one of these days I might actually write up something for my website about why the Peter Jackson LOTR films rubbed me very much the wrong way, and also using that as a vehicle for reexamining the books and talking about what about them still works for me and what doesn't. I'm not nearly the Tolkien fan I used to be, but LOTR _was_ my "Undertale" for a while, the popular work that woke something up inside me that I hadn't felt before.
@kara_dreamer I figure; he tries to make it all "charming" comic relief, cool visuals or pulse-pounding action. And Tolkien's originals are more poetic, gentle and slower paced.
LotR is story heavy and that kinda keeps him in line but Hobbit is maybe 4 hours of movie expanded to 9, so it's subject to his worst excesses.
@Leucrotta I was thinking just now of a particular moment that really emphasizes the jarring disparity between Tolkien's quietness (his best moments usually are his quiet ones) and Jackson's loudness, and that's when Frodo accepts the burden of the Ring at the Council of Elrond. In the original, Frodo makes the decision at a moment when it seems that everyone else at the Council is sunk in thought, at a loss for what to say or do. Someone needs to act, and Frodo decides it should be himself. Jackson instead fabricated a ridiculous argument so that Frodo could holler, "Okay, okay, I'll do it already!!" to shut everyone up.
@Leucrotta It ties in with Jackson's decision to handle the Ring's influence in a manner completely devoid of subtlety, a hamfisted approach he announces in the first five minutes of the film and cements with his mishandling of the fight between Bilbo and Gandalf over the disposition of the Ring. What should have been merely "disquieting" to Gandalf, a sign that something was wrong, is turned into something out of "The Exorcist", only with less vomiting of pea soup.