The Lord of the Rings is a high fantasy saga that covers roughly 1500 pages. In order to adapt it to three three-hour movies, Jackson & co had to cut stuff Tolkien described in loving detail. Fans are still debating whether they cut the right things despite the films arguably being some of the best book-to-movie adaptations ever made.featofstrength said:Saw it last night...pretty frustrating experience. The Hobbit is overblown geek-pandering at its best...Loved the book, liked the LOTR movies, but there's a definite line I must draw between the fan and film critic inside me: it's just not a good "film."
The Hobbit is a novel covering 300 pages. In order to adapt it into three three-hour movies, they had to add tons of stuff, either original or borrowed from Tolkien's extended Middle Earth works. It shows.
The fact that they decided to turn the Hobbit into a full trilogy just stinks of a cash grab to me so hard that even these strong northern winds can't dispense it.