What do you think about Peter Jackson adding a new character in The Desolation of Smaug movie?

[Matthew]

What I'd like to talk about is the third movie. How did people feel about him making an entire film out of what was basically the last few pages of the book? Was the padding not the worst in the final installment?

[Mark]

Loved the movies, love the book.

[apologies for auto correction on iphones they can mess up any response]

[N0ireclipse]

The wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Jackson is a repulsive, egotistical scumbag who needs a hob-nailed boot shoved down his throat. Its as simple as that."

I would love to agree. Indeed, the more spunky side of me (mu..."

well put.

[Mark]

Alexandros wrote: "PJ completely ruined the intent of The Hobbit. He turned it into a mainstream epic. As much as i loved Tauriel, everyone silently understands that if you are to adapt one of Tolkien's books, you ha..."

While Tauriels addition might have more to do with modern times and a female audience the whole of the story comes out of Tolkiens writing [including the appendixes and Silmarion]. So while Jackson did make the tale bigger he did so while remaining true to the writing of Tolkien.

The book and the movie should never be the same as they are of a different medium and art-form, I love the book and I enjoy the movies. And kudos to PJ of creating a beautiful visual version of Tolkiens world. For those who want the movie to be faithful to the book there is the book and the comic and leave the movie for those who appreciate that art form. I will not read the book any less because I enjoyed the movies.

It seems that not only dwarfs are grumpy and have difficulty with change and possession.

[S]

The wrote: "Carolanne wrote: "Joshua wrote: "The first third of Jackson's HOBBIT was so idiotically different from the book--with rabbit-driven sleds, 2-ton goblin kings squashing dropped dwarves, and a comput..."

Funny thing is that she said she grew up worshiping LOTR and initially refused to see the first movie (2001), thinking it could never live up to the book. Would that she had felt the same way about The Hobbit.

[S]

Matthew wrote: "What I'd like to talk about is the third movie. How did people feel about him making an entire film out of what was basically the last few pages of the book? Was the padding not the worst in the fi..."

Yup.

[Bree]

I love the female elf. She is strong, and kind, and wise, and makes for a good iconic character. There are a lot of guys in the story, so she was a nice addition.
I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. I liked the second Hobbit movie. The third Hobbit movie went too far with computer graphics. It looked like I was watching a video game. Lord of the Rings was great because it looked real. Middle Earth came alive because they used the beautiful scenery in New Zealand. They added some graphics, but it was well done.

[N0ireclipse]

Mark wrote: "Alexandros wrote: "PJ completely ruined the intent of The Hobbit. He turned it into a mainstream epic. As much as i loved Tauriel, everyone silently understands that if you are to adapt one of Tolk..."

Really? The visuals? They kinda made me gag. Though he was trying to show a rural, naturalistic setting, there was nothing natural about it. By time the 3rd installment came around it looked like everyone was living in a computer game. The colors were so bright and unnatural--even Viggo Mortinson complained with the obsessive use of computerized graphics.
To each their own, but..

[Himika]

I feel tauriel was a good addition to a book adaption where the only female referred to is Belladonna Took,but i did not like the way she ended up as Kili's love interest.And anyway,i think the Hobbit movies were crap compared to the grandeur of LOTR.This is what happens if you squeeze a trilogy out of a 300-something page book.Andi really disliked how jackson made Kili die for Tauriel instead of for Thorin.

[Ermit]

Elisa wrote: "Peter Jackson and the other writers will add a new character: Tauriel, a female Sylvan elf from Mirkwood, who is a great warrior and leads the army. Do you think it is treason to Tolkien? Or do you..."

Well I'm sorry to be late.

I enjoyed the movies(i have to say becuase my memory is short), even i could say I enjoyed better The Hobbit trilogy than the LOTR for some particular reasons.

But it's totally wrong creating a new character out of nothing, or putting legolas in place he was not. The elf that were in the forrest had nothing to do with Legolas, They were dark (or green i don't remember right now) elf.

And there are other details of that kind... The presence of Ragadast, for example... anyway...

Yea it's definitely a treason to Tolkien, the books, or the story.

[Carolanne]

Hated it. H. A. T. E. D. could not believe it when it happened as he worked so hard to be as faithful as possible in previous franchise. Refuse to purchase the films with phony characters/ story lines.

[John (Taloni)]

The Hobbit movies were okay as bubblegum pop media, but they bore little resemblance to the actual books. New character and love interest? Nope. Not interested. At least the other stuff was in the Silmarillion.

