Sir Tom the Dragon Knight
Dragon Lord
I am going this afternoon for my birthday! Can't wait! Review tomorrow!
That's awesome! I wish I was going.
I am going this afternoon for my birthday! Can't wait! Review tomorrow!
Not perfect, but still a beautiful telling. The first 45 minutes felt like reading straight-up Tolkien; it was amazing! I'm going to see it again before I give it a rating... but I highly recommend!
I found I could actually quote parts because they were from the books. My dad said he elbowed me once to get me to stop because I was ALREADY quoting the movie the first time I'd seen it, but I was too entranced to notice.
Agreed with all of this -- it is too bad they made Thorin look useless against Azog, but good that this was among the few things that were twisted in the film. Good point.CF said:Yes, Azog WAS ALREADY DEAD before the action of the original "The Hobbit" began; and he had been killed single-handedly by Thorin. Which is why it is GROSSLY WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, if having Azog alive as a continuity villain, that Thorin should be made so completely, pitifully ineffectual against him. That's the only error in the Hobbit movie that I'm positively angry about. There was NO NEED to humiliate Thorin so gratuitously. They could have let him kill the big Warg, and then get hit from behind by Azog; that would still have permitted Bilbo to intervene, WITHOUT making Thorin look weak and useless. Just as with Eowyn in "Return of the King": she was unable to beat the Nazgul-King without help, but getting to slay the Fell Beast by herself was enough to give her dignity.
Yes, Azog WAS ALREADY DEAD before the action of the original "The Hobbit" began; and he had been killed single-handedly by Thorin. Which is why it is GROSSLY WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, if having Azog alive as a continuity villain, that Thorin should be made so completely, pitifully ineffectual against him. That's the only error in the Hobbit movie that I'm positively angry about. There was NO NEED to humiliate Thorin so gratuitously. They could have let him kill the big Warg, and then get hit from behind by Azog; that would still have permitted Bilbo to intervene, WITHOUT making Thorin look weak and useless. Just as with Eowyn in "Return of the King": she was unable to beat the Nazgul-King without help, but getting to slay the Fell Beast by herself was enough to give her dignity.
I know a lot of people think that, but a good deal of it is history and context from the appendix of LOTR which sets the story ... I liked it.I saw the movie twice already. While it was good and entertaining and had many parts straight out of the book (like the game of riddles for example) it was not that great in my opinion. I think they could have done it better if they had condensed the story to maybe just 2 films as opposed to 3. There was just too much unnecessary stuff in this first one!
I know a lot of people think that, but a good deal of it is history and context from the appendix of LOTR which sets the story ... I liked it.
I wrote an alternate ending to that scene with that being what happens instead of what occurred in the movie. I remember thinking during that scene, "Thorin is the LEADER for goodness sake, and he defeated this guy before, he has GOT to be better than this."
Will we get to see that? I would like to "overwrite" that one ruined scene in my mind with your version. I declare, movie directors don't seem to be able to find true happiness in life unless they can ruin SOMETHING in a story.
I think though that if I had been running through a mountain and fighting goblins all day, then I had to run from orcs who had warg mounts and were faster then me, I would be extremely tired and unable to kill any orcs or wargs, let alone my arch nemesis. And I think it makes a good movie for the next two because they leave you in suspense about when Azog will pop up again and try to kill Thorin.