DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: faemir on October 16, 2010, 07:04:42 AM
-
With Jackson at the helm. I'M SO EXCITED!
Although it's being filmed in 3D which makes me :| althought WETA were the ones working on effects for Avatar which is the best use of 3D so far. But still. I'm glad LotR came out before 3D became popular...
-
FINALLY
-
the still need to figure out the whole "the company that owns the rights to the film is billions of dollars in debt and about to go into bankruptcy" deal before I really get excited.
-
the still need to figure out the whole "the company that owns the rights to the film is billions of dollars in debt and about to go into bankruptcy" deal before I really get excited.
The funny thing about that is that New Line was in super debt when they started filming the LoTR. Had it flopped, New Line would've died. Seems to be a repeating pattern.
Not so thrilled about the 3D either, but hey it's The Hobbit with Jackson in charge so I won't be too greedy.
-
What is so bad about filming it in 3D? They aren't going to force you to watch it in 3D, right? If the 3D is done well it could look fantastic, too.
-
What is so bad about filming it in 3D? They aren't going to force you to watch it in 3D, right? If the 3D is done well it could look fantastic, too.
That is true, but when you watch movies in 2D that were filmed in 3D (and I actually loved Beowulf in 3D), there tend to be moments that they make it look obvious they were trying to have an axe fly past your head or something that would never be there if it were 2D. So if you think of it as one big project (LoTR and Hobbit) 2D would've been better for consistency. Then again, if it comes out in 3D, I'll be watching it in 3D, so whatever.
-
If the movie is filmed in 3D it will look awesome.
-
the still need to figure out the whole "the company that owns the rights to the film is billions of dollars in debt and about to go into bankruptcy" deal before I really get excited.
This.
-
Looking forward to it.
-
If the movie is filmed in 3D it will look awesome.
And completely take away from any seriousness the movie tries to convey.
-
That's ridiculous. We naturally perceive depth, but we should assume movies cannot go there without compromising an entire film? It's an idiotic purist argument to say filmmakers should not try to push into 3D.
-
Not really. I still have no idea what 3D adds to a movie. In fact the few 3D movies I have seen the 3D parts were noticeably distracting. I wasn't perceiving natural depth or whatever you want to call it, I felt like I was watching a moving Magic Eye book.
-
^I feel the same way. I can see the potential for some genres of film (action movies, etc.), but it's never added much to a movie experience for me, other than distraction, like you said. To me, it just comes across as really superfluous in most cases.
-J
-
^I feel the same way. I can see the potential for some genres of film (action movies, etc.), but it's never added much to a movie experience for me, other than distraction, like you said. To me, it just comes across as really superfluous in most cases.
-J
This.
-
Just because it is distracting now or has mostly been a crappy novelty in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way. Adding depth perception is a natural extension to media since that is another step towards what we naturally observe.
It's a stupid purist argument to say 3D is what will wreck a movie. What wrecks a movie is those that use technology, not the technology itself. If the technology in fact cannot be wielded properly to make a good film, then the powers in charge should know that and avoid it. 3D itself is not what makes 3D films bad. If they can wield it well, all the more power to them.
-
Looking forward to it, but not the 3D thing.
-
Just because it is distracting now or has mostly been a crappy novelty in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way. Adding depth perception is a natural extension to media since that is another step towards what we naturally observe.
It's a stupid purist argument to say 3D is what will wreck a movie. What wrecks a movie is those that use technology, not the technology itself. If the technology in fact cannot be wielded properly to make a good film, then the powers in charge should know that and avoid it. 3D itself is not what makes 3D films bad. If they can wield it well, all the more power to them.
Yeah I agree, I don't think anybody was saying it will ruin the movie. Personally, I have yet to see it utilized effectively, and when I've seen it in action it's seemed completely unnecessary (except Avatar I guess, that's the exception IMO).
I'm sure it will improve in both technology and utilization.
-J
-
Yeah, I'm sure it will improve too but let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is all going to happen just for The Hobbit because we really want it to be good. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be badly done, just skeptical.
-
Even as technology I haven't seen any examples of its use that I'd prefer it over regular 2D. I really see it as more of a lateral movement as far as film-making goes instead of any sort of progression, which some people believe is the case. The only real distinctive shots that can be pulled off "3D only" are the stuff mentioned earlier like swords and axes and shit flying into the screen which has always seemed goofy to me. Hopefully Jackson can come up with something creative though cause I'd love to see it to make me give a damn about it.
-
A big part of filmmaking is giving visual depth to what is essentially 2-dimensional, and I myself have never seen a 3D film and it enjoyed it more because of its ability to make someone's finger point really close to my eyes, which is about the extent of what's been done with it, essentially.
Then again, who cares.
-
Yeah.
Shit, if Jackson can do something creative with it that'll be awesome. I'm just not holding my breath.
-
Ebert beautifully sums up all my thoughts on 3D:
https://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html
His points towards the end about 3D in capable hands is really where I stand. For every Cameron who can execute its use properly there's a dozen or so Paul WS Anderson's who see it as a tool for "let's throw shit at the audience!".
-
Some parts in LOTR wouldve looked amazing in 3D. Imagine Helms Deep :metal
-
Bah, 3d.
-
I'm confident however that Jackson knows exactly what he's doing. He would not use 3D unless he thought it could we well used - hell LotR had more miniatures instead of cgi than most films at the time because he realised the value in them. It's not like he would suddenly 'sell out'.
-
I'm happy it's finally greenlit, but I'm ambivalent about the 3D.
-
"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193
-
"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193
Yeah saw that today. He seems to be in everything these days, but thinking about it he would actually probably be a pretty good Bilbo. :lol
-
"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193
Lots of other interesting bits in that news release as well. (And I was also reminded of how much I hate unions)
-
Fuck yeah, Graham McTavish is playing fuckin Dwalin :metal :metal :metal :metal
-
Martin Freeman as Bilbo? Hell yes!
-
Didn't expect Freeman at all, but that seems like a great choice. Am I the only one to have read that through the BBC site where the link said "Freeman to play Bilbo in The Hobbit" and thought the Gordon had got the role instead? :neverusethis:
-
Didn't expect Freeman at all, but that seems like a great choice. Am I the only one to have read that through the BBC site where the link said "Freeman to play Bilbo in The Hobbit" and thought the Gordon had got the role instead? :neverusethis:
Or Morgan Freeman.
-
I honestly don't know which is weirder :lol
-
This is probably the last movie I'm going to actually want to see. I know it won't be better than the LotR trilogy, but still, I can't wait.
-
"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193
Yeah saw that today. He seems to be in everything these days...
I only recognize him from playing the soft porn actor in "Love Actually"
-
Well ok I was exaggerating somewhat, but he also played Arthur Dent in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Dr Watson in the recent BBC version of Sherlock, plus he was in Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.
-
I heard that Ian Mckellen was getting upset it was taking so long... is he gonna play Gandolf?
-
I heard that Ian Mckellen was getting upset it was taking so long... is he gonna play Gandolf?
Well, he isn't getting any younger! And yes, he is.
-
I heard that Ian Mckellen was getting upset it was taking so long... is he gonna play Gandolf?
Well, he isn't getting any younger! And yes, he is.
Good news everyone!
-
I heard that Ian Mckellen was getting upset it was taking so long... is he gonna play Gandolf?
Well, he isn't getting any younger! And yes, he is.
Good news everyone!
(https://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r243/ariich/forum%20stuff/80460462.jpg)
-
I heard that Ian Mckellen was getting upset it was taking so long... is he gonna play Gandolf?
Well, he isn't getting any younger! And yes, he is.
Good news everyone!
(https://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r243/ariich/forum%20stuff/80460462.jpg)
goddammit rich
-
More to do with LOTR than anything, but I just got this:
https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Picture-Platinum-Extended/dp/B000654ZK0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1287880514&sr=8-2-spell
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11617860 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11617860)
I'm taking a class on this tomorrow, so I've had to read right up on it.
Just goes to show how tiny the NZ economy actually is, and how significant the LOTR films were for the country. Literally the Prime Minister is meeting up with Warner Bros executives to try and turn them around.
-
Thinking about this recently, the thing I'm most interested in is how they're going to get out of a corner they backed themselves into with the LOTR movies. The way they portrayed the ring there, anyone who puts it on is automatically sensed/seen by Sauron. This really isn't the case in the books, and Bilbo spends weeks (months?) with the ring on while trying to figure out how to save Thorin and co. from the wood elves (not to mention all of the other times he uses it in The Hobbit).
-
Doesn't the ring affect people differently though? I mean, Tom Bombadil was completely immune to the ring's powers, so it could be explained that way.
Also, in the first movie, bilbo puts on the ring to disappear, but we don't see Sauron's Eye focusing on him
-
It displays its power differently depending on the wearer (Hobbits are already meek things that are beneath most people's notice so it makes them invisible, but for a powerful elf lord or a Wizard like Gandalf it would grant more power and dominance over others. Tom Bombadil was immune to it because he's Tom Bombadil), but that'd be different from its power to corrupt or call out to Sauron.
Although, like you pointed out, the LOTR movies weren't even consistent in this part so maybe they'll just ignore it.
-
https://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-ian-mckellen-gandalf-kofi-67153/ (https://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-ian-mckellen-gandalf-kofi-67153/)
No Ian McKellen?? :|
-
Well that's from July. The film has been given the ok now so hopefully McKellen will be able to do it. That would really suck having someone else as Gandalf!
-
Well that's from July. The film has been given the ok now so hopefully McKellen will be able to do it. That would really suck having someone else as Gandalf!
Oh, my bad. Yeah, I agree, it would not be the same without him. They shouldn't even do the film without him IMO.
-
Well that's from July. The film has been given the ok now so hopefully McKellen will be able to do it. That would really suck having someone else as Gandalf!
Oh, my bad. Yeah, I agree, it would not be the same without him. They shouldn't even do the film without him IMO.
This.
Actually, I'm surprised they're not using the same actor for Bilbo.
I'm wondering who's going to voice Smaug
-
McKellen is still unsigned as Gandalf. Although I expect that to be rectified fairly soon.
-
Doesn't the ring affect people differently though? I mean, Tom Bombadil was completely immune to the ring's powers, so it could be explained that way.
Also, in the first movie, bilbo puts on the ring to disappear, but we don't see Sauron's Eye focusing on him
Also, the whole idea is that Sauron's power is growing and growing throughout LOTR. Back in The Hobbit, his power was pretty non-existant.
-
Doesn't the ring affect people differently though? I mean, Tom Bombadil was completely immune to the ring's powers, so it could be explained that way.
Also, in the first movie, bilbo puts on the ring to disappear, but we don't see Sauron's Eye focusing on him
Also, the whole idea is that Sauron's power is growing and growing throughout LOTR. Back in The Hobbit, his power was pretty non-existant.
I don't know.... the dwarves seemed pretty scared of "the Necromancer" in The Hobbit, and it's been awhile since I read it but I don't remember Gandalf having a particularly easy time when he went to Dol Guldur to see what was up.
-
Oh I'm sure Jackson will still make a big deal about using the Ring, but I imagine he'll hold back from going all out "THE EYE OF SAURON IS WATCHING YOU", while still keeping it consistent.
-
Yeah, they're smart guys and they'll definitely be able able to make it work (although now I'm curious why Bilbo didn't get eye-spy'd when he put it on during his birthday in The Fellowship). Just curious how they'll do it. :)
-
Yeah, should be interesting! :D
-
I'm going to re-read my LOTR/Hobbit/misc middle earth books sometime soon. I think it's about time
-
This is a great companion to the books:
https://www.tolkienprofessor.com/lectures/wc_class.html
The guy does college lectures on lots of Tolkien's works then puts the audio on his site for free. A lot of the incites (especially from Tolkien's earlier essays) are fascinating.
-
https://www.engadget.com/2010/11/28/peter-jackson-nabs-thirty-red-epic-cameras-to-film-the-hobbit-t/
We're still slightly bummed that Peter Jackson never made Halo, but this should patch things up a tad -- the Lord of the Rings director will film The Hobbit in 3D entirely on thirty hand-machined RED EPIC cameras, starting early next year. That's the news straight from RED founder Jim Jannard, but that's not all, as a limited number of pre-production EPIC packages will be available to early adopters as well. $58,000 buys your deep-pocketed budding director a machined EPIC-M body, titanium PL mount, Bomb EVF and 5-inch touchscreen LCD, a REDmote, a four-pack of batteries, a charger and a solid state storage module with a four-pack of 128GB SSDs. Jannard expects to hand-assemble that first batch of 5K imagers in December or January, start the real assembly lines a month after that, and hopefully have widespread availability by NAB in April, though he's not making any promises there. That's how RED rolls.
-
I stopped at 3D. What depressing news.
-
I'm wondering who's going to voice Smaug
Only one answer, Morgan Freeman.
-
Yay this is really exciting!! :3
-
I stopped at 3D. What depressing news.
I don't care as long as the movie is good
I'm wondering who's going to voice Smaug
Only one answer, Morgan Freeman.
:lol
-
[MorganFreemanvoice] Revenge? You? I am SMAUG! I kill when I wish! I am strong, strong, STRONG! My armor is like tenfold shields! My teeth like swords! My claws, spears! The shock of my tail, a thunderbolt! My wings, a hurricane! And my breath, death! [/MorganFreemanvoice]
-
So I'm looking at the imdb right now and it says that Galadriel is rumored to be in the movie.
Aaaaand, why, precisely?
-
I dunno about Morgan Freeman...but suspect the James Earl Jones would know if he'd eaten a dwarf ridden pony!
Some nifty CGI for Beorn I suspect. I'm looking forward to the comedy of the particular scene with all the dwarves coming up.
-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/29/extra-too-brown-the-hobbit
"It's 2010 and I still can't believe I'm being discriminated against because I have brown skin," Ms Humphreys told the Waikato Times. "The casting manager basically said they weren't having anybody who wasn't pale-skinned."
:facepalm:
-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/29/extra-too-brown-the-hobbit
"It's 2010 and I still can't believe I'm being discriminated against because I have brown skin," Ms Humphreys told the Waikato Times. "The casting manager basically said they weren't having anybody who wasn't pale-skinned."
:facepalm:
PC is driving this world down the stupidity drain pretty fast.
-
She'd soon be complaining if a white guy was given the part in a biopic about Martin Luther King.
-
Me? I wasn't complaining about it, I think it's stupid as hell! She doesn't fit the casting criteria, I mean it would be like casting a huge fat guy as Aragorn.
I get that race is a sensitive issue, but seriously a non-white Hobbit doesn't really sit right... Middle Earth is after all based on medieval Europe.
-
:lol No not you, I meant the woman. Typed "He" by mistake.
-
The whole thing's stupid because, apparently, no one in charge told the person handling the casting to exclude darker people. And, as the article also points out, not all Hobbits are necessarily pale white. The "browner" Hobbits probably wouldn't be found in The Shire, but this shouldn't be that much of an issue for it to be a big deal if there were some in the movie.
edit: Looks like the person responsible was fired.
-
https://www.deadline.com/2010/12/cate-blanchett-back-to-middle-earth-for-the-hobbit/
Cate Blanchett is returning as Galadriel in The Hobbit, which Peter Jackson directs in February. Jackson has also set Ken Stott (Charlie Wilson's War) to play Dwarf Lord Balin, Sylvester McCoy (Dr. Who) to play the wizard Radagast the Brown, and Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt (Day and Night) to play shape-shifter Beorn. Ryan Gage (Outlaw) will play Drogo Baggins and Jed Brophy (who appeared in the original The Lord of the Rings) will play the dwarf Nori, and William Kircher will play the dwarf Bifur.
wat
-
Guys, remember, this is not one film but two, including material that is set between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Galadriel is most likely part of the extra material, not being rammed into the story of The Hobbit.
-
Yeah, I keep forgetting they're doing two movies. That makes a bit more sense then I guess.
-
Potential spoilers:
Looks like chances are extremely high that Elijah Wood / Frodo will be showing up in The Hobbit.
-
Potential spoilers:
Looks like chances are extremely high that Elijah Wood / Frodo will be showing up in The Hobbit.
WAT
-
If the explanation for it that I read is true then it'll actually work out really well and shouldn't get any of the fanboys upset.
-
Too late.
(https://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/i_mad.jpg)
-
Potential spoilers:
Looks like chances are extremely high that Elijah Wood / Frodo will be showing up in The Hobbit.
Well since this is two movies and the first will be The Hobbit and the second will bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LotR and Frodo is 50 years old when LotR starts, that's quite plausible.
-
according to IMDB...Leonard Nimoy is rumored to be playing Smaug
-
Cool
-
Sylvester McCoy?!
AWESOME!
-
Didn't that guy wrote that famous Bilbo Baggins song?
-
Didn't that guy wrote that famous Bilbo Baggins song?
yep
-
Didn't that guy wrote that famous Bilbo Baggins song?
Nope, he just discoveried it.
-
Discoveried? Is that another one of those funny British spellings?
Edit: I was reading about potential cameos. They need to be careful. The LotR actors have been elevated to such a level of fame that they need to make sure a cameo wouldn't be the highlight of the movie.
-
Edit: I was reading about potential cameos. They need to be careful. The LotR actors have been elevated to such a level of fame that they need to make sure a cameo wouldn't be the highlight of the movie.
They were done pretty cleverly in the LOTR movies. The pirate one of Jackson, you could tell it was him, but I never would have picked up on it just from watching the movie if he hadn't pointed it out in the commentary. And the orc one...well, with all the orc makeup, there's no way you can tell. I don't remember if there were others.
-
Edit: I was reading about potential cameos. They need to be careful. The LotR actors have been elevated to such a level of fame that they need to make sure a cameo wouldn't be the highlight of the movie.
They were done pretty cleverly in the LOTR movies. The pirate one of Jackson, you could tell it was him, but I never would have picked up on it just from watching the movie if he hadn't pointed it out in the commentary. And the orc one...well, with all the orc makeup, there's no way you can tell. I don't remember if there were others.
I meant, more specifically, recognizable cameos. I think I read somewhere that they offered Bloom a million dollars for a two minute cameo as Legolas.
-
Apparently The Hobbit is being shot at 48 FPS, and apparently this is a big deal.
-
Apparently The Hobbit is being shot at 48 FPS, and apparently this is a big deal.
yeeeeeeaaaaah!
-
What a terrible idea.
-
according to IMDB...Leonard Nimoy is rumored to be playing Smaug
Damn, and I was so pulling for Morgan Freeman.
-
Apparently The Hobbit is being shot at 48 FPS, and apparently this is a big deal.
Won't that look funky on 120 Hz and 240 Hz televisions?
-
I'd imagine it'd be harsher to the human eye, actually. It creates a more fluid, less blurry motion which would look very unnatural to someone expecting to see a movie filmed using the standard 24fps. Not quite as extreme as the soap opera 60fps Cameron is pushing for but imagine a movie filmed using the TruMotion/MotionPlus/whatever mode your TV has to make stuff like "realistic".
-
What a terrible idea.
Yeah, then we won't get that horrible look when fast moving objects move across the screen
*glares at District 9*
-
I'd imagine it'd be harsher to the human eye, actually. It creates a more fluid, less blurry motion which would look very unnatural to someone expecting to see a movie filmed using the standard 24fps. Not quite as extreme as the soap opera 60fps Cameron is pushing for but imagine a movie filmed using the TruMotion/MotionPlus/whatever mode your TV has to make stuff like "realistic".
The TV analogy doesn't apply here. TruMotion and those other techs insert "fake" frames between the real ones to try to make things look smoother, but when there's fast motion on screen they look like shit because the tech just isn't good enough to do it on the fly. By shooting at 48fps rather than 24, there actually are twice as many frames per second, so it really will be smoother and will look better on screen.
-
I still don't understand the point. I have never had a problem with motion blurs in movies before. In fact that kinda stuff is what gives cinema its charm.
-
Could someone link me examples of things shot with different frame-rates? Because I'm pretty sure I know I've observed the differences before, I just can't remember with what.
-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/13/peter-jackson-hobbit-cinema-director
I'm not sure the reasoning, but it will take all new projectors to show it. I assume that Jackson wouldn't use it if it made things worse, so if the technology is there, why not?
-
Well 3D makes things worse but people still film in that.
-
True. I don't see them advertising this like "48 FPS ALL UP IN YOUR FACE!" though. 3D can be used as a marketing ploy, where this most people probably won't even understand.
Also, I'll side with Jackson over Cameron any day.
-
I feel like the medium is fine as it is. It's akin to the newer generation of video games trying to incorporate motion controls. Yeah it's cool for a little bit but the fundamentals are already perfect as they were. Of course a great movie experience to me is getting into great characters, engrossed in a story, or observing masterfully framed shots.
-
No, it's akin to newer video games..... running at a higher FPS.
-
:metal :metal :metal :metal
First video blog!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfesknLk5uI&feature=player_embedded
-
Holy shit that was awesome. Words cannot describe how happy I am Jackson is directing.
-
Removed due to a copyright claim. :'(
-
https://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-releases-exclusive-video-from-hobbit-set/
-
Found it here too: https://youtu.be/G6ERgApz0_g
As someone that watched all the bonus stuff on the extended DVD's of LOTR, all 20 hours worth, it's going to be cool now that they have YouTube to tease us with while they are filming.
-
It's crazy to think it's been ten years since last time and they didn't have YouTube back then. :lol
It was so amazing seeing Jackson, Andy Serkis, Ian McKellen and the rest of the staff re-united. I'm sure the movie is gonna rock!
-
It's crazy to think it's been ten years since last time and they didn't have YouTube back then. :lol
It was so amazing seeing Jackson, Andy Serkis, Ian McKellen and the rest of the staff re-united. I'm sure the movie is gonna rock!
lordoftherings.net was epic back in the day. Internet sites were a lot less flashy but lordoftherings.net was real crisp and had a lot of really cool footage from the filming and the sceneries. Allthough not nearly as much as you can expect today, everyone was simply blown away when the first movie actually got into theaters.
-
That was amazing! It makes the film(s?) a reality now.
-
Oh my god, watching that gave a pure nerdgasm. I fooking cannot wait! AHhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
I think the thing that surprised me most is that on those parts where Jackson is walking around, he's got at least two cameras following him around most of the time. If they're going to do that for three years, they must have a hell of a budget for behind the scenes bonus features. Jackson seems to be one of the best directors at doing stuff like that.
-
what's taters precious?
-
I remember Jackson as really fat, he surely lost weight.
-
what's taters precious?
(https://i.imgur.com/YSvwy.jpg)
-
:rollin
It's the ironic glasses that sell it
-
I honestly can say I have never been this excited for a movie... I am nerding out more than I have been over Deathly Hallows. :caffeine:
-
If they're going to do that for three years, they must have a hell of a budget for behind the scenes bonus features. Jackson seems to be one of the best directors at doing stuff like that.
Well no other film is as good on extras as LotR, the extended edition bonus features are insanely amazing.
I honestly can say I have never been this excited for a movie... I am nerding out more than I have been over Deathly Hallows. :caffeine:
What about for LotR?
-
Hey may not have been old enough to truly nerd out to them. I nerded out cuz I first read LotR at age 8
-
Yeah, I was 9 when the fellowship came out, but I had read the trilogy by the third movie (possibly even the second), and I could still get excited over it :D
-
Nimoy as Smaug would be the best thing ever.
And yeah, please no 3D. At least not at the expense of an HD 2D showing.
rumborak
-
It is filming in 3D. Not sure if they'll have 2D as well.
Haven't seen many 3D things, but I don't think it changes much. Shitty movies are shitty and good movies are good; no matter how many Ds there are.
-
What about for LotR?
i was way late to the game with lotr
-
They always have 2D showsing of 3D films here in Cambridge (UK)
i was way late to the game with lotr
How old are you?
-
Nimoy as Smaug would be the best thing ever.
Damn right.
Despite LOTR blowing my mind back in the day I'm not that excited about this yet. Part of it is because I don't care for The Hobbit compared LOTR, and partly because I think the movie trilogy was a lightning in a bottle, stars in alignment sort of project that only comes along once in a long while. Plus Jackson's work since LOTR hasn't been very good.
-
It is filming in 3D. Not sure if they'll have 2D as well.
Haven't seen many 3D things, but I don't think it changes much. Shitty movies are shitty and good movies are good; no matter how many Ds there are.
A drama or movie that's supposed to be serious in any way in 3D wouldn't come across as anything other than goofy.
-
Because The Hobbit is totally serious business.
-
C'mon son, don't act like LOTR wasn't presented as a serious work of cinema. I'd expect no different from this one.
-
Because The Hobbit is totally serious business.
Parts of it, yeah.
-
You're probably right. The Hobbit (book) was much less serious than the trilogy though. Maybe some of that will carry over.
Or it could just be their going to use it for some visual effects, like a massively scaled down avatar. Maybe I'm just being a optimist, but I trust peter jackson to do a good job at using it tastefully. Plus, we already know The Hobbit has a great story, so as long as it isn't butchered it's a win win.
-
I don't plan on watching it in 3D, so it won't be an issue for me.
-
And yeah, please no 3D.
rumborak
So what if it's filmed in 3D? It's not hurting anyone and nobody forces you to watch it. Saying something is filmed/available in 3D doesn't automatically make it bad and if people (not you) are shallow enough to not see a movie based solely on that then I don't know what to say. It's like saying the movie will be crap if it's used on Film Stock A instead of Film Stock B, or if they use one brand of camera over another. People will miss out on some potentially great movies for such a petty reason.
On a tangent, I've even seen DT fans/people saying that the new album will suck or that they won't even bother listening to it cuz MP isn't on it. So very, very lame.
3D can please everyone... fans who enjoy it and people who loathe it as they can just watch it in 2D.
-.-.-.-.-.-
Back on topic...
In order to get small races, like Hobbits, to look small next to normal sized characters without extensive bluescreen work LotR used A LOT of forced perspective techniques and they work ONLY if in 2D. So, I wonder how PJ will handle it for the Hobbit.
-
3D can please everyone... fans who enjoy it and people who loathe it as they can just watch it in 2D.
Not entirely true. When you're filming in 3D you can frame certain shots to maximize the effect of 3D but in doing so the DOF and such in the same 2D shot looks really off. Basically if you're not careful it's painfully evident when a shot was meant to be in 3D. The best example I can give of several of these shots is from the newest Resident Evil movie.
-
Tom Bombadil was completely immune to the ring's powers
I wish there was more info about Tom Bombadil :sadpanda:
Oh my god, watching that gave a pure nerdgasm. I fooking cannot wait! AHhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D
ME NEITHER :caffeine:
Also, I just thought of this, and now I am super excited about it... THERE MIGHT BE A NEW SCORE :hefdaddy
-
Tom Bombadil was completely immune to the ring's powers
I wish there was more info about Tom Bombadil :sadpanda:
He wouldn't be as interesting of a character if there wasn't all the mystery surrounding him.
-
True.
But it would be interesting to at least know what race he is, or where he originally came from. Maybe even if he's known by different names in different parts of Middle Earth or something.
Oh well.
-
The Hobbit is very much a kids book, especially compared to LotR. I think they'll bump it up a bit to match the other movies though.
-
And yeah, please no 3D.
rumborak
So what if it's filmed in 3D? It's not hurting anyone
Actually, it does. Many people get massive headaches from the current 3D technology. It's a marketing ploy, and essentially a technology from the 50s that was plugged in to counter the dwindling theater numbers.
Maybe my standard on realism is too high, but I find it just looks plain bad anyway. It's like cardboard cutouts moving in front of you. And not surprising really; cinema screens have no more resolution than a good LCD monitor. That inherently limits the depths you can portray.
rumborak
-
Wrong. Cinema projectors have far far far superior resolution to good monitors.
edit: 4K projectors are ~4000 x ~3000 pixels FYI
And do they not do 2D showings of 3D films in your country?
-
(https://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/205037_197270413641905_160617097307237_468378_7619235_n.jpg)
Note the smoke coming out of the chimneys. Insane detail.
-
Dude... nice :o
Looks like I just got a new desktop background!
-
Wrong. Cinema projectors have far far far superior resolution to good monitors.
edit: 4K projectors are ~4000 x ~3000 pixels FYI
So? A 30'' monitor has 2560x1600. And from what I read on the internet, most cinemas use 2K projectors, not 4K.
And do they not do 2D showings of 3D films in your country?
They do. But they are also trying to jam 3D down everybody's throat, at the expense of 2D showtimes.
rumborak
-
Here's a link to some new picks of Bilbo & Gandalf.
https://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78948
-
fuck yeah
you do not know how pumped I am for these movies :metal
-
Thorin, that dwarf in the middle, looks way too young. I'm not sold on some of the casting choices so far, but we'll see.
-
I though Peter Jackson was gonna do more of those video blog things...
-
no trailer date yet eh?
is Leonard Nemoy the voice of Smaug?
-
Benedict Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug.
-
Benedict Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug.
Fuck Yeah :metal
-
Wrong. Cinema projectors have far far far superior resolution to good monitors.
edit: 4K projectors are ~4000 x ~3000 pixels FYI
And do they not do 2D showings of 3D films in your country?
Bit late, but 3d also hurts the movie itself. I was in the cinema two days ago and they showed a trailer for the new harry potter. EVERYTHING was filmed so it went towards the camera, to make it useable for 3d. It looks really really stupid when watching it on 2d. OLOL HARRY FLEW ONTO THE CAMERAMAN.
-
Benedict Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug.
Will him and Bilbo solve mysteries together?
-
:lol
-
New production video from Peter Jackson. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150451523596807 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150451523596807)
-
God dammit I hate 3D as an entertainment device but watching that I can't help but keep Peter Jackson might make me love it.
He lost he at 48 fps, though. C'mon, Jackson, you know better than that.
-
Yeah, I'm skeptical about the 48 fps.
-
The bad part about that is that while it may become some kind of standard in the future while you're watching even a big budget movie attempting that kind of stuff you're still going to be stuck in that "man this feel very unusual" phase and not actually enjoying what you're seeing. 48 fps will do that, no question, so it's odd that he would attempt this with a lot at stake.
-
IAN MCKELLEN (GANDALF)
"He's in fantastic form," Peter Jackson says of McKellen. "In a way, his role in The Hobbit has more technical difficulties than Lord of the Rings did, because he has scenes with 14 smaller characters — obviously the dwarves and the hobbit are shorter... I remember saying to him [laughs], "Look, this isn't Waiting for Godot or King Lear. This is The Hobbit. This is the real thing."
:lol What the hell is that supposed to mean?
-
I don't get the opposition to 48fps here. What possibly negative aspect could a higher frame rate have?
rumborak
-
Yeah, I don't get what's wrong with 48fps. You guys are posting over my head!
-
I don't get the opposition to 48fps here. What possibly negative aspect could a higher frame rate have?
rumborak
I think it's just that people are used to the 24p film look. I hear people complain about 100/120Hz TV for the same reason (although obviously that's a little different as the additional frames are interpolated rather than filmed properly).
I think it's just a matter of people getting used to it. 24p actually has a pretty long exposure time to look smooth, and people associate that with the traditional "movie" look, at least sub-consciously. But technically a higher framerate should more closely approximate reality, as our eyes update a lot faster than 24, or even 48fps.
-
Part of it is that at 48fps, these movies won't visually match the LOTR films. Not to mention the 3D, which a lot of people are tired of. I wanted a somewhat consistent look to make the series feel more cohesive. Leave the visual experiments for a new project.
I admit that I'm a traditionalist in a lot of things, and 24fps is the classic movie look. I also don't know how 48fps will look, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I just hope it doesn't take on a soap opera effect. The more it looks like reality, the more it might look like a bunch of goofballs in silly costumes and wigs running around because we're so used to having movies appear a certain way and the illusion could be broken.
-
I also don't know how 48fps will look, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I just hope it doesn't take on a soap opera effect.
THIS
I never knew what the reason behind the soap opera look was. 48fps is terrible to watch
-
Well, for me it's a heaven sent. I've stopped going to theaters essentially because of the 24fps flicker that I can't stand.
rumborak
-
My parents have a TV like the one Blob mentioned. I'll just say this: I love Jesus Christ Superstar (lolol a Jew who loves JCSS), but I can't stand it in 48p or whatever that weird thing is. It looks exactly like what Pols Voice described: singing people in silly costumes.
-
I never would have noticed the difference between 24 or 48 fps if you guys wouldn't have said anything. I'm not really sure how you guys can see it.
-
I never would have noticed the difference between 24 or 48 fps if you guys wouldn't have said anything. I'm not really sure how you guys can see it.
This, plus 360kps vs. lossless.
People on the internet are starting to make me feel like I'm some sort of inferior human being.
-
I never would have noticed the difference between 24 or 48 fps if you guys wouldn't have said anything. I'm not really sure how you guys can see it.
This, plus 360kps vs. lossless.
People on the internet are starting to make me feel like I'm some sort of inferior human being.
I think it's really easy to spot. The human eye sees a lot faster than 24fps. Ever noticed how much different and smoother a video game looks than a movie?
And I can't tell the difference between a 320kb vs lossless at all. :lol
-
My understanding is that with twice the resolution, things in a sense look "too real". Kinda like the difference between watching something shot on video versus something shot on film. When watching a sitcom on TV, video is fine because we're not exactly talking high art, it's generally viewed on a smaller screen, and so on. But feature films traditionally have a look to them, a softness imposed by the grain that's nearly subconscious (truly subconscious for some) that allows the viewer to immerse himself into it. People seem to be afraid that the 48fps thing will just plain look wrong. I'm not enough of a film buff to understand it all, or have seen any real examples of it, but that's what I get from the arguments I've read.
IAN MCKELLEN (GANDALF)
"He's in fantastic form," Peter Jackson says of McKellen. "In a way, his role in The Hobbit has more technical difficulties than Lord of the Rings did, because he has scenes with 14 smaller characters — obviously the dwarves and the hobbit are shorter... I remember saying to him [laughs], "Look, this isn't Waiting for Godot or King Lear. This is The Hobbit. This is the real thing."
:lol What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Waiting for Godot and King Lear are two highly respected classics, the type of work for which Sir Ian is known and which he can really tear up. You would expect the opposite: "Look, this isn't exactly Shakespeare, we're just making a fantasy about dwarves and stuff" but Jackson turns it around. To him, The Hobbit is far more serious business than that high-brow stuff that only snobs care about.
-
Pretty much what Orbert said. It messes with my ability to suspend my disbelief.
-
OFFICIAL TRAILER PREMIERES TOMORROW ZOMGZOMGZOMGZOMG :caffeine:
-
Is it gonna be with a movie, or online, what?
-
IAN MCKELLEN (GANDALF)
"He's in fantastic form," Peter Jackson says of McKellen. "In a way, his role in The Hobbit has more technical difficulties than Lord of the Rings did, because he has scenes with 14 smaller characters — obviously the dwarves and the hobbit are shorter... I remember saying to him [laughs], "Look, this isn't Waiting for Godot or King Lear. This is The Hobbit. This is the real thing."
:lol What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Waiting for Godot and King Lear are two highly respected classics, the type of work for which Sir Ian is known and which he can really tear up. You would expect the opposite: "Look, this isn't exactly Shakespeare, we're just making a fantasy about dwarves and stuff" but Jackson turns it around. To him, The Hobbit is far more serious business than that high-brow stuff that only snobs care about.
This does make sense. I was quite lost because, as you said, you expect the opposite. I guess it shows the place that Jackson is coming from, being primarily a film-maker too. "Alright, you can do the academic stuff, cool. Now I need you to deliver in a blockbuster again".
Also, Sir Ian McKellen wrote on his website about travelling through my province with a location scout about a month ago. They seem to have intentionally slipped through very quietly.
-
https://movieline.com/2012/04/25/the-hobbit-48-fps-preview-divides-audiences-at-cinemacon/
-
It probably looks like those 100hz/120hz televisions, which most people seem to think looks weird (although this is shot natively, and not faked).
Why is though that film shot at a more realistic frame rate would look strange? Is it simply that we're not used to it yet and associate the 24fps look with cinema? And if so, how can we not be used to something that is closer to what we actually see every single day with reality?
-
I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."
-
I think that is it exactly.
-
24fps has been the cinema standard for over 80 years, so it's basically all we've ever known for movies, and TV is either 25/30 depending on where in the world you are. Maybe it is just familiarity and association.
It will be hard to break that habit if people are that opposed to it from the start.
-
How many of those complainers are going to be criticizing 24fps movies for an outdated look once they've seen two or three full movies at 48? They saw all of 10 minutes of it, and their complaints were only on a part of that time. Besides, the best comparison is the exact same movie at both 24 and 48. Some of those complaints might have nothing to do with the 48fps.
-
I will actually watch this for the 48fps specifically. I can't watch many movies in the theater because of the 24fps. Every time there is a big white scene, it's one giant flicker fest.
rumborak
-
I have no problem with this really, but if I get it on DVD I'll probably just watch it on my standard 24fps TV. Unless that doesn't affect anything, in which case forget what I said.
-
I have no problem with this really, but if I get it on DVD I'll probably just watch it on my standard 24fps TV. Unless that doesn't affect anything, in which case forget what I said.
DVD only supports the standard TV framerates of 25/29.97fps, so they couldn't release it 48fps on DVD even if they wanted to, so it will just look like a regular old movie on DVD. I'm not even sure if Bluray supports 48fps at this stage, and if/when it does, I'm fairly sure it couldn't handle both 48fps and 3D simultaneously due to the data rate. Might be a while before 48fps trickles down to the home viewer, even for movies that were natively shot that way.
-
My dad has a TV in his bedroom that supports 48fps. I know it does because that's the only framerate it does playback with.
-
My dad has a TV in his bedroom that supports 48fps. I know it does because that's the only framerate it does playback with.
The question is if a dvd player can even decode 48fps data. If the format doesn't support 48fps then the standard dvd wouldn't even have the data to allow true 48fps playback.
-
I was wary of the 48fps from the beginning. At least some screenings will be in 24fps, I believe.
-
I'm probably setting the bar a bit too high, and will only disappoint myself... but this is going to be the best movie I ever see.
-
I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."
This was in the comments. I don't know if it's legit or not.
The eye sends information to the brain somewhere between every 1/48th of a second to 1/60th of a second. Which, surprise, surprise, is the same as shooting 24 fps to 30 fps. These frame rates have a shutter speed of 1/48 and 1/60 respectively so the motion and motion blur is very similar to our own eyes. Shooting at 48fps has a shutter speed of 1/96th. Which I clearly stated above. That is why the motion captured at 48 fps looks UNNATURAL. Because it's not what our eyes do.
