[Spoiler inside]. . A JOB THAT HOLLYWOOD APPARENTLY DOESN' T REALICE NEEDS 1. Book Snappers This one' s easy: Every single movie in production needs an person w
x
Click to expand

[Spoiler inside]

A JOB THAT HOLLYWOOD APPARENTLY
DOESN' T REALICE NEEDS
1. Book Snappers
This one' s easy: Every single movie in
production needs an person whose only job is
to read the book, then slap the director with it
every time they say "Yeah. but what if Ili-
Pictured: The only scene from "The Desolation
of Smaug" that is actually in the ******* book'.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1037
Views: 47987
Favorited: 81
Submitted: 12/31/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to kingxddd submit to reddit

Comments(290):

[ 290 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #87 - kingxddd (01/01/2014) [+] (13 children)
stickied by kingxddd
Happy new year *********
#18 - drachma (12/31/2013) [-]
He said calmly
He said calmly
User avatar #71 to #18 - pabloenis (01/01/2014) [-]
I ****** hate that movie. All other Harry Potter movies are amazing.
User avatar #233 to #18 - skeetskeetskat (01/01/2014) [-]
The actor playing Dumbledore refused to read the books so he didn't care if he was true to the book or not.
User avatar #238 to #18 - ruebezahl ONLINE (01/01/2014) [-]
Goblet of Fire is my least favorite HP movie exactly for the one reason that Dumbledore sucks in that movie. It doesn't even bother me that he is different from the book in the movie. He is also different from the other movies. He just isn't the composed, calm, intelligent Dumbledore who got his **** together in Goblet of Fire. Instead he is a doofus who at one point even looks like he is scared of the stupid Goblet when the names come out. I'd like to forget Goblet of Fire just as much as I'd like to forget Aliens vs Predators.
User avatar #45 to #18 - meathooksodomy (01/01/2014) [-]
I see a lot of people complaining about that scene but I think it makes more sense if Dumbledore was a bit angry or worried (even though they exagerated in the movie) because if Harry didn't put his name in the Goblet it means that someone else did and was planning something against Harry, which was exactly what happened.
User avatar #214 to #45 - hydraetis (01/01/2014) [-]
It does not make sense for Dumbledore to get a bit angry, because Dumbledore is supposed to NEVER get even slightly angry. Hell there's a part in the books where Harry is trashing Dumbledore's office and he still keeps his cool like the god of zen that he is.
#175 to #45 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
But Dumbledore was pissed at Harry which, outside of the fact that Dumbledore never gets pissed about anything, is completely out of character - as he would never display any sort of negative emotion toward Harry. It's so core to his character.
#184 to #18 - extremebs (01/01/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#4 - sienimies (12/31/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Yeah, the hobbit isn't loyal to the book at all. But i like it. As a person who has read the book a couple of times, i think it's cool to see something new. And i think Peter Jackson makes brilliant job with the additional parts except Kili x Elf romance, **** that .

I especially enjoyed the part where dwarfs **** up smaug.
#81 to #4 - swagbot (01/01/2014) [-]
Really?

I thought that whole "Whacky-Contraption-Melt-The-Gold-Trap" Scene was 20 minutes of pure, pointless cancer.

I was seriously cringing the whole time.
User avatar #86 to #81 - ogopogofod (01/01/2014) [-]
And by cringing you mean sitting there enjoying the move, to later bash it on the internet because you are such an unique flower
#88 to #86 - swagbot (01/01/2014) [-]
... Wow, what the **** is your problem?
User avatar #90 to #88 - ogopogofod (01/01/2014) [-]
People who cant enjoy a descent movie.
And your name
#91 to #90 - swagbot (01/01/2014) [-]
Can't believe I'm taking this bait...

How about people who can't spell correctly?
I was sharing my opinion about the movie.... THAT'S ALL.

So, I'll ask you again.... what the **** is your problem?
#94 to #91 - ogopogofod (01/01/2014) [-]
I'm not going to bash people on their spelling, and i really don't see how that's relevant   
English isn't my first language, and there are so many people on this site that isn't from an English speaking country, thus, they (including me) spell tings incorrectly sometimes.   
   
And to answer your question; Your name has swag in it, and i can't take anyone who, downthubs the comments i make because they are angry, seriously.
I'm not going to bash people on their spelling, and i really don't see how that's relevant
English isn't my first language, and there are so many people on this site that isn't from an English speaking country, thus, they (including me) spell tings incorrectly sometimes.

