And Galin, really, i remember the passionate discussions regarding the "hair touching" scene and indeed collars got hot.
Thread: The Desolation Of Smaug
<<    >>
Brego, I can't speak for anyone else, but again I was not hot under the collar. If you interpret any post I write [including this one] as 'angry' or whatever, well I can't help that. I do consider how my posts might be read but one cannot know exactly how someone else will react to something. In any case...
... I actually know my own mood as I'm posting
I'm using Silvan Elves or Tawarwaith, as Tolkien did. Tawar means 'wood as material' while taur means 'great wood, forest' [the film's Tauriel intends to mean 'Forest-daughter' I'm guessing], but at least back in the 'Etymologies scenario' anyway, JRRT also seems to have noted that the word tawar could be used as if equal to taur.
Plus I like saying Tawarwaith.
mmm, well you don't need to speak for anyone else Galin because its all there for everyone to see. Since your so keen on direct quotes, here are some of the many on the original post.
Galin said (on many different occasions,,,,)
Galin and the Galadriel Hair Touch....
In my opinion Galadriel's (-riel) gesture is more intimate-seeming that the other examples Brego raised above -- and it's being discussed already at various web sites, but has anyone ever brought up Aragorn kissing a dying Boromir, for example, as controversial in some way, or 'unTolkienian'?
There are various kinds of kisses, and a kiss can easily be less intimate than this gesture. And even a kiss between lovers can be arguably unTolkienian -- case in point, in my opinion (concerning which I'm not alone): Aragorn's 'attack' on Arwen in Gondor.
Can more context really turn this moment into something 'mutually agreed upon as uncontroversial' as far as capturing Tolkien goes (being faithful to the source material)?
Brego wrote: We are forgetting Galadrials reaction in TLOTR in Loth Lorien when she finds out that he has fallen into shadow.
I'm not forgetting this moment in the books: 'At these words all the Elves in the hall cried aloud in grief and amazement. 'These are evil tidings' said Celeborn...'
I don't suppose that all the Elves present were so incredibly close to Gandalf that fiddling with his hair during a conversation in Imladris would seem quite natural. Galadriel speaks later, but I'm not sure your opinion is necessarily supported by her noting that none of the deeds in Gandalf's life were needless, or that: 'Those who followed him knew not his mind and cannot report his full purpose.'
Brego, none of what you have posted indicates that I was angry, or 'hot under the collar' as you say. Not to me anyway.
and on and on.
Yes there are responses to points you or others were making as well, as part of a discussion.
My comments posted above, even out of context, seem polite enough to me. The thread is 'Hobbit Trailer' [Hobbit movie forum], which contains some interesting points. At times I do employ a 'smiley with tongue sticking out' at some sarcastic comments...
... but that's at least part of what this smiley is there for, in my opinion: to show that there is a humorous mood behind a given comment, not anger.
The new trailer is up online for TDOS.... Watched it twice, and Ive got to say its Epic! As expected Smaug's voice is totally mesmerizing.... And I do believe the supposed love affair may now be put to rest. Quick shots of Beorn, Spiders, Dol Guldur and I do believe The Eye!
Yeah, but Tolkien called the elves wood elves in his book, and silvan, as is widely accepted by fantasy fans, means wood or of the wood. He even called the lowly subjects of Thranduil wood elves
Despite that Brego hasn't acknowledged it Gothmog, you are correct. I would post citations at this point but all one need do is check the Silmarillion index here [Green Elves versus Silvan Elves], for example. Also one can check the chart in the back of The Silmarillion on the sundering of the Elves to find the Laiquendi of Ossiriand [Laegrim being a Sindarin term].
The word silvan or sylvan ['of, pertaining to, or inhabiting the woods'] has a Latin history, as Tolkien well knew of course, and is thus to be considered a 'modern' translation in terms of the conceit: JRRT as translator.
And of course people are now going to be talking about the Tauriel moments in this trailer. Jackson put them in after all. People are even talking about other people talking about them, I hear.
