|
On December 17 2012 08:13 Kickboxer wrote:
Lifelong J.R.R.T. fan, I really loved the movie.
In my book Jackson is one of the few directors who managed not to shit on his literary conversions.
These are my thoughts almost exactly. I used to take LOTR and its related works incredibly seriously, and I found The Hobbit to be very satisfying, though I of course have my complaints. I did not particularly enjoy the silly take on Radagast, as I've always imagined him as a rather stern guardian Maiar of nature, and when reading The Hobbit I did not consider Thorin nearly as assholish as he was portrayed. I do really like how Jackson stayed true to the children's story style of the work, and the songs were very well done considering how difficult implementing such things can be. Honestly, I don't really care for the opinions of anyone who hasn't read the book, as I consider anything Tolkien-related necessarily beholden to literature in its base. I'd say 8/10.
|
On December 17 2012 08:31 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:49 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 17 2012 05:13 Bevan wrote:On December 17 2012 04:19 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 17 2012 03:38 Patpoose wrote:On December 17 2012 03:24 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Not really The Hobbit at all, really. More of "Tangentially related to The Hobbit", or "Borrowed the same basic plot structure of The Hobbit, but changes a bunch of stuff and ruins it". The (incomplete) list of differences! + Show Spoiler +
1. Everyone already knows about Bilbo's adventure by the time The Lord of the Rings takes place.
2.The reason the dwarves dislike the elves has nothing to do with Smaug's appearance, and goes back to the events of The Silmarillion
3. Bilbo agrees to go on the journey the night before, not decides to do so that morning.
4. Radagast makes no appearance in The Hobbit
5. The night before the Troll encounter, it's freezing cold/raining and they can't start a fire, that's what brings them to the Trolls camp, not stolen ponies. They don't lose their ponies until the Mountains.
6. Azog died looooong before the events of The Hobbit.
7. It was Gandalf, not Bilbo, who got the Trolls to keep arguing.
8. They're not attacked by orcs, goblins, or anything like that before Rivendell.
9. The meetings of The White Council are never described in the book.
10. The Witch-King of Angmar never dies. He runs away defeated, but he does not die.
11. Gandalf leaves with them from Rivendell
12. The back of the cave, not the bottom, opens up. This is where the ponies get stolen, and Gandalf disappears (in a flash of firey light).
13. Bilbo does not get lost until the Dwarves are rescued by Gandalf from the Great Goblin.
14. (Not a plot problem, but a filming gripe. Peter Jackson realizes how dark it is in caves, right? There's a reason all Bilbo could see was Gollum's eyes, except by the light of Sting).
15. The back door is guarded by goblins when Bilbo and Gollum get there. Bilbo jumps over Gollum before this point, and Gandalf and co. escape much earlier.
16. This is where Bilbo gets stuck in the crevice. The Goblins, not Gollum, see his shadow in the sunlight (weakness of the ring), and are coming after him when he loses all his buttons.
17. The Dwarves have already set up camp when Bilbo reaches them.
18. The marauding wargs and Goblins arrive separately, and are there as a simple raiding party (not specifically chasing Thorin). As mentioned previously, Azog is already dead.
19. Thorin doesn't charge the marauding Goblins.
20. The tree doesn't fall over.
21. The Goblins use the fire to start setting the tree they're in on fire, not stand back until Thorin runs stupidly at them.
