so correct me if im wrong... (Small halfling sized Hobbit 3 Spoiler alert)

[Darren Richardson]

I do agree in most points, half of the added stuff with the Hobbit films never existed in any of the books, I feel the events with the White Council at Dul Guldar (is it?) were worthy additions as they exist in the referance materials and in snippets of conversation elsewhere in the books themselves.

A lot of the other stuff such as the elves and orcs attack and the attack on Smaug were unwarented and needless.

[ElectricPaladin]

I do agree in most points, half of the added stuff with the Hobbit films never existed in any of the books, I feel the events with the White Council at Dul Guldar (is it?) were worthy additions as they exist in the referance materials and in snippets of conversation elsewhere in the books themselves.

A lot of the other stuff such as the elves and orcs attack and the attack on Smaug were unwarented and needless.

I kind of liked the White Council stuff. It was interesting to get a glimpse into why Gandalf decided to do this in the first place, how it fit into his grand scheme and his role as "the one guy who was worried about Sauron when everyone else thought it was over."

It didn't pay for the rest, though. Not by a long shot.

[Deadlift]

We went to see the movie last night, IMAX 3D. Loved it.
I'm no purist, if Jackson made the films exactly the same as the books what would be the point ?

[ElectricPaladin]

We went to see the movie last night, IMAX 3D. Loved it.
I'm no purist, if Jackson made the films exactly the same as the books what would be the point ?

There's a world of difference between the changes and liberties needed to make a book a movie and terrible ideas and bull**** filler added for no reason other than to make more movies.

[Deadlift]

There's a world of difference between the changes and liberties needed to make a book a movie and terrible ideas and bull**** filler added for no reason other than to make more movies.

Well I can happily separate the two. The books I've read numerous times. The films I've seen a lot. I couldn't care less how much Jackson has used artistic licence to change the story to appeal to the masses. For me and many like me he's made some hugely enjoyable movies. Doesn't make me enjoy the books any less.
They are rip roaring fun. Popcorn entertainment.

[Arkhan Land]

hopefully it will drive people to read the original more often, the hobbit was one of my earliest reads, nowadays reading is dying : /

[ElectricPaladin]

Well I can happily separate the two. The books I've read numerous times. The films I've seen a lot. I couldn't care less how much Jackson has used artistic licence to change the story to appeal to the masses. For me and many like me he's made some hugely enjoyable movies. Doesn't make me enjoy the books any less.
They are rip roaring fun. Popcorn entertainment.

That's a legit feeling - I just feel differently.

I only want to make sure that my point is understood. I don't object to changes in theory. I didn't have a problem with the many changes in the LoTR trilogy. My problem is these specific changes. They're dumb. Changes in theory are fine - these changes are terrible and stupid.

[Morgrim]

I cannot object to Tauriel being added, because it is already ridiculous that there are only two female characters in a film trilogy that has dozens, including what are arguably 14 main characters. So showing Galadriel in her role as part of the White Council and adding an original female elf is still kind of woeful but at least better than nothing.

And yes, I know that there were NO WOMEN AT ALL in the original book, but that's because Tolkien had very bigoted views on women in general and that was the thing that irritated me the most the first time I read it. (I spent the entire book hoping there was going to be some sort of "actually [several dwarves in the company] are female, but since we all have beards and our language doesn't have sex-specific pronouns everyone thinks dwarves spontaneously germinate from rocks" conversation.)

[ElectricPaladin]

I cannot object to Tauriel being added, because it is already ridiculous that there are only two female characters in a film trilogy that has dozens, including what are arguably 14 main characters. So showing Galadriel in her role as part of the White Council and adding an original female elf is still kind of woeful but at least better than nothing.

And yes, I know that there were NO WOMEN AT ALL in the original book, but that's because Tolkien had very bigoted views on women in general and that was the thing that irritated me the most the first time I read it. (I spent the entire book hoping there was going to be some sort of "actually [several dwarves in the company] are female, but since we all have beards and our language doesn't have sex-specific pronouns everyone thinks dwarves spontaneously germinate from rocks" conversation.)

I was very happy when they expanded the female roles in the original trilogy - I thought that Tauriel was ham-handed and inane. As a character, based on the specific decisions they made to introduce her character and pursue her arc, not because I objected to including a female character.

That said, I totally get that adding a female character into The Hobbit would have been a lot harder because there just aren't any to be expanded. As you wrote, maybe they should have gender-swapped one of the Dwarves.

[eldargal]

Taurel should have been better than she was, they ended up adding the whole bull**** romance thing in re-shoots after despite Evangeline Lilly being promised htere owuldn't be a romance angle.