And to answer your question; Your name has swag in it, and i can't take anyone who, downthubs the comments i make because they are angry, seriously.
#195 to #94 - swagbot (01/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, speaking of "sticking to relevant topics"...

Okay, fine... let's back up:

> I give my opinion on the hobbit. Not mean, not angry... just pointing something out.
> You unleash your smelly torrent of nonsensical cunt-fluid in comment #86, insulting me for no ******* reason.
> I ask you "What the **** is you problem", as to say "Why are you getting so angry at a man merely sharing his opinion?"

So, let's resume there, where you dodged the question...

Ogopogofod, Sir, why did you feel it was necessary to reply with such an insulting and angry comment to my #81, where I was merely and non-combatively stating an opinion?
User avatar #201 to #195 - snowshark (01/01/2014) [-]
"20 minutes of pure, pointless cancer"
"You unleash your smelly torrent of nonsensical cunt-fluid"
"Not mean, not angry... just pointing something out"

Anyway, hypocrisy aside, I think the gold scene was clever. Except for the giant statue at the end, that was just silly. Oh, and Thorin not being roasted alive, that was also silly. But the premise was a good one and it led to quite an interesting addition to the movie.
#285 to #201 - swagbot (01/03/2014) [-]
Okay >____> That's a fine opinion.........   
...........   
   
And unlike Ogo, I'm not gonna flame you for your opinion... because it's an opinion...   
   
   
...and that's all
Okay >____> That's a fine opinion.........
...........

And unlike Ogo, I'm not gonna flame you for your opinion... because it's an opinion...


...and that's all
User avatar #292 to #285 - snowshark (01/03/2014) [-]
You should get some cream for all those spots, dude. They're all over your comment.
#293 to #292 - swagbot (01/04/2014) [-]
wat?
User avatar #229 to #195 - wobblewub (01/01/2014) [-]
You're being extremely hypocritical. Stop.
#284 to #229 - swagbot (01/03/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? Did you even read the thread? Probably not.

How am i being hypocritical?
User avatar #286 to #284 - wobblewub (01/03/2014) [-]
You're getting onto someone for highly disagreeing with you on your opinion, yet you insist they shouldn't after you go out and say that something they like was pointless cancer, which was completely uncalled for when you could of said you just disliked it.

If you're going to continue this argument, **** off. I'm not replying to ******** logic and reasoning. Good day.
#288 to #286 - swagbot (01/03/2014) [-]
"You're getting onto someone..."

#4 says "Hobbit Rox etc".
#8 (Me) says "Really? I thought XYZ was cancer."

Was i calling OP cancer? Was I calling him 'Stupid'? Was i saying his opinion sucked? Is OP the Director of the Hobbit, so that I was dissing his works?

NO.

I offered my viewpoint on some material that we both viewed.
I wasn't insulting anyone... i wasn't being mean. I shared my OPINION.

SO why the **** does Ogo on Comment #86 have the right to unleash that torrent of venom at me, and why the **** is everyone jumping on the bandwagon?
User avatar #289 to #288 - wobblewub (01/03/2014) [-]
Holy **** . **** off.
#290 to #289 - swagbot (01/03/2014) [-]
Yep. My point exactly.

Troll harder next time.
User avatar #291 to #290 - wobblewub (01/03/2014) [-]
>implying I was trolling

Be smarter next time.
0
#287 to #286 - swagbot has deleted their comment [-]
#196 to #95 - swagbot (01/01/2014) [-]
Wasn't talking to ya, bub.

(And review the thread and you'll see why I'm "upset". It's because of little cunt-sniffers like Ogo that we can't have nice things)
#132 to #91 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
Your name is ******* retarded and your opinion is bad.
User avatar #163 to #4 - ilovehue (01/01/2014) [-]
Yeah (spoiler ahead) gold plated dragon how cool is that?
#131 to #4 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
"The hobbit isnt loyal to the book at all" Go read the book again. I mean sure, there's a lot added but it does stay pretty loyal to the book.
User avatar #9 to #4 - KayRed (12/31/2013) [-]
You don't wanna see Kili get da mad elven puss-A?
User avatar #15 to #9 - sienimies (12/31/2013) [-]
Kili should stay with da bearded dwarf puss-A.
User avatar #74 to #15 - KayRed (01/01/2014) [-]
Dey be sum hair bitchez do.
User avatar #75 to #74 - KayRed (01/01/2014) [-]
*dough
#39 - bapsmcgee (01/01/2014) [-]
I've read the books. I have a hard cover of the Hobbit behind me on my book shelf. I really enjoy the movies and am quite glad there's 3 of them so I can watch more movies. 75% of the people who I know that don't like the movies already decided to hate them before they even 			*******		 saw them.
I've read the books. I have a hard cover of the Hobbit behind me on my book shelf. I really enjoy the movies and am quite glad there's 3 of them so I can watch more movies. 75% of the people who I know that don't like the movies already decided to hate them before they even ******* saw them.
User avatar #103 to #39 - squalllionhart (01/01/2014) [-]
that was my favorite scene in the movie
#83 to #39 - swagbot (01/01/2014) [-]
Thranduil was awesome.