-
I will actually watch this for the 48fps specifically. I can't watch many movies in the theater because of the 24fps. Every time there is a big white scene, it's one giant flicker fest.
rumborak
If it's a flicker-fest, then you need to change theaters. I've worked at plenty of places that had no flicker even when running a pure-white test pattern...
I'm not even sure if Bluray supports 48fps at this stage, and if/when it does, I'm fairly sure it couldn't handle both 48fps and 3D simultaneously due to the data rate. Might be a while before 48fps trickles down to the home viewer, even for movies that were natively shot that way.
The specs for Blu Ray only allows for 1080p up to 24 fps. But they could easily make a disk in that frame rate by simply dropping frames, which I assume is what they're going to do for the few film theaters still out there at release date (and probably what they'll do for DVD as well).
And they'd have to also do an update in the HDMI specs for 48 fps.
-
I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."
This was in the comments. I don't know if it's legit or not.
The eye sends information to the brain somewhere between every 1/48th of a second to 1/60th of a second. Which, surprise, surprise, is the same as shooting 24 fps to 30 fps. These frame rates have a shutter speed of 1/48 and 1/60 respectively so the motion and motion blur is very similar to our own eyes. Shooting at 48fps has a shutter speed of 1/96th. Which I clearly stated above. That is why the motion captured at 48 fps looks UNNATURAL. Because it's not what our eyes do.
First of all, the human eye does not work neatly in fps, it's a continuous stream of visual information. Humans can detect flashes even as brief as 1/200 of a second, but can be fooled into seeing smooth motion at much lower framerates (eg the 24fps of cinema)
I believe what this person is referring to is the subjective reasoning that most people can't differentiate between framerates higher than about 50-60fps, a figure derived from gaming where it starts to look jerky roughly below that point, but keep in mind that's because there's typically no motion blur to compensate for the inbetween motion to fool the eyes. If this figure is infact derived as I suspect (which I'm fairly sure it is, as I've found no other evidence supporting it), then it would actually ironically prove the opposite point, as a video game at 60fps has a shutter duration of 0, even shorter than the "unnatural" 1/96 like he's suggesting.
Even if we take this figure of the brain registering 1/48 - 1/60, this does not equate to the shutter speed of a camera. FPS =/= shutter duration. Both 24fps video and 48fps video generally use a 180 degree shutter, so the shutter duration works out to half of the video frame for both systems. This has no direct correlation with framerate though, as the shutter speed can vary, and you're still only getting 24 discrete frames, not 48. A lot of action scenes use a much shorter shutter time (a look which just looks stuttery to me at 24fps).
Even ignoring the flaws in his logic, it would only work if you had 48 discrete frames with a full shutter duration, not 24 discrete frames with a half shutter duration (which both work out to a shutter duration of 1/48 of a second for the sake of the discussion).
I'm not sure if that post makes any sense to anybody but me. Sorry. :blob:
-
I saw several reports from people who saw the 48 fps showcase and a somewhat common complaint was that the fact that it made stuff look more like real-life made them focus more on the image and notice all the little flaws in stuff and it made it harder to just be brought in to the story from focusing on the image so much...
-
I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."
This was in the comments. I don't know if it's legit or not.
The eye sends information to the brain somewhere between every 1/48th of a second to 1/60th of a second. Which, surprise, surprise, is the same as shooting 24 fps to 30 fps. These frame rates have a shutter speed of 1/48 and 1/60 respectively so the motion and motion blur is very similar to our own eyes. Shooting at 48fps has a shutter speed of 1/96th. Which I clearly stated above. That is why the motion captured at 48 fps looks UNNATURAL. Because it's not what our eyes do.
Oh, I wasn't talking neurology, I was talking psychology. I mean that all our lives our brains are conditioned to interpret 24fps as being "movie speed." So when we see some visual moving at 24fps or some equivalent, our brain tells us "movie." If we see a movie at other frame rate, it confuses us because of our psychological conditioning to equate 24fps with "movie."
-
https://movieline.com/2012/04/25/the-hobbit-48-fps-preview-divides-audiences-at-cinemacon/
People on Twitter have asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES.
That's exactly what I was afraid of. I can't tell you how much that AutoMotion crap that is standard on TVs bothers me. What a shame.
-
It's funny. People who couldn't afford film for years tried to get their 60i and then 30p footage to look like 24p. Now that there are a vast selection of digital cameras that have the 24p option, some in the industry want a higher frame rate. Go figure. Count me as one who prefers 24p over higher frame rates.
-
I will actually watch this for the 48fps specifically. I can't watch many movies in the theater because of the 24fps. Every time there is a big white scene, it's one giant flicker fest.
rumborak
If it's a flicker-fest, then you need to change theaters. I've worked at plenty of places that had no flicker even when running a pure-white test pattern...
The problem isn't the theater, the problem is my eyes. I can see the color wheel effect on projectors (i.e. I move my head and see the primary colors because the projector doesn't display them all at once)
Theaters displays are designed with 95% of the population's visual cortex in mind. Mine sadly falls out of that bell curve, and so it's pretty much a flicker fest.
rumborak
-
That would be fixed by a faster color wheel not frame rate, although a faster frame rate would demand a faster color wheel or a technology other than dlp.
-
Well, LCD projectors don't have that problem, but I don't think they can handle the light intensity required for a theater.
Eh, honestly I'm not a movie buff anyway. I do other stuff instead.
rumborak
-
He said he saw a "color wheel effect" rather than "something caused by a problem with color wheels." I mention this because most theaters out there aren't using 3D systems that use a color wheel at all, so moving up the color wheel speed on the few that do (such as Dolby's system and the similar newish one from Panasonic if memory serves me right) would likely have no effect on what he's seeing. And incidentally, the color wheels on Dolby's system at least spin *insanely* fast.
And if he saw a 3D feature at a place that used a 2-projector/dual-lens setup (such as one of the few film-based IMAX's left or one from a single Sony projector), this effect being commented on may be reduced since those do have the two eyes literally displayed simultaneously.
Well, LCD projectors don't have that problem, but I don't think they can handle the light intensity required for a theater.
Not only that, but we'd be talking about a panel that would need to be up to ~60-70 feet wide...
-
Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17885833
-
Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17885833
Once films start coming out in 48fps for awhile and people get used to it many will start criticizing 24fps. What he says isn't anything mind blowing, people hate change.
-
I highly doubt people will get used to 48fps as some kind of norm. It looks that unrealistic.
-
Right, seeing as complaints were it looked too realistic. If it becomes the norm people will not only get used to it but filmmakers will get better and better at their techniques for filming for it. Just because 24fps has been the standard for so long doesn't mean it was chosen because that's what the best choice for fps is.
-
Heading towards the uncanny valley is a problem, though. From what I've read it's difficult to immerse yourself in a story because it's so jarring. That's not something people can just get used to, the brain is just not calibrated to process it. Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology. It's pretty irksome when people like Cameron and Jackson take it upon themselves to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place.
-
Erm, not sure the uncanny valley applies to frame rate.
-
...so pushing boundaries is bad?
Maybe it will turn out worse than 24fps, but until the industry has a few years worth of time to explore it and fans a chance to adjust to it, how would anyone really know? Being a standard makes us accept something as right, but that's terrible justification since we've never experienced anything else for film in any significant amount.
-
Heading towards the uncanny valley is a problem, though. From what I've read it's difficult to immerse yourself in a story because it's so jarring. That's not something people can just get used to, the brain is just not calibrated to process it. Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology. It's pretty irksome when people like Cameron and Jackson take it upon themselves to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place.
I also get annoyed when these guys just decide they can single handedly change a standard like that, but it very well may just be a matter of getting used to this and wiping out that mental association we have with higher framerates. I think that TVs that use 100/120hz interpolation look weird as hell, but since I haven't seen anything shot natively at 48fps, I'm going to reserve judgement for now, although I love the 24fps look simply because of that mental association with cinema.
And to be fair, the standard of 24fps was created at a time when they had only barely just figured out how to sync audio with video properly, so a much higher framerate would have been beyond the tech of the time. I wouldn't place much importance in how they derived the figure of 24fps beyond it being a minimum acceptable standard they could consistently manage for shooting and projecting a film.
-
Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology.
It's a very prosaic reason, the same why telephones in the years 2012 still transmit its signal in a 3kHz band, despite it not sounding good. It's plain market inertia (i.e. once people didnt get epileptic seizures in the theater they stopped improving it), not some magical sweet spot of technology. Btw, the epileptic seizure is only half-jokingly. They used to have city-ordained mandatory breaks in movies in order to protect the public from massive headaches and seizures due to the low frame rate. (I.e. < 24 fps )
-
I'm looking forward to seeing it in 48 fps, although I can imagine that it will polarize the audience. Also, rumborak! WHERE DID YOUR SIGNATURE DISAPPEAR TO?
-
It has been possible to shoot film at higher frame rates for a while, but it generally hasn't been done, except for over-cranking. There are some instances like Star Trek: The Next Generation where it was shot at 30fps for a quicker more hassle free work flow for television. But there is an aesthetic to 24fps that is great for narratives. An almost fantastic feel. I am ALL for 48fps for documentary applications, but not for narratives.
-
This worries me a bit, but I guess if the 48fps sucks, I'll only see it once at the theatre, and wait til it comes out on DVD.
Though who knows, maybe it'll affect the DVD too.
-
Though who knows, maybe it'll affect the DVD too.
The DVD will have to be 24 fps, as DVD players don't have support for 48.
And it'd be simple for them to make it work.
-
Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology.
It's a very prosaic reason, the same why telephones in the years 2012 still transmit its signal in a 3kHz band, despite it not sounding good. It's plain market inertia (i.e. once people didnt get epileptic seizures in the theater they stopped improving it), not some magical sweet spot of technology. Btw, the epileptic seizure is only half-jokingly. They used to have city-ordained mandatory breaks in movies in order to protect the public from massive headaches and seizures due to the low frame rate. (I.e. < 24 fps )
What? Dude, 24fps has a look to it you can't get with any other frame rate. It's an issue of taste, not inertia. I don't like the look of 30fps. And 60fps looks like a video game.
-
Though who knows, maybe it'll affect the DVD too.
The DVD will have to be 24 fps, as DVD players don't have support for 48.
And it'd be simple for them to make it work.
Then I have a reliable backup option if I don't like the new framerate.
-
...there is an aesthetic to 24fps that is great for narratives. An almost fantastic feel. I am ALL for 48fps for documentary applications, but not for narratives.
How could you know? We feel that way because we're familiar with 24fps, not because we have actual comparison. You say the 24fps has a certain aesthetic, but the industry has decades upon decades of practice with it. There's absolutely no reason to think it's the best choice for "narratives," it's just what's been used.
-
How could you know? We feel that way because we're familiar with 24fps, not because we have actual comparison. You say the 24fps has a certain aesthetic, but the industry has decades upon decades of practice with it. There's absolutely no reason to think it's the best choice for "narratives," it's just what's been used.
Because I make the choice between using 24fps and 30 fps on a weekly basis for my work. Even for stuff that is all motion graphics or animation, unless the client says otherwise, I choose 24fps for it's aesthetic.
48fps is even faster which means it will only lose that quality even more. I can make some comparisons if you would like to see.
Here is a short comparison between 24 and 48 I found on another forum:
24:
(https://www.maximum-attack.com/24FPS.gif)
48:
(https://www.maximum-attack.com/48FPS.gif)
-
That's still only two choices between framerates. 24fps doesn't even look as good if it isn't filmed correctly with the morion blur, right? There's more to the equation than simply fps. Each choice can have it's own optimum method of being filmed for a particular feel, until it's explored, again, how do you know? How do you know 28fps isn't the best choice? 18fps? 32 fps? 192fps? 23fps? ...maybe varying fps throughout a movie is best, no?
-
I'm pretty sure this discussion is about 24 or 48.
-
Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology.
It's a very prosaic reason, the same why telephones in the years 2012 still transmit its signal in a 3kHz band, despite it not sounding good. It's plain market inertia (i.e. once people didnt get epileptic seizures in the theater they stopped improving it), not some magical sweet spot of technology. Btw, the epileptic seizure is only half-jokingly. They used to have city-ordained mandatory breaks in movies in order to protect the public from massive headaches and seizures due to the low frame rate. (I.e. < 24 fps )
What? Dude, 24fps has a look to it you can't get with any other frame rate. It's an issue of taste, not inertia. I don't like the look of 30fps. And 60fps looks like a video game.
I was reacting to the idea that 24fps has some special physiological meaning and thus constitutes a "sweet spot" for the technology.
Here is a really interesting article on the topic: https://web.archive.org/web/20110708155615/https://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm
Essentially there was a zoo of frame rates in the beginning of theaters, and 24fps was essentially chosen so that the nitrate films wouldn't start burning in the projector. Too slow a frame rate and the film spends too much time in front of the hot light, too fast and the friction will heat it up too much.
rumborak
-
I'm pretty sure this discussion is about 24 or 48.
It's still relevant that 48fps doesn't have the same history and experience tied to 24fps. The overall point is that there's no reason to suspect 24fps is best, exploring other options shouldn't be considered bad.
-
It's still relevant that 48fps doesn't have the same history and experience tied to 24fps. The overall point is that there's no reason to suspect 24fps is best, exploring other options shouldn't be considered bad.
The Panasonic VariCam has been able to shoot incremental frame rates for years. The fact is that 24, 30, 60, and soon to be 48 are deliverable standards. I really doubt any frame rates other than those will ever catch on. You might have a point with varying frame rates for effect, as it is done with varying shutter speed, and that IS something having a higher standard frame rate would allow for, but would be better off at 60 or even higher for the math to work out better. Generally though, I find varying frame rates within a piece jarring and distracting.
I have access to both a VariCam and Red MX. When I get some free time I may shoot some test footage at different rates for fun.
-
Yeah, I'm not expecting other frame rates to be catch on, it's just that the standards are set for reasons other than being objectively best at some task. Sticking with 24fps for film across the board seems silly when we can experiment. To me trying different things shouldn't be jeered, not until it's been given a fair shake, at least.
You clearly know more about film than I do, I just feel as though I want to see what filmmakers can do with different variables. I don't want an across the board change.
-
...there is an aesthetic to 24fps that is great for narratives. An almost fantastic feel. I am ALL for 48fps for documentary applications, but not for narratives.
How could you know? We feel that way because we're familiar with 24fps, not because we have actual comparison. You say the 24fps has a certain aesthetic, but the industry has decades upon decades of practice with it. There's absolutely no reason to think it's the best choice for "narratives," it's just what's been used.
The whole point of a narrative is to, well, tell a story and immerse the viewer. It doesn't help the case when many comments about 48 fps seem to make the video play like you're on the movie set watching actors rehearse the scenes instead of viewing a finished product. I know exactly what you're saying but it seems like a problem that people won't get used to not because it needs time to be perfected but because it just plain doesn't work. If you have an HD TV go turn on the AutoMotion or MotionPlus or whatever feature that fills in the gap between frames for a "smoother picture" and see if you can handle that because it's very distracting.
-
Since most people seem to agree that 24 fps looks more "movie-y" because we're used to it, I would like to see what someone that has NEVER seen a 24 fps movie thinks about both framerates. Maybe that person would see the same clip in 48 fps and 24 fps and would say that 24 sucks because it looks "fake", instead of saying that 48 sucks because it looks too real.
-
Sports would massively benefit from higher frame rates, that's for sure.
rumborak
-
Thanks for posting that 24/48 comparison.
I love how the 48fps looks and can't wait to see it in action for the whole movie.
-
It must be my screen...I've been staring at it for 2 or 3 minutes and I can't tell the difference.
I do have an HD screen.
-
It's easier to notice if you focus on the black lines on the ball.
-
It's not a great example. It'd probably be better showing pans on characters and dialogue scenes.
-
It must be my screen...I've been staring at it for 2 or 3 minutes and I can't tell the difference.
I do have an HD screen.
That's the perfect example why I don't go to movies. To me the two videos are massively different.
rumborak
-
Here is a larger example of 48fps that I found.
https://ge.tt/6Esr9oG/v/0?c
I still want people to see it on a dramatic dialogue scene though.
-
One key thing with 24 vs 48;
For fiction, the extra motion blur of 24fps causes the brain to make a subtle distinction between the film and real life. Most viewers will be completely unaware of this on a conscious level, but subconsciously, it helps immersion, because the viewer is less likely to find small details that might otherwise take them out of the film to be jarring.
At a faster frame rate, like 30, 48, or 60, the brain doesn't make the distinction, or at least not to the same degree. This is why you often hear people complaining about the more realistic presentation looking 'fake'. Because fake elements, like sets, are being processed by the brain as supposedly real, and it knows that they aren't.
This is why something like a sporting event looks good at a high frame rate, but a film often won't.
-
It will just become another tool in the repertoire of filmmakers. Back in the day of early filming, vastly different frame rates (even within the same movie) were used for cinematic effect.
rumborak
-
It will just become another tool in the repertoire of filmmakers. Back in the day of early filming, vastly different frame rates (even within the same movie) were used for cinematic effect.
rumborak
Another tool is a good way of putting it. Think about how many different *aspect ratios* existed in the 60's. If memory serves, there were 4 or 5 different options. Nowadays, we typically only have two....the two most popular won out. Although the others are still technically available.
-
One key thing with 24 vs 48;
For fiction, the extra motion blur of 24fps causes the brain to make a subtle distinction between the film and real life. Most viewers will be completely unaware of this on a conscious level, but subconsciously, it helps immersion, because the viewer is less likely to find small details that might otherwise take them out of the film to be jarring.
At a faster frame rate, like 30, 48, or 60, the brain doesn't make the distinction, or at least not to the same degree. This is why you often hear people complaining about the more realistic presentation looking 'fake'. Because fake elements, like sets, are being processed by the brain as supposedly real, and it knows that they aren't.
This is why something like a sporting event looks good at a high frame rate, but a film often won't.
I like this explanation. I personally have been confounded by the paradox that something looking "more real" somehow ends up looking "more fake" and this explanation works for me.
-
It will just become another tool in the repertoire of filmmakers. Back in the day of early filming, vastly different frame rates (even within the same movie) were used for cinematic effect.
rumborak
I could see it being used for documentaries, or for films where the director wants to go for an ultra-realistic vibe (though for the latter, I don't know how well it would actually work). I personally can't see it working at all for films with any sort of sets or effects though.
Another tool is a good way of putting it. Think about how many different *aspect ratios* existed in the 60's. If memory serves, there were 4 or 5 different options. Nowadays, we typically only have two....the two most popular won out. Although the others are still technically available.
With aspect ratios though, it's more about the director shaping the focus of the viewer. The two most common these days (though there is a bit of variation within each) are Widescreen (1.78:1), and Scope (2.35:1). Generally, but not always, Scope is used for things on a grander scale, while Widescreen is used when the director wants you to focus more on specifics.
Different aspect ratios are much less likely to ruin the viewer's immersion than different frame rates.
-
FYI The scope aspect ratio is 2.39:1; 2.35:1 actually stopped being used in the early or mid 1970s. A lot of people call modern ones 2.35 for "historical reasons."
-
One key thing with 24 vs 48;
For fiction, the extra motion blur of 24fps causes the brain to make a subtle distinction between the film and real life. Most viewers will be completely unaware of this on a conscious level, but subconsciously, it helps immersion, because the viewer is less likely to find small details that might otherwise take them out of the film to be jarring.
At a faster frame rate, like 30, 48, or 60, the brain doesn't make the distinction, or at least not to the same degree. This is why you often hear people complaining about the more realistic presentation looking 'fake'. Because fake elements, like sets, are being processed by the brain as supposedly real, and it knows that they aren't.
This is why something like a sporting event looks good at a high frame rate, but a film often won't.
I like this explanation. I personally have been confounded by the paradox that something looking "more real" somehow ends up looking "more fake" and this explanation works for me.
Yes it is kind of odd though the "more fake" is meaning that it looks like a behind the scenes, characters on the set kind of environment instead of a seamless, immersive environment. Perhaps we are just used to entertainment in a certain way but hyperrealism of 48fps and the like for a narrative is so jarring that it's always going to be more detrimental to the overall product than good. We've reached a point where it's not simply something that people could get used to, it's just plain not going to work.
-
TL's statement does make a lot of sense. I'm gonna wait to see the movie to judge though.
-
Oh, definitely. I expect, or at least hope, that it'll be one of those situations where I'm aware of it at first, but after ten or fifteen minutes, I'm so engrossed by the movie itself that I forget about it. Ultimately, that may be what happens. Peter Jackson, and others, choose a few select movies that they know are gonna kick ass, and offer them in 48 fps as well as 24. People watch the movies in 48 to see what the fuss is all about, and enjoy the movies anyway. People slowly become acclimated to 48 fps, the world changes just a bit, and life goes on.
I don't blame filmmakers for wanting to continue to push. Sound was considered a novelty. Color was considered a novelty. This is kinda big, but nowhere near the scale of those two, which eventually became the norm. People can get used to anything. Wait... many or perhaps most people can get used to anything. I never thought mp3's would become as ubiquitous as they are, for example.
-
Can't wait! :D
-
I don't blame filmmakers for wanting to continue to push. Sound was considered a novelty. Color was considered a novelty. This is kinda big, but nowhere near the scale of those two, which eventually became the norm. People can get used to anything.
I agree with you, especially that it's nowhere near as big a change as the other two. This isn't a huge addition like those two, it's only a change to something existing. And much like those other two changes, this is designed to bring film closer to real life (as is 3D, but let's not go there), so I'm all for it in principle.
There is no magical or scientific reasoning why 24fps is better, it's just what we subconsciously (or consciously) associate with being a film. In 80 years people will probably look back on the opposition to 48fps exactly the same as the opposition to sound and be equally baffled why anyone would be against these improvements.
-
I agree with you, especially that it's nowhere near as big a change as the other two. This isn't a huge addition like those two, it's only a change to something existing. And much like those other two changes, this is designed to bring film closer to real life (as is 3D, but let's not go there), so I'm all for it in principle.
There is no magical or scientific reasoning why 24fps is better, it's just what we subconsciously (or consciously) associate with being a film. In 80 years people will probably look back on the opposition to 48fps exactly the same as the opposition to sound and be equally baffled why anyone would be against these improvements.
The only thing is, higher frame rates are not a new technology, they have been around for years. The only reason it's come up now is for 3D.
I feel like there is a reason beyond association for why 24fps is more cinematic. I remember being 12 years old sitting in front of my TV with my VHS copy of Jurassic Park in the VCR stepping frame by frame trying to figure out what is different about the motion that seems more fantastical than my camcorder. It appeared that every 3rd or so frame was doubled (really, interlaced fields were being mixed). Even though I didn't know what it was at the time, that's when I discovered telecine pull down. I later went on to find out that film was 24fps, and spent years trying to figure out how to get my camcorder footage to have that same quality. Eventually they finally made affordable camcorders shoot 24p and I was happy.
I feel like the skipped frames cut out a lot of awkward fidgety movements, especially with actors that gives the motion a certain feel that, yes is unrealistic, but that is why I like it. That combined with the motion blur just gives in a bigger than life quality in my opinion.
Oh and one other thing. If the industry wants to get more butts in seats, maybe they should start filming good stories again.
-
Part 7!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CtQGtwxTAc
-
The thing is, it's not that 24 is the exact perfect sweetspot. It's a framerate that happens to be low enough to assist immersion without being too low and looking choppy. Something shot at 23 or 25 would probably look more or less identical to something shot at 24. 24 is specifically mentioned in these discussions because it's the standard. The key is a framerate that's low enough to be immersive, but high enough that it isn't choppy.
Yes, 24 wasn't originally chosen for its aesthetic. It was originally selected largely for technical reasons. However, the did accidentally stumble upon a really good standard.
-
Part 7!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CtQGtwxTAc
I think they called that one building "tin shed" just so they can make it sound funny with their NZ accent.
rumborak
-
3 things.
1. Check out this 10 hour youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAGuLWGS64&feature=related (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAGuLWGS64&feature=related)
2. Peter Jackson has decided not to show the previews being shown at comic-con in 3D or 48 fps.
https://www.firstshowing.net/2012/the-hobbit-gets-cold-feet-comic-con-footage-will-not-be-3d48fps/ (https://www.firstshowing.net/2012/the-hobbit-gets-cold-feet-comic-con-footage-will-not-be-3d48fps/)
One of my most anticipated presentations at Comic-Con 2012 is Warner Bros' Hall H panel on Saturday, partially due to The Hobbit getting a big show. It's obvious this (Comic-Con) is the perfect fanbase for Peter Jackson to bring footage to and introduce his cast to, but apparently it's not the crowd for 48FPS. As we all know, when Jackson revealed the first 10 minutes of 48FPS Hobbit footage at CinemaCon earlier this year, reactions were very negative (even I agreed, unfortunately). I was looking forward to seeing how this crowd would react to 48FPS and if it looked any better now. But, it looks like that will not be happening.
Director Peter Jackson spoke with the LA Times' Hero Complex as prep for his presentation on Saturday, but one of the most revealing and interesting news items in it, was that he would not be showing the footage in 3D or 48FPS, at all. That is quite a surprise. Especially because I was hearing buzz that they tried to tweak the 48FPS to look even better. His quote about Comic-Con is one of the most honest I've ever heard.
"I think it’s more about protecting the downside, rather than helping the film in any significant way. There is a huge audience waiting to see The Hobbit, and any positive press from Comic-Con will truthfully have little impact on that. However, as we saw at CinemaCon earlier this year, with our 48 frames per second presentation, negative bloggers are the ones the mainstream press runs with and quotes from. I decided to screen the Hobbit reel at Comic-Con in 2-D and 24 frames per second, so the focus stays firmly with the content and not the technical stuff. If people want 3-D and 48fps, that choice will be there for them in December."
Wow. Cold feet? Or, as our friends at The Playlist said, "nice dodge?" Too nervous they're going to get more negative reactions? Why not flaunt the new 48FPS? I am truly surprised and kind of shocked that he made this decision about the footage. I honestly felt like the Comic-Con crowd and these fans would be the most open to 48FPS, and accepting of the other creative choices Jackson has made (we all trust in him, right?). But I guess that won't be the case anymore. I am still very curious to see how the footage plays and I'm sure fans (myself included) will be going crazy anyway. And if anyone asks Jackson about 48FPS during the Q&A.
We'll still be at the Warner Bros' presentation on Saturday, and we'll keep you updated on any other news or any other happenings regarding The Hobbit. Are you still concerned about seeing 48FPS footage?
Personally, I think this is a good decision on Jackson's part. The preview should be about the material itself, not the technical aspects by which it is shown. When it comes out in December, I will gladly view it in every format available.
3. This movie is going to be SOOOOOO good!!!!
:caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine:
-
3. These movies are going to be SOOOOOO good!!!!
:caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine: :caffeine:
FTFY
-
Any word on when more footage will reach the wider public?
-
Any word on when more footage will reach the wider public?
I don't know... I'd give a finger to catch the first 10 minutes of the film at comic-con. Preferably not my own finger, but a finger nonetheless...
I'm also curious about the length of the film.
-
Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon.
-
Reactions seem to be very positive from the Comic-Con preview...
SAN DIEGO (AP) — If reaction to "The Hobbit" footage at Comic-Con is any indication, Peter Jackson has another couple of blockbusters on his hands.
The crowd attending Jackson's "Hobbit" preview at the fan convention Saturday went wild over a 12-minute reel the filmmaker and his colleagues screened.
Broken into two films, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again," the 3-D epic is Jackson's prequel to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, whose finale won 11 Academy Awards, including best picture and director.
"An Unexpected Journey" arrives in theaters Dec. 14, with "There and Back Again" following in December 2013.
The films are based on J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel novel, chronicling how tiny hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) acquired the ring of power that causes all the ruckus in "The Lord of the Rings," Jackson's three-part adaptation of Tolkien's fantasy saga.
Along with Jackson and Freeman, "The Hobbit" panel at Comic-Con featured "Lord of the Rings" co-stars Ian McKellen, who reprises his role as the wizard Gandalf, and Andy Serkis, who is back as twisted ring-keeper Gollum. Also on hand was Richard Armitage, who plays the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield.
Jackson showed 12 minutes of footage that included a chillingly comic exchange between Bilbo and Gollum; a tender moment between McKellen's Gandalf and Cate Blanchett, reprising her role as elf queen Galadriel; and the pivotal moment when Bilbo discovers the ring.
A surprise guest was Elijah Wood, who starred as hobbit Frodo Baggins in "The Lord of the Rings."
Freeman said he never felt intimidated as a newcomer to Jackson's team.
"Obviously, you can't really take intimidation or pressure to work with you, because you won't do your best work," Freeman said. "And you won't do your best playing, which is an actor's job."
Jackson shot "The Hobbit" in 3-D and at 48 frames a second, twice the speed that has been the standard since the 1920s. The higher frame rate allows for greater visual clarity, though it requires costly upgrades to digital projectors for cinemas showing films at that speed.
At the Cinema Con theater owner's convention in April, Jackson got a mixed reception for preview footage of "The Hobbit" shown at 48 frames a second. Some observers thought the images were too clear, so realistic that it took away from the magic of the film medium.
At Comic-Con, Jackson chose to show his footage at the traditional 24 frames a second, saying the best way to experience the higher projection speed is by watching an entire movie at 48 frames a second, not just excerpts.
-
December 14th cannot get here fast enough! :caffeine:
-
December 14th cannot get here fast enough! :caffeine:
No kidding. Also... While I think this is highly unlikely, it is an interesting idea.
https://www.eonline.com/news/330234/will-the-hobbit-end-up-being-a-trilogy-peter-jackson-thrills-comic-con (https://www.eonline.com/news/330234/will-the-hobbit-end-up-being-a-trilogy-peter-jackson-thrills-comic-con)
Even an unfinished unexpected journey is better than no journey at all.
Peter Jackson screened a whopping 12 1/2 minutes of the hugely anticipated first half of his Lord of the Rings prequel saga, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, today for a packed-within-an-inch-of-its-life Hall H at Comic-Con.
And, despite the soundtrack that Jackson called "temporary" and the yet-to-be-perfected special effects (no Smaug yet), we can tell you one thing:
We cannot wait for the finished product!
Before Jackson popped out, the audience watched another of his production diaries, this one featuring glimpses of Beorn's house, Lake Town, being fire-bombed, Stephen Fry as the master of Lake Town, Smaug's gold and nice shots of Orlando Bloom's Legolas, Luke Evans' Bard and Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins.
"This is a movie made by fans for fans," Jackson said, referring to his own love of all things Middle-earth.
"We write the script as we're shooting," the New Zealander explained, noting that he likes to wait until he's finished shooting before he can even envision the final cut. "We're not very good at making short movies, unfortunately," he added.
And, it turns out, he may not be that great at only doing two movies at a time, either!
MORE: Is Jessica Biel Wolverine's Newest Villain?
Jackson, who was joined on The Hobbit panel today by Ian McKellan, Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and Elijah Wood, told HitFix.com on the film's press line that he's considering splitting The Hobbit: There and Back Again into two films—if New Line Cinema, MGM, et al. will let him.
"We've been certainly talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film," the faithful J.R.R. Tolkien fan said. "And we've been asking them if we can do a bit more filming next year. Which I don't know what would come of that, whether that would be extended additions or not. But those discussions are ongoing...I'd like to shoot a bunch more material that we can't shoot. There's so much good stuff in the appendices that we haven't been able to squeeze into these movies. That's a discussion that we're having, yeah."
Who else talks about a book's appendices these days?! Not to mention, Jackson has probably already shot enough footage to make for the best DVD extras of all time.
Illustrating the method to Jackson's madness, Serkis said on the panel that he was supposed to work on the films for two weeks—and ended up staying a year and a half.
"It was a remarkable and extraordinary experience," he said. When asked to do a bit of Gollum for the crowd, Serkis obliged, saying in the creature's raspy, tortured voice: "For f--k's sake, do I have to?!"
If nothing else, there will some excellent extended cuts one day. But if Jackson has his way, Bilbo Baggins' journey may unexpectedly be only one-third over when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hits theaters Dec. 13, 2013.
-
Interesting. While I wouldn't mind some of the Appendix stuff to be made into its own movie, that may have been better accomplished at the time the LOTR trilogy was filmed.
-
From twitter :
" Jackson confirms the movie is *At Least* 2.5 hours long. The movie is not short...But the hobbits still are. "
-
Jesus, there's nowhere near enough material in the Hobbit to make it worth three films, even counting in the additional Appendices material. That's just... stupidly, stupidly excessive.
The Hobbit would work as one (long) film and I supported the decision to make two films because there's some good background material that could help make the connections to the Lord of the Rings films a bit stronger. However, I think making three films is a bad move. It smacks of losing control of the entire production.
-
That does not surprise me in the slightest given the length of the LOTR movies. At least you'll be getting your money's worth on that one. :lol
-
Jesus, there's nowhere near enough material in the Hobbit to make it worth three films, even counting in the additional Appendices material. That's just... stupidly, stupidly excessive.
The Hobbit would work as one (long) film and I supported the decision to make two films because there's some good background material that could help make the connections to the Lord of the Rings films a bit stronger. However, I think making three films is a bad move. It smacks of losing control of the entire production.
It smacks more of Hollywood being obsessed with trilogies at the moment. or worse - if a trilogy already is in place - splitting the third instalment into two seperate films.
I bet the reports of FOX begging Ridley Scott to make an Alien film again with total control came with the stipulation that he had to sign on for three movies.
-
From twitter :
" Jackson confirms the movie is *At Least* 2.5 hours long. The movie is not short...But the hobbits still are. "
I'm expecting two 3 hour movies, given that it's coming from Peter Jackson.
-
It sounds like Jackson is the one who is pushing for splitting the first film, not New Line. I'm sure New Line won't mind ("Another film? More money? Okay!"), but Jackson is the catalyst here, at least according to that article.
If Jackson is just covering for New Line's meddling, then his blatant obfuscation of the facts is making me lose a ton of respect for him.
-
From what I understand, the film is being split into two, with a third film potentially dealing with appendixes and leading up to LotR. Actually, that has been the plan since the early days, only then it was one Hobbit film and one Appendix film covering the time from the Hobbit to LotR. I'm skeptical that there will be enough material for a good film covering the events between The Hobbit-LotR, but there's a lot of stuff which can legitimately be covered.
(Minor spoilers)
-Aragorn's birth/early childhood
-Aragorn and Awren's early relationship; Aragorn's various activities pre-LotR
-The White Council drama pre-Saruman LOTR
-Sauron revealing himself in Mordor
-Aragorn first meeting with Gandalf
-Gondor going to war with Modor
-Moria goes to war and falls
-Gollum being tracked and imprisoned in Mirkwood (early LotR I think)
Those are just want come to mind. You have to imagine, if they interspersed all those sorts of events from the appendixes into the hobbit, it could easily become a two or three part thing. But it'd have to cease just being the Hobbit, and instead be a series of movies that is not only about the finding of the ring, but also about the rise of Mordor, the deterioration of the White council, the early adventures of Aragorn, and the aftermath of the Dwarves in Moria that you don't know about originally until you get to that chapter in LotR. I could see them easily stretching the hobbit out over two or three films if they were planning to do all that.
-
I just read Jackson saying they didn't use any miniatures for The Hobbit. It's all CGI. Kind of disappointing for me...the miniature or "bigature" work on LOTR was superb.
-
A little bit late on this piece of gold. To be honest, I don't know why I find this to be so funny...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcv4gJoJ7PM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcv4gJoJ7PM)
-
From what I understand, the film is being split into two, with a third film potentially dealing with appendixes and leading up to LotR. Actually, that has been the plan since the early days, only then it was one Hobbit film and one Appendix film covering the time from the Hobbit to LotR. I'm skeptical that there will be enough material for a good film covering the events between The Hobbit-LotR, but there's a lot of stuff which can legitimately be covered.
(Minor spoilers)
-Aragorn's birth/early childhood
-Aragorn and Awren's early relationship; Aragorn's various activities pre-LotR
-The White Council drama pre-Saruman LOTR
-Sauron revealing himself in Mordor
-Aragorn first meeting with Gandalf
-Gondor going to war with Modor
-Moria goes to war and falls
-Gollum being tracked and imprisoned in Mirkwood (early LotR I think)
Those are just want come to mind. You have to imagine, if they interspersed all those sorts of events from the appendixes into the hobbit, it could easily become a two or three part thing. But it'd have to cease just being the Hobbit, and instead be a series of movies that is not only about the finding of the ring, but also about the rise of Mordor, the deterioration of the White council, the early adventures of Aragorn, and the aftermath of the Dwarves in Moria that you don't know about originally until you get to that chapter in LotR. I could see them easily stretching the hobbit out over two or three films if they were planning to do all that.
This would be incredibly interesting, but somewhat hard to pull off, I'd say. I'd love to see it happen though, but only with a possible third film-- I wouldn't want the tale from the Hobbit to lose any of its magic, if you will.
-
edit: nevermind, I can't read.
-
So a third movie is confirmed. Since a short book gets three movies, maybe there should have been 12 LOTR movies. ::)
I knew Jackson would find more ways to screw this up. I don't want a bunch of bloated stuff from the appendices stuck onto The Hobbit. Talk about completely missing the point and feel of the original novel.
-
So a third movie is confirmed. Since a short book gets three movies, maybe there should have been 12 LOTR movies. ::)
I knew Jackson would find more ways to screw this up. I don't want a bunch of bloated stuff from the appendices stuck onto The Hobbit. Talk about completely missing the point and feel of the original novel.
I for one am very excited about this. While I realize that it has the potential to become bloated and/or fall apart, I think there are many exciting possibilities with all the material in the appendices. If they can pull it off smoothly, I think this can be very, very good.
-
I don't see why it should be bloated. The LOTR films had SO MUCH cut out from the stories because there was just too much in there.
-
I wish they kept the LOTR appendices stuff separate and made a "bridge movie" out of that. The Hobbit is a simple story and now it's going to be a mega-epic, drawn-out thing. Plus having to wait longer to see the ending. I honestly have NO idea how they're going to pull this off.
I think part of my disappointment is seeing how much stuff was cut from the LOTR books to make those movies, but for The Hobbit, they're adding tons of stuff to make it longer. Maybe Bombadil can get a cameo now. :hat
-
Only if he sings the Bombadillo theme song.
-
I don't see why it should be bloated. The LOTR films had SO MUCH cut out from the stories because there was just too much in there.
And PJ still managed to stick some of his own shit in there, or so I've heard.
-
I won't judge til I see the movies, but I trust Jackson to not turn it into three movies unless he felt they had the material for it and it wouldn't weaken the films.
