Home
  • Like Us On Facebook
    • Like us on Facebook

  • +1 Us on Google
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Facebook
    • Follow us on tumblr.

  • Search
Hypable

I went to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the other day. I had been disappointed with much of An Unexpected Journey, and after seeing the sequel, I now realize that there is an underlying problem with these two movies.

This problem has been highly detrimental to the success of The Hobbit films: Simply put, Peter Jackson is telling the wrong story.

I think this can be proven in the philosophy of the script. In the behind the scenes interviews for The Lord of the Rings, Philippa Boyens, one of the screenwriters, says that there was one simple thing that drove them in writing the script. This was that The Lord of the Rings is at its bare bones the story of Frodo carrying the Ring to Mordor, and hurling it into Mount Doom.

Because they had this simple goal in mind when they wrote the script, it helped them cut away things that didn’t aid to the plot. Perhaps more crucially, it stopped them from adding unnecessary original material to the movies. The Hobbit movies lack the necessary bare bones plot outline, which should really be quite simple: Bilbo goes on an adventure to help reclaim The Lonely Mountain, during which he discovers his true mettle.

That’s it. Done. We have points A and B. End of story. The book was called The Hobbit for a reason. Yet Peter Jackson wanted this to be so much more than The Hobbit. He wanted this series to be a prologue to The Lord of the Rings, which is never a healthy way to go about writing movies (cough *Star Wars episodes 1, 2, and 3.* Cough), and it created splintered plot lines which instead of stopping at B, mosey along to plot lines C, D, E, etc.

Because of this, much of what was added to the movie failed. Gandalf’s fight with the Necromancer/Sauron was particularly unforgivable as it really does not make sense if you are not familiar with The Lord of the Rings. The fight is not built up to at all, and relies upon cheap movie tropes to explain – Gandalf is super good and awesome, and Sauron is super bad and evil. So let’s have them duke it out, and it’ll be awesome! – Though perhaps what was most egregious was the oh so unsubtle “light vs. dark” visualization of the battle.

Another flawed addition to the movie was Tauriel the elf, a character who could have been really great, but was weakened by a silly love triangle. The filmmakers felt that it was important to add a strong female character since it is such a male driven movie, and they were completely right. What they got wrong however, was putting in a love story.

Let’s imagine Tauriel sans Legolas, and Kili. She’s a vicious fighter who’s not afraid of orcs, or (perhaps more impressively) Thranduil, and who is one of the few elves unwilling to sit by and let the world burn. Put back in Legolas and Kili, and what we get is a series of coy and shy glances, and a jumble of confusing motives. Is she chasing the orcs to kill them, or to save Kili? Not that they have to be mutually exclusive, but why can’t she simply want to save Kili because he doesn’t deserve to die, not because she has feelings for him?

The additions to the storyline that worked did so because they enhanced that bare-bones story and the characters. For instance, in the scene where Bilbo viciously attacks the spider, and then realizes that he did it for the Ring, he is horrified and rightly so. It is a wonderful wordless moment that shows much about his character. We also get a longer interrogation scene between Thranduil and Thorin than in the books. The dialogue and acting was great, and it exposed us more to Thranduil, who becomes very important during the Battle of the Five Armies.

Unfortunately, the effect (and cause) of this inconsistency of added material was an inherent marginalization of (what should have been) the movie’s basic plotline. Peter Jackson was essentially saying, “look, some stuff in here is pretty cool I guess, but you know what’s even cooler? THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Lets play with that some more!”

No Peter. I love The Lord of the Rings too, but Tolkien did not tell us the story of Sauron in The Hobbit because that story belongs in a different book. And even though yes, The Hobbit is technically a prelude to The Lord of the Rings, it is very much its own stand-alone entity, and deserves to be treated as such.

This article was written by a Hypable user! Learn more and write your own right here.

  • Kato

    I 100% agree with what you wrote. These were the exact things I said after watching it. Glad someone else agrees!

    • Brionna

      Exactly!! Totally agree, and I too thought the same things myself!

  • Connor

    So much for going to the movies just to be entertained. Now we need to examine every nook of a film because so an so didn’t like it. God i miss the old days when we went just to be entertained. Thankfully thats why i go to the movies. If its a bad movie, its bad. Move on people.

    • NightStrike91

      Well, some people think movies can be more than pure brain dead entertainment. Many thought the hobbit movies would be more because of the LotR movies, but alas, it was not meant to be.

    • Ultron

      Go back to the old days then. A movie has to be bad for a reason and here are the fan’s (the ones who actually care) reasons.

    • Paulie

      This would be true for a story that doesn’t already exist in book form. The Hobbit does exist in book form. The reason it should have been made was to convey the book to an audience in film form. Changing the story to make it more ‘entertaining’ for the lazy and unimaginative does not make it a good movie. It makes it a BAD movie precisely BECAUSE it fails to convey ‘The Hobbit’ in film form.

  • PabloRuiz7

    You are 100% right about everything. Having 3 long books, they had to cut everything that wasn’t necessary to make LotR. Expanding 1 book into 3 movies means you HAVE to add unnecessary stuff. I mean, the whole Beorn sequence was completely and absolutely unnecessary

    • Bob Bobberton

      Beorn is in the book.

      • PabloRuiz7

        I know that. Doesn’t mean he had to to be in the movie, that whole sequence added nothing to the overall story and slowed down the movie to a crawl. The first 20 minutes sucked.

        • Ro555

          GREAT IDEA. Why not just skip the whole of Mirkwood and all the other scenes? Why not just get the eagles to take them straight to the Lonely Mountain? They’re not completely necessary…

          • PabloRuiz7

            Oh come on! Most of the scenes develop plot and/or character. The barrel sequence was pretty long but it was crucial to the plot…the whole Beorn sequence could’ve been cut with minor changes and the movie’s pace would’ve been so much better! =)

        • Ultron

          Well he gave them food and supplies and horses to get to mirkwood so he wasn’t completely unnecessary although them starving never came into play in the movie…another inaccuracy.. Plus he’ll be sorta important later in the battle of 5 armies.

          • PabloRuiz7

            That’s a good point. I still feel he should’ve been cut. To me, he’s the Tom Bombadil of The Hobbit. =)

          • Bingo54

            Actually Tom Bombadil was an important part that should not have been skipped. The “Barrow Blades” that where recovered from the “Barrow Downs” had the “enchantment” to kill the witch King of Angmar. In the movie Aaragorn gives the hobbits their swords on weathertop.

        • humanbeing

          Beorn did get cut out of the Rankin-Bass animated film from 1977, probably because the story does work without him (same reason Tom Bombadil got cut from BOTH versions of the Lord of the Rings, the animated version from the 1970s and Peter Jackson’s version, because while it might be interesting, it’s not integral to the larger story). Actually, the 1977 animated version of the Hobbit shows that you can easily tell almost the whole story of the book in 90 minutes; that means Peter Jackson, even assuming he added 3 and a half hours of extraneous or expanded plotlines, could have told the story in two films that were only 2 and a half hours each in length. Instead we’ll wind up with a story that is approaching 9 hours in length (which is something like 6 TIMES LONGER than the Rankin-Bass version). That’s not just throwing in some extra stories from the ROTK appendices to help round out the tale or link it more closely to the LOTR trilogy, that’s taking extreme liberties, inventing completely new storylines out of whole cloth (a whole movies worth, if what I understand about PJ’s last minute decision to expand to 3 films rings true).

          • UncleTom Alex

            Disagree, Rankin-Bass animated is a terribly rushed movie with stupid interpretation, anyone except Bilbo is interesting… Elrond with Stars? Woodleves that look like goblins?

          • Mike

            It was a 90 minute animated movie musical, for kids. Which, actually seems to match up pretty well with what Tolkien wrote. It was a short novel, written in a narrative like a person telling a story. It had cute rhymes and songs in it, and was mostly targeted towards kids, igniting their imagination and giving a few moral lessons along the way. Overall I think the Rankin-Bass version did a much better job of staying true to the spirit of the novel.

  • Lovisa Andersson

    There is no wrong story. Peter Jackson is telling the story he wants to tell, and it is good.

    • Amir

      You speakth the truth.

      • lotrgal87

        really?>???

        • Amir

          yes beautiful stranger

    • Ultron

      But this is an adaptation of something that is already a book…There IS a right story and that is what was written by Tolkien because his book is what this movie is supposed to be “based” on. PJ is not telling the right story. He’s telling his own story that barely even follows the source material.

      • Ro555

        How is he ‘barely even following the source material’?? He’s only made a few changes, all of which are additions that could have well happened- they just weren’t mentioned in Tolkien’s short novel. If PJ wants to add more detail and develop the story whilst also staying faithful to Tolkien’s original plot, I’m happy for him to do so.

        • Ultron

          If they had actually happened and had relevance, Tolkien would have written them. But he didn’t. So they didn’t happen. And he is barely following the source material because the movie wasn’t accurate at all. I honestly can’t even think of one single scene that was completely true to the book where crap wasn’t added in or taken away.

          • UncleTom Alex

            Except Tolkien did write about it in his later works… and he wanted to rewrite the Hobbit in a way it would fit with Lord of the Rings better. Plus, It is said in the book Gandalf defeat the Necromancer (Sauron), I don’t see any wrong showing it on screen.
            Actually many PJ changes make sense in a cinematic way. It’s good to see Bard before Smaug death because viewers don’t like when someone big comes from nowhere. Legolas should be in his kingdom during the events and he seems to finally have a personality.
            Tauriel-Kili wasn’t needed, but it was cute.(but I understand people disling it)
            I have the feeling the separation between dwarves will help to replace the raven part in the book (Roac); instead of a speaking raven, it’s the dwarves that will bring back the news of Laketown and Woodelves alliance.

          • Ultron

            I’m not talking about the Gandalf/white council and Dol Guldur part. I know Tolkien wrote about that. I’m referring to the love triangle, orcs and elves in laketown, leaving the dwarves behind, trying to burn smaug with a crappy golden statue, and so on. Those were completely unnecessary.

