Reply To: LotR revisited – what Peter Jackson got right and what he didn't

[Wolfie65 1253xp 1]

The problem with The Hobbit is that it sucks rocks sideways.

The first film is vaguely acceptable IF -and that’s a BIG ‘if’ – you can see it as totally separate from the book original and just watch it as an entertaining fantasy action flick that just so happens to borrow – smash & grab seems like a more appropriate term – some elements from Tolkien’s story, but without any real commitment to actually telling said story.

The Hobbit as written by Tolkien is a children’s story, sort of a fairy tale, intended for intelligent children with a good attention span. It wasn’t intended as a prequel to LotR , as I’m sure everyone here knows. What PJ & Co. attempted to do, very obviously, was to basically re-shoot LotR, including, of course, the success of LotR. Which flopped ginormously. They could not have screwed this up any more if they tried.

Parts 2 & 3…..(hand me the bucket…thanks….guuaaarghh….sorry…better now….I think….no, wait……)

Since you mentioned the ‘love story’, whoever came up with the idea that an Elf girl could possibly ever be interested in a Dwarf guy quite obviously does not understand basic female nature at all. She’s constantly surrounded by handsome tall Elf guys and picks a Dwarf ? In no universe would she ever even have a nightmare about doing that .This is so blatantly an attempt to pander to a (largely non-existent) type of audience and most likely driven by someone at Warner Bros, part of an evil agenda better discussed somewhere other than this forum.

For those who want to watch The Hobbit on a screen, get a copy of the Rankin Bass cartoon version. It’s actually not bad, sticks pretty closely to the book and features the creepiest Gollum ever. The ‘riddles in the dark’ sequence could give even adults nightmares.