[John]

It was stupid and unnecessary. Why mess with a masterpiece of fiction? I also thought making THREE movies from one small book was ridiculous as well?

It's all about money... I loved the LotR movies. They were very well done. The Hobbit was a farce.

[S]

Unfortunately , the Hobbit films are to the LOTR films as the Star Wars prequels are to the original trilogy. And in both cases, the creator screwed it up himself.

[John (Taloni)]

Can't say as that I agree on that, unless you think Peter Jackson was the creator. In which case I'd disagree even more.

[S]

Well, he was the creator of the films, of course, not the books.

[S]

Well, he was the creator of the films, of course, not the books.

[Preston]

Why did he have to do that? He did so well with LOTR why couldn't he just do that? As just a movie it was pretty good, BUT if you look at it as a movie BASED OFF of a book it is absolutely TERRIBLE!!!

[Saul the Heir of Isauldur]

Parker wrote: "TREASON TO TOLKIEN THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING I DON'T EVEN WANT TO WASTE MY ENERGY COMPLAINING WHY! Anyone want to agree with me? Other die-hard Tolkien (Not Jackson) fans?"

TREASON! CHARGE INTO BATTLE! ELENDIL! FOR THE SHIRE!

But I actually will explain why Tauriel shouldn't exist in the films. The Hobbit is first of all, a children's book. Romance has NO business in the novel. Secondly, the whole love triangle with Kili, Tauriel and Legolas just takes away from the point of the book, which is more about friendship and camaraderie than romantic love. The Dwarves and Bilbo are bros, and Tauriel's introduction into the story breaks them apart needlessly and pointlessly. I mean, all the dwarves end up in the same place anyway. I was a big fan of Jackson's LOTR trilogy because he remained pretty true to the nature of the books (with a few exceptions I'm too passionate over to rant about here). But he, or the screenwriter, or whoever was in charge of the adaptation, messed up big-time with Tauriel. I didn't even mind Legolas being in the story; it makes sense. She, however, doesn't in any shape or form. Can we have more ghosts fighting the White Council to save Gandalf, please? That made much more sense because it's sort of part of the legendarium.

[Saul the Heir of Isauldur]

Parker wrote: "TREASON TO TOLKIEN THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING I DON'T EVEN WANT TO WASTE MY ENERGY COMPLAINING WHY! Anyone want to agree with me? Other die-hard Tolkien (Not Jackson) fans?"

Also, if I'm not mistaken, that's Perrin Albara on your profile picture. Respect!

[S]

Did anyone read the latest TOTAL FILM, in which a critic claims that AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is the best Tolkien film. He's nuts; it's the weakes HOBBIT film, and that's really saying something. The LOTR films are infinitely better, but I think that goes without saying.

[Autumn]

I HEAR YOU HATERS. I love Tauriel. I know she wasn't in the book and according to most her love with Kili was stupid but she is my favorite character of all time, throughout everything i have ever seen and every fictional character that I love Tauriel is my favorite.

[Mali]

LOTR movie managed to catch the spirit of the book perfectly. Hobbit did just the opposite. I did not like movie at all.

[Allison ☾]

I like the character and idea of Tauriel. Reading The Hobbit I noticed a complete lack of female characters. Maybe they thought adding a strong female character would bring female viewers to the movie, then onto the book(s) as well. Can't say I blame them.

[Eric]

If you’re looking for a mirror representation of the book, it’s a disaster. Taken purely as a fantasy film bearing no relation to The Hobbit, I liked the film and liked the character. The genre lacks strong females. Was this just to win female viewing? I doubt one character is going to win over a gender. I think it was to help weave Legolas into the story. Poor chap has been on the dole since LOTR.

[Emily]

Parker wrote: "TREASON TO TOLKIEN THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING I DON'T EVEN WANT TO WASTE MY ENERGY COMPLAINING WHY! Anyone want to agree with me? Other die-hard Tolkien (Not Jackson) fans?"
Hey Parker! I kind of agree with you . . . and I kind of don't. Perhaps if Jackson hadn't stretched out the movies so much he could have kept to the storyline more--but since the last movie was all blood, gore, and screaming orcs, they had to add her in, right, mellon? I think it is silly that they dragged in poor Legolas (and Galadriel too!) but, you know, they're still pretty cool.
I wonder what Prof. Tolkien would think.