The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition - November 4, 2014

[Taikero]

I finished watching the first Appendices disc yesterday, and it was interesting seeing their justification for why the battle with Smaug occurred at all.

Two movies turned into three meant that movie two needed a climax with significant emotional heft and action, and they also wanted to showcase Smaug a bit more. The book wasn't really big on extrapolating emotional qualities into the dwarven characters, which is something dramatically changed in this adaptation, so having the dwarves fight for their home is much more emotionally charged than what's in the book. I don't agree necessarily with the way they adapted to these circumstances, but I understand why something like what we see at the end of the second film was necessary.

I believe Thrain should have been left in the theatrical cut, and they could have cut out more of the barrel riding, Tauriel, and Legolas bits, and even some Laketown bits as well. I'm fine with what was all added back into the EE, but frankly Thrain carries a lot of emotional heft in the EE and I feel it was a mistake to leave him out of the theatrical cut.

That said, I realize they didn't want to cut out much of the barrel riding because it took at least 5 if not 6-7 different techniques for them to get those scenes done. It's really incredible the effort that went into just that bit.

As for the battle at the forges, that was all basically winged in the last month and a half before the movie came out. They literally went down to the wire figuring out what it was going to be so I can understand why it doesn't work as well as it probably should. Additionally, the melting gold was oversaturated (discussed in the Appendices), and I don't agree with the amount of oversaturation that occurred, because it makes the gold look incredibly fake in the film. One of my few actual CGI gripes in this one.

Frankly, if they'd just left Tauriel out of this one, the theatrical cut could've included much more of what made it into the EE, and maybe the EE could have had other good stuff that remains on the cutting room floor to date. Evangeline Lilly may be a decent enough elf, but she was unnecessary. It would have been better instead for Jackson to explore Legolas's and Thranduil's relationship more in-depth (do I obey my father, or do I fight for what I believe is best for the world?). Essentially, Tauriel stands in as the moral centerpiece here when Legolas should have been that centerpiece all along. We could also have seen the beginnings of a friendship with Legolas and Gloin, a foreshadowing of what was to come with Legolas and Gimli later on. We also wouldn't have negated the power of Arwen standing in for Glorfindel in Fellowship of the Ring, as no lowly Sylvan elf should be able to use magic powerful enough to keep at bay the effects of a Morgul weapon (much less heal it as is implied in DoS). The inclusion of a Morgul weapon was also ridiculous, but that's another topic.

Basically, real character development was forsaken to add in an unnecessary female character that isn't even part of the book or world as a real character. A bunch of previously established characters and concepts were ignored, retconned, or otherwise abused for the sake of trying to deliver on a love triangle and political correctness. It's a shame.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Boyens is not a good writer. If they need to take adaptive liberties, I think they should get a better writer.

Originally Posted by Taikero

Basically, real character development was forsaken to add in an unnecessary female character that isn't even part of the book or world as a real character. A bunch of previously established characters and concepts were ignored, retconned, or otherwise abused for the sake of trying to deliver on a love triangle and political correctness. It's a shame.

I'm resisting my inclination to become involved in the discussion, but I will say that it is refreshing to read views other than the standard blanket acceptance of Jackson and Boyen's "improvements" to the story. I found it obvious that Boyens' script was a weak point in the productions, but the success of the first movie (FotR) pretty much determined that she wouldn't be replaced. Even on Tolkien websites, any such criticism is met with quick condemnation - which I find rather incredible for the extensive modifications made to one of the five most popular works of fiction in literature. I guess $750 million dollars worth of special effects and thrills can cover up a lot of shortcomings. But anyway, well said.

[GenPion]

Why all this hate directed at Boyens? Was most of the script written by Boyens or something? I haven't watched the appendices. Considering the screenplays are all credited to Boyens, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo Del Toro I would think the "blame" if one finds any, would rest with all of them.

Personally, I love the added material to these adaptations. Sure, it's not exactly what was in the book, and I loved the book too. It doesn't mean the film's have been bad. At this point, at least as far as the cinematic world goes, the Lords of the Rings belongs just as much to Jackson and company for their work on these laborious adaptations as it belongs to the original text. Adding or reserving material that is for the diehard Tolkien fans also makes sense for the extended editions. That's the audience the long versions are made for anyway as it can become much more extensive with more character development and even more to the storyline. I don't personally see an issue with this. It's not like the existence of a short(er) theatrical version takes away the splendor of the extended versions.