          • Ro555

            As UncleTom Alex mentioned, alot of the added story was written by Tolkien in the LOTR appendices which shows that Tolkien did think they were important. He didn’t include it in The Hobbit because it was meant to be a simple story for children, not intended for the wide range of audiences that would watch PJ’s film adaptations

          • Ultron

            I know, I’m talking about the idiotic things PJ added in such as love triangle, trying to burn smaug, leaving dwarves, etc.

        • humanbeing

          Yes, and you could write a Sherlock Holmes story where, in-between solving murder mysteries, Watson is kidnapped by aliens, travels to Mars, fights a galactic horde of robot dinosaurs, and returns to Earth…according to the logic of “Just because we didn’t see it, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened”. I’m perfectly knowledgeable about how adaptations work (heck, I’ve often debated online with others who complain about changes made in adaptations, and I usually take the side that changes are inevitable, and often necessary), but this isn’t so much an adaptation as it is a complete restructuring of the plot that takes almost all of the action away from Bilbo Baggins and places it in the hands of other characters, whose plotlines don’t really intersect with Bilbo’s and yet threaten to overtake his own in importance. There’s just no reason why many of these plots have to be happening in the Hobbit films, and that’s fine if you’re okay with that sort of thing (again, refer to my made-up Watson Fighting Alien Robot Dinosaurs statement…sounds cool, would probably look cool, but just not connected in any way, shape, or form to the classic Sherlock stories).

      • FenrisWings

        Yep. People fell in love with what they read through Tolkien’s words, and Peter Jackson is supposed to at least TRY to make an adaption of what Tolkien wrote, that’s why there’s all this dilemma. I would hope that the changes he makes don’t affect people in the way that they did with the new Smaug movie, but they did. :P

    • lotrgal87

      There is a wrong story when you make it different and still put the original title on the main screen….

    • Maria Wang

      Then this might as well be called “Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit”…since obviously, he’s taken quite a few liberties

      • Erik Davison

        That would be totally fine with me

  • Kelsey

    Just so people don’t completely forget, while some of the material is absolutely original (Tauriel, etc.) from Peter Jackson, a lot of the material regarding the necromancer and other parts that seem extraneous are actually from the Silmarillion, a jrr tolkein history/prelude/everything that every happened in middle earth book that contains those plotlines. I do agree that some parts have gone a little too far though, but not all of it was because Jackson wanted to add parts here there and everywhere

    • Akiva

      I understand that a lot of the material came from other Tolkienian sources, but what I disliked was not that they added material at all, but rather that they added material that in my opinion, did not seem to fit the basic plot line.

      • lankapal

        Exactly. Honestly, the whole necromancer thing is interesting, but hasn’t been woven into the rest of the plot with Smaug. In the first film, it seemed like it was related because Gandalf was worried Smaug would join with Sauron if Sauron came to power, and I get the whole wanting to explain where Gandalf went when he was gone during the Hobbit (book), but it needed to be more explicitly linked.

        • Mike

          Part of the point of Gandalf inspiring the dwarves to reclaim the mountain was to get rid of Smaug. Just imagine The Lord of the Rings where Sauron had Smaug flying around terrorizing people!

          It does explain why Gandalf has to leave the party before they enter Mirkwood, but I really wish they had introduced the necromancer plot differently in the first movie, because my interpretation of the books is that Gandalf was well aware of what was going on well before they started heading East in the first place. Gandalf is a pretty smart and cunning guy. Most of what his character does ends up having a point, and this sort of stuff seems to take away from his character IMO.

          The whole scene with Radagast on a rabbit sled was kind of silly. Especially since somehow he was able to get through/around the misty mountains pretty safely while doing so. Kinda makes the trials that Thorin & co. had crossing a bit off.

          • lankapal

            Right. I get why it’s important in the books, but that hasn’t been established well enough in my opinion in the second film in particular.

      • Smegtasticus

        Jackson et al. should have given the Hobbit room to breathe and be its own story, not a three part prequel to LOTR. Sure Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Ring are in it, and so is Sauron, but he’s known as the Necromancer and nobody really knows who he actually is since it is commonly thought that Sauron was destroyed.

        All the “War is coming!” and “Great evil is gathering.” crap I could have done without.

        These movies are not bad like the Star Wars prequels, but they’re a bloated, heartless mess that has very little to do with the source material or the spirit in which Tolkien wrote The Hobbit.

        • tobi

          it is true that you see a lot of re used ideas in these movies but cmon man! don’t you love watching movies about this unviverse?! shouldn’t a fan love this stuff? i sure do!

    • Jordan

      They are not allowed to mention or use any material from The Silmarillion. They hold the rights to only The Hobbit & the three LOTR books.

    • humanbeing

      The Necromancer is mentioned in the Hobbit, in passing (as is Radagast); but most of the stuff Peter Jackson is adding comes from the appendices at the end of Return of the King, where Tolkien fills in some of the gaps in the Hobbit (explaining why Gandalf agreed to help Thorin reclaim Erebor, and what Gandalf was up to all those times he disappeared from the main group, which happens at least 3 separate times in the novel). But all the stuff with Tauriel and Legolas, all the plotlines with Kili being poisoned, the Legolas/Orc fight in Lake Town, the whole finale of the film (with the dwarves basically being chased around Erebor by Smaug and setting up a molten-gold booby trap for him…that was all created by Peter Jackson. Some of it is all in good fun, but by no means is important to the general story, and could have (and probably should have) been saved for the Extended Editions. If you removed the above plotlines, you would save at least 30 minutes (if not more) from this film, which makes me suspect that if you kept everything from the original novel (the Mirkwood spiders, Beorn, the barrel escape) and maybe a little bit of expanded material (Gandalf’s journey to Dol Guldur), but left out the endless scenes of Kili being wounded, Bard being spied on and arrested, etc, you’d be able to fit everything neatly into two good-sized movies (Peter Jackson’s own original plan, before he second-guessed himself). One continuity question about PJ’s dabbling out-of-continuity; Gandalf faces down the “Necromancer” at Dol Guldur, and obviously sees first-hand that it’s Sauron. If that’s the case, then why does he spend the next 60 years between these Hobbit films and the LOTR films in relative ease, not really worried until the night of Bilbo’s 111th birthday party? If Gandalf had been absolutely certain Sauron had already returned, he would have been out mustering armies, advising kings, shoring up the defenses. That’s because in the books, Gandalf and the White Council drive the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur without ever really realizing that he’s actually a rejuvenating Sauron. That’s a HUGE plothole (one of many) that now exists because PJ got a little carried away with tampering with things.

      • lankapal

        Or perhaps doing one film for the Hobbit and a second on background on Sauron?

        • DobusPR13

          “Gandalf returned to the White Council and urged an attack on Dol Guldur, but was overruled by Saruman, who had by then begun searching for the One Ring in that area. In TA 2941 Saruman finally agreed to an attack, which occurred at the same time as the Quest for Erebor. This was carefully planned by Gandalf, so that Sauron and Smaug could not assist each other, as otherwise they surely would have done. The White Council attacked Dol Guldur, and drove out Sauron. Sauron fled to Mordor, his plans now ready.” – From the Tolkien Wiki. There’s still a third film remember. Don’t be hasty…

          • lankapal

            I would agree if say these were TV episodes, but films, even those part of a trilogy, need to be able to hold their own while still contributing to the plot of the trilogy. I guess I just felt that this film didn’t do that. But yes, I do expect the third film to clear everything up, and perhaps viewing all three films together will be a better viewing experience.

      • ElGigante99581

        Wrong, there is no plothole. In the books, Gandalf found out that it was Sauron in Dol Guldur almost 100 years prior to the events outlined in The Hobbit. It was this information that Gandalf used to convince Saruman that an attack on Dol Guldur was needed.

        • Wesley James Bourgeois

          If that was true then why didn’t Sauron hasten to send the wraiths or growing orc army to obtain the ring and gain the upperhand? Bilbo clearly wore it for an extended period of time on several occasions. I’m not arguing you have a good point, but it still raises a few good questions.

          • ElGigante99581

            Simple – because Sauron cannot automatically sense someone wearing the Ring unless it is in close enough proximity, and he did not know where the Ring was hidden until he got the information out of Gollum through torture (which didn’t happen until a few years before Frodo set out on his quest). As soon as Sauron learned that a creature named “Baggins” from a region known as “The Shire” was in possession of the Ring, he sent the Nazgul to fetch it.

            There are a great many things about Peter Jackson’s movies that are worth complaining about, but this isn’t one of them.

      • Mike

        The reason Gandalf sat back wasn’t the based on the presence or absence of Sauron, but of the location and possession of the One Ring. Everyone was pretty much convinced it was lost.

        While the Ring existed Sauron was basically an immortal spirit that would always come back and regenerate. Kind of a horcrux, for those Harry Potter readers out there. The question wasn’t IF Sauron would come back, but WHEN and WHERE. After the Necromancer was driven from Mirkwood it became a nice place again, and there was a pretty lasting period of relative peace throughout Middle Earth.

    • Fanamir

      None of the material came from The Silmarillion. Peter Jackson only has the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. He’s very loosely pulling things from the appendices to The Lord of the Rings.

    • Jamie Parsons

      It’s not from the Silmarillion, it’s from the Lord of the Rings Appendices. Jackson doesn’t have the rights to use anything in the Silmarillion.

    • Wesley James Bourgeois

      None of which was important however or necessary to the plot of “The Hobbit” . Like he said the story revolves around Baggins, it shouldn’t have split and diverged into multiple plot lines.

    • GM

      Total and utter bullsh*t! Most of the added on material is from the mind of Peter Jackson, he doesn’t have the rights to the Silmarillion.

    • disqus_uOUWbvSc3f

      The Necromancer (Sauron) was mentioned in the Hobbit. Its the reason Gandalf was away while the Company was making its way to Erebor. If you read back in the Silmarillion the timeline is correct for when Sauron moved to Mordor.

  • Connor

    It’s kinda ineteresting, fans of books that get turned into movies complain complain and complain when the fact that they take alot of the book to make a movie out of it. HP or LOTR for example. But when Peter Jackson trys to add alot of things in the hobbit films that is from the book and or middle earth universe, fans complain more than ever.

    So its funny and childish for these fandoms because no one will ever be happy.

