Peter Jackson's Hobbit - The Critique

[The Brain]

They just seemed like filler to me, which wasn't really necessary in a movie that long.

[Maximus]

Who cares if it was in the Hobbit itself?

It was in the back story, and those changes that weren't were well done.  It all wove together and made sense, that's what is important.

The changes were necessary but they weren't well done. It was pretty much turned into a generic hollywood script.

[Jaron]

Who cares if it was in the Hobbit itself?

It was in the back story, and those changes that weren't were well done.  It all wove together and made sense, that's what is important.

While true, I didn't like most of the Radagast inclusions.  They just seemed like filler to me, which wasn't really necessary in a movie that long.

Agreed. The necromancer/Dol Guldur parts aren't important til later. The only reason to include them I can think of is they wanted to be like 'HEY NAZGUL! This is a LOTR prequel! *cue LOTR scary Mordor music*'

[Tonitrus]

I agree.  Radagast is part of the backstory, but there is no reason for him to appear in the fist movie, and go stumbling into the dwarf expedition, other than to set up the sequels. 

[Scipio]

I liked Radagast, although I think they really shoehorned him in.