[ClearCase_guy]

I'm a huge Tolkien fan. I found the LOTR movies to be not too bad -- although many parts made me cringe (Jackson thinks he's a better story-teller than Tolkien). But the Hobbit movies have been really painful. I didn't like the first one, and I hated the second one.

I kind of wish George Lucas were in charge of it instead of Jackson (that's the worst insult I can come up with).

[fr_freak]

You might find these analyses of the Hobbit movies amusing:
Youtube: EWW The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug
Youtube: EWW The Hobbit

[sargon]

I'm a huge Tolkien fan. I found the LOTR movies to be not too bad -- although many parts made me cringe (Jackson thinks he's a better story-teller than Tolkien).

I know what you're saying. I remember in the "Mines of Moria" section, Jackson inserted this ridiculously gratuitous scene with huge chunks of rock falling and destroying the stone stairway (as if Orcs, Trolls, and a Balrog weren't dramatic enough).

Aragorn and Frodo get caught on one of the teetering sections, and Aragorn sez "Lean forward!"

Absolutely ridiculous, and a good example of sometimes just having too big of a special effects budget. I mean, why not include the scene where Gandalf puts a hold spell on the door, which is answered by a potent counterspell (from the Balrog?)

Point being, such silly additions, while deleting other excellent vignettes, was just wrong.

Having said that, I thought that Jackson did great on the original trilogy, despite the shortcomings...

[Altariel]

I wish Joss Wheedon was in charge instead of Jackson.

[LS]

Hmm, I love these-—but I didn’t read the books. BTW, saw “Fury” yesterday. Ok, predictable, but probably the best WW II tank battle ever filmed. They really got Sherman vs Tiger!

[Vanders9]

I thought the LOTR movies were excellent - considering it is absolutely impossible to transpose a book directly onto film (they are very different media) - I think Jackson did really well with it. Most of the changes he made frankly make the story better.

But the Hobbit...I agree with you. Its just too different. I think the problem is that LOTR is such a rich creation that it can stand tampering with, but the Hobbit is really quite a short little tale, and to make it into three films really does call for huge amounts to be added, and that fatally weakens it. OTOH, the battle scenes in LOTR are particularly well done, so a climactic 45 minute recreation of the battle of five armies should be excellent.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

I agree. The LOTR were ok, but the Hobbit ones only seem to be about 10% based on the book. As a big Tolkien fan, I find this extremely annoying and it downright makes me angry sometimes. Especially when they insert fake characters and fake love triangles that never existed. And when they have the dwarves go in the mountain with Bilbo, thus eliminating the need to have brought him along ( I thought he was supposed to be the burglar)? The license the took in the LOTR films can be mostly overlooked, but in the Hobbit it is way too much to overlook, as most of the film is hooey.