I expected a bit more from it
As to ruining the book, I disagree. The book's still the same as it always was and the film makes a decent stab at it. With literal classics, you can almost never have a perfect film to match the original source material. For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker. Also, that's not just a defence of Peter Jackson in particular, but for any director trying to translate a script of a screenplay of a book, into a visual medium.
The Tower: To some, it symbolizes failure, ruin and catastrophe.
To others, the Tower represents the paradigms constructed by the ego, the sum total of all schema that the mind constructs to understand the universe. The querent may be holding on to false ideas or pretenses; a new approach to thinking about the problem is needed. It may be time for the querent to re-examine belief structures, ideologies, and paradigms they hold to.
But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.
Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.
---------- Post added 2013-03-05 at 07:25 PM ----------
If a video game developer removed tumors from players, they'd whine about nerfing their loss in weight and access to radiation powers. -Cracked.com
I really loved this movie and I think there's easily enough content for 2 more movies. I mean, the Battle of Five Armies by itself could be like half a freaking movie.
If Goku's power level increases at the same rate till the end of DBGT as it does till the end of the Frieza saga, as a SS4 Goku would have a PL of roughly 939 Quinoctogintillion. For reference that is a 260 digit number. A PL of 14,600 is required to destroy an earth sized planet. There are about 2 nonillion earths worth of mass in the universe. That means SS4 Goku can destroy the universe about 32 Octosexagintillion times over. There's a reason they made Goku a god at the end of GT.
At the very least they could have saved a lot of that stuff such as Radagast, the stonge giants fighting, Thorin's story of how he gots his name, etc. for the extended edition. And honestly they should have cut the orc chase altogether, they weren't apart of the Hobbit story in any way and offered nothing to the movie except to let movie 1 have a figurehead bad guy since you most likely won't see Smaug till the second movie (which is another problem which was caused with bloating the movie, they had to bloat it more so the UAJ could stand-alone as an entry movie).
I know what's done is done, I just still wish it would have been Del Toro or heck it could have been Jackson, but I just wish they kept it at 2 compact movies. Every scene or section of a movie or book or play should have purpose for the story as a whole, if it serves no purpose except to bloat the story and make it longer it shouldn't be there. There were many fragments in the Hobbit that could have easily been cut and thrown on the extended edition.
And that honestly was really my only complaint about the movie, except it is a pretty big complaint and detracts from the movie enough for me to consider it merely good instead of great. (Because there were many fantastic moments in there, and unsurprisingly they were all moments from that were from the book, so it just makes me wonder how this could have looked if they just used the original source material, it could have been much better.)
Longer does not always equal better, longer is fine, but there needs to be purpose to length. If there is no purpose it is just bloat and fat that does nothing but pull the film down.
If they didn't add anything from the appendices, it would've been two rather shallow movies, as while The Hobbit was a great book, it was still a children's book without any deep lore being explained throughout of it. If we saw a movie version of the book instead of an adaption, we would sit there and wonder where the hell Gandalf went off to all the time. Suddenly having such a big character drop out of the movies would just suck. Just as with Frodo's journey, there's something bigger going on than Bilbo going off on a journey to get some dwarven gold, and with the way Jackson decided to do things, they explain all of that. I don't think the movie was bloated at all, and the only thing that makes LotR better (for me personally) is that they're more serious. But of course I knew beforehand that The Hobbit would be more childish.
Also, the stone giants were in the book. D:
When The Hobbit was announced as a three-parter, I knew what my favorite movie of the year would be in the next three years.
Belief can become reality!
The only sad part is that there are no more books to base trilogies on Unless they start making up stuff or base movies on the reference book that Tolkien wrote (which is basically the same thing), we won't be seeing any more trilogies
they dragged this movie soo much only thing they didn't include is 30 mins of them going to pooper.
So how do I know it's all a charade, you ask?
Pick up a copy of the 1977 Rankin Bass "The Hobbit" and the 1978, Ralph Bakshi directed, "The Lord of the Rings" full feature film for comparison. Both of those were pretty awful, though the kids enjoyed them. The Goblins looked like giant bloated toads and the elves looked like goblins. In talking about his adaptation, Ralph Bakshi even mentions, ""It's not that important to me how a hobbit looks".
I would contend if there was any time for the Tolkien family to be righteously indigent over the adaptation of JRR's work, it would have been in 1978 - however they were not only perfectly fine with what happened, they gave rights for the final movie to Bakshi and worked on making a TV serial with him.
Oh, I see. Does make sense, the animated adaptions for them 70s were indeed pretty awful. IIRC some of the songs in the movie aren't even in the book (hobbit), they're just made up on the spot. I did like the VAs for some characters, though. Anyway, thanks for correcting me. I got linked some site with some article about how the Tolkien family didn't like PJ's adaption, and being quite gullible I thought it was the truth.