would have been better. Be it the bluer pinecones, having Bolg instead of Gorka Morka, the wargs forst etc...

Hell, the rankin bass version is better. I ve recently discovered that scene is probably the scene i hate the most.

On the question of the mis-casting of the giants as transformers and Radagast and the "hare brained" non decoy decoy I am, as you know, right there.

On the question of your solution to Azog's back story in isolation I would agree. However there is a more fundamental challenge for the film makers of the Hobbit particularly when a hugely successful LOTR has already been made.

The Hobbit only gained its significance within the legendarium long after it was written. Tolkien re wrote the riddles chapter, found out the meaning of the white council and the necromancer and wrote up the Thror/Thrain back-story twenty years later.
The very real danger of investing a post LOTR Hobbit film within its context is the context becomes bigger than the subject.

There are, for film goers, four contextualising subjects to deal with:-

1) The destruction of Erebor.
2) The death of Thror at the hand of Azog.
3) The incarceration of Thrain by the servants of the enemy.
4) The reintegration of Saurons form and his acolytes and I use that word deliberately within the context of the film universe.

The script writers found a solution and hierarchy of reveal for each of the four elements and made conscious decisions about the weight of each and which should be real time and which should be look back.

Erebor was a no brainer as the epilogue it is the most important and drives the story.

The death of Thror was the next but was simplified and threaded into the real time narrative so it had immediacy and pertinence rather than "oh that's interesting history but why slow things down" .

The incarceration of Thrain was to be yet another epilogue but the decision was take ,wisely in my view, to delay its inclusion into the second film and I suspect like the Thror story arc it will not complete ninety years ago it will straddle and be threaded into the real time narrative.

The reintegration of Sauron could have been a fourth epilogue but instead it has been brought into the real time narrative, though at the last minute it was decided Gandalf and Radagasts discovery at the high fells will now be recounted but from within the current movie time line.

The weight of all this material needs to be used sparingly and carefully to add depth to tell the story but not lose sight of the strategic decision made that these films are about Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf . So whilst I would have loved every nuanced element of the appendices to appear, and I still hope for the Balrog in the Thrain arc,if you delve to deep you over turn the lead story. The balance they have applied may not be to every bodies taste but I can see why they went as far as they did.

Now for those who wanted their episodic children's book and none of this other hoey my argument doesn't work. But WB were never going to stump up a quarter of a billion dollars to send a different group of actors to NZ to make that story in a single film. What they were happy to do is underwrite a two film adaption which would draw the original talent and other talented actors into something different which would be aimed like LOTR at a global audience which would also satisfy the curiosity of Tolkiens long standing following even if they did not approve of everything done.

A smart film maker would have handled the Hobbit films as if LOTR had never existed. None of the events that happen in LOTR have occured and there is no reason to bring them into play in the Hobbit. To me a smart film maker would have kept to the story giving some subtle hints of things that were known at the time of the Hobbit but came to fruition during LOTR. But nothing more than subtle hints. Just because LOTR was as successful as it was they should have looked at doing the Hobbit the same way. BUT they opted NOT to do that instead opting to change the way it was shot, opting to add 3D, opting to make it more of a standard fantasy film instead of going for the more historical feel of LOTR. All choices made by Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. Had they actually listened to the people who were going to be watching these films, Not about the content but the style and feel, maybe the films might have fit together more like LOTR instead of feeling like there was no solid direction for the film until the very last minute when it was actually too late to do any good. There were a ton of ways to make the Hobbit without feeling the need to make as many direct links to LOTR as Peter Jackson did. Or go so OTT and fake as they did. Personally I preferred the more realistic, historical based LOTR, which felt like real characters and real places. Instead of the Hobbit where it feels like actors in costumes and sets on a soundstages. Using rehashed dialogue and lacking the insight into the story of the Hobbit to bring it to life without making it a caricature of LOTR and over all a joke to the franchise IMO.

The destruction of Erobor could have been done as a memory of Thorin's in Baggend and been just as powerful as it was as a prologue. I felt it was an awful choice having Bilbo recount the tale, instead of Thorin. It took away from the feeling of such material. Bilbo wasn't there and wasn't emotionally invested in its telling, whereas Thorin was or even Balin for that matter. Erobor might have been the reason for the journey but it lost all its weight by being told by Bilbo. I felt the reason for the journey should have been discussed at Baggend to fill in Bilbo on why they were going on this quest.

The death of Thror at the hands of Azog is a major event, BUT it doesn't need to be changed. Azog did kill him, where I have the problem with that is they shorten the whole dwarf and Goblin war into one basic event instead of declaring that it went on for years. That the beheading of Thror was the start of it in fact. They lacked the whole Dain killing Azog part which IMO is much more important than having Azog chase Thorin all over the countryside. Since Dain becomes king under the mountain. He takes Thorin's place on the throne. Therefore his character should have been more important to the overall story. But Jackson chose to ignore it, even though it is 100 times more entertaining than what we got. Like I said Bolg could have been used as the Orc chasing Thorin and it would still have been in the current time without butchering Tolkien's lore. It would still have the same effect but still kept Tolkien history intact better than the horrible lets rewrite Tolkien lore bringing Azog back from the dead ruining more details than it helped to make better. I feel that was a lack of direction on Jackson's part or the script writers listening to someone who obviously had no clue about middle earth.

Thrain being captured by the enemy... nothing says it couldn't be shown as a flashback. But it didn't happen during the battle of Anazulbizar, it was years later. That is part of where Jackson loses faith in moviegoer to understand timelines. chooses to simplify things instead of leaving them to the imagination to the fans. Heck put times in subtitles at the bottom of the screen if he is that worried about people not understanding. At least it would add some depth to the story making it feel like there was some history involved and not just everything being rushed and in the present. Again taking it out of the past and injecting it into the present takes the weight out of it, it strips it of any historical feel which IMO carrys more weight than everything all happening at once

As far as Sauron and showing his "reintegration", he was barely mentioned in the Hobbit. 2 sentences tops in the Hobbit book. So there really is NO need to bring back Sauron as a character. I understand some people want more of that storyline, but its not important to the tale at hand which is Bilbo's adventure followed secondly by Thorin reclaiming Erobor...The Necromancer could have been done visually to be reminiscent of Sauron from LOTR but never once confirming that is who he is. Hooded figure in tattered robes almost like he had been buried for decades (also tying in the whole Necromancer, dealing with the dead thing)with rusty armor being seen underneath the robes that is reminiscent of Sauron's armor from FOTR. possibly even walking with a staff like a cane to show he has not regained his power and is weakened. But never once revealing who he truly is. Something like that would have worked fine for the necromancer character to be included without dealing anything with the ring or his real identity, but visually he would be noticeable when watching FOTR.

I don't find any issue with flashbacks making things less important to the current story. they are there for a reason to give some backstory to the current events. They shouldn't feel as frantic as the current story but should add some depth and weight to it. With them pushing everything into the current time they just make everything seem rushed and frantic and that there is SO much going on at the same time.

When Jackson stuck to Tolkien and his history and events the film was great, when he deviated from Tolkien not so much, I would just say mediocre.

but those connections should have been much more subtle and well thought out. I think in the case of most of Jackson's connections they seem forced and unnatural, or complete rehashing of LOTR. They could have done things much better IMO and not had so much foreshadowing of what is to come, since not even Gandalf can see the future, And the Hobbit happened 60 years before LOTR.

I am not interested in the childrens book with all its failings being played out on screen