[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Saw it, xmas eve. Cailin and I agreed that it was fairly entertaining, as long as one views it as a comedy. That's what we've been reduced to: gaily laughing, over popcorn, at the ridiculousness to which one of my favourite books has been rendered. As has been mentioned many times already, we complained, fruitfully (imo), for hours about minor things in the LotR films - that's because they stand alone, securely, as films in their own right. My complaints of those films are meaningful, because, had certain things been tweaked, we would forever look upon them as marvels of cinema (the misrepresentation of Pelennor Fields frustrates me to this day) and that makes the discussion so compelling. Not so with the Hobbit films. There's no 'near miss' with these films which I could find frustrating; they're just totally forgettable.

I'll go through some points of particular annoyance.

1. Beorn. What on earth? One of the most fun parts of the book. Cut out completely.

2. Bard and his family. Stop saying 'Da' - it is annoying. More time spent on Bard's family than Beorn. Why? So we 'connect' with Bard more? Bard is there to kill the dragon. That's it. And while we're at it, why so much time spent on that villain in Lake-town, whose name I forget? Why was he on, like, three separate occasions awarded positions of responsibility? Unnecessary, and no pay-off anyway, so why bother?

3. Legolas. He had more screen time than Gandalf, I'm fairly sure. And he was probably rivalling Bilbo as well. Nonsensical stunts and, for some reason, something resembling a storyline about his mother. What. Is. Going. On? That thing at the end where Thranduil talks to him about Aragorn? Dearie, dearie me... so, achingly, a display of begging, usually reserved for bad comedians: "remember LotR? we did that! it was pretty good, eh?" Yes, we're all aware. Try to make a film that stands on its own merits. We already have the Ring to make the link explicit.

4. That mess with Sauron. You take Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, and make them fight against the Necromancer, and I'm wondering: how can this possibly suck? Well, they did it, folks. Why did that fail? Is it because it's ridiculous to think that the leaders of Middle-earth would show up for a battle without an army? Is it because they showed the Ringwraiths, even though they were meant to be a bit of a surprise to Gandalf et al in the LotR? Is it because Galadriel did her freaky ghost voice which no-one buys as interesting storytelling?

5. Which leads perfectly to Thorin's 'I've got voices in my head' scene. Subtlety, Mr Jackson, get some. It makes things much less awkward.

6. Bump the dragon-slaying to the end of the second film. Marginal gains on both sides.

7. Killing an orc is about as tricky as killing a spider which crawls into my house. Why are we afraid of them again?

8. "Say goodbye to the other Dwarves for me." "I don't need to: they're standing right behind you." "Oh yes, I hadn't realised that they were all standing, literally, right behind me. How emotional."

I'll never watch it again. I had thought that about LotR but, to be honest, I watched RotK for the first time in a long time recently and was greetin' like a bairn so I was wrong there. The Hobbit films will never have that sort of impact upon anyone. They've been a total failure. I look forward, however, to a different director making a completely different adaptation some time in the future.

But please: no Silmarillion adaptations. That would depress me no end.