... but IMO ~35-40% of the second movie was pure cancer.
User avatar #248 to #83 - dictatorish (01/01/2014) [-]
Nah, shut up.
#281 to #248 - swagbot (01/02/2014) [-]
It's just an opinion, Captain. Calm down.
#77 to #39 - helgrind (01/01/2014) [-]
>hated them   
>didn't previously decide to hate them
>hated them
>didn't previously decide to hate them
#193 to #39 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
What humors me the most is when I discuss with people how the movie was. The priceless response I get time and again is how "it doesn't feel very Lord of the Rings like". To anyone who's ever actual read the Hobbit, you'd know in an instant that the Hobbit was written long before the Lord of the Rings in a rather different matter and that it's a ******* child's tale NOT fantasy epic.

It's kinda like watching Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone only after you watched the Deathly Hallows and critiquing SS for not being more like DH.
User avatar #8 - KayRed (12/31/2013) [-]
Yeah, but The Hobbit film series is based off of the universe in general, not just the hobbit. I think Jackson and the writers did a fine job filling in the gaps, and making a movie true to the universe (because universe matters most of all when it comes to fantasy).
#64 - jamesisawesome (01/01/2014) [-]
Fun fact of the day:
J.R.R. Tolkien had some extra stuff that he wanted to add into the Hobbit, but he omitted it because the book was already extremely long. The movies are adding in a few of those redacted scenes.
At least educate yourself before you bitch about things.
User avatar #253 to #64 - mintea (01/01/2014) [-]
Sorry if I'm being ignorant here, but:
It's not that long at all - was this for the time, or something? Like they had trouble with printing?
#266 to #253 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
You're looking as the Hobbit as a book on the same level as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which he wrote much later. The Hobbit was a book for children (specifically Tolkein's children to begin with), which probably restricted the length of the book somewhat.
User avatar #283 to #266 - mintea (01/02/2014) [-]
Fellowship of the Ring was split into 2 books. I'd say the Hobbit was about the same size as 1 of these books. Sure, it's got 6 books in it, but if we look at the individual "books" it's around the size of The Hobbit.
User avatar #22 - I Am Monkey (12/31/2013) [-]
Some books are better off changed. If the director can do it right, I don't see a problem with it. Example: The entire ending of Fight Club is completely different from the book and the author himself said he likes it better.
User avatar #108 to #22 - arekuzanda (01/01/2014) [-]
The ending of The Mist was also changed and Stephen King liked it.
User avatar #215 to #22 - hydraetis (01/01/2014) [-]
Stardust: The movie is so much better than the book there isn't even any comparison.
User avatar #58 to #22 - snood (01/01/2014) [-]
good point, some things that are entertaining in books, like really long descriptive things where a lot of thoughts and connections are implied, are hard to do in movies, while things like action and fighting can't usually be as easily described in books as it can be shown in movies.
you gotta change things around when going from one medium to the other.
#5 - anonymoose ONLINE (12/31/2013) [-]
DEH MOVEH WAS ONLY 99% LEIK TEH BURK! 0/10
User avatar #245 to #5 - octaviano (01/01/2014) [-]
So what if you buy something labeled "dark chocolate", and it turns out to be a swissroll with cherryfilling that got a little dark chocolate over it.
It's barely the same at all. That means it can be good, in it's own way, or bad, in it's own way.


