adapted into three films. There are going to be so many changes made to the book that it will make your head spin, but he will also keep true to details just as he did in The Lord of the Rings. No one thought Peter Jackson could adapt The Lord of the Rings, but he did, and he did a brilliant job. I believe the changes he made to make The Lord of the Rings into films were necessary and to this day they are my favourite films of all time. He will change The Hobbit, and I believe he will change it for the better. I cannot wait for these films as they will most definitely be amazing.

  15. Dude. Seriously? The elves of Riverdale? Either you mean Jingles the Christmas Elf from Archie comics…or you meant Rivendell.

  16. Thanks for sharing such a nice opinion, post is pleasant, thats why i have read it completely

    Feel free to surf to my page … circuit accompagné vietnam cambodge