Did you like the Desolation of Smaug movie?

[[deleted user]]

I found the second one had more action than the first.
Which I guess everyone is probably saying on here...
Although I am excited for the final one!!!
XD
-Maddie-

[Goddess]

"sub-plot about the dwarves trying to kill Smaug with molten gold. "

agree - was stupid

Really agree with this review:

That’s what really kills Jackson’s latest Tolkien adaptations — not their length, but the sheer amount of superfluous scenes crammed into these things to GET to that length.


Read more at http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/201...

[F.F.]

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

That's a blog post that I used to detail my thoughts on the subject. I'm passionate about Tolkien may he Rest in Peace.

I actually liked the second movie a lot more than the first.

[John]

The movie was OK, as far as fantasy movies are concerned, and certainly was technically sophisticated. But I felt it overlong, just like the first episode. The story seems to be getting in the way of a lucrative franchise. Should just tell the story as it was written and do so in two films. Money talks every time.

[Lariela]

Sophy wrote: "Lariela wrote: "I did like the added material from other books, most of that fit pretty well. What I didn't like the that whole love triangle thing. "We now stop your adventure story to bring you E..."

I know! They have spies all over. We meant the ones watching Bard's house earlier.

[Scott]

Jackson makes fun movies but I'd still like to see a movie of The Hobbit. It's been several years since I last read The Hobbit and I don't recall that the dwarves ever even saw Smaug, let alone tried to drown him in molten gold.

[Nurlely]

I think PJ decided to make the movie longer for them to be linked to TLOTR, not just from The Hobbit book.

I love the movie and watched it twice.

[Scott]

Nurlely wrote: "I think PJ decided to make the movie longer for them to be linked to TLOTR, not just from The Hobbit book.

I love the movie and watched it twice."

That would be fine with me as far as it goes, the more Silmarillion the better, but I think his divergence from the book is very extreme in this case. I was glad to see that Beourn, unlike Tom Bombadil in LotR, was included.

[Nurlely]

Scott wrote: "That would be fine with me as far as it goes, the more Silmarillion the better, but I think his divergence from the book is very extreme in this case. I was glad to see that Beourn, unlike Tom Bombadil in LotR, was included. "

The more the merrier, for Silmarillion. I suppose I can say that his movie adaptation is rather extreme, but I have no complaints. If he can cover up the whole Tolkien Gate in his next movie (fingers crossed), I will be thrilled.

[Eline]

Both yes and no. I was kinda dissapointed, because it didn't stay as true to the book as I wanted it to. Neither did "An Unexpected Journey". But still, it's Peter Jackson, and it was without a doubt a good movie!

[S]

It was still too long, particularly the third act, but it was certainly better than Part 1. At this point, it really is Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit", not Tolkien's. It's "The Hobbit" plus some of the LOTR appendices plus some stuff that Jackson and his wife made up. It's almost fan fiction, but it's pretty good fan fiction.

[R.J.]

Ingwar wrote: "John Tolkien would disagree with people, who try to interpret the story p..."

You can certainly glean the idea from that introduction that he was not trying to imply one political party over another, but it is fairly obvious from what else he has written (not just his published works) that he was writing about human nature in general. Human nature is a political, if not spiritual, subject. It is the force that lies behind wars and injustices and all kinds of suffering. But I don’t need to stand up for the author or put words into his mouth. Let's let the readers make their own opinions on what Tolkien would have thought. A quick click on the author's name below the book title here on Goodreads will give a brief summary of his feelings toward putting a message in his writing. Further information on him is as close as this link to his Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.R.R.To...

Allow me to quote one bit I found interesting that I just pulled from that sight:
"Tolkien scholar James Dunning coined the word Tollywood, a portmanteau derived from "Tolkien Hollywood," to described attempts to create a cinematographic adaptation of the stories in Tolkien's legendarium aimed at generating good box office results, rather than at fidelity to the idea of the original. On receiving a screenplay for a proposed film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings by Morton Grady Zimmerman, Tolkien wrote: 'I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.' Tolkien went on to criticize the script scene by scene ("yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings).”
Maybe I'm reading too much into the rumblings of a grumpy old man, but it really seemed like Tolkien didn't like the idea of Hollywood botching the real meaning behind his writing.

