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

[onlyonepinman 18109xp 2]

@Wolfie65 whilst it us true that the Hobbit wasn’t written as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings, the Lord of the Rings WAS written as a sequel to the Hobbit with the appendices really going to some detail of expanding the history of the world and linking the two together in the process.  So I do not think that it was entirely unreasonable to take that approach when making the Hobbit films.  Also, the certainly didn’t “flop”;  They made just under $3b combined on a total budget of around $750m.  Hardley what you would call a flop.

You haven’t really explained why the Hobbit “sucked rocks sideways” though.  Sure, you have given things you dislike about it, although again,  I completely disagree with your assessment of female “logic” dictating that an Elf would not find a Dwarf attractive.  If we assume female elves find the same things attractive as female humans, well you will find that to be a far more complicated (and, IMO interesting) subject than male attraction.  I recommend going talking to one perhaps.   However if we assume that the female elven attraction is based on different criteria to humans, then potentially anything goes.  But also, let’s not beat around the bush. Out of all of Dwarfs, only two of them were designed to look “attractive” our standards;  Kili and Thorin.  So Tauriel and her love interest were intentionally designed to be attractive by human standards in order to make that love story believable.  From my personal perspective,  it adds nothing to the overall story, but I also don’t think it takes anything away.  Then again I also accept that maybe that story arc wasn’t included for my benefit.