The Hobbit also includes scenes that just never occurred. Isn't that white orc supposed to be dead by now? It's been a long time since I've read the book so I dunno, but that whole scene where Smaug is covered in gold is definitely not in there. Yeah, yeah, it's a symbolic scene. I ADORE symbolism. I LOVE the Mockingjay from Hunger Games. I LOVE what it stands for. Smaug covered in gold is not the same. Yeah it's ironic. I guess it's a nice touch. It's the little things, but these things add up and turn what could have been 2 movies into 3, not to mention the movies progress relatively slowly. In the original LotR, I eagerly awaited for what would happen next. The Hobbit feels more drawn out, and there was a good 20 mins in each film where I could not focus and just wanted the plot to move on.Sukurachi wrote:The reason they have material for more movies in Hobbit is that they are including material NOT in the Hobbit. They are using a ton of material from the appendices.
As for Hunger Games, the cutting into two parts felt perfectly justifiable considering the events and the character development that was needed. had they made 1 film only, everyone would be complaining that the film was too rushed and that there was no reason for the protagonist's transformation.
As for Hunger Games, the character development was not that great imo. I can understand why you might like it, but I wasn't feeling it and this is coming from someone who LOVES character development and even wrote a college essay on how important this aspect is to a story. Imo she was doing anything she could to save Peta. It wasn't her developing, it was her adapting, doing what she had to so that Peta would be saved. I just feel like it could have been shortened and all made into one movie. Movies aren't meant to be drawn out, even for character developmental purposes. You have got to keep the audience focused, and as someone with ADD I am very upset about this new trend of making these stories so long to the point where I lose interest.
I don't mean to turn this into an argument or anything, so sorry if it seems like I am. It's also interesting how movies go from not following the book very well, to following the books too well or even adding stuff from other stories. Sometimes it's best to not follow the book and I feel like we, as a whole, need to understand this. HTTYD is a great childrens book, I loved it! It would have been an AWFUL movie had they followed it. It would have been slow, boring, and just not movie material. Yeah, sometimes straying from the book can lead to an awful movie but that's not due to the fact that they strayed from the books, it's due to the fact that the director is awful at conveying a story. That was a mini rant at the end XD Sorry, I will stop now