15 Crucial Plot Differences Between Tolkien & Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring"
Vložit
- Äas pÅ™idán 11. 07. 2024
- Welcome to Ep. 9 of Movies vs. Manuscripts, where we are discussing 3 scenes from the Fellowship of the Ring that never happened in the book! Do you think these scenes change the course of the plot and alter the overall themes in the story?
Read along with me! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring†on Audible for FREE: www.audibletrial.com/factorfa... 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
-
Join the Discord 👉 / discord
Watch the Entire Series... 👉 • Movies vs. Manuscripts...
-
🧙â€â™‚ï¸ðŸ’ Get 25% OFF Custom LOTR Themed Wedding Bands 👉 manlybands.com/FACTORFANTASY 👈
-
Business Inquiries 📩 gabe@factorfantasyweekly.com
-
Music:
"Arthur-Marie Brillouin - Bien-Aimée" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
@arthur-mariebrillouin4496
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌼 Ambient Piano (Royal...
"Scott Buckley - The Long Dark" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
/ musicbyscottb
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌑 Dark Ambient (Free M...
"Alexander Nakarada - Frost" is under a Creative Commons (BY 3.0) license:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
/ creatorchords
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🺠RPG & Celtic (Free M...
-
Timestamps:
0:00 Rivendell
1:55 Movie Recap
3:21 Character Changes
4:38 Timeline Changes
5:04 Location Changes
6:12 Plot changes
13:43 Reading the books...
-
Sources:
"The Fellowship of the Ring," directed by Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2001.
"The Two Towers," directed by Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2002.
"The Return of the King," directed by Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2003.
-
#tolkien #tolkienlore #lordoftherings #lotr #peterjackson #newlinecinema #warnerbros #jrrtolkien #nazgul #fellowshipofthering #frodostabbed #arwen - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Make sure to claim your *FREE* audiobook with a free trial of Audible 🎧📖 www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈🼠Use my link to claim your book & support the channel at the same time!
When I first watched Fellowship, I expected one hour of singing in Rivendell. Shocking omission
As a Lord of the Rings book nerd I know most of Glorfindel’s story but I’d love to see a video on him for people who don’t know
I think I might have to do one 👀
Also, I dislike Elrond's overemphasism of the bloodline of men growing weak. He was a foster parent to Aragorn since he was 2 and raised him into a fine warrior... yet he then says "men are weak"?
All these weird character opinions changed just for the sake of drama?
Elrond himself was a half-elf, half man, as his parents, Eärendil and Elwing, were both half-elves, having both Men and Elves as ancestors.
Still sharp Im guessing is a nod to Sean beans best roll, Richard Sharpe of the 95th. The whole series is on yt and definitely worth a watch
More on Glorfindel would be great.
Why? WHY was I drinking soda during this video?
"Next. After Boromir leaves to find a Band-Aid..."
👉ðŸ¼ðŸ—¡ï¸ = 🩹
😂😂😂
I like both versions of Aragorn. In the books he was ready and willing to take control, and in the films he was self aware to understand he had severe flaws in his character that made him hesitant to take control. Both versions are excellent in their respectives, and I appreciate both versions of such an awesome character.
Aragorn didn't have severe flaws in his character. That's nonsense intimated by the amateur screenwriters for their adaptation.
@@jachyra9 It's okay to like both portrayals of the character.
@@emperorkane317 - It's okay to like anything. It's not okay to claim that both versions are excellent when one of them isn't.
@@jachyra9well, movie Aragorn is excellent though, and the writers certainly were no amateurs😂
@@frederikkfoglfrey8664 - The three screenwriters had never written a screenplay for a major motion picture prior to this. Fran Walsh only worked on her husband's stupid horror movies, and Philippa Boyens had never written a single screenplay. Not one. So, yes, they were amateurs and it shows.
I hated the Gen X "I've never wanted power" treatment of Aragorn. He was intentional in all his motives and actions
What does that have to do with Gen X?
@@jachyra9 I feel like the writers were trying to appeal to a specific generational ethic of their day rather than the timeless character Tolkien wrote
@@SpiritLife - Yes. Team Jackson was trying to appeal to a specific generational ethic of the day. But that generation was the Millennials, not Gen X. That's why so many Millennials love these films and attack anyone who criticizes them. It's also the reason why Christopher Tolkien said, '“They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25." That age range refers to Millennials, not Gen X. I'm Gen X and I was already in my thirties then.