    • NightStrike91

      No one would complain if it was done in the right way. The biggest problem with DoS is that it was a very mediocre film. If the added parts (both canon and non-canon) would have made the film better, no one would have complained, but they took away from the story more than they added to it.

    • mgm5215

      I agree. They’re a bunch of hypocrites. J.K. Rowling was right when she said that even if movie adaptations we’re 6 hours long, purists will still complain saying that the book has being ruined. They didn’t appreciated that David Yates decided to split Deathly Hallows into two films when he could’ve adapted into one film, cutting half of the book.

      • NightStrike91

        Explain why most people loved the LotR trilogy then? Talk about movies that has cut and changed much from the books!

        And I personally liked the split of DH, but only because it gave Yates the chance to explore the characters and the story more. In DoS, Jackson simply added unneccessary action sequences that mostly did not add anything to story or character

      • Mike

        It has nothing to do with book length, what has been added or removed, but how those changes are made and why.

        No, no book to movie adaptation is going to be ideal or perfect. Whatever. No book is perfect. The Harry Potter adaptations, for the most part, were all pretty decent and held true to the books pretty well.

        Jackson on the other hand, he just couldn’t leave well enough alone. He had to get in as much “artistic license” into it as he could. Almost every line of dialogue has been changed. Every little event in the book had to be changed from the original. The similarities begin and end with the characters and overall sequence of events…mostly. Let’s go ahead and put Legolas in for the fangirls. And a new really hot elf in there for the guys too!

        They had to add Bilbo signing the paper at the beginning. The trolls? Lets add a fight scene! Bilbo finding the ring? Yeah lets switch things up from the book, he actually sees Gollum drop the ring. Dwarves stuck INSIDE the barrels? Boring, lets have them sticking half out and turn it into yet another unnecessary fight sequence!

        Jesus, the movies are already long enough, and yet there’s so many stupid ADDED fight sequences, chase scenes, and pan shots that one could probably take a good hour of unnecessary BS off of each movie just with some decent editing.

    • lankapal

      Fans are allowed to criticize, just like everyone else. No film, whether it has an attached fandom or not, will ever be universally liked or praised. Also, people were generally pretty happy with LOTR. As to HP, some liked the films, some didn’t. That’s just how it goes. Not everyone will be happy.

      Personally, my issue with the Hobbit was 1) the stuff that’s been added in isn’t directly connected to the plot (not an issue with the actual material, but how it’s presented, otherwise, I loved the extra stuff, perhaps would have been better as a separate film) and 2) Tauriel had the potential to be an amazing addition, but adding a love story just served as yet another example of how we rarely have female characters without a love story attached (something as we see in both LOTR and the Hobbit is not true of most male characters in that they, other than most obviously Aragorn, often don’t have onscreen love interests).

    • tridus

      Umm, the problem is that Peter Jackson is *making stuff up*. This isn’t stuff from the books, this is stuff out of Peter Jackson’s imagination that is not connected to Bilbo at all, because he felt the need to make three movies.

      And yes, if you’re going to make a film called “The Hobbit” based on a book of the same name that stars a Hobbit, focusing so much of your time on totally made up Elven love triangles is not at all good filmmaking.

  • Kelsey

    all in all though, a thoroughly entertaining movie.

  • NightStrike91

    Wonderful post. The movie absolutely had its moments, but all in all, it looks like we have another scenario of prequels defiling a classic trilogy.

  • Sage

    Oh my god, I thought I was THE ONLY ONE thinking this exact thing! Thank god someone understands why I am so displeased with Peter Jackson!

  • A.P.W.B.Dumbledore

    THIS IS A MOVIE! If Peter Jackson took the book and made it perfectly into a movie, with every character analysis, plot line, and story, then he would have failed as a director. I am not saying that for the perfect adaptation every scene and character needs to be in the movie, because lets be honest, even books have unnecessary elements to them. The point of the movie is to tell the story in a way that can be enjoyable to as large an audience as possible. What would be the point of retelling The Hobbit perfectly? I have already read it the same as many other people. I certainly do not want to go into a movie theater and pay a good chunk of change to see the exact same thing I read! I want to see a new perspective with more detail in some areas and (if need be) a modernization of others. If you go into a movie based off a book and expect a complete retelling, then you are setting yourself up to be disappointed, which will lead you to write terrible reviews, which might prevent others from seeing a movie that was enjoyable, but you were too stubborn to accept.

    I do not mean to bash anyone’s opinion, because it is there opinion. Maybe, after reading this though, you may see it from a new pov.

    Okay, now let the rage comments begin!

    • Bob Bobberton

      Adding unnecessary information that doesn’t pertain to the plot is BAD FILMMAKING. And by doing so Peter Jackson has failed for all the things you said you want in an adaptation.

      If Peter Jackson just followed the book, a better film would emerge. Making up a new character and adding a new love triangle is basically fan fiction and calling fan fiction to be the official movie is a big F U to Tolkein’s universe.

      Also Peter Jackson completely misses the point of the Hobbit book. And if he doesn’t care for the book’s charm then why make the movie in the first place?

      Also the movies are excruciatingly painful to watch compared to Two Towers and Return of the King, which were longer and more entertaining.

      Also we paid good money to see the film and if we are unsatisfied for whatever reason, we have every right to complain.

      So you liked this crappy movie? Okay then shut up.

      • Jeff Dodge

        “So you liked this crappy movie? Okay then shut up.”

        Wow, so you think it’s the people who like the movie that need to shut up? It’s the haters who are making the most noise, so let’s put things into perspective and see who really needs to calm down here.

        • humanbeing

          Seriously, again with the “haters” crap. Would you like it if fans of the books called you a “hater” because you defended a film which takes liberties with the book’s plotlines? Would you like it if they said that that somehow made you a “hater” of Tolkien and everything he stood for. “Hater” is dumb, childish, horribly misused modern-day slang that I abhor. You instantly are writing off anyone who disagrees with your point of view as being hateful and spiteful, simply because you don’t want to deal with the complexities of a debate or a discussion. Instead you throw out some non-sensible jargon like “haters” which allows you to retain some illusion of moral superiority. I went into these films with an open mind, the best of intentions, the most fervent hopes. I had nothing but love for PJ’s LOTR films, and was willing to be lenient and forgiving of Jackson taking liberties with the story, if it helped create more drama and a faster-pace to the story; by no means did I already have my mind made up to dislike the film. I think the same could be said of many film critics who disliked the movie; to say that there’s some pre-existing hatred against the films is just setting up straw men to knock down for your argument. Many critics loved the LOTR films, and were simply massively let down by Jackson’s latest efforts. It’s as simple as that.

      • A.P.W.B.Dumbledore

        Bit harsh. I respect everyone’s opinion I was just stating my own. Didn’t realize I was offending anyone, just standing up for Peter Jackson.

    • Akiva

      Movies definitely need to expand and adapt from the books they are based upon, because some things just wouldn’t work on screen, and sometimes a book can leave out a scene that needs visualization. You’re right about that. But I thought that Peter Jackson took it past the step of necessity, and lost sight of the main story.

    • Mike

      “The point of the movie is to tell the story in a way that can be enjoyable to as large an audience as possible.”

      This is exactly what the hell is wrong with Hollywood and marketing. Sorry, NO. Why does every movie have to apply to the most common denominator? Does a movie have to have a love triangle because it tested well for a certain demographic? This is why all the stupid formulaic crap that comes out in theaters bugs the crap out of me.

      I gave the LotR movies a chance. They were OK, definitely overated in my opinion. Many flaws, but mostly followed the books. Not happy with the changes and additions. Saw the first Hobbit movie, and while yes, there were moments that were “from a different perspective” that did make the story interesting and fresh in some ways… all too often the changes, additions, and so one felt either unneeded or bludgeoned into the story like a square peg into a round hole.

      For Desolation of Smaug, all I needed to see was the trailer to know I wasn’t going to give anyone $$ to see it.

  • Enelya

    I love me some Middle Earth………and will generally take as much as I can possibly get, but I must say, even though I enjoyed the two Hobbit movies so far, when all three have been released, I’d love to see a cut that is JUST the storyline from the Hobbit leaving out all the apendicies. Prolly not that easy to do but would be nice to have. I also don’t understand why Desolation of Smaug was so long, but everything that would have actually happened in the book went by super fast. Like they got out of Mirkwood super fast, left Beorn super fast, didn’t even get captured by the elves in the same way it was in the book………..

  • shadezero

    I wasn’t a huge fan of either Hobbit movies, but I don’t really understand why everyone is hating on the Gandalf/ Sauron scene. Pretty sure that was extrapolated from the canon, and I don’t think there’s any problem setting this trilogy up as a prequel to LotR, especially considering how many references there were to the Hobbit in the original trilogy.
    Also, the criticism that it was set up as a strict good vs. evil battle is valid, I guess, if you don’t like tropes, but how else would such a fight have been done? The Lord of the Rings movies made it pretty clear that Sauron really is the incarnation of evil, so having the fight between him and Gandalf look differently than it did would just be inconsistent with Jackson’s own portrayal of the villain.
    Finally, I think it’s ridiculous to criticize the scene because “it doesn’t make sense if you aren’t familiar with LotR”. You don’t need to know who Sauron is to understand the scene: it was mentioned several times that the White Orc was working for someone else, and obviously someone released the Nine from their crypts; if anything, I’d think that not knowing who Sauron is would just make the scene more suspenseful (though I admit I don’t think Gandalf should have said “Sauron”). Also, who is seeing the Hobbit who ISN’T familiar with Lord of the Rings? And if they are, why should they complain? Criticizing the scene because you’re not familiar with the cannon would be like watching the Thor 2 and complaining that you didn’t recognize Captain America, or watching the upcoming Newt Scamander movie and complaining that you don’t know who Dumbledore is(or something similar, if we assume that the rest of the Potter universe will be referenced).
    Again, I didn’t think the movie was perfect, but I don’t get why people are hating on that one scene.

    • Akiva

      Yes there were references to The Hobbit in LOTR, but only references. Whereas in the new trilogy, LOTR is almost integral to the plot. Also, if The Hobbit movies had been released just after LOTR, than it would have been legitimate to rely upon the audience’s knowledge of the previous series. However we are ten years removed from LOTR, and it there is a new portion of the fanbase. I saw both Hobbit movies with people who had never seen or read LOTR, and they were confused.