Speaking of movies from books, I recommend watching “Saving Mr. Banks” for anybody who’d like a different (but relevant) perspective on movie adaptations. It deals with one author’s motivations for writing as well as the emotional tug-of-war she went through when Disney decided to turn her story into a major motion picture (Mary Poppins). Suffice it to say, it’s a heavy movie about a heavy subject, but if you need to see ugly villains get hacked apart in 3D in order to feel like you got your money’s worth, don’t bother.

[Maya]

Because they're making three movies out of a rather short novel, they had to put in excessive actions scenes to make it stretch out long enough, which I found boring and repetitive. The CGI was super crappy too, and made the entire movie look fake. The LOTR movies had such great scenery, (they filmed a lot of it in NZ) and this movie looked like almost everything was computer generated. Legolas behaved rather oddly (out of character, I thought), and the whole added love triangle thing is just annoying. I preferred the first installation of the Hobbit because of the dialogue between Bilbo and the dwarves (especially Thorin) and "Desolation" really lacked in character-building moments within the company. (In fact, Bilbo didn't seem to have many speaking lines at all until the end. On a more positive note, I thought they did a good job with Bard. (And I was glad they included Beorn)

[Morena]

Kerry wrote: "Ingwar wrote: " J.R.R.Tolkien's On Fairy Stories..."

Great you should mention this book.

Tolkien had a guiding principal when he wrote LOTR, and even the Hobbit. Make it very coherent which make..."

Well said. I saw the An Unexpected journey because I liked how Jackson handled Lord of Rings (at least most of it). I left the cinema rather disgusted. In the Hobbit, the use of CGI was so overdone and of such poor taste that I couldn't be bothered to see The Desolation. It would probably feel like watching bunch of young guys having fun at the computers. I am also sick of having modern sentiments forced into every story. Mixing dwarves with elves just because it fulfills some PC sentiment of mixing different races? Ugh give me a break!

[L.J.]

Well I loved it. So many years ago when I read the book that I honestly wasn't sure what was going to happen next. Tauriel was the only obvious deviation for me, but that was okay.
Not sure about the sudden ending though. The lights came on and I still had my little finger curing an itch in my right ear. Must have looked weird to the guy behind me.

[Anastasia]

I just recently saw the movie and by the end of it I was fuming with anger! On a second thought I can understand adding Tauriel to the plot because otherwise there were no female characters what so ever. However the fact that they went against the protests of actress Evangeline Lilly and created the STUPID love triangle was seriously maddening. Her dialogue with Kili in the prison was an excruciating waste of time!

I can also understand the wish to fill in some background information and put in extra details about Gandalf vs Necromancer, Radagast etc. As a Tolkien fan I enjoy having those details, however I would have been just as happy to have them as extras on an extended version DVD.

All that aside I found it absolutely infuriating that they had to make stuff up to add to the story (battle with orcs on the river, all the commotion in Lake Town and under the mountain...) as if the movie wasn't long enough! Instead they could have stuck to the book and not leave out the part of how the dwarves got captured by the elves.

There is absolutely NO reason for this movie to be 3h long and frankly I don't even want to know how they will 'bulk up' what's left of the book in 3rd movie. I thought PJ and co were fans of Tolkien but true fans would never do such travesties to The Master.

PS: I was also really annoyed with the fact that some of the dwarves did not have proper make-up. It became very clear in the scene when Thorin is in the Prancing Pony that he looks too much like human. Young dwarves are not supposed to be good looking, Gimli was pretty young too when he joined the Fellowship and he didn't get any special treatment to please the ladies!!

[Anastasia]

Amber wrote: "In terms of following the book I'm not sure there is much that hasn't been changed or altered by the end of this movie. Some of the changes I can understand, some I don't mind but there are a few ..."

I agree with you, especially on the part about Legolas. Of course it was nice to give us a glimpse of him to 'introduce' the character for the LOTR suite and to remind us of his background. The way it was nice to see Frodo in the very beginning of the first movie. However dragging out Legolas's presence on-screen just for the sake of it was just a sell-out.

[Rui]

Sim, o filme está muito bom, com a habitual qualidade das realizações de Peter Jackson, embora a história esteja muito adulterada e nesse aspeto tem a minha nota negativa. Se Tolkien visse o filme não gostaria com certeza pois não foi isso que escreveu...