This really is a good trailer. Really like the scene between Gandalf and Bilbo "finding his courage." I really like Bilbo in general.
The scene between Tauriel and Thranduil? I am in agreement with Galin on this. With this kind of innuendo in the trailer, people are going to talk about it. I imagine that they are meant to. That is just the reality of it. Is it really such a terrible thing when people do talk about it?
It's not a terrible thing in my opinion Aylee.
Probably some people won't like this added element, for one reason or another, but if one is giving a sincere opinion I see nothing wrong with posting it. And I agree, the filmmakers probably prefer some chat about it too.
hopefully pj will not ruin the Silmarillion,if he makes it.It is too good too ruin
Alas I believe the Sil is simply un-filmable a even a threequel... Perhaps in the future sometime someone will attempt it. But I think that its overly ambitious to think it can be done in standard film format. It is a series of short and complicated stories requiring forward knowledge via research and reading. Its impossible without wholesale changes and additions to each story. Look at the heat PJ is copping from we Tolkien fans over the addition of one character. Can you imagine the Sil! Film has to cater to the masses. Masses of people who hav'nt read Tolkien.
they better,and pj would not have too ruin that film too
Well, people. Have you seen the movie? What do you think?
I saw it yesterday and well... things I thought would be good were good and things I thought might be disappointing were disappointing. So I have mixed feelings.
One of the biggest strengths in the movie is Mr. Freeman for me. Even if I liked him in the first part, I had to warm up to him a bit, and now I can say that he IS Bilbo Baggins. The faces he makes, the moves, the way he talks is really very hobbit-like. He reminds me of Billy Boyd and his way of portraying a hobbit.
One of the most annoying things was Tauriel. And I knew there will be trouble from the moment we found out there's going to be an additional female character in this story. I kind of hoped she will be hidden in the background, but the way they brought her forward, changing things in the story without any respect for the book was very, very disappointing. I could really go on and on about that.
I have seen the movie today. It was great, but i want to see it in HD or DVD, I hate 3d. The battle between Gandalf and Sauron is the best part of the movie. Loved it, can't wait the 3d one.
Was there a lot of effects in 3d? I saw it in 2d (I dislike 3d somehow) and I could see some scenes that were obviously made just for using them in 3d version with some nice effects.
I saw desolation of Smaug in imax. I took my girlfriend and her elderly mother. We left the cinema at 3 am. Both said they could have sat through another hour of it. My gf even watched the extended dvds of the first film. The other films were less well received by them, although the 3D cinema experience does seem to make a big difference to them. Imax is the best of the 3D formats we've seen.
Once Smaug appeared I found myself completely oblivious to how long I'd already been sat there for. They did an amazing job, both in terms of characterisation and visual fx.
I'm not going to go on about the discrepencies...but we all disliked the love interest. We thought it was unnecessary. Other than that it was pretty amazing.
If PJ liked epic- which he does seem to- I hope someday he goes on to do a Star Wars franchise thing, and make a trilogy for Silmarillion. Now that would really whet his appetite. He is forbidden to use in for from the Silmarillion. Who knows what arrangements the lawyers and film studios can come to in the future. If there's enough money to be made, they'll find a way.
One thing struck me, when I thought about some of the deviations and liberties PJ took with this, and the now permanent structures of Hobbiton in Mata Mata. NZ, I recalled the Other Hands quote...that's really what this is. Perhaps Tolkien would have distanced himself from it, but he did sell the license in the first place. Cash or kudos. He chose cash, and his family were well looked after. He got the kudos anyway methinks.
Just enjoy it for as long as you can!
ps, there's always some new perspective or folks making Middle-Earth fan type stuff. Here's another I'm involved with: http://www.me-dem.me.uk/
Seasons Best Wishes!
I saw The Desolation of Smaug. I wear glases, so it was not good to wear 3D glases and i saw the film like in shadow. I am sad and mad, because that does not let me feel the beauty of the film.
But i think, that maybe i am purist a little and need to see the book in "real world" . Without changes.
Dworfs and elfs love story was strange, because ir has too little time to develope, to grow. Just unnecessary.