Take an example for the Eragon movie:
Quite a few facts which would turn out to be rather important (or just slightly) would be changed and turned around. Roran wasn't the better hunter, Eragon was. That becomes important when Roran and another one from the village find the soldiers in the forest. Saphira didn't give herself her name. Eragon gave her that name, because Brom told him about it. The Ra'zac aren't demons spawned by Durza. They were actually a race on their own, and become increasingly relevant and important. Aria isn't the literal damsel in distress. Not starting to talk about the witch, or how the Dwarves seemingly don't exist out of a sudden.
User avatar #262 to #245 - anonymoose ONLINE (01/01/2014) [-]
Because chocolate sweets are totally the same as movies and Eragon was a horrible movie in general.
User avatar #11 - galaxyguy (12/31/2013) [-]
Look, I've seen movies which follow the books they're based on slavishly.

They're terrible.
#121 to #11 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
Of course, the opposite are also often terrible. Take Eragon for instance.
User avatar #134 to #121 - katoteshikumei (01/01/2014) [-]
Dont talk about that! That never happened!
#124 to #121 - alliatus (01/01/2014) [-]
Shhh... we don't talk about that anymore.
User avatar #66 - RoyalNightmare (01/01/2014) [-]
What if I told you that a film adaption isn't supposed to be a film-based carbon copy of the book?

Seriously, a film takes a story and re-imagines it, essentially. People should stop complaining that the film doesn't match the book.
User avatar #34 - mrwalkerfour (12/31/2013) [-]
1- that isnt the only bit in the book
2- trying to fit every detail and scene from the book, into a movie, without making that movie ridiculously long. is impossible.

peter Jackson doesn't change the book cos "hur dur i do wut i want" he has a budget, he can't spend money frivolously on loads of locations and sets and actors who all need food, accommodation, lines to read, props/dress,and transport to locations. so he changes parts to suit his budget so that you get a great movie, not perfect, but great
User avatar #55 to #34 - WtfStrawberries (01/01/2014) [-]
Dude. Its like you haven't even read the book or seen the movies.
it is ONE book. That they spread out into 3 movies. Number 2 is so ******* invalid its completely obvious that you dont know what you're talking about.
User avatar #227 to #55 - atomschlumpf (01/01/2014) [-]
Dude. It's like you haven't even informed yourself before bitching.
It's ONE book AND stuff from letters, the Silmarillion and other ideass from Tolkien himself that they made into 3 movies because Peter Jackson is a Tolkien nerd and wanted to form all of that into one big project.
YOU don't know what you're talking about.
#35 to #34 - Rascal (12/31/2013) [-]
into "a" movie, no. 3 movies? yes.

Fitting 400 pages into 3 full length 3 hour movies is not ******* hard! They actually had to add whole new plot points to stretch it out into 3 movies!
#36 to #35 - snowboardingeng (12/31/2013) [-]
Actually its not new plot. It's from the appendices and I think the somerilian. The only thing that was added was Legolas and the female elf but since his father is the king of the wood elves it makes sense he'd be there.
#43 to #36 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
And the 40+ minutes it took them to leave Bag End? Was that in the appendices? *Addendum Bilbo Baggins and co pissed around for nearly a quarter of the book in Bag End, we would go into detail, but we are saving it for any film that may need padding out in the future to squeeze as much money out of this franchise as possible.
#135 to #43 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
Yea, the Dwarves showing up at his house and all that **** was in the book did you read it
#92 - rinaz (01/01/2014) [-]
I find it annoying when people think a film is 			****		 because it took liberties instead of being entirely faithful to the book. You should judge a film on whether or not it's good, not how many liberties it took and how many it didn't.
I find it annoying when people think a film is **** because it took liberties instead of being entirely faithful to the book. You should judge a film on whether or not it's good, not how many liberties it took and how many it didn't.
#106 to #92 - baconmcbeykon (01/01/2014) [-]
I have been discussing this movie a lot after I saw it, and I see this argument being used a lot. While I agree with you that you can't call a movie bad for not sticking to the book, I still think this movie has altered, added and messed up a bit too much. It's a good movie, looks amazing and entertains at the same time, but things like Legolas, and the... let's call it the "Golden" plan at the end, are just silly and not executed too well.
User avatar #117 to #92 - Awesomenessniss (01/01/2014) [-]
It was a very good film, it was not a good representation of the original source material. That's the wording i use in these situations.
User avatar #99 to #92 - herecomesjohnny (01/01/2014) [-]
on that scale, i found desolation of smaug really great
#181 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
the book is barely long enough for one movie.
I fully support the changes and love them
User avatar #188 to #181 - grimsho (01/01/2014) [-]
The Hobbit trilogy is being made for fans of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, not the for fans of the Hobbit. There's much more of an audience for that.
User avatar #186 to #181 - GamerMandrew (01/01/2014) [-]
I offer this as a rebuttal: Tom Bombadil.
#235 to #186 - bigbawser (01/01/2014) [-]
yes, but isn't Tom Bombadil in the Extended Edition?
User avatar #279 to #235 - GamerMandrew (01/01/2014) [-]
Nah, he's mentioned in the books. He could have been expanded more as a character in the movies.
#171 - mowgaycraft (01/01/2014) [-]
I'm honestly unsure why everyone complains about movies not being 100% reenacments of the books they were based off.    
   