[[deleted user]]

Robert wrote:Human nature is a political, if not spiritual, subject. It is the force that lies behind wars and injustices and all kinds of suffering. Allow me to quote one bit...

Thanks for the quote. I haven't read wiki-page all throughout, and I think, that this specific letter isn't quoted in the biography by Humphrey Carpenter.

Now, I want to add a few points about possibility of political interpretation.

1)Potential for evil in human nature causes suffering and injustice. But putting focus on this side of it encourages indifference and desperation. Many of Tolkin's contemporaries treated all events of that era with a sort of cold analitical dismissal. In his writing he puts focus on the potential for good. And it couldn't be presented politically, it could only be presented as a personal ethical aspiration.

2) Hypothetical political interpretation is tied with major events of twentieth centure. But if, in a thought-experiment, we present the book to people of different era, I think, they would be able to relate to the scope of it's picture (or "message", or "content") in it's entirety.

3) All "political" types of arrangements in the book are arrived at in a natural non-political way (which is impossible in our world), and they are not relevant to the ethical conflict. For instance Hobbits live in virtual and virtuous Anarchy. Being the most good, innocent and benign creatures they are indifferent to politics. Also there are monarchies (Gondor and Mordor). In case of Gondor, it's a natural traditional arrangement, that is necessary to fight off actual incarnate evil. And it's validity is constantly challenged by ethical aspirations (or absence of such) of each of it's rulers. So that last Kings of Numenor reduced themselves to Sauron's position, remaining in the same political arrangement. And Aragorn's title as a king is just a symbolic addition to his good intentions and responsibility. So regardless of their "political position" heroes in the story are on the same plane, when it comes to their ethical choices.

Didn't mean to find fault, just wanted to express my thoughts.

Now, about Saving Mr.Banks. I didn't watch the movie, but I recently stumbled on this video on Harlan Ellison's Youtube channel(people, be carefull, reasonably strong language:)))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNIFEH...

[Will]

Eline wrote: "Both yes and no. I was kinda dissapointed, because it didn't stay as true to the book as I wanted it to. Neither did "An Unexpected Journey". But still, it's Peter Jackson, and it was without a dou..."

I thought "An Unexpected Journey" was much more similar to the book.

[Tony]

This was the first time in a long time when I was actually angry leaving the cinema. I have been disappointed in film versions of books before, but this was a whole other level.

I really liked Jackson's take on LotR, and I didn't mind the changes he made. And I thought what he did with the first Hobbit movie was ok.

But this time it seems he decided his fan-fic was better than what Tolkien wrote, so he was going to film that instead. The elf-dwarf-elf love triangle, the orcish raid on Laketown, the running battle between the dwarves and Smaug in Erebor, leaving a third of the dwarves behind - yeah, all those things annoyed me. But the number one thing that really got my ire up, was what PJ did to the Mirkwood chapter.

This is one of the most important chapters in the book - it's where the dwarves learn first to trust and then to look to Bilbo, and that sets up so much of what is important later. But it's covered in 5 mins, and not very well at that. And the way that Beorn is portrayed is also awful.

However, from people who haven't read the book, I have read good reports.

[Cuthbert]

Get ready for the "interracial" love story between dwarf Kili and elf Tauriel.

[Will]

Tony wrote: "This was the first time in a long time when I was actually angry leaving the cinema. I have been disappointed in film versions of books before, but this was a whole other level.

I really liked Jac..."I agree with some of what you had to say... I think the whole point of the Mirkwood part is that the dwarves learn that Bilbo isn't worthless. Instead, Peter Jackson had Tauriel and Legolas save them instead. Also, in the movie, Beorn couldn't choose when he turned into a bear. (Sort of like a werewolf?) From the book, I understood that he could transform at will, though maybe I was wrong.

[Geoffrey]

Hunh? Dwarves and elves are two different species, no? Who ever Heard of offspring dwelves?
More than likely they are two different species which would make both guilty of beastiality.

[Nurlely]

Cuthbert wrote: "Get ready for the "interracial" love story between dwarf Kili and elf Tauriel."

I think it will not go that far. Kili will die in the last movie.

[Nurlely]

Geoffrey wrote: "Hunh? Dwarves and elves are two different species, no? Who ever Heard of offspring dwelves?
More than likely they are two different species which would make both guilty of beastiality."