22. Thorin doesn't run stupidly at the Goblins
23. Thus, Bilbo doesn't save his life.
24. Gandalf doesn't summon the Eagles, they just sort of appear.
25. The Eagles take them all back to they're Eyrie before dropping them off at the Carrack.
Most, if not all of these are completely stupid to be complaining about. They left the main story completely intact from the book. I thought the movie was excellent. Yes, it did have some slow parts in it but so did the book. Overall a excellent movie and a excellent depiction of the book. The only thing I didn't like was the Radagast segment. I like the inclusion of the Necromancer and liked the White Council meeting but the Radagast scene(s) I didn't care for. I can understand the Necromance and White Council segments; it's a bit odd to just shove them in at the end in a movie. But the others are just laziness and/or bad decision making. The plot doesn't gain anything from having Azog charging around like a maniac, and it ruins it for people who actually enjoy the original mythos. I think it's silly, and while they maintain the same basic structure they managed to turn a book with depth and meaning into something trite and rather disappointing. If your primary desire is to experience the exact sequence of events from the written form of the Hobbit with no deviations, or concessions or changes to fit the different strengths and weaknesses of a movie, why didn't you just re-read it? Not a single one of the changes you listed has a meaningful impact on the story in any way, and most of them are just complaining about change for the sake of it. I mean, the original LotR trilogy had changes that completely changed characters and motivations, and I can understand complaints about those. In the Hobbit they're alterations of specific details while keeping the tome and plot faithful to the book - in what way does that "ruin" anything? If they don't significantly alter the story, then why not do it right? And you'll note, of course, that several of the changes do significantly alter the story, namely 4 and 6. It would have been a decent film in its own right, but I'm not quite sure how they got it from reading The Hobbit. They have to alter the story somewhat to fit the medium of film. They also have to assume that the audience hasn't read the book. As well as that, there are things which happened in the LotR films which it makes sense to remain consistent with for simplicity's sake (e.g. Gandalf 'summoning' the Eagles). I could give you 4 and 6, but the basic shape of the plot remains the same with or without Azog/Radagast. The Hobbit would still be more or less the same story had Tolkien decided to remove Azog entirely, or never mention Radagast. They're interesting details for a Tolkien buff or avid reader, but at the end of the day they're so far removed from the main arch of the story that it really doesn't matter. The rest of your complaints are so pathetic that it makes me wonder what you even expected when you went to see the film. Like that other guy said, why didn't you just re-read The Hobbit?
For me, it is was just kind of jolting to see the story arc shifted so drastically towards Thorin as a main character (with the creation of Azog as his personal antagonist throughout the story, his final charge and Bilbo saving him, etc.). The story was much less Bilbo's journey towards slowly becoming a badass, and much more Bilbo telling Thorin's tale, then it was in the book. However, that's okay. It was just different, and I had to get used to it. Also I saw it in 3D which was awful.
Oh and Bilbo became a bit too badass a bit to quickly in my opinion. I would have perferred them to still think light of him until Mirkwood and the events there...which I won't spoil but you know what I'm talking about.
|
On December 17 2012 07:49 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 05:13 Bevan wrote:On December 17 2012 04:19 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 17 2012 03:38 Patpoose wrote:On December 17 2012 03:24 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Not really The Hobbit at all, really. More of "Tangentially related to The Hobbit", or "Borrowed the same basic plot structure of The Hobbit, but changes a bunch of stuff and ruins it". The (incomplete) list of differences! + Show Spoiler +
1. Everyone already knows about Bilbo's adventure by the time The Lord of the Rings takes place.
2.The reason the dwarves dislike the elves has nothing to do with Smaug's appearance, and goes back to the events of The Silmarillion
3. Bilbo agrees to go on the journey the night before, not decides to do so that morning.
4. Radagast makes no appearance in The Hobbit
5. The night before the Troll encounter, it's freezing cold/raining and they can't start a fire, that's what brings them to the Trolls camp, not stolen ponies. They don't lose their ponies until the Mountains.
6. Azog died looooong before the events of The Hobbit.
7. It was Gandalf, not Bilbo, who got the Trolls to keep arguing.
8. They're not attacked by orcs, goblins, or anything like that before Rivendell.
9. The meetings of The White Council are never described in the book.
10. The Witch-King of Angmar never dies. He runs away defeated, but he does not die.
11. Gandalf leaves with them from Rivendell
12. The back of the cave, not the bottom, opens up. This is where the ponies get stolen, and Gandalf disappears (in a flash of firey light).
13. Bilbo does not get lost until the Dwarves are rescued by Gandalf from the Great Goblin.
14. (Not a plot problem, but a filming gripe. Peter Jackson realizes how dark it is in caves, right? There's a reason all Bilbo could see was Gollum's eyes, except by the light of Sting).
15. The back door is guarded by goblins when Bilbo and Gollum get there. Bilbo jumps over Gollum before this point, and Gandalf and co. escape much earlier.
16. This is where Bilbo gets stuck in the crevice. The Goblins, not Gollum, see his shadow in the sunlight (weakness of the ring), and are coming after him when he loses all his buttons.