I wish they kept the LOTR appendices stuff separate and made a "bridge movie" out of that. The Hobbit is a simple story and now it's going to be a mega-epic, drawn-out thing. Plus having to wait longer to see the ending. I honestly have NO idea how they're going to pull this off.
I think part of my disappointment is seeing how much stuff was cut from the LOTR books to make those movies, but for The Hobbit, they're adding tons of stuff to make it longer. Maybe Bombadil can get a cameo now. :hat
This has always been a joint Hobbit/appendices material project, right from the beginning.
Also, when LOTR came out, Jackson was a borderline nobody, and epics/trilogies/fantasies weren't half as in as they are now. The whole project was a long shot. Jackson himself would most likely agree that the story could have benefited from more than three films, but at the time, he was extremely lucky to be trusted to make even those three.
The circumstances surrounding the creation of these movies are completely different. Jackson's in a position that if he wants three films, he gets three films. Had he made The Hobbit first, and was making LOTR now, and he wanted seven films, he'd probably have gotten seven films. But that's not the way things have played out.
-
I think there's two things that need to be factored in:
1. According to my Kindle, 25 percent of Lord of the Rings is appendix material. While it's not ALL usable, much of it is.
2. The Lord of the Rings movies were critically acclaimed, but also criticized for being "too long". The special editions were around 4 hours each. The Hobbit with the LotR appendixes mixed in could easily make a 4/5 hour movie.
So I could see The Hobbit being effectively broken down into three shorter, perhaps 90 minute, movies. That sounds really cheap, but if it buys them time to go back and film that appendix material I'll be happy, cause some of it is really good and deserves filming.
-
Not sure what to think about it being split to give a third movie. The two films already seemed like the indulgent way of tackling the Hobbit and extra Middle Earth material. After seeing The Lord Of The Rings (both the films themselves and the documentaries of how they were made) I have a lot of trust in Peter Jackson and plenty of reason to assume any changes will be for the best, but it's things like this that make me await The Hobbit as much with trepidation as excitement.
-
Not sure what to think about it being split to give a third movie. The two films already seemed like the indulgent way of tackling the Hobbit and extra Middle Earth material. After seeing The Lord Of The Rings (both the films themselves and the documentaries of how they were made) I have a lot of trust in Peter Jackson and plenty of reason to assume any changes will be for the best, but it's things like this that make me await The Hobbit as much with trepidation as excitement.
This is my take on it too.
-
The thing is, I don't have the faith in Jackson that other people do. FOTR is my favorite movie of all time, but I felt TTT and ROTK had their problems. Too many changes/additions, and some pacing problems. ROTK especially seemed kind of off to me in a lot of ways, but of course that's the most critically acclaimed of the three so what do I know. Plus I didn't like his King Kong remake.
I've viewed The Hobbit with some wariness for a while. I didn't want 3D, 48 fps, or three movies. At first I thought 2 movies was pushing it. Plus some of the dwarf designs are just weird, like Bifur with the axe in his head, or Kili the totally human-looking hunky dwarf.
Just because the LOTR appendices exist doesn't mean they need to be shoehorned into The Hobbit. I felt like the tone of The Hobbit shouldn't be as epic and huge as the LOTR movies, but now it likely will be. And with so much stuff unrelated to Bilbo thrown in, I suspect it will just seem too different from the book for me. Sometimes less is more.
I'm not much of a movie fan *at all*, and this was literally the only announced movie I was looking forward to, so I have a lot of vested interest in it not sucking. I don't want Jackson to screw it up like Lucas screwed up Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
-
Why are the drawbacks of 48 fps? Isn't that twice as much as normal?
-
I felt like the tone of The Hobbit shouldn't be as epic and huge as the LOTR movies, but now it likely will be.
From the trailer, it doesn't look that way. It seems like it will be much more playful and lighthearted.
-
Why are the drawbacks of 48 fps? Isn't that twice as much as normal?
The most common criticism is that by having double the framerate, it actually looks "too real". Like the difference between watching a film and watching a videotape. With film, there is an inherent softness to the picture that seems to allow the viewer to suspend disbelief more easily. With videotape, the image is sharper, and that can make you more aware that you're watching actors on sets, not characters in a story.
-
Hm, you would think that the move to being more realistic would be desirable.
-
Read the early reviews. PJ showed the first 48fps trailers at some event recently, and the response was almost all negative regarding the "look" of the film. All the trailers making the rounds now are 24fps, and PJ is saying that that's because most theaters cannot do 48fps. While that's true, it's also true that most modern theaters use digital projection now anyways, and The Hobbit movies would be shot at 48fps, converted to digital, and projected that way. So it's spin, damage control.
That's the extremely cynical side. The less cynical point out that ultimately, increased frame rate *should* look better overall, and it's just that our eyes and brains have become accustomed to the look of 24fps and associate it with movies. Similarly, our brains associate the hyperrealism of 48fps with video and TV and stuff we know inherently is fake.
Example: The black and white footage in DT's Metropolis Live in NY DVD. It's supposed to be memories, less realistic because it's black and white, reminiscent of an old movie. But it doesn't look like that at all; it just looks like black and white video. IMO, Mike made a huge blunder by not actually shooting those scenes on black-and-white film. The effect would have been 100 times better. It would've "felt" right. Instead, the black and white video takes you out of the moment, not into it.
Anyway, the optimistic say that we will eventually get used to film at 48fps. It's just that we're used to a certain look. PJ says 48fps is the wave of the future, and someone has to lead the way. But those "red" cameras are really expensive, and the results they give are getting mixed reviews at best. We shall see.
-
the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken
-
the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken
I can fairly accurately guess the frame rate of whatever game I'm playing up to around 60fps.
-
the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken
I can fairly accurately guess the frame rate of whatever game I'm playing up to around 60fps.
It's somewhere in that range. When people tell me they get 200fps (old game) I usually laugh. They wouldn't be able to tell if it wasn't for the fps counter.
-
The thing is, I don't have the faith in Jackson that other people do. FOTR is my favorite movie of all time, but I felt TTT and ROTK had their problems. Too many changes/additions, and some pacing problems. ROTK especially seemed kind of off to me in a lot of ways, but of course that's the most critically acclaimed of the three so what do I know. Plus I didn't like his King Kong remake.
While I did have some issues with TTT, I thought the ROTK was nearly perfect in every way imaginable. With that being said, TTT was still brilliant (relative to almost 99% of all movies made in the last decade). King Kong was decent, but not incredible.
I've viewed The Hobbit with some wariness for a while. I didn't want 3D, 48 fps, or three movies.
Don't dispair, if you want to view it in regular 2d 24 fps, that will be an option (at least, from what I understand).
-
I was worried two films would be too much for The Hobbit, even with non-book scenes added. 3! Sure, less cuts from the nook, but I'm now most interested in just how he manages pacing. A lot of the cuts from Lord of the Rings helped the movies stay engaging, I think. This is like an opposite decision.
-
I also have no interest in seeing these films with the 3d, or in the 48fps, if a regular option is available.
@Pols: when I last rewatched the LOTR films, even though ROTK is my traditional favourite, I felt that there was some unique quality to Fellowship. It is almost certainly the best at capturing the feel and the colour and the tone of Middle-Earth itself. I'd also agree that it is the least flawed of the films, though for me, that doesn't automatically make it the best. Even with its flaws, ROTK is a mammoth. (And on a sidenote, I also didn't like King Kong sooo much).
I guess I'm not so worried if I end up not liking these films because I don't like The Hobbit as a book very much, and my fandom for LOTR and everything has died down a lot in recent years in general. For me, they're more of just a curiosity these days. If I really like them, cool, if not, I'm not really losing anything.
-
I felt like the tone of The Hobbit shouldn't be as epic and huge as the LOTR movies, but now it likely will be.
From the trailer, it doesn't look that way. It seems like it will be much more playful and lighthearted.
Based on that trailer, yeah, maybe it won't be epic, but playful and lighthearted?
-
the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken
I can fairly accurately guess the frame rate of whatever game I'm playing up to around 60fps.
It's somewhere in that range. When people tell me they get 200fps (old game) I usually laugh. They wouldn't be able to tell if it wasn't for the fps counter.
I'm pretty sure the human eye absolutely can detect differences faster than 60 FPS. The problem there is that many monitors are 60 Hz anyway, making a super high FPS pointless.
-
I was worried two films would be too much for The Hobbit, even with non-book scenes added. 3! Sure, less cuts from the nook, but I'm now most interested in just how he manages pacing. A lot of the cuts from Lord of the Rings helped the movies stay engaging, I think. This is like an opposite decision.
I would be completely fine with 3 slower paced films if I thought that they effectively captured the story, character development, and middle earth in general (as described by Tolkein).
-
Sure, but pacing is a big part of presentation of those elements. He wasn't hailed for Lord of the Rings for bringing out every scene he could, he was hailed for making a quality transition to movies through intelligent condensing of the material. It just seems like such a mismatch that the short lighthearted novel gets three movies while the huge epic of 6 books(3 print novels) also gets 3 movies. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the 6 movies are going to feel right together.
-
I hear you. I thought he did a phenominal job with LOTR. The theatrical releases about pushed the limit of what you could make an audience sit through, while making very intelligent choices about what to include, how to include it, and what not to include, as well as what to add that wasn't really in the books, but made sense to make it work as a screen play. And the extra scenes on the DVD releases took it to another level. But for The Hobbit, it just seems like three movies is far too much. I'm trying to trust Jackson, but I'm neverous.
-
Sure, but pacing is a big part of presentation of those elements. He wasn't hailed for Lord of the Rings for bringing out every scene he could, he was hailed for making a quality transition to movies through intelligent condensing of the material. It just seems like such a mismatch that the short lighthearted novel gets three movies while the huge epic of 6 books(3 print novels) also gets 3 movies. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the 6 movies are going to feel right together.
It's a bit different though - the LOTR films had so much stuff taken out, including entire characters and multi-chapter sections. That's not a complaint at all, it was the only way to do the films properly. The only way you could possibly do the entire book is as a multi-season TV show really. But the point remains that the amount of content that was made into the films was much much smaller than the book.
And I agree about the pacing, but for me the theatrical versions didn't get it right, they felt rushed and some things didn't really make sense. The extended versions are fantastic for this, but need to be watched in multiple chunks because of their length. So really, I think of LOTR as 6 normal-length films.
-
I'm not familiar with the books at all, so I'll just reserve judgement on this until I've seen them (and I'll see them regardless). I almost got the impression from the Peter Jackson comments that he's doing it just for the sake of completeness, so hopefully that's not the case, and it all works out in terms of pacing and story.
-
Yeah from my understanding it sounds like it'll still only be the first two films that are primarily based on The Hobbit with a bit of stuff from the LOTR appendices, and the third film be mainly taken from the appendices to bridge the gap between the two stories. If that's the case, and the story is told in the right way, then it's a great idea!
-
Wonder if they'll do a Silmarillion trilogy so they can do a trilogy trilogy. Then release a 20 disc box set of every film extended with all the special features for $$$$$$
-
Yo, dawg, I hear you like triologies, so I'm say this three times.
Yo, dawg, I hear you like triologies, so I'm say this three times.
Yo, dawg, I hear you like triologies, so I'm say this three times.
-
Just watched the extended version of FOTR yesterday. It's a good movie, but visually, it's starting to get dated. The lighting in many of the scenes makes it look like it's just actors on a set.
-
Yeah from my understanding it sounds like it'll still only be the first two films that are primarily based on The Hobbit with a bit of stuff from the LOTR appendices, and the third film be mainly taken from the appendices to bridge the gap between the two stories. If that's the case, and the story is told in the right way, then it's a great idea!
I'm thinkin that he's just interjecting the appendix stuff throughout the story.
It sounded to me like the first movie was the journey to Lonely Mountain, and the second movie was the journey back, which would include the Battle of the Five Armies, ending with Bilbo coming home. But then the second movie got to be *too* huge, so they decided to split it up. I still think the trilogy is ultimately going to be Bilbo's story, and end with him coming home.
-
Not sure why people seem to think the first one is done. It's not. They may be done shooting it, but there's still a lot of time to play around with it. Even if the above was the original plan, they could still move the ending for the first movie farther back in the story and just edit it a bit differently. Wouldn't surprise me if they ended the first film with them leaving Beorn's house and about to enter Mirkwood. The second could be the journey through Mirkwood, the stay at Laketown, and then the finding of the secret door. The third would then be the awakening and slaying of Smaug, the Battle of Five Armies, and the journey home. Seems a bit thin for 3 movies, but if you put a lot of the appendix material in there, that's a logical way to chop it up.
-
Sure, but pacing is a big part of presentation of those elements. He wasn't hailed for Lord of the Rings for bringing out every scene he could, he was hailed for making a quality transition to movies through intelligent condensing of the material. It just seems like such a mismatch that the short lighthearted novel gets three movies while the huge epic of 6 books(3 print novels) also gets 3 movies. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the 6 movies are going to feel right together.
It's a bit different though - the LOTR films had so much stuff taken out, including entire characters and multi-chapter sections. That's not a complaint at all, it was the only way to do the films properly. The only way you could possibly do the entire book is as a multi-season TV show really. But the point remains that the amount of content that was made into the films was much much smaller than the book.
Not sure what you mean 'a bit different'. I was referring to massive cuts/changes on scenes and characters in Lord of the Rings, even in the extended editions.
-
Wonder if they'll do a Silmarillion trilogy so they can do a trilogy trilogy. Then release a 20 disc box set of every film extended with all the special features for $$$$$$
Depending on how The Hobbit turns out, I think a Silmarillion movie (or three or whatever) could be pretty great. I doubt it'll ever happen, though. I'm a little cloudy on the exact details so hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a Silmarillion movie would need to get the ok from Christopher Tolkien who doesn't strike me as someone who'd be ok with the amount of changes Peter Jackson makes in his movies (for better or worse). I think film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings belong to someone else entirely, which is likely why we've even got the movies we have.
-
My god, the excitement for december 14th is almost too much. I will watch this movie so hard.
-
For the record, I'm really excited for these movies no matter how many films the material is dragged out across or what framerate they're filmed in. I can't wait to see them.
That said, part of the greatness of The Hobbit is in its brevity. The fact that Tolkien managed to give so much background, tell so much story, and get so much character development into such a relatively short work. Bilbo came so far and experienced so much, yet in the end it still "felt" like he had just left home. I'm worried that that (among other things) may be either inadvertently lost or prove impossible to convey if the story is spread out over two epic films, let alone three.
-J
-
for me the theatrical versions didn't get it right, they felt rushed and some things didn't really make sense.
Lumpy Orc Commander: What of the wizard?
Witch-King: I WILL BREAK HIM
And then nothing happens, unless you're watching the extended edition.
-
for me the theatrical versions didn't get it right, they felt rushed and some things didn't really make sense.
Lumpy Orc Commander: What of the wizard?
Witch-King: I WILL BREAK HIM
And then nothing happens, unless you're watching the extended edition.
I don't even know anyone who watches the theatrical releases. I've never owned them...I havn't seen them since I was in the theater...
I hate to sound all kvlt...but in this case it applies. The extended versions are the *REAL* versions of the films...the theatrical versions are the equivalent of watching the made for TV version of Terminator 2.
-
I'm excited to see how Smaug is portrayed. I'm assuming he'll be in CGI, so I hope it's not too tacky.
-
For the record, I'm really excited for these movies no matter how many films the material is dragged out across or what framerate they're filmed in. I can't wait to see them.
That said, part of the greatness of The Hobbit is in its brevity. The fact that Tolkien managed to give so much background, tell so much story, and get so much character development into such a relatively short work. Bilbo came so far and experienced so much, yet in the end it still "felt" like he had just left home. I'm worried that that (among other things) may be either inadvertently lost or prove impossible to convey if the story is spread out over two epic films, let alone three.
I think that's a legitimate concern. The Hobbit was a children's story, written for his son. He managed to give it a much broader scope in the way he introduced certain elements that hinted at much larger things. Don't get me wrong; I think it's a great story, a masterpiece of storytelling. But its beauty is in its simplicity. PJ wants to make it a huge epic, a prequel trilogy to Lord of the Rings. Okay, I understand the reasons for doing so. It's not just about the money; it really would be cool to see the book really fleshed out well. But I think it would lose some of its charm that way.
I was rather looking forward to a single film as a prequel, had my doubts about making it two, and now I've kinda swung the other way. If he's gonna make it huge and epic and an actual trilogy, sure, I'd love to see it. I just don't want it to suck.
-
Wonder if they'll do a Silmarillion trilogy so they can do a trilogy trilogy. Then release a 20 disc box set of every film extended with all the special features for $$$$$$
Depending on how The Hobbit turns out, I think a Silmarillion movie (or three or whatever) could be pretty great. I doubt it'll ever happen, though. I'm a little cloudy on the exact details so hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a Silmarillion movie would need to get the ok from Christopher Tolkien who doesn't strike me as someone who'd be ok with the amount of changes Peter Jackson makes in his movies (for better or worse). I think film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings belong to someone else entirely, which is likely why we've even got the movies we have.
The Silmarillion would be very interesting, although I find it to be highly unlikely. It reads like a history book.
-
personally I think there's something to be said for a 'straight-to-dvd' release of the silmarillion or any other tolkien works. the nerds will come out and buy it regardless. I know I will.
a theatrical version would surely flop
-
personally I think there's something to be said for a 'straight-to-dvd' release of the silmarillion or any other tolkien works. the nerds will come out and buy it regardless. I know I will.
a theatrical version would surely flop
A worthy plan. I too would surely buy it.
-
I was rather looking forward to a single film as a prequel, had my doubts about making it two, and now I've kinda swung the other way. If he's gonna make it huge and epic and an actual trilogy, sure, I'd love to see it. I just don't want it to suck.
You and me both brother.
a theatrical version would surely flop
I bet if it was marketed properly it could be successful. Maybe not LOTR trilogy box office record breaking successful, but I bet it would make money (again, with the right marketing campaign).
-J
-
Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757 (https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)
-
Okay, I understand the reasons for doing so. It's not just about the money; it really would be cool to see the book really fleshed out well. But I think it would lose some of its charm that way.
Completely agree.
Also, they wouldn't have to do the entire Silmarillion. There are some stories from it that are quite cinematic though.
-
Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757 (https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)
What a great way to ruin your own movie experience, if you would value a thing like that! IMO
-
Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757 (https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)
What a great way to ruin your own movie experience, if you would value a thing like that! IMO
??? How would listening to the soundtrack ruin the experience?
-
Silmarillion love!
-
Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757 (https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)
What a great way to ruin your own movie experience, if you would value a thing like that! IMO
??? How would listening to the soundtrack ruin the experience?
I'm curious, too, although I suppose it's along the lines of experiencing everything for the first time the same time. Possibly knowing the music could give some cinematic clues, too, I suppose. I know this part, something sudden with happen in 13 seconds.
I'm glad I heard the Nemesis soundtrack before seeing the movie. That way I go to hear it without it being spoiled by the memories of that awful movie attached to it. :lol
-
Yeah, I think I'm also going to hold off on listening to the soundtrack, as much as I want to. I want my first experience with the music to match my first experience with the film.
-
Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757 (https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)
I will spend tomorrow morning listening to this only (and yes Milena, to Leprous too :) ). I'm really curious to see if it's in the same league of the amazing LOTR Score!
-
Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757 (https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)
What a great way to ruin your own movie experience, if you would value a thing like that! IMO
Yeah, being familiar with a score makes a movie even better, imo. Listened to this today and loved it. Great mix of familiar old themes and new, equally awesome ones.
??? How would listening to the soundtrack ruin the experience?
-
It hasn't been posted in the thread, but a second trailer was released. Looks like it's much more lighthearted than LOTR than we originally thought.
-
Okay, I understand the reasons for doing so. It's not just about the money; it really would be cool to see the book really fleshed out well. But I think it would lose some of its charm that way.
Completely agree.
Also, they wouldn't have to do the entire Silmarillion. There are some stories from it that are quite cinematic though.
The Fall of Faenor, Turin Turambar, Beren and Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin.
Just as long as every movie ends with Fingolfin's duel with Morgoth
-
Okay, I understand the reasons for doing so. It's not just about the money; it really would be cool to see the book really fleshed out well. But I think it would lose some of its charm that way.
Completely agree.
Also, they wouldn't have to do the entire Silmarillion. There are some stories from it that are quite cinematic though.
The Fall of Faenor, Turin Turambar, Beren and Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin.
Just as long as every movie ends with Fingolfin's duel with Morgoth
Turin would require one movie alone. And hell if it would be amazing. Tragic and amazing.
Or they could start an epic TV series à la Game Of Thrones. I think it's the only possible way to bring the Silm to life without horrible omissions or compromises.
-
It hasn't been posted in the thread, but a second trailer was released. Looks like it's much more lighthearted than LOTR than we originally thought.
That makes sense, seeing how the book was also more lighthearted than the LOTR books.
-
It hasn't been posted in the thread, but a second trailer was released. Looks like it's much more lighthearted than LOTR than we originally thought.
That makes sense, seeing how the book was also more lighthearted than the LOTR books.
Which is the main reason behind my mild dislike of The Hobbit's storyline. Too childish at time, too much a fable, it doesn't really fit the rest of the LOTR universe.
-
I think that was Tolkien's original intent though.
Tolkien began a new version in 1960, attempting to adjust the tone of The Hobbit to its sequel. He abandoned the new revision at chapter three after he received criticism that it "just wasn't The Hobbit", implying it had lost much of its light-hearted tone and quick pace.
^^ From Wiki.
-
I think that was Tolkien's original intent though.
Tolkien began a new version in 1960, attempting to adjust the tone of The Hobbit to its sequel. He abandoned the new revision at chapter three after he received criticism that it "just wasn't The Hobbit", implying it had lost much of its light-hearted tone and quick pace.
^^ From Wiki.
Interesting, I didn't know that. But still, my preference has always been towards LOTR, ever since I first read both books (around 2002, when the LOTR hype arose).
Still, knowing that There and Back Again will substantially depart from the Hobbit storyline and heavily rely on the Appendices, I have a feeling that the change will be greatly felt in the pace and the mood as well. I won't be surprised if Movie 1 and 3 were to be extremely different on that side.
-
I actually didn't know that either - I just made a wild guess and turned out to be right. :eek :lol
We'll see how it all ends up, but I'm hoping that we don't have another 4-hour movie with 11dy6 ends like The Return of the King. :lol I love that movie though, don't get me wrong, but that was a bit over-killish.
-
It hasn't been posted in the thread, but a second trailer was released. Looks like it's much more lighthearted than LOTR than we originally thought.
That makes sense, seeing how the book was also more lighthearted than the LOTR books.
Which is the main reason behind my mild dislike of The Hobbit's storyline. Too childish at time, too much a fable, it doesn't really fit the rest of the LOTR universe.
Don't worry, the Hobbit movies are going to have tons of Sauron-related stuff shoehorned in, so they will feel way more LOTR than the book did!
-
11dy6
Totally unrelated to the topic: what does that mean? You seam to use this "mixed array of latin letters and indo-arabic numbers" every time you want to say "countless" or "too many". Am I missing something? :lol
-
Say it phonetically - it'll make more sense: eleventy six. It's something I picked up from a good online friend of mine to exaggerate, like you said, "countless" or "too many".
-
Thanks :D Googling it the second result was "The Ask Wasteland Thread", so I guessed it was a thing of yours and few others :lol
Back into the topic, I've just reached the last minutes of the soundrack. The last song, with vocals and ethnic percussions and chants is beyond amazing. The ending credits are gonna rock. :D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9nZ03cdk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlRbrB_Gnc
Greatest airline safety video ever.
-
Oh my GOD that was awesome! :metalol:
-
So apparently the 48 fps will only be shown in 450 theaters in the US. So far, looking at the list, the closest for me is a couple hours away. I hope they add to the list, but I'd also being willing to make the drive if push came to shove.
Anyways, I'm super excited for this movie! I've been waiting for about 6 years... :caffeine:
-
I wonder if it is going to be shown in 48 where I am seeing it. Was given tickets as an early Xmas gift
-
It's my plan to see it both ways no matter what, but I'd love for my first experience to be with the new technology.
-
I'm not too fussy - I'll be a happy nerd goil as long as I see it on/around release day. :)
-
Surprisingly the theater we are seeing it at isn't showing it in 48, and it is supposed to be the biggest highest tech theater around! Several others in the are are though.
Oh well no biggy. I forsee myself seeing it a second or tenth time anyway
-
Definitely shooting for the IMAX showing and those nine minutes of Star Trek preview.
-
I'm really excited about seeing what the 48 version looks like...but I've heard it can be distracting on first viewing, and I don't want that the first time I see the movie.
I'm going to see it in the traditional 2D 24fps for my first viewing so that I can just absorb the story with no other distractions. When I go to see it again, I'll see it with all the new technological "bells and whistles"...
-
I think I'm with you on that strategy. I'm not huge on the bells & whistles, just excited to see it, period :caffeine:
-
My 9-year old daughter is feverishly trying to finish the novel before opening day. :biggrin:
-
My 9-year old daughter is feverishly trying to finish the novel before opening day. :biggrin:
:metal
-
My wife suggested taking the kids and going to see it on opening day. A family outing, you know? I told her she was out of her ****ing mind. We'll wait until at least the second weekend.
-
Woohoo! A theater near me just announced that it would be showing the HFR film. I'll be there are 12:01 am for my first viewing. I just hope I'm not working my expectations up too much, only to be left disappointed.
-
Oh thank god they're showing it in 2D 24fps. Now I won't mind seeing it.
-
My wife suggested taking the kids and going to see it on opening day. A family outing, you know? I told her she was out of her ****ing mind. We'll wait until at least the second weekend.
:lol... Yeah, I really want to see it but not sure if I want to brave opening weekend.
-
I understand the excitement, and I guess the "coolness" factor of seeing it first, but damn if I'm gonna flip for four full-price tickets, not get to sit all together anyways (unless we get there hours ahead of time, which I'm not gonna do) only to have the experience spoiled by stupid kids (and adults) talking through the whole thing, and some asshole kicking the back of my seat. Not worth it.
-
I can be patient and wait a bit to see it - I don't HAVE to see it opening weekend. Unless we can get a late night showing for Saturday or Sunday of opening weekend. Less bratlings. :lol
-
My friend made a joke asking whether some geek would attack a midnight showing of The Hobbit with a glowing sword. Funny (too soon??), but also (especially being so close to where the Batman thing happened) made me think about whether I really wanted to deal with the chaos.
-
Oh shit, I didn't even THINK about that...
-
Another good reason to avoid opening day, as far as I'm concerned, especially with my kids.
Okay, maybe not good reason, as the odds are pretty slim, but still a reason.
-
Yeah, I mean chances are it will not happen again, but I guess you never know what kind of fucking crazies could try to copy the idea. That on top of the absolute madness that is opening weekend for a movie like this just makes me think I'll wait a week or so.
-
At least, yeah.
-
I know the picture by heart. But on Orbert's signature...that picture from Fragile on the far right...at that size it just looks like Pac Man puking his guts out.
-
It does! :lol
-
Cannot be unseen!
-
Just in case anyone is curious as to how Sir Ian McKellen becomes Gandalf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZOrUgt4nys
-
Oh how I love Gandalf. Definitely one of film's greatest heroes of all time.
-
Reviews are starting to come in, with a lot of attention on the 48fps issue. It is as some of us have feared.
Huffington Post (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_n_1452391.html)
Q: How does the 48-FPS format differ from most other films?
A: It has twice as many frames per second. This gives it an incredibly clear picture. Which is part of the problem.
Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?
A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.
Q: Did you enjoy watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS?
A: Yes and no, for completely different reasons. I'll admit, it was fascinating to watch a movie in 48 FPS because, honestly, I've never seen anything like it. Ever. So, from a technology standpoint, I enjoyed it quite a bit. But! To the extent that I simply wanted to watch a movie and be immersed in another world, it was distracting.
Q: How was it distracting?
A: Granted, this could be related to my own attention-deficit issues, but I was often taken out of the story because I just wanted to look at things. There's a scene that takes place in Rivendell in which Gandalf (McKellen) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are having an important conversation near a waterfall -- but all I could do was stare at the waterfall. It was so pretty. I mean, I could see each and every droplet of water coming out of this waterfall. All I wanted in the world was to drink from this waterfall. Of course, with all of my attention drawn to this waterfall, I missed most of what Gandalf and Galadriel were talking about.
Q: So everything in the film looks beautiful at 48 FPS? This sounds like a good thing.
A: Well, not so fast. Quite a few things don't look great in 48 FPS. Most of the scenes that take place outdoors look fantastic, but indoors it was difficult to stop being conscious of the fact that we were staring at a movie set. And the scenes that were heavy on CGI yielded mixed results.
Q: Speaking of CGI, how does Gollum look in 48 FPS?
A: Absolutely outstanding. The close-ups of Gollum's face were stunning. But, unfortunately, a scene featuring [Show spoiler]Radagast the Brown, on a sled powered by rabbits fleeing an approaching Orc army , looks quite terrible. The screen is so clear, it rendered the CGI in the scene (which was shot from a distance) into something that looked a lot like a game of Duck Hunt.
Q: Is Peter Jackson right that, even if it takes some time to get used to watching a film in 48 frames per second, you eventually do grow accustomed to it?
A: Yes and no. First, never once did I not notice that I was watching a film in a different format. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes this is a bad thing. But the most troubling aspect was that the first 10 minutes of the film looked sped-up.
Q: Sped-up?
A: Have you ever watched old footage of Babe Ruth running the bases back in 1927? Well, imagine that, only with the clearest picture that you've ever seen. After my screening, I talked to other writers who had noticed the same thing. My understanding is that it took our brains a few minutes to adjust to the new format, and this was the resulting sensation. It's really quite a trip -- because it's not like the voices are sped up. And the voices certainly sync with the video, but, still, everything looks fast. Then, after a few minutes, the speed returned to normal.
Q: Will watching more films in 48 FPS alleviate this issue?
A: This was a topic of conversation after the film. It seems natural to assume that our eyes will learn to adjust more quickly as we see more and more films in 48 FPS, but it's possible that it will always resemble the sensation of having a flashlight shined in your face in an otherwise dark room.
Q: Does 48 FPS have a future as a commercially viable format?
A: Maybe? It really depends on the eye thing.
Q: Should I see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS or 24 FPS.
A: Honestly, if you're curious about the technology, see it in 48 FPS -- if only to see something you've never seen before. But if you're just a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and you want to watch The Hobbit without any distractions, see it in 24 FPS.
Q: Oh, how is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a movie?
A: Well, briefly: it's no doubt fun to see these characters again, but the movie isn't quite as good as any of the individual The Lord of the Rings movies. It hits a lot of the same notes as The Fellowship of the Ring (there is a lot of walking from one location to another), and Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is quite great. But aside from Ian McKellen as Gandalf, the supporting characters are less interesting this time around. Still, as a fantasy adventure film, it's certainly entertaining. Put it this way: it felt about 45 minutes shorter than its nearly-three-hour running time -- and, no, that has nothing to do with 10 minutes of that time spent with an illusion of warp speed.
Screencrush.com (https://screencrush.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review/)
If you see this film in the new HFR/48 fps format, you’ll likely break into lively discussion, as well. I’m sure the film’s visual appeal is on a par with Jackson’s other work, but with HFR 3D you’ll be too taken with the strangeness of the new format to compare. Is 48 fps good? It isn’t a case of good or bad. It’s an aesthetic choice, like Michael Mann’s use of video in ‘Public Enemies.’ I never “got used to it.” In fact, I found it a distraction. When Ian Holm was giving his early exposition, I couldn’t hear a word of it, because everything looked so unusual and that’s what held my attention. Here are some things you can expect:
- When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’
- Fire looks weird. This doesn’t matter too much when it is just a burning hearth, but when it is dragonbreath or hurled, flaming weapons, it is a problem. As a result, a moment that should read as triumph ultimately comes across as goofy. It looks so strange and unusual (as do many of the special effects) that it looks somewhat. . .cheap.
- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera moves, too, it looks somewhat jerky.
- You really recognize the cuts between exteriors, effects shots and sets. There’s a scene on a cliff where Storm Giants fight that probably looks terrific in the traditional format. Watching it here all I could think about was “oh, that’s them on a set. Oh, that’s an effects shot. That looks like an actual mountain. Ooh that cut brought us back to the set again.” I’ve watched the similar Misty Mountain sequence in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ many times and I never once considered our heroes being on a set – I fully suspended my disbelief and thought they were in peril.
People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24.
Chicago Tribune (https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-thehobbit-reviewsbre8b400m-20121204,0,4490852.story)
Rozen said the film's look was "so hyper-realistic that it is both jarring and, ironically, serves to make scenes look fake."
-
The ability to differentiate sets means filmakers need to up their game, not so much a problem with 48fps. Those comments hold true for plenty of 24fps films. If they want to do 48fps they'll need to spend more money to get it right.
-
Exactly what I thought. That said, I still really, really want to see this movie just for the 48FPS alone. I really don't even like the Hobbit or LoTR that much at all. But this is really interesting. Good read, Orby.
-
Yeah... After reading several reviews similar to the one above I think I am going to see it in 24 fps my first time. However, I'm still excited to see how the HFR looks in my second viewing. I expect that some stuff will look superb, especially the nature. I'm just hoping the sets aren't TOO noticeable. And even if they are, as long as the movie itself is good, I'll be okay. It's not like I'm not going to be watching the Hobbit in HFR on my bluray player.
-
I'll probably see it twice - first in 24, then in 48.
-
I'll probably see it twice - first in 24, then in 48.
Same here, if there is a theater around here showing it in 48.
-
I had this problem when I got my HD TV. Supernatural looked sped up but the voices and sounds synced up. It was really weird. Eventually I did get used to it but it was quite distracting at the time.
-
Yeah I'll probably see it in 24fps as well. Although, the hyper-realism sounds really interesting to me.
-
I'll probably see it twice - first in 24, then in 48.
This.
-
While early reviews have me a little worried about whether this film will deliver plot wise (I’m sure it’ll deliver as another avenue for Tolkien fanatics like myself to be absorbed in the world), I picked up the soundtrack during lunch today and it is phenomenal, even better in some ways that the trilogy soundtracks. The extended addition is well worth it, too, including many passages where the orchestra just lets loose (perhaps these were too eventful to be included in the movie?)
-
Two more days. I'll see it in 3D as no cinema in my area knows when the movie will be available in 2D. It's incredible, I have never heard anything like that before. They don't even know their own shit!
-
I'm seeing it tomorrow in 48 fps. I am excited :drool:
-
Seeing it tomorrow in 3D 24fps, and then again on sunday in 3D 48fps. Really looking forward to it.
-
Also, to add fire on fire, nobody among the cinema staff was aware of the existence of 48fps. Still, I am very excited, despite all the discouraging reviews I've been reading as of late.
-
I’m seeing this Midnight in IMAX 3D. Is that 48fps? I have no idea. The person who got the tickets doesn’t either.
-
I want to see it in standard 2D and 24fps if possible first. I haven't checked which versions will be available at my local cinema, though. Should be interesting since I don't particularly care for 3D movies at all.
-
I’m seeing this Midnight in IMAX 3D. Is that 48fps?
I don't think so.
-
Turns out I'm not avoiding opening weekend after all, since my friend is doing a birthday trip to see it... so I'll be seeing it like this (which I've never even heard of until I got the Facebook invite): https://www.harkinstheatres.com/CineCapri.aspx
As long as it's not 3D, I'm good.
-
Seeing an advance screening in about an hour in 48fps 3D. I'll let you all know what I think
-
I am curious to see what this does to the 3D market. I know that *one* of the problems associated with 3D is that you have to slow down effects shots (because of the *frame rate*) in order to avoid blurring the picture.
Not that there aren't other issues with 3D (the glasses make the picture darker)...but if 48fps solves that one issue, it might improve the technology overall.
-
So if I go and see this, how will I know which one is 48FPS?
-
It's the one that sucks.
-
So if I go and see this, how will I know which one is 48FPS?
First you see if it's at one of these theaters...
https://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/
But even then, the 48fps version will be listed on the marquee as HFR. (High Frame Rate)
-
So if I go and see this, how will I know which one is 48FPS?
First you see if it's at one of these theaters...
https://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/
But even then, the 48fps version will be listed on the marquee as HFR. (High Frame Rate)
Awesome, thanks bro.
-
Thursday night, I'll meet you there. Bring the popcorn!
-
Saw it last night in 48fps 3D. Visually, it was fantastic. If you have any doubts about the frame rate, I'll just tell you now that it felt exactly the same as the first time I ever watched a 1080p Blu Ray in 120hz. It takes your eyes a few minutes to adjust but after that, it's gorgeous. Especially Gollum. I highly recommend watching it in HFR 3D
-
Nice! Just bought tickets for friday in glorious HFR 3D. :yarr
-
Despite some early, intensely critical reviews (which launched the Hobbit into the 20-30 percent range on the Rotten Tomatoes index), the last few days have seen a number of much more positive reviews released, including approving ones from the New Yorker and the New York Post. The Hobbit remains in the 70s for “All Critics”, and have gotten up to the mid 50s for “Top Critics” while continuing to rise.
Hurrah. I can go back to expecting this to be the best movie to come out since Return of the King.
-
Overall (being a ridiculously huge LOTR fan), I'd give it a 9/10.
-
**SPOILERS INSIDE**
I thought it was good, though not as good as LOTR(not that I expected it to be). I really enjoyed the Gollum scene. The music was top notch and everytime they returned to a theme from LOTR I got chills. I also enjoyed the fact that in the beginning they cut off right before LOTR starts (Frodo was going to wait for Gandalf in the woods). I saw it in 48fps and while it was incredibly awkward at first I got used to it after about 20 minutes. After that it was just nice, I don't regret seeing it in high frame rate.
-
Awesome to hear some more positive feedback. It seems like most of the critic reviews I've read have all been bashing the 48fps. I just got my tickets for the HFR tomorrow night. I haven't decided yet, but I may skip school tomorrow and watch all the LOTR Extended editions.
-
Awesome to hear some more positive feedback. It seems like most of the critic reviews I've read have all been bashing the 48fps. I just got my tickets for the HFR tomorrow night. I haven't decided yet, but I may skip school tomorrow and watch all the LOTR Extended editions.
I would love to be able to sit down and do that
-
Yea, I bought all of the movies on Blu Ray and will watch them soon. I've only seen each one once and all in theater when they came out.
-
*SPOILERS SORT OF*
I thought the movie was good, although a bit childish at times, but that was expected. My favorite scenes were those involving the white council because they were dealing with a subject far greater than 13 dwarves' quest.