Never heard of one. Maybe because there is none. Kili is not as romantic as he was in the movie, and Tauriel is an additional character.
I personally think their little 'fling' is cute but I rather not have any more. I just feel it is a ridiculous plot.

[Geoffrey]

Somehow the tone of their budding romance is a bit bawdy for the Tolkein sensibility. Personally I have not objection to Jackson adding to the story as long as it is done well, but their dialogue is a bit undignified for the overall tone of the story. These are more like pickup lines at Studio 54 than what would one expect from chaste Middle Earth. It is too contemporary in tone and is misplaced in the gist of the tale. It's more like Bob Guccione meeting Beowulf.

[sailor _stuck_at_sea]

Yes, I liked it. Quite a lot.
yes, they changed a lot of things from the book, that's why it called an adaptation. And frankly, I suspect that a film without any changes would have been awful.

[Alyson]

The tone of this movie and of the tone of the book are very different because (as stated before) the movie was directed at a different audience. The book was more of a children's book (as also stated before) and the movie "The Desolation of Smaug" was directed at an adult audience. The first movie kept with the tone and the overall mood of the book much better,which is probably why I liked the first movie better. The Hobbit (the book) is also focused on the story of Bilbo. In the second movie it seems to stray from our protagonist. The first movie seemed to tell the story with Bilbo's perspective in mind.
I liked having one single story in The Hobbit, not five different stories all in one. (For example:there is Radagast's story, and Thorin wants to "reclaim our homeland." Then Gandalf goes on an adventure, and there is a love triangle that never even existed.) Where is our main character? In a whirlpool of stories. This movie does not try to capture the theme that Tolkien was trying to convey. In my opinion, a movie is good if it captures the overall mood and theme of the book.

[Jon]

I liked parts of the movie, but Jackson shows the same tendency towards excess in it that he showed in his King Kong remake. Scenes go on too long and he just doesn't know when to quit. An example of this would be the scene with the dragon. The initial scene follows the book closely and it's perfect: the dragon was wonderfully done and Benedict Cumberbatch's and Martin Freeman's acting was first rate, but instead of being content with following the book, they drag the dwarves down too and have them run around for 20 minutes being chased. The scene just went on too long and by milking it to increase the movie's running time, they lessened the impact of what they did well.

[Chloe]

I personally enjoyed it, but liked said above, it was best as a stand alone than as a straight up adaption.

[Geoffrey]

Jon(message 194)
That same complaint could be even more readily applied to the fight between orcs and dwarves in the 1st flic which occurs under the mountain. I thought that scene particularly ridiculous. Yes, Jackson drags on the action sequences, I agree totally.

[Geoffrey]

And yet he did not get excessive with LOTR. I have but to wonder what´s up with Jackson? Perhaps they did marketing research which indicated the general public wanted a dragged on fight. Or maybe Jackson just got carried away with his "brilliant film making".

[Iris]

Geoffrey wrote: "And yet he did not get excessive with LOTR. I have but to wonder what´s up with Jackson? Perhaps they did marketing research which indicated the general public wanted a dragged on fight. Or maybe J..."

Then again, the Lord of the Rings was action and suspense packed naturally, without the need to add extra fight scenes because of the plot lines and because of the characters. The Hobbit's characters and plot line was, to me, wanting. You have to remember that The Hobbit is not the Lord of the Rings, so maybe Jackson just tried to even the playing field a little. Perhaps he was anxious about the movie being boring, thus extended fight scenes and new characters.

[Hannah Marie]

I really enjoyed the movie, but it can't compare to the book.

[Mary]

They really didn't need to add anything to make the movie

[Geoffrey]

Iris
That´s a good take on the HOBBIT. I could go with that. I am just a bit perturbed by so many posters citing Jacksons alleged greed in pandering to the masses. I believe the movie would have garnered equal box office results regardless of how violent it was. Had it been directed at the original level of violence as written in the book, ticket sales would have been the same imho.

[Kerry]

Peter Jackson made the more dramatic Heavenly Creatures, The Lovely Bones and LOTR. He also made fan boy pics King Kong and The Adventures of Tin Tin. Guillermo Del Toro, who originally began The Hobbit, made the dramatic Pan's Labyrinth and Biutiful. He also made Hell Boy and Pacific Rim.