      • humanbeing

        I saw it alongside people who literally didn’t understand that it was a prequel, and felt that this was all taken place AFTER Return of the King, that all the references to Sauron returning meant we was returning after his defeat in that film, etc. They must have been confused as hell, but there were more of them than you think, people who either weren’t paying attention during the prologue of An Unexpected Journey, or don’t understand telling a story out of linear order. That’s probably not Peter Jackson’s fault, but the fault of a dumbed-down audience, but still.

    • humanbeing

      Well, it’s established in Jackson’s own LOTR movies that Gandalf was taken almost completely by surprise that Sauron had returned; if, as shown in DoS, Gandalf had already faced Sauron personally in one-to-one combat, he shouldn’t have been taken aback in the opening scenes of Fellowship of the Ring. Also, the books made reference to the fact that the Istari (the Wizard order that Gandalf belongs to) were not allowed to personally match their own powers against Sauron; in other words, no giant mystic battles. The Wizards could inspire and rally others to fight, could guide others with their wisdom, but they weren’t allowed to seize power for themselves (hence Saruman’s betrayal in LOTR, as he’s been doing exactly that thing that’s been forbidden to him). If you listen to the commenary for Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf and Saruman have their little wizard’s duel, it basically consists of them pointing their staffs at each other and either falling down or crashing back into a wall; no lightning, no magical auras, no flame spells or mystic shields; just two people bashing the crap out of each other. PJ mentions on the commentary how proud he is that Gandalf never really shows those kinds of powers, throughout the whole LOTR trilogy (there are times he could use those powers, like the battles in Return of the King, and Jackson simply has him hitting orcs with his staff). And yet now we get a full-on CGI battle with magic shields and energy beams and what have you. It’s a constant case of Peter Jackson contradicting his own rationales and plot motivations in his original LOTR movies; he’s basically at war with his own logic. Inconsistency would be an understatement.

      • shadezero

        That definitely does make me reconsider the scene, though from a strict movie-viewer point of view I still really enjoyed it, and I still stand by my argument. In the movie cannon I think it still works.

        • shadezero

          Though, yeah, the fact that Gandalf is so surprised at the beginning of Fellowship is a glaring plot hole. I’m interested to see if they address that issue :P

          • ElGigante99581

            Um, no, it is not a plot-hole, as UncleTom Alex has already explained. Gandalf is well-aware of Sauron’s return in the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring film. What he is NOT aware of is the fact that Bilbo’s ring is the One Ring.

      • UncleTom Alex

        If I remember well Gandalf isn’t suprised by Sauron’s return but because the ring has been found… so there is no plothole.

  • Jeff Dodge

    I’m so tired of people hating on these movies. Two movies in, and we get it! We know how you all felt last year, we don’t need to go through it again this year, and we all know it’s going to happen again when the final movie comes out. All these haters need to just get over themselves and let go of their anger.

    • Zachary Boswell

      It’s not all anger. It’s analysis. We have every right to analyze movies. That is why we are here. I think a big thing with the Hobbit is that many people did not like the movies but they can’t specifically say WHY they didn’t. This kind of article makes a lot of sense for those people. And it helps them make sense of their disappointment, which can be completely valid.

      I personally love the movies, but know that they are very flawed and that they are NOT Lord of the Rings, even though they are trying to make it that way.

      • Jeff Dodge

        I agree–I think these movies are fantastic. No, they’re never going to be Lord of the Rings, but I’m choosing to focus on the positive which is why I’m able to actually enjoy these Hobbit movies, unlike all the haters who already have their opinions on them decided before even going to see the movies and then use certain things they see to back up those opinions.

        • NightStrike91

          One could turn it around at all the “lovers” of the movies that has already formed their opinions before seeing the movies and just won’t listen to any criticism. What would be better is to have an open mind going into the film, and it just so happens that many people that try to judge the movie objectively have come to the conclusion that it was not particularly good.

          • Jeff Dodge

            And talking about opinions and all that, while I haven’t read a whole lot of critics’ reviews, the ones that I did read, it seemed like some of those reviewers were making criticisms on certain plot points that are actually in the book, so in a way they’re criticizing the book, which has nothing to do with PJ and everything to do with Tolkien.

          • Paulie

            Yeah … because ‘film’ critics are ‘book’ critics too. Because they’ve authored books as successful as ‘The Hobbit’ and are entitled to critique literature. Guess what, movies and books are 2 very different formats.

    • humanbeing

      Guess what? I come from a generation where we didn’t use the hip-hop invented word “haters” to describe anyone who disagreed with us. Back then it was called “having an opinion”. “Haters” implies that the reasoning behind someone’s argument is that they’re angry, or vengeful, or frustrated, etc…it’s a shallow, childish way to deflect an opposing point-of-view, throwing all of the onus of an argument onto someone else and not taking any responsibility for your own actions or opinions. You may be tired of people who have criticism of these films; maybe they’re tired of blindly faithful apologists who don’t want to even entertain the fact that there might be flaws in something they love. “Haters”. Seriously? Hate isn’t a word you should be throwing around so callously. I don’t have the time, the energy, the willpower, or the desire to “hate” any movie, let alone these ones. Doesn’t mean I love them; believe it or not, there’s a LARGE middle ground between love and hate.

  • Janice

    I had no problem with Tauriel’s storyline. I don’t think the “love triangle” took anything away from her character. If anything, I think her connection with Kili only enhanced it. Elves can frequently come off as cold and indifferent. They can hold on to a grudge as well as the dwarves. I found the conversation between Tauriel and Kili to be very sweet. It showed Tauriel’s compassion and kindness. Two characteristics that are often cast aside as unimportant. It’s viewers who interpret her motives incorrectly that bring her character down to a stereotype. She wouldn’t go if it was for a crush. She explains to Legolas why she has to go, they can’t sit idly by and continue to let evil win. “It is our fight”. Tauriel is a great character because she is brave and strong, but also has innately female characteristics that are so often overlooked in a hero’s story.

    • whiteraven47

      Tauriel’s character development is also clearly going to be what pushes Legolas from being a distant jerk to being someone who ends up best friends with a dwarf…it’s not just about the characters themselves but how everyone’s actions impact everyone else.

      • Amy

        My main issue with this is that it completely overshadows the significance of Legolas’ and Gimli’s friendship. They (that is both of them) overcame peoples’ millennia old prejudice and mutual dislike of each other and came friends through their experiences together. Why must their development be contingent on the fact that one of them (Legolas) was spurned for someone from the others race (a dwarf)?

        • whiteraven47

          I feel like if Kili dies and Tauriel grieves for him, and Legolas can’t be with her anyways, it will impact him more. I hope they don’t make it a jealousy thing, more of just Legolas realizes that there can be love between races. You’re right, of course, making Legolas’ development jealousy-based would overshadow his relationship with Gimli. However, I feel like Legolas needs a push to change him into the person he was at the beginning of Fellowship, as he seemed less racist than his dad even before he got to know Gimli.

      • humanbeing

        But Legolas is still kind of distant and a bit of a jerk to Gimli in LOTR (his line about “Why doesn’t that surprise me?” when referring to dwarves not being able to find their own hidden doors); it’s only later in the course of their journey that he finds common ground with Gimli. In other words, the Legolas we see initially in LOTR is not so far removed from the version we see in these Hobbit films, which means that the whole Tauriel/Kili relationship didn’t teach Legolas to be any more sympathetic or empathetic to dwarves, which means that plotline is there for a more shallow purpose (stated by Phillipa Boyes and Fran Walsh themselves); to create a love story to draw in female viewers. It’s the same reason they greatly expanded Arwen’s story in LOTR (in the novel Arwen is present for about two pages of storyline, and takes no real initiative and is a very passive, stereotypical damsel-in-distress character). I understand the motivations behind a lot of the plot changes (a lot of fans assume I must be ignorant of the story sources or PJ’s reasoning, simply because I disagree with his choices this time around). A lot of what the characters are doing and are being exposed to doesn’t make sense, given where we establish them at the beginning of LOTR (especially Gandalf and Legolas’ stories).

        • JJWaters

          It annoys the hell out of me when writers/directors think we women need soppy love stories and cliched kick ass chicks to help us enjoy a story. I think even the mighty LoTR would be better with less Arwen more Glorfindel!

      • Jamie Parsons

        And we didn’t need to know what Legolas went through before. The only reason he is a ‘distant jerk’ in this movie is because Jackson & co made it so.

    • Akiva

      I agree that Tauriel’s scene with Kili was well done, and I liked her speech about the stars. However I just wish that they had played the scene merely as two people talking, and left out the romantic tension. And while she said those things to Legolas after the fight on the river, we see that she left Mirkwood only when she learnt of the poisoned arrow.

      • humanbeing

        I also could have done with the d*ck joke…completely out of place in this particular mythology. It’s about as subtle as having Jar Jar Binks step in a pile of poop in the Star Wars prequels.

      • Carl White

        I had the impression that she liked Kili well enough, but that any romance was/is really just a notion in young Kili’s brain. To Tauriel, Kili was a part of the forbidden “outside” and thus held some fascination for her. She may even feel a little maternal toward him, based on his promise to his mother to return to her.

        Kili’s obvious youth is the reason I can forgive him being smitten with an elf. He hadn’t grown older yet and hardened the way dwarves seem to do.

    • lankapal

      Thing is a lot of that could have been done without directly implying a love storyline between Tauriel and Kili. That scene between them when Kili is injured and she’s healing him, it could have been done without that dialogue about love. The love storyline specifically was pretty unnecessary and as great as it was for Jackson to add a female character, adding in that extra love storyline makes it seem like you can’t have a female character without having a love story attached, which isn’t the case for most male characters.

    • Jamie Parsons

      Except she had no intention of going until she heard that Kili was hit with a morgul shaft. She could have kept chasing the orcs down the river but she didn’t, she went back.
      Tauriel could have been a good character, but she is’t because all her scenes are about some crappy love story.