And the Necromancer scene was also great for that same reason. And I did not expect that very short appearance of The Witch King of Angmar, I was not ready for that... It was awesome..
-
Tonight's the night of Dream Theater.
Well, I might play some Dream Theater afterwards, but what I meant is that tonight I'll be seeing The Hobbit*. I don't think the cinema is showing it in the high frame rate but I'm not that interested in technology since I'm not seeing many movies at all, let alone in the cinema, so I don't feel the need to catch up.
* I should have said Nightmare Cinema, but, anyway it is a dream of many years coming true and I'll be in the cinema so that was the joke. You can kill me now.
-
How? You're already a ghost ???
-
How? You're already a ghost ???
:clap:
-
Saw it on premiere day in 2D. The cinema manages to screw up the subtitles. It was no big deal for most of the film but it was a serious problem when they were talking in elvish or orchish. :lol
Anyway, it was an awesome film. The Gollum scene is by far my favorite. The dwarfs were very enjoyable and Gandalf is just as awesome as usual. I've always liked him more as Gandalf grey rather than Gandalf white.
I'm not overly fond of Randagast and his pet Sebastian though.
I'd give the film 9/10. It made me very excited for the upcoming parts. :tup
-
My head hurts so much - not accustomed to wearing two pairs of glasses on my nose, blasted 3D.
I loved the movie. The LotR throwbacks kept tugging at my heartstrings, which is, I suppose, what they intended. I love the inter-character relations, especially the White Council. And I really like Radagast.
Having gotten into LotR a year after the movies got out, I feel like this is one of the most important chapters in my life as a Tolkien fan, there's that whole feel of a new saga beginning.
And, to quote my sister: Damnit, they should have made six fucking movies out of LotR so we could see everything.
-
'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack (https://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default)
-
My head hurts so much - not accustomed to wearing two pairs of glasses on my nose, blasted 3D.
I loved the movie. The LotR throwbacks kept tugging at my heartstrings, which is, I suppose, what they intended. I love the inter-character relations, especially the White Council. And I really like Radagast.
Having gotten into LotR a year after the movies got out, I feel like this is one of the most important chapters in my life as a Tolkien fan, there's that whole feel of a new saga beginning.
And, to quote my sister: Damnit, they should have made six fucking movies out of LotR so we could see everything.
From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.
But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!
-
Watching The Fellowship of the Ring right now for the first time since it came out in 2001 (I believe).
Really enjoying it. :)
I'll finish the trilogy in the next few days before I see The Hobbit. Looking forward to it.
-
Caught a glimpse of The Hobbit in 48fps whilst on my Cinema Induction today.
It looks crystal clear and really jumps off the screen - even in 2D.
It does have that slightly sped-up look to it.
But it does still "look" like a movie. Not like television - as some people have said it would.
-
Was it filmed in 3d or post converted?
-
Was it filmed in 3d or post converted?
It was painstakingly filmed in 3D
-
Was it filmed in 3d or post converted?
It was painstakingly filmed in 3D
Really? Well then I shall see it in 3D then! :)
-
My head hurts so much - not accustomed to wearing two pairs of glasses on my nose, blasted 3D.
I loved the movie. The LotR throwbacks kept tugging at my heartstrings, which is, I suppose, what they intended. I love the inter-character relations, especially the White Council. And I really like Radagast.
Having gotten into LotR a year after the movies got out, I feel like this is one of the most important chapters in my life as a Tolkien fan, there's that whole feel of a new saga beginning.
And, to quote my sister: Damnit, they should have made six fucking movies out of LotR so we could see everything.
I agree with all of this, the movie went definitely beyond my expectations. I'm going to spend another 7€ to watch it a second time, and this time in 2D.
What about Martin Freeman's and Andy Serkis's performances? Outstanding they were, for me.
-
What about Martin Freeman's and Andy Serkis's performances? Outstanding they were, for me.
I agree. I especially like their scene together. I was worried it might not live up to my expectations since that's the highlight of the book for me, but it was awesome.
Martin Freeman is really good, but he kinda disappears midway into the film when the focus is on everything BUT him. Obviously it's not his fault, but I remember watching the movie and reacting to it.
Also, all the musical cues from Lord of the Rings made me chill. ESPECIALLY the ring theme, when the ring was featured for the first time. That was SO awesome! :eek
-
What about Martin Freeman's and Andy Serkis's performances? Outstanding they were, for me.
I agree. I especially like their scene together. I was worried it might not live up to my expectations since that's the highlight of the book for me, but it was awesome.
Martin Freeman is really good, but he kinda disappears midway into the film when the focus is on everything BUT him. Obviously it's not his fault, but I remember watching the movie and reacting to it.
Also, all the musical cues from Lord of the Rings made me chill. ESPECIALLY the ring theme, when the ring was featured for the first time. That was SO awesome! :eek
All of this
-
*SPOILER ALERT ON*
I agree. I especially like their scene together. I was worried it might not live up to my expectations since that's the highlight of the book for me, but it was awesome.
Yes, their interaction was one of the highlights of the movie. I fooled the friend I went to the cinema with, who didn't read the book, into believing that Gollum would not be appearing until the next movie. He was just exstatic to see his visage, once again. And it's also obvious the amazing lenght CGI or whatever that technique is called has gone in this past 10 years. I don't think I have ever seen anything computer generated appear so realistic.
I also LOVED the short scene with Radagast in Dol Guldur and the glimpse of the Necromancer we were given (also, the hooded spirit statue tightening its grip on the hilt of the sword was possibly the best two seconds of the movie). And to conclude this fanboyic "vichyssoise of verbage", they somehow managed to avoid showing Smaug in his majesty (the eye however was a CGI masterpiece) without taking any credibility from the flashback of the Sack of Erebor. Good job, once again.
-
Just got home from the midnight premiere. I watched it in 3D HFR. The HFR really dazzled in some places (most memorably with Gollum). As for the content, I really loved the inclusion of the Whte Council (Cate Blanchett looked even more gorgeous than usual), as well as the Dol Guldur scene. My biggest complaint would be Radagasts role, and the incredible emphasis on Thorins arch enemy: the pale Orc. The sets all looked quite good, especially the goblin city and rivendale. Also really nice was the soundtrack (although I don't think I like it as much as The Lord of the rings') and the beautiful New Zealand scenery. Anyhow, it's not Lotr, but it would be foolish to place those expectations on this movie, considering that the hobbit's story has much less depth to it.
I'll be seeing it again in 3d IMAX this weekend, and then probably even a third time in plain ol 2d.
-
Well that was amazing. Everything I expected and more.
-
Oh right, Azog. Did anyone else think he looked like he was from a video game? Not the best visual effects I must say...
-
Saw it last night. It was pretty good, but now I’m at work feeling like a zombie.
Although I should have, I wasn’t expecting the events of the Hobbit to be presented over such an epic backdrop, even though that’s consistent with how the events of the story are described in the LotR appendices and later. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, he wasn’t quite sure what it was leading up to, if anything at all. After he wrote Lord of the Rings, however, he was able to recast many of the events as being of great importance to Sauron’s return and the ring quest. This movie reflects that. It’s not really based on the Hobbit as-is, but more like the Hobbit as-would-have-been, given Tolkien never abandoned the idea of going back to rewrite it. However, the film is still The Hobbit as re-written by Jackson, not the Hobbit as re-written by Tolkien. The changes and informative fill-ins succeed most of the time, but there were a few instances that just seemed odd. Overall it was an enjoyable film. Not as enjoyable as the original trilogy, but still great, and promising only to get better.
As far as technical things go, After seeing 48fps 3D last night, I’m pretty convinced that the whole controversy over the thing was BS, if not an outright publicity stunt. Never once did I feel like I was watching a documentary, or a stage play. But at multiple times I was floored by how “alive” Middle Earth seemed to be. Visually, the only real strange part for me was when Radagast was zooming over the fields on his rabbit carriage while being chased by the Wargs. It looked really fake and weird, and I wonder how that scene made it through the final cut.
Some people will complain it’s slow, but what could you expect? There was no way it could be on Return of the King’s level from the getgo… however, with what’s coming up in the story, I am sure it’ll get there and I’ll be happy to see it when it does.
-
From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.
But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!
From what you gather? I take it you've never read the books, then?
A lot of people seem to think that because The Hobbit was only one book and The Lord of the Rings was three, that The Hobbit should only be one movie because The Lord of the Rings was three. The problem with that thinking is that the books aren't "scaled" the same way.
The Hobbit was written first, and was a children's book. There is a lot of lore which is only referenced or hinted at, and a lot of story occurs "off-screen". Heck, the climactic Battle of Five Armies isn't even in the book, and you know that's gonna get milked for at least a half-hour of screen time, probably more. The Lord of the Rings was meant to dig deeper and goes into greater detail. The story itself is broader, but the books go into more detail.
I'm sure part of the reason why there will be three movies is because of the money, so you're not wrong about that. But people always talk about what gets left out of the book to make the movie, and how they wish the movie could be twice as long (or in this case, three times as long). Here we'll actually get it. Plus, there's a certain elegance to making it a prequel trilogy, if for no other reason than to show George Lucas how to do it right.
-
The Hobbit’s prose is unadorned while being jam-packed with action, so I had no problem at all believing that it could be two or even three films. However, it’s also pretty telling that for the original trilogy, Jackson was cutting out things left and right, and sometimes even entire chapters, to try and control the length of what was already a trilogy of extremely long movies.
Now, the Hobbit is presented fully intact with not only every single triviality from the book represented, but with those trivialities in fact embellished upon. The passing mention of Radagast is now a 5 minute scene of the Wizard nursing his furry companion back to health, and the Dwarves’ back story is now an entire side narrative.
-
From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.
But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!
From what you gather? I take it you've never read the books, then?
A lot of people seem to think that because The Hobbit was only one book and The Lord of the Rings was three, that The Hobbit should only be one movie because The Lord of the Rings was three. The problem with that thinking is that the books aren't "scaled" the same way.
The Hobbit was written first, and was a children's book. There is a lot of lore which is only referenced or hinted at, and a lot of story occurs "off-screen". Heck, the climactic Battle of Five Armies isn't even in the book, and you know that's gonna get milked for at least a half-hour of screen time, probably more. The Lord of the Rings was meant to dig deeper and goes into greater detail. The story itself is broader, but the books go into more detail.
I'm sure part of the reason why there will be three movies is because of the money, so you're not wrong about that. But people always talk about what gets left out of the book to make the movie, and how they wish the movie could be twice as long (or in this case, three times as long). Here we'll actually get it. Plus, there's a certain elegance to making it a prequel trilogy, if for no other reason than to show George Lucas how to do it right.
:clap:
-
I'm going to be seeing The Hobbit tonight in 2D and I assume 24 fps. I just started watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so I'll finish them before I go to see The Hobbit tonight. Pretty excited! :corn
-
From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.
But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!
From what you gather? I take it you've never read the books, then?
A lot of people seem to think that because The Hobbit was only one book and The Lord of the Rings was three, that The Hobbit should only be one movie because The Lord of the Rings was three. The problem with that thinking is that the books aren't "scaled" the same way.
The Hobbit was written first, and was a children's book. There is a lot of lore which is only referenced or hinted at, and a lot of story occurs "off-screen". Heck, the climactic Battle of Five Armies isn't even in the book, and you know that's gonna get milked for at least a half-hour of screen time, probably more. The Lord of the Rings was meant to dig deeper and goes into greater detail. The story itself is broader, but the books go into more detail.
I'm sure part of the reason why there will be three movies is because of the money, so you're not wrong about that. But people always talk about what gets left out of the book to make the movie, and how they wish the movie could be twice as long (or in this case, three times as long). Here we'll actually get it. Plus, there's a certain elegance to making it a prequel trilogy, if for no other reason than to show George Lucas how to do it right.
I have only recently read The Hobbit again (after reading it years ago when I was younger), and even though I was sceptical about making it into three films, I agree it is unfair to make the comparison of the content of The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings based on page count or length of the books. The Council Of Elrond is about Chapter 14 of the Fellowship Of The Ring - in The Hobbit they arrive at and leave Rivendell in Chapter 3. And if the films were progressing through the chapters in the books at an equal rate, The Hobbit would have to have reached the part where the first film ended as quickly as The Fellowship Of The Ring got to a point about halfway between Frodo and Sam meeting Merry and Pippin and when the four of them arrive at Bree. So the page count comparison isn't really a good measure of the amount of material covered when one book flies through the events with simple, plain narration, while the other is extremely slow and detailed.
After watching the first film (and, as I said, re-reading the book and being reminded just how child-friendly it is), I am much more sold that making three films was a good move. Perhaps they could have made a film that matched the tone and pace of The Hobbit book exactly, but in my opinion there would be no way to reconcile that film with The Lord Of The Rings films and make it believeable that they both take place in the same world. Essentially the film is trying to do what Tolkien never really did - tell the story of the Hobbit in a way that's actually consistent with it taking place in the same Middle Earth as LOTR and everything else (which, for the filmmakers, means the same Middle Earth as the LOTR films). People just accept the disparity between The Hobbit and LOTR because of the history of how they were written (The Hobbit was a more simple quest story, aimed at children, that Tolkein later adapted to take place in the Middle Earth mythology he was making and linked it to LOTR), but if Jackson did a Hobbit that was as different from LOTR as the book was, it would be panned even more severely.
-
Went to the midnight screening last night. Amazing, didn't disappoint at any level.
-
After watching the first film (and, as I said, re-reading the book and being reminded just how child-friendly it is), I am much more sold that making three films was a good move. Perhaps they could have made a film that matched the tone and pace of The Hobbit book exactly, but in my opinion there would be no way to reconcile that film with The Lord Of The Rings films and make it believeable that they both take place in the same world. Essentially the film is trying to do what Tolkien never really did - tell the story of the Hobbit in a way that's actually consistent with it taking place in the same Middle Earth as LOTR and everything else (which, for the filmmakers, means the same Middle Earth as the LOTR films). People just accept the disparity between The Hobbit and LOTR because of the history of how they were written (The Hobbit was a more simple quest story, aimed at children, that Tolkein later adapted to take place in the Middle Earth mythology he was making and linked it to LOTR), but if Jackson did a Hobbit that was as different from LOTR as the book was, it would be panned even more severely.
Good point. The Lord of the Rings was epic in every way, one of the few times the word "epic" is truly appropriate. The story being told, the running time, the effects, the cast, everything. The Hobbit has to at least have a similar scope and feel to it, or it will be a disappointment. It has to live up to The Lord of the Rings, which won't be easy. With The Lord of the Rings, the challenge was accurately adapting the epic scope of the books onto film. The challenge with The Hobbit is changing the tone of the story from the simple tale that it is to something that can stand next to The Lord of the Rings.
-
After watching the first film (and, as I said, re-reading the book and being reminded just how child-friendly it is), I am much more sold that making three films was a good move. Perhaps they could have made a film that matched the tone and pace of The Hobbit book exactly, but in my opinion there would be no way to reconcile that film with The Lord Of The Rings films and make it believeable that they both take place in the same world. Essentially the film is trying to do what Tolkien never really did - tell the story of the Hobbit in a way that's actually consistent with it taking place in the same Middle Earth as LOTR and everything else (which, for the filmmakers, means the same Middle Earth as the LOTR films). People just accept the disparity between The Hobbit and LOTR because of the history of how they were written (The Hobbit was a more simple quest story, aimed at children, that Tolkein later adapted to take place in the Middle Earth mythology he was making and linked it to LOTR), but if Jackson did a Hobbit that was as different from LOTR as the book was, it would be panned even more severely.
Good point. The Lord of the Rings was epic in every way, one of the few times the word "epic" is truly appropriate. The story being told, the running time, the effects, the cast, everything. The Hobbit has to at least have a similar scope and feel to it, or it will be a disappointment. It has to live up to The Lord of the Rings, which won't be easy. With The Lord of the Rings, the challenge was accurately adapting the epic scope of the books onto film. The challenge with The Hobbit is changing the tone of the story from the simple tale that it is to something that can stand next to The Lord of the Rings.
Thankfully, Tolkien laid the groundwork for that by recasting the events of the Hobbit in the Rings appendices and Silmarillion. I'm just glad they're incorporating on that stuff in the movie as it's the only way to make it both epic and loyal to the material.
-
Saw it last night. It was pretty good, but now I’m at work feeling like a zombie.
Although I should have, I wasn’t expecting the events of the Hobbit to be presented over such an epic backdrop, even though that’s consistent with how the events of the story are described in the LotR appendices and later. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, he wasn’t quite sure what it was leading up to, if anything at all. After he wrote Lord of the Rings, however, he was able to recast many of the events as being of great importance to Sauron’s return and the ring quest. This movie reflects that. It’s not really based on the Hobbit as-is, but more like the Hobbit as-would-have-been, given Tolkien never abandoned the idea of going back to rewrite it. However, the film is still The Hobbit as re-written by Jackson, not the Hobbit as re-written by Tolkien. The changes and informative fill-ins succeed most of the time, but there were a few instances that just seemed odd. Overall it was an enjoyable film. Not as enjoyable as the original trilogy, but still great, and promising only to get better.
As far as technical things go, After seeing 48fps 3D last night, I’m pretty convinced that the whole controversy over the thing was BS, if not an outright publicity stunt. Never once did I feel like I was watching a documentary, or a stage play. But at multiple times I was floored by how “alive” Middle Earth seemed to be. Visually, the only real strange part for me was when Radagast was zooming over the fields on his rabbit carriage while being chased by the Wargs. It looked really fake and weird, and I wonder how that scene made it through the final cut.
Some people will complain it’s slow, but what could you expect? There was no way it could be on Return of the King’s level from the getgo… however, with what’s coming up in the story, I am sure it’ll get there and I’ll be happy to see it when it does.
Just came back from a screening and could not said it better myself. The controversy just felt like BS because both the 3D and 48fps added a new dimension like never before. I had to pick up my jaw in some scenes. I did though really feel like i was watching the first movie in a series so the movie felt more like a presentation on what lies ahead but that's basically what i expected anyway.
Peter could not have done a better job and i can't wait for part two.
-
:caffeine: Going tonight :caffeine:
-
The Hobbit’s prose is unadorned while being jam-packed with action, so I had no problem at all believing that it could be two or even three films. However, it’s also pretty telling that for the original trilogy, Jackson was cutting out things left and right, and sometimes even entire chapters, to try and control the length of what was already a trilogy of extremely long movies.
Now, the Hobbit is presented fully intact with not only every single triviality from the book represented, but with those trivialities in fact embellished upon. The passing mention of Radagast is now a 5 minute scene of the Wizard nursing his furry companion back to health, and the Dwarves’ back story is now an entire side narrative.
I suppose the special edition DVDs will be shortened cuts instead.
-
The Hobbit’s prose is unadorned while being jam-packed with action, so I had no problem at all believing that it could be two or even three films. However, it’s also pretty telling that for the original trilogy, Jackson was cutting out things left and right, and sometimes even entire chapters, to try and control the length of what was already a trilogy of extremely long movies.
Now, the Hobbit is presented fully intact with not only every single triviality from the book represented, but with those trivialities in fact embellished upon. The passing mention of Radagast is now a 5 minute scene of the Wizard nursing his furry companion back to health, and the Dwarves’ back story is now an entire side narrative.
I suppose the special edition DVDs will be shortened cuts instead.
lol
-
Just got back. AMAZING! I just saw the regular version...I'll see the 48fps IMAX 3D version later, but I was VERY impressed with the character development and pacing especially. It was every bit the equal of FotR. I expect that we will see a similar pattern to the LotR trilogy as this one goes on.
-
Panda and I are leaving in a little bit to see it. We were wondering does anyone know if there is anything to sit around for after the credits or can we take off?
-
Panda and I are leaving in a little bit to see it. We were wondering does anyone know if there is anything to sit around for after the credits or can we take off?
Nope...
-
Just got back. AMAZING! I just saw the regular version...I'll see the 48fps IMAX 3D version later, but I was VERY impressed with the character development and pacing especially. It was every bit the equal of FotR. I expect that we will see a similar pattern to the LotR trilogy as this one goes on.
I completely disagree. As much as I wanted to love The Hobbit, I couldn't. I really enjoyed it, and I'll see it at least once more in theaters, and buy it when it comes out on DVD. However, the FOTR was superior on almost every level, IMO. However, I am really excited about the second and third films in this trilogy, as I think they will be even better.
-
Perhaps, Peter Jackson will be able to accomplish what George Lucas couldn't. Create a 6-part movie saga that feels cohesive and solid all the way through. It fits so well into the Lord of the Rings cannon (obviously I'm just talking about the films here) that it's ridiculous.
-
Perhaps, Peter Jackson will be able to accomplish what George Lucas couldn't. Create a 6-part movie saga that feels cohesive and solid all the way through. It fits so well into the Lord of the Rings cannon (obviously I'm just talking about the films here) that it's ridiculous.
There was a single (but fairly minor) continuity error that bugged me a little bit. But it was small enough that it didn't effect my enjoyment of the film.
What REALLY impressed me was the dialog. But let me preface that by saying that this dialog was very much like Neil Peart lyrics. Most of the time, it's excellent...and SO excellent that it almost makes you forget the *occasional* bonehead cliche.
After having just saw Lincoln lately...it really whet my appetite for a more dialog and character oriented movie with more "old school" pacing that relies more on the story itself than just getting to the next piece of action. And this first installment fit that description PERFECTLY!!! The initial reviews had me skeptical when I walked in...but the movie itself COMPLETELY met, and surpassed my wildest expectations.
Peter Jackson totally hit it out of the park.
-
I'm going to see it tonight. But I'm in Quebec, and the only theater where I can see it in english is also in 3D. Meh.
-
Perhaps, Peter Jackson will be able to accomplish what George Lucas couldn't. Create a 6-part movie saga that feels cohesive and solid all the way through. It fits so well into the Lord of the Rings cannon (obviously I'm just talking about the films here) that it's ridiculous.
Was actually thinking of this the other day...
Was trying to think of any other director who has directed so many films in the same universe consecutively ?
Peter Jackson = Fellowship. Two Towers. Return of The King. An Unexpected Journey. Desolation Of Smaug. There & Back Again.
-
...Also it will definitely only be 6 movies since there is no source material left.
Although you know someone will push for Peter jackson to do 3 more from 100% new scripts written by hacks.
-
...Also it will definitely only be 6 movies since there is no source material left.
Although you know someone will push for Peter jackson to do 3 more from 100% new scripts written by hacks.
The chances of what I'm about to say are about the same as a Pink Floyd reunion but....
Remember that the reason these movies got made was because JRRT gave up the movie rights a long time ago when he was hard up for money. The estate has passionately claimed that they will never give up the rights to any more material...but as you have stated, sometimes money wins out the day.
But fans have been pipe dreaming for the last 10 years about possibly getting movies of The Samarillion or maybe even Unfinished Tales. I'm just saying that the source material *IS* there for more movies...it's just a matter of talking the Tolkien estate out of it.
-
From what I read - most of The Hobbit movie trilogy is excessive padding from books other than The Hobbit ?
-
From what I read - most of The Hobbit movie trilogy is excessive padding from books other than The Hobbit ?
It's from the LotR appendices. From what I understand, they *want* to reference the Samarillion...but they can't or they will risk a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate. So they have to strictly adhere to the LotR appendices (and their own imaginations) ONLY.
-
From what I read - most of The Hobbit movie trilogy is excessive padding from books other than The Hobbit ?
It's from the LotR appendices. From what I understand, they *want* to reference the Samarillion...but they can't or they will risk a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate. So they have to strictly adhere to the LotR appendices (and their own imaginations) ONLY.
Hence Gandalf claiming not to remember the names of the blue wizards!
-
Their names aren't referenced in the Silmarillion either, IIRC.
-
Yeah, just in the Unfinished Tales.
-
I thought that was a funny detail, Gandalf not remembering the blue wizards names. I also liked Saruman calling Radagast one of the Istari. They never mention that "title" in the LotR trilogy. I thought that was cool as "wizard" is only a title given to them by the people of Middle Earth, but they're actually Maiar.
-
I thought that was a funny detail, Gandalf not remembering the blue wizards names. I also liked Saruman calling Radagast one of the Istari. They never mention that "title" in the LotR trilogy. I thought that was cool as "wizard" is only a title given to them by the people of Middle Earth, but they're actually Maiar.
It was a funny detail to me too. After all, they are unlikely to have met in the past 2000 years!
-
Glad to see so many here are digging it. I must say, I want to go see it again, and might this weekend (albeit probably in 2D)
-
Yeah, just in the Unfinished Tales.
Pallando and Aratar, I think?
I thought that was a funny detail, Gandalf not remembering the blue wizards names. I also liked Saruman calling Radagast one of the Istari. They never mention that "title" in the LotR trilogy. I thought that was cool as "wizard" is only a title given to them by the people of Middle Earth, but they're actually Maiar.
They very well could have been called that somewhere in the Appendices. As far as I know, Jackson and co are barred from using anything that isn't in the hobbit or the LotR books so anything in the Silmarillion and the Books of Lost Tales and Unfinished Tales are all off limits.
I was pretty excited when I heard it was going to draw heavily from the Appendices. There's some good stuff in there. Durin's Folk is pretty awesome little historical vignette about the dwarves, going from the fall of Beleriand up to the Quest For Erebor.
I'll probably see it sometime this weekend, hopefully in 2D.
-
I enjoyed the hell out of it. Given the current ratings on RT and how I rely on them too heavily, I expected it to be a mediocre film. I'm slowly learning to teach myself not to care what critics think. Anyway, now on to my reaction. Rather than write a coherent post in a review form, I'll just throw out some random thoughts about individual moments.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS BEYOND THIS
- I know some were put off by the fact that this movie has a more light-hearted tone, but that didn't bother me. It didn't "feel" different to me than the LoTR movies, and if it was more light-hearted, I think that would help to preserve the gravity of things in the LoTR movies.
- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh
- Gandalf. What a fucking badass.
- I almost cheered when Gollum showed up. He had some good lines.
- It was nice to see connections to the older movies, whether they were characters Tolkien put in the story or whether they were decisions made by the director. Nice to see Galadriel, Elrond, Gollum, and Saruman. Hell, even Frodo and old Bilbo. Also, Frodo's placing of the sign on Bilbo's front gate was kind of neat.
- Almost shat brix when the Witch King showed up.
- When Bilbo had the ring on near the end and the dwarves were looking for him/talking about him, I'm glad he didn't pull the cliche move and walk away in sadness. I haven't read the books, so I wasn't sure what to expect in that scene.
-
Thoughts:
- I liked the movie a lot.
- Its first half was a little slow.
- I felt less attached to the characters than I did watching the original trilogy. Maybe that's just because I've seen the originals so many times, though.
- I have no idea what the 48 FPS controversy was about. My eyes didn't even have to adjust to it. From the get-go, everything looked fine.
-
One thing that bugged me a little though, was that Saruman looked a little evil. Maybe we've been teased by Sir Christopher Lee that has played dozens of evil characters in films in his life and his wonderful performance of the crazed and corruped wizard in the LOTR trilogy, but hey...in that time, Saruman is supposed to be pure good and wisdom and I don't know...it's a weird feel, bro. haha
-
Thoughts:
- I felt less attached to the characters than I did watching the original trilogy. Maybe that's just because I've seen the originals so many times, though.
This might have to do with the company being formed by 13 dwarves and two other people instead od 4 hobbits, one elf, one dwarf and so on. I also believe that the dwarves were not characterized as well as the original Fellowship were in the respective novels.
One thing that bugged me a little though, was that Saruman looked a little evil. Maybe we've been teased by Sir Christopher Lee that has played dozens of evil characters in films in his life and his wonderful performance of the crazed and corruped wizard in the LOTR trilogy, but hey...in that time, Saruman is supposed to be pure good and wisdom and I don't know...it's a weird feel, bro. haha
This is not entirely true. Sure, he was still to use the palantír being thus corrupted by Sauron, but he was already pursuing his own agenda concerning the one ring. Which is why he was hindering Gandalf in the movie.
-
- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh
Yes. That really bothered me as well.
-
- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh
Yes. That really bothered me as well.
It did seem weird, but it is a direct quote from the book.
-
Yup. That was right from Tolkien.
-
I saw the movie a second time today, in 48fps 3D. I now feel like I have to change my original statement a bit.
It was so much better the second time. When walking out after my first viewing I had some slight negative feelings... But after seeing it all again all that is as good as gone. So if anyone saw it once and though it was okay but not more, I actually recomend seeing it again, because it was way better the second time.
And 48fps looked absolutely fine. I cannot understand any of the complaints about it either.
-
Don't go see it in the IMAX. I felt like I was gonna hurl.
-
- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh
I thought it was kinda funny since that line is straight out of the book. :lol
But yeah, it is kinda cheesy, though I thought it worked.
SPOILERS ABOUND! Ye have been warned!
I thought it was a good, but not great movie. I have two major problems with the film: the CGI and the length. The CGI, overall, was quite awful and to me, was much more ubiquitous and poorly used than in LotR. Azog, in particular, looked pretty terrible. The Misty Mountain goblins were all kind of comically ugly, compared to the Moria goblins in Fellowship, which were much more disgusting, IMO. It certainly didn't help that there seemed to be a lot more closeups of CGI goblins in Hobbit whereas Fellowship 'filled out the ranks' of actual actors with CGI creations. The goblin king was pretty cool though.
The length was another issue. Unlike many of the critics who thought that the first half was the weakest, I loved the first half. Well, I did think that the Frodo and Bilbo part went on a bit too long, but the unexpected party, the trolls, weathertop, all great. Even the warg chase was good. I wasn't very fond of the Radagast scenes, but thankfully they weren't that long and I'm a much bigger fan of how the whole Dol Guldor story unfolds in the books (er in the Appendices at least).
After Rivendell, the movie just seems to be one long, boring chase scene. The goblin town chase goes on forever and feels like a much less interesting retread of Khazad-Dum from Fellowship without the awesome Balrog scene. Plus the goblins are fucking pathetic in the Hobbit. After the first few minutes, there's no tension, it's just like watching a supremely boring video game unfold. Then we get the Warg Treetop 'climax' which is... okay. It also kind of drags but, to be honest, I thought that part sucked in the book too and Jackson's changes neither improved nor worsened that scene. It's a good, logical conclusion for the film, but by then, I was just waiting for the film to end which I think was just a result of the length of the movie plus my general ambivalence about this sequence. It didn't help that my ass had thoroughly fallen asleep during the Fleeing The Goblin City Quick Time Event (Press X to kill every Goblin on the screen!).
Thankfully, Riddles In The Dark, aka the best part of the movie is pretty self-contained and the scene where Bilbo spares Gollum and returns to the dwarves are perfect.
Other little notes:
- The casting was great. Freeman as Bilbo was awesome. Armitage as Thorin was awesome and I really liked Thorin's prideful arrogance. Also, I actually liked Weaving as Elrond in this movie. I dunno if it was the writing or Weaving but I think he came off much better.
- In fact, while about half of the dwarves do sort of fade into the background, I liked the few that got some screentime. Overall, I thought the dwarves were well handled, but there is room for improvement. Some of them, I'm still not sure who is who but that was a problem with the book too so meh.
- Parts of the movie really reminded how some parts of the book are just... shit. In the book, most of the major confrontations end with Gandalf somehow saving the day and while the dwarves in the movie are much less inept, I just wish more had been done to keep each part from ending in a Deus Ex Gandalf. Or deus ex eagles.
- The Prologue was kinda cool but felt a bit like a lesser man's Fellowship prologue.
- I liked the inclusion of Azog as a villain. It's too bad he looked like shit.
- The Witch-King cameo was needless, but that plays into the whole fact that I much prefer how the storyline of the Necromancer and Dol Guldor plays out in the books. Obvious bias is obvious.
- The brief glimpse we got of Sauron was neat, OTOH.
- I loved the songs, except for maybe the goblin song. Gollum's song and the dwarves' song about Erebor were the highlights.
- Gollum was awesome. Serkis and Freeman delivered.
- The Stone Giant scene was pointless. It's not as if I didn't enjoy it, but I think that on rewatches it'll be a drag. Too long and just... silly.
- Apparently Middle Earth is only like 600 miles across seeing as the Dwarves get a pretty good view of Erebor from the Misty Mountains. It's a cool scene, but it irks me and it bothered me in LotR too.
- I was really, really hoping for a quick glimpse or mention of Durin's Bane in the Dwarf-Goblin War flashback.
So there we go. A good, but not great movie. I'm wondering if there will be an Extended version of this because I can't imagine any more getting bolted onto this movie without it sagging and collapsing under its own weight.
-
One thing that bugged me a little though, was that Saruman looked a little evil. Maybe we've been teased by Sir Christopher Lee that has played dozens of evil characters in films in his life and his wonderful performance of the crazed and corruped wizard in the LOTR trilogy, but hey...in that time, Saruman is supposed to be pure good and wisdom and I don't know...it's a weird feel, bro. haha
Funny, because I walked out feeling the exact opposite.
Initially I felt that there was NO WAY that Lee was going to be able to give a performance that made me believe he was "one of the goodies"...there's just too much history there. It would be like Vincent Price playing Santa Claus...no way it was going to work.
But Christopher Lee proved me wrong. I thought he did a really good job of playing the "innocent...yet clinging to ignorance" card really well. There's been peace for so long...there's NO WAY it would stop now...RIGHT???
I thought his attempt at innocence was impressive.
-
- The brief glimpse we got of Sauron was neat, OTOH.
I don't remember this, when was that?
-
- The brief glimpse we got of Sauron was neat, OTOH.
I don't remember this, when was that?
The blurred black humanoid shape Radagast sees in Dol Guldùr after he survives the attack of the Witch King.
-
- The brief glimpse we got of Sauron was neat, OTOH.
I don't remember this, when was that?
The blurred black humanoid shape Radagast sees in Dol Guldùr after he survives the attack of the Witch King.
Yep.
Not how I pictured The Necromancer, but neat nonetheless.
-
I'm so glad they didn't cast Daniel Radcliffe or Tobey Maguire as Bilbo, as both were considered.
-
- The brief glimpse we got of Sauron was neat, OTOH.
I don't remember this, when was that?
The blurred black humanoid shape Radagast sees in Dol Guldùr after he survives the attack of the Witch King.
Yep.
Not how I pictured The Necromancer, but neat nonetheless.
That was supposed to be Sauron?
-
That was supposed to be Sauron?
Indeed. I don't think he could ever gain a true physical shape after that little mishap with Isildur.
-
That was supposed to be Sauron?
Indeed. I don't think he could ever gain a true physical shape after that little mishap with Isildur.
I didn't know this either. But a quick Wiki search confirmed it. And this is Tolkien's writing...not PJ's invention.
-
That was supposed to be Sauron?
Indeed. I don't think he could ever gain a true physical shape after that little mishap with Isildur.
I didn't know this either. But a quick Wiki search confirmed it. And this is Tolkien's writing...not PJ's invention.
Sauron never actually enjoyed a quiet and eventless life, you know. He lost much of his power creating the ring (the power went from him into the ring), another share of his power and the ability of gathering a pleasant form when he was obliterated together with Numenor, the ability to have a physical body after the last alliance and finally he lost all that was left to him after Frodo and Gollum danced on the volcano. :lol
Oh, and before all of that, he was defeated and humiliated by a lady elf and her dog. :rollin
On the other hand, PJ did veer from the books when he filmed Sauron battling Aragorn before the Black Gate in his fair form Annatar (https://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/4/4e/Annatar.jpg). Thank god he decided to scrap the idea and superimpose a regular troll to sauron in post-production!
-
That was supposed to be Sauron?
Indeed. I don't think he could ever gain a true physical shape after that little mishap with Isildur.
I didn't know this either. But a quick Wiki search confirmed it. And this is Tolkien's writing...not PJ's invention.
On the other hand, PJ did veer from the books when he filmed Sauron battling Aragorn before the Black Gate in his fair form Annatar (https://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/4/4e/Annatar.jpg). Thank god he decided to scrap the idea and superimpose a regular troll to sauron in post-production!
The nerds would've never forgiven him.
-
a question for people who have seen the movie, particularly overseas. Im in mexico right now and want to go see the hobbit, and the theater right near me is showing it in english with spanish subtitles. but my question is, if there is any elfish dialogue in the movie like in lotr, will it only be shown in spanish subtitles? because then im missing potential conversations of the film.
-
I didn't see any problem with Azog.
Great movie.
-
I'm watching The Fellowship Of The Ring now and it's amazing to see all the references to The Hobbit during the first 30 minutes of the movie.
-
I really should've taken notes after this movie. It's hard enough writing a review purely from memory, but for one that's three hours long, it's been a disaster.
-
I'm honestly amazed how film critics are able to judge a film after just one watch. Well, I assume it's just one viewing. So many films reveal how good or bad they truly are only after subsequent viewings.
Or maybe I'm just bad at watching movies?
-
I just saw it again, this time in 48fps/3D.
I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE FUSS IS ABOUT. I've heard that the higher frame rate lends to a better 3D effects because it's easier for the eyes to adjust or process or something. In any case, it seemed true. Normally I don't like 3D because when things move quickly, they seem "choppy" to me. It didn't feel like that was the case in The Hobbit. Everything was smooth and detailed. If more movies were filmed at 48 fps, I'd probably be more willing to see them in 3D.
And this is coming from a videophile. I spend at least an hour with every game I get tweaking the settings to get smooth performance and 60 fps. Normally I can accurately guess my frame rate within about 5 fps (up to about 60)
-
I'm honestly amazed how film critics are able to judge a film after just one watch. Well, I assume it's just one viewing. So many films reveal how good or bad they truly are only after subsequent viewings.
Or maybe I'm just bad at watching movies?
They don't judge their feelings or lasting impression. They critique the film at face value, so they need no further exploration.
-
I rewatched the movie, this time in 3D/48FPS, and I'm with you guys: I have NO IDEA what people are complaining about. It looked amazing and it didn't even took 1 minute to get used to it.
Also, I've only watched two movies in 3D so far (Avatar and Tangled) but I've gotta say that this was the best use of 3D I've seen. Things didn't jump out all the time for no good reason - it felt like an effect meant to draw you deeper into the story.
I'm still of the opinion that the Gollum encounter is one of the best things about the entire movie. I just love everything about Gollum - his personality, the way he talks and moves, the absolutely stunning animation work...it's just a brilliant character with yet another brilliant scene. It's worth seeing the movie for that scene alone. :tup
The rock giants battle was actually still awesome to watch. While it may not bring the story forward in any way, it's a cool action scene.
Christopher Lee is 90 years old, Ian Holm is 81 and Ian McKellen is 73 years old. That's just mindblowing. I read that neither Lee nor Holm ever went to New Zeeland because of their age, so they recorded every scene they had in a studio.