@@jachyra9 ahh then I stand corrected. My apologies
@@SpiritLife - No need to apologize. It's just a book and some movies. 🙂
“Saruman is bullying Gandalf.â€
I would refer to that as torture, but whatever.
In all honesty, loved the video (as usual); and the bit I referenced made me chuckle.
😂😂
😂
Aragorn's reluctance just really bugs me. In the books he was this man with great power and destiny and controls it. He wants it, but he is wise in pursueing it. This whole reluctance thing really takes away from his granduer as a descendant of Isuldir and the Numenoreans.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me as much as everyone else. They couldn’t give his whole Backstory in the Movies, so by making him grow into the role of king they could give him a more interesting character arc, without it, movie Aragorn would have been kind of flat i think
@@frederikkfoglfrey8664 - But he didn't grow into the role of king. All he did was take a bath and change his clothes. The irony is that Jackson's unnecessary change in characterization resulted in Aragorn not actually having an arc.
How would that not make him a Mary Sue though? The perfect character from the start of his journey to the end.
@@kingkwon8002 - You don't know what a Mary Sue is. Aragorn has an incredible task to accomplish and many challenges to face and overcome as a result. He isn't a female power fantasy or self-insertion character.
@@jachyra9 i am just re-reading the books… i just read “the riders of rohan†and tbh i think book Aragorn is completely full of himself! The way he presents himself to eomer in eomers homeland! Learn some humility man, even if you think you are supposed to be a king!!! I like movie Aragorn much better!
I think he's ignoring the red flags in Boromir 's behavior in the book. Faramir has the dream, yet Boromir claims the errand. He was quite petulant in the moments before Gandalf opened the door to Moria, and disturbed the watcher. If I were to play armchair psychiatrist, I would suspect he had PTSD, from the years of battles and skirmishes against the forces of Sauron.
Jackson added things to the books, like fully replacing my mental world of it with the movies. I can no longer go back to my own Lord of the Rings version I had built over a long time. My Aragorn was so much cooler.
You really uploaded this video at the perfect time🔥
Most of the changes to the source material I will accept as necessary for the medium but I actually love that they give Arwen more screen time in the movies
There’s far too few women in the books in my opinion
How were any of the changes necessary for the medium? And as far as there being too few women in the book( The Lord of the Rings is a novel ) or books( comprising Tolkien's legendarium ): what number constitutes an adequate amount of women? Because I didn't realize there was a quota. Is this applicable to Little Women in regards to men? How would increasing the number of women in The Lord of the Rings improve the story and the experience of reading it? Color me confused.
it is remarkable that no one so far had a similar idea of comparing book vs movie (whatever the book and movie couple). I mean the sources (movie and book) aren't exactly new. If someone would do that on Dune, then I could understand that it pops up only now because a successful Dune movie was done only recently, but with LOTR no one tried this (as far as I could check) though youtube is almost two decades old.
There are quite a lot of videos comparing the book to the films. But virtually all of them are pro-Jackson videos and they are hardly in-depth or critical.
Ikr! I was pretty surprised as well that there wasn’t a series of quality on the topic. Obviously there are a lot of one off videos. But none that go scene by scene. I strive to be as detailed as possible. Thanks for tuning in!
I was looking forward to Tom Bombadil only to be saddened by the short feeling of the movies
Me too Tom Bombadill fighting oldmanwillo the barrow wrights and beautiful GoldBerry I love these characters. And at the end of all adventure the shire is took over by Sharkey where Merry and Pippin are heroes of the shire.
The Lord of the Rings should have been a musical.
This is very interesting, but one thing is irritating. You keep showing the same scenes, over and over again, and while the sometimes match the narration, other times they are entirely irrelevant to what the speaker is describing.
But yes, there are many differences between the films and the books, and I would encourage anyone who has seen only the films, to read the masterful books, as well.