  • Dark Mark

    The love triangle isn’t about Tauriel or Kili (people who have read the book will know why this isn’t gonna go anywhere); it’s about Legolas. Right now he’s self-centered like his dad (makes sense due to the elven culture) but he has to grow into the character in Lord of the Rings, who will be best friends with Gimli, completely violating elf norms. The romance (if you can call it that) between Tauriel and Kili is integral to Legolas’ character development. I get that not everyone wants to see it in the movie (myself included, could have done without it) but it’s something that serves a pretty clear function. Before bashing Peter Jackson we should at least understand why he’s doing the things he’s doing.

    • G

      Wow, I never saw it that way before, that def gave me something to think about! that makes so much sense thanks!

    • lotrgal87

      Nope, not buying it. It’s once again a way for them to Market a movie to a different audience, since still (unfortunately) not a lot of women are as interested in this series as men. All it did was disrupt the point of the whole movie.

      • Ro555

        I agree Dark Mark. If the film just had Legolas, who just followed his father’s orders, his character wouldn’t make sense in LOTR. We needed Tauriel to show us how Legolas developed into the LOTR character. She was definitely a well-chosen addition into the story

        • lankapal

          The problem was that making her have a love storyline with Kili, it took away from her as a character. They could have just as easily made her a captain who worked with Legolas, without a love storyline, and she still could have served a purpose of building Legolas’ character.

          • Ro555

            I think some emotional story was needed, like the Aragorn/Arwen story in LOTR, because of the lack of a love story in the source material. However, I do agree that the love story with Kili was too cheesy and awkward at times.

        • Anonymous

          We didn’t need Legolas in the film at all, because he is not in The Hobbit. His character was unnecessary in this story line.

          • JJWaters

            He might not be in the Hobbit but he’s Thranduil’s son and there are elves along the river and in Lake Town in the novels, so it’s not too much of a stretch of imagination to accept him in these films. I think he adds to the film, I’d so much rather see him take the lion’s share of any expanded elf activity than a series of random, not very elvish looking extras twatting about in long wigs.

    • H

      I read the book and I’m not sure about the “not going anywhere part”. Peter Jackson has changed so much about the book. Now you have 4 dwarves held back at Lake Town instead of going into Erebor. Will he keep to the original plot in terms of who lives and who dies? I’m not so sure he will.

    • MM

      I actually think the romance weakens Legolas and Gimli’s friendship in LOTR. Dwarves and Elves hated each other on principle. Long-held prejudices, past injuries, etc meant that there was essentially racism between the two groups. So, the fact that Legolas overcomes all of that and forms a solid friendship is meaningful. With this spin, it makes it look like he didn’t like Gimli because some dwarf stole his girl 60 years ago. That’s a petty grudge. Overcoming that is a lot less impressive than overcoming centuries of engrained prejudice–which was what their friendship was supposed to be about.

      • FenrisWings

        That is exactly my point! It makes it seem as though Legolas’s friendship for dwarves is all due to something that happened in the past with Tauriel/Kili, which doesn’t make is as nearly as genuine as it really is in LOTR! The friendship developed was something that transpired throughout the LOTR events due to fighting along side each other and being part of the fellowship; not that bullsh*t of a love story between Tauriel and Kili! >.<

    • kothel

      No, that’s wrong. Why is Legolas still so suspicious of Gimli later on then? Why did he do it? to make 3 movies instead of 1 or 2. All about money.

    • FenrisWings

      What I hate about that, is the fact that Tauriel and Kili’s dwarf/elf relation is not the catalyst for Legolas’s feelings towards how he thinks about dwarfs. He did that all on his own. Tauriel is a character made-up only for the movies and her involvement with Kili may show that Legolas might have had a part in softening the way he thinks about dwarves, but it really isn’t the truth and I’d hate for Peter Jackson to make it look like it is. Bottom line is; Legolas did not befriend Gimli by following a past example of Tauriel with Kili. Peter Jackson seems to be trying to potray the opposite of what it really is, and that’s something that annoys me. The friendship that was made between dwarf/elf (Gimli and Legolas) is genuine, and I’d hate for it to be an aftermath of ‘why it came to be’ (involving the fact that Tauriel and Kili could get along in the past and now Legolas somehow ‘learned from their friendship’).

    • Paulie

      There is NOTHING about Legolas being self-centered etc in ‘The Hobbit’ as far as I can remember. In fact, Legolas doesn’t even come into the story of ‘The Hobbit’ as per the book (if memory serves me well). The reason Legolas becomes friends with Gimli, changing elf norms, is BECAUSE of their journey together in LOTR and the trials they face together. Please don’t do what PJ has done and make up your own reasoning for plot lines.

  • Ultron

    I agree 100000%. I hate how they’re approaching it as a prequel when it was written before lotr so it’s not really a prequel at all.

  • bill.i.am.

    this. exactly this.

  • Erik Davison

    Ok. I can’t wait for the other opinion article that says the opposite of this. I’m one of those weird people who LOVED both movies.

  • Christine Hudson

    Both are good, well made & quite spectacular family films and the books were OK too but I get really fed up with people who try to make them academic studies – It’s all fiction, both films and books. I hate to be the one to break the news but Middle Earth is not real you know!

    • Ultron

      A Movie’s job is to make it real. You know, to bring it to life? Books can be analyzed so why can’t movies? And the books are just “OK”? Try fantastic, bud. If they weren’t I don’t think they’d be regarded as classics and the grandfather of fantasy.

      • Christine Hudson

        No a film’s job is to entertain! I did find the book only OK – I much prefer the films Oh! and by the way I’m not Bud!

        • Ultron

          No, it’s not. The goal is to bring that world to life. Entertaining goes along with it but you have to bring the world to life first in order to do that or no one will be entertained.

          • Christine Hudson

            Well it seems an awful lot of people WERE entertained so, according to you own argument, PJ must have brought the world to life in order for me and several million others to have been entertained thus achieving ‘the goal’! so where are you going to go with your next argument?? I’m beginning to get the feeling that you are one of those people who just argue to wind up the fans for fun!

          • Ultron

            Um, definitely false because I’m a huge lotr fan. Secondly, I never said people weren’t entertained…I just disagreed with your statement of what you think a movie’s job is. The movie did entertain people, just not me completely. I was never attempting to make “an argument” either. Just state my opinion as you did.

  • Ryan Reed

    Translating a book to the screen is like translating a painting into words. Sure, I could be absolutely true to the source material and describe Van Gogh’s Starry Night as follows: the sky is blue with yellow circles of stars, and swirls of light blue and white. There is a town at the bottom by some hills, and a dark brown tree-like form in the foreground.

    That’s a straightforward and accurate description of the painting, but it fails to capture just about everything that makes the painting remarkable.

    If PJ had taken a similar tact with The Hobbit, we would get a largely un-watchable and uninspired film where the dwarves looked the same, most of them said nothing at all and had no distinguishing personalities, and the battle of five armies would not really be shown because Bilbo slept through most of it. Boring. I would rather have an inspired and talented filmmaker like PJ give me his translation of the Hobbit from book to screen, the same as I would rather have a gifted and inspired poet translate Starry night into words.

    • Ultron

      Paintings and books are 2 completely different things. A book tells you what happens and a painting shows a picture. There’s no comparison there. Tolkien wrote what happened. PJ did not follow what was basically written out for him. He added tons of unnecessary things that added nothing to the plot at all. If he had kept to the story and book, it would not have been boring except for maybe the battle of 5 armies part. Plenty of movies have been successful and not boring because they closely followed the source material. Maybe if he had spent more time in mirkwood and actually following the dwarves, it wouldn’t be boring at all. There was practically no character development in this movie. Except maybe Biblo (not much) and Thorin. And I wouldn’t call DoS a translation. It scarcely follows the actual story. I’s no translation. It’s a fan fiction. I’m fine with PJ adding in parts that keep the story going but most of that in this movie was complete crap that served no purpose.

      • ty

        Peter Jackson never said he is retelling the story of the hobbit. He is providing us with his artistic interpretation of the information provided for him. Which is what he did with Lord of the rings. I don’t see any problem with what he did with HIS interpretation. :)

    • humanbeing

      Hey, I love the idea that Peter Jackson gave the dwarves their own unique looks and personalities, I absolutely adore that idea, it’s one of the best changes he made. That doesn’t mean we have to have a storyline where Kili gets shot with an arrow, and then 20 minutes of film is given over to him moaning in pain on a bed while people look for some medicine. And I agree that the Battle of Five Armies should be shown beyond Bilbo’s limited point-of-view; but then again, even with that limited point-of-view (and getting knocked out early in the battle), Bilbo is still given an explanation later on about what happened while he was unconscious, so it’s all there on the page for Peter Jackson to work with, he doesn’t have to invent it all from scratch. If a good adaptation has to remove elements from a story, it finds ways to include those elements in other ways, like condensing multiple characters or storylines into one, or finding ways to describe multiple themes in a single scene. If a good adaptation wants to add elements to a story, it finds ways to expand on existing elements, without contradicting those elements and creating an entirely new storyline. I know that might be hard to understand, but what Jackson is doing with these new Hobbit films isn’t like two different artists painting their own vision of the same river, it’s like one artist painting a river and the other one painting a mountain; it might be a beautiful painting of a mountain, but it’s not even trying to be the same thing as the original.

      • Ryan Reed

        I guess the bottom line is that Fran, Peter, and Phillipa (and del Toro) were banging this screen story out over 18 months, and it’s their version/vision. They obviously expanded beyond the book for purposes of continuity with LOTR films, for marketing/commercial appeal (Tauriel) and for profit (exciting action scenes/barrel chase). I’m not a book purist, so I loved everything he did. Some won’t. All good.

    • Paulie

      Don’t you mean translating a book to the screen is like painting words into a picture? It usually helps to get your metaphor correct if you want people to read what follows. The OP is also not saying that PJ shouldn’t have fleshed out plots that ALREADY exist in ‘The Hobbit’. They’re gripe is with the plots that DON”T exist in the book therefore don’t ‘ADD’ to the story of ‘The Hobbit’ but rather CHANGE the story of ‘The Hobbit’. Which means it’s no longer ‘The Hobbit’.

  • Dorys

    “It’s easy to criticize from the stands. What’s hard…is doing something.