-
Christopher Lee is 90 years old, Ian Holm is 81 and Ian McKellen is 73 years old. That's just mindblowing. I read that neither Lee nor Holm ever went to New Zeeland because of their age, so they recorded every scene they had in a studio.
Had no idea Lee was that old....mad respect! :hefdaddy
-
Not how I pictured The Necromancer, but neat nonetheless.
We will most certainly get a better look in the next movies as
*SPOILERS*
Gandalf goes to investigate or when the white council drives him out of Dol Guldur.
-
I'm honestly amazed how film critics are able to judge a film after just one watch. Well, I assume it's just one viewing. So many films reveal how good or bad they truly are only after subsequent viewings.
Or maybe I'm just bad at watching movies?
I don't know about others, but I don't really have much of a choice. By publishing my reviews a week after the movie opens, I'm late to the game as it is. That's not to say I won't see it again, because I promised my girlfriend we would together, but normally it doesn't work out like that.
-
i wasted 20 bucks on this movie of walking, but mostly running. i doubt i will want to waste 40 more.
-
I think I would have enjoyed this much more if it was released before tLotR. I say that because it felt like I've seen it all before. I felt bored with most of the movie. I don't think it was bad but it was worse than I expected. I saw it in hfr 3d imax. I don't know what the fuss was about. The picture looked very nice but the 3d didn't add much to the movie. I thought avatar was much better in terms of 3d. The picture was very clear, probably clearer than 24fps but to me, the difference wasn't that large. I'm assuming the other movies will be better as there was a lot of story build up with this one which probably lead to its boring ness. It was also nice to see all the returning actors.
-
Christopher Lee is 90 years old, Ian Holm is 81 and Ian McKellen is 73 years old. That's just mindblowing. I read that neither Lee nor Holm ever went to New Zeeland because of their age, so they recorded every scene they had in a studio.
Had no idea Lee was that old....mad respect! :hefdaddy
He's also releasing a metal album. ;)
-
He's also releasing a metal album. ;)
Haha just read that, i knew his work with Rhapsody but a solo metal album.....that even crowns him the oldest gentleman in metal!! He deserves got damnit two horns: :metal :metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY
Dat video! :lol Anyway, Lee you rock!
-
I'm honestly amazed how film critics are able to judge a film after just one watch. Well, I assume it's just one viewing. So many films reveal how good or bad they truly are only after subsequent viewings.
Or maybe I'm just bad at watching movies?
No, I think you're 100% right. Sometimes the initial viewing of a movie is the best one, but that's usually not the case for three hour epics.
-
I'm honestly amazed how film critics are able to judge a film after just one watch. Well, I assume it's just one viewing. So many films reveal how good or bad they truly are only after subsequent viewings.
Or maybe I'm just bad at watching movies?
No, I think you're 100% right. Sometimes the initial viewing of a movie is the best one, but that's usually not the case for three hour epics.
Very much so. The Hobbit was so much better the second time.
-
In the theater now.... :caffeine:
-
In the theater now.... :caffeine:
Turn off your phone :police: And enjoy! ;D
-
Watched it with Jingle.son earlier today. 3D IMAX 48fps. My eyes felt like they were running a marathon there was so much to take in, and now they feel... exhausted.
I just finished reading The Hobbit, so there are some inconsistencies with the book in and of itself. I'm not familiar with the appendices or other stories PJ can pull from, but I thought the story flowed perfectly. Can't wait until the next installment... which we'll be watching in 2D.
-
In the theater now.... :caffeine:
Turn off your phone :police: And enjoy! ;D
I did, fucking cool as hell. Seems they were mixing in back story from the Silmarillion to help tie the Hobbit in with LOTR better, kinda liked what they did actually, and am interested to see how they build on a lot of this in the next movie.
-
Awesome movie.... I do regret seeing it in 3D a bit. I think I would have enjoyed it more in 2D.
-
a question for people who have seen the movie, particularly overseas. Im in mexico right now and want to go see the hobbit, and the theater right near me is showing it in english with spanish subtitles. but my question is, if there is any elfish dialogue in the movie like in lotr, will it only be shown in spanish subtitles? because then im missing potential conversations of the film.
There is, and it has spanish subtitles I don't recall it having english ones.
-
It was ok in 3D, but it kinda took away from the diolouge scenes. I'm thinking about seeing it in 2d after the holidays.
Did anyone else think Gollum was a hell of a lot darker in this one? He seemed scary as fuck to me, almost as if he had gotten a bit of therapy between the two trilogies.
-
Even in the books, he is an unequivocal villain in The Hobbit. In LOTR, he is more of a tragic figure with his two different personalities battling one another for supremacy.
-
It just seemed that the disparity between the two personalities was so much more pronounced in the Hobbit. Creepy as hell, and awesome!!!!
-
Serkis did his best work in this one. He really should be nominated for supporting actor when the Oscars come around (he won't though, but he should)
-
Even in the books, he is an unequivocal villain in The Hobbit. In LOTR, he is more of a tragic figure with his two different personalities battling one another for supremacy.
In the second edition that came out after LotR and is found in most stores, yeah, but much of the chapter’s been rewritten from the first edition published in the 30s.
In the 1930’s version (which I’ve read), Gollum is a much more weird, creepy creature than evil being. He’s not a good guy by any means, but he’s kinda humorous and way less malevolent than, for example, the three trolls. He wants to give Bilbo the ring as a present, too, except Bilbo already finds it before the game begins.
Interestingly, in LotR, Gandalf has to explain Bilbo’s dishonesty about his Gollum story to Frodo. This makes little sense to modern readers, because what Gandalf describes to Frodo is exactly what they’ve read in their Second Edition of the Hobbit… BUT when LotR first came out, it wasn’t that way. Only later did Tolkien decide he needed to heavily edit some details in The Hobbit, and those edits never carried over to LotR. So you have the correct Gollum account in all editions of the Hobbit published over the last 50 years, and in all parallel LotR publications you have the scene where Gandalf claims the Gollum account in the Hobbit is wrong, before preceding to tell Frodo the same story. I always think that’s weird, but I guess the scene hasn’t been edited out ever because it still provides reasonable background info for people who want to read the trilogy without reading The Hobbit first.
The reason I bring this up is because I think it’s useful in understanding where this Hobbit film is coming from. After writing the Hobbit, Tolkien’s Middle-earth grew tenfold and he realized where the story fit into his overall mythos and history. He wanted to do a whole rewrite of the Hobbit that included more information about how/why the events from that story were relevant to the ringbearer quest, but if IRRC he abandoned the idea and wound up just making some minor changes and some major ones in the Gollum chapter. He then also wrote the Erebor appendix which, for some reason, did not get included in LotR, but basically amounts to a long explanation by Gandalf of the quest and what was really going on.
This Hobbit film, IMO, is kinda like the book rewriteTolkien never got around to. Yeah, there’s some Jackson insertion, but overall most of the stuff readers of the book don’t recognize is either from the trilogy, or the appendices of the LotR and the lesser-known ones included in some editions of the Hobbit. Jackson is going back and placing the Hobbit into the overall quest, which is something Tolkien had wanted for it.
-
Interesting post :tup
-
I love the part where Gollum sings that "cut myself open wide, reach inside, help yourself to all I have to give and then you help yourself again, and then complain," song. Oh, wait. Wrong dude. Never mind.
-
I love the part where Gollum sings that "cut myself open wide, reach inside, help yourself to all I have to give and then you help yourself again, and then complain," song. Oh, wait. Wrong dude. Never mind.
(https://i322.photobucket.com/albums/nn431/Moriel_Alcaril/reaction/tumblr_mcjlxcaFyX1qimi3zo1_500.gif)
I choked.
-
Post.
One thing I've read is that when Tolkien decided The Hobbit was going to be part of Middle Earth and connected to Lord Of The Rings, he wanted to go back and make the changes necessary for it to make sense (e.g. the changes to Gollum's chapter), but then thought the publishers weren't going to do it so wrote that explanation in Lord Of The Rings. But then the publishers actually did go ahead and publish those changes he wanted, which is why you have them not matching up.
On that general subject (and on some of the more negative reviews about the film), while I think there's plenty of stuff people might not like about the film that is the film-makers fault, it sounds like what a lot of these reviews really should be doing is blaming Tolkien. No one ever does that of course since Tolkien is considered a legend, and some reviews even use "Jackson ruins Tolkien's vision"-type arguments when it's actually the opposite that's true. Tolkien was the one who wrote a simple children's story and then retroactively put that story in Middle Earth and cast it in a different light to how it seemed from the book (e.g. it's hard to consider the elves and dwarves portrayed in the Hobbit to be the same ones referenced in Lord Of The Rings and the rest of the Middle Earth stuff). So anyone criticising either 1. The fact that the film has more light-hearted and child-friendly parts, or 2. The fact that the film tries to take the simple story of the Hobbit and turn it into something comparable with Lord Of The Rings, should really be directing their criticism Tolkien's way, since he is the one responsible for that. Of course I think few critics have the balls to do that.
-
The film critic's job is to critique the movie itself, the finished product. Presumably there are some critics who have read the source material and know what a difficult task Jackson was facing. Some reviews are nearly 100% positive, while others point out things which we'd guessed would come up, such as pacing and inconsistent tone overall. The fault may lie in the source material, but it's still Jackson's job to make the film work, and that's what most people want to know.
I agree that it wouldn't kill them to at least point out that Jackson was painted into a corner from the start, but that would require the rare combination of having read the source material, realizing how difficult that made things for Jackson, and having both the room and the inclination to include it in the review.
-
Saw it last night and really liked it. I thought it was well-paced, and the length never got to me. No I didn't even mind how long they were in Bilbo's house. Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo, and it was fun to see all the familiar faces from Middle-Earth. Looking forward to the next two movies for sure!
Spoilers below!
I did feel like all the stuff with Azog wasn't really necessary (since it kinda throws off the history of Middle-Earth) and seems like it was something that could have been excluded and brought the movies back into two parts. I did like the stuff they added with Radhagast (seventh Doctor FTW!) and Sauron's return, along with the cameos from Saruman and Galadriel. I agree with the tonal inconsistencies a little bit, but I think a a lot of that was present in the book as well. For the most part, the stuff that was in the book (the trolls, the goblins, Gollum) mixed danger and fun pretty well.
My biggest complaint though is that I felt it wasn't really the Bilbo show like I felt it was supposed to be. Not until Gollum, anyway, but at that point it was more than halfway through the movie. I don't know what it was but for a while between the time they left and the time they get captured by Goblins, Bilbo was very much a secondary character in his own movie. It did leave us with a great emotional ending though.
For a DVD release though, I'd like to see a recut version to see what they would do with just two movies. Would they cut the stuff with the Necromancer? Change all the stuff with Azog so the lore isn't completely screwed? I don't know, but I'd like to see the original blueprint.
-
The film critic's job is to critique the movie itself, the finished product. Presumably there are some critics who have read the source material and know what a difficult task Jackson was facing. Some reviews are nearly 100% positive, while others point out things which we'd guessed would come up, such as pacing and inconsistent tone overall. The fault may lie in the source material, but it's still Jackson's job to make the film work, and that's what most people want to know.
I agree that it wouldn't kill them to at least point out that Jackson was painted into a corner from the start, but that would require the rare combination of having read the source material, realizing how difficult that made things for Jackson, and having both the room and the inclination to include it in the review.
Oh I agree - often if I've had some criticism of a film people have said to me "that's true to the books / comics" (usually comics), as though that automatically makes it good. The film should be judged on its own merit, not excused for percieved faults just because they come from the source material. I guess I just find it a bit annoying in this case because it seems that since Tolkien is sacrosanct, some people explicitly blame the film-makers for flaws that, in my opinion, actually come from what they had to work with, and invoke Tolkien's name to do it (e.g. trying to make things seem closer in tone to LOTR is not being faithful to Tolkien's original, fairy-tale-ish story, even though Tolkien was the one that originally decided they were to be part of the same world). It is to be expected I suppose, since people know "Tolkien = good" (or at least won't say otherwise unless they want to be too controversial) and hence people assume that anything that is "bad" must be the film-makers not being faithful to Tolkien (or at least they know that saying so will look good in a review).
-
Some movie adaptations just aren't done well, and it amazes me how many really do suck. Books and movies are completely different media, and for some reason, people think that a good story in one form should make a good story in the other, and that's just not true. Or maybe I should say that it should be true, but the process of writing a screenplay from a novel isn't simple.
One reason why I still read a lot of books and prefer them to movies is because of the detail. The narrator can throw in any amount of backstory or detail about what a character is thinking or what his motivations are, but in a movie, we have to see it. Or someone actually has to say it out loud without it seeming like they're just explaining it to the audience. This is incredibly difficult to do well, and IMO is responsible for most of the times people say "the book was better". Of course the book was better; it gave you so much more, it gave you the whole story.
Don't get me wrong; I still love a good movie. If someone can visually tell me a good story in two or two and a half hours, cool. But if something doesn't make sense, or is just plain stupid, I don't want to hear "well, they explain it in the book" or "but it's like that in the book". I'm sorry, but it was someone's job to recognize that problem and fix it, and they failed. A movie is not better because it stays more faithful to the book. A movie is better if it tells the story better. The audience should be able to enjoy it without having read the book, but those who have should also be able to get something out of it. A good movie satisfies both audiences, and since it's been done a number of times, it's obviously possible. There just aren't enough people doing it.
-
I haven't see The Hobbit yet (probably this weekend). But judging from the LOTR films, and from watching the hours and hours of bonus material, interviews, making-of stuff, etc., it's clear to me that Peter and Fran are VERY cognizant of how different a book and screenplay are, and they mostly made VERY good decisions in how they put their screenplays together.
-
I hope so. I haven't seen it yet either, and some people are coming away with literally no complaints at all, even when specifically asked about the pacing and tonal shifts. So it would seem to depend upon the viewer. But that's always the case, isn't it?
-
Half in the Bag's most recent review (https://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/) was of this movie. I plan on seeing it soon. I agree that it was probably a movie that didn't need to be made. I'm sure it's still a good movie though like everyone is saying.
-
I hope so. I haven't seen it yet either, and some people are coming away with literally no complaints at all, even when specifically asked about the pacing and tonal shifts. So it would seem to depend upon the viewer. But that's always the case, isn't it?
Yeah, I'd say so. One of the primary examples of what I was talking about above was the scene in the extended version of Galadriel's gifts to the followship. They took a lot of liberties in how that was portrayed. But in the special features, they explained exactly why they made the choices they made because some of the things they wanted to do, such as Galadriel giving Gimli her hairs, simply would not work properly on screen as they are done in the book. The way they chose to do it made perfect sense in the context of a screenplay and, IMO, beautifully conveyed what Tolkien was trying to get across in that scene. That's just one example of many.
-
I thought PJ did a good job trying to make the movie as much about Bilbo as possible. Hell, the Troll scene was re-done so that he was the one that saved the day.
Oh, and forgot to say this earlier, but it bugged me how shitty goblins are at fighting. While the mountain escape was filled with action, the goblins were nothing more than fodder. And the King was the biggest lame duck of them all.
-
That bothered me too. The LOTR goblins were much cooler and more frightening.
-
Yes, that and creature design in this movie was a step down.
-
Azog didn't look badass or menacing enough. He looked like a country-club Goblin now that I think about it.
-
^ He looked like he was from a video game.
-
This is the best thing ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mv7CE1XlZk
-
This is the best thing ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mv7CE1XlZk
Actually... Yes that was awesome.
-
Saw it in 2D yesterday. Really good. I still prefer physical costumes over CGI but whatever, it still looked good on Smaug and Gollum (not so much on Azog). Speaking of Azog, I don't remember him showing up until the end of the book with the Battle of Five Armies. I'm not sure I like him that much, but he serves to develop Thorin's character pretty well.
Loved the dwarf company. We didn't really get to see what the Dwarves were all about in LOTR. Jackson sold their culture and lifestyle very well.
And Thorin > Kili. :P
-
Azog isn't even in the book. He gets killed when the dwarves try to retake Moria.
His son, Bolg, leads the goblin army at the end, IIRC.
-
Azog isn't even in the book. He gets killed when the dwarves try to retake Moria.
His son, Bolg, leads the goblin army at the end, IIRC.
^ This. I just finished reading the book, and there is only one passing mention (in Bilbo's hole when all the dwarves first show up) to Azog, and it's never directly said what happened to him, just that he killed Thrain.
-
Despite the REALLY MINOR differences, the movie was fucking awesome.
-
Am I the only one bothered by the outdated thread title? lol
-
Azog isn't even in the book. He gets killed when the dwarves try to retake Moria.
His son, Bolg, leads the goblin army at the end, IIRC.
^ This. I just finished reading the book, and there is only one passing mention (in Bilbo's hole when all the dwarves first show up) to Azog, and it's never directly said what happened to him, just that he killed Thrain.
There's a lot more about Azog and Thorin, Thrain and Thror in the appendices. It's actually pretty interesting stuff IMO.
-
Am I the only one bothered by the outdated thread title? lol
^ Haha yeah this.
-
Am I the only one bothered by the outdated thread title? lol
^ Haha yeah this.
What he said.
-
Am I the only one bothered by the outdated thread title? lol
Slightly :D
The only thing I found cheesy of Azog was his Cpt. Hook prosthesis :biggrin:
-
Just saw it, not impressed at all. Actually got quite bored near the end. Why they decided to stretch it into multiple movies perplexes me since what happened can be explained in two sentences.
And yea, I have read the book. Also liked it quite a lot less than LoTR so maybe it's just that.
-
Am I the only one bothered by the outdated thread title? lol
Slightly :D
The only thing I found cheesy of Azog was his Cpt. Hook prosthesis :biggrin:
Seriously. They should've just left him with one arm
-
Just saw it, not impressed at all. Actually got quite bored near the end. Why they decided to stretch it into multiple movies perplexes me since what happened can be explained in two sentences.
And yea, I have read the book. Also liked it quite a lot less than LoTR so maybe it's just that.
Yeah, well, LotR is the better story, which is why New Line and Peter Jackson told that one first. No matter how good of a job PJ tries to do, and how hard he tries to tie it in with the rest of Tolkien's late Third Age history, it's still going to be a weaker story than LotR. I think it's still good but, yeah... you're right. That is very relevant, and an obvious issue the movie faces.
-
That's why sticking to the story is a good idea, and (carefully) adding supplemental story from the appendices is also a good idea, but adding extra shit like he did in LOTR is just asking for trouble. It needlessly complicates things, annoys purists, and rarely does anything to actually strengthen the story.
-
Also the bad guys looked lame. One was supposed to be scary but he looked fake and the other had testicles hanging from his chin.
-
the other had testicles hanging from his chin.
(https://mimg.ugo.com/201012/8/9/9/133998/cuts/men-in-black-2_480_poster.jpg)
Like that?
-
(https://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/28178835/Peter+Griffin.jpg)
Like that?
-
Also the bad guys looked lame. One was supposed to be scary but he looked fake and the other had testicles hanging from his chin.
I didn't have too much of a problem with the bad guys. It's supposed to be a kiddy fantasy.
-
Thinking about this now, I'm not sure I would particularly rate LOTR higher than The Hobbit. What's nice about The Hobbit I'd that it's concise, to the point. Let's face it, LOTR suffers from major bloat at times.
EDIT: Talking about the books here.
-
the other had testicles hanging from his chin.
(https://mimg.ugo.com/201012/8/9/9/133998/cuts/men-in-black-2_480_poster.jpg)
Like that?
Kay! It's a ballchinnian!
Not sure of the spelling, but I love that line.
-
Am I the only one bothered by the outdated thread title? lol
Kinda bugs me, too. Unfortunately, faemir doesn't seem to be around much anymore, and only the thread starter (or mods) can edit the thread title.
-
the other had testicles hanging from his chin.
[img]https://mimg.ugo.com/201012/8/9/9/133998/cuts/men-in-black-2_480_poster.jpg[/img
Like that?
Pretty similar actually.
-
Now that I have Internet again: https://hoppedonpop.com/2012/12/21/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-2012/
-
Now, was it me, or did Bilbo look noticeably older in the scene where it's Ian Holm with Frodo that (I assume) happens just before the beginning of Fellowship?
And I'm not talking his face, I mean his hair was noticeably grayer than at that point in Fellowship.
-
Now, was it me, or did Bilbo look noticeably older in the scene where it's Ian Holm with Frodo that (I assume) happens just before the beginning of Fellowship?
And I'm not talking his face, I mean his hair was noticeably grayer than at that point in Fellowship.
I noticed that too. Was a little confused.
-
Here are two reviews of the movie that I agree with. Not on everything though. This guy's reviews are also quite fun so give them a watch.
Spoiler-free review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGUk2tRKZY&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGUk2tRKZY&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=10)
Spoiler review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDzwDr_SdSg&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDzwDr_SdSg&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=7)
He does fun/and good reviews so look into his other stuff too, you might just enjoy it.
-
Here are two reviews of the movie that I agree with. Not on everything though. This guy's reviews are also quite fun so give them a watch.
Spoiler-free review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGUk2tRKZY&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGUk2tRKZY&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=10)
Spoiler review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDzwDr_SdSg&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDzwDr_SdSg&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q&index=7)
He does fun/and good reviews so look into his other stuff too, you might just enjoy it.
48fps did not comprimise my experience of the movie in the slightest way. I loved it! :-\
-
48fps did not comprimise my experience of the movie in the slightest way. I loved it! :-\
Yes, that is one point I don't agree with these reviews on. I thought it looked great too.
-
I was so scared when I saw Elijah Wood and figured he was just going to be hamfisted in, but having him so young and happy in the Hobbit was great, and will give the series an excellent contrast on the whole, as when people watch them all at once they'll notice that Frodo never regains that innocent happiness even after the ring quest, but instead appears pretty sad and broken.
-
I was so scared when I saw Elijah Wood and figured he was just going to be hamfisted in, but having him so young and happy in the Hobbit was great, and will give the series an excellent contrast on the whole, as when people watch them all at once they'll notice that Frodo never regains that innocent happiness even after the ring quest, but instead appears pretty sad and broken.
And even if you do come back, you will not be the same. /whamline
-
There's no way one can remain the same after going through that quest, it's just not possible!
-
A bit off-topic, but...
1) Yes, you're in the right movie.
2) I know you're confused but there's supposed to be a 9-minute Star Trek thing on it. They announced it quite some time ago.
3) Go back inside and continue watching. :)
-
I didn't get that Star Trek thing, not even a trailer for it!
-
Going to see this for free tonight. :metal
-
A bit off-topic, but...
1) Yes, you're in the right movie.
2) I know you're confused but there's supposed to be a 9-minute Star Trek thing on it. They announced it quite some time ago.
3) Go back inside and continue watching. :)
It's only in the Imax 3D, not the regular 3D.
-
A bit off-topic, but...
1) Yes, you're in the right movie.
2) I know you're confused but there's supposed to be a 9-minute Star Trek thing on it. They announced it quite some time ago.
3) Go back inside and continue watching. :)
It's only in the Imax 3D, not the regular 3D.
Only in the digital IMAX 3D; film-based IMAX locations couldn't fit the extra film on their platters with the movie.
-
Excuse my ignorance but what are you talking about?
-
In the IMAX 3D version of The Hobbit they show a whopping 7 minutes or so of a contiguous Star Trek Into Darkness scene as a preview.
-
It feels really long, and since it's basically mindless action + visual show-off stuff, it's not very good.
-
Before the movie?
-
Oh my god, I just wanted Part 2 to start up.
:metal :metal :metal :metal :metal/5
-
Oh my god, I just wanted Part 2 to start up.
:metal :metal :metal :metal :metal/5
:tup
-
In the IMAX 3D version of The Hobbit they show a whopping 7 minutes or so of a contiguous Star Trek Into Darkness scene as a preview.
It's closer to 9 minutes and it's all the digital IMAX 3D locations. As I mentioned, the film-based IMAX 3D locations (and I presume all the remaining locations are set up for 3D) don't have it due to no remaining room to add it to the platters the movie would run on.
Before the movie?
Yes. Hence, why several customers came out asking me "Am I in the Hobbit showing? I'm seeing a bunch of Star Trek" and when I explained, most of them said something like "That's too long for a commercial/trailer."
-
As a Trekkie I was of course excited to see it, but even I was starting to wonder whether I was in the wrong theater.
-
Saw it. AMAZING.
-
Saw it today and I didn't see anything wrong with 48 fps. I saw it in 3D and even though I still prefer 2D, this was by far the best 3D movie I've seen, it wasn't intrusive at all.
The only thing that bothered me was that Thorin and the two young dwarves don't look dwarven at all, but other than that it was pretty much flawless.
-
Saw it. AMAZING.
Thank god. Now the next one who tells me that the movie sucks will see me saying. "Bosk1 liked it. Your arguement is invalid"
-
I think they used way too much CGI this time around that didn't look as good as the last 3, but it was still a solid movie.
-
I enjoyed it better than LoTR. It has a more laid back, more personalities mood. An Amazing movie, met my imagination of some scenes.
-
I keep hearing tons of flak towards The Hobbit, so I went to go see it today so I could finally get an opinion on it. I loved it. It was great. Not perfect, and certainly not LOTR. But still fucking great. And the 48fps looked GORGEOUS.
-
People that complain about FPS are like the ones who complain about a song being a common chord progression, by a technical band. Which in turn i laugh.
-
I was just looking for a bit of conversation that I remembered from earlier. I swear some of my posts are disappearing...
-
Apparently Avatar 2 will be in 60 fps so I can't imagine how that will look. :o
But if anyone can make it look good - it's James Cameron.
-
Saw it. AMAZING.
Thank god. Now the next one who tells me that the movie sucks will see me saying. "Bosk1 liked it. Your arguement is invalid"
:lol It was truly great. I did find myself much more easily picking up on where Jackson deviated from the text than I did for LOTR, but I am not sure whether that is because the deviations were more blatant, or simply because there is less material in the Hobbit, which made the deviations more obvious. Generally, I trust Jackson's vision. He handled LOTR very well, IMO, and his deviations from the text really were justified. One in the Hobbit that bothered me a bit was how the whole troll scene unfolded. In other places where he deviated, it made sense. I didn't see any point to changing how the troll scene happened. I think that should have been left well enough alone.
Perhaps the other biggest change is more general. Bilbo is just more...deliberate once he makes up his mind about something. To me, this is a pretty big character shift from the Bilbo of the book. But the one problem I have with the book is that when Bilbo takes the Arkenstone, it has always felt so out of the blue to me. That is one thing about the book that I have never really been able to connect with. On the other hand, I can see the Bilbo of the films making that decision once we get to it.
I thought the other additions were nice and served a purpose, whether they were additions from the appendices or Jackson's own embellishments. The Pale Orc, for example, really doesn't fit with the book or appendices. But given that the battle of 5 armies will likely play such a prominent role in the third installment, his addition is a great subplot that should give an added dimension to the battle and Thorin's ultimate demise.
-
I didn't see any point to changing how the troll scene happened. I think that should have been left well enough alone.
Out of curiosity, what changes are you referring to here? After reading the book again I was really glad that they changed the troll scene. In the book there is no reason for the dwarves or Bilbo to go to the trolls (they just see a light and send Bilbo to investigate it), and after Bilbo doesn't come back the dwarves' tactic is to send one dwarf at a time, at intervals of five minutes, to go see what is wrong. Each dwarf gets captured instantly because he just walks out into the clearing, and the trolls stick a sack over his head. You'd think after the third or fourth dwarf doesn't come back they would be a bit more careful, or go together. Having the dwarves try to attack the trolls together but be forced to surrender makes them seem a lot less incompetent and mentally challenged than having them walk one by one into the clearing and get sacks put over their heads. I can't imagine seeing that play out on screen, and it'd be hard to take the dwarves seriously if that was what happened.
-
Having them use Bilbo to make the dwarves surrender just didn't feel right. And I just don't see the trolls figuring that tactic out and making it work. I think they could have modified the scene only slightly and had it work. The first two dwarves could have gone in after Bilbo and been captured quite easily. Then they could have done the one-at-a-time thing for one or two more, and then had the remaining dwarves figure out what was going on, charge in, and be overwhelmed by the superior strength of the trolls. They also removed Gandalf from using his ventriloquist act to distract and delay the trolls until dawn, and then had Gandalf splitting the rock to let the already risen sun shine on them...and this, to me, just unnecessarily removed a lot of the feeling and charm from the scene.
-
On the troll scene, I think it worked to have Bilbo be the 'savior' (vs Gandalf and the ventriloquism), as a start for Bilbo to 'win over' Thorin.
As for the pending 'thieving' of the Arkenstone, I attributed it to two things... first, Bilbo starts to take on the role of 'thief' much more literally; and second, the effects (selfishness) of the Ring start to take a hold of him.
-
As for the pending 'thieving' of the Arkenstone, I attributed it to two things... first, Bilbo starts to take on the role of 'thief' much more literally; and second, the effects (selfishness) of the Ring start to take a hold of him.
Not sure about the second. But along similar lines, I took it as the Arkenstone itself being such an obviously beautiful gem that seeing it would have compelled him to pocket it, ring or no. But my post wasn't referring to him taking it. What seemed underdeveloped to me in the book wasn't him taking it, but him giving it up. I think the way his character is being developed in the films seems like it is going to work to help better set that up.
-
Saw it. AMAZING.
Thank god. Now the next one who tells me that the movie sucks will see me saying. "Bosk1 liked it. Your arguement is invalid"
:lol It was truly great. I did find myself much more easily picking up on where Jackson deviated from the text than I did for LOTR, but I am not sure whether that is because the deviations were more blatant, or simply because there is less material in the Hobbit, which made the deviations more obvious.
Perhaps because LotR was condensing the works while The Hobbit was expanding a work? I know that's not exactly true, but I think the gist is. Easier to pick out things you don't recall than to recall things you currently aren't seeing. I read LotR after seeing the movies and picking out even the small deviations was obvious even though I had not seen the movies in a few years.
-
Yeah, that may be it as well.
-
Saw it again. I. A date, she really liked it!! I love yhis movie, ir's anazing
-
^^
Is something going on there on your date that's distracting you from your typing? ;)
-
^^
Is something going on there on your date that's distracting you from your typing? ;)
Hehrhehe, no I
Just really rink reaally late tegeh
Also I want to touch her boobers
-
WTF
-
He had a date. He wants to touch her boobers. The rest... no fucking idea, but it's not really important at this point.
-
^^
Is something going on there on your date that's distracting you from your typing? ;)
Hehrhehe, no I
Just really rink reaally late tegeh
Also I want to touch her boobers
post of the year?
-
I'm baffled :blush
-
^^
Is something going on there on your date that's distracting you from your typing? ;)
Hehrhehe, no I
Just really rink reaally late tegeh
Also I want to touch her boobers
:)
-
Also I want to touch her boobers
(https://teamnewbody.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/j-do-it-263x108.jpg)
-
One other thing I have to comment on: Jackson threw in a Wilhelm. He actually threw in a Wilhelm. And...and...I thought it was awesome.
-
One other thing I have to comment on: Jackson threw in a Wilhelm. He actually threw in a Wilhelm. And...and...I thought it was awesome.
I rewatched The Two Towers today and was surprised to learn that there is one there as well. In both cases, it kinda threw me out of the moment so I'm not sure I liked that they're there. :lol
-
One other thing I have to comment on: Jackson threw in a Wilhelm. He actually threw in a Wilhelm. And...and...I thought it was awesome.
???
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream
-
the expansion of the hobbit bothered me somewhat. taking obscure references to dwarven battles and fashioning a one armed Orc to hunt them down throughout the movie is just goofy. I'm looking forward to Liv Tyler's character pleading to Smaug to not eat her in elvish in the next movie. After the kidnapping at the green dragon inn who can blame her.
What? You don't remember that part?
Ask Tom Bombadil he remembers.
Merry ol' Tom.
-
hey dol
merry dol
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream
Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbYsoEasio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbYsoEasio)
-
The Wilhelm scream instantly caught my attention as 'not belonging there' because it's so recognisable. I didn't like it.
-
The Wilhelm scream also isn't a sound one would think those goblins would make. Which also threw me off a little.
-
Pretty sure the Wilhelm scream is a joke among the movie world. I also thought it was odd that a goblin would scream like that.
-
Saw it again, this time in HFR 3D. Compared to regular version....it was better. The HFR took the blurriness out of the movie, and made it ultra crisp. This was especially noticeable in combat scenes. You could really make out what was going on. For the next two movies, I'll probably bypass seeing the 24 fps versions altogether.
-
One other thing I have to comment on: Jackson threw in a Wilhelm. He actually threw in a Wilhelm. And...and...I thought it was awesome.
I rewatched The Two Towers today and was surprised to learn that there is one there as well. In both cases, it kinda threw me out of the moment so I'm not sure I liked that they're there. :lol
I watched the trilogy a few weeks ago; if I remember correctly it seems like I heard it in all three.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PxALy22utc
-
Peter Jackson threw it in as a goof, like he did in The Two Towers. It fits right in there with him belching in FotR.
-
It's definitely overused now, but I wasn't expecting it in the Hobbit, and laughed out loud when it was used.
-
The blu ray is out but does anyone know if there will be an extended release like lord of the rings.
-
The blu ray is out but does anyone know if there will be an extended release like lord of the rings.
Yes....there's not a date set yet, but the extended version will be out later this year and have an extra 25 minutes. (I'm assuming it will be out for the holidays)
-
Yes....there's not a date set yet, but the extended version will be out later this year and have an extra 25 minutes. (I'm assuming it will be out for the holidays)
That is cool, I have not heard about that. Do you have a source?
-
I'll be getting it when it's out, unless it overlaps too much with the release of the Luna Park DVD...
-
Yes....there's not a date set yet, but the extended version will be out later this year and have an extra 25 minutes. (I'm assuming it will be out for the holidays)
That is cool, I have not heard about that. Do you have a source?
I saw it on wiki...but there was a link to a source article there.
Here it is...
https://www.hypable.com/2012/12/08/hobbit-unexpected-journey-extended-edition-run-time/
-
I saw it on wiki...but there was a link to a source article there.
Here it is...
https://www.hypable.com/2012/12/08/hobbit-unexpected-journey-extended-edition-run-time/
That's awesome, thanks!
-
More like awful. I hate that they purposefully withhold the more complete package. They're banking on the fact that people will buy both, instead of having both options available, guaranteeing a single purchase. I want it on Blu-Ray, but now I'm going to have to wait even longer to get the definitive version.
-
The theatrical version is probably the definitive version. It's already bloated, so I don't see why adding stuff to it will make it better.
-
Yeah, I tend to think those scenes are deleted for a reason, and the theatrical version is the more refined version. Like a final draft, y'know.
-
I'll actually wait with buying until the final film is released, and there'll be a nice boxset. Maybe I'll buy the 3D version, just to check out my new 3D tv, but I'll wait for that to become cheaper.
If you want to buy it all, you'll have to buy the first editions first, the extended editions after that, and I'll betcha that they'll wait with the boxset till way after the third film is released. And I won't even be surprised if there'll be a 'normal deluxe boxset' first, and then a 'definitive extended deluxe boxset' afterwards. And then maybe even a LOTR/Hobbit 3D Blu Ray total definitive extended superdeluxe boxset after that.
-
I love the extended editions. In the case of the Hobbit, I actually wished they had cut a bit more from the theatrical version. It was a bit long and had some stuff that could have been cut to make the movie a bit better paced but then include it in the extended editions. If to much is included in the theatrical version it just feels drawn out and long.
I am very much looking forward to the exteded movie. I won't buy the individual movies but will wait to buy the box with all three Hobbit movies.
-
Yeah, I tend to think those scenes are deleted for a reason, and the theatrical version is the more refined version. Like a final draft, y'know.
That certainly was NOT the case with the LOTR Extended Editions.
-
More like awful. I hate that they purposefully withhold the more complete package. They're banking on the fact that people will buy both, instead of having both options available, guaranteeing a single purchase. I want it on Blu-Ray, but now I'm going to have to wait even longer to get the definitive version.
The general public is not going to sit for a four-hour movie, so the theatrical versions are necessary and still sell the most copies. But hardcore fans want a deluxe edition and are willing to pay for one, so they make them.
But it's a simple fact of logistics that the theatrical releases will be ready for the home video market first. They're already finished and ready for transfer. The extended editions will take longer. It would make even less sense to hold back the theatrical editions while they finish preparing the deluxe editions.
Basically, you'll get them when they're done, and complaining about it just makes you look like a whiner. You want more, but don't want to wait any longer than people who are fine with less. It's to everyone's advantage to get each product out on the market as quickly as possible, and no one's forcing you to double dip.
-
Yeah, I tend to think those scenes are deleted for a reason, and the theatrical version is the more refined version. Like a final draft, y'know.
That certainly was NOT the case with the LOTR Extended Editions.
No, but those movies were rather condensed stories even with the extended versions . If Hobbit is already bloat, adding isn't going to change that.
-
The theatrical versions are good for the average movie goer and better for the movie in general, but the extended versions are good for readers of the books so its really a win win for everyone. I can't see how anyone can complain.
-
Agreed, since they're being open about releasing an extended version later on. Don't really know why anyone would complain.
-
The theatrical versions are good for the average movie goer and better for the movie in general, but the extended versions are good for readers of the books so its really a win win for everyone. I can't see how anyone can complain.
And even fans of just the movies, I have never even thought about ever reading a Tolkien book and I love the extended editions.
-
The theatrical version is probably the definitive version.
This, even with the LOTR films. Even Jackson has said this. The extended versions are for film/Tolkein geeks, but do not represent what are, to him, the definitive versions.
-
He can say that, but I saw the movies before reading the books and thought the extended cuts were far superior. There was something that worked with them that did not require being a Tolkien fan, possibly things just made more sense.
-
I like the extended TTT and ROTK more than the theatrical. For FOTR, I lean towards the original version since I think it's close to perfect already, but the extended has some nice extra material.
But the Hobbit is different, since it's a relatively short book broken into a trilogy of lengthy movies. A lot of the stuff in the extended edition will probably be things that weren't in the book, since the book is already well covered in the theatrical version. Of course, I'll still buy Hobbit extended editions, but I'm thinking a more concise movie is better overall and truer to the source material.
-
So, when do you expect we'll see the trailer for part II?
-
In yesterday's sneak peek thing, PJ just said Summer.
-
The general public is not going to sit for a four-hour movie, so the theatrical versions are necessary and still sell the most copies.
Not only that, but exhibitors and studios would hate it. A 4-hour movie will have less showings than a 3-hour movie and therefore less grosses for the studios and less concession money for the exhibitor.
