[Morthoron]

Looking strictly at Jackson's LotR films from an objective manner, if one compares it to a truly great film adaptation (David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia or Zinneman's A Man for all Seasons, for instance) one finds that Jackson removed much of the subtlety and nuance from Tolkien's original plot, opting for fireworks over substance (and this could be, as Bêthberry inferred, Jackson's 'Lucasization' of Middle-earth). Much of the acting is wooden and trivial, and this is due in part to Jackson's insistence on taking artistic license decidedly too far. The dialogue that works the best is indeed taken directly from Tolkien's original storyline, and those sequences which are universally panned are invariably of Jackson's devising.

Do not get me wrong, I own all three extended versions of the DVD's, and I believe Jackson's trilogy is cinematographically superb. The spirit of Middle-earth does indeed reside in the wonderful ambience of the film's versions of the Shire, Minas Tirith, Moria and Edoras, but there is an infuriating undercurrent that runs throughout the films of Jackson's heavy-handed scripting that is bitter to the palate, and for the most part totally unnecessary. I am not speaking of time compression and omissions (like the deletion of Tom Bombadil or the wholesale elimination of the 'Scouring of the Shire'), I understand fully the need for brevity and compactness in film making; however, I do take issue with the many oddities Jackson threw in that neither added to the dimensions of the movies nor improved upon the original plot.

Sorry for adding to a digression, but as I have yet to read the 'Darker Hobbit', I can't rightly comment on it in context. I only know that as it was originally published (as a children's story), I cherish it immensely and so does my young daughter. I am not certain that the changes mentioned are altogether good or necessary, given the endearing impression of the orignal reading.