    It’s
    not just that people like to criticize other people, it’s that they
    like to criticize other people when they haven’t achieved much
    themselves.”

    (Rob Walling)

    • Ultron

      So we can’t analyze the movie? Just because PJ is more successful than me and I haven’t directed a movie doesn’t mean I can’t call him out on the things he did wrong that he could have, very easily, done right.

    • humanbeing

      That would mean that no one would ever again be able to criticize politicians or other leaders, would never be able to stage protests against things they have issues with, and so on. Yes, it’s easier to be an armchair-quarterback and have an opinion on something without doing something in equal measure, but human beings are allowed to have differing opinions and beliefs without having to achieve greatness themselves. If the qualifications for being a movie critic meant that you had to direct a movie, we wouldn’t have movie critics anymore (or book critics, or cooking critics). Also, I could just as easily say that if you support something, you have to have the ability to create something of equal measure, or your support has no meaning because you don’t have a certain amount of experience in what you are supporting.

    • Minnalousha

      You are soooo right!!!!

      So what if the transplant surgeon put in my new heart upside down and sewed my @sshole shut? Who am I to complain? *I’m* no surgeon!

  • Larael

    All of this. Well done.

  • lankapal

    Thank you. I was struggling to figure out why I was feeling weird after coming out of the theatre after seeing the latest film, and this article basically summed up my thoughts. I wish I could like Tauriel, but the whole love story thing makes me roll my eyes.

    • Ultron

      I really loved her…but they subjected her to a love triangle which is really disappointing. I imagine she’s disappointed as well.

      • lankapal

        Exactly. Why can’t we have a female character that is not involved in a love story? Those kinds of storylines just make it seem as though a female character is not worth following without having that aspect…

  • Bob

    One would think after so many failures, modern day directors and writers would figure out that something that has stood the test of time is best left alone.

  • Halloway

    I don’t think its completely fair to start judging the added material. You do realize there is another movie, right? This movie might seem a bit jumbled, but there is a good chance everything will somehow connect and resolve in the final film. This is a bridge film. Just look back at The Two Towers.

    • Paulie

      A bridge with multiple other bridges coming off it leading people away from the story of ‘The Hobbit’.

  • Reeve

    I think that logically, Peter Jackson Knew that it would be a near impossible challenge to make everyone happy- if he followed the book completely, people would say that he just copied a book. moreover, not everything in the book would have translated very well to the big screen. Also, if he adds his own stuff and takes stuff out that was in the book, you get people who complain. With that said, I am glad to seen that there are some unexpected twists and turns that I wasn’t prepared for already, and I think that it is not a bad idea at all to tie this one to the LOTR. I’m sure if Tolkien would have wrote LOTR first that maybe he would have done the same. And as for the love triangle that seems to have everyone worked up about: First of all, we really don’t even know what it is because what it looked liked to me was an elf who heard about Killi’s fate and knew that she could save his life, and had a cool conversation with him in the cell’s which seemingly made her change her views a little, also it leads us into where Legolas meets her before LakeTown to say that “It’s not our fight”, and she replies, “but, it is our fight”. Without this, Legolas would not be in LOTR, because he would have believed that it was not his fight. So all in all, what it looks like to me, is that legolas needed a reason to change his opinion, and Tauriel needed a reason to go to lake town, and so Peter Jackson gave them one, and i think that it will be fun to go back and see what you can tie into the other films, and as soon as you make it not fun, it kind of defeats the point of seeing a movie in my opinion. It’s fun to explore a little bit with other ideas and characters to give us a bigger picture of the world perhaps rather than just about a Hobbit. I think that we should be thankful that he gave us a better movie and wait for the next one to come out before we make judgement calls.

  • Reeve

    I think that Directors have one of the hardest jobs on the planet, especially with a famous book adaptation. There are maybe two or three other people on the planet that could have made these films as good. It is a huge collaboration effort to make the movie work, there are so many moving parts and to get everybody on the same page that is the director’s vision, is very very hard. Some things work and some things do not, and you sometimes have to make do. Elves that are singing in the woods and then disappear 3 times, and Bifur falling into the water and going to sleep, would have put me to sleep

  • Reeve

    I think that logically, Peter Jackson Knew that it would be a near impossible challenge to make everybody happy- if he followed the book completely, people would say that he just copied a book. moreover, not everything that was in the book would have translated very well to the big screen. And then of course, if Peter Jackson adds his own stuff and takes somes things out that was in the book, you get people who complain. With that said, I am glad to have seen some unexpected twists and turns that I wasn’t prepared for already

    • ElGigante99581

      What Jackson is doing is attempting to do an adaptation of The Hobbit, but presenting it in the darker, more adult style of Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a children’s book, and he wrote The Lord of the Rings as a sprawling epic for more mature readers. So while some of the changes have left me completely baffled (Azog), I can understand why Jackson’s decided to make the story more adult-themed.

      • Rain in the Dark

        Yes, but he also failed at it. The Hobbit was a simple book, a parody of heroic travels where most characters were just that, parodies. They came across as selfish and greedy, but that was okay, because that was the intention and the book was meant to be simple and funny. You can’t just take those characters and shove them into a darker story without giving them some development, and yet that’s basically what PJ does. He leaves the characters as is, occasionally even simplifying and vilifying them (Thranduil *cough* Thranduil) and instead tries to shove and develop his own story-lines in the mix, even creating the character to show the Elves the error of their ways. The result is the main characters being glossed over (most of the party) or just being straight a-holes (Thorin in the second movie).

  • Reeve

    And as for the love triangle, that seems to have everyone worked up: First of all, we really don’t even know what it is because what it looked liked to me was an elf who heard about Killi’s fate and knew that she could save his life, and had a cool conversation with him in the cell, which seemingly made her change her views a little. also, it leads us into where Legolas meets her before LakeTown to say that “It’s not our fight”, and she replies, “but, it is our fight”. Without this, Legolas would not be in LOTR, because he would have believed that it was not his fight. So all in all, what it looks like to me, is that legolas needed a reason to change his opinion, and Tauriel needed a reason to go to lake town, and so Peter Jackson gave them one, and i think that it will be fun to go back and see what you can tie into the other films, and as soon as you take the fun out of it, it kind of defeats the point of seeing a movie at all

  • Reeve

    Nothing in the woods really does anything for the character development except for the spiders, so I’m acually glad that they didn’t stay in mirkwood for as long as the book suggests, Peter Jackson knew that laketown would be important for us to develop a heart for them, and that also, it would be wise to give us a good fear of Smaug so that we feel for what’s to come to LakeTown, so Peter speant a little more time with those themes rather than most, and that was very smart.

    • fantasywind

      Actually the spider’s sequence was seriously cut which is a bad thing, instead of showing Bilbo’s growth into a real warrior-hero gaining a new level so to speak, they inserted Legolas and Tauriel ridiculousness (come on how many times we have to watch their unbelievable action scenes, all those improbable stunts that have no real weight of danger)! And fear of Smaug is completely underpowered by the idiotic scenes in the mountain which show this mighty dragon as bumbling moron who can’t catch few dwarves even if they stand on his nose! Also Lake-town scenes while interesting are of no use, enitre conflict between Bard and Master of Laketown is unnecessarily developped into some sort of political plot, the idea of cunning politician the Master is already in book but it was essential for other purpose, his manipulating ability is better suited for third film when entire conflict leading to battle starts and in DoS it’s simply taking too much space which could have been used productively for other plots.

      • Paulie

        Bingo.

  • Reeve

    and i think that it will be fun to go back and see what you can tie into the other films, and as soon as you take the fun out of it, it kind of defeats the point of seeing a movie at all. It’s fun to explore a little bit with other ideas and characters to give us a bigger picture of the world, perhaps rather than just about a Hobbit. I think that we should be thankful that he gave us a better movie and wait for the next one to come out before we make judgement calls

  • Reeve

    Also, about the bare bones comment; Of course they had to give us the bare bones, because it would have been way too complicated to fit everything into a movie. I don’t know how many people in this discussion actually have any experience with film making, but I do have a little and it is not easy at all

  • Reeve

    I really like looking for parts of the movie that seem unimportant and go overlooked, Like how strategically PJ wrote the interactions between Bard and his children, how they run up to him when he arrives home, showing first that Bard is a loved family man, and second, how vulnerable they are. This is also important because it shows us many dimensions to Bard’s character, that there is a lot more to him than a cold faced Lakesman who easily takes bribes. Everything he does, he does for his kids. also the part between him and his son was small but strong enough to show important emotions. Bard trusts his son to not let the dwarves leave, and then again with the black arrow.

  • Reeve

    I also like how PJ has developed Thorin. First, we like him and think of him as a brave leader of the Dwarves, but now we are starting to see his selfish desires which make us start to not like him at all, which will set us up to feel sorrow for him by the end when he realizes his mistakes.

  • Brian Hill

    nerd alert

  • diamondgirl

    What particularly upset me was that Jackson stripped out the Faramir Eowyn love story, which actually had interesting points to it, and beefed up the bland Arwen/Aragorn thing, and made up Tauriel out of whole cloth. Um… Tolkein WROTE A LOVE TRIANGLE.

  • The Truth Teller

    Agree. Of course, it all comes back to the fact that Mr. Jackson decided to make 3 movies out of one 260+ page book while LOTR was one book per movie. This new trend to chop books into 2-3 movies that began with the last Harry Potter novel will continue until we are fed up and stop paying to see one story in 2-3 parts.

    • ElGigante99581

      The Hobbit should have been two films. Unlike many here, I am more interested in The Hobbit as it fits into Tolkien’s wider world, rather than just the children’s story from the book. So I am happy that some of the appendices material is being included, like Gandalf’s motivation for starting the quest, his whereabouts after he leaves the company at the edge of Mirkwood, the White Council, and some of the allusions to Dwarven history.

      I could have done without the Tauriel/Kili/Legolas stuff, I could have done without the Azog/Orc pursuit stuff, and I could have done without the Dwarves’ cat-and-mouse game with Smaug at the end of the movie.

  • ElGigante99581

    I really do not mind that some of the LotR appendices material has been included. Personally, I would rather see what Gandalf was up to when he left the group at the edge of Mirkwood, instead of having him just disappear until he turns up at the Bo5A. It may be a tad confusing for those who don’t already know the backstory, but I’m still glad they are including it.