On the other hand, many theaters did alright playing the extended versions but those were special one-showing events.
-
I just caught a Wilhelm in Return as well when Legolas is on the Oliphant
-
Evangeline Lilly in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug:
(https://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/06/03/FL-The-Hobbit-Desolation-of-Smaug_1224x760.jpg)
-
As someone who recently started archery, it bothers me when they put the arrow on the wrong side of the bow.
Legolas got it right.
(https://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/First-Look-at-Legolas-in-The-Hobbit.jpg)
-
:lol nice, that's a tiny mistake, but a stupid one, especially on some sort of promo pic.
-
I have a feeling the EW photographer gave her instructions regarding the pose and proper form didn't really matter to him/her. Look at the placement of the feathers on Legolas's nose. It's placed there for consistency. Also, with the arrow being in that position, it's easier to aim. Like looking down the barrel of a rifle. Lily's position is like firing from the hip in that sense.
-
First of all...
Legolas: long bow, which I think is most similar to your modern compound draw.
Lily: Recurve bow, and you can already see she's copying (I think) a Persian pull back with the two fingers. Her form is going to be different than what Legolas had.
Older bow styles, and even some modern ones, rest the arrow on the side opposite the palm. Look at the Yumi style, for instance. Just because your modern form has a rules or standards hardly means it always applied. Her lower pull back past the chin is hardly unusual, too. Just because you argue one way is better doesn't mean it was always practiced or argued better. Also, seeing as she hasn't fired, you could say her position is moving into place if you don't like the alignment. Maybe she's still bringing the back up with the draw, recurve's pull behind the head.
-
The voice of reason, and logic.
-
First of all...
Legolas: long bow, which I think is most similar to your modern compound draw.
Lily: Recurve bow, and you can already see she's copying (I think) a Persian pull back with the two fingers. Her form is going to be different than what Legolas had.
Older bow styles, and even some modern ones, rest the arrow on the side opposite the palm. Look at the Yumi style, for instance. Just because your modern form has a rules or standards hardly means it always applied. Her lower pull back past the chin is hardly unusual, too. Just because you argue one way is better doesn't mean it was always practiced or argued better. Also, seeing as she hasn't fired, you could say her position is moving into place if you don't like the alignment. Maybe she's still bringing the back up with the draw, recurve's pull behind the head.
Dude, I was just making a comment based on the little I know. :lol
Had I known it would been ripped to shreds and set the stage for a full-blown debate I wouldn't have bothered. :blush
-
I just have difficulty not going after something I see as unfair criticism. :lol
-
If you only know a little about something, you always run the risk, online, of running smack into someone who knows more than you. It probably should be a law. :lol
-
The Desolation of Smaug trailer is up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fnaojlfdUbs
-
:caffeine:
But kinda early, isn't it?
-
I just went from 6 to 12. That trailer gave me goosebumps.
-
looks good!
-
I was on the edge of my seat waiting for Benedict Cumberbatch's voice to unfurl from Smaugs lips...but im glad they didn't, although im not appose to hearing it now. Looking good! :tup
-
Looks like they will be stuffing in a brand new elven subplot starring Legolas and that other lady we could see with him.
Well, what a way to conclude the year this will be!
-
:caffeine:
But kinda early, isn't it?
I guess the material is done, maybe even for the final film, but they just wait for cashmoneydollarbillion-purposes.
But yeah, that looks totally awesome!
-
Boner engage. So much potential here.
-J
-
Lee Pace's voice. Oh my yes.
-
I saw that you posted, and immediately came to the thread hoping you responded simply by quoting J's post. Which would have been epic. Anyway...
-
Looks like they will be stuffing in a brand new elven subplot starring Legolas and that other lady we could see with him.
Well, when they decided to blow it up into three movies, they had to add some stuff to justify it, right? So let's add a few characters that aren't even in the book.
We've gone from rumors of a Legolas cameo, to Legolas having a small role (which is still not completely ridiculous, as his presence doesn't directly contradict anything in the book) to adding a female elf as well, complete with a name and her own story. Gotta up the babe factor or something, I guess, just as they did with Arwen.
-
I think Legolas had a bit of a role in the appendices for this story
-
I saw that you posted, and immediately came to the thread hoping you responded simply by quoting J's post. Which would have been epic. Anyway...
I'm sorry to have failed you :'(
-
Looks like they will be stuffing in a brand new elven subplot starring Legolas and that other lady we could see with him.
Well, when they decided to blow it up into three movies, they had to add some stuff to justify it, right? So let's add a few characters that aren't even in the book.
We've gone from rumors of a Legolas cameo, to Legolas having a small role (which is still not completely ridiculous, as his presence doesn't directly contradict anything in the book) to adding a female elf as well, complete with a name and her own story. Gotta up the babe factor or something, I guess, just as they did with Arwen.
I'm perfectly OK with that. I trust Peter Jackson with adding whatever he feels like could be added without harming the plot or the LOTR universe. The guy knows his shit, and has all my trust when handling the Tolkienverse :D
-
Looks like they will be stuffing in a brand new elven subplot starring Legolas and that other lady we could see with him.
Well, when they decided to blow it up into three movies, they had to add some stuff to justify it, right? So let's add a few characters that aren't even in the book.
We've gone from rumors of a Legolas cameo, to Legolas having a small role (which is still not completely ridiculous, as his presence doesn't directly contradict anything in the book) to adding a female elf as well, complete with a name and her own story. Gotta up the babe factor or something, I guess, just as they did with Arwen.
I'm perfectly OK with that. I trust Peter Jackson with adding whatever he feels like could be added without harming the plot or the LOTR universe. The guy knows his shit, and has all my trust when handling the Tolkienverse :D
:iagree:
-
I think Legolas had a bit of a role in the appendices for this story
Indeed.
And yeah I'm ok with them adding or boosting the female characters in these films, as they did with LOTR. Stops them being quite such sausagefests.
-
Also worth mentioning that in the book the dwarves get captured and imprisoned by the elves, but there are literally almost no elf characters other than the king. Unless all elves in the film were going to have basically no lines and be played by extras, the filmmakers had to add elf characters.
-
That's true, and some of the early rumours had Legolas as one of those "extra elves". It would've been cool to see him again, and sure, give him a few lines. But the elves do not figure into this story very much at all. The trailer probably plays up his role in a disproportionate way. At least I hope that's the case.
With The Lord of the Rings, I didn't have an issue with the added material out of some purist sense. It wasn't automatically "bad" just because it wasn't in the books. My problem was that lots of things were cut out of the books -- some because they wouldn't translate well, others strictly out of choice by PJ and company -- and if you're cutting all that, why add stuff? The whole deal with Arwen was obviously just to up the babe factor. A minor character became part of a ridiculous trumped-up love story. Same with Galadriel, and she wasn't even hot.
With The Hobbit, it's basically the opposite problem. We now have three movies to fill out, so they're adding shit left and right. I supported the idea of making it two movies and digging more into the details because I like The Hobbit. I cautiously supported the idea of expanding it to three movies because PJ said that there would be extra stuff to help bridge the two trilogies. So he pulls one character out of the appendix and another out of his ass? I think PJ has done a great job, in general, bringing all of this to the screen, but I guess I don't have unlimited faith in his judgement the way some of you guys do, and he doesn't just get carte blanche from me.
-
Also worth mentioning that in the book the dwarves get captured and imprisoned by the elves, but there are literally almost no elf characters other than the king. Unless all elves in the film were going to have basically no lines and be played by extras, the filmmakers had to add elf characters.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. But, yeah, reasons like that are why books have to be modified to be transformed into decent screenplays.
That's true, and some of the early rumours had Legolas as one of those "extra elves". It would've been cool to see him again, and sure, give him a few lines. But the elves do not figure into this story very much at all. The trailer probably plays up his role in a disproportionate way. At least I hope that's the case.
I'm not so sure. I hope you are right, but I got a bit nervous when I saw elves hopping around on tree branches like flying monkeys while chasing the barrels downstream and firing off arrows. That didn't sit right with me. Hopefully, it isn't as overdone as it looks and ends up working in the context of the film.
So he pulls one character out of the appendix and another out of his ass?
Well, to be fair, those two organs are only separated by a few feet of intestine. So, essentially, he pulled both of them out of basically the same place.
Wait...
-
:lol Yeah, I actually noticed the physical proximity between appendix and ass when I wrote that, decided to just go with it.
-
Same with Galadriel, and she wasn't even hot.
I disagree.
-
Trailer looks great. Looks like this will be better than the first movie. I did not think they would reveal Smaug in the trailers. I thought we'd have to wait to see him in the actual movie, so even if Smaug looks really cool I'm a bit disappointed that they spoiled his look this early.
Also, Luke Evans :heart
-
Same with Galadriel, and she wasn't even hot.
I disagree.
Obviously it comes down to personal taste, but Galadriel was supposed to be the absolutely epitome of beauty. The ugliest elf maiden is still an eleven on any human scale, and Galadriel is an eleven on the elven scale. You see her, you immediately would do anything she asks, you would kill or die for her. I didn't even think she was "kinda pretty".
(https://thainsbook.net/images/galadriel.jpg)
-
Yet again, I'm going to agree with Orb here.
-
I don't mind tham stretching it out, because I know it's going to be good. In Jackson I trust
-
Same with Galadriel, and she wasn't even hot.
I disagree.
Obviously it comes down to personal taste, but Galadriel was supposed to be the absolutely epitome of beauty. The ugliest elf maiden is still an eleven on any human scale, and Galadriel is an eleven on the elven scale. You see her, you immediately would do anything she asks, you would kill or die for her. I didn't even think she was "kinda pretty".
(https://thainsbook.net/images/galadriel.jpg)
I couldn't disagree more. I love the cast choice here: Cate Blanchett is one of the most beautiful people I've ever seen. And her charisma is just alien and out of this world. The perfect choice: not a sexy model lookalike but a beautiful, intimidating woman. :heart
-
I'm with Lynxo.
-
I'm with Lynxo.
-
Same with Galadriel, and she wasn't even hot.
I disagree.
Obviously it comes down to personal taste, but Galadriel was supposed to be the absolutely epitome of beauty. The ugliest elf maiden is still an eleven on any human scale, and Galadriel is an eleven on the elven scale. You see her, you immediately would do anything she asks, you would kill or die for her. I didn't even think she was "kinda pretty".
(https://thainsbook.net/images/galadriel.jpg)
To each their own.
You seem really upset that PJ is adding and leaving stuff out of the movies from the book. Did you hate Jurassic Park?
-
I couldn't agree more on the topic of Galadriel looking out of place. I think she looks very odd. Nothing more to it; I don't find her ugly, but I certainly don't find her to be sexy or beautiful by my own terms. I mean, she has features that are beautiful, but something about her physic is very odd and out of place to me. Definitely wouldn't see her and be blown away by her beauty and blah blah blah.
Then again I haven't read the books or know much of the lore so I didn't think anything of it when watching, but knowing that...yeah, kind of an odd choice. But I'd prefer her over some plastic-looking, generic busty blonde. Any day. I just wouldn't consider that actress to embody that character synopsis.
-
I'm entirely on Linko's party. Cate has this almost tangible aura of power, of nobility about her that she perfectly fits the role of the "mightiest among the Children of Ilùvatar". The casting of Galadriel couldn't have been better for me.
-
The whole deal with Arwen was obviously just to up the babe factor. A minor character became part of a ridiculous trumped-up love story.
Arwen is supposed to be the love of Aragorn's life. So in love that she gives up her immortality for him. Yet, IIRC, in the books she had zero lines of dialogue. She's a trophy, not a character. Jackson rightly tried to fix that in the movies and make her an actual person.
-
I've got no problems with any additions PJ has made.
-
Had Jackson not given the role of what Glorfindel did in the plot of Fellowship to Arwen, the first-and ONLY-female character to have a speaking part would have been Galadriel. Had Galadriel not been shown at Rivendell in the first Hobbit movie, there would have been NO female parts in it. For all the awesome Eowyn was in the books, she and Galadriel are it for major female characters in LotR. The Hobbit has none in the book. Changes definitely had to be made.
As for the beauty of the characters versus the beauty of the actresses playing them...yeah, no human can be as beautiful as Galadriel and Arwen were supposed to be. :lol Though I had no problem with the casting at all.
-
I'm with Tio on the topic of Blanchett. Her beauty has kind of an odd quality about it. I certainly recognize she has a beauty about her, I just don't find her attractive or appealing to the eyes. It's a very odd paradox.
-
The whole deal with Arwen was obviously just to up the babe factor. A minor character became part of a ridiculous trumped-up love story.
Arwen is supposed to be the love of Aragorn's life. So in love that she gives up her immortality for him. Yet, IIRC, in the books she had zero lines of dialogue. She's a trophy, not a character. Jackson rightly tried to fix that in the movies and make her an actual person.
She had lines in the end of the book.
The "problem" with Aragorn's and Arwen's love story is that all the majorly exciting events for them unfolded way before the events in the books took place, which is shown in the appendix. The only thing that happened in Rivendell before the Fellowship departed is that she was aware he is going to a quest that would finally make him King, and make her his wife, so there was probably some big goodbye that Tolkien didn't show in the book. Throughout the books, there are allusions to her and hints he's thinking of her all the time, but that was probably not enough for the cinematic appeal of one of the rare love stories in the film, so they invented a bunch of shit that almost spoiled the characters for me, like Elrond forcing her to leave, or her mysterious illness and being tied to the Ring which makes no fucking sense.
Otherwise, their relationship as shown in the books (and there was really not much to show seeing how they were in the same place just twice in the books, which Jackson tried to "resolve" by adding that scene where she haunts him in his dreams - which was really beautiful and touching and Liv Tyler wore that seethrough dress wlkfhqlqlg - but that scene also doesn't make any sense since Elves didn't have any magical powers in relation to dreams afaik) is perfectly spot-on for two people who have been engaged for a long time, and when you add their story from the appendix into the mix? Whoa. That scene when Aragorn dies? Holy fucking shit.
If they wanted some romance that was actually exciting but relatively faithful to the book, they could have given a few more minutes to Faramir and Eowyn. What we have in the books is a few weeks of healing, psychotherapy, change of heart, wonderful gender and character dynamics, witty flirting, touching anti-war sentiments, and a completely cinematic kiss at sunrise while people in the hospital are cheering for them, and what did the movie show? Them talking for a few minutes and holding hands. That's all.
Also Cate is a majestic fucking creature. She's not supposed to look "sexy" or approachable or like your regular American beauty. She's supposed to look a little alien. She's older than Middle Earth as you see it in the movie. The casting is perfect.
-
You seem really upset that PJ is adding and leaving stuff out of the movies from the book. Did you hate Jurassic Park?
I never read the book, so I had no problem with the movie. It entertained on the level it was meant to. I see what you're getting at, and while I try not to think of myself as a purist, objecting to changes simply because they deviate from the source material, I do feel that as a viewer that I at least have the right to question them. And since most of them didn't work for me, it basically results only in disappointment.
I agree that Cate Blanchett, and her portrayal of Galadriel, has a different sort of look to her. As I said, it does come down to personal taste. She does have a certain grace about her, and she's a fine actress. PJ emphasized the "exotic and mysterious and slightly alien" look, and if you don't find her particularly attractive to begin with, then you're left with a kinda weird-looking character, and people just say "well, she's elven and older than the world itself; what do you expect?" Peter obviously felt that this was the epitome of beauty. That doesn't quite work for me, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way, so again, personal preference.
-
Also Cate is a majestic fucking creature. She's not supposed to look "sexy" or approachable or like your regular American beauty. She's supposed to look a little alien. She's older than Middle Earth as you see it in the movie. The casting is perfect.
I think this pretty much nails how I feel about it.
-
That doesn't quite work for me, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way, so again, personal preference.
Fair enough.
I agree with you on not wanting to be a purist, but basically I, too, was left with no other choice, since in the books there's so many things that were properly cinematic and that could be left in instead of some of the solutions that were presented in the movies. Even better, there were solutions that would not include compromising the very nature of some characters, like Faramir's desire for the ring, or Frodo pushing Gollum into the fire. But then again, this is an old argument, I just hope there'll be nothing like that in The Hobbit.
-
Exactly. Change things if you have to, to make things work better for the medium, but don't just change things for the sake of change.
And apparently I'm in the minority, but as much as I love the fairer sex, I don't see adding females to the cast, or increasing the roles of existing female characters, as a valid reason. "This would work better with a love story" or "This would work better with more babes in it" are stupid reasons to change things.
-
In terms of the Hobbit, I'm OK with significant changes / additions because the way I see it, this is the adaptation of The Hobbit storyline into the world of Lord Of The Rings - something which was done retroactively and with Appendices etc. but never with the actual story. So other than the information in the appendices, Peter Jackson et al. have got to come up with some stuff of their own to make it believable that these are the same people and the same world that featured in Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying I blindly trust that anything they do will be good, but I'm not going to doubt it just because it's a change or addition.
In fact, I'm looking forward to the second film more to see the changes and additions that weren't in the book, including Gandalf's story and the story with the elves. I think the conflict with the elves will be more interesting in the book, where they are rather mysterious and whimsical creatues that dance in the forest and disappear magically as soon as the dwarves approach them. The imprisonment of the dwarves, along with the decision to go to Erebor and the conflict with the dwarves before the final battle (which I think will be in the third film) should be more interesting now that there is this pre-existing distates between Thorin and the elves of Mirkwood. I reckon (and hope) the trailer will be exaggerating the role of Legolas a little, but I think there's room for a bit of story with the elves without straying too far from the original storyline of the Hobbit.
-
Have not really read through recent discussions, but I thought Cate Blanchett was a wonderful choice. There are gals that are so hot you want to throw down on the ground and grunge-f*ck until they are unconscious. Galadriel isn't that type of women.
Liv Tyler should not ever be cast in any movie or associated with the word 'beautiful' or any synonymous words whatsoever.
-
I was expecting Liv to be a complete and total disaster. But she can act much better than I would have believed. I thought her performance was surprisingly good.
-
I have a question for all of you regarding 3D and the new 48fps technology. For the record,I did not see the Hobbit in either format. I have nothing against 3D, but I mildly agree with the criticisms that it makes the movie "darker" and a bit "more blurry"...I have never seen anything in 48fps.
When 3D got big (right after Avatar) many people were talking about the technology of 3D and what made the films blurry...I surmised that this was because everything gets bogged down because of watching 1 frame for each eye where there would normally be two...so when the speed of the action steps up, the eyes can't keep up. Something to that effect anyway.
It would seem to me that the 48fps technology might be a step towards at least improving this issue? Has that been the case?
-
I saw it in 48fps 3D and I have no complaints.
-
I saw it in 48fps 3D and I have no complaints.
-
I try not to think of myself as a purist, objecting to changes simply because they deviate from the source material, I do feel that as a viewer that I at least have the right to question them.
Orbert, I get this completely, except for this:
I never read the book
I'm curious why you feel you have the right to question changes to the text if you haven't actually read the text? (As if it's an actual "right" or something you wouldn't have anyway - just a question based on the way you worded it yourself, nothing but the best intentions here buddy :tup)
-
That was in response to a completely different question. Zook asked how I felt about Jurassic Park. I had no problem with Jurassic Park, since I never read the book.
I've read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings four or five times each.
-
The whole deal with Arwen was obviously just to up the babe factor. A minor character became part of a ridiculous trumped-up love story.
Arwen is supposed to be the love of Aragorn's life. So in love that she gives up her immortality for him. Yet, IIRC, in the books she had zero lines of dialogue. She's a trophy, not a character. Jackson rightly tried to fix that in the movies and make her an actual person.
Er, no. Well, OK, yes, but that's because her and Aragorn's story really couldn't be told in LotR, as it spanned a much longer period of time and would have then the story off-track. Tolkien just didn't know how to incorporate those details. If you want to read that story, it IS in the Appendices, and it's pretty heartwrenching, since it goes places PJ doesn't go (Aragorn's death, post-Aragorn life for Arwen, etc.).
-
The whole deal with Arwen was obviously just to up the babe factor. A minor character became part of a ridiculous trumped-up love story.
Arwen is supposed to be the love of Aragorn's life. So in love that she gives up her immortality for him. Yet, IIRC, in the books she had zero lines of dialogue. She's a trophy, not a character. Jackson rightly tried to fix that in the movies and make her an actual person.
Er, no. Well, OK, yes, but that's because her and Aragorn's story really couldn't be told in LotR, as it spanned a much longer period of time and would have then the story off-track. Tolkien just didn't know how to incorporate those details. If you want to read that story, it IS in the Appendices, and it's pretty heartwrenching, since it goes places PJ doesn't go (Aragorn's death, post-Aragorn life for Arwen, etc.).
Thanks, but I found the books to be a boring, painful slog, so I won't be subjecting myself to the appendices.
-
That was in response to a completely different question. Zook asked how I felt about Jurassic Park. I had no problem with Jurassic Park, since I never read the book.
I've read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings four or five times each.
Ah, well, that makes more sense. :)
-
New trailer for The Desolation of Smaug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ)
The Bad:
Is that elf-chick Legolas' girlsfriend now? Because I seemed to recall the makers promesing us she wouldn't be his girlfriend
The Good:
Luke Evans, that dude is awesome.
Oh my god, the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch is so epic.
The referenses to Sauron is probably the best thing about the trailer, it feels like that's the thing that really matters. Sure the dwarves and Bilbo is on their quest and it's all cool. But the real danger for the world is still the return of Sauron and I love when things like that are illustrated. The best parts of the first Hobbit movie is when they talk about Sauron.
-
The referenses to Sauron is probably the best thing about the trailer, it feels like that's the thing that really matters. Sure the dwarves and Bilbo is on their quest and it's all cool. But the real danger for the world is still the return of Sauron and I love when things like that are illustrated. The best parts of the first Hobbit movie is when they talk about Sauron.
I totally agree on this. The council meeting in Rivendale saved the movie from being a complete disappointment for me.
This trailer looks good, though I agree with your concerns on the elf chick. And, like the first, I don't like the visuals that I've seen. Too much CGI...
There's a reason the orcs in the LOTR looked so great, and the Hobbit was a complete departure from that technique. It's too polished, and its believability suffers as a result. There's no grit.
-
New trailer for The Desolation of Smaug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ)
The Bad:
Is that elf-chick Legolas' girlsfriend now? Because I seemed to recall the makers promesing us she wouldn't be his girlfriend
The Good:
Luke Evans, that dude is awesome.
Oh my god, the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch is so epic.
The referenses to Sauron is probably the best thing about the trailer, it feels like that's the thing that really matters. Sure the dwarves and Bilbo is on their quest and it's all cool. But the real danger for the world is still the return of Sauron and I love when things like that are illustrated. The best parts of the first Hobbit movie is when they talk about Sauron.
I was just watching the Top Gear episode with him in it, but he does the voice of Smaug right? That's awesome!
And yeah, I believe the story of the Hobbit is mostly being dealt with in this movie, so the third movie will be all about the years between the Hobbit and LOTR.
-
I'm pretty sure the main pieces of this movie will be dealing with Smaug and maybe the battle with the Necromancer at Dol Guldur, and then the third movie ending with the battle of five armies and Bilbo's return to the Shire.
-
That's my believe too
-
and then the third movie ending with the battle of five armies and Bilbo's return to the Shire.
That's fine, as long as there aren't half a dozen false endings spread over the last hour or so via slow-motion montages with lush, heart-wrenching music.
-
and then the third movie ending with the battle of five armies and Bilbo's return to the Shire.
That's fine, as long as there aren't half a dozen false endings spread over the last hour or so via slow-motion montages with lush, heart-wrenching music.
As I was reading that, I thought I was somehow transported to a Transatlantic thread reading about The Whirlwind.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the voice of Smaug sounds exactly like Gravemind from Halo 2? Either way it seemed like a pretty cool trailer. I excepted a long time ago that it will stray from the book quite a bit. Now I simply try to judge it as a movie, not as how it relates to the book.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the voice of Smaug sounds exactly like Gravemind from Halo 2? Either way it seemed like a pretty cool trailer. I excepted a long time ago that it will stray from the book quite a bit. Now I simply try to judge it as a movie, not as how it relates to the book.
Since I saw the Lord of the Rings I've wanted to read the book, but never started, and then when the movie was announced I simply didn't want to. If I now start to read the book I won't be able to enjoy the three movies as much as I guess I will.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the voice of Smaug sounds exactly like Gravemind from Halo 2? Either way it seemed like a pretty cool trailer. I excepted a long time ago that it will stray from the book quite a bit. Now I simply try to judge it as a movie, not as how it relates to the book.
Were you disappointed about being left out of the LOTR movie trilogy? ;)
-
Am I the only one who thinks the voice of Smaug sounds exactly like Gravemind from Halo 2? Either way it seemed like a pretty cool trailer. I excepted a long time ago that it will stray from the book quite a bit. Now I simply try to judge it as a movie, not as how it relates to the book.
Since I saw the Lord of the Rings I've wanted to read the book, but never started, and then when the movie was announced I simply didn't want to. If I now start to read the book I won't be able to enjoy the three movies as much as I guess I will.
I'm going to go there and say you're not missing much.
I'm a mild reader of scifi/fantasy, and I can echo what I've heard many a fan/reader bigger than I state: JRR Tolkien's talent was in creating a world. He will always be THE GUY who pretty much made the template for modern day fantasy. He broke the mold and created legend....and for that, he should always be remembered.
But the guy couldn't write to save his freakin life. LOTR, as a book, really doesn't flow very well. The counsel of Elrond goes on for an eternity...there are LONG bouts of exposition (necessary, but instead of moving the story along and peppering the exposition throughout, he has everyone sit at a table and give you nothing but exposition for a huge chunk of the book with nothing else happening). Rather than having parallel adventures when main characters are split up, you simply get EVERYTHING that happened to group 1 a to z in the first half....then the second half of the book is everything that happened to group 2 a to z along the same timeline.
There are those people who think that the books are absolutely brilliant. And in many ways they are. The STORY is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) of our modern era... No one built a world and set up the pieces like Tolkien. But I know many MANY Tolkien fans who are quick to point out glaring faults in the actual books. Their love is for the world, the characters, the scope and the depth of it all. It's pretty much the first EPIC FANTASY since The Iliad.
I mean, the guy INVENTED A LANGUAGE for goodness sake.
-
Peter Jackson is to Tolkien what Irvin Kershner was to George Lucas.
Tolkien (like Lucas) is a FANTASTIC "idea man"...one of the most talented guys out there at creating a story....but like Lucas, he needed someone with a greater talent for actually TELLING THE STORY. That is where Jackson comes in...
-
Man, I love the books, I'd say read them.
-
Rather than having parallel adventures when main characters are split up, you simply get EVERYTHING that happened to group 1 a to z in the first half....then the second half of the book is everything that happened to group 2 a to z along the same timeline.
Excellent post, and with regards to the above, that made me think of Feast for Crows (George RR Martin). Books 1-3 were constructed and crafted masterfully. Then book 4 grinds everything to a halt by splitting up the narratives.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the voice of Smaug sounds exactly like Gravemind from Halo 2? Either way it seemed like a pretty cool trailer. I excepted a long time ago that it will stray from the book quite a bit. Now I simply try to judge it as a movie, not as how it relates to the book.
Since I saw the Lord of the Rings I've wanted to read the book, but never started, and then when the movie was announced I simply didn't want to. If I now start to read the book I won't be able to enjoy the three movies as much as I guess I will.
I'm going to go there and say you're not missing much.
I'm a mild reader of scifi/fantasy, and I can echo what I've heard many a fan/reader bigger than I state: JRR Tolkien's talent was in creating a world. He will always be THE GUY who pretty much made the template for modern day fantasy. He broke the mold and created legend....and for that, he should always be remembered.
But the guy couldn't write to save his freakin life. LOTR, as a book, really doesn't flow very well. The counsel of Elrond goes on for an eternity...there are LONG bouts of exposition (necessary, but instead of moving the story along and peppering the exposition throughout, he has everyone sit at a table and give you nothing but exposition for a huge chunk of the book with nothing else happening). Rather than having parallel adventures when main characters are split up, you simply get EVERYTHING that happened to group 1 a to z in the first half....then the second half of the book is everything that happened to group 2 a to z along the same timeline.
There are those people who think that the books are absolutely brilliant. And in many ways they are. The STORY is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) of our modern era... No one built a world and set up the pieces like Tolkien. But I know many MANY Tolkien fans who are quick to point out glaring faults in the actual books. Their love is for the world, the characters, the scope and the depth of it all. It's pretty much the first EPIC FANTASY since The Iliad.
I mean, the guy INVENTED A LANGUAGE for goodness sake.
Agreed. The depth in which he created each character, town, language is unparalleled. I've read the trilogy many times over the years and have realized certain things, however. He likes to go off on tangents and like you said about the CoE chapter, it never seems to end. Things like that will push readers away because unless you are someone like me who is truly interested in all of the history of Middle Earth, the CoE chapter being as long as it is seems drastically unnecessary. It will become mundane for the average reader who saw the movies first and wanted to read the books or for people who just like to read a good story without the excessive details.
I, like you, also agree that splitting up the two parties into two different parts of the book was a bad idea. I think it takes away from the anticipation of the whole adventure. Reaching that climax at the end of the first part only to start the second part with Frodo picking his nose with Sam cooking nice crispy bacon is anticlimactic.
-
Man, I love the books, I'd say read them.
I also love the books.
BUT, I completely agree with jammindude about the Two Towers. The half that contains most of the characters is fantastic, but the half that basically only contains Frodo, Sam and Gollum for almost all of it gets really boring and it's a slog to get through. Mixing it up in the film was a great, great decision, and really shows what a fantastic story it really is.
Other than that, I loved the book.
-
Man, I love the books, I'd say read them.
I also love the books.
BUT, I completely agree with jammindude about the Two Towers. The half that contains most of the characters is fantastic, but the half that basically only contains Frodo, Sam and Gollum for almost all of it gets really boring and it's a slog to get through. Mixing it up in the film was a great, great decision, and really shows what a fantastic story it really is.
Other than that, I loved the book.
I had never thought of it till now but I agree with this 110%
-
Peter Jackson is to Tolkien what Irvin Kershner was to George Lucas.
Tolkien (like Lucas) is a FANTASTIC "idea man"...one of the most talented guys out there at creating a story....but like Lucas, he needed someone with a greater talent for actually TELLING THE STORY. That is where Jackson comes in...
Wow, bad analogy. I mean, sheerly awful.
I don't at all understand where people get off claiming Tolkien wasn't a good storyteller, or whatever.
The Lord of the Rings books and the Hobbit are some of the most enduring fantasy novels ever. In fact they in many ways are still the first and best fantasy novels ever.
They're not for everyone. Tolkien's anachronist high fantasy style wasn't well-loved back in the day, and it's still really gotten a lot of criticism from adherents of other styles which have ebbed and flowed in popularity since the Hobbit came out. But it has a timeless quality to it which resonates with people of every generation and will probably continue to do so for decades to come.
Amazing how despite all that, people who don't like reading Tolkien keep coming along, and rather than just saying "that wasn't for me", they feel the need to try and invalidate Tolkien and his status as a storyteller.
The books, their status, Tolkien's reputation, the sales and enduring popularity, the influence they've had on modern fantasy and speculative fiction, the amount of space the name "Tolkien" takes up in every book store and library... it all speaks for itself. All of it existed before Jackson, and will continue to exist after Jackson. Jackson has only added to it.
Tolkien was a great storyteller. He definitely didn't need anyone's help.
OK, rant over :biggrin:
-
Peter Jackson is to Tolkien what Irvin Kershner was to George Lucas.
Tolkien (like Lucas) is a FANTASTIC "idea man"...one of the most talented guys out there at creating a story....but like Lucas, he needed someone with a greater talent for actually TELLING THE STORY. That is where Jackson comes in...
Wow, bad analogy. I mean, sheerly awful.
I don't at all understand where people get off claiming Tolkien wasn't a good storyteller, or whatever.
The Lord of the Rings books and the Hobbit are some of the most enduring fantasy novels ever. In fact they in many ways are still the first and best fantasy novels ever.
They're not for everyone. Tolkien's anarchronist high fantasy style wasn't well-loved back in the day, and it's still really gotten a lot of criticism from adherents of other styles which have ebbed and flowed in popularity since the Hobbit came out. But it has a timeless quality to it which resonates with people of every generation and will probably continue to do so for decades to come.
Amazing how despite all that, people who don't reading Tolkien keep coming along, and rather just saying "that wasn't for me", feel the need to try and invalidate Tolkien and his status as a storyteller.
The books, their status, Tolkien's reputation, the sales and enduring popularity, the influence they've had on modern fantasy and speculative fiction, the amount of space the name "Tolkien" takes up in every book store and library... it all speaks for itself. All of it existed before Jackson, and will continue to exist after Jackson. Jackson has only added to it.
Tolkien was a great storyteller. He definitely didn't need anyone's help.
OK, rant over :biggrin:
:tup
-
Aaaaah I'm so excited for the next film :caffeine:
-
Aaaaah I'm so excited for the next film :caffeine:
-
Aaaaah I'm so excited for the next film :caffeine:
-
Peter Jackson is to Tolkien what Irvin Kershner was to George Lucas.
Tolkien (like Lucas) is a FANTASTIC "idea man"...one of the most talented guys out there at creating a story....but like Lucas, he needed someone with a greater talent for actually TELLING THE STORY. That is where Jackson comes in...
Wow, bad analogy. I mean, sheerly awful.
I don't at all understand where people get off claiming Tolkien wasn't a good storyteller, or whatever.
The Lord of the Rings books and the Hobbit are some of the most enduring fantasy novels ever. In fact they in many ways are still the first and best fantasy novels ever.
They're not for everyone. Tolkien's anachronist high fantasy style wasn't well-loved back in the day, and it's still really gotten a lot of criticism from adherents of other styles which have ebbed and flowed in popularity since the Hobbit came out. But it has a timeless quality to it which resonates with people of every generation and will probably continue to do so for decades to come.
Amazing how despite all that, people who don't like reading Tolkien keep coming along, and rather than just saying "that wasn't for me", they feel the need to try and invalidate Tolkien and his status as a storyteller.
The books, their status, Tolkien's reputation, the sales and enduring popularity, the influence they've had on modern fantasy and speculative fiction, the amount of space the name "Tolkien" takes up in every book store and library... it all speaks for itself. All of it existed before Jackson, and will continue to exist after Jackson. Jackson has only added to it.
Tolkien was a great storyteller. He definitely didn't need anyone's help.
OK, rant over :biggrin:
I'm only saying that....even among fans of Tolkien...the strict adherents like yourself are in the minority. At least in my experience.
You can love the story, and still see the faults in the execution...and I think most people do. But there are purists out there. ::)
:angel: :P
-
You can find fault in ANYTHING.
Look, it's the same thing with women in some cases. It seems the greater something is, the more eager everyone is to find little imperfections.
There were almost no successful fantasy novels before LotR. There were plenty of fantasy stories, but very few novels, and of the few that did exist VERY few were anywhere near as balanced and coherent. Tolkien created the blueprint for the modern fantasy novel and most of what he did is still relevant and followed today.
Saying Tolkien needed Peter Jackson's help to complete his story is like saying The Beatles need Rick Rubin to go back and recreate all their albums.
Jackson did a fine job with the trilogy and is doing an OK job with The Hobbit so far. Really, though, he's the one who should be getting compared to George Lucas.
-
Saying Tolkien needed Peter Jackson's help to complete his story...
??? That's not what he said at all
-
Okay, "needed his greater talent for telling his story", or whatever. That.
-
I don't think you even get what his post was about. For the record, I largely disagree with his post. But I understand his point, and it is somewhat well taken.
-
What I am getting from what he said is that PJ was able to transform the writing style to the big screen. Were he to include the great detail Tolkien fashioned into Middle Earth, it would have been a large pill to swallow for the average moviegoer. There was a lot of detail removed from the Trilogy that some people would really have thought pointless in telling the story, which is something PJ had to take into consideration and did fairly well I think. While there are still some things I wish he would have added, I understand why he did it.
-
To this day I still don't understand why Tom Bombadil was excluded, he was one of the most radular things eva.
-
What I am getting from what he said is that PJ was able to transform the writing style to the big screen. Were he to include the great detail Tolkien fashioned into Middle Earth, it would have been a large pill to swallow for the average moviegoer. There was a lot of detail removed from the Trilogy that some people would really have thought pointless in telling the story, which is something PJ had to take into consideration and did fairly well I think. While there are still some things I wish he would have added, I understand why he did it.
No, he's not talking just about what Jackson choose to edit out. For the original trilogy, I think Jackson actually made some pretty good moves. For the Hobbit trilogy, not so much - it's almost like he's doing the opposite now - adding tons of detail that doesn't need to be there.
Jammin isn't just praising Jackson for doing a good job of bring the trilogy to life, he's criticizing Tolkien as a writer/storyteller:
you're not missing much.
But the guy couldn't write to save his freakin life.
LOTR, as a book, really doesn't flow very well.
Their love is for the world, the characters, the scope and the depth of it all. It's pretty much the first EPIC FANTASY since The Iliad.
And all that stuff which I say is just silly.
But I'd like to focus on this:
I mean, the guy INVENTED A LANGUAGE for goodness sake.
How can you acknowledge Tolkien's talent for languages while being so harsh about his own use of language?
I'd say people who hold JD's opinion about Tolkien's writing aren't reading closely enough. I was once in the boat of people who felt the same things (ugh, this is slow! more Aragorn, less Frodo! less nature walks, please! etc.), but that was before I changed my perspective and my expectations and went back to LotR with an open mind. When I did that, I discovered that Tolkien was always something more like a poet. In today's society, we're used to be shown and told everything right up front. As a society we value explicit and to-the-point things, and don't care for poetry at all. Even in Tolkien's day, people were moving in that direction. Tolkien challenges readers to resist that, and asks us to embrace something more slow paced and immersive. Was Tolkien an awful writer? No, no, no! He was a great writer. He was a master of language. He made up his own language, as jammindude mentioned already. If anything, his use of language goes over modern reader's heads. That's all.
All of LotR reads to me like a prose poem now. Every description and sentence and vista seem to have been crafted perfectly, with regard for the thematic progression of the whole. Even things like spending an entire half with Frodo and Sam - once, that section made me antsy, but now I realize how effective dividing The Tower Towers was for driving the sense of space that had elapsed between the Fellowship, and the demonstrating the trials and mentalities unique to the Ringbearer quest and Aragorn's own journey. The entirety of LotR to me is like a long poetic wash of colors, folklore, heroic & spiritual themes, and legend that resolves in a conclusion that's highly meaningful and fully resolved. They way all these elements flow and interact with one another is in my mind perfect - and its characters have become the template for the modern "cast of heroes" in any type of fiction. Yes, it is "slow", but it has momentum like people who haven't read it all would not believe. At certain points, it was way more thrilling than any part of Peter Jackson's trilogy.
