I support you Radagast. Black Breathalizer is wrong on his aproach on adapting a book to film, and certainly on why the movie should be as he says it should. Many of the people who admire the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films, hadn´t read the books, and of course they are amazed by the story and its elements, and by the visual creations that the filmakers achieveed.
However, the book that Tolkien wrote carried a huge potential for being adapted into a film. The power that the book had, established a level for what the films should achieve.
The films can be seen as a big achievement, but that doesn´t mean that they reached the level that the books established.
The movies can be good, but that´s not enough, as they must be as good as the books.
That does not mean that the films should have exactly the same story, narrative, dialoge and scenes that the book has, but it must express what Tolkien wrote.

The Hobbit: Quest for the Arkenstone
The Hobbit: Quest for More Money

"There" and "Back"

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Party
The Hobbit: There and Back Again

ok, i'm sorry Radagast dude but if you hate these movies so much then go make your own damn lord of the rings trilogy that is EXACTLY like the books. OH WAIT! you can't because you don't have several trillion dollars lying around. Geez, have some open-minded appreciation for art maybe. I personally think the movies were awesome, stunning visuals and a great cast not to mention the awesome scoring. If you can't appreciate the time and effort spent on such a brilliant epic then I suggest you go seriously rethink your life.

The Hobbit: There and Back Again

for the first movie, I dunno about the second, I haven't buffed up enough on my middle earth history during that period.

The Hobbit: Journey to the Lonely Mountain

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens were huge fans of the books. They made these films from the heart. Tolkien purists who criticize the films simply don't know anything about adapting a novel to the big screen.

i meant that it would take longer to film and create although it probably would add an extra half an hour. and yes, it would be a much better and more respected trilogy. and the exchange of loss of money would be made up by the fact that it was better.

and there is the difference. people can either do a better job on something and do it from their heart and not make as much money or they can do a passable job and make more money. and yes, i'm saying the movies were passable

It would have taken “a little longer”?!?!!?!?

Great point. A theatrical release of OVER THREE HOURS per movie wasn't butt-numbing enough for the audience.

It would have “a little less profitable”!??!??!?!

Yeah, why don't more filmmakers deliberately make films that earn them LESS MONEY!!!!

But it would have been “much more respectable”???

Yeah, all the critical acclaim and Academy Awards that Jackson and Company received meant nothing.

The LoTR movies did NOT capture the spirit of the books at all. And a really good director could have done it. It would have maybe taken a little longer and been a little less profitable, but it would have been much more respectable in my opinion

Like the LOTR, I want two Hobbit films that capture the SPIRIT of the book. If we learned anything from Jackson's LOTR films, it's that the realities of filmmaking make a "Tolkien Purist Approved" adaptation of the book next-to-impossible.

and i DO want a faithful recreation of Tolkien's story.. if that's not what it's going to be then they shouldn't call it the hobbit or promote it in any way as being Tolkien's, because Tolkien will be way better if they can't stick to his story

I don't see anything wrong with it being cloudy... the story is told from bilbo's perspective and he wouldn't be worried about such a thing

Radagast, we’re not discussing any revision to Tolkien’s classic fairy tale, we’re talking about how to make the most dramatic film possible.

Having a “vague and cloudy” sense of the quest’s ultimate goal was okay for the book but, in my humble opinion, it is certainly NOT a good idea for the films. It would be akin to Brock Lovett and his team of treasure hunters searching the RMS Titanic for a vague sense of “treasure” instead of looking for the most amazing blue diamond ever known, “The Heart of the Ocean.” The jewel gave their quest "pizazz" and gave the writers an opportunity to convey how worthless a priceless jewel can become when compared to the tragic loss of human life that occurred when the Titanic sank.

Throughout the story the treasure is separate from the adventure until the last few chapters (the story is called "There and Back Again" not the quest for a treasure or anything of the sort). It is the goal of the party but it is vague and cloudy. It is something they want very much, but since the story is told from Bilbo's point of view, it is forgotten and put into the back of his mind after their first dangerous adventure. Even if the arkenstone had been mentioned, Bilbo would not have cared about it until they found the treasure. So it seems fitting that he recognizes it then since he is their burglar that is when he would begin to think of such things and when they would tell him exactly what they wanted. Also, they did not trust Bilbo until they were in Mirkwood and since they were in no mind to talk about treasure then, they would not have told him.

One other thing, the movie will also include Gandalf's doings and he was not concerned at all with the arkenstone. As is revealed in a chapter from "Unfinished Tales" he is merely looking for a way of possibly disposing of smaug to free those lands and keep Sauron from attacking the north and being successful.

“I don’t think the Arkenstone should be used that way”

Why?

If Tolkien felt compelled to add the Arkenstone into the equation once the party got to the Lonely Mountain, it would be silly not to use it for dramatic effect at the beginning of the film. Tolkien would likely have done so himself if he had thought of the Arkenstone at the time he was writing the early chapters.

The Hobbit 1
The Hobbit 2 - Electric Boogaloo

Only joking

The Hobbit 1
the Hobbit 2

i don't think the arkenstone should be used int that way... it gives the story too much purpose for what is wanted after they get there... it seemed to me throughout the book that the focus was merely on getting there and there was no purpose for the treasure once they were there.. it is even stated that they never really had a plan for the treasure

The Hobbit: The Quest if Erebor

The Hobbit: The Looming Shadow