17. The Dwarves have already set up camp when Bilbo reaches them.
18. The marauding wargs and Goblins arrive separately, and are there as a simple raiding party (not specifically chasing Thorin). As mentioned previously, Azog is already dead.
19. Thorin doesn't charge the marauding Goblins.
20. The tree doesn't fall over.
21. The Goblins use the fire to start setting the tree they're in on fire, not stand back until Thorin runs stupidly at them.
22. Thorin doesn't run stupidly at the Goblins
23. Thus, Bilbo doesn't save his life.
24. Gandalf doesn't summon the Eagles, they just sort of appear.
25. The Eagles take them all back to they're Eyrie before dropping them off at the Carrack.
Most, if not all of these are completely stupid to be complaining about. They left the main story completely intact from the book. I thought the movie was excellent. Yes, it did have some slow parts in it but so did the book. Overall a excellent movie and a excellent depiction of the book. The only thing I didn't like was the Radagast segment. I like the inclusion of the Necromancer and liked the White Council meeting but the Radagast scene(s) I didn't care for. I can understand the Necromance and White Council segments; it's a bit odd to just shove them in at the end in a movie. But the others are just laziness and/or bad decision making. The plot doesn't gain anything from having Azog charging around like a maniac, and it ruins it for people who actually enjoy the original mythos. I think it's silly, and while they maintain the same basic structure they managed to turn a book with depth and meaning into something trite and rather disappointing. If your primary desire is to experience the exact sequence of events from the written form of the Hobbit with no deviations, or concessions or changes to fit the different strengths and weaknesses of a movie, why didn't you just re-read it? Not a single one of the changes you listed has a meaningful impact on the story in any way, and most of them are just complaining about change for the sake of it. I mean, the original LotR trilogy had changes that completely changed characters and motivations, and I can understand complaints about those. In the Hobbit they're alterations of specific details while keeping the tome and plot faithful to the book - in what way does that "ruin" anything? If they don't significantly alter the story, then why not do it right? And you'll note, of course, that several of the changes do significantly alter the story, namely 4 and 6. It would have been a decent film in its own right, but I'm not quite sure how they got it from reading The Hobbit.
Just to pop in. I'm a lifelong fan too -as probably many- and got back from cinema like, 20 minutes ago. I liked it, and I thought that while some scenes were too childish (although many adults around were laughing at it too, I disliked them personally) Jackson changed for the better. You have to admit that different mediums require some altering, and I wouldn't say that he did a single change just because of "artistic freedom of reinterpretation", or whatever. The movie would have been dead sloppy by the middle if not for a chasing orc, with some grudge - which also strenghtens the background of a main character, who would have otherwise faced the danger of being just ensemble, like the many others. (And while I could argue that it would fit the original source better, if they would have chosen to do so, we would see people bitching here for not being able to sympathetise with any of the dwarves at all since "Jackson left them so bland", etc.)
I would give it a strong 8 out of a 10.
|
I really enjoyed this movie. The storyline is great and for LOTR fans it certainly won't disappoint. Remember there's a lot more to come in the next two installments.
|
I think this is the best possible outcome for the movie given that he committed to a trilogy. However I still think the story and movies would have been a lot tighter and better if he restricted himself to 2 movies instead of 3. There were definitely some parts that were way overextended and were scenes that you'd normally see in an extended cut dvd.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Why didn't the eagles just carry the dwarves to the Lonely Mountain?
+ Show Spoiler +The correct answer is that the Lonely Mountain is something like a quarter of the way across the world, which is why that last shot didn't make any sense. Enjoyed the movie otherwise, but that last shot created a huge plot hole.
|
Just saw for the first time. Movie itself was good, if not incredible - felt drawn out.
3D was horrifying bad. Made everything in focus look like paper pop-ups from a children's book, which ironically created an exaggerated 2D effect moreso than anything else. Hurt the cinematic experience very badly.
Would recommend seeing - just not in 3D.
|
On December 17 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:13 Kickboxer wrote:
Lifelong J.R.R.T. fan, I really loved the movie.