I can't really properly explain how much I admire LotR, but I think it's obvious that few if any fantasy novels even come close to its level of language, world-building, and storytelling. It might not be written in a style that anyone's Creative Writing professor would approve of, but I like to think that if more people would do what I did, and would just open the book and roll with it at a relaxed and immersed pace, perhaps for an hour or so here and there, then way more people would feel as strongly about Tolkien's power as a storyteller as I do.
-
To this day I still don't understand why Tom Bombadil was excluded, he was one of the most radular things eva.
Damn straight. :P
Actually I kind of see why they left him out of the movies. He really didn't help progress the plot at all, he just added another interesting factor to the mix. The overall story is the same without him, and would've added a lot of time to a movie already criticized for it's length (a bullshit criticism in my opinion anyway).
Let me just say that LOTR is my favorite book of all time, but I still think the movies are excellently crafted. Yes, there are some things that would've been really cool in the movies, and almost every aspect of the book is better than the movies, but I think they did a great job. Certainly better than most movies that are adaptations of books.
-
I'd like to take a moment to point to Eye of the World....mostly because it's a nearly identical story. I seriously believe the Tolkien estate should sue for plagiarism. I don't think I've read another fantasy series that borrows from LotR *AS BLANTANTLY* as The Wheel of Time series. You can find a LOTR counterpart for nearly every single character in The Wheel of Time...I often found myself laughing out loud and just how blatant it was.
That being said...IT'S WRITTEN BETTER. There was a famous review of Eye of the World that I happen to agree with..."Jordan has has come to dominate the world that Tolkien began to reveal." - New York Times.
I personally think the Jordan estate owes the Tolkien estate a *generous* percentage for ripping him off so badly. (although, now that I think about it, so should Terry Brooks...but I don't think he wrote as well.) But I really feel that Jordan just wrote better. You make a good point about language though...but I don't think I'm contradicting myself. You can use language in a beautiful way...you can put together words that are beautiful to listen to...that doesn't mean you can tell a story in an interesting narrative. You can be the greatest guitar player in the world, and it doesn't mean you can write a song.
Tolkien had a better, and greater understanding of the English language and it's use. I'm strictly speaking about his skills of TELLING A STORY. And I know that I'm not alone. I have spoken to many loyal Tolkien lovers who have admitted exactly what I am repeating. That there are flaws in the execution...but the characters, scope and depth of the creation wins out over all else. I don't fault anyone for feeling that way. I actually love LOTR myself for many of the same reasons. I often re-read it for exactly the same reasons.
-
If you think Wheel of Time is that well written, we're just gonna stop here 'cause there's no potential for agreement at all.
Different strokes, I guess! :biggrin:
-
What I am getting from what he said is that PJ was able to transform the writing style to the big screen. Were he to include the great detail Tolkien fashioned into Middle Earth, it would have been a large pill to swallow for the average moviegoer. There was a lot of detail removed from the Trilogy that some people would really have thought pointless in telling the story, which is something PJ had to take into consideration and did fairly well I think. While there are still some things I wish he would have added, I understand why he did it.
*SNIP*
How can you acknowledge Tolkien's talent for languages while being so harsh about his own use of language?
I'd say people who hold JD's opinion about Tolkien's writing aren't reading closely enough. I was once in the boat of people who felt the same things (ugh, this is slow! more Aragorn, less Frodo! less nature walks, please! etc.), but that was before I changed my perspective and my expectations and went back to LotR with an open mind. When I did that, I discovered that Tolkien was always something more like a poet. In today's society, we're used to be shown and told everything right up front. As a society we value explicit and to-the-point things, and don't care for poetry at all. Even in Tolkien's day, people were moving in that direction. Tolkien challenges readers to resist that, and asks us to embrace something more slow paced and immersive. Was Tolkien an awful writer? No, no, no! He was a great writer. He was a master of language. He made up his own language, as jammindude mentioned already. If anything, his use of language goes over modern reader's heads. That's all.
All of LotR reads to me like a prose poem now. Every description and sentence and vista seem to have been crafted perfectly, with regard for the thematic progression of the whole. Even things like spending an entire half with Frodo and Sam - once, that section made me antsy, but now I realize how effective dividing The Tower Towers was for driving the sense of space that had elapsed between the Fellowship, and the demonstrating the trials and mentalities unique to the Ringbearer quest and Aragorn's own journey. The entirety of LotR to me is like a long poetic wash of colors, folklore, heroic & spiritual themes, and legend that resolves in a conclusion that's highly meaningful and fully resolved. They way all these elements flow and interact with one another is in my mind perfect - and its characters have become the template for the modern "cast of heroes" in any type of fiction. Yes, it is "slow", but it has momentum like people who haven't read it all would not believe. At certain points, it was way more thrilling than any part of Peter Jackson's trilogy.
I can't really properly explain how much I admire LotR, but I think it's obvious that few if any fantasy novels even come close to its level of language, world-building, and storytelling. It might not be written in a style that anyone's Creative Writing professor would approve of, but I like to think that if more people would do what I did, and would just open the book and roll with it at a relaxed and immersed pace, perhaps for an hour or so here and there, then way more people would feel as strongly about Tolkien's power as a storyteller as I do.
I can see what you are saying. Jammindude's "the guy couldn't write to save his freakin life" comment was definitely capricious. However, I do agree with him that splitting the two adventures was structurally awkward, but to me that doesn't take away from his writing style. There must have been some method to his madness in doing so.
I do share your passion for Tolkien as a creative genius. He was a teacher of morals throughout his stories as well and left us with so many unfinished tales, no pun intended.
-
If you think Wheel of Time is that well written, we're just gonna stop here 'cause there's no potential for agreement at all.
Different strokes, I guess! :biggrin:
Remember that when I say "well written" in this context...I am strictly speaking about storytelling ability. How the story itself "flows"....not the poetry or mastery of the language.
-
You mean, how the story flows... over thousands of pages... into a thousand little threads which can't be picked up... in no particular direction at all, without any real chance of an actual resolution or closure? Yeah, there's some storytelling ability!
Just busting your chops. I didn't make it too far in the series. I did think the first book was pretty good but it definitely tried my patience immensely. And look, I love Tolkien.
-
I never got into the Robert Jordan books, though my brother is a huge fan. He told me if I liked Tolkien, I'd like the Wheel of Time collection. For now, I think it is too much of an undertaking, especially since I still need to catch up with A Song of Ice and Fire.
-
You mean, how the story flows... over thousands of pages... into a thousand little threads which can't be picked up... in no particular direction at all, without any real chance of an actual resolution or closure? Yeah, there's some storytelling ability!
Just busting your chops. I didn't make it too far in the series. I did think the first book was pretty good but it definitely tried my patience immensely. And look, I love Tolkien.
It's totally cool. I just didn't want to be misunderstood. When I said "Tolkien couldn't write", I meant that he couldn't tell a story....not that he "couldn't write"...so I apologize for mis-speaking (typing).
-
To this day I still don't understand why Tom Bombadil was excluded, he was one of the most radular things eva.
I watched the movies first, then read the books. When I got to the part with Tom Bombadil, I thought "wait, we are all set to go on a great adventure; why are we stopping at this weird guy's house for like 100 pages." It just seemed an odd interlude when the story is set to take shape.
-
To this day I still don't understand why Tom Bombadil was excluded, he was one of the most radular things eva.
I watched the movies first, then read the books. When I got to the part with Tom Bombadil, I thought "wait, we are all set to go on a great adventure; why are we stopping at this weird guy's house for like 100 pages." It just seemed an odd interlude when the story is set to take shape.
I read the books first, and I always felt that that would NEVER translate to screen for the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention that with his "theme song" it may have gotten a bit silly. I just don't think it would have worked at all.
"Before our modern day epic, we'd like to give you 15 minutes of "The Sound of Music""
Tom: "THE HIIIIILLLLLS ARE ALIIIIIIIIIVEEEEEEEEE......"
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
That will be a million years from now
-
To this day I still don't understand why Tom Bombadil was excluded, he was one of the most radular things eva.
I watched the movies first, then read the books. When I got to the part with Tom Bombadil, I thought "wait, we are all set to go on a great adventure; why are we stopping at this weird guy's house for like 100 pages." It just seemed an odd interlude when the story is set to take shape.
I read the books first, and I always felt that that would NEVER translate to screen for the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention that with his "theme song" it may have gotten a bit silly. I just don't think it would have worked at all.
"Before our modern day epic, we'd like to give you 15 minutes of "The Sound of Music""
Tom: "THE HIIIIILLLLLS ARE ALIIIIIIIIIVEEEEEEEEE......"
I wonder who would have made a good Tom Bombadil.
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
Screenplay by Blind Guardian.
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
Screenplay by Blind Guardian.
:rollin
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
Screenplay by Blind Guardian.
:rollin
Music by Rhapsody of Fire featuring Christopher Lee.
-
You mean, how the story flows... over thousands of pages... into a thousand little threads which can't be picked up... in no particular direction at all, without any real chance of an actual resolution or closure? Yeah, there's some storytelling ability!
Just busting your chops. I didn't make it too far in the series. I did think the first book was pretty good but it definitely tried my patience immensely. And look, I love Tolkien.
BTW...I do want to give you the nod on one part of what you said. You're right that Jordan lacks resolution...BIG TIME. But one thing is for sure. Even though each book is 900 odd pages, there is never anything NOT going on. In spite of it's epic length, things are usually happening at a pace that rivals "24". I haven't made it all the way through yet...I have hopes that maybe Sanderson brought it all to a proper conclusion. My niece raves on and on about his Mistborn series.
Anyway...back on topic. The new trailer looks awesome.
-
That's the thing I don't get. Compared to most of the other fantasy series which are considered to be LotR level by some (Eye of the World, ASOIAF, etc), Lord of the Rings is actually pretty concise. The Martin and Jordan books in particular, it's almost universally agreed that several books, let alone chapters, are just really slow and not that eventful. Overall I can't think of a complete series that anyone considers to come even close to LotR. Whenever a good new series comes out, there's lot of talk, but the author inevitable trips up somewhere. Which is another thing so great about Tolkien's ability as a storyteller. He actually FINISHED THE FREAKING STORY and tied up all the lose ends, too ;D
-
That's the thing I don't get. Compared to most of the other fantasy series which are considered to be LotR level by some (Eye of the World, ASOIAF, etc), Lord of the Rings is actually pretty concise. The Martin and Jordan books in particular, it's almost universally agreed that several books, let alone chapters, are just really slow and not that eventful. Overall I can't think of a complete series that anyone considers to come even close to LotR. Whenever a good new series comes out, there's lot of talk, but the author inevitable trips up somewhere. Which is another thing so great about Tolkien's ability as a storyteller. He actually FINISHED THE FREAKING STORY and tied up all the lose ends, too ;D
Plus his son has continued to put out his father's works.
-
That's the thing I don't get. Compared to most of the other fantasy series which are considered to be LotR level by some (Eye of the World, ASOIAF, etc), Lord of the Rings is actually pretty concise. The Martin and Jordan books in particular, it's almost universally agreed that several books, let alone chapters, are just really slow and not that eventful. Overall I can't think of a complete series that anyone considers to come even close to LotR. Whenever a good new series comes out, there's lot of talk, but the author inevitable trips up somewhere. Which is another thing so great about Tolkien's ability as a storyteller. He actually FINISHED THE FREAKING STORY and tied up all the lose ends, too ;D
Brooks was better at resolution. But his writing was so formula...almost to the point of being vanilla. I was ahead of ideas almost every step. The first time I read a Shannara book, I felt like I had already read it.
Totally disagree about nothing happening in a Jordan book. Like I said, those books all read like an episode of 24 to me. Pick up the action with one character...something intense happens...the story moves...and when that part gets to the exhale point, you're into the next intense narrative.
If anything, I found the books almost exhausting because he manages to keep the story interesting and intense (always with something happening) for the length of War and Peace. You almost wish you could get to a point where nothing would happen.
I only got 5 books in before I was just burnt. Enjoying myself...but burnt. It was just 4500 pages of constant "machine gun" story telling. It was never boring...that's for sure.
-
That's the thing I don't get. Compared to most of the other fantasy series which are considered to be LotR level by some (Eye of the World, ASOIAF, etc), Lord of the Rings is actually pretty concise. The Martin and Jordan books in particular, it's almost universally agreed that several books, let alone chapters, are just really slow and not that eventful. Overall I can't think of a complete series that anyone considers to come even close to LotR. Whenever a good new series comes out, there's lot of talk, but the author inevitable trips up somewhere. Which is another thing so great about Tolkien's ability as a storyteller. He actually FINISHED THE FREAKING STORY and tied up all the lose ends, too ;D
Plus his son has continued to put out his father's works.
Well, yeah, but all that is extra. For LotR itself, everything's tied up nicely by the end. There's no need for any further explanation. For people who want it, there's the stuff Christopher Tolkien has put out. That's all nice, but it's not necessary. In fact, it probably creates lose ends for Tolkien geeks in the long run (I'm remember a long convo on a different forum about the specifics about Arwen's "choice")
-
...as a matter of fact. What I loved about Jordan was that *TO ME*, it felt like LotR, with the pacing and storytelling talent of Stephen King. Again...TO ME.
EDIT: And Stephen King doesn't know how to end a book either. :facepalm: :rollin
-
That's the thing I don't get. Compared to most of the other fantasy series which are considered to be LotR level by some (Eye of the World, ASOIAF, etc), Lord of the Rings is actually pretty concise. The Martin and Jordan books in particular, it's almost universally agreed that several books, let alone chapters, are just really slow and not that eventful. Overall I can't think of a complete series that anyone considers to come even close to LotR. Whenever a good new series comes out, there's lot of talk, but the author inevitable trips up somewhere. Which is another thing so great about Tolkien's ability as a storyteller. He actually FINISHED THE FREAKING STORY and tied up all the lose ends, too ;D
Plus his son has continued to put out his father's works.
Well, yeah, but all that is extra. For LotR itself, everything's tied up nicely by the end. There's no need for any further explanation. For people who want it, there's the stuff Christopher Tolkien has put out. That's all nice, but it's not necessary. In fact, it probably creates lose ends for Tolkien geeks in the long run (I'm remember a long convo on a different forum about the specifics about Arwen's "choice")
My mistake. I thought you referring to Tolkien in general. ;D
So..loose ends meaning WTF is Tom Bombadil or who was Gothmog? The speculations on those I've discussed in many different Tolkien-related forums.
-
I'm actually rereading the LOTR books for the first time, and I'm with PC on this. The last time I read them I was probably 12, and really didn't get the appeal. They were slow and boring and filled with random descriptions and stupid songs and things, etc etc. Now, going into it with a much more patient mind, I'm really appreciating Tolkein's prose. PC hit the nail on the head: it's like reading a poem, and it's absolutely wonderful.
-
What I am getting from what he said is that PJ was able to transform the writing style to the big screen. Were he to include the great detail Tolkien fashioned into Middle Earth, it would have been a large pill to swallow for the average moviegoer. There was a lot of detail removed from the Trilogy that some people would really have thought pointless in telling the story, which is something PJ had to take into consideration and did fairly well I think. While there are still some things I wish he would have added, I understand why he did it.
That's a different point entirely, and not the one jammindude was making.
I definitely agree that Jackson did a fantastic job transferring the story to the big screen. There's no way everything could have been included without making it a long TV series (given the rise of HBO in particular recently, I think that if it had been made now, it would have been a series), but Jackson stayed true to the essence of the story.
But the quality of the book itself is a completely different matter. Jammindude just doesn't like it, and that's cool, each to their own. But the quality of the writing/language is incredible, and many many people consider the storytelling to be great as well.
-
I'm actually rereading the LOTR books for the first time, and I'm with PC on this. The last time I read them I was probably 12, and really didn't get the appeal. They were slow and boring and filled with random descriptions and stupid songs and things, etc etc. Now, going into it with a much more patient mind, I'm really appreciating Tolkein's prose. PC hit the nail on the head: it's like reading a poem, and it's absolutely wonderful.
:tup
-
What I am getting from what he said is that PJ was able to transform the writing style to the big screen. Were he to include the great detail Tolkien fashioned into Middle Earth, it would have been a large pill to swallow for the average moviegoer. There was a lot of detail removed from the Trilogy that some people would really have thought pointless in telling the story, which is something PJ had to take into consideration and did fairly well I think. While there are still some things I wish he would have added, I understand why he did it.
That's a different point entirely, and not the one jammindude was making.
I definitely agree that Jackson did a fantastic job transferring the story to the big screen. There's no way everything could have been included without making it a long TV series (given the rise of HBO in particular recently, I think that if it had been made now, it would have been a series), but Jackson stayed true to the essence of the story.
But the quality of the book itself is a completely different matter. Jammindude just doesn't like it, and that's cool, each to their own. But the quality of the writing/language is incredible, and many many people consider the storytelling to be great as well.
What I said was in reference to this statement by JD, which was one of the issues PC had about JD's post:
"Tolkien (like Lucas) is a FANTASTIC "idea man"...one of the most talented guys out there at creating a story....but like Lucas, he needed someone with a greater talent for actually TELLING THE STORY. That is where Jackson comes in..."
-
What I am getting from what he said is that PJ was able to transform the writing style to the big screen. Were he to include the great detail Tolkien fashioned into Middle Earth, it would have been a large pill to swallow for the average moviegoer. There was a lot of detail removed from the Trilogy that some people would really have thought pointless in telling the story, which is something PJ had to take into consideration and did fairly well I think. While there are still some things I wish he would have added, I understand why he did it.
That's a different point entirely, and not the one jammindude was making.
I definitely agree that Jackson did a fantastic job transferring the story to the big screen. There's no way everything could have been included without making it a long TV series (given the rise of HBO in particular recently, I think that if it had been made now, it would have been a series), but Jackson stayed true to the essence of the story.
But the quality of the book itself is a completely different matter. Jammindude just doesn't like it, and that's cool, each to their own. But the quality of the writing/language is incredible, and many many people consider the storytelling to be great as well.
Actually, I did say that I LOVE the books. But for entirely different reasons than the pace or style of storytelling...a quality that I feel Tolkien lacks. Tolkien created a world, and sets up a framework where beautiful things happen and they are written in a way that is pleasing from a linguistic standpoint. But none of that means that he is talented at actually telling the story. Peter Jackson did a better job of telling the story of The Lord of the Rings IMO. The same way that Irvin Kirshner did a better job at telling the story of The Empire Strikes back than Lucas ever could have. Lucas' version would NOT have been nearly as joyous to watch...even if the same things would have happened.
-
Jammin, out of curiosity, do you like Frodo and Sam's story?
My personal opinion is that readers who don't love Tolkien mostly struggle with Frodo's quest, and either don't get it or else don't like the highly spiritual and allegorical elements of it. Almost everyone likes Aragorn & Co.
-
Jammin, out of curiosity, do you like Frodo and Sam's story?
My personal opinion is that reader who don't love Tolkien mostly struggle with Frodo's quest, and either don't get it or else don't like the highly spiritual and allegorical elements of it. Almost everyone likes Aragorn & Co.
I know you asked JD this, but if you don't mind my thoughts on Aragorn's quest...
I know Tolkien always said his writing was never meant to be allegorical in nature. He was actually adamant about this fact in many different instances. However, one can't help but notice the influences in the writing. Especially considering where he was when he wrote some of his works, I think there is historical reference everywhere.
Now about Aragorn... To me he is the Jesus character. He refused to come to terms about who he is and decides to live a life in secrecy. Aragorn is the chosen one, so to speak, to lead the world of men to victory. His destiny and realizing his part is inescapable. Like Jesus sacrificed himself for the greater good, Aragorn also needs to come to terms with who he is, quite possible sacrificing his life if all doesn't end well.
Quickly about Frodo's and Sam's quest... I think when you read their story over and over, you get to realize that it is truly a beautiful kinship which highlights all of the struggles a pair of friends might go through in their lives. When Tolkien wrote something, he wrote it with intent to convey some kind of message. From their journey, one can learn the value of true friendship and loyalty at all expenses.
-
Jammin, out of curiosity, do you like Frodo and Sam's story?
My personal opinion is that readers who don't love Tolkien mostly struggle with Frodo's quest, and either don't get it or else don't like the highly spiritual and allegorical elements of it. Almost everyone likes Aragorn & Co.
I LOVE ALL of the story.
-
Jammin, out of curiosity, do you like Frodo and Sam's story?
My personal opinion is that readers who don't love Tolkien mostly struggle with Frodo's quest, and either don't get it or else don't like the highly spiritual and allegorical elements of it. Almost everyone likes Aragorn & Co.
I LOVE ALL of the story.
Then how can he not be a good storyteller?
-
Because the story that he invented isn't the problem. The story he invented is brilliant.
If Erica Jong told the story of the Lord of the Rings....The Lord of the Rings would still be a fantastic story....but it wouldn't be told as well. (this is obviously an extreme to make a point...but I seem to be having difficulty getting the point across that there's a difference between "the story" and "storytelling"....perhaps *I* suck at storytelling. :facepalm: :loser: )
-
No, jammin, you're just a bad storyreader :P
Jammin, out of curiosity, do you like Frodo and Sam's story?
My personal opinion is that reader who don't love Tolkien mostly struggle with Frodo's quest, and either don't get it or else don't like the highly spiritual and allegorical elements of it. Almost everyone likes Aragorn & Co.
I know you asked JD this, but if you don't mind my thoughts on Aragorn's quest...
I know Tolkien always said his writing was never meant to be allegorical in nature. He was actually adamant about this fact in many different instances. However, one can't help but notice the influences in the writing. Especially considering where he was when he wrote some of his works, I think there is historical reference everywhere.
Now about Aragorn... To me he is the Jesus character. He refused to come to terms about who he is and decides to live a life in secrecy. Aragorn is the chosen one, so to speak, to lead the world of men to victory. His destiny and realizing his part is inescapable. Like Jesus sacrificed himself for the greater good, Aragorn also needs to come to terms with who he is, quite possible sacrificing his life if all doesn't end well.
Quickly about Frodo's and Sam's quest... I think when you read their story over and over, you get to realize that it is truly a beautiful kinship which highlights all of the struggles a pair of friends might go through in their lives. When Tolkien wrote something, he wrote it with intent to convey some kind of message. From their journey, one can learn the value of true friendship and loyalty at all expenses.
Pretty interesting, since it's the inverse of what I think really.
As a disclaimer, I think Jackson does a great job with Aragorn & Co.
He does a pretty good job with Frodo & Sam and Gollum, but on a more shallow level. Most people I know who've just seen the movies totally get Aragorn & Co, but don't really get Frodo. They understand what he was doing on the quest, but they miss the symbolism and his gradual melancholic change in attitude, and have no idea why he's sad at the end and goes away.
To me, Frodo isn't an epic hero like Aragorn, but more like a religious matyr. Lots of people I know who love the movies but haven't read the books just view him as an annoying & moody guy who goes bad at the end. The totality of his sacrifice and the immensity of what he loses on the quest just seem to go over the movie crowd's heads.
I get that Frodo's story long and trudging and at many points painful to read, but I think it that's exactly how it should be. Of all the other characters in the Fellowship, he makes out worst of all. You can't even relate him with another member of the fellowship by the end. You can only contrast his misery with how nice everyone else makes out.
-
Well...to be fair....I got ALL of that out of the movies, it's just that I was *paying attention*. :angel: Most people wouldn't get the spiritual references in Star Wars if you beat them with it.
But I think you're missing the redemption at the end of it all. That was just so huge for me in the films. I think I cry as much as the characters do at the end of that film.
-
That's the thing I don't get. Compared to most of the other fantasy series which are considered to be LotR level by some (Eye of the World, ASOIAF, etc), Lord of the Rings is actually pretty concise. The Martin and Jordan books in particular, it's almost universally agreed that several books, let alone chapters, are just really slow and not that eventful. Overall I can't think of a complete series that anyone considers to come even close to LotR. Whenever a good new series comes out, there's lot of talk, but the author inevitable trips up somewhere. Which is another thing so great about Tolkien's ability as a storyteller. He actually FINISHED THE FREAKING STORY and tied up all the lose ends, too ;D
In reference to the the bolded quote. There is one series that I think had just as vivid world-building, wrapped up as nicely, and also enjoyed a more exciting pace than LotR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowmarch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowmarch) Plus, I just have to admire the creativity of a writer who comes up with a character commonly known as Lady Porcupine and can make it terrifying rather than comical! :)
Back to the trailer...I love it. I am one of the few fans that enjoy the expanded story and background being injected into the Hobbit!
-
*SNIP*
Pretty interesting, since it's the inverse of what I think really.
As a disclaimer, I think Jackson does a great job with Aragorn & Co.
He does a pretty good job with Frodo & Sam and Gollum, but on a more shallow level. Most people I know who've just seen the movies totally get Aragorn & Co, but don't really get Frodo. They understand what he was doing on the quest, but they miss the symbolism and his gradual melancholic change in attitude, and have no idea why he's sad at the end and goes away.
To me, Frodo isn't an epic hero like Aragorn, but more like a religious matyr. Lots of people I know who love the movies but haven't read the books just view him as an annoying & moody guy who goes bad at the end. The totality of his sacrifice and the immensity of what he loses on the quest just seem to go over the movie crowd's heads.
I get that Frodo's story long and trudging and at many points painful to read, but I think it that's exactly how it should be. Of all the other characters in the Fellowship, he makes out worst of all. You can't even relate him with another member of the fellowship by the end. You can only contrast his misery with how nice everyone else makes out.
I can easily see Frodo's as a religious martyr. This point was argued by quite a few people on one of the Tolkien forums I used to frequent. You hit the nail on the head with everything though. I think PJ failed to convey the motivation behind Frodo's temperament. Elijah Wood is a great actor, and I think if his character was written more accurately we would have seen everything more clearer. At times I felt PJ's penchant for showing as much blood and action as possible and not focus so much on character balance hindered certain aspects of the book trilogy. He shows this in full stride when he has Aragorn decapitate the Mouth of Sauron. I know this rubbed many of the seasoned Tolkien fans the wrong way. Men had come so far from their savage beginnings to learn reason, only to have it wiped out with one swipe of the sword. One would think with Aragorn being somewhat a student of Gandalf, he would have never acted with such haste.
-
I agree with all of that, Snob.
BTW, I think Sam is portrayed perfectly. Frodo is just ever so slightly off, but that really changes the way his quest is percieved a lot to me. A lot more could have been done with him, I think.
I never detected that, but you're right about Aragorn, too. He's younger and less studious overall. And his missing Rangers throw a wrench into everything. But he's still mostly very well done.
-
I agree with all of that, Snob.
BTW, I think Sam is portrayed perfectly. Frodo is just ever so slightly off, but that really changes the way his quest is percieved a lot to me. A lot more could have been done with him, I think.
I never detected that, but you're right about Aragorn, too. He's younger and less studious overall. And his missing Rangers throw a wrench into everything. But he's still mostly very well done.
I still think Sean Astin should have won the Academy Award for what he did. Tim Robbins won Best Supporting Actor that year for Mystic River. While that was a great movie and Tim Robbins did a good job, I think Sean Astin at least deserved a nomination.
Aragorn is my favorite character throughout the books and Viggo is one of my favorite actors, so overall I was pleased with the performance. My ire is more with PJ than anyone. I am still hoping for a last minute addition of Aragorn's character into the final film of the The Hobbit trilogy. I know it probably won't happen but considering the third movie will bridge the gap between the two books, and we know Aragorn was around at that time, why not put him in.
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
That will be a million years from now
Or will it be a silmarmillion years from now? Eh?
Carry on.
-
:lolpalm:
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
That will be a million years from now
Or will it be a silmarmillion years from now? Eh?
Carry on.
:lol
Anyways, they should just hire Benedict Cumerbacht for every villain in existence, HIS VOICE IS SO BADASS.
-
I can't wait to see how they'll translate that mythological mess The Silmarillion to the big screen.
That will be a million years from now
Or will it be a silmarmillion years from now? Eh?
Carry on.
:lol
Anyways, they should just hire Benedict Cumerbacht for every villain in existence, HIS VOICE IS SO BADASS.
He's taken over for Jeremy Irons :yarr
-
I'm actually rereading the LOTR books for the first time, and I'm with PC on this. The last time I read them I was probably 12, and really didn't get the appeal. They were slow and boring and filled with random descriptions and stupid songs and things, etc etc. Now, going into it with a much more patient mind, I'm really appreciating Tolkein's prose. PC hit the nail on the head: it's like reading a poem, and it's absolutely wonderful.
YES! I'm pretty sure I remember me raging at you ages ago for saying you hated the books :P
-
I'm strictly speaking about his skills of TELLING A STORY. And I know that I'm not alone.
You're not alone, but you're in the minority. Tolkein's works didn't become as popular as they are because he can't tell a story. At the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters. Yes, he was amazing in the level of detail he brought to his creation, as you mentioned, but that resonates more with die-hard fans and purists, not the average reader. But it was average readers who propelled LOTR to epic status, precisely because he is a great storyteller.
Just because you and some other people don't like his particular style doesn't mean he's not a good storyteller.
-
I'm strictly speaking about his skills of TELLING A STORY. And I know that I'm not alone.
You're not alone, but you're in the minority. Tolkein's works didn't become as popular as they are because he can't tell a story. At the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters. Yes, he was amazing in the level of detail he brought to his creation, as you mentioned, but that resonates more with die-hard fans and purists, not the average reader. But it was average readers who propelled LOTR to epic status, precisely because he is a great storyteller.
Just because you and some other people don't like his particular style doesn't mean he's not a good storyteller.
I love highly detailed writing. Tolkien's style is right up my street. The films are great for visuals and PJ is a fine storyteller in his own right; love to watch on rainy afternoons. But the books make my brain work harder. And that's a good thing!
-
With part two right around the corner, I think it's time to bump the thread...
Looks like critics are responding slightly better to this one than the first. That's not to say that it will be better, but I hope it is. My expectations for part 1 were too high to begin with, and I've lowered them quite a bit for the remainder of the trilogy, but still really looking forward to it.
-
I'm still looking forward, but with really lowered expectations, like you said.
They offered some sort of premiere in a theatre near me, The Hobbit 1 starting at 9:30, so that part 2 could start just after midnight on release day. But I don't even want see part one first. May be cool for the continuity, but part one was suuuuch a drag, that I'd be numb before part two would start.
-
I did not care for the first Hobbit movie. It seems like they were stretching it out to make it as epic as Lord Of The Rings, which is impossible because you can't be as epic as Lord Of The Rings. There were also some scenes in there that beggared belief, like the one with the goblins. Yes, I know you can't exactly expect realism in a fantasy movie, but jeez, don't put stuff in there that has like a 1 in ∞ chance of actually happening. Maybe I'll like the second one, but like the above posters, I'm going in with low expectations.
-
I loved the first Hobbit movie. Obviously it wasn't as good as any of the LOTR movies but we all knew that anyway. Jackson is brilliant. Can't wait for next week.
-
Desolation of Smaug will be 10 times better, just because of Benedict Cumberbatch.
-
A lot of my curiosity for this movie will be Beorn, who is played by a Swedish actor. (Mikael Persbrandt) It's pretty exciting to see a follow Swede get a part in such a big movie. According to what I've read, he only has about 5 minutes in this movie though. I hope that's because he will have more time in the third, and not that they have cut his time down so much because he is bad. :lol
-
A lot of my curiosity for this movie will be Beorn, who is played by a Swedish actor. (Mikael Persbrandt) It's pretty exciting to see a follow Swede get a part in such a big movie. According to what I've read, he only has about 5 minutes in this movie though. I hope that's because he will have more time in the third, and not that they have cut his time down so much because he is bad. :lol
According to the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit_trilogy#Mirkwood_and_Lake-town), yes, he will be in both the second and third.
-
I'm far more curious to see where they go with the White Council and the return of Sauron than I am with the quest. The White Council scene in the first movie was easily favorite part.
-
I'm far more curious to see where they go with the White Council and the return of Sauron than I am with the quest. The White Council scene in the first movie was easily favorite part.
Couldn't agree more, on both points.
-
I liked AUJ, think I gave it a 7.4/10 or something, but from what the trailers and clips have shown, TDoS looks like it'll be better. I'll be seeing it this friday and find out.
I'm far more curious to see where they go with the White Council and the return of Sauron than I am with the quest. The White Council scene in the first movie was easily favorite part.
This. That storyline is what I look forward to the most.
-
The only thing I worry about with the White Counsel scenes is how far they can carry it before they ruin continuity with LOTR?
Gandalf is starting to figure things out in the AUJ, whereas by the time we get to FOTR he's acting as if all these ideas have been completely flying under the radar for centuries.
-
The only thing I worry about with the White Counsel scenes is how far they can carry it before they ruin continuity with LOTR?
Gandalf is starting to figure things out in the AUJ, whereas by the time we get to FOTR he's acting as if all these ideas have been completely flying under the radar for centuries.
Acting like, yes, but he IS acting like he knows nothing, in the books too he has been spying on the Shire for years, and even aragorn. So no problem there I think.
-
The only thing I worry about with the White Counsel scenes is how far they can carry it before they ruin continuity with LOTR?
Gandalf is starting to figure things out in the AUJ, whereas by the time we get to FOTR he's acting as if all these ideas have been completely flying under the radar for centuries.
I noticed that too, that he seemed to be wary about Saruman's intentions. Whereas in FOTR, he starts to become suspicious while grasping the Palantir.
-
I saw a review that said, while incredibly well made, this film distracted the viewer quite a bit with the deviations from the text.
We'll see, but I trust Jackson.
-
I saw a review that said, while incredibly well made, this film distracted the viewer quite a bit with the deviations from the text.
We'll see, but I trust Jackson.
So business as usual at Wingnut Productions?
-
Howard Shore's score is up on Spotify, listening right now. Amazing as always.
-
I saw a review that said, while incredibly well made, this film distracted the viewer quite a bit with the deviations from the text.
We'll see, but I trust Jackson.
I don't like to think about in terms of how close to the book it is. I simply liketo judge whether it's a good movie or not. It really helps me enjoy the movies more if I stop thinking "they didn't do that in the book".
-
Agreed. Sure, it's practically impossible for people who've read and loved the books to not compare them to the movies, but the movies are not made for fans of the books. They're made for the masses, most of whom have not read the books. We just constantly hear from fans of the books because they're the most vocal, especially with their complaints.
If a reviewer admits that he cannot properly review a movie because he's so distracted by where it deviates from the book (and that is what he's saying), then I guess I admire his honesty, but people who haven't read the books should probably just read a different review. Sometimes I think there should be two kinds of reviews: reviews for those who've read the book, and reviews for those who have not.
-
Agreed.
-
To be honest I'm looking forward to the next Hobbit film as much because of stuff that wasn't in the novel (or a bigger scale interpretation of the stuff that was).
I'd say it'd almost be worth thinking of this Hobbit trilogy not as an adaptation of The Hobbit novel, but as an adaptation of Bilbo's story (and surrounding events) that happened before Lord Of The Rings. I say that because, as is well known, The Hobbit wasn't originally intended to be part of Middle Earth or related to The Lord Of The Rings, and an adaptation of that book alone would not necessarily feel like a story that could have happened to the Bilbo, Gandalf, dwarves, and elves we've seen before in the world of Middle Earth we saw in the films.
-
To be honest I'm looking forward to the next Hobbit film as much because of stuff that wasn't in the novel (or a bigger scale interpretation of the stuff that was).
I'd say it'd almost be worth thinking of this Hobbit trilogy not as an adaptation of The Hobbit novel, but as an adaptation of Bilbo's story (and surrounding events) that happened before Lord Of The Rings. I say that because, as is well known, The Hobbit wasn't originally intended to be part of Middle Earth or related to The Lord Of The Rings, and an adaptation of that book alone would not necessarily feel like a story that could have happened to the Bilbo, Gandalf, dwarves, and elves we've seen before in the world of Middle Earth we saw in the films.
All of this.
Plus, it just wouldn't have been all that interesting.
-
I saw a review that said, while incredibly well made, this film distracted the viewer quite a bit with the deviations from the text.
Well when you milk a book with enough material to sustain one movie into three movies there's bound be a lot of addition stuff.
-
I saw a review that said, while incredibly well made, this film distracted the viewer quite a bit with the deviations from the text.
We'll see, but I trust Jackson.
I don't like to think about in terms of how close to the book it is. I simply liketo judge whether it's a good movie or not. It really helps me enjoy the movies more if I stop thinking "they didn't do that in the book".
Agreed. Even though there are some parts of the movie I was like, WTF, they are awesome movies and overshadow most of the other crap that comes out these days.
-
Has anyone else had the experience with high school teachers where they brainwash you that "Hollywood destroys books"? I think this idea is so ridiculous. A book and its movie adaptation are two independent works of art.
Suppose The Hobbit story originated with Peter Jackson, and the books never existed. Would the movies suddenly become "good" because the plot wasn't adapted and slightly altered from a previously existing set of books? Would reviewers still have anything to complain about? It just baffles me that people think not "sticking true to the original story" is a reasonable thing to complain about.
-
For the record, I enjoyed the first movie and am really looking forward to this one, but just to offer an opposing point of view...
I'm a little underwhelmed with the direction the movie(s) have taken and apparently are continuing to take, but for me it has nothing to do with a book versus movie principle. Part of the problem, as I've stated before, is that one of the most notable things about The Hobbit is the way it is inexplicably able to tell such a substantive story and convey so much development and progression of its plot and characters with such brevity. The story itself doesn't lend itself to a grandiose trilogy a la LOTR, and that was already showing in the first movie, in spite of attempts to "fill out" the space with additions and action sequences, not that some of those weren't well-done in their own right. No matter how much extra material is added, you're calling the movies The Hobbit: thus the main plot remains the same, and not only does it simply lack the weight to span three 3-hour films, but really the additional sub-plots can take away from what *is* there.
I don't care about "being true to the book" for its own sake; as others have said, you can like or dislike both the book and the movie for different reasons. But realistically, this will probably be the only (or certainly the definitive) big budget movie production of The Hobbit in our lifetimes, and I personally would have liked to see what could have been done keeping it to a more focused narrative with emphasis placed more on nuance and detail.