The reluctance and self-doubt they added to Aragorn, together with the changes they made to Faramir (e.g. his initial decision to take Frodo to Gondor) was, to me, some of the biggest differences the movies had compared to the books. I guess it was to make them more two-dimensional, and also to make their journey less "easy" (as in, are the choices you make as "heroic" if you don't harbor an ounce of self-doubt or fear?)... I think that Jackson added this type of ambivalence to several of the characters (e.g. Elronds "men are weak") in an attempt to make it less obvious that they would always make the "right decision", and that when the right decision was made, it was a result of overcoming their fear, which - again - made the decision more "heroic".
Change 8: Frodo asked about Balin, Ori and Oin at the feast, and Gloin replied that he would tell everyone later at the council.
Good point! We’ll mention that more in next week’s episode. ðŸ‘ðŸ¼
-When I first read LotR. long before the movies, Arwen played such a small role in Rivendell that when she showed up in Gondor to get married at the end, my first thought was "Who the hell is she"
- When Bilbo asks to see the Ring, and is transformed, either in Frodo's viewpoint or reality. in the movie he goes into a hug with Frodo, whereas in the book he turns around to swallow his emotion, and slaps him on the back and makes a joke. English stiff-upper-lip versus Hollywood touchy-feely? (Reappears in the scene where Frodo and Sam are abandoning the boats at Amon Hen.)
- Worst of all is movie Sam's whining about wanting to go home, whereas in the book he says he has a feeling that their mission was not yet done. It completely undoes Sam's character transformation (partially made up in his final words at the end of Fellowship:
“Frodo: Mordor. I hope the others find a safer route.
Sam: Strider will look after them.
Frodo: I don’t suppose we’ll ever see them again.
Sam: We may yet, Mr. Frodo. We may.â€
I love the scenes with Bilbo and that he did get to return to Erebor. Even my favourite adaptation (R4) cuts this out sadly
NEW LINE CINEMA: "So how much of the book are you actually going to change?"
PETER JACKSON: "Yes."
💀
The best Audible version is done by Andy Serkis! I love it!!
Agreed!
Agreed. But, Treebeard just goes on and on…😮
Well done!
The Book: They were lifelong friends who were always fond of one another.
The Movie: They get mad at each other for no reason until the threat of a greater evil forces them to work together- Stop glaring at me! My audience has the attention span of toddlers! Constant and needless conflict is a necessary evil in my line of work.
The Book: Couldn't you at least have a reason?
The Movie: Nope. Audience will get mad if there's too much backstory to cover. Have you seen how childishly angry people get at our prequels?
Who are 'they', here?
Glorfindel was fantastic. It was a shame he was left out of the movie. Why they didn't have Aragorn leave with his sword reforged made no sense to me
Would be nice a remake of the movies being faithful to the books.
Impossible! Maybe a show with each episode covering one chapter. But even then it would be hard, maybe with a narrator…
@@frederikkfoglfrey8664 I just want my damn Tom Bombadil chapter :P
@@Kynokefalos yeah I wouldn’t mind that either
I'd avoid the word 'inaccuracy' in this context because changes are not necessarily bad, and this word choice seems to assume that they are. Not that they can't be bad - they often were.
Inaccuracy invokes no emotion. It’s a logical word simply saying that there is an original, and something based on the original. It makes no subjective judgement on the quality of the change. It simply points out the objective truth of if there was a change. If there was a change, then it is inaccurate.
A word like “inadequate†would invoke a subjective judgement.
Regardless, like I say in the video, I love the movies and the books!
@@factorfantasyweekly Fine, I'll be slightly more precise - 'Inaccuracy' seems to mean that they were aiming for something and missed it. None of these changes could possibly have been accidental. We can note where their target was different than what was in the book (a difference), or whether it was a poor choice of target (bad idea). These are separate ideas. The idea that they were actually aiming at the book and somehow MISSED is silly. It's just not the right word.
EDIT: I saw an apparently deleted reply that they were trying to be faithful. They marketed it as faithful, etc. What is there even to say about that? If they were trying to be faithful, they could have… not done something wildly different. Given the efforts made, the differences could not be accidents.
Definitely would love a Glorfindel video!
I understood why they made some changes to adapt it to the movie. Other changes i was disappointed in. Overall, I enjoy the movies. They are much better adaptations than ROP or WOT. They both did exactly what you said, changed characters' motivations which started a snowball. Over the course of the seasons, they have had to continuously change more things because of the first few changes.
Totally agree!
They basically turned Aragorn into Jon Snow. "I DUN WANT IT".
