[ SECRET POST #3633 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3633 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #519.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[thedarksideofprocyon]

I think it would have worked better as one movie, not three. Maybe even two, although I'm not sure where the ideal breaking point would have been.

The Hobbit did have some strong points IMO - I really enjoyed the scenes with Smaug and Gollum, for example, and I liked the expanded Thorin/Bilbo dynamic - but I agree that it dragged and most of the additional material was unnecessary.

(I remember reading somewhere that it was originally the studio's idea to split the Hobbit into three movies rather than Jackson's - am I wrong?)

[(Anonymous)]

Nah. Jackson took full credit for the three film decision. It's only really the fans who can't believe Jackson would screw up who say it was the studio's fault. Same story about the Tauriel romance stuff - Jackson and his screenwriters take credit, fans who don't like it say it was the evil studio who forced them to add it in.