    What I don’t like is the fact that Azog and Thráin are still alive in the movies, when in the books Azog is decapitated by Dain Ironfoot about 140 years prior to the events outlined in The Hobbit, and Thráin is found dying in the pits of Dol Guldur by Gandalf about 90 years prior.

    • fantasywind

      Except the fact that this material is also significantly cut out, even material from Hobbit proper is cut (entire sequences from book are missing)!! All this is make room for original invention and that’s why movie doesn’t work as well as it could.

  • Liam

    I think that Peter Jackson has done a brilliant job. The main thing you don’t realise is that the continuity in a book is not the same as that of a movie. He has made all the changes and additions to the storyline to make it flow better on screen and more enjoyable for a larger audience to watch. So what if Tauriel has a romance with Kili? I personally found that was one of my favourite things about the movie. It was refreshing and a much needed lift. No one could direct these movies better than Peter Jackson. We could smelt all of the academy awards that he has recieved in the furnaces at Erabor and there would be enough liquid metal to bury your ignorance.

  • FenrisWings

    Indeed. Peter Jackson is turning these stories into his own- a story that readers of the books never heard about! His ‘experimenting’ with changing the course of the story should stop. I know I can’t expect a complete copy of the book, but I hope he remembers this; people fell in love with the words, story, and adventures from the book that Tolkien wrote, NOT the love triangle cr@p or any other kind of development that he is trying to instill in the new hobbit movie(s) between characters like Tauriel, Kili, and Legolas! I hope he stays true to why the Hobbit REALLY became to be so loved!

  • Jennifer

    I really don’t see the problem with a romance between Kili and Tauriel. I’m not even sure that Legolas is even part of the love triangle. I think he may just be stalking Tauriel because she is his friend and he is suspicious of dwarves. Legolas father seems a little delusional anyway.

    I also think that the death of Fili and Kili in the book seems weird and out of place in Tolkien’s original story. It doesn’t even make sense that their deaths take place while Bilbo is knocked out and does not witness it.

    I can totally see why Tolkien kills off Thorin. He went to the dark side for a while. It is almost like a punishment. However, with Fili and Kili, he has two good characters who have done everything for the right motivations. Fili and Kili are not seduced by gold lust as their uncle is. All they are guilty of is trying to save their uncle during the battle of the Five Armies.
    I have always thought that their death was glossed over in the book and seemed more like a Tolkien afterthought. It looks like he killed them for no apparent reason other than to make Dain the king under the mountain, so that they would be out of the way in the succession.

    If I were Peter Jackson, I would keep up the love story with Kili and Tauriel. Make it clear that Legolas is not in the love triangle. I would have Fili die in the battle of the Five Armies and have Kili choose to abdicate the throne in order to be with Tauriel. I wouldn’t have her go back to Thranduil’s place anyway because he seems to see her as a second class citizen in the first place. And he is probably really pissed at her for abandoning her post.

    This way you still get the gut wrenching drama of Kili being devastated at the death of his brother, and he has a legitimate reason or two for not wanting the throne. He will have seen what the lust for gold and treasure did to Thorin and will want none of it. He can ride off into the sunset with Tauriel.
    Also, I am not even sure Kili will be up and at em in time for this big battle in the first place. I mean look how long it took Frodo to recover from an orc blade wound. I say let Kili live!

    • ServicePi

      Kili and Fili must die to return to status quo. The family is plagued with a sickness.

      • fantasywind

        For he love of… ugh there is no sickness in Thorin’s family, ever! Thrór was influenced by his Ring of Power, same with Thrain, Thorin fell to ,,dragon-sickness” which might be some sort of malevolent influence of dragon magic on his hoard (sort of a curse, as those words imply ,,power of gold upon which dragon long brooded”) which attack those already susceptible to greed (like Master of Laketown who escaped with treasure given to him and died in wilderness).

    • fantasywind

      That is a fanfic material not for adaptation film, sorry folks, whatever you say about the need for changes in story to make it suited for a movie, it doesn’t make a difference. The adaptation is supposed to be faithful to it’s source otherwise it just would be ,,loosely inspired by” and different entity altogether. Also everyone forgot that the elf-dwarf relations after the events of the Hobbit were much improved ,,and there was friendship in those parts between elves and dwarves and men” so pumping up the drama just for the sake of it, is unnecessary.

    • Paulie

      “If I were Peter Jackson, I would keep up the love story with Kili and
      Tauriel. Make it clear that Legolas is not in the love triangle”

      Maybe you should stick to your ‘Soapies’ and daytime drama’s then.

      As for Fili and Kili’s deaths being ‘glossed’ over in the book; this is because your imagination made it so. ‘The Hobbit’ is a story in which there are what some would call ‘gaps’. These gaps are what make the story beautiful and special to everyone that reads it thus giving it that charm found in a book. The moment this personal imaginative process is removed from us and someone else’s interpretation is forced down our throats under the banner of ‘Filmaking’; that’s when people dislike what they’ve watched.

      If Peter Jackson was as good a director as he thinks he is then he would have realized this important step from Book -> Film and acted accordingly (i.e Not adding his own rubbish into the mix). After all, that was his job – Director.

  • sanch

    If u read any of the Peter Jackson interviews he said that both he and Del Toro wanted to do a bigger version of not only the Hobbit but also the Quest of Erebor.. so the entire storyline has two aspects//

    1. It is a story of Thorin and dwarves reclaiming Erebor with the help of a Hobbit
    2. It is a story of a hobbit’s adventure with the dwarves

    Both are different angles ..and both are beAutifully shown.. i remember in Laketown there was basically no part of Bilbo…. Also Gandalf’s journey is shown.. as that is very much linked with the fate of the battle .. which even though tolkien said for gold..but here PJ gives another purpose except gold

  • Robin

    Peter jack ass he has the arrogance to re write one of the best children’s books in his own image, losing all the subtlety of the original, a book no one else felt the need to re write in all it’s years in existence.

    • Joes

      Or just you….. The dumb ass

  • ServicePi

    I think what most people who criticize the alterations that Jackson made to story are missing is the fact that the changes are necessary for character development and character development is imperative if you want your viewers or readers to care about your characters. Tolkien was a talented linguist and very imaginative but, in my humble opinion, he lacked skill in storytelling and character development. Book Thorin is an empty shell of polite responses transformed by the sickness that plagues his family. Movie Thorin shares a fascinating relationship with his kin and Bilbo.

    I assumed the romance between Tauriel and Kili gets us attached to a character before they (spoiler) die. I’m not going to care if one in the company of emotionally stunted dwarves kicks the bucket. But when we lose three that are well-developed and easy to love despite their flaws, I’m hooked.

    • alexander stanislaw

      Put spoiler tags well in advance of the spoiler please.

      • Strider

        What? You never bothered to read the books?

        • alexander stanislaw

          No

    • fantasywind

      I disagree. Actually book Thorin is one of the most fleshed out characters and there is no sickness that plagues his family, there….never…ever was one. Book Thorin on one hand had more wits, he showed leadership skills and was wise enough to take council and follow it, and still had this dwarvish stubborness and boldness, and his politeness is defining trait of an important person he is :). Tolkien is great not only in world-building but also storytelling and character development, the fact that you don’t notice it doesn’t mean there isn’t any. The Hobbit is essentialy children’s book and still some characters had more development than in movie (for example Thranduil is complex character, who showed kindness and generosity, warmth towards others and wisdom despite his flaws and errors, movie just makes him one dimensional supporting villain, Lee Pace at some points acted really weird in some ways over the top). The entire ,,romance-like thing” is very awkwardly treated in movie, it’s weak, and Tauriel should have been put to other use than that.

  • AravothThrone

    The Hobbit would have been just fine without adding a bunch of things that weren’t in the story. Lord of the Rings….too many things left out. The Hobbit….. things added that aren’t in the original story line.

  • Freddy Montero

    I read the book and I thought the same thing whit the Sauron scene.
    i think it was a very good movie, really good, but for those who wanted loyal book movie are not going to be very happy… And with Tauriel character… I dont know, i have no problem because i was actually expecting something like that and we have to think in a bigger way. Two movies were what the hobbit needed, not three, but at the same time its okay because are movies, it means that theres going to be more people who wants to see it, more people who heard about the awesomeness of TLOTR, so they have to add new moments and characters to catch a bigger area of viewers. Im not saying that is the right thing to do. Im saying movies are art and an industry. It means invest money to make more money

  • Tai Toki

    I don’t agree with this at all. I liked the love story arc between Tauriel and Kili, I’ve never heard of an Elf/Dwarf relationship before. As for her motives being unbelievable. It’s clear she wants to save Kili, but she is staying true to her nature, she doesn’t believe that good should fear evil. I get your point with him dropping the Sauron easter eggs, but I think he was just treating his audience with intelligence. We know that the LOTR trilogy came first before the Hobbit movies. We had a sense when reading the hobbit that there was some deeper evil behind the scenes that is clearly explained in LOTR so we all know that. He just pretty much confirming for us what we already know. But hey, you’re entitled to your opinion.

  • mr President

    totally disagree, I love how Peter is integrating lord of the rings into the Hobbit. but that is just my opinion.

  • Raven

    Man, this is just a commerce. They don’t want to please Tolkien fans. They want make money, and for this, they need a romance… more, to sound politically correct, a romance that preaches tolerance between different people.

  • Mike Bradford

    Let’s not forget, there never was a way to make the Hobbit into 3 movies (and the associated $$$$) without the addition of lots and lots of offline characters and plot lines. What bothers me the most is the contrived sub-plots taking on a life of their own at the expense of the joy of a real adventure in its simplest form. Barrel-Ride at Disney anyone?