[captveg]

It still amazes me that some don't see the necessity of Tauriel or a similar character. She has/will do things as an in for the audience that Legolas simply would not work for.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Why all this hate directed at Boyens? Was most of the script written by Boyens or something? I haven't watched the appendices. Considering the screenplays are all credited to Boyens, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo Del Toro I would think the "blame" if one finds any, would rest with all of them.

Personally, I love the added material to these adaptations. Sure, it's not exactly what was in the book, and I loved the book too. It doesn't mean the film's have been bad. At this point, at least as far as the cinematic world goes, the Lords of the Rings belongs just as much to Jackson and company for their work on these laborious adaptations as it belongs to the original text. Adding or reserving material that is for the diehard Tolkien fans also makes sense for the extended editions. That's the audience the long versions are made for anyway as it can become much more extensive with more character development and even more to the storyline. I don't personally see an issue with this. It's not like the existence of a short(er) theatrical version takes away the splendor of the extended versions.

The issue is not that the theatrical version is simply shorter. What matters is that important, actual characters (e.g. Thrain) were dropped from the Theatrical cut because for some reason we required the creation of a new character in a literary universe that literally contains hundreds of characters, and at least dozens which are directly relevant just to The Hobbit and the events surrounding it. We didn't need to create more characters for an adaptation to be successful, and Galadriel is already an incredibly strong female presence who will likely have her chance to shine in the third Hobbit film, should Jackson and co. try to stick somewhat to the events of the universe they are adapting.

It's just baffling to accept weaker character development for ACTUAL, NOVELIZED characters in favor of creating a character that never existed in the first place, that completely ignores the rules of her universe and uses magic that was previously reserved for basically the most capable healing elf in existence (Elrond). There was absolutely zero need for Tauriel to exist beyond, at most, the jail cells of Mirkwood (just so we get the spiel from Kili about his promise to his mom, how nice), if at all.

Originally Posted by captveg

It still amazes me that some don't see the necessity of Tauriel or a similar character. She has/will do things as an in for the audience that Legolas simply would not work for.

Legolas could still have:

Captured the dwarves.
Talked to his father.
Questioned his father's motives.
Had more dialogue with Gloin, Gimli's father.
Chased after the dwarves after their escape.
Saved the young girls from Bolg.
Chased after Bolg.

Kili could still have:

Had a spiel about his mum at some point, even if only with a fellow Dwarvish prisoner.
Been injured (just not with a Morgul weapon, because lowly orcs should not have such powerful weapons flying around mid-air).
Helped protect the girls despite his injuries (y'know, to

[Show spoiler]make his death next movie more sad and all

).
Received some actual dwarvish/human healing, without retconning Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe he could have even gone to the mountain with his kin, or even if not, it still would have been just as emotional for him to be left behind.
Participated in the next film, without defying the laws of the established universe.


So no, not necessary. Not in the least.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Taikero

Legolas could still have:

Captured the dwarves.
Talked to his father.
Questioned his father's motives.
Had more dialogue with Gloin, Gimli's father.
Chased after the dwarves after their escape.
Saved the young girls from Bolg.
Chased after Bolg.

Kili could still have:

Had a spiel about his mum at some point, even if only with a fellow Dwarvish prisoner.
Been injured (just not with a Morgul weapon, because lowly orcs should not have such powerful weapons flying around mid-air).
Helped protect the girls despite his injuries (y'know, to

[Show spoiler]make his death next movie more sad and all

).
Received some actual dwarvish/human healing, without retconning Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe he could have even gone to the mountain with his kin, or even if not, it still would have been just as emotional for him to be left behind.
Participated in the next film, without defying the laws of the established universe.


So no, not necessary. Not in the least.

Fine. Necessary isn't the right word. I don't think any of that is "better", er, necessarily.

I really don't care for the Tolkien over-specific what type of Elves can and can't heal, or orcs can and can't have weapons. That stuff is great for books where you can get into the details of culture for paragraphs while stopping the narrative but is mostly inconsequential for a film.

I also do think doubling the female characters from one to two was the right choice.

But, you know, opinions are made to be contrary.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by Taikero

The issue is not that the theatrical version is simply shorter. What matters is that important, actual characters (e.g. Thrain) were dropped from the Theatrical cut because for some reason we required the creation of a new character in a literary universe that literally contains hundreds of characters, and at least dozens which are directly relevant just to The Hobbit and the events surrounding it. We didn't need to create more characters for an adaptation to be successful, and Galadriel is already an incredibly strong female presence who will likely have her chance to shine in the third Hobbit film, should Jackson and co. try to stick somewhat to the events of the universe they are adapting.

