Printable View
I find it adorable and Kili plus elf chick-I-can't-remember-her-name-right-now were adorables. Yah yah adding in blah but it wasn't BAD it wasn't like the worst thing ever. I'm totally pro dwarfxelf
TAURIEL that's her name
https://33.media.tumblr.com/bf7d7456...tqjko2_500.gif
What did you think about the new added character and the loveness added to The Hobbit movies?
omg it was so cute I can't deal with how cute it is
but I'm not really a Tolkien nerd so :gator: I didn't care to begin with really
Mostly all I care about is the Norn Iron dorf
I haven't seen any of The Hobbit movies, but they are both really pretty people and that makes me tingle.
No system to vidya on and now no hobbit movies?! What is wrong with you?!
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Freya
No.
If it was a good love story I could just about stomach it but smurf me, it really isn't.
But. She's betraying fabulous elf king and elf king son by helping the dwarfs.
I'm OK w/ the new elf chick, too. :chocobo: giggity
Attachment 60735
But who's Kili?
he's the cute dwarf
(SPOILER)
http://stephaniefusco.com/wp-content...XDE1qz4rgp.gif
Badly-written, shallow character implanted in order to force an unnecessary love scene, create tension with the elves so that they can come to the rescue later in enlightened understanding of the dwarves, and add to the multiplying events that somehow lack in any real depth despite a number of said events going on. Additionally, I hate the idea of Peter Jackson's ridiculous, obsessive fangirling over the Tolkien universe enough to try to elaborate and take creative liberties in any capacity, as he did in this horrific instance.
So no. Boo.
But it works well on the silver screen. It may not be in line with the original book but translation from book to movie/show/game is never perfect. While I do like it, i'm not alone. Many enjoyed it and most people who did were those who weren't avid book readers. Which means it did hit it's target audience.
Different strokes for different folks.
It wasn't offensive or anything so it didn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the film. It was certainly superfluous, though. What I really liked about the first Hobbit movie was how it had the songs and everything so to see a ton of made up threads (and no songs) was kind of off-putting for the second one.
I know you're taking what I said from the Marvel thread and applying it here, but it still doesn't work for me because her character was poorly written, shallow, and overall just a token piece of romance with a feigned purpose. Like Psychotic, I could have maybe accepted it if it was a good part of the story, but it wasn't for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freya
It's not so much that I care about toeing the line to the books (we are obviously way past that mark), it's that I feel the story was cheapened by adding a token romance like this to it, which adds even more of a disservice because it was a troutty romance.
late edit: A good example of writing a character into a show who has not appeared in the literature it was based on can be taken from Daryl from Walking Dead. Flawless character there. It can be done. Peter Jackson did not do it.
I bet you hate grey's anatomy too :colbert:
Dwarf. It won't reach the bottom but it'll stretch the sides.
Anyway, it's pretty hilarious. I'm glad she got off that island.