So I saw the newest Hobbit movie (not a spoiler)

[flex]

It was okay.   I liked the previous one better.

[G22]

I saw too tonight. Though I admit I couldn't remember how the last one ended even though I saw it. I enjoyed it, but all the LOTR/Hobbit movies blend together for me.

[Deleted]

Is this the last of the bunch?

I've sat through all of them in a theater with my husband and fallen asleep during each one.

I only go because we go to the movie theater with food and drink service. LOL.

[flex]

I believe it is the last of the bunch. And I did come very close to dozing off tonight.

[Deleted]

They are so fucking long!

I remember in one of them, at the end, I was like, "And they're still not at the damn mountain?!"

LOL.

[Muddled]

I've found myself dozing too. I just can't do 3 hours.

[cleo29]

Dec 19, 2014 0:40:56 GMT -5 @misoangry said:

Is this the last of the bunch?

I've sat through all of them in a theater with my husband and fallen asleep during each one.

I only go because we go to the movie theater with food and drink service. LOL.

Yes and this last time he (Peter Jackson) managed to take a not so long book and divide it into two really long movies. At this point, I feel like he doesn't know what else to do.

I am sure, when it is my time to see this movie, I will be sleeping too.

[coribelle26]

Dec 19, 2014 0:43:24 GMT -5 @misoangry said:

They are so fucking long!

I remember in one of them, at the end, I was like, "And they're still not at the damn mountain?!"

LOL.

This made me laugh so hard because years ago, I saw the first LOTR movie at H's insistence. I sat there for three hours or more or whatever it was watching those stupid hobbits screw up everything and then the idiots walked over a damn hill and the credits started to roll. NOTHING HAPPENED. I seriously was like WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT??

I have not seen a single Tolkien-based film since.

[Deleted]

I passionately dislike these movies and yet I see every damn one of them. I've read The Hobbit at least 15 times and I am offended by the changes Jackson made for no apparent reason other than to draw the thing out to three movies.

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2014 8:21:13 GMT -5 @silver said:

I passionately dislike these movies and yet I see every damn one of them. I've read The Hobbit at least 15 times and I am offended by the changes Jackson made for no apparent reason other than to draw the thing out to three movies.

Like times a millions! It's funny that he had to edit down and change The Lord of the rings slightly to fit it into three movies, and then he stretched out and changed this one into three when it was a book the fraction of the size of LOTR. 

I endure the movies because I grew up reading the books a million times and I longed to visualize some of the places and things so it is cool to see it, but the story changes are not cool.

[Serenity9]

Dec 19, 2014 8:21:13 GMT -5 @silver said:

I passionately dislike these movies and yet I see every damn one of them. I've read The Hobbit at least 15 times and I am offended by the changes Jackson made for no apparent reason other than to draw the thing out to three movies.

He's not changing things for no reason. He's blending The Hobbit and The Silmarillion and telling both stories at the same time by matching up the time periods. It's kinda cool. **ahem** No, it's not. Only nerds would think it's cool.  *-)

[flex]

I don't mind long movies as long as they're exciting enough to keep my attention. The Desolation of Smaug was great, but the new one? Yawn.

I did like looking at the younger dwarf dudes--very handsome.

[Deleted]

I can't wait! Even with the lackluster reviews I will be watching it.

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2014 10:47:17 GMT -5 Serenity9 said:

Dec 19, 2014 8:21:13 GMT -5 @silver said:

I passionately dislike these movies and yet I see every damn one of them. I've read The Hobbit at least 15 times and I am offended by the changes Jackson made for no apparent reason other than to draw the thing out to three movies.

He's not changing things for no reason. He's blending The Hobbit and The Silmarillion and telling both stories at the same time by matching up the time periods. It's kinda cool. **ahem** No, it's not. Only nerds would think it's cool.  *-)

Azog is not supposed to be there.  He's been dead for like 200 years if you're following Tolkien's timeline.

If anything it would be his son and there's no reason why it's not his son since only people who've read way too much Tolkien would know or care so why not do it right?

If you want to tell the Silmarillion's story then do a series of movies for it.  That I can absolutely see taking more than one movie and people would obviously go see it since a ton of people who've never read any of these books went to see LotR and The Hobbit.

Oh and I also think Radagast is a weird and pointless addition.  I don't mind the character but how are you going to add him in as a major contributor but completely leave Tom Bombadil out of LotR?  I loved him.

ETA: I would actually love a Silmarillion series.  I think these movies have done a great job with the scenery and I'd love to see some of those stories play out.  The problem is the Silmarillion reads like a cross between a text book and the Bible and would take I don't know how many hours to actually show on screen.

[pixy0stix]

I didn't realize that it was going to be a trilogy. So when I went to watch the first one I couldn't figure out why it was dragging so long.

I can't wait to watch this last one!

[Serenity9]

Dec 19, 2014 11:21:24 GMT -5 @silver said:

Dec 19, 2014 10:47:17 GMT -5 Serenity9 said:

He's not changing things for no reason. He's blending The Hobbit and The Silmarillion and telling both stories at the same time by matching up the time periods. It's kinda cool. **ahem** No, it's not. Only nerds would think it's cool.  *-)

Azog is not supposed to be there.  He's been dead for like 200 years if you're following Tolkien's timeline.

If anything it would be his son and there's no reason why it's not his son since only people who've read way too much Tolkien would know or care so why not do it right?

If you want to tell the Silmarillion's story then do a series of movies for it.  That I can absolutely see taking more than one movie and people would obviously go see it since a ton of people who've never read any of these books went to see LotR and The Hobbit.

Oh and I also think Radagast is a weird and pointless addition.  I don't mind the character but how are you going to add him in as a major contributor but completely leave Tom Bombadil out of LotR?  I loved him.

Hmm... I guess I'm not that cool. Ha! I didn't notice that part. 

I totally agree about leaving Tom Bombadil out of LotR. And they gave his poems to Treebeard? No. 

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2014 11:31:43 GMT -5 Serenity9 said:

Dec 19, 2014 11:21:24 GMT -5 @silver said:

Azog is not supposed to be there.  He's been dead for like 200 years if you're following Tolkien's timeline.

If anything it would be his son and there's no reason why it's not his son since only people who've read way too much Tolkien would know or care so why not do it right?

If you want to tell the Silmarillion's story then do a series of movies for it.  That I can absolutely see taking more than one movie and people would obviously go see it since a ton of people who've never read any of these books went to see LotR and The Hobbit.

Oh and I also think Radagast is a weird and pointless addition.  I don't mind the character but how are you going to add him in as a major contributor but completely leave Tom Bombadil out of LotR?  I loved him.

Hmm... I guess I'm not that cool. Ha! I didn't notice that part. 

I totally agree about leaving Tom Bombadil out of LotR. And they gave his poems to Treebeard? No. 

Riiiiight?  I was salt in the wounds I tell you.

No.  No Bombadil who is like the bright spot in Fellowship but you can have a high speed rabbit sleigh chase. 

[pixy0stix]

I was also heartbroken about Bombadil not being in LOTR. But noooooooo... keep in the eleventy billion shots of them walking, and walking, and walking...