Jackson and Del Toro seem to want Hobbit to go both ways. At one point, serious dramatic like their Oscar work AND alternately fanboy pulp. The barrel scene is Hellboy and Tin Tin. I'm not sure what The Hobbit is for them, young adult fanboy Hobbit Boy or adult LOTR?

[R.J.]

Ingwar wrote: “…Now, I want to add a few points about possibility of political interpretation….”

The three examples you list imply an “us against that party over there” political interpretation. That is not what I’m talking about. Tolkien very specifically stated that the dwarves’ own greed was what attracted Smaug to the mountain. In the book, after the dragon dies, five chapters transpire without any exterior antagonist. There are no “orcs over there” to blame the dwarves’ problems on. It is Thorin’s own greed that carries the story forward to the battle of five armies, where Thorin redeems himself by finally coming out of the mountain to aid his kinsmen as well as the elves and humans who have joined Dane to defend themselves against this greater enemy.

What Peter Jackson did by inserting orcs and the necromancer into this plot was criminal—literally. I have seen all sides of the justice system, and I have conversed with more than my share of criminals. Some of them go straight after their first mistake, and some of them become career offenders and end up in prison most of their lives. The one deciding factor as to which way they go is where they place their blame. The criminals who keep on offending always blame their deeds on somebody else. “Those orcs over there” made them angry, or caused them to drink/smoke/inject, or told them to break into that house or rob that individual. It is the sheriff’s fault for pulling them over, the lawyer’s fault for not explaining their case, and their father’s fault for not being there.

I am not saying that Tolkien was preaching a message about criminals. I am saying that Jackson, by blaming all of the dwarves’ woes on the dragon, the necromancer, and the orcs, completely misses the real meaning of the book—that the dwarves’ own greed was their greatest enemy. You can argue that Tolkien did mention the necromancer in the story, but that does not entitle Jackson to relate the necromancer specifically to every aspect of the plot. I think I stated this before but much of Middle Earth’s allure was its vastness. Not everything was relevant to Bilbo’s adventures. The necromancer was not so much a plot ingredient as it was a reason for Gandalf to not be present during parts where Tolkien wanted him gone. I suppose, by merit of Jackson’s criminal logic, if he had not inserted orcs into the plot to blame all the dwarves’ troubles on, he would have had to blame Gandalf for not being there when the dwarves made bad decisions.

[R.J.]

Kerry wrote: "Peter Jackson made the more dramatic Heavenly Creatures, The Lovely Bones and LOTR. He also made fan boy pics King Kong and The Adventures of Tin Tin. Guillermo Del Toro, who originally began The..."

Jackson was behind Tin Tin? That explains why that one was butchered, too.

[Jack]

I thought it was a terrific adventure movie akin to an Indiana Jones film or the like -- not quite up there with LOTR, but a big improvement over "The Hobbit: Part One". The CGI was distractingly bad, though, except in the HFR version, but in that format everything ELSE was distractingly bad. But in 2D SFR it was a very entertaining adventure with some relatively minor caveats. Maybe the Expanded Edition will improve on it, and the CGI will probably look better on the small screen.

[Sparrowlicious]

I'm a bit sad that there wasn't much of Bilbo in it. I mean, isn't he supposed to be the main character.

At least Tauriel was AMAZING. Gosh, I really like her!
Oh and Thorin on that wheelbarrow in the gold was funny as hell. :'D

[Scott]

There are at least two camps here in the comments, those that evaluate PJ's Hobbit and those concerned with Tolkien's The Hobbit. PJ's Hobbit YES is akin to Indiana Jones but it fails miserably at representing Tolkien's story. It's not the same story. The characters do not have the same motivations. And so on. But I think what I miss most is that the book is very lyrical, musical almost. This is not so much the case with LOTR which is more epic. The book feels like a folk tale that may have originally existed in an oral tradition. This is to be expected, I think, given Tolkien's actual profession.

[Kerry]

Sparrowlicious wrote: "I'm a bit sad that there wasn't much of Bilbo in it. I mean, isn't he supposed to be the main character.

At least Tauriel was AMAZING. Gosh, I really like her!
Oh and Thorin on that wheelbarrow in..."

Martin Freeman is an excellent Bilbo. For Tolkien, Bilbo is a Midland's Englishman. Bilbo and the Hobbits are the characters most like us and who connect us (readers) to Middle Earth. The further we get from Bilbo, the further we get from 'The Hobbit.'

