Does reading the book make you prefer the films?

Rating: 9/10 (10 December 2013)

When the Harry Potter films first came out I never read any of the books, to be truthful I didn't read any books, but my partner was a massive Harry Potter geek and was slowly more and more disappointed by the film adaptations of the books. She still loved the films wholesomely but craved for the films to impart more details and more depth in some of the later larger books. When I heard they were making the Hobbit (the first book I have ever read with such intrigue and joy that it made me take up reading a whole lot more) I was excited to see that it was going to be a trilogy. Although the book may be a little thin for 9 hours worth of filming, there is certainly enough details and enough characteristics in which they can make more than a standard 2 hour feature film. I wasn't disappointed with the first film's length or depth of characters or attention to detail, in fact they even added more that the books worth in Radagast (who was only mentioned in Hobbit). I also liked the beginning with a cameo of Frodo and Old Bilbo, and the inclusion of Saruman and Galadriel at Rivendale. This film had all that was needed to be a perfect 10 Blockbuster and genuinely bring the world I had imagined by reading the book to life, however they failed by making stupid decision to bring a bit more "humour" to the film where it was not needed. The Great Goblin under the mountain was far too camp to be a Goblin.....Goblins are hate-filled putrid beings that live in darkness and squalor.....they don't prance around singing show tunes! there were a few other little "comedic" additions to which I never found in the book, but they were minuscule to the abomination of the goblin king! I hope they keep true to the book in the rest of the films, and don't make it too fairytale-esque!