[Olog-hai]

I sometimes find it funny to read the complaints about “changes” between the Hobbit movies and books. Aside from much of the added stuff in the Hobbit movies actually being mined from the LOTR Appendices and (in some cases) the Lost Tales and Silmarillion (except of course Azog surviving the battle at Moria et cetera and no mention of the Balrog as in the other Tolkein material), I wonder why people don’t react the same way to the drastic changes between the book version of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” (in which the Wicked Witch of the West is a minor character that appears in only one chapter) and the movie version (silver slippers changed to ruby, the experience changed to a dream, Glinda being changed to the Good Witch of the North whereas she is the witch of the South in the book, etc.)

[Perdogg]

Do you mean Bolg instead of Balrog? Bolg is mentioned.

[Telepathic Intruder]

I don’t think the Wizard of Oz had the following that LOTR does. Most LOTR fans view The Hobbit in about the same context it was presented: as a short prelude primarily for children. Making an epic movie trilogy out of it seems a bit unnecessary.

[piasa]

There probably aren’t any objections because so few people even know there was a book.

[alexander_busek]

I wonder why people don't react the same way to the drastic changes between the book version of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (in which the Wicked Witch of the West is a minor character [...]

1. Because there was no Internet in 1939.

2. Because, in the meantime, the movie totally overshadows the literary template.

Regards,