Video Game Forums

I watched it, it wasn't too bad. There were a lot of awkward close-ups and slow-mo shots, and Bilbo didn't kiss Thorin like I thought he should've.

there's only camrips on the internet right now so I can't watch it :(

I really liked the first two. I was originally very skeptical about how much filler they were going to have to pack in to stretch a 200-something page book into three 2 1/2 hour movies but overall they're very entertaining movies, the first two at least.

^^ Quite a bit different from the original story where Thorin is terse and businesslike throughout.

Also, the giant worms, for lack of a better word. I have no idea why they were there, but they don't do anything but dig tunnels. It just seems such a waste. I don't remember sandworms in Tolkein, ever. I don't think, when Gandalf described the "nameless things that gnaw the roots of the earth" (Two Towers) that even Sauron does not know, he meant worms that even orcs know about.

I actually like having Thorin as the protagonist (aside from Bilbo) as opposed to Aragorn and Frodo. I guess it is more interesting with someone as stubborn and proud as Thorin. And Bilbo is just more likeable throughout than that other hobbit protagonist. The books did better with Frodo, at least.

It was shorter than the others, which helped pacing, but it was also based on the smallest amount of the text, which meant there was still a lot of padding. And the ending just...stopped. It was like the exact opposite extreme of RotK's five endings.
Gotta say, even though her romance with Kili dragged things down a lot (& robbed most of the other dwarves of lines), I did appreciate Tauriel's presence for the sole reason that it gave us a major character whose fate wasn't predetermined by the books (or by being Azog), thus adding 1 legitimate bit of suspense.
[spoiler]'Cause, I mean, of course Azog dies. Heck, I thought he should've died at the end of part 1.[/spoiler]

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

I haven't watched the last one. Not sure how stretching one book into three movies was a good idea.

Azog was already walking around with a negative amount of time left to live. He managed pretty well for someone that was supposed to be long dead.

i am not qualified to form a solid analysis of the film as a whole because i can still be driven to tears by just talking about some of the content of the LotR films. i have an unrivaled personal bond with those movies that i can't properly explain, it's **** deep. therefore, the hobbit films could have been absolute trash (as some bafflingly think they are) and i wouldn't have noticed. it's a "this franchise could do no wrong" thing for me. i spent a majority of the viewing of the most recent film in tears.

I did quite enjoy the culmination of the Dol Guldur subplot, though, as well as pretty much any scene Bilbo or Gandalf were actually in.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1514868, member: 25169"]I did quite enjoy the culmination of the Dol Guldur subplot, though, as well as pretty much any scene Bilbo or Gandalf were actually in.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]
Galadriel really made the whole film for me.

Also, I find it especially irksome when firefox's spellcheck is telling me Galadriel isn't a word, considering it's been a name since long before the modern PC was invented.

I've only seen the first one. :whistle:

I can't put my finger on it, but I just wasn't a fan.

God I really thought they milked it. I knew three movies would be milking it. Two would have been better. The third movie is literally not-stop killing stuff.