I likes orks. They were not only made with computer. Gendalfs story was too not necessary, bu of course it will be impirtant in film 3. Its ok
Thranduil was great. I liked it. GREAT.
Spiders-i liked that part of film
SMAUG was ok, but i wanted more him and Bilbo together. Like i likes Bilbo and Gollum.
OK. I wil go to see this movie again but not 3D, so i hope my feelings will better.
And SORRRY for my english
I hated the addition of Tauriel too, but PJ is very smart, so he must have had some reason.
Reason number one, the plot.
Fili getting shot with the poison "forced" Thorin to leave him behind, showing that he was willing to sacrifice everything for the treasure. But without Tauriel showing up Fili would have died. That would have changed the plot and motives way, way to much. So they had to add in an elf who had a moderate interest in the dwarves and wanted to follow them. It would not make sense if both of them were guys, as the dwarf would be far to angry about being imprisoned unless the elf was incredibly attractive and made him biased.
Reason number two, the view on elves.
Their are three main characters who represent the elves. Thraduil, Legolas, and Tauriel. Thraduil makes Thorin incredibly angry at him, imprisons him, and is generally a jerk to non-elves. Legolas is even more of a jerk, and he literally steps on the dwarves heads. Then there is Tauriel. She is the one who is the personification of goodness. In the books the elves are the ultimate good guys, but without Tauriel the elves look like antagonists. While it is true that in the hobbit, the book, the elves are mostly antagonists, PJ wants people to see elves as good guys, like they are in the first age. So he adds in a character to make the elves look more like good guys. So in a way, it almost is like the real Tolkiens world, especially for people who view even female elves as killing machines.
Curufinwe, I think the main reason for introducing Tauriel was because the story itself lacks a woman. And producers probably wanted any kind of a love story in the movies, because people usually like it. Male viewers would be attracted to a nice elvish lady, the story would have more depth. They were wrong in my opinion, because the story is entertaining enough without creating entirely new character and changing the storyline so it would make sense.
Smaug was the heart of this movie. And the filmmakers obviously knew it, because the dragon in the movie was perfect. I could easily see it took ages to create, render and animate it. The result was beautiful.
I saw an opinion about Smaug being a four legged creature, and in the movie he looks like he had two legs and two wings. So it wasn't a dragon according to some middle age based nomenclature but a wyvearn. To be honest, I don't remember which version was in the movie, since the dragon was covered in gold most of the time and fully presented only when Smaug was flying. If that's the case and his front legs were his wings indeed, that was probably a choice based on a decision of simplifying the rendering process (and saving some time and money with it).
Greetings to all, long time no read... sorry...
Have we seen The Desolation of Smaug... what do we think... let's comment. I would say, first off, that I have decided to separate Peter Jackson's extraordinary films from Professor Tolkien's absolute universe; I have to, because I like the films very much but I absolutely worship the Middle Earth that lives in those beloved pages, and there is no reconciliation between the two. I would advise watching the films first, and reading later. That said, on to the comment.
The cinematography is of course outstanding, everything absolutely everything is polished and perfect and everywhere is evident the deep devotion of cast and crew. Everything except the script, which is one sad concession to commercial success-- necessary, evidently-- and I find myself agreeing with the scathing statements by the Tolkien heirs: great storytelling, great depth of character, ethics of the highest degree, all thrown out in favor of a fast-action romantic adventure story. With some of the greatest characters in the entire English literature, courtesy of the Professor.
I liked Thranduil. Looks good, moves well, leaves a lasting impression and an appetite for more. On the other hand, Legolas mystified me. Will There and Back Again explain how this Legolas becomes the Legolas from LOTR that we fell in love with ten-twelve years ago? Tauriel, sorry, adds nothing. I'm willing to go into this if anyone wishes to defend her passionately.
Bilbo is magnificent. One feels that he can do anything. The dwarves are doing just fine, developing beautifully along the lines set out for them in An Unexpected Journey. They actually have to be great, don't they?.... because the story is, after all, their story.
