peter jackson did it again. It was done well, and for the most part very accurate. Of course there were parts that were added, but most were in the realm of canon. I heard that jackson used a lot of the similarion in this movie. And to all the haters of the "trilogy", consider this....do you honestly want just one 2 hour long movie....while im not sure how it will be stretched into a trilogy, even i realize that they need to make at least 2 movies. As long as the trilogy is done well, it is worth it. And so far so good. (btw i was a lotr fan before i ever saw the movies....it only became greater after i saw the movies.....
and i took my dad who thought he wasnt going to like it, and he enjoyed it.
The hobbit was as good as i expected. It was more of a comedy, but it still had the action etc. Essentially i think it was done well.
The reason some people say it was bad because they compared it to the LOTR trilogy and you just can;t compete in my humble opinion.
I agree, but since it took place before the events of LOTR, it really isn't fair to compare the two. I still thought it was awsome though. I loved the brown wizard and his rabbit sled lol. Hope he shows up some more in the other two installments. and yeah the dwarven song is awsome! very meloncholy very touching as well.
The fact they included Radaghast and the Rock Giants was actually surprising!
Finally I'm happy they split it up. By focusing on the ENTIRE book it doesn't leave a lot of things out like the Harry Potter Movies and the LOTR trilogy did.
White Council: having the members interact has been awesome to watch! When Radaghast went to Dol Guldor (though not in the book). I loved knowing he was against a Morgul Blade. I hope they add the fight against the Necromancer (Ghostly Sauron).
Now most of them are actually barely noticible for anyone who never read the books or watched the cartoon movie.
First off the dwarves....some of them just seem silly looking (Bombor for sure). Having watched the cartoon version I already had my own view for them...so when they didn't live up it was simply my pre-determined view against Jackson's.
Also, I couldn't find which Dwarf being who....now Gloin, Bombour, Thorin, Killi Filli, and Durin were the only ones with a sense of being in the story....Bifor, Bofur, Nori, and Oori have practically no mention....I never knew which Dwarf each of them were.
Lack of songs. One thing that was cool in the book was songs....while they got "What Bilbo Baggins Hates" in there....they left out the don't where the Goblins catch the troop, and the fire burning song when the Orcs round them in the trees. It placed a more sinister and sadistic view of Orcs/Goblins than them simply just being a band of murderous creatures.
Pale Orc: now it isn't really THAT BAD...I just don't get why he stabbed a fork in his arm -.- I think it is interesting that they added a faction as a sense of a constsnt antagonist after the Main Antsgonist: Smaug! SPOILER FOR PART TWO FOR THOSE WHO NEVER READ: Him being here does, however, create a reason for the Orcs to join the battle of five armies.
Riddles In the Dark: know once again a small detail...they simply upped the drama of having Bilbo run at first where he slipped the ring on before Gollum returns when he realized he lost his ring (Gollum never had it in his pocket...he went to his 'house' to show it off)...I liked the books way of his escape better.
10/10 for me.....I know I put a lot in the dislike...but honestly they are just me Nit-picking the movie and book differences