The Soda Shop Message Boards

WHY IS THIS NOT A TOPIC YET.

Anyway... WHO'S EXCITED??

I literally cannot even begin to express all the mixed emotions that I'm feeling right now... I mean, I'm super happy that it's coming out so soon, sad that it's the last one (unless they make The Silmarillion, which I highly doubt. Or until I become a movie director and make it), and heartbroken that I haven't read the books; that was spoiled to me by a Tolkien nerd. Who is also my crush, so I didn't slap him. I hate getting spoiled

I've read the Hobbit at least 5 times in the last 9 years.

Anyway, I think these movies are amazing. They're totally unfaithful to the book. If I was making them, they'd be nothing like this. But they're still awesome movies. I'm also excited.

I'm excited! I'm going as soon as I can.

I just have no interest in these movies whatsoever. I can't explain why or how, but they just don't appeal to me at all. Peter Jackson is a bit of an overrated director. I didn't even really like the Lord of the Rings, at least not nearly as much as most people did. I consider the books to be a little overrated too, but I still like them better than the film adaptations.

ArnoldtheRubberDucky wrote:I just have no interest in these movies whatsoever. I can't explain why or how, but they just don't appeal to me at all. Peter Jackson is a bit of an overrated director. I didn't even really like the Lord of the Rings, at least not nearly as much as most people did. I consider the books to be a little overrated too, but I still like them better than the film adaptations.

How can- How can you even- WHAT

ClaraOswald wrote:WHY IS THIS NOT A TOPIC YET.

Anyway... WHO'S EXCITED??

I literally cannot even begin to express all the mixed emotions that I'm feeling right now... I mean, I'm super happy that it's coming out so soon, sad that it's the last one (unless they make The Silmarillion, which I highly doubt. Or until I become a movie director and make it), and heartbroken that

Kili, Fili, and Thorin are going to die.

I haven't read the books; that was spoiled to me by a Tolkien nerd. Who is also my crush, so I didn't slap him. I hate getting spoiled

you are kidding....I am SUCH A FAN! I LOVE THE HOBBIT AND LORD OF THE RINGS YOU AND I SHOULD TOTALLLY CHAT ....I WATCH THE MOVIES EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT!

-- Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:31 pm --

The hobbit is not for everyone I agree...but I can't figure out why...my BFF doesn't care for them but I could watch them 24/7! so who's your favorite character?
Hobbit #1 The Unexpected Jounrey: Gandalf
Hobbit #2: The desolation of Smaug: Bilbo Baggin
Hobbit #3 The battle of the five armies: ? unknown

Lord of the rings: The fellow ship of the ring, the two towers, & the return of the king: ARAGON!

connie13 wrote: Lord of the rings: The fellow ship of the ring, the two towers, & the return of the king: ARAGON!

SAME. YOU ARE LIKE MY NEW BEST FRIEND. xD

I think my favourite character in AUJ and DoS is Bard. He is just AWESOME. And Thorin. I haden't read the book when I saw DoS (still haven't), but I was so mad when Thorin turned out to be this greedy, mean, selfish guy. I loved him.

Thorin is like that in the book to. Sorry to spoil the picture. I just hope Killi doesn't die.

I haven't liked the Hobbit movies very much. As movies they were ok as representations of The Hobbit they were beyond terrible. I feel that they added WAY to much extra stuff just so you could do three movies. Imo there should have only been one. And the whole Tauriel/Kili thing is just disgusting, unneccesary, and revolting. I am excited to see how this last one plays out though.

Can I ask what makes you hate the whole Tauriel/Kili thing so much? I can understand unnecessary but disgusting and revolting are pretty extreme.

In my mind the Hobbit is a childrens story, which is what it is meant to be. It is not a romance and no mention of romance are ever made in the book. That they would add something so utterly unneccesary is revolting. Also, dwarf/elf relationships never NEVER happen. It goes against the very nature of there species. I am slight book purist. I will accept that certain things had to be added to make it better. But that subplot went way to far.

For the record, I LOVE the whole Kili/Tauriel thing. I love romance, and their subplot was done perfectly. Now, if I had read the book first, I'd probably dislike it, as I hate it when movies differ largely from the books their based on. But I wouldn't think it's revolting.

I think the problem here is that most people have read The Hobbit as it was originally written: a relatively lighthearted, humorous fairy tale. But as Tolkein developed the world of Middle-Earth, it lost that light-hearted element. The current Hobbit movies are attempting to depict Middle-Earth more like what it became in The Silmarillion and similar lore [which I freely admit I have never read] than what it originally was in The Hobbit.
I didn't like the Tauriel storyline either. However, I can't hate Peter Jackson for changing a story to get more viewers. It's what movie producers do. The only way to guarantee that a movie is exactly how the book was written--or how you wanted it to be--is to produce it yourself.