Gandalf rules, as always, but why does PJ have to always put him in these poor-little-old-man situations where he gets knocked about and locked up and humiliated? Gandalf was a Maia of great power, for goodness' sake, far more powerful than the Witch King or any bloody orc. And don't forget who was behind him: he was the envoy of Manwë Súlimo himself.
And the orc Azog, not dead but only chopped up a bit, he's not bad at all but sort of too much of a good thing. This whole persecution business, why bother. There was a definite pressure on the dwarves' journey in Tolkien's The Hobbit, having to get to the door in the Mountain by the evening of Durin's Day. But this is sort of glossed over by the orc and goblin persecution (and commanded from Dol Guldur, no less!) Sorry, there I go again.
Laketown, okay. Bard, showing promise. I like him, too, and his boy who will also be king. And his little girls. And his championing of the people of Laketown. And the bits about Girion, good.
Smaug the Stupendous, yes, yes, yes. Except the story sort of goes off, doesn't it? I wonder he could get his tail so whipped by a baker's dozen of dwarves. Oops, not so. A bunch of them got left behind in Laketown. (Why would one do this?) There was a moment there, please forgive me, when I thought "Oh my goodness, Godzilla meets King Kong!" Except it was an immense golden dwarf and a rather surprised fire-drake. But maybe you see my point.
All in all, go ahead and see the movie. It has hundreds of redeeming features. But don't think for a moment that you know The Hobbit. Or Tolkien. So go there, too; you won't be sorry.
Much love to all, Namarië.
So if you think that they were wrong in adding Tauriel just for a love story, is their anything you think they could be correct in adding her for? I think that the two points which I made are both things that needed to be in the movies, but I think that they had ways other than Tauriel to accomplish those things. The only love story The Hobbit needs is Thorins love for the treasure
Having seen the changes that PJ made to LotR ten years ago, I was fully expecting him to do likewise with the Hobbit. Back then certain changes niggled quite a lot, but I nevertheless thought they were amazing films. Similar with the Hobbit, except the changes do not niggle me quite so much.
As a book, I think some of the characterization was a little weak, particularly among the dwarfs. A few had independent developed characters, but some just seemed there to make up the numbers. PJ has made each one unique, although I think Balin looks a little too much like a smurf and Oin is a little too old for my liking.
I would rather not have seen legolas back in this one, but as he seemed to emerge the star last time around with the teenage audience, I can understand PJ bringing him back. I think his attitude is good for the period. People are tending to look on him as though this is the sequel to LotR rather than the prequel. At the beginning of LotR he had no love for dwarfs. That only developed over time as his friendship with Gimli grew. His mistrust of them would have been fairly strong at the time of the Hobbit, so I don't think anything is amiss here. It is nice to see the elves in action though. They were naturally athletic, almost super-human, and PJ manages to portray that really well. Elves always lacked numbers in their war against orcs, but individually they were vastly superior. It is nice to imagine an army of legolas's fighting in some of the huge battles from the Silmarillion. I'm looking forward to seeing them in the Battle of the Five Armies.
The introduction of a leading lady Elf. It had to happen.
I'm a little disappointed they didn't spend a little more time lost in Mirkwood. I seem to remember that was quite a long section in the book. In the film they seemed to wander in, get lost and then get rescued - if you can call getting captured by Elves getting rescued. The shots of Mirkwood looked incredible, I just wish there had been more of it.
Laketown - what a dump! Not quite what I was expecting, but it does portray quite nicely the prosperity that the Lonely Mountain would have had on neighboring areas when the Dwarves were there and the decline of those areas once the cash dries up.
Smaug - magnificent. In a way it is a shame that PJ used this as one of his set-piece action scenes because in the book it is one of Bilbo's finest moments. As action scenes go, though, it was pretty impressive. Lure the dragon into a room and immerse him in molten gold. It certainly worked in Aliens III when they dropped the alien in to molten lead. What the dwarfs forgot to do though, was then rapidly cool the gold with water.
Overall, it was fun to watch, created on an epic scale, and just looked really well done.