It's just baffling to accept weaker character development for ACTUAL, NOVELIZED characters in favor of creating a character that never existed in the first place, that completely ignores the rules of her universe and uses magic that was previously reserved for basically the most capable healing elf in existence (Elrond). There was absolutely zero need for Tauriel to exist beyond, at most, the jail cells of Mirkwood (just so we get the spiel from Kili about his promise to his mom, how nice), if at all.




Legolas could still have:

Captured the dwarves.
Talked to his father.
Questioned his father's motives.
Had more dialogue with Gloin, Gimli's father.
Chased after the dwarves after their escape.
Saved the young girls from Bolg.
Chased after Bolg.

Kili could still have:

Had a spiel about his mum at some point, even if only with a fellow Dwarvish prisoner.
Been injured (just not with a Morgul weapon, because lowly orcs should not have such powerful weapons flying around mid-air).
Helped protect the girls despite his injuries (y'know, to

[Show spoiler]make his death next movie more sad and all

).
Received some actual dwarvish/human healing, without retconning Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe he could have even gone to the mountain with his kin, or even if not, it still would have been just as emotional for him to be left behind.
Participated in the next film, without defying the laws of the established universe.


So no, not necessary. Not in the least.

Very well put. I agree completely.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

If he needed to cut out 25 minutes for a Cinematic Cut, he should have cut out that silly and against-established-character 5 minute time waste where they can't find a frickin keyhole and turn around and go home, all of that physics-defying nonsense inside Erebor with the molten gold, and take the rest out of excessive runtime at Laketown.

Even following his logic of taking things out altogether rather than leaving in a bad truncated version, how then does he explain Beorn? What he left in the Cinematic Cut makes him a laughable scene with a useless character; without what was restored in the EE, Beorn would have been better cut from the film entirely. Likewise with the opening scene, what is even the point of that without tying it in to the search for Thrain and the Dwarf Ring, other than an excuse to sqeeze in a cameo of a character he left out of LotR, Bill Ferny?

No, regardless of what they say publicly, I'm pretty sure their protocol has always been that if it's a choice between cutting Tolkien's writing and cutting Boyens' writing, they always choose to cut Tolkien, because if the EE scenes consisted mostly of restoring footage of Boyens' writing, nobody would buy it. They always hold back the "Tolkien" version of the movie for the EE, 'cause they know Tolkien fans are rabid enough to buy another disc even if it had just 5 minutes of added Tolkien scenes.

We've discussed Beorn in here before. He couldn't be cut from DOS for a couple reasons: Without him how was Jackson supposed to explain the Company suddenly having horses when they get to Mirkwood. And the more important reason is that he is involved in the Battle of the Five Armies so he had to be established.

Phillipa and Jackson said they left the Bree scene in because it reestabllishes the quest and what's going on. Gandalf wants to get to the Mountain before someone else does. And Thorin wants to reclaim his birthright. What is in the theatrical cut works fine.

[captveg]

The Bree scene was actually done in pickups to specifically re-establish for the audience what the Arkenstone and stakes were, and that Bilbo has been hired specifically as burglar.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Taikero

The issue is not that the theatrical version is simply shorter. What matters is that important, actual characters (e.g. Thrain) were dropped from the Theatrical cut because for some reason we required the creation of a new character in a literary universe that literally contains hundreds of characters, and at least dozens which are directly relevant just to The Hobbit and the events surrounding it. We didn't need to create more characters for an adaptation to be successful, and Galadriel is already an incredibly strong female presence who will likely have her chance to shine in the third Hobbit film, should Jackson and co. try to stick somewhat to the events of the universe they are adapting.

It's just baffling to accept weaker character development for ACTUAL, NOVELIZED characters in favor of creating a character that never existed in the first place, that completely ignores the rules of her universe and uses magic that was previously reserved for basically the most capable healing elf in existence (Elrond). There was absolutely zero need for Tauriel to exist beyond, at most, the jail cells of Mirkwood (just so we get the spiel from Kili about his promise to his mom, how nice), if at all.




Legolas could still have:

Captured the dwarves.
Talked to his father.
Questioned his father's motives.
Had more dialogue with Gloin, Gimli's father.
Chased after the dwarves after their escape.
Saved the young girls from Bolg.
Chased after Bolg.

