Mtn. Dew is so awfully unhealthy, I can't make myself drink it. But the Baja Blast flavor doesn't have the brominated vegetable oil, (the ingredient that makes normal Dew all but toxic) and it tastes amazing, so I drink it at summer camp.
I normally just drink tea, it's a lot healthier than sodas.
Fun Fact: In Texas everybody calls soda "coke".
I normally just drink water, it's a lot healthier than tea or soda. That and my parents won't usually let me drink any caffeinated sodas.
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.
Man, that was a long post.
"Shouldn't be happening."
That's the problem. And I face this too, sometimes thinking this way but there's nothing to say it shouldn't be happening. This isn't the book it's the movies. There they're own story, adapted from the book. So, the book isn't the "correct" story. In the film's continuity, Azog lived. Now, I understand thinking that movies can be to far, but I don't think that is the case with either the Hobbit or LOTR.
Now, that's not to say I like all the changes in The Hobbit or LOTR, I don't, because sometimes I think it would have been better like it is in the book, but there are many changes I like or love, and I sthink they are excellent adaptations that do a great job of making the books into amazing movies.
He didn't use much more at all in the book. Much of that has to do with the way some of it was abbreviated, so where in the book he might use the ring several times during the same sequence, in the film he uses it once or twice, such as during the Spiders how in the films the dwarves are captured immediately after the the spiders, or how they spend less time in the wood-elves caves, or how Bilbo goes down to see Smaug once, not twice. But Bilbo still uses the Ring for much the same purposes. As for Bilbo taking off the Ring, I think they did that so they could actually come face to face, so Smaug could move around following Bilbo, so we'd be seeing him move and showing off, as him remaining still wouldn't be very interesting in a film.
P.S. Watch the extended editions. The Extended of DOS has(among other scenes) the Dwarves meeting Beorn in pairs, the enchanted river and the White Stag, and Gandalf meeting Thrain in Dol Guldur.
I understand that the films have a different canon from the books. Obviously, they do, since there are differences between the two. But in the case of The Hobbit, it just kind of bothered me because I really liked that book and some of the changes just had no excuses to justify them, I thought. Also, the book was so short it should have been easy to adapt accurately.
Yeah, but the "abbreviations" came at the expense of much less Ring usage. Bilbo should have had the Ring on the entire time they were in the elf palace, the entire time they fought the spiders, the entire time he talked to Smaug, etc. I understand it makes more sense cinematically to show both Bilbo and whatever he's up against at the same time, and not have everything be gray and blurry to show Bilbo's point of view while wearing the Ring, but I'm sure they could have found a way, I'm sure.
Hopefully I'll be able to watch all 6 Extended versions next summer. I'm glad to hear it has the dwarves meeting Beorn in pairs and the enchanted black river. I was surprised not to see them in the film. I don't really remember the White Stag. Was Thrain actually in Dol Guldur in the book canon or is that an addition?
He didn't ask what it was, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. He was just wondering why you compared it to the armadillo as far as disease-carrying goes.
I must have misread. Nope, most people think they're bears. Well koalas carry a bad disease too. I'm not sure it's appropriate to mention it though. Hence the stalling.
That's the problem. And I face this too, sometimes thinking this way but there's nothing to say it shouldn't be happening. This isn't the book it's the movies. There they're own story, adapted from the book. So, the book isn't the "correct" story. In the film's continuity, Azog lived. Now, I understand thinking that movies can be to far, but I don't think that is the case with either the Hobbit or LOTR.
Now, that's not to say I like all the changes in The Hobbit or LOTR, I don't, because sometimes I think it would have been better like it is in the book, but there are many changes I like or love, and I sthink they are excellent adaptations that do a great job of making the books into amazing movies.
He didn't use much more at all in the book. Much of that has to do with the way some of it was abbreviated, so where in the book he might use the ring several times during the same sequence, in the film he uses it once or twice, such as during the Spiders how in the films the dwarves are captured immediately after the the spiders, or how they spend less time in the wood-elves caves, or how Bilbo goes down to see Smaug once, not twice. But Bilbo still uses the Ring for much the same purposes. As for Bilbo taking off the Ring, I think they did that so they could actually come face to face, so Smaug could move around following Bilbo, so we'd be seeing him move and showing off, as him remaining still wouldn't be very interesting in a film.
P.S. Watch the extended editions. The Extended of DOS has(among other scenes) the Dwarves meeting Beorn in pairs, the enchanted river and the White Stag, and Gandalf meeting Thrain in Dol Guldur.
I understand that the films have a different canon from the books. Obviously, they do, since there are differences between the two. But in the case of The Hobbit, it just kind of bothered me because I really liked that book and some of the changes just had no excuses to justify them, I thought. Also, the book was so short it should have been easy to adapt accurately.
Yeah, but the "abbreviations" came at the expense of much less Ring usage. Bilbo should have had the Ring on the entire time they were in the elf palace, the entire time they fought the spiders, the entire time he talked to Smaug, etc. I understand it makes more sense cinematically to show both Bilbo and whatever he's up against at the same time, and not have everything be gray and blurry to show Bilbo's point of view while wearing the Ring, but I'm sure they could have found a way, I'm sure.
