Will The Hobbit end up "rotten"?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, I love the sound of the title of this thread. Just, you know, phonetically.

Spoken like a true Tolkien fan.

Cellar door. Cellar door. Cellar door.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You know, I bet Nathan associates that reference with its origin, not with Donnie Darko.

I forgot it was in Donnie Darko until just now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To know that we'd need to know what films Ben does like.

I liked Donnie Darko okay, but I wouldn't describe myself as at all attached to it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To know that we'd need to know what films Ben does like.

I liked Donnie Darko okay, but I wouldn't describe myself as at all attached to it.

He gave a somewhat positive review to Meet the Spartans.

...okay, yikes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

I will agree I thought that was a sensible alteration. Some of what goes on with Arwen later on, on the other hand...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

I will agree I thought that was a sensible alteration. Some of what goes on with Arwen later on, on the other hand...

Like what, exactly?  The only scene I can possibly think of that you're referencing is her following her father's wishes in departing to Valinor along the old road before turning back suddenly out of love for Aragorn.  And that doesn't bother me in the least. 

It struck me as out-of-place, and frankly a little out-of-character, more so for Elrond than for her.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

They were lowbrow action he added because he apparently did not comprehend the book, most of which he left out. It's like taking an overlong commercial d&d scenario and slapping the words "Lord of the Rings" on top. It should have been prosecuted as a copyright violation.
Almost all of the alterations, including the more harmless ones, are in that spirit.

Also, he characterized the Ents, as a people, both poorly and unevenly. Treebeard individually I thought was done rather well, but still wasn't really the Treebeard from the books.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Down to 66%. This is gonna be close but it should hang on. Most of the reviews are in now.

The main reason for the ratings drop (from what I've read) is that the critics are bitching and moaning about how long this film is.. 

There's absolutely no rational reason for a Hobbit film to be nearly three hours long unless it covers the whole book and then some. I think it's a reasonable critique, even if the film is otherwise good. Whether or not this one is I don't know yet since I haven't been to see it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/peter-jacksons-violent-betrayal-of-tolkien/266294/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes me want to skip the movie at least for now and go back to the book I haven't read in several years.  I can't imagine my favorite chapter (Riddles in the Dark) translates well into film anyways.

I've heard that 'Riddles in the Dark' was one of the best parts of the film, and I'm interested to see how that could be.

Apart from that, more and more I think the best director for Tolkien would in fact have been Mizoguchi Kenji. A pity that couldn't possibly have worked, for a variety of mostly-obvious reasons. (The best director for Charles Williams is Dario Argento. Other Inklings I've never had occasion to give much thought to, except 'the BBC', as an institution, in general, for C.S. Lewis.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

afleitch, if your definition of literary purity is related to perceived originality then it's not really meaningful. Peake, whom I love perhaps more than Tolkien, mined Dickens, penny-dreadfuls, nursery rhymes, and his experiences in China and on Sark. Leiber had strong Jungian influence and liked Lovecraft and Robert Graves. White, uh...yeah. The Tolkienian mythological- and Arts and Crafts-based outlook did triumph over these in some ways, at the expense of some diversity in the genre (or genera), and any of us are perfectly free to have preferences, but the idea that these other, mostly subjugated styles of fantasy were 'more original' is a little questionable. And any of these can be banalized and dumbed-down. Somebody who hated Peake could say exactly what you're saying in defense of the Gormenghast miniseries.