Kili could still have:

Had a spiel about his mum at some point, even if only with a fellow Dwarvish prisoner.
Been injured (just not with a Morgul weapon, because lowly orcs should not have such powerful weapons flying around mid-air).
Helped protect the girls despite his injuries (y'know, to

[Show spoiler]make his death next movie more sad and all

).
Received some actual dwarvish/human healing, without retconning Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe he could have even gone to the mountain with his kin, or even if not, it still would have been just as emotional for him to be left behind.
Participated in the next film, without defying the laws of the established universe.


So no, not necessary. Not in the least.

Tauriel is in the films for one reason and one reason only...Tolkien's stories are overtly male centric. It was the same reason why Arwen was given more to do in the RINGS trilogy (sort of). It's why Eowyn was a walking, talking feminist message reminder in the RINGS trilogy (love Miranda Otto but let's face it, what they gave her was not elegant or subtle in its message).

Funny enough, I think Tauriel is the best female character in these Middle Earth adaptations.

[Geoff D]

Tauriel works fine for me. She's not there to simply reel off exposition or to join the dots in the story ("Legolas could've done that" etc), she's the moral compass of the Elves in the face of her embittered and isolationist King.

[TheHutt]

FYI:

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug EE booklet is finished and can be downloaded now!

PDF, 300dpi, CMYK, optimized for duplex printing. For DVD, BluRay & BluRay 3D.

[Dan_Shane]

Originally Posted by TheHutt

FYI:

[FONT=verdana,helevetica][SIZE=2][FONT=verdana,helevetica][SIZE=2]The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug EE booklet is finished and can be downloaded now!

Sweet! Thanks a lot!

[HeavyHitter]

I got this in the other day from Amazon - hoping to watch one night this week and looking forward to it. I watched the extended version of AUJ last night --- getting prepped for next month.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by captveg

Fine. Necessary isn't the right word. I don't think any of that is "better", er, necessarily.

I really don't care for the Tolkien over-specific what type of Elves can and can't heal, or orcs can and can't have weapons. That stuff is great for books where you can get into the details of culture for paragraphs while stopping the narrative but is mostly inconsequential for a film.

I also do think doubling the female characters from one to two was the right choice.

But, you know, opinions are made to be contrary.

I accept that you are free to your opinion, just as I am to mine, however given that these are book adaptations, adapting some of the finest literary works of fiction in existence, it is rather important to remain within the confines of the universe and its rules as much as possible. That's what makes the universe believable. By tossing rules out the window, you stretch the believability of the universe, and weaken it as a result.

For instance, with the power Tauriel wields in DoS, it calls into question Arwen's competence. Why couldn't she fully heal Frodo? A Morgul weapon is a Morgul weapon, after all. It's reasonable to assume that Elrond's daughter should be more educated and practiced in the arts of healing than some random Sylvan elf in the depths of Mirkwood, practicing as a warrior, a captain of the guard, and not as a healer.

It's like if Shaq body-checked another player on the basketball court, and the body-checked player crashed head-first into the court-side seats, cracking his head open. If at that point Shaq whipped out a scalpel, needle, and thread and started doing brain surgery and sutures with nothing other than that, that would be pretty unbelievable, right? That's what Tauriel is. Unbelievable. She diminishes Elrond and Arwen simultaneously, and cheapens the reasons behind Arwen standing in for one of the most powerful elves of the First Age in FotR (Glorfindel).

These details wouldn't be so important in a universe less well-defined, but Tolkien was very meticulous about how he structured Middle Earth, and quite consistent throughout. Yes, he made mistakes or even left a few things dubious throughout the years and his many notes/books, however overall you'd be hard pressed to find such an expansive body of work with as few contradictions elsewhere.

As far as whether it matters to at least loosely follow the material being adapted, I'll just say The Lost World: Jurassic Park and leave it at that (other examples abound).

But yes, you're entitled to your opinion, and I accept as well that sometimes adapted changes turn out better than if they were left as-is for some novelized works. I simply believe that in this case, there was already far too much material to cover without adding unnecessary characters that don't even fit into the universe they're supposed to reside in. I don't have a problem with Lurtz (FotR Urukhai leader) or Alfrid Lickspittle (another Desolation of Smaug added character) because they bring something to the adaptation without disrupting it. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by Cook

We've discussed Beorn in here before. He couldn't be cut from DOS for a couple reasons: Without him how was Jackson supposed to explain the Company suddenly having horses when they get to Mirkwood. And the more important reason is that he is involved in the Battle of the Five Armies so he had to be established.

Phillipa and Jackson said they left the Bree scene in because it reestabllishes the quest and what's going on. Gandalf wants to get to the Mountain before someone else does. And Thorin wants to reclaim his birthright. What is in the theatrical cut works fine.

