.about 60% of the internet just sounds really crazy to me.

I understand that the Azog storyline is not to everyone's liking, but until the entire trilogy is available to be seen in its entirety, it cannot be determined whether it's filler or if it serves a purpose.

Yes, some fans will jump on any negative comment. That's also a sad thing about the Internet. I think people here as a whole have been very tolerant. If people weren't tolerant here I don't think 5k what's wrong with the hobbit threads. I do think at some point people get tired of reading the same negative posts by the same few people. It finally comes to we get it you don't like it for whatever reason.

Yes, he did explain what Gandalf was doing, he just didn't go into much detail about it. However, we DO know from the appendices that Gandalf found Sauron in Dol Guldur 90 years prior to the events in The Hobbit, we know that Azog was beheaded by Dain Ironfoot at the Battle of Azanubizar, and we know that the Nazgul were never sealed in tombs by the Dunedain. We know that Radagast did none of the things that he did in the film. So how can you make the claim that Tolkien's history wasn't rewritten by the filmmakers?

I feel like as a whole Jackson has kept the tone and heart of what Tolkien created. If he continues with that over the next two films I will be one of the happiest Tolkien fans ever.

I also don't nitpick details – as long as the story works logically within itself, it works for me. It has to be borne in mind that the films have to make sense to a general audience, after all, including children. A large proportion of those people will not have read Tolkien's work and are not immersed in it as are some people on this forum. For them, the story has to work logically, as I said within itself, and I think that was achieved in the first film.

I am not too bothered about the chronology with regard to Azog, for example. He works fine within the context of the film's story so far, and is a sufficiently menacing character – far more menacing than any of the Orcs in LOTR, including the Uruk-hai, though not more so than the Black Riders in FOTR, who were truly sinister. I would prefer it if he was disposed of fairly quickly into the next film, but that may not be what PJ has in mind. Will just have to wait and see.

I do think that overall the film has captured the essence of Tolkien's Middle-Earth very well, and as I keep saying, I love the casting and characterisation of the Company as a whole. Well pleased, I am, even though I didn't expect anything from this film before I went to see it.

It may be time for me to disengage from the film's message boards, etc., in the near future. I want to see the next film as I did the first one, with no particular expectations – I hope to be as surprised and delighted as I was with the first film.

In Reply To

they would be adding in some of the appendices material, and so I was cool with the 3-film split when I first heard about it. But since all of the appendices material they've used thus far has been entirely rewritten, I now kind of wish they'd have left it at 2 films. If I'd have known how drastically they were going to alter the appendices material, I would have never supported the 3-film split to begin with. But it's too late now, so I'll just have to accept that we're getting Tolkien's story peppered with a whole lot of rushed fan-fiction. I liked AUJ, I really did, but I think they unnecessarily tinkered with some things that didn't need to be touched.

We Know that The Witch King of Angmar was driven from the north by Glorfindel the Elf Lord, after the combined armed forces of Lindon, Arnor, Rivendell and Gondor destroyed the hordes of Angmar, and that he and the other Nazgul went South, besieging Minas Ithil and turning it into Minas Morgul. . . they were NOT buried in hills by Dunedain.

There was no real reason to bring Azog back from the dead. Bolg would have served just as good a villain and NOT had to change the history of the dwarves and orc/goblins. It still would have been Orcs chasing dwarves for revenge, but this story line would have made sense instead of needless change. They obviously couldn't make up their mind about the story otherwise there would have been a more cohesive one. There was no reason to make the stone giants a roller coaster ride that was OTT. It was pure spectacle and took away from Bilbo's journey. Why does Bilbo and the dwarves have to personally interact with everything on the journey. Stone giants off in the distance with the rain and thunder and lightning would have worked brilliantly and NOT been OTT.

instead of trying to come up with some dialogue that Tolkien himself would have been proud of. But NO they had to try and create tension between Gandalf and Saruman with Saruman basically daring Gandalf to go find proof in DolGuldur. They couldn't even keep the fact straight that Gandalf discovered all this information 90 years before the Hobbit it had to be something that happened in the present. I guess nothing happened before Gandalf took the dwarves on this journey, the necromancer sat around twiddling his thumbs until he realized "Ohh no Gandalf is going on an adventure we need to do something, I haven't done anything for centuries so I suppose I aught to get off my butt now that Gandalf is out and about"

For those that loved or liked the film I'm glad you do I really am. But after reading Tolkien's books for decades I find it hard to over look the OTT made up stuff, I call nonsense, that seems just added to propel these films to Hollywood blockbuster status.

But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it. That's what I was hoping I'd be coming to when I finally started to actually post here but I'm disappointed. :( And I understand everyone has their opinions and that's cool, just wish there were more people to enjoy the film talk with that actually liked it.

about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.

What I am saying is that what precisely Gandalf was doing whilst at Dol Guldur wasn't explained by Tolkien. Which is why the filmmakers have to fill it in.

The fact is that this film is an adaptation of The Hobbit book. The story needed to be simplified for a much wider audience than just the well-versed Tolkien enthusiast – much of which has never read the books. Frankly, it seems to me that if some of the suggestions that I find so baffling were incorporated, the film would be incomprehensible to a wider audience. The film story is complex enough without it being made even more complicated. Yes, you might say that The Hobbit 'should' have been exactly like the book. However, had that been the case it would have been a far less enjoyable, specifically children's film, with a lot of cardboard-cutout characters à la Tolkien, which would have been of little interest to me and I suspect to many others.

I, for one, am very pleased with how The Hobbit has been interpreted. The storyline within the film makes perfect sense – and as I said, for me the books are one thing, the films another. As long as the acting, plot line, music and visuals continue to be of as high a calibre as they are in AUJ, that will suit me fine – and I'm sure many others who do love the film. (N.B. People I know who have seen the film in the UK are generally not very well versed in Tolkien – but they all love the film.)

but for some reason I seem to recall reading that Tolkien regretted giving those silly names to the trolls.

I'm glad you understand that. As I said that's not how the last part reads IMO. I'm sure there are fans who didn't just as there are fans who like/roll with them.
That discussion really goes no places IMO. I for one won't call you a narf and I don't think most folks would.

I agree Bolg being the main villain and we should have seen a glimpse of the Balrog at Moria. As far as Azog's look I thought he looked freaking cool. His design and the look on screen was much better than any video game. When people say that I wonder if they've actually played a video game especially God of War. I have and I can assure you that look we saw isn't achievable on any console at this time.

about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.

"I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression ’poor little blighter’, just as I should not have called the troll William. "(Letter 153)

Not as much of an admission of regret as I thought, but still he regretted it nevertheless.

Haha I know, I think I've already beat my "I loved every bit of the movie" point to death so I won't say it again, but that quote disengaged me from that particular fantasy/Middle Earth era just for that split second because that is not their dialect (didn't ruin the film for me by any means though). That's one big reason why I hate Game of Thrones, to me it's a watered down LOTR (please don't flame me, I can't help it) because of the vulgarity and the language, totally takes me out of that world.

and we should have seen a glimpse of the Balrog at Moria.

I much prefer Middle Earth. But...not to get off topic to GOT...

the distraction is in the eye of the beholder.


Now, excuse me, while i go and prepare my soup for the next season of Vulgarity.

If they skip that it's a major foul IMO.