You're an idiot. Just putting that out there.

You obviously haven't read the book. Like the hate though, making yourself look really good.

you are right
but I think it's fair to assume more ppl saw the movies than read the books

He's obviously either read or been told the fact that Tolkien had other literature. I'd love for him to explain to me what he's read and how he feels it fits into The Hobbit. Instead of the pretentious rabblerabble he pipes up with.

The Hobbit is technically a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, it is very much its own stand-alone entity, and deserves to be treated this way, In book Bilbo goes on an adventure to help reclaim The Lonely Mountain, during which he discovers his true mettle. That’s it. Done.

All plot analysis aside the movie is still horrible

Let us ignore the side stories for a minute and look at the main plot. What is different from the books in a way which actually matters? The dwarves show up differently, not a huge deal. Bilbo doesnt have his cloak, kind of lame but still no big deal. Gandalf announces his leave instead of juat vanishing like in the books, a fine change for movie purposes. The ogres are handled a little differently but the changes had no influence on the story and added some light hearted fun, which is at its core what the hobbit is all about. The interaction between the dwarves and elves of Rivendell was mixed up a bit, but it had to be to push the story forward. The group was put in the middle of the giant moving rock people instead of watching from a distance, this was done for excitement. The entire goblin scene was more or less the same, the wargs end up running the group down, with the major change of azog or whatever being alive instead of dead, this still happened in the book. The ending with the eagles was changed from the eagles flying overhead and talking then seeing the trouble and saving the group to Gandalf summoning them. A sad change but taking out a 5 minute scene with the eagles talking is understandable as it was already decided when making the lotr movies that the eagles dont talk.

Movie 2 had even less changes. The major ones being the female elf being added and the barrel scene being much more action packed, as in the book the dwarves were sealed inside the barrels. And if you want to say Legolas was not in the hobbit then you are dense. He was never mentioned by name because he didn't exist fully in writing yet. But as the son of Thrandull it is very likely that he was in the story as one of the woodland elves.

Major changes so far:
Azog is alive and hunting the dwarves instead of his son.
Female elf
Random misc changes with how scenes played out to make them better for a film.
No talking eagles.

Yeah it sure isn't The Hobbit.

As for callimg it a bad movie, if you look at it in terms of 3 separate stand alone movies like you can LotR then of course its bad, it is only 1/3rd of the story. If you take a second to see it big picture then you will realize it is going to be a pretty epic 3-part single movie once it is all done.

Unexpected Journey was part 1 it handled the Exposition and some of the rising action.
Desolation of Smaug was part 2 it handled the rest of the rising action and ended at the arguable climax.
Part 3 will be the rest of the climax, the falling action, resolution and conclusion.

One movie, three parts.

I agree with this post.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you looked up differences from the book/movie without actually reading it yourself. The differences are insane and the second movie is a constant reminder of that. It's a good movie for what it is, it doesn't follow anything other than the skeleton of the plot. Bilbo's obsession with the ring is a good reminder of that. Or how about Gandalf? I totally remember him being an unsure old man who was always hesitant with everything.... seems like how he was portrayed in the hobbit lol. They even made Beorn seem lame... how the fuck do you do that?

It's a decent watch, it's just disappointing if you actually know (instead of talking out your ass) how much potential it had.

I have actually read all the books not to mention have spent hours on the lotr wikia. The lotr movies changed A LOT more than the hobbit movies have, yet you aren't bitching about that, neither are you showing that you have actually read the books at all other than just saying "oh yeah hurm I read the books yep yup"

Everything I post is from memory of both the book and movies.

Now unless you have something productive to say (Your last few posts have just been telling me I haven't read the books, sif I wouldn't know if I have or not) then begone, peon.

@ bolded. LOL thats your opinion, random misc changes make it a better film hahaha - One does not simply, re-write Tolkien literature.

I've been here too, we can all search the internet and pretend we are well articulated film critics. but...

http://www.theonering.com/complete-list-of-film-changes/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey
http://www.theonering.com/complete-list-of-film-changes/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug

lets not pretend any different blah, you're full of sh*t

As stated before, all plot arguments aside, the movie was still terrible. (as a movie, stand alone movie, not the plot, not the adaptations, the movie, was, sh*t) terrible.

'An unexpected journey' was ok and i enjoyed it

This is terrible

now go find another fanpage to to plagiarize

Hate to make you look like an idiot, but when adapting a book to film not all scenes can play out 100% accurately, leeway has to be given in the translation as things written can have much more detail than when watched, yes there were random misc changes to make the scenes better for film purposes, those changes literally had zero effect on anything other than audience experience.



Just because you had to look up the changes in the movie doesn't mean I had to. Unlike you I have actually read The Hobbit, and all of the LotR books.



Seems you weren't able to keep your attention on one thing long enough to read my entire post so I will restate it.

Movie is not terrible because it is not meant to be a stand-alone film, it is 1/3 of the story.

If it was supposed to be stand-alone I would agree it leaves something to be desired, but it isn't and it doesn't.

This post was edited by Blah58 on Jan 3 2014 07:12am