The Hobbit film trilogy

The Hobbit trilogy has been meeting some backlash, of which the love story between Kili and Tauriel is one of the most criticised aspects. But still I think it is a good canon addition to the story. I enjoy the part and do find chemistry and genuine romance under the great performances of the casts.

Many argued that the love story is never related or mentioned in the book. It doesn’t help with escalating the journey and being forced. But I think this is a feasible way on giving more depth over the dwarves’s characters. Fili and Kili are only described as young and more energetic comparing with other dwarves in the book, but I like the idea of them sharing brotherly affection, with Kili, the youngest companion, is flirtatious and sentiment, a main characteristic of adolescence, that’s why his story with Tauriel supports his role in the story. Not to mention that it also supports the character depth of Thranduil and Legolas too if you watch carefully.

People also called it “forced”, because they fall in love within days. But this has been happening in many Disney movies and traditional folktales, stories from Andersen and the Brothers Grimm. It happens even to Thingol and Melian, Beren and Luthien - a great non-toxic example of a stalker and the stalked target being in utter love the moment when they see each other. I don’t see why Kili and Tauriel are a problem.

Lastly, some said that a love story between an elf and a dwarf will never happen in Tolkien’s works, that’s why it is forced in the movies. Yes, this is probably true, but why not let it canon? We can see it in this way - anything could have happened to the race of elf, men and dwarves within the past hundred and thousands of years they’ve been through.

My family actually enjoy the love arc and doesn’t find it clumsy or cringe, and do feel the chemistry laid by the two amazing actor and actress. The moment Kili dies and Tauriel weeping also touched my heart too.

I’m just sharing my opinion on a movie. Please don’t take it seriously because it’s fine to have our own views.

The beauty of The first LOTR was that it fits so perfectly with the Hobbit movies. But the first movie always made me confused. Like what did Bilbo do in his quest? How was his encounter with the dragon that Gandalf mentions so briefly? Why is Gandalf called the disturber of the peace? Balin's death was very much ignored by me because i didn't even know him. And after watching the prequels I felt sad knowing that died in the Fellowship movie. So anyway... I watched the Hobbit trilogy again and now starting the Original trilogy so I felt I did the right thing.

What did you think were the worst and best changes that the movies made (LOTR or Hobbit, either of them)?

For me the worst change was probably the ignorance of the Ents.

The best... that's a bit more tricky, but I think the Paths of the Dead were a bit too 'meh' and confusing and anticlimactic in the book. I like that they made them a bit more exiting (though I think they should have kept them a bit more accurate)

sauron doesn't have a big role in the hobbit book ( i guess he is just mentioned briefly as the necromancer ) but in the 3 movies he has a big role that i don't really understand?

why did he want to attack the lonely mountain?

why he didn't want the dwarves to take back erebor?

did he want to make smaug his ally or he wanted the gold or the king stone or something else in there ?

it is not like this in the book so i cant understand his point in the movies ?

( ps: i didnt read nor watch the LOTR books/movies so if spoilers are necessary warn me please)