I don't normally try to answer for others, but I believe mjbethancourt was trying to express frustration about key characters being hacked to pieces or left out simply because it was inconvenient to keep them in, all because we needed some other character and/or scenes that never even existed in the book to begin with. While I accept that certain things (such as more activity between the dwarves and Smaug) were necessary in a trilogy of this caliber, there were better ways to approach the problem, and part of the problem was that the decision to move from 2 movies to 3 was made FAR too late in the game, which forced things to move at breakneck pace, to the detriment of the trilogy as a whole.

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Tauriel is in the films for one reason and one reason only...Tolkien's stories are overtly male centric. It was the same reason why Arwen was given more to do in the RINGS trilogy (sort of). It's why Eowyn was a walking, talking feminist message reminder in the RINGS trilogy (love Miranda Otto but let's face it, what they gave her was not elegant or subtle in its message).

Funny enough, I think Tauriel is the best female character in these Middle Earth adaptations.

Arwen and Eowyn are both in the books, however.

Arwen also doesn't defy the books with her changes. She stands in for another major book character, but that's acceptable given she is Elrond's daughter. We can easily accept that because frankly, there wasn't time to give Glorfindel his due and develop that character properly. That was a good decision by Jackson and I wholeheartedly support it.

Eowyn may have been dramatized a bit, I'll grant you, but much of her dialogue in the film is quite similar to how she is in the book (“…No living man am I. You look upon a woman…You stand between me and my lord and my kin…I will smite you if you touch him.”). She plays an important role in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields and her character required a lot of development in order for her victory there to really resonate with audiences. She also, to my knowledge, didn't defy the universe she lives in.

Tauriel is nowhere to be found in Tolkien's literature and retcons the universe she is placed into. She is a bad addition to an otherwise excellent series of films because she furthers an agenda rather than the universe or the adaptation thereof.

As for Tolkien's stories being primarily male-centric, that's not entirely accurate. Many important female characters feature throughout his works. Luthien, Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, just to name a few. They all played pivotal roles and, without them, the free peoples of Middle Earth would not have been able to defend themselves against Sauron. Galadriel saved all of elvenkind by protecting the elvish rings of power from Sauron during their forging, because she was the only elf with the wisdom to question his motives. That's not just a throwaway moment there. It affected all of Middle Earth through the entire events of these film adaptations and beyond.

However, despite my protestations, I realize that Tauriel was added for many reasons the filmmakers decided were right, despite how wrong I feel those reasons are. It only bothers so much because there is so much right about these adaptations, and it is concerning to see such a departure from the established literature as we near the end of the adaptations. Nobody wants another Star Wars prequel trilogy level snafu.

[Geoff D]

I wonder if you would've been as sanguine about Arwen had they showed her fighting at Helm's Deep as was originally written & shot? Even back then they were trying to get the female characters to do way more than their original remit, but the fan backlash was too much for even them to ignore. Arwen taking Glorfindel's place was one thing, but hacking and slashing with the guys at Helm's Deep was too much (shame we never got to see Eowyn doing the same thing in the caves under the keep, something which was also shot but never used).

The filmmakers knew that they'd never be able to fudge with an existing character to that extent, so for The Hobbit they created an entirely new one who could be as kick-ass as they wanted her to be. Incidentally, Walsh credits Guillermo del Toro for giving them the final push to do that sort of character.

[GenPion]

Tauriel is a great addition the universe of these films. I'm really quite surprised to see so much backlash. Evangeline Lilly is great and was perfect casting opposite Orlando Bloom. These films NEEDED a character like her to join the cast of characters. Otherwise, this trilogy would have only had one prominent female character. That simply wouldn't have worked. I for one am glad for the addition.

Those of you arguing against the addition of the character would have really preferred a film which only had some Hobbits, Dwarves, and Orcs in it? And no female character at all? This would have been bad on multiple levels.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I wonder if you would've been as sanguine about Arwen had they showed her fighting at Helm's Deep as was originally written & shot? Even back then they were trying to get the female characters to do way more than their original remit, but the fan backlash was too much for even them to ignore. Arwen taking Glorfindel's place was one thing, but hacking and slashing with the guys at Helm's Deep was too much (shame we never got to see Eowyn doing the same thing in the caves under the keep, something which was also shot but never used).

The filmmakers knew that they'd never be able to fudge with an existing character to that extent, so for The Hobbit they created an entirely new one who could be as kick-ass as they wanted her to be. Incidentally, Walsh credits Guillermo del Toro for giving them the final push to do that sort of character.

