Young Writers Society

*quietly sneaks into discussion on The Hobbit*

I wouldn't call it a terrible movie as I love the acting and it still has a little of the old plot from the book in it, but I do think that it's waaay too fast going for my tastes. I was feeling constantly rushed throughout it, because of all the action, but still... I thought it was a decent movie. One worthy enough to watch. *is guilty of watching it last night*

and it still has a little of the old plot from the book in it

Therese, this might shock you... but The Hobbit actually has all of the plot from the book in it. It just happens to add in a lot more from the appendixes as well. Which it has so far pulled off very well.

Well, I wouldn't say it has all the plot in it, Birk. This may be a poor example, but for instance, Bard. In the book, he wasn't a criminal, but someone that everyone looked up to and followed. They thought of him as foreboding and whatever but they still respected him. In the movie, though... They take that away and make him into a common criminal that everyone hates.

And also when the dwarf and elf have something going. That got on me in particular, as something like that had never happened before in the history of Middle Earth. Didn't ruin the movie of course, but I didn't really think it added much to it.

Just some of the reasons why I don't think they follow the book very well. Not that many movies these days do, though. ^ ^

Therese, something you need to understand is that a close adaption of a story doesn't make it a good film. Literary and cinematic medias are very different. What works in writing, may not translate well on screen.

So yes, changes are obviously made. Just as they did in The Lord of the Rings. Being even more critically acclaimed, that trilogy also changed a whole bunch of stuff. For the better. A lot of things changed and was even cut. A good example of something that was cut is Tom Bombadil, who was obviously in the book, but not in the film. This was removed because he can almost be considered a plot hole.

In The Hobbit on the other hand, I was sceptical of the changes they were making. The main one being the addition of Tauriel and the added romance. I dreaded this. However, once it came out, I absolutely loved it. They really pulled this off well. And heck, I'm pretty sure this is going to come full circle once the final installment hits, as there's speculation that Tauriel's dwarf romance is going to affect Legolas, and thus affect his future relationship with Gimli in the fellowship. I really hope this is what they're going for, because it fits really well. In that way, I'd say it actually adds a lot.

And yes, it does have all the plot from the book in it. Some of it is just changed. As I said, a lot of it for cinematic purposes. Bard is a good example of this; they made hurdles for him to overcome to achieve his goals, instead of everybody following him. And with his backstory, he gets some sort of redemption aspect, as his family before him failed to slay Smaug. Redemtion for himself and his dishonored family name, at least in his own eyes.

And Bard is not a criminal. Where did you get that? The corrupt leaders of Laketown doesn't like him meddling with their chances of riches, so they stop him. He's not a criminal.

While I enjoyed AUJ, it was a slight disappointment for me. Yet, once DOS came out, I immidiately thought 'now we're talking!'. But, as I've watched it many times after that (4 times now, with the extended edition), I've come to love it. It's so much fun to watch. It has characters I care for, fantastic plots and great action. These films have been an upwards spiral for me, with AUJ at 8/10 and DOS at 9/10. I belive this final installment will be the one to hit a full 10/10 for me. Just like the LOTR trilogy.

Well, the first part of it was filled with tons of action, almost none of which was in the book. Then there was the part with the spiders which was good and after that the encounter with and eventual escape from the wood elves which was almost completely inaccurate when compared with the book.

Eventually they met bard and got into Lake Town. This made me mad because Bard wasn't even a character in the book until the last couple chapters. (Neither were Taúriel or Legolas).

I guess that now would be a good time to discuss the characters that weren't in the book for a little bit. First off, Azog and Sauron were hardly even mentioned in the Hobbit and they never did anything, except perhaps in a passive tense. Azog was dead and the Necromancer (Sauron) was only mentioned a couple times. That is just on the bad side.

On the good side they added in Legolas and Taúriel. Taúriel isn't even real. She was never mentioned in any of Tolkein's books so why should she be made a character, especially one of the main ones? Legolas does exist in the LOTR, but he was never mentioned in the Hobbit. If they just alluded to that would have been fine, but for some reason he is elevated to the position of an MC. Finally Rhadagast. He also exists, though again he is only mentioned briefly in the Hobbit.

