Actually, I consider the Hobbit Movies to be excellent movies and excellent adaptations. They are at least as accurate as the LOTR films. I believe most people who criticize them have not actually read the books, so they do not understand how many of the "changes" are simply additions from the appendices or elsewhere in LOTR.
I just watched the first one again last night, and I'm watching Desolation tonight. I agree it's very good, and a fairly good adaptation, especially the beginning and the Riddles in the Dark scene. I know most of the Sauron origin stuff is from the LotR appendices, but the biggest change by far is Azog. Having him chase them around everywhere is so annoying because he's supposed to be dead! There were a few pretty big changes in the LotR films, like Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath and Sam being sent down the Secret Stairs at Cirith Ungol, but there aren't any additions that become an important part of the plot as much as Azog did.
True, but he stops chasing them right at the beginning of DOS, for reasons you'll see, and Bolg takes over.
I agree that Azog being alive, and chasing them was a significant change, but I think it was with good reason. He links the journey of Thorin and Company directly to Sauron's rise, as you will see in DOS, and BOTFA, which I think was very important, and it helps tie the story together.
Also, he provides a more consistent threat, which helps keep the pace up and add some more action.
Apparently I didn't pay enough attention in Geography then.
I'm starting to feel as though geography has been replaced by human movement and migration theory. At least that's what my "geography" class consisted of. Hence I only know the geography of Australia, a little Africa, UK and Antarctica. It was only a few years ago that I discovered New York is a state as well as a city. <- Who decided on the naming? So stupid, and New York isn't even the capital of New York. That would be like calling Cairns (North Queensland city) Queensland.
Apparently I didn't pay enough attention in Geography then.
I'm starting to feel as though geography has been replaced by human movement and migration theory. At least that's what my "geography" class consisted of. Hence I only know the geography of Australia, a little Africa, UK and Antarctica. It was only a few years ago that I discovered New York is a state as well as a city. <- Who decided on the naming? So stupid, and New York isn't even the capital of New York. That would be like calling Cairns (North Queensland city) Queensland.
New York City was founded by the Dutch, and was originally New Amsterdam, the capital of New Holland. However, the British decided they wanted it, so they took it and renamed it New York, after the Duke of York. The colony was, I presume named at the same time, or a bit later, either directly after the Duke of York, like the city, or after the city, as New York City of course the largest and most influential city in the state.
As for why the capital is Albany, I will have to ask the Google....yes, it became capital in 1797 because of it's advantageous position.
New York state, is, by the way, immensely beautiful. Miles of rolling hills, woods, and fields, rippling rivers through green valleys, grand gorges, sparkling lakes, mountains, and on. It's shame it gets overshadowed in people's minds , even in america, by the city.
I'm starting to feel as though geography has been replaced by human movement and migration theory. At least that's what my "geography" class consisted of. Hence I only know the geography of Australia, a little Africa, UK and Antarctica. It was only a few years ago that I discovered New York is a state as well as a city. <- Who decided on the naming? So stupid, and New York isn't even the capital of New York. That would be like calling Cairns (North Queensland city) Queensland.
New York City was founded by the Dutch, and was originally New Amsterdam, the capital of New Holland. However, the British decided they wanted it, so they took it and renamed it New York, after the Duke of York. The colony was, I presume named at the same time, or a bit later, either directly after the Duke of York, like the city, or after the city, as New York City of course the largest and most influential city in the state.
As for why the capital is Albany, I will have to ask the Google....yes, it became capital in 1797 because of it's advantageous position.
New York state, is, by the way, immensely beautiful. Miles of rolling hills, woods, and fields, rippling rivers through green valleys, grand gorges, sparkling lakes, mountains, and on. It's shame it gets overshadowed in people's minds , even in america, by the city.
That was supposed to be a rhetorical question but thank you for the information, it is rather interesting. Most of our cities were either named by the local Indigenous tribes or the British. For instance, Canberra (parliamentary capital) means meeting place.