In my book Jackson is one of the few directors who managed not to shit on his literary conversions. These are my thoughts almost exactly. I used to take LOTR and its related works incredibly seriously, and I found The Hobbit to be very satisfying, though I of course have my complaints. I did not particularly enjoy the silly take on Radagast, as I've always imagined him as a rather stern guardian Maiar of nature, and when reading The Hobbit I did not consider Thorin nearly as assholish as he was portrayed. I do really like how Jackson stayed true to the children's story style of the work, and the songs were very well done considering how difficult implementing such things can be. Honestly, I don't really care for the opinions of anyone who hasn't read the book, as I consider anything Tolkien-related necessarily beholden to literature in its base. I'd say 8/10.
Thorin is a complete asshole in the books, though, even if the revelation of such is really only clear after the
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Canada11369 Posts
I had only thought of Bilblo's story arc that got hurried, but you're right that also speeds up Thorin's arc as well. Is it going to be a relapse in the third? I do like how they already established gold sickness right from the beginning.
On a sidenote, is it necessary to worry about spoilers for a 75 year old book? This is more a musing more than anything else as I hadn't really thought of it.
|
I thought the movie was freaking amazing. I loved all 3 LOTR movies and this one did not disappoint at all.
Go watch something else if you want it to be realistic jesus christ. There are dwarves, hobbits, elves, wizards but damnit trolls being able to talk ruined the movie for me way too unrealistic.
|
Just watched it and thought it was pretty nice.
|
On December 17 2012 10:16 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 08:13 Kickboxer wrote:
Lifelong J.R.R.T. fan, I really loved the movie.
In my book Jackson is one of the few directors who managed not to shit on his literary conversions. These are my thoughts almost exactly. I used to take LOTR and its related works incredibly seriously, and I found The Hobbit to be very satisfying, though I of course have my complaints. I did not particularly enjoy the silly take on Radagast, as I've always imagined him as a rather stern guardian Maiar of nature, and when reading The Hobbit I did not consider Thorin nearly as assholish as he was portrayed. I do really like how Jackson stayed true to the children's story style of the work, and the songs were very well done considering how difficult implementing such things can be. Honestly, I don't really care for the opinions of anyone who hasn't read the book, as I consider anything Tolkien-related necessarily beholden to literature in its base. I'd say 8/10. Thorin is a complete asshole in the books, though, even if the revelation of such is really only clear after the + Show Spoiler +
No, he's proud throughout the whole book, from when he enters the door and Bombur lands on top of him (pray don't mention it), to his golden jewelry, to his announcing himself with gravitas whenever he enters. But in the tolkien world, he deserves it, kind of like how Aragorn had this habit of breaking out kingly poses all the time.
And Balin's really really old, a most decrepit old dwarf, to whoever thought he should have grey hair.
|
On December 17 2012 10:33 Falling wrote:
I had only thought of Bilblo's story arc that got hurried, but you're right that also speeds up Thorin's arc as well. Is it going to be a relapse in the third? I do like how they already established gold sickness right from the beginning.
On a sidenote, is it necessary to worry about spoilers for a 75 year old book? This is more a musing more than anything else as I hadn't really thought of it.
I think it's fine to worry about spoilers that are part of the next movies. People that didn't read the book may want to avoid them.
|
man, people are overly critical of the smallest things. This movie was great
|
I was disappointed. The beginning was too drawn out and then action at the end just kept to go on and on.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On December 17 2012 10:48 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 10:16 Praetorial wrote:On December 17 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 08:13 Kickboxer wrote:
Lifelong J.R.R.T. fan, I really loved the movie.
In my book Jackson is one of the few directors who managed not to shit on his literary conversions. These are my thoughts almost exactly. I used to take LOTR and its related works incredibly seriously, and I found The Hobbit to be very satisfying, though I of course have my complaints. I did not particularly enjoy the silly take on Radagast, as I've always imagined him as a rather stern guardian Maiar of nature, and when reading The Hobbit I did not consider Thorin nearly as assholish as he was portrayed. I do really like how Jackson stayed true to the children's story style of the work, and the songs were very well done considering how difficult implementing such things can be. Honestly, I don't really care for the opinions of anyone who hasn't read the book, as I consider anything Tolkien-related necessarily beholden to literature in its base. I'd say 8/10. Thorin is a complete asshole in the books, though, even if the revelation of such is really only clear after the + Show Spoiler + No, he's proud throughout the whole book, from when he enters the door and Bombur lands on top of him (pray don't mention it), to his golden jewelry, to his announcing himself with gravitas whenever he enters. But in the tolkien world, he deserves it, kind of like how Aragorn had this habit of breaking out kingly poses all the time. And Balin's really really old, a most decrepit old dwarf, to whoever thought he should have grey hair.
