so correct me if im wrong... (Small halfling sized Hobbit 3 Spoiler alert)

[Arkhan Land]

So Bilbo is 50 in hobbit series.

at hobbit 3 movie ending pj inserts a dumb non-cannon franchise-based LOTR setup scene asking Legolas to find go find a young ranger named Strider

LOTR begins with Bilbo's 111th birthday, Strider/Aragon is in his 30s-40s

so correct me if im wrong shouldn't Strider probably not be born yet?

as always aside from little slipups the movie was good BUT THE BOOK WAS BETTER

[ElectricPaladin]

So Bilbo is 50 in hobbit series.

at hobbit 3 movie ending pj inserts a dumb non-cannon franchise-based LOTR setup scene asking Legolas to find go find a young ranger named Strider

LOTR begins with Bilbo's 111th birthday, Strider/Aragon is in his 30s-40s

so correct me if im wrong shouldn't Strider probably not be born yet?

as always aside from little slipups the movie was good BUT THE BOOK WAS BETTER

Aragorn is in his late 70s. Maybe his 80s? I don't remember.

He's a Dunedaine. They live for a long time. Not elf-long, but long. He and Arwen get at least a century together before he finally dies.

Also, the Hobbit movies are reeking piles of **** and I hope Peter Jackson rots in hell. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't buy him enough good will to justify this dreck.

[Arkhan Land]

Aragorn is in his late 70s. Maybe his 80s? I don't remember.

He's a Dunedaine. They live for a long time. Not elf-long, but long. He and Arwen get at least a century together before he finally dies.

Also, the Hobbit movies are reeking piles of **** and I hope Peter Jackson rots in hell. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't buy him enough good will to justify this dreck.

ah, this makes sense

I still found the movies enjoyable but I think I totally prepped myself knowing that it would have a lot of divergence and commercial extravagance, added romance, unnecesary plot elements etc.

in terms of book to movie accuracy on a 1-10 scale where Scifi Channel Dune is a 10 and Starship Troopers is a 1, I give this movie a 7.5

which I guess isnt as good as a book thats a 10

[Faultie]

ah, this makes sense

I still found the movies enjoyable but I think I totally prepped myself knowing that it would have a lot of divergence and commercial extravagance, added romance, unnecesary plot elements etc.

in terms of book to movie accuracy on a 1-10 scale where Scifi Channel Dune is a 10 and Starship Troopers is a 1, I give this movie a 7.5

which I guess isnt as good as a book thats a 10

There's actually a scene in the director's cut of the Two Towers where Aragorn and Eowyn are talking, and she's like "You can't be the Aragorn I've heard of, he's old as hell."

[ElectricPaladin]

There's actually a scene in the director's cut of the Two Towers where Aragorn and Eowyn are talking, and she's like "You can't be the Aragorn I've heard of, he's old as hell."

Oh, yeah. I loved that scene.

These movies aren't a 3.5. They're a -8 at best. I hate that they stretched out a relatively simple book into three movies. I hate everything they included in a pitiful attempt to make that choice make sense - the White Ork, Tauriel, all of it. I hate that they made the Dwarves sexy - not because I've got a problem with man-candy in movies, but because that's not what Dwarves are - they're Dwarves, not short grumpy people. I hate that Radagast was a joke. I hate everything. I am a screaming eye of hate.

That's not entirely true. There are two things about the movies that I only mildly disliked. I disliked the way they refocused it on "heroic" violence and completely lost sight of Tolkien's original aesthetic of true, deep, compassionate goodness as the only real way to live. I'm used to that by now. I also disliked Thorin's stupid ****ing oak-log-for-a-shield. Because apparently we're all to stupid to handle a simple ****ing metaphor now, God damn it.

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Put down the gun Shirley.

[daboarder]

Oh, yeah. I loved that scene.

These movies aren't a 3.5. They're a -8 at best. I hate that they stretched out a relatively simple book into three movies. I hate everything they included in a pitiful attempt to make that choice make sense - the White Ork, Tauriel, all of it. I hate that they made the Dwarves sexy - not because I've got a problem with man-candy in movies, but because that's not what Dwarves are - they're Dwarves, not short grumpy people. I hate that Radagast was a joke. I hate everything. I am a screaming eye of hate.

