This. They put Legolas into it purely for a better action scene. I enjoyed the movies, but i dont view them as The Hobbit.
Oddly enough im hoping they have smaug kill legolas, and frodo kill smog. Yeah that would be a mind ****
Agree on the Hunger Games and the Hobbit. Reason being, Hunger Games books were simplistic and lacked depth. The movies furnished the world better than the author did. For the Hobbit - sooooo much testosterone. Thank you for the one female character and the opportunity to perv on Orlando Bloom once more! I can appreciate the artistic movie interpretations as being distinct from the books.
Well personally the hobit movie isn't the greatest movie, but the book is dead slow. I couldn't finish it. Lord of the rings the book is also quite slow, it gets better later on but the movies has a much better pace to them. Both movies are just action flicks if you think about it though. Although have proper pacing.
Hobbit, Why? Well, everything except that they didn't kill ****Ing Smaug in the DESOLATION of smash. Harry Potter got ****ed over in the movies. What I REALLY want to compare but i haven't seen is maze runner.
I rather just throw it them both on a burning fire. No offensive intended but I know I'm going to burn in hell anyways.
I thought the Bourne movies with Matt Damon were as good as the books by Robert Ludlum. Excited to hear there's going to be a new movie coming out. Love that ****!
The Princess Bride was a much better movie than book. Buttercup wasn't a vapid piece of fluff intended to make a social statement.
As for lord of the rings, and the hobbit. I think the movies are much more interesting as for me the books just seem to go on and on and on
Read the book Jurassic Park. Then you will agree with me that the movie (The First One) is a lot better than that of the book.