Are you talking about the book? Because Thorin was actually the eldest of the 13 dwarves. But I don't mind the change of making Balin the wise counsellor and making Thorin younger for a more hero's arc. They did the same thing with Frodo.
|
Saw it in Imax 3D 48 images per second.
My comments:
+ Show Spoiler +Very disappointing movie.
I was going there with The Lord of the Rings trilogy in mind, the Hobbit might have been a decent movie For someone who never saw the previous trilogy and never really heard of Tolkien fantasy before. As a generic fantasy movie I would have said, ok, its not that bad.
But for the Hobbit?
No.
There was not a single memorable dialogue or interesting conversation in the entire movie. Was the best exchange of the movie that Cheesy Gandalf line with the philosophical music in the background and a zoom on his face :''True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare it''?
Lord of the ring was full of comic reliefs, clever sentences and comments. Here...nothing except some Hollywood Subpar caliber jokes.
Example: The goblin king surrounds the party and say something like ''what are you gonna do now you're trap'', gandalf cuts him in two and before dying he says ''this will do''. Is that the kind of line you except from The Tolkien world? What's next, memes? Oh yes i know....fucking rabbits replacing horses.
Then they fall and one of the dwarf says ''what worst could happen now'' big wink at the camera, then the Goblin King fall on them...Not very subtle my precious. It was much better done in Lord of the Ring.
Speaking Of camera, the shooting method was horrible. Much of the movie was made of face close-ups.
The fighting scenes were shot as if a dwarf in the melee had a camera on his shoulder, which caused you to barely see anything from happening. You had the painful impression it was all done in a studio.
And of course, as the Dwarf party is on an adventure into the unknown, showing immense panoramic of the whole surrounding wasn't very clever either. You aren't supposed to see the entire world while going in an adventure into the unknown.
Besides that a lot of things were wierd, the fluid hyper hd realistic filming gave you the impression to be watching actors acting in a play. It prevented immersion as you would often look at their play from the outside rather than feeling things flow naturally.
They also decided to put lots of Chain reaction events making things very unbelievable in the movie (goblin mine fight for example) which is contrary to what Tolkien wanted for his world. Not very realistic, not talking of the Stone Giants that are supposedly mythic because no one ever saw them but how would no one ever see them if they measured 1km Each.
The Enemy Boss they created was very empty, not a charismatic wizard like Saruman Who changes sides because power for him is what matters most, no, simply a Big Orc. The kind of Boss orc that you see five minutes and then dies.
Finally the worst in this movie was the repetitive pattern of action in the way things would happen, always with a situational music. Everything was predictable and sometimes overused (The eagles sigh...really, use them a third time?).
A lot of other things didn't fit in the Tolkien universe (like the mini Goblin scribe which comes Directly From Guillermo del Torro Labyrinth of Pan).
This Movie didn't have the inspiration of the Lord of the ring, even if it wasn't meant to be the same movie. It could have been perfect but this wasn't. And unfortunately I'm afraid lot of people will force themselves to like it and convinced themselves it wasn't that bad when in fact, it was.
|
On December 17 2012 11:03 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 10:48 igotmyown wrote:On December 17 2012 10:16 Praetorial wrote:On December 17 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 08:13 Kickboxer wrote:
Lifelong J.R.R.T. fan, I really loved the movie.