Overall, I really liked the film! Spoilers below, so if you haven't seen it, tread with caution!
First of all, I thought Thranduil was perfect. I really liked that he was distinct (read: more crazy and seeingly concerned with his own immortality) than the other elves we've had more exposure too, like Galadriel and Elrond/Arwen- as he should be. Lee Pace was the perfect choice for him, and I savoured every moment he was on screen. I also liked that Legolas was a different person than in the LotR movies, since his character does grow quite a bit throughout those, and we also really get to see how his friendship with Gimli changed his perception of dwarves from how he is here.
Tauriel is definitely a point of controversy, but I actually really liked her character. We need more strong females in media/literature, and I like that her existence also highlights the differences between different types of elves (although most certainly don't seem to be as elitist as Thranduil). PJ has basically created new personalities for most of the dwarves (since most weren't fleshed out in the book) so I don't mind at all adding in an entirely new character- they're ALL new to me, the only difference is that I didn't already know her name beforehand. However, like most others who have commented, I think the romance aspect was unnecessary. BUT it also makes sense, since dwarves have been known to become infatuated with the beauty of elves (see: Gimli and Galadriel). And on her reciprocation of his feelings, perhaps Tauriel herself saw both her and Kili as being outsiders, which made her more compassionate towards him (although her character does already seems naturally compassionate). I also heard that the romance wasn't initially planned, but added in after because the producers thought it would draw in a more broad audience? I'm not sure how reliable that is (may just be an internet rumour), but just something to note.
I like Bard and his family so far! I think they set up his role well for the next movie, and am looking forward to him succeeding where his ancestors failed. Laketown overall was quite good- Steven Fry was great (of course), but definitely a little gross haha.
The only other point I think I would like to mention is Smaug. Smaug himself was fantastic, as was the scene between him and Bilbo. I really felt the danger of the situation- much moreso than in the book. This was probably (almost definitely) increased by the fact that Bilbo wasn't actually invisible for the majority of the conversation, but Smaug definitely felt more threatening without really changing any of the dialogue (though this is definitely just my own opinion- I don't know if anyone agrees about that!)
However, I thought the chase scene afterwards/building of the golden dwarf was really, really unnecessary and drawn out. I don't think it needed to be there at all, and it's the only point in the movie I felt this way about. I also felt similarly about the escape from the goblin tunnels in the previous film-- too long and felt too choreographed, no threat and everything just works out too smoothly and perfectly. But it was the only real complaint I have with the film, so overall I think it's definitely worth seeing! Although I probably don't need to tell you that if you're on this site already
I didn't even go to see nor do I plan to. I'm an angry guy ^^
Finally saw the film this afternoon. Action packed and full of dark v light references in line with Tolkien's other works. It seems that P.J has done his best to link the lineage of all Tolkien's works. I appreciate these changes even though there are certain things I would have done differently.
Loved the Sylvan and Wood Elves. Loved Beorn, Loved the Dol Gul Dur show down (Galadriel to the rescue in part 3). The Spiders were wonderful and I loved that Bilbo could understand them whilst wearing The Ring. Loved the growing power of The Ring, and Bilbo's obvious acknowledgement that The Ring is somewhat more than he thinks. Loved Bolg and Tauriel. Dont know what the fuss was about regarding "the love affair..... Loved first and second age references from Thranduil and Gandalf.
I would have spent more time with Beorn, less with Smaug. Although Magnificent there was no need for the prolonged chase scene within Erebor.
Fav scene has to be the Spiders!!! Some people were obviously distressed in our audience.
Looking forward to part three!
Just finished watching the movie a few minutes ago.
I cannot stress enough how much I hate that second movie. The first one was tolerable but this one...oh dear!!
As someone who has read the Books a hundred times I just cannot identify the real storyline with this one!