I know they tried to be nuanced by taking the conflicted hero angle, but conflicted hero is just as generic as confident hero. At least confident hero fits with the type of story that LOTR is: an epic, akin to Odyssey or Ulyssys. Like a fantasy romance.
Problem is, every male in Tolkien's books is basically the same: heroic and stoic. The biggest example fo this being Faramir, who jsut casually dismissed the ring. The same ring Tolkien had spent 2 books warning us about how it can corrupt even the mightiest. But nah, every "stoic hero" can just ignore the ring when it's needed.
Tolkien was an extraordinary world builder, and his characters drank from the world he created to become interesting. But in the character development part, Tolkien was mediocre at best. You've got the hobbits and Eowyn. The rest are as plain as a brick. And I say this as someone who has Tolkien in his top 5. His world building was the bread and butter for most fantasy authors.
The movies gave much humane inetrpretations of the characters. Check the aniamted version of the LOTR. It's more faithbull to the book. And Aragorn (and basically every character) is pretty boring. Things don't always translate well from books to movies. Another great example being David Lynch's Dune, which tried to be faithfull in some aprts that made no sense, like the constant character narration. The newer ones make more changes, but also manage to be much better movies while still keeping the spirit of the books, just like the LOTR movies.
@simonsalgueiro6217 what and Faramir in Jackson's version is better? The guy is one sided personality: he cries every time his father says something mean to him. At least in the books you see Faramir stand up for himself in front of his father, you see examples of him being noble, you see examples of him being wise (one of those moments is with the ring, and no. He didn't casually reject the ring. He refused to even look at the ring because he knew how dangerous it is). You think the ring being dangerous has to show its immediate effect instantly? Clearly, subtlety is wasted upon you. The ring, in the books, still IS dangerous and can corrupt all, but for some, it can take time for the corruption to take hold (as with Frodo). There is a trait called wisdom, which determines how strong a pull the ring has to that person. Faramir is said to be wise enough that Gandalf became close friends with him (this angered Denethor). Even Tolkien says that Faramir is more wise than noth Denathor and Boromir put together. The funny thing is, that even in the movie, as overpowered as they made the ring, even they didn't always abide by the rule that the ring must affect everyone instantly (e.g. if you're next to it, that means you 100% have to be desperate to take it because we don't understand subtlety here). What about Legolas or Gimli, who casually felt nothing as they were with the ring all that time. Of course, you will make up some head canon to make sense of the nonsensical changes the movies invent because that is all you can do. So each fan has their own headcanons and explanations. Meanwhile, at least in the books, it's a solid one explanation. The ring corrupts everyone but some individuals will be corrupted sooner than others, the ring is not a homing device, it doesn't always 'connect' to Sauron's vision, just sometimes (which is the risk Gandalf warns about).
And if you want to talk about good characters? What, you think Frodo in the movies is a good character, lol? The character who Peter Jackson, who single handedly created a whole audience of people who think Frodo's weak or lesser of a hero than the other fellowship members? No one used to think anything negative of Frodo before the movies came out (we have letters from fans of Tolkien to corroborate that). After the movies, there are tons of people who complain about Frodo, which you can see pages and pages of on Google search. People complaining about Frodo character and how he's weak or mean to Sam... funnily enough, in all these complaints they all reference actions Frodo only does in the movies. So no wonder the character is so F'd up and people have to either come up with headcanons as to why this is acceptable in the movies or simply put Frodo at the back of the mind.
Jackson made one of the best trilogies, but let's not be silly and portray him as some jesus figure. He still made a lot of mistakes and there are plenty of flaws in characters (that he changed) and events (which you have to create your own headcanons to cope with the mistake).
@@sameehkins5957 Denethor was a super wise leader and was corrupted still by Sauron, and not even with the ring, which exerts a much stronger influence (this according to Tolkien, although as I said, he changed how the ring worked sometimes to move the "stoic hero" trope). Isildur, also a great ruler, brave, fearless, etc, was subdued by the ring. Even Gandalf was scared. What happened in the book with Faramir totally defeats the purpose of the ring.
