Jackson's reputation

[Boromir88]

Only time for a quick reply here. I was actually recently called a "Hobbit miser" after watching the movie and posting me thoughts in the review thread. I honestly didn't think I was being that critical, and didn't intend to be miserly about, because overall I had a good time watching it. I probably focused too much on the parts I didn't like and it was way too long, with certain plot lines being forced so Jackson could create a narrative over essentially the first several chapters of The Hobbit.

When I am critical, it's certainly nothing personal, and sometimes the feeling I get from book purists (I don't particularly like that identifier anymore than film purists, but for the sake of not being bogged down in definitions, I'll go with it) that it is personal. That somehow Jackson has done irreparable harm and tainted Tolkien's legacy. When that's the case, I'll go Devil's Advocate and just argue for the sake of something different than a bunch of griping.

My stance is, Tolkien's legacy speaks for itself and Jackson's not going to harm it. If I want to get a Tolkien story, I read one of the books he wrote. If I want to be mindlessly entertained on a crummy day, normally the LOTR movies make it onto my list to watch. (Admittedly it gets hard to watch TTT at times, since that one kind of falls apart/I lose interest after Theoden's healed). Both serve their purpose.

[Glorthelion]

I'm only making a humble comment here: I enjoyed the Hobbit film a lot. It is a very good film. However, it is not as faithful to the book as the LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit film contains more fan fiction composed by Peter Jackson like the white council part.