I read the hobbit about a million times, but I liked the second movie much more than the first. After Beorns house was considerably different from the book, I just gave up my hope that it would be similar to the book. It was vastly different, but instead of getting angry about it I let myself view it as a different story, and found that it is quite good on its own. Of course I was angry that it was barely recognizable as the same story. I was furious. However, at the same time, it was a good movie if viewed separately from the book. I would likely recommend seeing it, and what is the point of being angry if it is different from the book? One knows that in order to be viable a movie must change the book, so they shouldn't get angry just because it happens. If you have a case for a specific change that you think was worse then what was in the book, that is different. We all hate the changes, but it is important to look at them as a part of the movie, if they make you mad not just because they are different but because they make the movie worse.
The Changes bring nothing to the movie. It's what's most disappointing. And I cannot imagine viewing it separately from the book.
The only thing i like was how well Erebor was designed. It was more impressive that Moria.
A dwarf, from Moria himself, admitting that anothers land is more glorious? Strange indeed, perhaps he is no dwarf but a man in disguise!
I think the addition of Tauriel was a good choice, to an extent. With her wanting to help the outside world made Thrandduil almost identical with his book counterpart on the views concerning his realm. It shows how Thranduil didn't care much of the people and events occurring outside of his realm.
The Changes bring nothing to the movie. It's what's most disappointing. And I cannot imagine viewing it separately from the book.
Well, that sounds cruel, but I have to agree with it. A lot of people who didn't read the book loved the story, and I saw many comments about Tolkien readers and their 'unnecessary yammering'. Well, if you read the book and you're watching a movie based on it, it's inevitable to have expectations. I wish I enjoyed the Hobbit movies more than I do, because honestly I think PJ did a good job introducing the story to the viewers who didn't read the books.
I would have spent more time with Beorn, less with Smaug. Although Magnificent there was no need for the prolonged chase scene within Erebor.
The thing is when I was reading "The Hobbit" Beorn in my imagination looked a lot like Thorin in the movie, so I get a little confused I would love to see the original part of the Beorn's story - I think the was Gandalf sent the Dwarves to him was pure gold. It would suit the comedic vibe of the movie perfectly. I also think that the part where the Dwarves are constructing (I'm sure it's not the right word in English for that) the golden monument was out of blue. Yes, Smaug looked stunning in gold, but I can't see any other benefits of adding that to the story.
I loved PJ and his appearance in Bree. The whole Bree sequence is such a wink at LOTR movie fans - so many FOTR references!
If i could just get my hands on those,tolkien haters!Just joking of course!
Hi everyone !
I just saw the movie in 3D and it is an amazing piece of art, but the thing that I didn't like was the excessive action and little plot ( compared to the LOTR and even part 1 of the Hobbit). I mean it was a fight every 3-5 minutes, I know they had to stretch the story, but I was expecting more mistery from a Tolkien inspired movie.
As for the love story, it is a good addition to the plot, I don't know about the female badass role, I wasn't expecting something that non-canonical.
While the female elf being a badass is very non-canon, if we read into it a little more we can find that PJ had surprisingly canonical reasons for adding her. I do not think that any movie set in middle earth will ever even consider not having lots of elf destroying orc action. It is just too cool to pass up. However, there are only three named elves who must represent the whole elf population. If we see Thraduil and Legolas being jerks to our protagonists the whole time then uneducated viewers will see the elves as supercilious patricians, canon? I think not.
PJ likely thought that diehard Tolkien fans would dissect his movies, and if he had presented the elves as antagonistic then he would risk getting shot. So in a way adding a female elf who likes one of the dwarves is more canonical than you might at first think. Having an elf who saves a dwarf from death and then shoots a few dozen orcs makes them seem nicer.
Why did PJ not just make Legolas nicer? Having a nice Legolas would go against all the presumptions that viewers had both from other "fairy story" and from the previous movie. That is not something that PJ would do. Oh, and by the way, what interest would another elf have in the dwarves?
Yes, it is non-canon to include a lady elf, but think about PJs options, 1) leave out/minimize elves. 2) Have innocent viewers view on elves tainted (I have heard people talk about the elves in the movie, and this is more prevalent than you might think). 3) Include an elf who has some odd reason who likes the dwarves, upsetting 100% of viewers. 4) Have a lady elf who brightens the view on elves, making non-book viewers have a more canon view of things, and possibly not upsetting the book fans to much because he knows there will be someone like me defending him.
