Board Thread:General Mod Discussion/@comment-25987328-20160413230109/@comment-26094355-20160423024247

Catfishperson wrote: My point being that TBOFA was undeniably a massive fight scene. Yes that battle was important, yes some fight scenes are necessary in a fantasy movie, but the whole 2 and 3/4 hour movie was just a fight scene, a terrible romance, and a very weak plot riddled with holes. Better to make that battle the finale of the previous movie then its own. The movie already had very little closure, and a highly unfulfilling ending. It's true there are some things that can be done easier in a book then a movie, but that dosen't make the movie any better.

Ah yes, the "just make The Hobbit only 2 movies" card. Seen that too.

"...there are reasons why we did break this children's book into three pieces [3 films]. The end chapters are very different tonally. They turn, they change. They take on a darker nature... it was fitting and appropriate that this shift in tone was contained within this film [the third film]." -Philippa Boyens, co-producer

You contradict yourself. You say some fight scenes are necessary in a fantasy movie, yet don't like the final movie having fight scenes? Not only do those points negate each other, but it still fails to explain or counter my point that, how else do you expect to convey one of the defining battle of Nothern Middle-earth without fight scenes? You simply can't.

I don't support the love triangle, but contrary to popular belief, it actually also makes up a very small part of the third film. It has a large notariety because of the fangirls, but when you really analyze the third film, really the only parts Kili and Tauriel are remotely together at all in the third film are: the shores of Lake-town, and the ending where Kili dies. Compared to the people of Lake-town, Thorin's struggle, and the fight to save the North, it makes up such a miniscule part, so don't overblow it any bigger than it needs to be: it's small as it is, and that's how it should be (if not nonexistent).

Plot holes... the only ones that come to mind are: Tauriel's ending and the were-worms... that's merley 2. Most of the "loopholes" in the theatrical BotFA (like what happened to the Arkenstone and Dain) were covered in the extended edition. Surely you don't think only 2 loopholes are enough to claim that the film was "unfulfilling" (they aren't enough). There is no claim here.

I don't think anyone here is trying to say the movies are better. Please look at the original thread title, "Were the movies trash?". The point that's trying to be made here is: the books and the films each have their strengths, and that the films are not the "trash" book extremists categorize them to be. They have their own areas of impact and weaknesses (yes, even the books have weaknesses, their vague areas for one), and they should be given equal respect. And currently, that due respect is not being given, whether it be because of misinformation or pure stubbornness to accept the truth: that the films are not "trash", and they have accomplished so much in their own right, and have brought the grand story of Middle-earth into the spotlight.

 Elvenking of the Woodland Realm