I've ALREADY read The Hobbit, I'm not going to the cinemas just to go see a word for word retelling of the book that I've already read, I'm going to the cinemas to see Desolation of Smaug; two different things. There's a good reason to add more to it because that way there's a way to catch book savvy people off guard and still get some enjoyment out of viewers who aren't that deep into the book lore.
I'm honestly unsure why everyone complains about movies not being 100% reenacments of the books they were based off.

I've ALREADY read The Hobbit, I'm not going to the cinemas just to go see a word for word retelling of the book that I've already read, I'm going to the cinemas to see Desolation of Smaug; two different things. There's a good reason to add more to it because that way there's a way to catch book savvy people off guard and still get some enjoyment out of viewers who aren't that deep into the book lore.

#52 - therobsorensen (01/01/2014) [-]
Ok maybe some movies need that, but Peter Jackson IS Middle Earth. He is a genius film maker, and the movie you're referring to was amazing.
#129 - loctrothree (01/01/2014) [-]
Here's a list of things that were both in the book and movie *I'll try to keep this from spoiling the movie but still spoilers I guess*
1. Beon the Skinchanger
2. The spiders (Which in 3D reminded me why I'm afraid of spiders)
3. The Barrel Riding Scene (With a few added things like the elves and orcs)
4. Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug. (Which was altered a bit but the dialogue is spot on)
5. *MAJOR SPOILER* Smaug flying off to Laketown.
6. The hidden door
and well I'm sure there's more but still, plus if the movie was spot on to the books it would be pretty boring. Sorry if I;m being a dick about this.
User avatar #159 to #129 - loctrothree (01/01/2014) [-]
*Beorn
#63 - maddboiy (01/01/2014) [-]
If that happened then the director of WWZ would have been beaten to death
If that happened then the director of WWZ would have been beaten to death
User avatar #255 to #63 - hanabro (01/01/2014) [-]
Oh boy, Frozen. I honestly liked this movie better than Desolation of Smaug, and I really liked Desolation of Smaug. This was my movie of the year.

I'm trying to start a Frozen discussion, please help me.
#101 to #63 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
world war Z would have been a mediocre film if it was purely faithful. People already got tired of walking zombies in the 80s.
User avatar #226 to #101 - maddboiy (01/01/2014) [-]
if it was done well by a good director it would have been great, a huge part of it was the socio-political commentary and that could have been handled well by a good director
#232 - bigmanblue (01/01/2014) [-]
oh **** off
it was a great movie and its a ******* directers job to add scenes and remove others to make the movie work
(and there were a hell of a lot of scenes taken stright from the book)
#216 - Rascal (01/01/2014) [-]
That post is a lying piece of **** , it isn't the ONLY thing that's in the book.
User avatar #191 - mikepetru (01/01/2014) [-]
I honestly don't understand why the love story between that elf chick and Fili. It adds nothing to the story Especially since he dies in the Battle of 5 armies, but how much you want to bet they'll keep him alive now? . Plus the only reason they added Legolas was to the attract the female "fans" of LOTR who shlick to Orlando Bloom. Had they eliminated the scenes with these two inconsequential characters who never even appeared in the books, they could have easily included the Battle in Laketown.
User avatar #198 to #191 - kinginyellow (01/01/2014) [-]
The girl is just there because of some bs that a girl seeing a movie without female characters would be wrong in our society
User avatar #199 to #198 - mikepetru (01/01/2014) [-]
**** girl power, this movie is about Bilbo.
User avatar #205 to #199 - technoshaman (01/01/2014) [-]
Actually it's about Gandalf and his quest to secure the northern reaches of Middle Earth in preparation for the inevitable return of Sauron and the war of the ring. Plus some midgets doing stuff. A lot of what they added comes from the Silmarillion, which I don't mind but I wish they had specified that in the title or something.
[ 290 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)