Also, like that other Tolkien simp in the comments, you have to exaggerate things to make a point. Faramir isn't weak in the movies, you alpha wannabes. Neither is Frodo or Aragorn. Anyone who says that has the mental maturity of a child and, therefore, his points should be looked with contempt. They are more realistic and less fictional. Which is ok, you still have the books if you want Tolkien's way of handling characters, which is more akeen the Nordic Sagas he so much loved. But now you've got also the film's interpretation, which works MUCH better for that type pf media. You peeps just have absolutely no clue on how cinema works.
Gimli and Legolas are 1) not human, who are canonically drawn to the ring much more, 2) are never alone with Frodo in a way we could see if the ring tempts them, 3) have less responsibilities and worries than Faramir, Aragorn or Boromir. Points 1 and 2 beings key. Boromir gets lured by the ring not because he is weak, but because he is desperate to save Gondor. Aragorn also fears the ring as he has the responsibility of his ancestors, and he knows the ring can tempt him through that. And Faramir is looking to prove himself while also having the same qualms as Boromir. Yea, he may be wiser. But he still should be affected by the rules Tolkien set. And he isn't.
As I said, Tolkien was a great world builder, but a mediocre character writter. Funny you say I'm treating PJ as a deity when you are simping extremely hard for Tolkien. I agree some parts should have been left like in the book, f.e, the way Sauron is defeated in the movie at the beginning, and that some parts of the movie felt a bit off (mainly Legolas doing weird action stuff). But it's undeniable PJ managed to make movies that were masterpieces of cinema while also retaining Tolkien's message and world. I can assure you that, if he did what people like you wanted, the movies would be much worse. I guarantee that.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy they're trying to make. They make heroes in media try to turn down power. So that their masters in real life can simply feign disinterest in power and make out that power is being thrust upon them unwillingly. Then all on-lookers will be awed because it's just like a scene in their favorite movie. When the reality is all parties were in on the scam and they real life hero actually does want power. Just how like Trump claimed he never wanted to be president years ago.
@@simonsalgueiro6217 Tolkien was not a professional author. You hear simpletons make that noise all the time; "Some things don't work on screen." The Lord of the Rings, didn't work on the page either. But it was there and I enjoyed it in spite of it's flaws. I enjoyed Peter Jackson's Fantasy Hour too. But only because it was cleverly designed to trigger endorphin releases in my system like a common fiction book is. And not because it was actually meaningful.
Also, you should know that most of the things that they tell you don't work on the screen are actually things that they just don't want to go through the trouble to make happen either because doing so would be too much work, take too long, cost too much or irk modern/stupid members of the audience. Like Tom Bombadil. He was left out so that Scumbag Steve wouldn't immediately hate the film and mock Jolly old Tom which is also why all the songs were left out. I don't blame them. It most certainly does date the story to a different era in time and they need to make their money back so they can be forgiven. But personally, I'd prefer if Scumbag Steve didn't enjoy the same things I do.
I understand that the movie has to make cuts. But I can't forgive the two character assassinations. They go right against Tolkien's deeply catholic worldview.
Another change I dislike is the Introduction of Aragorn in Bree. In the books Aragorn starts out enigmatic, menacing and quite dark. Sam initially doesn't trust him. In the movie his character from the beginning is way more superficial.
i dont mind as much what they left out for time. what i do mind is adding shit that never belonged. ya think you're a better writer than Tolkien?
For film Boromir I think there was just not enough screen time to give him a character arc, hence they made him more selfish, short-fused and arrogant from the beginning.
It’s just about the same character as he played in Ronin😀
In my opinion Boromir was not the only victim of character assassination by Peter Jackson.
Oh definitely, but thus far into the story his is the most severe. Once we get to Faramir in the next movie, that’s more severe.
@@factorfantasyweekly And what about Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Eomer, ...
It's not your opinion. Jackson assassinated every single character in one way or another, to one degree or another. I submit the reason why virtually no one cares is down to the actors portraying the characters doing such a great job. It's all part of the toxic goulash that is fans of the movies conflating what they see with what they believe Tolkien wrote, and why they're so threatened by the reality of what Tolkien wrote: it doesn't align with the movies. I really like the movies, especially Fellowship. But my affection can't fix what's broken.
@@jachyra9 I think a lot of people live in a Mandela's effect believing that the Jackson movies are flawless and perfect, extreme faithful to the books, they adore them. But when you say to them that the Tolkien father and son wouldn't approve the movies, their minds break. It's very hypocrisy, and this people is the same that says like a broken disc that Rings of Power is an ugly product.
