Once upon a time Tolkien forbid Disney to make a movie of his books, because he knew that they heavily alter the storyline for their movies. But Disney is just a part of Hollywood. As we have seen from "The Hobbit Trilogy" thus far, Warner Brothers and Hollywood in general is capable of doing exactly the same. Different studio, same old story of altering the original storylines.
I do realize that books and movies are different things and work in a different way, but at least Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was more accurate despite the rewritten scenes. Would The Hobbit Trilogy have been more true to the book if New Line Cinema which made LotR films would have been in charge? Most likely we'll never find out.
I'll give an excerpt from Christopher Tolkien's interview from Le Monde:
Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."
Does this mean that Christopher thinks that it's too late to save the Hobbit and Lotr for now? At least he will protect The Silmarillion from any commercial movie and game adaptations, and that's a relief of a measure.
Hollywood used to be able to make good movies without a mandatory plot of action and romance seen ever so often now a days, offering something more than just entertainment - food for thought. One of the shining examples of such era was Charles Chaplin, and he was one among the intelligent directors who Hollywood got rid of. Whether they did it for politics, money or both is being sometimes speculated.
It saddens me that I've seen people discussing about the "lore" in movies, meaning the "movie lore". For me the book lore is the true and only Tolkien lore and for this, I would not call the "movie lore" as a lore at all. It's a different thing to write an original lore than to rewrite or modify the lore of someone who worked on it through his whole life. It's misinformation, but what saddens me even more is that some of the people now give their blessing to Jackson to change the key parts of the book when they know what happens in the book.
I heard many people having fun in the theatre while I saw the movie, but after I see the movies having such an impact, I can't help but thinking "Jackson, what have you done"? On the other hand, some of the ideas were also Guillermo del Toro's - axe on Bifur's head at least is, being a pun of "bifurcated". The duo has been making Dwarf jokes so diligently that it's almost hard to believe that they are the same folks who once built Khazad-Dûm.
I doubt whether Jackson and del Toro even try to appeal to the book readers any longer, as long as WB and MGM get their share of money, and this swap of audience sometimes shows. I have seen the two first movies once, but would I go see the third one? Honestly, I really don't know anymore if it's worth it. I fear that I might get shocked even more than thus far.
And even if a movie fails in being faithful to the storyline and it's thought, it's not the end of the world. We still have our own creativity to expand Middle-Earth and Aman with - and that was also a part of J.R.R.'s vision. Seeing your original visions in art is most welcome.