In my book Jackson is one of the few directors who managed not to shit on his literary conversions. These are my thoughts almost exactly. I used to take LOTR and its related works incredibly seriously, and I found The Hobbit to be very satisfying, though I of course have my complaints. I did not particularly enjoy the silly take on Radagast, as I've always imagined him as a rather stern guardian Maiar of nature, and when reading The Hobbit I did not consider Thorin nearly as assholish as he was portrayed. I do really like how Jackson stayed true to the children's story style of the work, and the songs were very well done considering how difficult implementing such things can be. Honestly, I don't really care for the opinions of anyone who hasn't read the book, as I consider anything Tolkien-related necessarily beholden to literature in its base. I'd say 8/10. Thorin is a complete asshole in the books, though, even if the revelation of such is really only clear after the + Show Spoiler + No, he's proud throughout the whole book, from when he enters the door and Bombur lands on top of him (pray don't mention it), to his golden jewelry, to his announcing himself with gravitas whenever he enters. But in the tolkien world, he deserves it, kind of like how Aragorn had this habit of breaking out kingly poses all the time. And Balin's really really old, a most decrepit old dwarf, to whoever thought he should have grey hair. Are you talking about the book? Because Thorin was actually the eldest of the 13 dwarves. But I don't mind the change of making Balin the wise counsellor and making Thorin younger for a more hero's arc. They did the same thing with Frodo.
Balin was described as way older than everyone else except Thorin (explicitly noted)
|
On December 17 2012 11:07 fofa2000 wrote:Saw it in Imax 3D 48 images per second. My comments: + Show Spoiler +Very disappointing movie.
I was going there with The Lord of the Rings trilogy in mind, the Hobbit might have been a decent movie For someone who never saw the previous trilogy and never really heard of Tolkien fantasy before. As a generic fantasy movie I would have said, ok, its not that bad.
But for the Hobbit?
No.
There was not a single memorable dialogue or interesting conversation in the entire movie. Was the best exchange of the movie that Cheesy Gandalf line with the philosophical music in the background and a zoom on his face :''True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare it''?
Lord of the ring was full of comic reliefs, clever sentences and comments. Here...nothing except some Hollywood Subpar caliber jokes.
Example: The goblin king surrounds the party and say something like ''what are you gonna do now you're trap'', gandalf cuts him in two and before dying he says ''this will do''. Is that the kind of line you except from The Tolkien world? What's next, memes? Oh yes i know....fucking rabbits replacing horses.
Then they fall and one of the dwarf says ''what worst could happen now'' big wink at the camera, then the Goblin King fall on them...Not very subtle my precious. It was much better done in Lord of the Ring.
Speaking Of camera, the shooting method was horrible. Much of the movie was made of face close-ups.
The fighting scenes were shot as if a dwarf in the melee had a camera on his shoulder, which caused you to barely see anything from happening. You had the painful impression it was all done in a studio.
And of course, as the Dwarf party is on an adventure into the unknown, showing immense panoramic of the whole surrounding wasn't very clever either. You aren't supposed to see the entire world while going in an adventure into the unknown.
Besides that a lot of things were wierd, the fluid hyper hd realistic filming gave you the impression to be watching actors acting in a play. It prevented immersion as you would often look at their play from the outside rather than feeling things flow naturally.
They also decided to put lots of Chain reaction events making things very unbelievable in the movie (goblin mine fight for example) which is contrary to what Tolkien wanted for his world. Not very realistic, not talking of the Stone Giants that are supposedly mythic because no one ever saw them but how would no one ever see them if they measured 1km Each.
The Enemy Boss they created was very empty, not a charismatic wizard like Saruman Who changes sides because power for him is what matters most, no, simply a Big Orc. The kind of Boss orc that you see five minutes and then dies.
Finally the worst in this movie was the repetitive pattern of action in the way things would happen, always with a situational music. Everything was predictable and sometimes overused (The eagles sigh...really, use them a third time?).
A lot of other things didn't fit in the Tolkien universe (like the mini Goblin scribe which comes Directly From Guillermo del Torro Labyrinth of Pan).
This Movie didn't have the inspiration of the Lord of the ring, even if it wasn't meant to be the same movie. It could have been perfect but this wasn't. And unfortunately I'm afraid lot of people will force themselves to like it and convinced themselves it wasn't that bad when in fact, it was.
You saw the movie with the wrong thing in mind. This isnt LOTR. This is the hobbit...none of the bad guys in the hobbit are support to last, aside from maybe the dragon..the hobbit just kinda throws you into middle earth and shit happens,i thought it was nice having multiple events happen. And things were supposed to be predicated because the book has been out for like...90 years? = /
|
just look at the meta critic score compared to the trilogy. is this an issue of the hobbit as a book compared to the trilogy or incompetent directing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