I love the SNL skit with Will Ferrell and Christopher Walken doing Blue Oyster Cult - 'Don't fear the reaper.' More Cowbell. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-liv... Walken is the big shot producer who insists the song needs more cowbell.

When Jackson goes all CGI and gets caught up in his chase scenes and gets away from Bilbo and the main story, I think, there goes Jackson again (like Walken), asking for more cowbell (CGI).

[Petter]

I'm not convinced that all the tragedies befalling the Dwarves in "The Hobbit" and LOTR novels or movies can logically be ascribed to their own greed.

The Balrog of Moria was accidentally released during a mining operation. The Dwarves did not provoke it to act against its own nature, that should be obvious to everyone. Nor did they take unnecessary risks; the Dwarves certainly didn't expect a friggin' Demon to live just next door.

Smaug's devastation of Erebor and Dale did not, in my opinion, stem from greed either. Those cities were enriched by mining, crafting and commerce, and yes, I'm quite sure there were greedy people living there. But even if there weren't, would that have stopped Smaug from paying a visit? He's a dragon. They burn cities, because THEY are greedy.

And what about Balin's attempt to reclaim Moria? I don't get the sense that his expedition was motivated by greed, but by a very strong desire to restore yet another part of their Dwarven heritage. Of course, it was a foolish attempt. Balrogs don't die natural deaths from old age or convenient heart failures. It was bound to remain just where it was.

If there is anything at play here, it is "poetic crime" (as opposed to poetic justice). The Dwarves get rich, so have them encounter a Balrog. And then a Dragon. And then the Balrog once again. It's also in line with the fate of most races and nations in Middle-earth during that period: "It was better back then" defines the entire second half of the Third Age (1500 years or so).

[Jack]

There's a lot of cowbell in PJ's Hobbit, sadly. I believe that someday there will be an excellent fan edit of these movies, keeping the good stuff and jettisoning the bad.

I love the idea of using the appendices, etc. to expand on the tale of The Hobbit, but I'm surprised at how poorly some of it is done. I've always wanted to see Gandalf investigating and going up against Sauron/the Necromancer, for example, but when that part came up in the movie it more or less fell flat for me. It didn't help that the CGI for Sauron (at least, in the SFR format) was truly terrible. In the HFR, it looked much better, but . . . well, the CGI was about all that did. I suppose they were saving their budget for Smaug, who, in all fairness, was pretty great all around, although I could've done with less dwarf shenanigans.

[Sandra]

Over all , the movie was pretty good quality. However, I really did not like how Peter added people into the movie, just to make it more interesting (elves in general,they were not in the Hobbit book at all). Just stick with the plot in the book, and people will love it. I had a huge problem with how he did not entirely follow the book's path of the story. I also did not like how BADLY they edited Legolas' face. I know they wanted him to look younger, but please...

I thought that Smaug's character was really well done, and they cut the movie short at just the right time.

I am looking forward to the last movie, nonetheless, I hope that Jackson will stick to the book's plot more this time around. But that is just my opinion.

[Lariela]

For Dos, and AUJ, there were some scenes I really liked, and others where it felt those scenes didn't belong. I did like the back story for the Quest to Erebor stuff, except... I thought Dain was supposed to be in Battle of Azanulbizar. Even if Thorin was the one to fight Azog, he still should have been there. And what about Frerin? Maybe that story could have had more detail in the extended edition. (More interesting than the fountain scene surely.) For DoS, I liked the Smaug scenes and Bard the most.

Overall, I did find the first two parts entertaining. And I am and looking forward to the Battle of Five Armies. Though I am also dreading it for book type reasons.

[Chloe]

Personally I think that Peter Jackson was trying to make his popular characters have more screen time, whether or whether not it was in the book. I think if they followed the original plotline, we would have shorter movies.

[Sage]

Mark wrote: "Loved the movie and found the addition of a female elf, and her kicking some Ork behinds, a smart move for the younger female population. My girls found her EPIC.
Found the Barrel fight the best ac..."
Your review is the only one I liked. To me it is funny when people want a movie to be identical to the book. For me you get to have your movie and read it too (have your cake and eat it too). Perhaps the reviews that want it to be identical would more tolerable if it was only one movie and not a 9 hour trilogy. I have read The Hobbit three times and listened to it once. I would be bored if it was identical. Your review was refreshingly positive. Thank you for that.