I read the book before I watched the movie. The edition is a deviation from the entirely kid focused theme of the Hobbit but not bad in my opinion.

The movies aren't geared towards kids per se, and were never meant to be. In case you didn't know, I am not a book purist, and I still don't totally get the philosophy of book purists, mostly because I believe books and movies to be quite similar, so why would you want to just have an exact copy of the book for screen? Of course, in The Hobbit's case, it would appear that Jackson is completely changing the genre from "prelude" to "epic", and we can assume his motives are at least partially financial. Thus, the 300-page Hobbit is being thinly spread over 8 hours of film, so the end result is not unlike a very skinny man trying desperately to fit into a massive pair of pants. That is the main problem with Peter Jackson's adaptation, not romantic subplots or supplemental content or deviations from the original story. I believe I will actually watch this movie, if only to confirm or deny my suspicions.

ArnoldtheRubberDucky wrote:I am not a book purist, and I still don't totally get the philosophy of book purists, mostly because I believe books and movies to be quite similar, why would you want to just have an exact copy of the book for screen?

I'm going to deviate a bit from the topic, but only because I think this is a question that needs to be answered, and from the perspective of a book purist, I can explain why we tend to hate the movie adaptations so much from my own experiences with the Harry Potter franchise.

My problem with the Harry Potter movies is that I see some of the changes as really unnecessary—not in the "THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE BOOK SO THIS SUCKS" sense, but in the oversimplification of the characters that drive the story. I am, to say the least, extraordinarily unsatisfied with the way most of the characters in the Harry Potter movies were presented—Hermione is made devoid of flaws and Ron's character is turned into a buffoonish clown to make her look better, Harry is a generic self-insert action hero, Ginny could be any boring girl who has no chemistry with Daniel Radcliffe, Malfoy was made to look charming and darkly alluring instead of like the cruel and petty bully he really is, and Snape is made to look far too sympathetic.

Now, the question is, do I have to accept these changes? No, and I don't. But the problem is, I like to interact with my media on a deeply analytical level, and it angers me to see people misinterpreting the characters I have come to know and love because they've been overexposed to the Hollywood distortions of them. I don't like the way the movies portray this universe because I see it as a misrepresentation of the truth. Selfish? Yeah, I'll admit. But in an odd way, these characters are like friends or family to me, as characters tend to be in works people love, and people don't like to see their favorite characters get watered down to a few basic traits that are either exaggerated or erased entirely solely because it's more palatable for a movie audience.

(Obviously, not everyone complains about characters; some complain about the plot as well. I was simply using my experiences with Harry Potter as an example, and my central problem with the movies is always going to be the fact that it turned lovable, human characters into props and caricatures—and often ones that made certain particular characters look better or worse in ways that they aren't.)

Should I or any other fan care about what other people think about my favorite media? Not really, because in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter—it's not like we're going to get to heaven and God's going to be like, "You believed the movie version's misreadings of the characters instead of reading the books. Lolbye". But like with most things about which people are passionate, it is still important to me that my favorite books be represented generally as they are, rather than what Hollywood has twisted them to be.

Basically, what I am saying is that most of the people whom you would probably classify as "book purists" aren't so much saying that movies should be copies of the books as we're saying that faithful (and therefore, in our eyes, worthy) adaptations of the books stay truer to the source material than most adaptations typically do. I don't think there are a lot of people who complain about movies not staying true to the books who actually want a six-hour movie (although the nerd in us is rubbing its hands together and squealing "But that would be so cool!"); most book purists are interested in the whole story generally remaining intact and as the author intended it to be. (This is, for example, why I prefer the Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets movies; they are fairly faithful adaptations without having to copy everything from the books.) Fans of LotR and The Hobbit aren't necessarily complaining that the story isn't exactly like the book; they're complaining because it's too much unlike the book for their comforts. And while the world doesn't have to cater to your comforts, obviously, you can understand why fans of the book are disappointed.

And on a more basic level, I empathize with the disappointment of the "book purists" who really wanted to see that super-cool scene in the book get adapted for the movie and it didn't happen. =/

I watched it. I really loved it. I think it was my favorite out of all 3.

Bethany Shepard wrote:I watched it. I really loved it. I think it was my favorite out of all 3.

Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die. I really liked that part. I liked how it showed Sauron banishing. My mother hated Galadriel in that part.

I was so tempted to read that spoiler. BUT I WON'T.

Bethany Shepard wrote:I watched it. I really loved it. I think it was my favorite out of all 3.

Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die. I really liked that part. I liked how it showed Sauron banishing. My mother hated Galadriel in that part.

Same. Same for the spoiler, too.

I watched the Hobbit: Battle in Five Armies.

It was the first movie that I've seen in D-Box. It took almost a two hour drive but it was worth it seeing it in D-Box

The movie itself was really good. Much better than the first 2 Hobbit movies. The third really tied the Hobbit trilogy and LOTR trilogy together.