Advantageous position? Well that's something Canberra and Brisbane were never considered for. Canberra and the Australia Capital Territory were positioned so that neither New South Wales and Sydney or Victoria and Melbourne could claim capital status. The two colonies fought over it, though most foreigners still believe Sydney to be the capital of Australia.
As for Brisbane, well... It has nothing going for it. Brisbane should have been built by the Pumicestone Passage (40kms north). With two peninsulas and an island, shipments wouldn't need to squeeze through the snaking Brisbane River. Additionally, you wouldn't have sharks swimming through the streets because it wouldn't flood every couple of years. Also, Brisbane is just boring and someone needs to do something about that river, it's disgusting. I guess this is why I never catch the ferry to school.
Apparently I didn't pay enough attention in Geography then.
I'm starting to feel as though geography has been replaced by human movement and migration theory. At least that's what my "geography" class consisted of. Hence I only know the geography of Australia, a little Africa, UK and Antarctica. It was only a few years ago that I discovered New York is a state as well as a city. <- Who decided on the naming? So stupid, and New York isn't even the capital of New York. That would be like calling Cairns (North Queensland city) Queensland.
All I have is the states and bits and pieces of every where else. I can tell you where a country is but nothing else about it, like I didn't no Monaco is a city-state I didn't even know it exited.
You should see some other city names, like the ever impressive Accident (Maryland), Experiment (Georgia), Frankenstein (Missouri) and Kickapoo (Kansas)
The coolest animal in Texas is the Armadillo, which would work for soccer I guess?
I don't know either, I had to look up our teams for their names... Yeah we have no team with good animal names.
Cool. Fun Fact: Dr Pepper was invented in Waco in 1885. The Dublin Dr Pepper, 85 miles west of Waco, still uses pure imperial cane sugar in its product.
That's awesome, I love Dr. Pepper! Another fun fact: Mtn. Dew was first bottled in my hometown!
I prefer Root-Bear. Fun Fact: My hometown is the 4th largest in the states.
I just watched the first one again last night, and I'm watching Desolation tonight. I agree it's very good, and a fairly good adaptation, especially the beginning and the Riddles in the Dark scene. I know most of the Sauron origin stuff is from the LotR appendices, but the biggest change by far is Azog. Having him chase them around everywhere is so annoying because he's supposed to be dead! There were a few pretty big changes in the LotR films, like Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath and Sam being sent down the Secret Stairs at Cirith Ungol, but there aren't any additions that become an important part of the plot as much as Azog did.
True, but he stops chasing them right at the beginning of DOS, for reasons you'll see, and Bolg takes over.
I agree that Azog being alive, and chasing them was a significant change, but I think it was with good reason. He links the journey of Thorin and Company directly to Sauron's rise, as you will see in DOS, and BOTFA, which I think was very important, and it helps tie the story together.
Also, he provides a more consistent threat, which helps keep the pace up and add some more action.
It makes sense that Peter Jackson wanted to put Sauron's origins in the Hobbit films, since they were made as prequels. And since he put that in the movies, it also makes sense that he would want to somehow connect it to Bilbo and Thorin's quest. And it makes sense that he would want plenty of action and suspense in the films, although personally I prefer Bilbo having an often-peaceful journey with various dangerous incidents, but I can understand why that wouldn't work as well in film as it did in writing.
All those things make sense, but when you add them all up, it just changes the feel of The Hobbit too much in my opinion. However, I have been greatly enjoying the films, and can't wait to watch Five Armies tonight. I might even be willing to forgive the whole Orc hunt thing if they could have made it just be Bolg, since he's not supposed to be dead, and he actually does end up attacking the dwarves at the end, and starting the Battle of Five Armies. But the fact that Azog shouldn't even be alive, coupled with the fact that the Orc hunt wasn't even relevant until the end of the quest in the book, makes me feel like it's a bit too large of a change.
I'm not saying I don't like it. It's really cool, and I enjoy the sense of danger to the quest. That's just my biggest problem with the way the book was adapted, and for me it's hard to forget that it shouldn't be happening.