Back to the movie. So, eventually the dwarves get out of the city, but not all of them like in the book. There is also a stupid love relationship between Taúriel and Fili (I think it was Fili and not Kili).

Then, in the final stage of the movie. It was pretty much on track with the book, minus them trying to burn Smaug with gold. What I didn't like about it was that it didn't really gell with the rest of the movie. First you are dumped with a ton of action and then there is some sappy romance (which I won't start going into) and then a little bit more action. But then in the end when you expect there to be the most fast paced action (not in the beginning) the story slows down and gets really boring.

I guess my point is that the movie was written backwards, they added a ton of characters in that didn't need to be there, and they totally botched their "representation of the book" as a result. Even if I had never read the book, I would still not like it because instead of having the climax at the end it was at the beginning. I also wasn't really impressed by all the gruesome action. It felt more like, "oh let's kill tons of people," than "oh, I hope the characters will survive!".

Bratz the Movie. The one with the real actors, not an animated one. o_o No matter how much I like chick flicks, this was awful. And Mean Girls 2 was pretty horrible as well.

A little film called Scopers. Oh, deary me, I wish I had never seen that. Wooden, predictable, does nothing with the idea (mind-reading), simply inept writing, special effects made in 5 minutes on Blender, and stupid, stupid camera angles.

Demeter wrote:Bratz the Movie. The one with the real actors

That sounds absolutely repulsive

Master of Disguise
Sooo stupid. Sooo stupid.

V for Vendetta
The graphic novel was excellent, and the movie just... butchered it. Ugh.

Dark Knight Rises
A huge letdown after Dark Knight was so incredibly awesome.

'Mirror Mirror' is so awful it's laughable.

"Year of the Dog". I feel like people go blind from watching that.

Divergent. The books were okay, but the movie... ugh.
And I could never pull myself through Deathly Hallows Part 1.

The movie Lucy. It had tons of action, but as far as good plots etc go, it was plainly said two hours of my life wasted. Also, I hated the ending.

Also the movie John Wick. The guy goes around killing nearly every person he feels should die, just because they killed the dog his wife gave him and they stole his car. The ending was, just like Lucy's, stupid.

I HATED Bridge to Terabithia, I felt like they drew us into the little girls character only to,slap us in the face with her death. I normally dont feel that way about deaths in movies if they have a purpose to further the plot, or a deeper meaning, but her death was senseless. I also misunderstood it to be a children's movie because of the way they marketed the movie, and because of the rating, so I took my kids to go see it. If theres one movie I wish I could unsee, it would be that movie. I invested so much emotion into it and then BAM! Right between the eyes! And thats it. Shes dead and thats the end? I feel like I got mind screwed, but not in a good way, like what movies do sometimes to make you think. Instead, It stomped on my heart like a breakup that just happens out of nowhere and you think everything is going great.

Lucy, the bull crap science in that movie was horrifying. Also any movie produced based on barby or what ever the plastic contraptions name is. Those jerks knew innocent people like me would be forced to watch it while having to take care of cousins(in my case cousins), daughters, and the like. They made it torture.



btw

Ashkitten83 wrote:I HATED Bridge to Terabithia, I felt like they drew us into the little girls character only to,slap us in the face with her death. I normally dont feel that way about deaths in movies if they have a purpose to further the plot, or a deeper meaning, but her death was senseless. I also misunderstood it to be a children's movie because of the way they marketed the movie, and because of the rating, so I took my kids to go see it. If theres one movie I wish I could unsee, it would be that movie. I invested so much emotion into it and then BAM! Right between the eyes! And thats it. Shes dead and thats the end? I feel like I got mind screwed, but not in a good way, like what movies do sometimes to make you think. Instead, It stomped on my heart like a breakup that just happens out of nowhere and you think everything is going great.

Twas based on a children book, and that is not the end, the end was expressing the feeling of losing a friend, the guilt of blaming oneself, and then change in general as people disappear around oneself. The very fact you got emotionally invested means it was a good movie in your eyes, you just don't want to accept it for some reason.