The Hobbit.

[Angelalex242]

The film had a VERY odd cutoff point, though.

I thought for SURE the last scene of the movie would be Bard doing what he's most famous for. Sure, it would've made the movie even longer, but they could've pushed more of the white council stuff into the 3rd movie and made sure Bard did his thing in the 2nd, and then devote most of the 3rd to 5 Armies.

For frame of reference, though, it has 74% from rotten tomatoes, and 87% audience approval from the same website. Make of that what you will. That is, they give it 7.5 out of 10, more or less.

[farinal]

I disliked the first film. But compared to that I even disliked the second one more!

[Rich H]

For frame of reference, though, it has 74% from rotten tomatoes, and 87% audience approval from the same website. Make of that what you will. That is, they give it 7.5 out of 10, more or less.

Makes you wonder what rating these kind of people would give films such as Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, Jaws, Empire Strikes Back, The Lion in Winter, Lincoln, The King's Speech, Last of the Mohicans, etc etc. There are a lot of people out there that think 7 out of 10 is an average score when rating things like films and video games especially right after seeing them (which is backed up by ratings in newspapers and websites that do the same kind of thing), and others that rate things higher than they truly believe because they don't want to justify to themselves why they've sat through (or bought or backed) something that isn't particularly good. Both are fairly common psychological behaviours in order to manage disappointment and self-justify things. I know I'm often guilty of the latter.

[doctheweasel]

I really liked both of these new films, warts and all.

I will say that they are nowhere near as tight as the LotR films. You can tell that the first set was from a director who was worried about how audiences (both general and fans) would respond, and this second trilogy is from a successful director who is confident (and a little indulgent). It's like he put the Extended Editions out in theaters, which doesn't work well for that venue.

In either case, I am just happy to be immersed in Jackson's Middle Earth. You can tell from watching that he is a huge fan of the source material, and that is often lacking in a lot of these sci-fi/fantasy films.

There are some places where I wish things were different (the over the top action scenes, how did Radaghast get over the Misty Mountains with his sled/rabbits). There are some changes I think work to the benefit of the film (the Master of Laketown vs Bard, the plan to rally the dwarves with the Arkenstone, the scale being loosened by Girion rather than being a fluke, Tauriel's addition allows Thranduil's isolationism to be shown to the audience).

[Stormcrow]

There are some changes I think work to the benefit of the film (the Master of Laketown vs Bard, the plan to rally the dwarves with the Arkenstone, the scale being loosened by Girion rather than being a fluke, Tauriel's addition allows Thranduil's isolationism to be shown to the audience).

How the dwarves have a sensible plan of employing a burglar to steal the Arkenstone so they can rally the seven houses of the dwarves to attack Smaug (PJ), rather than employing a burglar to somehow steal the entire treasure of Thror under Smaug's nose (Tolkien).

[poosticks7]

Well I watched the second film last night.

I can't really get my head around how much they changed. I don't mean the additions per say, but the fact that ever single scene was completely different from the book.

I kind of enjoyed it, sort of but wish they'd toned down certain additions/rewrites.

the Black Arrow thing was the most annoying change. He's Bard the Bowman not Bard the artillery man. Unless he has to fire the black arrow from a long bow in the 3rd film.

Also the strange contraction of time and space annoys me. How did Azog get to Dol Guldur so fast? and then Bolg back to the Elves pad? How fast can Wargs run?

Mirkwood felt a bit rushed to me as well. I liked the spider part, but where was the enchanted river?
Beorn's house was a little weird as well.

Thought Thranduil was good.

Why doesn't Legolas just spend a few weeks killing the entire population of orcdom and save everyone else the bother?

Anyway like I said - I kind of enjoyed it (sort of)

[Beran]

"I don't agree - it's not hard at all... Elindil and Gil-galad in the LotR trilogy..."

I can't say I understand your example use here. Gil-galad wasn't named, he was just shown as another elf in the ranks of many. I doubt those out side the Tolkien fans even recognized who he was. As for Elindil, how much more use could they have gotten out of him. His part of the story was 3000 years before the LotRs even started.

[Beleg]

He's Bard the Bowman not Bard the artillery man. Unless he has to fire the black arrow from a long bow in the 3rd film.

This was one of my main problems as well. So far I've enjoyed both films, as films. But I'm incredibly disappointed in them as adaptations. I don't understand why the 'black arrow' is now a ballista bolt, nor why Smaug is now a wyvern, nor why the orcs are now being organised by sauron rather than just being a bit pissed off as they are in the book. I understand Beorn showing up as a bear to start with though. Equally, I actually enjoyed the gratuitous fight scenes, I just don't think they fit well in The Hobbit, and I fail to see how nobody in Laketown saw a horde of orcs fighting two flamboyant Elves.

[Stormcrow]

*shrug* In this movie he's Bard the Smuggler. Watch the movie on its own terms, not the book's. If you go in wanting to see the book in movie form, you will be disappointed.

When the 2009 Star Trek film came out, everyone wanted to know what I thought of it, because I'm known to like Star Trek. I didn't even see it until a couple of years later. When I did, I said I didn't like it at all. Naturally, everyone accused me of being a purist. I then went on to give a very long list of why I didn't like the movie on its own terms, with not a single reference to any previous Star Trek item. I honestly disliked the movie that was presented.

With Peter Jackson's films, I am sometimes disappointed in some of the adaptation choices the makers chose. But as movies, without reference to the books at all, they're pretty good. The two Hobbit films are weaker than the Lord of the Rings films, largely due to pacing and overlong and unbelievable action sequences, but they're still decent movies. The decision to switch from two to three films for The Hobbit was a mistake, and I think PJ and friends realize that now.

[Ferretz]

I agree completely with the original post. I love the movies and I think that the changes done from the books are in most cases improvements.
As for the Hobbit, I was worried when I first heard that it was going to be filmed. 13 dwarves can quickly become faceless Gimli clones. But giving them personality and their own stories and backgrounds (instead of just different coloured hoods), makes them much more interesting in my opinion.

Make no mistake, I really like the books. I just enjoy the movies more (also, I should mention that film and film production is a big part of my life, so its no surprise, really. )

E.