  • Odii Gis

    I disagree. I’ve read the stories many times. I even have the 50th Anniversary Print of the Lord of the Rings One Volume. One thing never escapes me about movie adaptations. They, the books and the movies are just two completely different ways of storytelling. That’s it. Some people just look too much into how a movie should “read” when it is visual storytelling. For instance, it does not make sense to ride a rollercoaster. Waiting in long lines, the aggravation of people cutting-into the lines, sitting in a pseudo-rail car going up and down and around in circles. But eventually, it gives way to the thrill ride, the visual senses. It is just fun, just entertainment. That’s it.
    Logistically speaking, the LOTR movies were made prior to the Hobbit movies. Last I heard, the Hobbit was written near 20 years before the LOTR books. Of course, the Hobbit movies were going to echo the LOTR movies. It makes sense. I mean were we just supposed to forget the LOTR movies (not the books) so that we could have a fresh start with the Hobbit movies?? I mean how do you logically do this??? Same with the Star Wars movies.
    I’ll admit, I was disappointed in the latest movie. But in whole, it was just entertaining. The first Hobbit theatrical release was ok but I saw it again with the extended release. I love the movie (and thought it was actually better than the first LOTR movie.)
    I think just like the books, the movies were meant to have distinct differences. For the one thing, the original LOTR movies were more “earthy” as in grounded. I never sensed anything “fantasy” about it. Even the movie Excalibur had a more fantasy film feel to it. IMO, the Hobbit movies bring back that fantasy charm. And I think they’re great.
    While I love the Hobbit book, I also know that it is a children’s book. And there are scholars who found the storyin that book to be lacking in clarity. However, this is understandable given that it was a children’s book. I think the movies only expanded upon the story. The addition of Tauriel was fantastic. I was leery at first. I wasn’t too fond of the elves in the Hobbit, especially of the Woodland Realm. But the character Tauriel added a tinge of humanity to the Woodland elves and to Legolas. I think her character will die and will leave this lasting memory on Legolas which will later explain his bonding with Gimli later on.
    I could go on. It’s a movie folks. Just enterainment. Visually wonderful. Great acting. And all BASED upon a great story. How wrong could all of this really be???

  • Keldun

    I truly loathe Peter Jackson for what he’s done to The Hobbit. It’s the shortest book in the series, and he refused to do it unless he was allowed to make it into 3 movies. I’ve read The Hobbit many times. This crap of a trilogy is nothing but the manifestation of one fool’s greed. There is so much that he threw in the was never even hinted at in The Hobbit, and so much that he changed for no viable reason. Sure, some blind fans will claim he is adding things from the Lost Tales, and/or The Silmarillion, I admit that I have not read those. Even if that claim is true, why aren’t they being made into their own movies? He calls this trilogy The Hobbit, not The Hobbit with excerpts from The Lost Tales and The Silmarillion. I have lost all respect for Peter Jackson, and I don’t see any way that I will ever like anything he does again, after this blatant betrayal.

  • bzoid

    completely agree with the writer. im a huge tolkien fan, and a huge fan of the lotr movies…. but the hobbit movies did not need to be so closely interwoven with the lord of the rings movies.

  • bzoid

    too many bad guys… using the arkenstone as a “ring” device that seems to drive people mad though it could possibly be a silmaril which is a stone that captured the light of the two trees and is inherently “good” just too many things wrong with it.

  • Wesley James Bourgeois

    Several things have been bothering me since seeing the movie back in December. First of all, the plot changes are great, but they hold no weight against the rest of “bare-bones” plot as he stated and do nothing more than confuse viewers who have read little to none of the actual book or other movies for that matter. Secondly, this whole (for lack of better words) interracial romance between Killi and Tauriel is completely unnecessary and irks me beyond no reconciliation. Quite frankly, I think it’s pretty weird. Especially considering (correct me if I’m wrong) Killi along with two of the other Dwarves die at the end of the Battle of Five armies. If Peter really intends on following the book, then it would be much wiser to have no relationship between Tauriel and Killi being the end sad enough. Which is the part that scare me because if Jackson decided to continue down this path he may go for a more happily-ever-after ending instead of what was suppose to go down. Lastly, who here really believes that a handful of dwarves and a hobbit could possibly even hope to last a few seconds in a head on with Smaug? It’s absurd! What happened when Smaug awoke in he book? The Dwarves sacrificed their ponies so they could get away and hide in the mountain. All this extra hollywood flare is gonna get Jackson in trouble. As it is the movie already get’s sketchier as it goes along. I almost dread the next movie. o_o So I agree completely. I just can’t believe how many fans aren’t bailing water out of the boat when holes keep popping up everywhere.

  • Andiamo P

    If you ask me, Peter Jackson took the lazy way out….he stretched a kids’ book into a trilogy not because he was expanding upon Tolkien’s story but instead to make money off 3 movies. In fact he doesn’t expand upon Tolkien’s story at all. He makes changes for more action and less story line, plot, character development.

    What really gets me is that DOS was IMO the worst one yet….and I’m reading the reviews and people love it. Really? Dude mails it in and the vast majority applaud him for it?!?!

    Just awful.

  • Smegtasticus

    The bit with the molten gold statue at the end of Desolation was unbelievably stupid. Tolkien would never have written something so ridiculous…

  • tobi

    i watch these movies for a single reason. I love the lotr universe. So i say stop hating and just enjoy the films! i love watching the extended versions because i get more random scenes that don’t really have to be there for a common viewer but for me i just love going into more lotr lore :p and i haven’t even read the books…maybe that’s why i don’t hate it i dunno xD

  • Shawn

    I think The Hobbit films are perfect the way that are you’re all just not happy cause you all want something to hate cause you all treat The Lord of the Rings like “The God of Movies”

  • JJWaters

    I loved the film, I have zero problem with the Sauron plotline, anyway as many people have pointed out this is explained by Tolkien himself in the appendices. I don’t mind Tauriel although she is a bit Mary Sue, I wish they had used a mature looking, serious actress and just have her be an awesome Captain of the Guard rather than a confused Jack of all trades. If she has to have a love story then let it be with Kili until the upcoming battle where they should both die, I think that would be rather cool and bittersweet drama but for the love of Gandalf’s tits why did Legolas have to be dragged down into a cheesy love triangle? I was so thrilled he was back, and he logically fits into the story as the Prince of Mirkwood, I adore his fights and everything he does, but being jealous and pining over Tauriel seems so out of character for him.

  • Rachel Rudd

    So the captain of the guard treasonously contradicting her king is good in the eyes of this reviewer? The only way that could work is if Tauriel were merely Thranduil’s favourite page or something or other. Given her rank, her treason would warrant death, if this story still had any kind of hold on reality.

  • Pernille Hermansen

    as already mentioned, the necromancer stuff is something that tolkien has already written, not in the silmarillion though, peter jackson dont own the right to the book. just saying.
    ALSO. the hobbit IS NO a prelude to the lord of the rings book, the lord of the rings is a sequel to the hobbit. its totally different, and jackson should treat it more like that too.

  • Bo Pettermann Laugesen

    I agree… Jackson and co. simply added too much meat to the bones…

    I don’t agree a strong female character is needed… you are given a story that is 80 years old and then you tell that story without stepping on peoples toes… you don’t squeeze in characters that can’t and shouldn’t have any effect on the over all plot. Arwen’s enhanced role I can forgive because of the circumstances of Aragorn and his choices. But Tauriel is non-exsistent and so is her role in the adventure. This could have saved so much time and annoying scenes.

    We are also getting much more of Thorin in the films than we get of Bilbo I feel. Thorin is important… but Bilbo always has to remain the focus of attention because unlike Frodo Bilbo is the one who keeps saving the dwarves behinds. His story is somewhat more sympathetic than Frodo’s and his is more about growing than one of persistency. I would have prefer the film to be much more from the point of view of Bilbo.

    There is many things shoehorned in the films that is almost cringeworthy… anyone who knows more about the universe of Tolkien also knows that Gandalf would never dare facing Sauron alone as he is aware of Sauron’s powers… hence why he needs the white council. And Radagast is a oddly disgusting addition that is mostly annoying and only serves for exposure. Bard gets a lot of time as well for someone who has a fairly small part albeit important one in the books. And Luke Evans never comes across as really being one of the good guys.

    It is feels so contrived and poorly executed compared to Lord of the Rings… which had many of the same flaws but managed to tell the stories more clearly and without as much variation from the original story.

  • Freetruth

    Thank the Valars that the movies, both LOTR and The hobbit were not like the book. If you want the book, exactly like it, read it. If you don’t want to read, listen to the audiobook. Peter Jackson’s vision for the movies and the characters was different than what I imagined. This has been great fun. If it was exactly the book, which I have read multiple times, it would be boring and predictable. I am tired of these religious fanatics that expect somehow the “book” to morph exactly one to one into a “movie”. Two different mediums, two different purposes. In the movies you get the directors vision. In the book, you are the director. If you can’t enjoy each for its own merits or flaws, then you can never be pleased. No movie will be like your imagination of the books and vice-versa. In fact its fun to see someone else’s vision. Btw, thank you Peter Jackson for putting in Gandalf investigating Sauron. It helped me remind of events that are talking place at the same time, and also dignify the decision of Gandalf to let Bilbo and troupe fend for themselves.

  • rosie1843

    I couldn’t give a shit. I had no problems with what the writers did with “The Hobbit”. If I must be brutally honest, the films seemed to have less gaping flaws than the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, with its nonsensical plot twists and badly handled timelines.

    As far as I’m concerned, “The Hobbit” trilogy is not “defiling” the “Lord of the Rings”. Nor did the PT “defile” the overrated OT.

  • disqus_uOUWbvSc3f

    You people need to understand that first and foremost that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit as a childrens book.

  • Mikel Kostov

    I still have venom flowing, I want to speak with Peter Jackson and tell him, what vile and revolting thing he has done, and if Tolkien was alive he would have cried, or worse. I do not understand where he gets off making these changes, has he not read any of the other material by Tolkien does he not know the wizards power is in his staff, destroy the staff and you destroy the wizard, and twice now I have witnessed the destruction of Gandalf’s staff, and this is on a minute thing, I really could go on about this, and how angry I am, however this will not change the past or what Peter has done, one day he will realise what he has done, the rape of one of the greatest works of fiction.

Hypable encourages the community to use our Comments feature to hold thoughtful, polite, and critical discussions. We do NOT tolerate inappropriate, rude, or downright mean discussion towards the news story's subject matter or towards other Hypable users. We reserve the right to delete or ban comments and users who violate these guidelines.