Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[Smug the Fabulous]

In answer to the question, if the way people are responding to these films are right, then yes. And when I say people, I mean the people I've seen commenting on Peter Jackson's Facebook page. And possibly TORN. Not that I look on that website often, if at all (but the stuff I've read on here). But I'm think The Hobbit will just be one of those one time phenomenons. Once it's been and gone, that will be it. People will simply walk away. And in several years, what we'll have left is a charming little book from the late 1930s about a hobbit who joined a wizard and a band of dwarves on a grand adventure and discovered a wider world beyond his little home.
At least, that's what I'm thinking optimistically.

On the subject of directors, I just wondered what The Lord of the Rings would be like if Werner Herzog did it? Well, since we're talking the director of Aguirre, the Wrath of God and Fitzcarraldo, I like to imagine it using practical effects and locations, long uninterrupted takes, an ambient score with some classical music, and I imagine Herzog would cast actual actors with dwarfism as hobbits and dwarves and have the actors playing Frodo and Sam going up an actual volcano.

[FerniesApple]

I would like to see The Hobbit directed by Lech Majewski, The Mill and the Cross was mind blowing, a painting come to life, haunting, faerie.

[Inziladun]

I ran across this brief review of DOS, penned by someone who's apparently not much of a Tolkien fan, so no 'purist' prejudice intrudes (though she seems to be familiar with the book).

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013 - DVD)

Many critics didn't like the first Hobbit movie, and I was one of the dissenters, but this one hit my breaking point rather early on. The dwarves go down white water rapids in barrels, fighting orcs along the way, and at no point does any barrel overturn or fill with water. Defenses I've seen of this scene are usually along the lines of, "But it's based on a children's book". Yeah, but the barrels were sealed shut in the book, and they weren't popping out of them and fighting orcs, then jumping back into the rapids just in time to land in a magically-appearing open barrel.

And then it's just, Legolas, Legolas, Legolas... I keep seeing people praising his inclusion here because it explains why he hated dwarves in the Lord of the Rings. Did I miss something? I thought it was Gimli who hated elves for no explained reason, not the other way around.

I feel like if I tried to describe the scene where they attempt to use a giant golden statue to kill Smaug, it would come across like Killdozer describing Bridget Jones's Diary, but I'm serious - that actually happens!

Really, Peter Jackson had enough time to add that ridiculously drawn out and pointless scene, but not enough to actually show the desolation caused by Smaug in a movie called "The Desolation of Smaug"??
Rating: 2.5/5

The author of that isn't always family-friendly about language on their site, so I didn't link to it.
Still, I think it's interesting what she notes as her gripes.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Still, I think it's interesting what she notes as her gripes.

Well, I guess common sense is a common thing... usually.

[Tar-Jêx]

I'm pretty sure that it won't cause people to go out and buy the book like the Lord of the Rings trilogy did, because the Hobbit is simply not nearly as good.

I'm really wondering why Jackson wanted to insult the source material with these discrepancies and squeeze out a 3rd movie for nothing to happen in, when you could easily fit it into 2 excellent, and accurate, movies.

[Lotrelf]

I saw the film- not finished- and was convinced with whatever has been said here. The movie has caused the damaged to the original material. The movies failed to create the curiosity in mind of the viewer. The book is simply amazing- the innocence, the beauty, the magic is undeniable while the second movie, to me, seemed like any other action film you can watch in Hollywood. It lacked the essence of the original story. AUJ was better- I'd liked Bilbo and Gollum's interaction and Gandalf's presence was enough for me to watch the film.
Rest, the movie is good as a "film" but kinda-okay as an adaptation.

[Mister Underhill]

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.