Wait, but that was a surprise to even LOTR fans. He doesn't survive in the books, Jackson and Co brought him back for the movies.
I guess that wasn't very clear. I meant that it would be more of a surprise for everyone when he showed up at the end, instead of revealing him before the halfway point like they did.
It is called foreshadowing. And it is for much more than connecting the two trilogies together. In one of the next two films the Necromancer will play a much greater role. What you are saying is pretty much like saying having the character of Anakin Skywalker in the prequels is a pointless reference for the sake of linking the two SW trilogies together. They are very closely connected stories and one leads right into the other.
I don't think you seem to realize that there are two stories being told in these films. It isn't just the tale of the dwarves on their quest to retrieve their gold, which is really just a short little children's story that could easily be fit into a single film. You said anything that wasn't part of Bilbo's story should have been cut, well that is all the book is. But these movies are also the story of Sauron's rise back to power and Gandalf's detective work of piecing together the puzzle of Sauron's plans, which eventually leads to the importance of the forming of the fellowship and the destruction of the ring. These films are basically an adaption of The Hobbit and major parts of The Lord of the Rings: Appendices A and B, merged together and playing out in chronological order.
Oh, I know what PJ is trying to do; however, after seeing the first installment, I just don't think that it's working. Maybe I'll eat my words after seeing the next two.
It is clear you are one of the casual fans you mentioned and you aren't familiar with the books. I think you should just sit back and see how things pan out before getting too worked up. I think what's to come is going to be a lot of fun. I look forward to the stuff about the Necromancer far more than the rest of The Hobbit story, which really is quite anticlimactic. To me the peak of excitement in The Hobbit has always been the goblins in Misty Mountains and Bilbo finding the ring.
Them's fightin' words. Granted, my Tolkien shelf is missing the Silmarillion, but that's only because I'm lending it to a friend. Which of the two versions of the Hobbit on my shelf am I not familiar with? Or perhaps it's The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, or The Children of Hurin that I'm rusty on?
I jest.
Tolkien always used the Eagles as his last minute jump in and save the day thing. A very obvious and blatant deux ex machina. I feel they have always been more than a bit of a cop out. There is really no deep "character" and "philosophy". They aren't confusing, they are just lame.
I agree with that, partially. I'm talking about those casual viewers that think that Gandalf summons them with his magic, and they disappear afterwards, or other such confusion. They don't talk in the movies, they just have Gandalf find a moth and whisper to it for some reason, as if that's enough time for the moth to find the eagles and for them to come like trained animals in search of a reward. In the Hobbit, it is established that the Lord of the Eagles was helped by Gandalf when the wizard removed an arrow from him, and the eagles helped Gandalf and company partly in payment of this debt, and partly because they don't like the goblins either. They would not, however, go near any towns of men, for the men would shoot arrows at them. The ancient race of Eagles are described as "proud and strong and noble-hearted", so they clearly have some character. I just think that showing this would clear up the misunderstandings with casual viewers, and would be an addition to the movie which wasn't made up by PJ. But yes, their continual aid at convenient moments is rather lame.