My other biggest problem with Desolation wasn't super huge, but it just annoyed me like crazy. BILBO BARELY USED THE RING AT ALL!!! I get that it's supposed to be bad when you put on the Ring, but in the book you don't even know that, and Bilbo doesn't know even in the movies! He should be using it more! He used it ALL THE TIME to get out of sticky situations in the book. Especially when he saw the Eye of Sauron while talking with Smaug and took off the Ring. I can't tell you how much that bothered me. But it was an amazing scene overall. Smaug was unbelievably good, his voice and the CGI both.
I'm sorry if I sound super negative about all this, I'm loving these movies, I just felt like expressing my feelings on the worst aspects imo. Sorry if it was a bit rant-y. *looks at "subject"* Well, not sure what this really has to do with the Top 50 Posters, but.... well, I guess it's kind of a chatroom anyway.
Apparently I didn't pay enough attention in Geography then.
I'm starting to feel as though geography has been replaced by human movement and migration theory. At least that's what my "geography" class consisted of. Hence I only know the geography of Australia, a little Africa, UK and Antarctica. It was only a few years ago that I discovered New York is a state as well as a city. <- Who decided on the naming? So stupid, and New York isn't even the capital of New York. That would be like calling Cairns (North Queensland city) Queensland.
New York City was founded by the Dutch, and was originally New Amsterdam, the capital of New Holland. However, the British decided they wanted it, so they took it and renamed it New York, after the Duke of York. The colony was, I presume named at the same time, or a bit later, either directly after the Duke of York, like the city, or after the city, as New York City of course the largest and most influential city in the state.
As for why the capital is Albany, I will have to ask the Google....yes, it became capital in 1797 because of it's advantageous position.
New York state, is, by the way, immensely beautiful. Miles of rolling hills, woods, and fields, rippling rivers through green valleys, grand gorges, sparkling lakes, mountains, and on. It's shame it gets overshadowed in people's minds , even in america, by the city.
That was supposed to be a rhetorical question but thank you for the information, it is rather interesting. Most of our cities were either named by the local Indigenous tribes or the British. For instance, Canberra (parliamentary capital) means meeting place.
Advantageous position? Well that's something Canberra and Brisbane were never considered for. Canberra and the Australia Capital Territory were positioned so that neither New South Wales and Sydney or Victoria and Melbourne could claim capital status. The two colonies fought over it, though most foreigners still believe Sydney to be the capital of Australia.
As for Brisbane, well... It has nothing going for it. Brisbane should have been built by the Pumicestone Passage (40kms north). With two peninsulas and an island, shipments wouldn't need to squeeze through the snaking Brisbane River. Additionally, you wouldn't have sharks swimming through the streets because it wouldn't flood every couple of years. Also, Brisbane is just boring and someone needs to do something about that river, it's disgusting. I guess this is why I never catch the ferry to school.
That's awesome, I love Dr. Pepper! Another fun fact: Mtn. Dew was first bottled in my hometown!
I prefer Root-Bear. Fun Fact: My hometown is the 4th largest in the states.
I love root beer too. I can never decide between it and DP as my favorite soda. Once I've finally decided one is my favorite, I have the other one and then think, "Hey, this is even better!"
At least that's what my "geography" class consisted of. Hence I only know the geography of Australia, a little Africa, UK and Antarctica. It was only a few years ago that I discovered New York is a state as well as a city. <- Who decided on the naming? So stupid, and New York isn't even the capital of New York. That would be like calling Cairns (North Queensland city) Queensland. 
Most of our cities were either named by the local Indigenous tribes or the British. For instance, Canberra (parliamentary capital) means meeting place. 
![[fp]](http://storage.proboards.com/6672327/images/npbLCuGzrLApxWtWqy0u.png)
Another fun fact: Mtn. Dew was first bottled in my hometown! ![[h]](http://storage.proboards.com/6672327/images/nPCskakrdhDERqIVGKuw.png)