That's not entirely true. There are two things about the movies that I only mildly disliked. I disliked the way they refocused it on "heroic" violence and completely lost sight of Tolkien's original aesthetic of true, deep, compassionate goodness as the only real way to live. I'm used to that by now. I also disliked Thorin's stupid ****ing oak-log-for-a-shield. Because apparently we're all to stupid to handle a simple ****ing metaphor now, God damn it.

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

hahaha still really well said

[Aegwymourn]

Oh, yeah. I loved that scene.

These movies aren't a 3.5. They're a -8 at best. I hate that they stretched out a relatively simple book into three movies. I hate everything they included in a pitiful attempt to make that choice make sense - the White Ork, Tauriel, all of it. I hate that they made the Dwarves sexy - not because I've got a problem with man-candy in movies, but because that's not what Dwarves are - they're Dwarves, not short grumpy people. I hate that Radagast was a joke. I hate everything. I am a screaming eye of hate.

That's not entirely true. There are two things about the movies that I only mildly disliked. I disliked the way they refocused it on "heroic" violence and completely lost sight of Tolkien's original aesthetic of true, deep, compassionate goodness as the only real way to live. I'm used to that by now. I also disliked Thorin's stupid ****ing oak-log-for-a-shield. Because apparently we're all to stupid to handle a simple ****ing metaphor now, God damn it.

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

+1

While the original trilogy at least made an attempt to keep stuff from the books the Hobbit movies are not even close.

[Erik Setzer]

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

Read Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Trilogy and then try to stomach even the first of the three movies. But no, for the full effect, force your way through all three.

You won't think so poorly of The Hobbit trilogy after that. They took the entire story of the Bourne trilogy, threw it out the window, only kept the name of the books and some characters, completely changed the main character, changed the name and nationality (and, of course, everything else) of his wife, and just generally did everything except digging up Ludlum, opening his coffin, and taking a crap on his corpse. Every time I hear those movies praised, I want to slap everyone doing so, because the book series is infinitely superior and makes a lot more sense. (Right off the bat: David Webb isn't a CIA assassin who got a conscience, he's a former free agent who helped America in a war after his wife and son were killed, who later agreed to play the role of a fake assassin named Jason Bourne that real assassinations were being accredited to in order to piss off Carlos the Jackal and draw him out to take out this competing assassin. And the actual Bourne was a traitor Webb killed during that war.)

Okay, going to stop there and go breathe deeply somewhere and try to calm down... I really loathe those movies, though.

- - - Updated - - -

My feelings are they The Hobbit could have been quite nice as two movies. It doesn't feel like it fits three.

That's where I felt it went wrong. Maybe push them to three hours each if needed, fine. But to get a third movie, they had to extend some things, including making the final battle just way too long (it basically *was* just a movie dedicated to a battle). Yeah, the Warhammer player in me loved regiments of fantasy fighters going against each other, but, well, it wasn't really that necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

Not because it did anything important for the movie or anything, but because that was just plain cool to watch, end of story.

Well, heck, I felt like a lot of the battle scenes were just plain cool to watch, so... guess their inclusion was fair game. (Seriously, I felt like getting Thandruil for the Hobbit miniatures game after seeing that, just so I could charge him into orcs and slaughter them. I'm just annoyed that the mounted version of him is on a horse, and in the movie it's based on he's riding a moose (I think it's meant to be a special elk or something, but whatever). Sure, the horse seems more normal and all, but hey, maybe I want an elf riding something like that. (Granted, it might have been too close to the Wood Elves GW makes.)

[daboarder]

Aragorn is in his late 70s. Maybe his 80s? I don't remember.

He's a Dunedaine. They live for a long time. Not elf-long, but long. He and Arwen get at least a century together before he finally dies.

Also, the Hobbit movies are reeking piles of **** and I hope Peter Jackson rots in hell. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't buy him enough good will to justify this dreck.

Wow man, good ninja, totally agree on all counts

- - - Updated - - -

in terms of book to movie accuracy on a 1-10 scale where Scifi Channel Dune is a 10 and Starship Troopers is a 1, I give this movie a 7.5

Nah, its more like a 4 maybe 3.5. theres about 3 hours of movie all up that never even come close to being a thing in the book