Honestly, idk why Boromir behaved like that with Anduril. Because from my memory and POV, in the rest of the film he's accurate to the book version, especially the flashback Faramir has when Boromir was sent to Osgiliath.
My theory is that Boromir was curious and in disbelief that this sword is finally in front of him and never thought that a 2-3 thousand year shard of a sword could cut him that easily. As for his disrespectfull placement back on the pedestal and going for a band aid, I also dont really know why is it there, so the only thing I can think of is that Boromir was just angered at the cut, hence the behavior. Like come on, we irl would be grumpy and angry by just hitting an elbow, meanwhile Boromir cut his entire finger falangie by the shards of the 3k year old sword.
But yeah, the scene is weird.
Funny you mention the flashback to Osgiliath in the Two Towers, because I mention that briefly in next week’s episode… also a couple things inaccurate with that whole thing. But I will also cover it more once I’m to that specific scene.
I definitely understand Peter Jackson’s direction. He was making it clear from the start that Boromir is a conflicted human, dealing with many emotions that elves and dwarves don’t really deal with. Kind of giving us the view of the race of men that makes us understand their struggle. But in the book he’s a lot more put together in the beginning like Aragorn. Only after some time does he get corrupted.
But as for his reaction to Aragorn seeing him cut himself, it’s more so to foreshadow the plot point of Denethor resisting a king in Gondor. “No more than a broken heirloom…†is pretty much Boromir saying “we are strong enough on our own, we don’t need help!†Which is opposite to book Boromir who actually comes to Rivendell based on a prophetic dream about the sword that was broken, and he even tells Aragorn in the book that it would help his people if the king (and the sword) returned to Gondor. It’s pretty interesting! Again, this is all stuff I cover next week. 👀
Jacksons adaptation was and will always be the best adaptation of the books.
Just look at the abomination amazon released, or the inferior hobbit movies.
Yes, Amazon’s version of things make you really appreciate Jackson’s films. 💀 Even without RoP though, I still love Jackson’s trilogy!
"Jacksons adaptation was and will always be the best adaptation of the books."
Are you a fortune teller? Cool. Can you do me a solid and predict the winning lottery numbers?
I positively disliked what Amazon has done... But those liberties were prefigured in the free range Jackson gave himself.
The BBC radio play from 1980 cut the same bits from Fellowship that Jackson did. The only part the movie did better than the radio play was when Aragorn made the decision to follow the orcs, instead of Frodo and Sam.
BBC: Forth the three hunters!
Jackson: Let's hunt some orc.
That might be my favorite line from the movies.
I think he was poison
Honestly, Lord of the Rings and maybe even The Hobbit (yes I know what you're going to say) are the 2 film adaptations that didn't piss me off when it came to faithfulness to the source material. If you're a book purist they probably bothered you a lot, and that's definitely my stance on most adaptations, but here it didn't seem as bad. Nowadays adaptations just cut out or change large parts of the story that make it flimsy and unrecognisable. Here, they so try remained quite strong and some changes (like switching Glorfindel out for Arwen) were actually appreciated by some of the fandom (although I would've loved to have seen Glorfindel on the big screen).
Yes, I do believe the changes they made still held in tact the quality of the film. Good writing, good acting, good storytelling. You’re correct, most adaptations that change stuff often butcher the quality. Rings of Power for example. 💀
Jackson still did a great job keeping quality. ðŸ™ðŸ¼
Whether it doesn't seem as bad doesn't mean it isn't bad. Maybe it didn't piss you off because you don't understand The Lord of the Rings.
@@factorfantasyweekly - Nope. You are seriously hallucinating.
@@jachyra9 You seem to assume that just because someone likes the movies means they have some apathy or lack misunderstanding of the books and Tolkien. There are millions of diehard Tolkien fans who are probably bigger and more dedicated fans than you who love both the films and the books.
How did The Hobbit not piss you off. I found the scenes with Radagast just horrific. The orcs chasing the Gandalf and the dwarves, along withe the troll cave scenes were way too cartoonish and childish.
A lot of the added sequences, the river ride fight, dwarves fighting the dragon, and others, were totally unnecessary.
All three Hobbit movies are excellent!
Are you joking?