Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Agreed, and they're not just making stuff up from nowhere. While some of the stuff is off-camera (re: the "Necromancer") we know it does happen.

This is Tolkien's story AS told by Jackson. If you're a purist, then I'm sure you will hate it, in which case don't go. For the rest of us, I think Jackson has earned our trust that he will do no harm, and will entertain us greatly with his vision of the story.

Yup. I'm a bit of a "purist" but that hasn't kept me from enjoying the films immensely.

Some aspects of the first Hobbit movie were a bit over the top and childish for me but looking back it certainly makes sense considering the Hobbit was far more a childrens book. I actually think the entire 6 movie series will work on many levels once the 2 remaining Hobbit films are finished.

The only MAJOR thing I would change about all of it (so far) is I'd put Tom Bombadil back in the Fellowship.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yup. I'm a bit of a "purist" but that hasn't kept me from enjoying the films immensely.

Some aspects of the first Hobbit movie were a bit over the top and childish for me but looking back it certainly makes sense considering the Hobbit was far more a childrens book. I actually think the entire 6 movie series will work on many levels once the 2 remaining Hobbit films are finished.

The only MAJOR thing I would change about all of it (so far) is I'd put Tom Bombadil back in the Fellowship.

I'd gladly get rid of Rhosgobel rabbits and some of the other childish things, but he didn't Jar Jar Binks the movie, so on balance i'm ok with it.


I have a friend who really pretty PO'ed about no Tom Bombadil, but to non-readers, it would make no sense and it would've taken too long ot include in the movies, so I understand.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I'd gladly get rid of Rhosgobel rabbits and some of the other childish things, but he didn't Jar Jar Binks the movie, so on balance i'm ok with it.


I have a friend who really pretty PO'ed about no Tom Bombadil, but to non-readers, it would make no sense and it would've taken too long ot include in the movies, so I understand.

I would have loved for them to have had tom Bombadil in, but I completely understand why it wasn't. Given how much PJ got into the LOTR trilogy, I am not sure anyone could ask for anything more.

The Hobbit has had more changes, but PJ is mixing in some other Tolkien things that will never see the screen otherwise. I trust his judgement and look forward to the next two films.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

I would have loved for them to have had tom Bombadil in, but I completely understand why it wasn't. Given how much PJ got into the LOTR trilogy, I am not sure anyone could ask for anything more.

The Hobbit has had more changes, but PJ is mixing in some other Tolkien things that will never see the screen otherwise. I trust his judgement and look forward to the next two films.

I was glad that they left Tom out, lol. I think I understood why his character was in the book, but just felt unneeded.