I would not have approved of Arwen going all gung-ho at Helm's Deep. That would have been out of character.

As for Eowyn doing so in the caverns, while I think it's an interesting idea, it would have caused some ripples to deal with in the third film. It was already a departure from the book for her to go to Helm's Deep, but one that easily made sense.

Still, I would have gladly accepted Eowyn stabbing an orc in the caverns over Tauriel. At least that still would have been in-character for Eowyn and dialogue could have been tweaked to justify her desire to go to battle at Pelennor.

"Father, our people nearly came to an end in those caverns. Do I not also deserve a chance to defend those I love at the end of it all?" That sort of thing. It would have been manageable to deal with this change and not much in the grand scheme of things would have been altered.

Originally Posted by GenPion

Tauriel is a great addition the universe of these films. I'm really quite surprised to see so much backlash. Evangeline Lilly is great and was perfect casting opposite Orlando Bloom. These films NEEDED a character like her to join the cast of characters. Otherwise, this trilogy would have only had one prominent female character. That simply wouldn't have worked. I for one am glad for the addition.

Those of you arguing against the addition of the character would have really preferred a film which only had some Hobbits, Dwarves, and Orcs in it? And no female character at all? This would have been bad on multiple levels.

So a film can't be successful unless both genders are present as major characters? I guess films like Moon, 3:10 To Yuma, etc. are just terrible then.

How many female Transformers have there been in that film series (obviously not the greatest films ever but certainly commercially successful)? Where's the outcry about that?

Why was the character of Alfrid, the Laketown master's assistant, not cast as a woman? That could have been a great female character, totally non-canon, with plenty of humor to go around, yet a man was cast.

Why couldn't Legolas handle questioning his father's views? What value does it bring to the table for a captain of the guard to do so when Legolas, an already well-established character, could have done the same thing and perhaps shown some character growth in this trilogy in the buildup for his role in the Fellowship some 60 years later?

As for that one major female character,

[Show spoiler]Galadriel has ripe opportunity for the third film to single-handedly lead the White Council in assault on Dol Goldur, using her magical prowess to tear down its walls and enchantments and cast the Necromancer/Sauron from it, forcing him to retreat in terror to Mordor.

If that's not powerful, if that's not meaningful, and if having that alone as a "powerful female moment" is somehow terrible or bad, I don't know what is good.

In any case, I honestly don't mind when characters are added or altered for adaptations, so long as those additions or alterations make sense within the confines of their respective universe. If it doesn't make sense, I don't like it. Tauriel makes no sense, and the changes made to support her character don't either, and it's bad enough to harm the integrity of the LotR trilogy as well for fans who actually care about the source material even a little bit. That's the issue. It's not so much that there's a new character, it's that the implementation of that character reeks of disrespect for the source material. For those who care nothing for the source material, it's simply "Arwen 2.0". For those who know about the source material, having "Arwen 2.0" should never have happened, and very few people know the source material like Peter Jackson does.

Feel free to explain why it would have been so bad to leave out an unnecessary character in place of fatherly love for a son displayed by Thrain, in place of father-son discord that would have been possible between Legolas and Thranduil (moreso than we already might see), in place of more character development for Beorn (maybe an actual flashback of his imprisonment/torture instead of just exposition), and in place of expanding on Legolas and Gloin getting to know each other as a way to grow Legolas's character and pave the way for Legolas and Gimli being part of the Fellowship. Golden opportunities missed, among others I'm sure, in favor of something else for the sake of equality, political correctness, or some other such notion.

[captveg]

I think you've mostly just proved that filmmakers can't please everyone all the time, so better to make the film they are happy with and hope the majority enjoy those choices.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by captveg

I think you've mostly just proved that filmmakers can't please everyone all the time, so better to make the film they are happy with and hope the majority enjoy those choices.

The numbers show the majority don't approve.

When Jackson stuck closer to the source material, Oscars and acclaim happened. Tickets were bought en masse!

Fellowship - 4 Oscar wins, 13 total noms
$313,364,114

Two Towers - 2 Oscar wins, 6 total noms
$339,789,881

Return of the King - 11 Oscar wins, 11 total noms
$377,027,325

The farther he steps away from that source material, the less we've seen that happening.

Hobbit 1 - 0 Oscar wins, 3 total noms
$303,003,568

Hobbit 2 - 0 Oscar wins, 3 total noms
$258,366,855

Cause and effect. No more, no less.