Hopefully I'll be able to watch all 6 Extended versions next summer. I'm glad to hear it has the dwarves meeting Beorn in pairs and the enchanted black river. I was surprised not to see them in the film. I don't really remember the White Stag. Was Thrain actually in Dol Guldur in the book canon or is that an addition?
Ah, but it wasn't easy. Thy talk about this a lot in the special features (Which are amazing by the way. And hilarious. Those fish Bard dumps onto the Dwarves? All read, dead, fish.) For example, the Hobbit has a odd tone, part fairy tale, part faery tale. My point being, sometimes it's really light-hearted and funny, and other times high and epic and serious, even grim or depressing and dark. And even some of the funny bits are slightly horrifying. Especially, the tone grows more and more grim and epic as it goes, from songs about dishes to an epic battle. And sometimes it seems not connectd to LOTR, but Tolkien later added lots of connections. Also, lots of characters are not really fleshed out, or suddenly appear. Not to mention thirteen dwarves.
Also, when you think about it, there is a sense in which The Hobbit is more dense than LOTR: since there is less detail, a lot more actually happens in a short span of pages. Sometimes briefness can create difficulty when adapting.
Bilbo took the Ring off when fighting the Spiders in the book, though he did then put it back on. And, he took the ring off in the Woodland Realm, though he did put it back on. And as I said, he does use the Ring for essentially the same purposes. Though the dwarves don't find out about the Ring in the films, which is different. I think the way they found was to have him take the Ring off.
Yes, Thrain was in Dol Guldur in the books, but years previously. IN the books that's when Gandalf got the map and key. In the books, Gandalf finds out about Sauron over the course of centuries, and goes to Dol Guldur several times. In the films, they've condensed it into the period of the Quest of Erebor, and those several trips to Dol Guldur into one, presumably because telling it as happening over centuries would be weird in a film.
I understand that the films have a different canon from the books. Obviously, they do, since there are differences between the two. But in the case of The Hobbit, it just kind of bothered me because I really liked that book and some of the changes just had no excuses to justify them, I thought. Also, the book was so short it should have been easy to adapt accurately.
Yeah, but the "abbreviations" came at the expense of much less Ring usage. Bilbo should have had the Ring on the entire time they were in the elf palace, the entire time they fought the spiders, the entire time he talked to Smaug, etc. I understand it makes more sense cinematically to show both Bilbo and whatever he's up against at the same time, and not have everything be gray and blurry to show Bilbo's point of view while wearing the Ring, but I'm sure they could have found a way, I'm sure.
Hopefully I'll be able to watch all 6 Extended versions next summer. I'm glad to hear it has the dwarves meeting Beorn in pairs and the enchanted black river. I was surprised not to see them in the film. I don't really remember the White Stag. Was Thrain actually in Dol Guldur in the book canon or is that an addition?
Ah, but it wasn't easy. Thy talk about this a lot in the special features (Which are amazing by the way. And hilarious. Those fish Bard dumps onto the Dwarves? All read, dead, fish.) For example, the Hobbit has a odd tone, part fairy tale, part faery tale. My point being, sometimes it's really light-hearted and funny, and other times high and epic and serious, even grim or depressing and dark. And even some of the funny bits are slightly horrifying. Especially, the tone grows more and more grim and epic as it goes, from songs about dishes to an epic battle. And sometimes it seems not connectd to LOTR, but Tolkien later added lots of connections. Also, lots of characters are not really fleshed out, or suddenly appear. Not to mention thirteen dwarves.
Also, when you think about it, there is a sense in which The Hobbit is more dense than LOTR: since there is less detail, a lot more actually happens in a short span of pages. Sometimes briefness can create difficulty when adapting.
Bilbo took the Ring off when fighting the Spiders in the book, though he did then put it back on. And, he took the ring off in the Woodland Realm, though he did put it back on. And as I said, he does use the Ring for essentially the same purposes. Though the dwarves don't find out about the Ring in the films, which is different. I think the way they found was to have him take the Ring off.
Yes, Thrain was in Dol Guldur in the books, but years previously. IN the books that's when Gandalf got the map and key. In the books, Gandalf finds out about Sauron over the course of centuries, and goes to Dol Guldur several times. In the films, they've condensed it into the period of the Quest of Erebor, and those several trips to Dol Guldur into one, presumably because telling it as happening over centuries would be weird in a film.
True, I didn't think about it that way. I can understand adding some extra stuff, the only things I really don't agree with are Azog and the Tauriel-Kili relationship. If Azog were just replaced completely with Bolg, though, I might be okay with it. The Tauriel-Kili-Legolas thing, though. Uggggggggggggggggh. I wanted to feel sad about Fili and Kili's death, but in the movie you have Tauriel crying over him and Thranduil telling her it was real, which makes me want to groan and facepalm rather than cry. That was the only part of the trilogy that I genuinely hated and am not willing to forgive.
Yeah.... I think I just wanted to see him using the Ring more. Especially in the spider scene. The book version of that scene was more interesting, I think, and Bilbo was much more clever.
Well, that's interesting. I think I'll have to read all of the appendices when I reread LotR.
Hence the stalling. 
