fadedpsychosis wrote:alright then... from the top
first off, Legolas never had a part in the Hobbit. The best that could be said is that he IS the son of Thranduil (the elven king of that area) so he was most likely present... but not once was he mentioned until he shows up at Elrond's place in LotR.
It's true that we never meet Legolas in the book, but according to the timeline he was definitely around during that time. So I don't have any problem with that; it makes sense that he
should have been in the book.
As for your other criticisms, I agree. The dwarves are too bumbling, the elves are too superhuman. Legolas is too prominent. Fights are not only drawn out endlessly, but fights that were never in the book have been added, and of course Legolas has to be at almost every one. All valid criticisms, and yet I found that it wasn't as flawed as the first movie.
For the first time, I found that Jackson's alterations to the plot actually enhanced, rather than diminished, Tolkien's work. I've already noted in my OP that I think the addition of a female character and a love subplot was something that brings balance to the movie. The whole political-revolution-in-Lake-Town subplot, while not canon Tolkien, is definitely building on an undercurrent that was already there in the book. The scenes in Dol Goldur are likewise building correctly on things that in the books were only mentioned in passing.
Overall, not the movie I would have made if it was up to me, but given the constraints of what it takes to be successful in Hollywood, I think it's a reasonably good job.
