It was a good movie apart from the whole Azog plot. Why did they add that?
Also I cringed at the Goblin King's last line.
Last edited by mmoc6dd45b8008; 2012-12-18 at 10:41 PM.
Not according to what they've said on a few sources.
Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[140][141] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.[142] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012
The reason why he's doing that is he doesn't have the rights to a number of supplemental works by Tolkein.
---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 11:36 PM ----------
To put a face to the orc leaders before they become united at the battle of 5 armies.
I've seen people claiming the third movie is from additional material. I don't think it is. The appendices from Lord of the Rings are being worked into all three movies. The Witch King, White Council, and Necromancer were barely mentioned at all in The Hobbit, but we've already seen more detail in the first movie than the whole book. Gandalf's departure to deal with that wasn't detailed in The Hobbit, he just mysteriously came and went to deal with other matters.
I expect the second movie, The Desolation of Smaug, to cover Mirkwood, escaping the elves, more discovery of the Necromancer, the White Council readying to deal with it, the company reaching Lake Town, getting to the Lonely Mountain, Bilbo infiltrating it, Smaug awakening and his attack on Lake Town as well as his death from Bard (I think that's his name, I'm forgetting right now).
There and Back Again I expect will detail the Battle of Five Armies as well as Bilbo's return to the Shire afterwards.
---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 10:38 PM ----------
He has the rights to the LotR appendices though which is where most Hobbit supplemental material is, I believe.
You do realise its based off a book right? A book that was written for children. It's supposed to be exactly like the movie. Maybe if you had read the book, you would have realized this, but I guess reading books is too much work for phony internet review writers to do. Watching a movie without knowing the history of the story and reasoning for how it was written is why lazy reviewers have been written off as idiots for years. I only use rotten tomatoes anymore to look and see if a movie is good or not. Reviewers are paid off and uninformed.
The days of the carrot on a stick mindset are over. 'You want it? It's right there. Just go get it' Has changed to 'Here, Don't eat it all at once, Aw hell, What do I care?'
Now I don't think Hobbit is anywhere near "that" bad. I didn't think it was really that bad at all. Now there were various bits that just didn't "fit" for me, but its PJ's movie. I wasn't terribly impressed with the first LotR one either, but the second two got better. My main issues with Tolkien's books in general have usually been Tolkien. Not the various interpreters that followed.
My issues with this movie have all been really minor. Radagast being a bit too brainless. The pointless chase. Saruman being a bit too lethargic. The goblin town goblins looking too inbred. The orcs and goblins now having an almost slimy "sheen." Adding a whole new plotline, Azog and Thorin, to the story. Just annoyances really. Overall I don't think the movie is bad at all.
Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.
More like:
We liked the book, and movie is following it closely, while adding things that happened in the same timeframe of The Hobbit that isn't explained in the actual novel (but in other works) so we get a bonus. And we like it.
Instead of having an army of unknown goblins we will have a leader we recognize from the earlier movies.
Edit: If Bolg really shows up, I guess Azog is there as new Lurtz, in a way. Only he gets more spotlight.
Last edited by BHD; 2012-12-18 at 10:51 PM.
Cave Cave Deus Videt
Just the thread I was needing!
So 3 of my well educated friends saw it before I could (still haven't) and they gave it a somewhat 6-7 out of 10.
I know it's a trilogy and the story unfolds, but is it really a 6-7?
No spoilers please, just rate it (subjectively, of course)