Two films for The Hobbit? Invented materials to "fill in the gaps"?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, the LOTR movies follow the storyline of the books. Whether they are a "faithful adaptation" depends on your point of view. I'd say they are, but I know there are plenty (even among those who love them) who would disagree.

I just think it's harder to be "really" faithful to the book than one might think. I'm often like you, Trotter; I wonder why Frodo and so many other characters were weakened, why Saruman forms the Uruks out of some primordial glop, why Aragorn has to fake his death falling off a cliff. And I still wonder why, sometimes. But, even though I know you hear this all the time, let me repeat it, that a movie is a totally different medium than a book, and has to be treated differently.

I think LOTR is an immensely difficult book to adapt into what ends up being about 11 hours of film. And I think The Hobbit, while not quite as monumental of a task, certainly poses its own challenges and difficulties.
So when we go into the theater in 2009 or whenever it may be, I think we can expect to see Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Gollum, Smaug, and Bard. We'll see the spider-battle in Mirkwood, the finding of the Ring, the Bilbo-Smaug conversation, and the Battle of Five Armies. But there will be changes from the book, and rightfully so. The important thing is whether it's still a story that we can call The Hobbit without cringing and wondering if JRRT is rolling in his grave. And if it is, I think PJ will deserve yet another round of applause.