By the way, I hated the addition of Tauriel, and it took me forever to think up this convoluted justification.
Well said Curfuinwe, well said indeed.
My opinion is simple, really...
Just don't think of it as The Hobbit. Think of it as a similar story to the Hobbit that takes place in a completely different way. Changes are disappointing, but as Cur pointed out are at least somewhat logical.
I loved seeing Middle Earth on screen. Especially Martin Freeman.
I also like the fact Tauriel has actual meaning in Elvish. Copied from the LOTR wiki:
"Tauriel means 'Woodland daughter' (taur [forest, great] + -iell [feminine suffix; daughter]"
So clearly he's putting canonical thoughts in SOMETHING...
PJ was so noncanoncal, that he should of added Morgoth to the chase already, really PJ, gosh.
LOL!! I agree, he might as well have thrown in Morgoth, married him to Luthien and have Gothmog join forces with Gandalf to defeat Sauron.
I won't lie, I'd still watch it.
Yeah, take the books seriously, and the movies for entertainment.The wise and subtle words of Curufinwe.
Wow. Thanks guys, I bet lots of people disagree with me so your support is welcome. It is important to stay open minded, which is why I didn't just take the all to easy route of bashing PJ.
Haha Cur I've been supporting that idea on this forum for a few years now (I think even earlier in the thread lol), so you are certainly not alone in thinking that way!
In fact, I thought I was pretty much alone in that ha!
Well, and not that you said otherwise Curufinwe, but open minded people have been comparing films to their sources -- with respect to faithfulness to the source -- well before Peter Jackson came along, including professional film critics.
Moreover Jackson (or his team) essentially claim the films based on The Lord of the Rings are faithful, so he is certainly open to, and should expect, criticism in that vein.
I was not to happy about Tauriel, really PJ, a subplot between a dwarf and a elf romance? Dwarves are not the children of Eru so Elves would find them alien or sometimes revolting! What was up with Thranduil's burn on the side of his cheek? Bard looked like Will Turner from pirates of the Carribean, and laketown was Middle earth's garbage heap,
Well said, Amras, with only one objection, even if the dwarves are not technically the children of Illuvatar, they are still a close copy and I see no reason why other races can't fall in love with them - even if Tolkien never mentioned anything like this in his books ( to my knowledge ).
As for the non -canon fix of the non-canon story about the elves and their character, it's a little too much for me, although I understand why they had to do it - I am referring to Tauriel. For the people who know nothing about the books it is a good addition to the story, everyone likes to see a hot woman tear down orcs to pieces ( look at all the zombie movies - it's become a theme now) .
From all the PJ movies I liked the "Fellowship of the Ring" because it was the most canon - purist out of all, it really kept the atmosphere of the books. The other ones became more and more "lightweight" and commercial because they were addressing a wider audience. It all comes down to money, sadly.
Mewlip horror movies should take out the zombie movies! plus your right. your knowledge is enough, dwarves are a mix between mewlips and orcs!
There is a tradeoff. Without the movies, I would not have ever heard of Tolkien. However, the movies irritate me quite a lot because of the changes they made. I view them as independent works, because they are damn good movies and I don't want to scorn them just because they only bear resemblance to the books and are not the books put on the screen. It is nice to see another story that has lots of the stuff that I liked in The Hobbit.
I do not think The Hobbit is not a lesser work than LotR. It may be less serious, but I find it a very enjoyable read. It is light, it is hilarious, it is a tale of adventure to show us that middle earth wasn't ready to give up yet. I like it at least as much as LotR, perhaps even more. It is not some adventure where the fate of the world hang in the balance (Gandalf could've sorted out Smaug some other way), it is just an interesting tale about an interesting time in a hobbits life. Nothing amazing happens afterwards, it is not some momentous quest, which sets it apart from just about everything else in Middle Earth.
PS: the only person who gets "special treatment" is Shakespeare. Who deserves it about as much except that his work is designed for theater.