-J
-
Has anyone else had the experience with high school teachers where they brainwash you that "Hollywood destroys books"? I think this idea is so ridiculous. A book and its movie adaptation are two independent works of art.
Suppose The Hobbit story originated with Peter Jackson, and the books never existed. Would the movies suddenly become "good" because the plot wasn't adapted and slightly altered from a previously existing set of books? Would reviewers still have anything to complain about? It just baffles me that people think not "sticking true to the original story" is a reasonable thing to complain about.
NONE of my teachers have said that, thankfully. My junior english teacher gave us extra credit to go see The Great Gatsby (since it was conveniently released near the end of our time reading it). She went to see it herself and said it was awesome.
We just finished watching a film adaptation of Macbeth today. Dear God were some of the scenes disturbing
-
Just saw it. As a long time LOTR fan, I loved it. Everything is significantly better than the last one. Feel free to PM me for spoilers
-
Has anyone else had the experience with high school teachers where they brainwash you that "Hollywood destroys books"? I think this idea is so ridiculous. A book and its movie adaptation are two independent works of art.
Suppose The Hobbit story originated with Peter Jackson, and the books never existed. Would the movies suddenly become "good" because the plot wasn't adapted and slightly altered from a previously existing set of books? Would reviewers still have anything to complain about? It just baffles me that people think not "sticking true to the original story" is a reasonable thing to complain about.
Well, if you're a big fan of a book, and then the movie made bears almost no resemblance to the book, you'll likely be disappointed.
Not saying this is the case with The Hobbit, btw, just saying I think it is a perfectly valid criticism.
-
The one thing that bothers me the most about the first one (and likely about the ones that are to come) is that most dwarves don't look like dwarves. It bothers me so much I can't get immersed in the story, I just keep thinking they aren't dwarves. Gimli was much better in LOTR imo.
-
How do they not like like dwarves :huh:
-
Has anyone else had the experience with high school teachers where they brainwash you that "Hollywood destroys books"? I think this idea is so ridiculous. A book and its movie adaptation are two independent works of art.
Suppose The Hobbit story originated with Peter Jackson, and the books never existed. Would the movies suddenly become "good" because the plot wasn't adapted and slightly altered from a previously existing set of books? Would reviewers still have anything to complain about? It just baffles me that people think not "sticking true to the original story" is a reasonable thing to complain about.
I think it's more of a societal thing than a teacher thing.
I try to take ALL works of art as completelly independent. I even LOVED Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes because I simply erased my childhood memories out of my life for 2 hours. I thought it was brilliant in its own right.
Where the reputation came from (and I'm seeing it in the Hunger Game series already) is that there are depths of character that you can go to in a book that you can't in a film. Visual storytelling, by its nature will always be flawed from that standpoint. And yet is DOES make up for it in other ways. But you will always be able to get inside a characters head far better on the page....better understand their motivations for doing A, B and C. There are different ways of doing it on film, but you can't really get inside their head....not to the depth of a book, anyway.
-
Oh I hate the notion that some people say that "books are inherently better than movies." Some of my favorite movies ever are adaptations of books that were simply dreadful. It's also unfair to judge a work of art that is meant to be devoured in one two to three hour sitting in a crowd of people against a work of art that is read individually at your own pace. Apples and oranges.
Now, as to the question of Jackson adding, changing, and inventing material for his Middle-Earth movies, let's have some backstory.
I have been an unabashed, colossal, immense fan of J.R.R. Tolkien for longer, I imagine, than most of you have been alive. I spent my thirteenth year devouring LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion. A great many of the posthumous books assembled by Christopher Tolkien are on my shelves (though I drew the line at the recent one, because it was fifty pages of a King Arthur poem and 300 pages of Christopher Tolkien talking about it). I wish, desperately, that the Tolkien estate would let go of the Silmarillion just to get some of it on film-I mean, who wouldn't want to see Fingolfin challenging Morgoth on a big screen for fuck's sake. I am a Tolkien fanboy beyond compare.
And I had zero problem with the changes Jackson made in the LotR trilogy, and have no problem with any of the changes I've heard have been made in The Hobbit.
Not.
A.
Single.
Problem.
Oh I get why the fanboys are up in arms, they invented a character out of whole cloth, and SHE'S A WOMAN. There's a reason why, too. It always amazes me that Tolkien created some of the most amazing female characters in fantasy history-Eowyn, the take no shit warrior woman who killed a monstrous evil BECAUSE she was a woman, Galadriel, the elven queen of terrifying beauty, Arwen, who chose mortality over eternal life for love (and her antecedent, the equally bad ass Luthien) and really gave them so little to do, save Eowyn. Had Arwen not been given Glorfindel's role in Fellowship, the first female speaking part in Fellowship would have been Galadriel, over two hours in. Without inventing a female character, The Hobbit has no female characters in it. People who had read the books would have no problem with this.
The modern movie going audience that hadn't touched the books? To them it'd be weird.
The other changes Jackson's made? Perfect sense. The biggest change, of course, was Faramir dragging Frodo halfway to Minas Tirith before changing his mind. Structurally, it made sense because they moved Shelob to RotK. But it also made sense for Faramir's character, who spent the third book/movie trying to prove himself to Denethor, yet in the books, when given a chance to really impress Denethor by doing something Boromir failed to do, he literally dismisses the notion in a sentence. I never had a problem with how it played out in the movies, and I suspect I won't when I watch the new Hobbit movie.
-
*snip*
Oh I get why the fanboys are up in arms, they invented a character out of whole cloth, and SHE'S A WOMAN. There's a reason why, too. It always amazes me that Tolkien created some of the most amazing female characters in fantasy history-Eowyn, the take no shit warrior woman who killed a monstrous evil BECAUSE she was a woman, Galadriel, the elven queen of terrifying beauty, Arwen, who chose mortality over eternal life for love (and her antecedent, the equally bad ass Luthien) and really gave them so little to do, save Eowyn. Had Arwen not been given Glorfindel's role in Fellowship, the first female speaking part in Fellowship would have been Galadriel, over two hours in. Without inventing a female character, The Hobbit has no female characters in it. People who had read the books would have no problem with this.
I also thought it was important to introduce Arwen in the movie to represent her relationship with Aragorn for people who were not familiar with Tolkien's works. That is one of the changes I thought was a great move on PJ's part.
-
How do they not like like dwarves :huh:
They look too human for me, particularly Thorin. There's two issues here actually: one is their faces (too human like I said except a couple of them) and the other is their size, though this probably has more to do with the fact that there aren't humans or elves on screen to compare their size.
Gimli always looked better to me, I really had the feeling that he was short and stout. I just don't get that feeling from most of the dwarves in the first movie.
-
I agree totally with Jaq. In fact, I think Jackson's changes to the plot represent improvements to the book. (Yes, I know that's blasphemy.) The other thing, too, is that it keeps readers who already know The Hobbit/LOTR on edge because they don't know how everything is going to play out.
You know what 1:1 book to movie adaptations give us? Watchmen. A potentially 10/10 movie ruined by horrible pacing and mediocre character development. Because Snyder stuck to the book and didn't change what was necessary for a good movie.
-
I agree with Xanthul. My biggest complaint about the first movie was 1- how the dwarves looked, and most especially 2- how the goblins looked. I felt like I was watching a cartoon for half the movie. The definitely shouldve stuck with the LOTR goblins instead of going all CGI with them. And quite a few of the dwarves look like they came from Shrek. Maybe it has to do with them using the faster franerate, but it all seemed so fake to me.
Rant over. I liked everything else about the movie.
And the movie Watchmen was amazing.
-
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_7761_1380996714.jpeg)
-
precisely
-
I didn't mind The Hobbit's length or slow pacing. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was it's lack of good characters. The best part of the LOTR trilogy is how memorable the characters are and how fun it is to follow them for a few hours. The Hobbit doesn't have anything like that.
-
The dwarves are definitely a lot more human looking than I'd like, but I'm actually okay with it cos it means I get to watch Aidan Turner.
(https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/33000000/Kili-fili-kili-and-the-others-33064667-960-720.jpg)
-
2- how the goblins looked. I felt like I was watching a cartoon for half the movie. The definitely shouldve stuck with the LOTR goblins instead of going all CGI with them.
This. LOTR goblins were really freaky and awesome. The AUJ goblins are ridiculous.
-
Wasn't there technically a difference between goblins and orcs? I seem to recall reading an explanation of the difference. Or maybe it was just explaining why they're different in the movies; I don't remember.
-
There is a difference, although they may have come from the same race originally.
-
I thought orcs were once elves and goblins are just goblins.
-
Wasn't there technically a difference between goblins and orcs? I seem to recall reading an explanation of the difference. Or maybe it was just explaining why they're different in the movies; I don't remember.
Didn't we see goblins in Fellowship though? In the mines of Moria.
-
I thought orcs were once elves and goblins are just goblins.
I think that's correct, but it's also important to note there are at least two kinds of orcs, the original "Mordor" orcs, and the Uruk-Hai that Saruman makes.
Wasn't there technically a difference between goblins and orcs? I seem to recall reading an explanation of the difference. Or maybe it was just explaining why they're different in the movies; I don't remember.
Didn't we see goblins in Fellowship though? In the mines of Moria.
That is correct.
-
https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/goblins.html
-
I thought orcs were once elves and goblins are just goblins.
Tolkien was iffy on the point. The Silmarillion listed orcs/goblins as coming from a corrupted stock of elves since Morgoth was unable to create life on his own (that power was left to Iluvitar and Iluvitar alone). In later works I believe he backpedaled on that so the truth is pretty much whatever you want it to be. As for orcs vs. goblins, the Lord of the Rings films and the books use the terms interchangeably, only The Hobbit movie makes any distinction between the two.
I pretty much prefer the LotR orcs/goblins to the Hobbit goblins, mostly because the prosthetics and makeup on those guys was great, they looked real, they looked dirty and nasty. The Hobbit goblins are all pretty much CGI and they look it, though the king was kinda cool.
I said it before when the first movie came out (I think) but most of my problems with The Hobbit have less to do with what was added and changed from the source material and more with how it's... just not a very good movie. It's overlong for no reason, Peter Jackson has developed a giant, throbbing hard-on for slow motion and I really didn't care for the CGI. For some reason it just looked much, much worse than its predecessors, and they're ten years old now.
The Riddles in the Dark, the trolls and the Unexpected Party parts were my favorites in the movie and the White Council scene was cool too, though the book purist in me just wanted to complain, complain, complain about it. The rest? The endless escape from the CGI goblin den, the pointlessly long escape from Azog (book purist: also, how the hell did Radagast, fleeing friggin Mirkwood, end up randomly running into Gandalf and company... on the other side of the Misty Mountains?) and then the final Out of the Frying Pan showdown with Azog just seemed to go on forever. Actually, it was weird, the whole movie veered between this silly Hobbit faerie tale-esque style and the more grimdark uberserious Lord of the Rings epic style, like it wasn't really sure what it wanted to be: a lighthearted adventure romp or a stylistic prelude to the Lord of the Rings. It was just weird and a little annoying at times.
So, if Desolation fix those pacing issues and deliver a fun, loose adaptation of the books, I'll be happy. I'll have to squash the book nerd in me from screaming at every change but I'll probably be happy in the end. However, since I'm assuming this is going to be another 3+ hour monstrosity, I doubt it'll happen. Peter Jackson has seemingly lost the ability to edit his own films. I hope I'm wrong because I'd love for Jackson to deliver another slice of awesome like the Fellowship Extended Edition (or even the theatrical cut), but I doubt it.
-
There was stuff in a couple of the trailers for the first film that wasn't in the movie, which leads me to believe there will be an extended edition.
-
There was stuff in a couple of the trailers for the first film that wasn't in the movie, which leads me to believe there will be an extended edition.
I don't know why, but that seems to happen with every movie. It's like it's an unspoken rule of film-making now. :lol
Well, anyways, if there is any film that doesn't need to be any longer, it's The Hobbit.
-
I remember a scene like that from the trailer for FotR. In the trailer there is a quick shot of what appears to be two female elves dancing in a forest. That was the only time you saw them. They weren't in neither the threatrical release nor the extended edition.
-
There was stuff in a couple of the trailers for the first film that wasn't in the movie, which leads me to believe there will be an extended edition.
There already is an extended edition of the first one (https://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-Unexpected-Extended-UltraViolet/dp/B00E8S2JZ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386854915&sr=8-1&keywords=hobbit+extended+edition).
-
There was stuff in a couple of the trailers for the first film that wasn't in the movie, which leads me to believe there will be an extended edition.
I don't know why, but that seems to happen with every movie. It's like it's an unspoken rule of film-making now. :lol
Well, anyways, if there is any film that doesn't need to be any longer, it's The Hobbit.
I disagree. I waited until the extended edition came out a couple of weeks ago, and it didn't disappoint. I thought it was brilliant.
-
Is the extended edition of Hobbit 1 any good? I bought the Bluray for the standard edition when it came out, but since I haven't even watched it, I feel kinda like a dunce for doing that.
-
Is the extended edition of Hobbit 1 any good? I bought the Bluray for the standard edition when it came out, but since I haven't even watched it, I feel kinda like a dunce for doing that.
It's not AS extended as the LOTR movies were. It's got about 10 minutes of extra footage...most of it just "color". But there's about 3 or 4 extra minutes of the counsel at Rivendell with Gandalf/Saruman/Elrond/Galadriel that is nothing short of :hefdaddy
-
I really didn't like that scene to begin with, so I dunno...
-
However, since I'm assuming this is going to be another 3+ hour monstrosity, I doubt it'll happen. Peter Jackson has seemingly lost the ability to edit his own films.
actually Desolation is about 15-20 minutes shorter than unexpected journey, which surprised me. in LOTR they kept getting longer where here that currently isn't the case. personally id rather have unexpected journey trim the fat a bit and this one be the long epic, but who knows.
seeing it tonight, ill let everyone know what i think :metal
-
I really didn't like that scene to begin with, so I dunno...
That was my favorite scene of the movie! I'm hoping to get to the theater tonight for part two.
-
I'm pretty surprised there hasn't been any chatter yet, I guess most of y'all are waiting until the weekend to watch it.
My two cents, for what it's worth... BIG improvement off of the first film. I can't think of a single aspect of the movie that didn't improve off of the first part. Martin Freeman took Bilbo to another level, the pacing was better, the Gandalf side-adventure was very well executed, Dale and Mirkwood both looked stunning (as did all of the NZ scenery, unsurprisingly). The ending felt a little jarring, for me, but it's not a major problem.
I'm going to have to watch it at least once more, maybe twice. But my first reactions are much stronger than immediately following Unexpected Journey. Best of all, my faith in it all working out as a trilogy has been restored. It's no LOTR; there will never be another LOTR. It is, however, a much better Hobbit film than I was expecting after my disappointment with the first.
:tup :tup
-
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: 7.6/10 - Good
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug: 8.6/10 - Great
Very much better than the first one, and I liked the first one. Immediately after I saw TDoS I declared it the best movie of the year, but then I remembered Gravity's 9.1/10, so second best movie of the year.
-
There was no tension in any of the elf fights. I dont remember the elves being csrtoons or superheroes in the book. Otherwise, great film.
-
It's been a while since I read the Silmarillion, a long time since I read the LOTR, and an even longer time since I read The Hobbit.
Can one of the more knowledgeable Tolkein-verse DTFers (looking through this thread, I know there are at least a couple of them) fill me in on the details of the film's added material? Am I correct in saying that Legolas and Tauriel's involvement was the only bit that PJ flat-out invented? Pretty much all of Gandalf's business can be traced back to the appendices and 'Unfinished Tales', right? What about Azog as a leader?
Thanks
-
I liked it a lot. Wayyy better than the first. Much better pacing, great action scenes, vivid imagery with the necromancer and gandolf. Ending kind of stunk in that it left you hanging there, but that's OK since we all know what's going down next year. I cant wait now.
-
The ending stunk? Wat? I know you said that "it's OK since we all know...", but still, saying that that ending stunk confuses me.
-
It's been a while since I read the Silmarillion, a long time since I read the LOTR, and an even longer time since I read The Hobbit.
Can one of the more knowledgeable Tolkein-verse DTFers (looking through this thread, I know there are at least a couple of them) fill me in on the details of the film's added material? Am I correct in saying that Legolas and Tauriel's involvement was the only bit that PJ flat-out invented? Pretty much all of Gandalf's business can be traced back to the appendices and 'Unfinished Tales', right? What about Azog as a leader?
Thanks
Tauriel and Legolas were not in the book. At all. Tauriel was entirely made up by Jackson for the film.
Very, very vague spoilers for some Hobbit stuff. Nothing major, but I'm giving out a warning. And I'm not using tiny text because I hate reading that. :p
As for the Unfinished Tales thing, Jackson only has the rights to the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings books (including the Appendices). He does not have the rights to the Unfinished Tales, the Silmarillion are any other plethora of Middle-Earth history books because Christopher Tolkien hates the movies and won't sell the rights. Any of the Dol Guldor stuff or non-book material is either culled from the Appendices or invented outright. There's a pretty meaty section on the History of the Dwarves in the Appendices and Jackson took bits from the that and changed or altered what he needed. Azog was straight from the Appendices though he got killed in the battle at the Gates of Moria (spoiler.... er not really I guess) and only his son Bolg shows up later in the Hobbit (I won't say how for spoiler reasons). Azog's exploits were wholly invented for the movie.
The History of Dwarves goes into a lot of detail on Thorin's line and I assume that's where Jackson got a lot of material for Dol Guldor though, since I've only seen the first Hobbit movie, they've already changed a fair bit of that history and I can only imagine Desolation changes even more.
Actually, The History of the Dwarves is one of my favorite bits of Middle-Earth lore. It's fairly short but it packs so much interesting stuff and I always want each and every little factoid fleshed out into a larger story and the dwarves really get the shit-end of the stick for large swathes of the Third Age. The story goes into a lot of Gandalf's motivations with regards to Smaug and Bilbo. I'm sad they seemingly left that out of the movie, but what can you do?
-
The ending stunk? Wat? I know you said that "it's OK since we all know...", but still, saying that that ending stunk confuses me.
Ending kind of stunk in that it left you hanging there
That doesn't mean the entire end to the movie stunk. It was quite good, but I am talking about how it leaves you hanging.
-
There was even more made-up stuff in this one, but the made-up stuff was a lot better this time, so the movie was better overall.
After making LotR "by the book", Jackson is basically having his way with Middle Earth. But it's good. Everything he's doing makes sense, more or less. It all helps enrich the Middle Earth world. Some purists will be upset regardless, but there's no way he could make this movie as good (or even better) than LotR without adding new material.
-
Hmmm, I didn't realize that about PJ, the rights, and Christopher Tolkein. I guess that means any Silmarillion movie adaptation is out of the question... Not sure what that would look like to begin with, but I know at least the diehards would be interested.
I agree with PC, that the added material was definitely stronger in this film than the first. Hopefully that stays true for the conclusion.
-
Can one of the more knowledgeable Tolkein-verse DTFers (looking through this thread, I know there are at least a couple of them) fill me in on the details of the film's added material? Am I correct in saying that Legolas and Tauriel's involvement was the only bit that PJ flat-out invented?
I reread the Hobbit a year ago (right before the movie).
Legolas/Taureil were invented as was the battle around the barrel stuff. Bard really wasn't in the book all that much until he kills Smaug so the stuff with all the dwarves being helped out by him were added. None of the dwarves stayed behind in Dale. The stuff in the Lonely Mountain is very different. In the book Bilbo goes in and talks to Smaug, Smaug gets pissed and attacks Lake Town. The dwarves were actually waiting outside while Bilbo went in initially. I'm pretty sure he ran out and warned them the dragon was woken and got them inside before Smaug breathed fire on the side of the mountain. The Arkenstone was actually not what they sent him in for in the book. But Bilbo did find it when they were looking around at the treasure and kept it (and later gave it to someone other than Thorin).
So all in all lots of things added but I thought they were done very well. And I agree with this one having better pacing and much better overall.
-
Potential spoilers.
I feel like I must adress what is probably my favorite moment of the movie: Gandalf vs Sauron. I always find the stories that are treated as side-stories but are the the ones that is actually the most important to be the coolest. And when Gandalf encounters Sauron here it is just epic. I really got the feeling that, even without the ring, Sauron is a very powerful and dangerous force of evil.
That zoom in through multiple Sauron's and fire at the end was really freaky. It really showed that Sauron isn't just a big man in armor or a large flaming eye but a spiritual being, a very abstract form of life in the physical world.
-
Potential spoilers.
I feel like I must adress what is probably my favorite moment of the movie: Gandalf vs Sauron. I always find the stories that are treated as side-stories but are the the ones that is actually the most important to be the coolest. And when Gandalf encounters Sauron here it is just epic. I really got the feeling that, even without the ring, Sauron is a very powerful and dangerous force of evil.
That zoom in through multiple Sauron's and fire at the end was really freaky. It really showed that Sauron isn't just a big man in armor or a large flaming eye but a spiritual being, a very abstract form of life in the physical world.
Our joke about that was Sauronception
-
Potential spoilers.
I feel like I must adress what is probably my favorite moment of the movie: Gandalf vs Sauron. I always find the stories that are treated as side-stories but are the the ones that is actually the most important to be the coolest. And when Gandalf encounters Sauron here it is just epic. I really got the feeling that, even without the ring, Sauron is a very powerful and dangerous force of evil.
That zoom in through multiple Sauron's and fire at the end was really freaky. It really showed that Sauron isn't just a big man in armor or a large flaming eye but a spiritual being, a very abstract form of life in the physical world.
Our joke about that was Sauronception
haha my friends said the same thing :lol
-
Was kinda disappointed, but I think I just need to reset my expectations. This is not a re-telling of The Hobbit, but a movie trilogy based on the Hobbit (which is exactly how the end credits list it). There were a few minor divergences in AUJ, but they seemed to be much more major this time around. Putting aside the inclusion of Legolas and Tauriel, there were a lot of other scenes that strayed just a little too far from the book imo, with no real added need to. Since we're already starting with the spoilers, here's my beefs:
Escape from the Elves - I understand the need to alter it for a little more action
Bard
Kili's injury, and staying behind in Laketown
Finding the door - that was really condensed
The scene's with Smaug - and what's with the Goldfinger treatment?
I'm by no means a purist - I've read the book once... last year before AUJ came out. But I'm failing to see the need for the above alterations.
I'll go see it a second time with reset expectations, and certain I'll enjoy it more.
-
Just got back from a guys night out that involved all you can eat sushi and the new movie.
I agree with you, Chad... everything from the Elves to the Door kinda bugged me... but I'll get over it.
Otherwise I loved it!
-
I watched it a second time yesterday, still good :)
I'm curious jingle.man, what didn't you like about Bard? Is it the fact that he's become a more prominent character than he was in the book? I actually liked that, given that he plays a large role later. I always thought it was odd how in the book he was hardly developed.
-
I liked Bard. Sure, he was escalated. But having read most of Tolkien's works several times, nothing about the changes and additions to the Hobbit seemed inconsistent with Middle Earth and the type of things Tolkien wrote about going on in it.
-
I watched it a second time yesterday, still good :)
I'm curious jingle.man, what didn't you like about Bard? Is it the fact that he's become a more prominent character than he was in the book? I actually liked that, given that he plays a large role later. I always thought it was odd how in the book he was hardly developed.
I didn't dislike Bard himself. Just commented that it was one of several changes didn't add much to the overall story.
-
I watched it a second time yesterday, still good :)
I'm curious jingle.man, what didn't you like about Bard? Is it the fact that he's become a more prominent character than he was in the book? I actually liked that, given that he plays a large role later. I always thought it was odd how in the book he was hardly developed.
I didn't dislike Bard himself. Just commented that it was one of several changes didn't add much to the overall story.
Given that he is the one that is going to kill Smaug, it would be really silly in the movie to have him show up and shoot him down. It worked OK in the book but in translating a book to a movie often times changes are needed to make it work. I think it has been done in a great way.
-
I got ninja'd by snowdog and my screen froze so I'm not going to retype all of that.
I do agree that it doesn't add much to this particular movie, but think it's good in preparing for the next.
Also, I completely agree about the 4 dwarves staying back, that didn't do anything for me. Also, not a big Tauriel fan and definitely not a big fan of the bizarre almost-love triangle that it brought about. Evangeline Lilly can't seem to stay out of them.
-
I would say the love triangle is really the only addition I did not like.
I thought Bard was great. I didn't really like how he was essentially no one in the book yet was the one who killed smaug. I think his storyline adds a lot to the movie.
I also really liked the gandolf / Sauron scene. That was intense.
I felt like this movie was a good gateway between the hobbit and LotR in terms of the movies. Its starting to feel a lot more like a prequel given the Sauron side story.
-
Why is so many people spelling it "Gandolf"? Is that the way to spell it in some countries?
-
I was wondering that myself.
-
Finding the door - that was really condensed
I'm by no means a purist - I've read the book once... last year before AUJ came out. But I'm failing to see the need for the above alterations.
On this point alone: in the books, if I remember correctly they find the door days before and try to open it, with no clue they have to wait until a certain day even though it says so plainly on their map... Bilbo notices the keyhole appearing at sunset on that day and realises, tells them to put the key in then "explains" to them what happened. Making the change that the dwarves arrived at the right time but didn't guess what the "last light" meant is necessary, imo, to keep the spirit of the dwarves giving up after being unable to open it and it being Bilbo who realises, without making the dwarves look like complete idiots.
I find a lot of changes are for that reason - to not make the dwarves or other characters seem like total morons (which they are in the books), or the world seem extremely cartoonish and not at all like the same world Lord Of The Rings is set in. Some of the changes, though, are just pure addition to make it more like most modern films (e.g. the love triangle).
-
Watched it a 3rd time this afternoon ;D
Almost as good as 1 and 2, but I think I should give it a break now :lol I definitely still think it was a BIG step in the right direction, from where pt 1 left off.
-
Thorin looked like a tiny majestic Mike Portnoy a couple times during the film..
-
Thorin looked like a tiny majestic Mike Portnoy a couple times during the film..
Did he leave the company to go join the orcs?
-
Gonna go see it tomorrow in IMAX 3D. Will lower my expectations to not think of it as a re-telling of The Hobbit.
-
I find a lot of changes are for that reason - to not make the dwarves or other characters seem like total morons (which they are in the books), or the world seem extremely cartoonish and not at all like the same world Lord Of The Rings is set in.
That's an interesting point, the Hobbit definitely had a somewhat lighter, less "grim epic" air to it than LOTR. In the Hobbit, the dwarves' immaturity, stagnancy of character, and blind sense of entitlement are sharply contrasted with Bilbo's humility and resourcefulness, and I think that is part of the point. In LOTR, the dwarves are shown to have certain personality traits, but are still portrayed in a more flattering light as a once prolific and immensely productive people who got wronged by the orcs, and whose character flaws are generally made to seem endearing rather than frustrating.
-J
-
Gonna see it today.
In related news..... https://www.theonion.com/articles/grisly-remains-of-15-hobbits-discovered-in-peter-j,34754/ (https://www.theonion.com/articles/grisly-remains-of-15-hobbits-discovered-in-peter-j,34754/)
-
Gonna see it today.
In related news..... https://www.theonion.com/articles/grisly-remains-of-15-hobbits-discovered-in-peter-j,34754/ (https://www.theonion.com/articles/grisly-remains-of-15-hobbits-discovered-in-peter-j,34754/)
The article says windowless room but I clearly see a window. :P ;)
-
Holy. Fucking. Shit. 10/10, so fucking amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Eowyn, I'm sorry babe, but you've been replaced by Tauriel as my Middle Earth main squeeze. That woman, just :hearts:
-
Glad you enjoyed it! Arwen says, "hello"...
-
Holy. Fucking. Shit. 10/10, so fucking amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Eowyn, I'm sorry babe, but you've been replaced by Tauriel as my Middle Earth main squeeze. That woman, just :hearts:
I'm seeing it in 2 hours, thanks, you just made me more excited!
-
Really enjoyed The Desolation of Smaug. Benedict Cumberbatch = awesome.
Looking forward to part 3.
-
lol I didn't realize how much Legolas was a dick until this film. Some of parts in Fellowship makes sense now haha
-
Not sure I follow. When was Legolas a dick in the LOTR?
-
Holy. Fucking. Shit. 10/10, so fucking amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Eowyn, I'm sorry babe, but you've been replaced by Tauriel as my Middle Earth main squeeze. That woman, just :hearts:
Can't argue with your rating, but if the rights to the Silmarillion ever got worked out, Luthien would show up and make everyone forget EVERY elf in the movies. :lol
Loved it to bits, even if I had to explain to a friend who had heard it was essentially two chapters stretched out to three hours just WHY that happened. Let's look at how Tolkien handled Gandalf dealing with the Necromancer.
"Hey guise, I'm off to do something mysterious. Be back in a bit."
(SEVERAL CHAPTERS PASS)
"Hey guise I'm back. While I was away me and a bunch of wizards totally defeated the Necromancer off camera."
Simply showing what Tolkien told adds time to the movie. Having Orlando Bloom be in it as Legolas-well, one, the character likely WAS there, since it was the kingdom of his father in the first place, but two, c'mon. You get a chance to have Orlando Bloom reprise Legolas, you fucking take it. Tauriel being invented out of whole cloth was necessary to give the movie, ya know, female leads as I said before, and really only the love triangle felt forced. None of the other changes to the text bothered me in the least. "Thorin, Bilbo, and the other dwarfs try desperately to kill Smaug using their wits" beat the hell out of the book's "oh, hey, you went by the laketown and they want to steal my stuff, gonna go blow em up."
Seriously. A straight adaptation of The Hobbit would be 90 minutes long, and people would be dying of laughter from the things that happened off camera. And wondering where Legolas was at.
-
Not enough Radagast in this one but still a great film.
-
Went to see it in IMAX 3D today, and was much happier with it, because of new expectations.
Scene with Beorn... good (but since when could Bombur run like Usain Bolt?)
Mirkwood ... how they got captured by the elves was totally different from the book, but I'm ok with it.
Imprisoned... the whole start of the love triangle was awkward. Since when do captors start having starry-eyed conversations with prisoners?
Escape - came too quick, but probably was part of what got editted out. I'm ok with it.
Barrel chase - I'm ok with the need to add more action
Laketown - again, the storyline with Kili's injury is contrived, but I can live with it.
Entering the mountain... Loved all the scenes with Smaug the 2nd time around, but I think this was the source of many of my beefs from the first viewing. As I recall from the book, they arrived days ahead of having to find the door. Once they did find it, they sent Bilbo in to steal some shit - the Arkenstone wasn't ever the top/only priority. The dwarves never went into the mountain... Bilbo tricked the shit out of Smaug (wearing the ring the entire time), and he went looking for revenge - roasting their ponies, and leaving the dwarves stuck in limbo - they couldn't get down from the ledge (they'd be out in the open), but they also couldn't enter the mountain lest they run into big bad Smaug - who eventually heads to Laketown to get his death on, intending on a return back to the mountain to find find the dwarves for dessert.
Am I mis-remembering?
Once I got past the fact that this isn't a re-telling of The Hobbit, I loved it. The scene's in the mountain reminded me of the FOTR and the mines of Moira
-
I liked Peter Jackson's cameo :lol
-
I liked Peter Jackson's cameo :lol
what was it? i didn't notice.
I did love catching Steve Colbert in it though, wouldn't have caught it if i hadn't read about it a few days before :lol
-
I liked Peter Jackson's cameo :lol
Yeah, I loved botht the fact that it was just about the first actor you see in the movie and the fact that it's identical to his cameo in the first LOTR movie. :)
-
Scene with Beorn... good (but since when could Bombur run like Usain Bolt?)
Ah, but dwarves are natural sprinters. Very dangerous over short distances! ;)
Not sure I follow. When was Legolas a dick in the LOTR?
Key moment for me is when he jumped down Boromir's throat for thinking Aragorn was no mere ranger. Even Aragorn was like dude chill! Another scene in my mind at the end of that film right after Aragorn says "Let's hunt some Orc", Legolas gives this look of disdain to Gimli! Seeing more of the backstory of Legolas, his breed of warrior elves, and how much of his father is an ass in Smuag, it just made sense to me on the little moments where it showed Legolas could be a little cold. Never having read the Similarion or any other writings that gave a backstory to The Hobbit and LOTR, it was interesting seeing this.
Also
(https://s-media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/18/ce/09/18ce09595998f65cae57eed1ad17b212.jpg)
:lol
-
:lol
Where were Steven Colbert and PJ in the movie? I've seen it 3 times but didn't spot 'em.
-
PJ is literally the first person you see. He walks out of a house eating a carrot.
-
PJ is literally the first person you see. He walks out of a house eating a carrot.
Yeah, I spotted that right away. I think I was the only one, there wasn't anyone else responding in the entire theater.
I didn't spot Colbert though, I had no clue at all he would be in the movie.
-
According to his interview with David Letterman, he says that his cameo is in Laketown. He doesn't want to personally reveal at the moment....he says its kind of a Where's Waldo haha. Of course it is
-
Colbert was one of the spies in Laketown, you see him for a brief moment in the lower left of the screen when they're leaving Bard's house, he has an eyepatch :lol
-
Colbert was one of the spies in Laketown, you see him for a brief moment in the lower left of the screen when they're leaving Bard's house, he has an eyepatch :lol
HA
-
Just got the extended edition of An Unexpected Journey yesterday, looking forward to see what was added.
-
I had a Hobbit day watching the first one and the new one in cinema, really loved it (apart from maybe the weird almost love triangle going on..)
-
Saw the new one last night. I liked it a lot, I agree with the vast majority of the changes that PJ made to the story, although I'm not sure about the cross-species love interest, or why it is necessary to have dwarves left in Laketown. Hopefully that will make more sense after the third film.
Also, Benedict Cumberawesome was the only choice for the voice of Smaug. Fantastic.
-
Saw the new one last night. I liked it a lot, I agree with the vast majority of the changes that PJ made to the story, although I'm not sure about the cross-species love interest, or why it is necessary to have dwarves left in Laketown. Hopefully that will make more sense after the third film.
Also, Benedict Cumberawesome was the only choice for the voice of Smaug. Fantastic.
Yeah, I'm figuring PJ's got to be setting it up for something.
-
At this point, I think it's fairly predictable that Tauriel bites the dust helping a Dwarf, and Legolas is there to see it.
-
Really liked the new movie. The middle was a little slow, but otherwise a great time.
-
Saw this yesterday and took jingle's advice to go in thinking of it as more of a "re-telling" of the Hobbit rather than an adaptation of the book. I really enjoyed it, it was definitely better than the first and really entertaining throughout. I liked the added scenes with Gandalf confronting the necromancer, and the action scenes were mostly cool and fun to watch. The spiders creeped the shit out of me as expected. What the hell was that weird crab spider thing that Bilbo killed at the end of that sequence??
In retrospect, there *were* some deviations from the book that I didn't think worked so well, like the changes to the initial encounter with Smaug in the mountain, and I thought some parts were shortchanged, like Beorn. But as a movie, it largely worked well and does feel more of a LOTR prelude than a standalone story, which I think is what they were going for.
-J
-
legolas and tauriel are so awesome in this film
-
We were gonna go see the new flick with our daughter, but she reminded us that she still hasn't seen An Unexpected Journey. Borrowed the Blu-ray from a friend and watched it last night, so now we're all set to see The Desolation of Smaug.
Cool story, bro! :tup
-
watched hobbit 1 the other evening, now I NEED to see part 2! I still feel a little underwhelmed in that it is exactly what I expected, and nothing more. I guess thats the downside of being released off the back of as awesome a trilogy as LOTR...
-
I prefer the Hobbit movies to LOTR.
They're more fun and upbeat.
LOTR is just far too dreary and plodding for me.
-
Honestly, the only thing I didn't like about The Hobbit was at times it seemed just a bit too "silly" for lack of a better word. I suppose you're on the opposite end of the spectrum.
-
Watched it in HFR tonight, after watching it in 24fp/s last week. And man the difference is not huge, but somehow this version grabbed me way more. I really felt part of the story. I totally get why Peter Jackson adores it so much.
-
The Desolation of Smaug is very good, much better than the first. Really enjoyed, especially with the 3D (which I'm not usually a fan of).
-
This was so easily the better film of the two. The pacing was much better, the changes were better integrated into the story and Smaug was goddamn great. I do have a couple of complaints though:
1) That gold pile in Erebor was ludicrously huge. Like seriously an absolutely ridiculous amount of gold. It's a wonder that gold has any value considering how much those greedy dwarves had.
2) Some of the CGI was so godawful. Like Legolas chasing after Bolg on horseback. Why do that in CGI? It looked terrible. Smaug getting wrapped up in the ropes looked like a shit cutscene from God of War and the orcs continue to look much worse than their LotR counterparts. Seriously, considering how much money has been funneled into these movies, how does it look worse than the LotR movies, which are ten years old now? Oh yeah, the LotR movies used an even mix of actors, make-up, sets and prosthetics and fleshed out with CGI whereas The Hobbit films are apparently just giant CGI-wank fests.
3) The ending 'climax' in Erebor went on waaaaaay too long and the gold statue at the end ties into the above complaint. It didn't feel as needlessly lengthy as some of the scenes TUJ, but it was getting there. I think it was a bit more bearable since it was intercut with Gandalf in Dol Guldor and Bard in Laketown and the stupid was a bit parceled out.
4) The romance scenes between Tauriel and Kili were kinda cringe-worthy, but honestly, I felt the same way about Aragorn and Arwen's romance scenes in LotR, so that's not a big change really.
5) The cliffhanger ending is just kinda shitty. They should've at least ended one of the storylines in this film but now, movie three is going to be jampacked with stuff happening. Maybe that'll be a good thing, maybe not, but right now, I'm thinking it was not the best decision.
Despite those complaints (some of which are pretty nitpicky) I liked it. I left the theater satisfied and not too disappointed. Hopefully the next one is even better and TUJ turns out to be the anomalous turd in the snickers pile.
-
5) The cliffhanger ending is just kinda shitty. They should've at least ended one of the storylines in this film but now, movie three is going to be jampacked with stuff happening. Maybe that'll be a good thing, maybe not, but right now, I'm thinking it was not the best decision.
I have seen this complaint multiple times now and can still not for the life of me understand it.
-
I don't either. We know there is a third movie coming that will end the story, I don't understand the hatred of the cliffhanger.
-
I don't get that either. "The middle movie of a trilogy has a cliffhanger! HOW DARE THEY!" :lol
-
It almost has less to do with the second film and more to do with how crowded the third film is likely to be. As it is now, the third film has a whole bunch of stuff to cover now, Smaug, Dol Guldor (and probably Thrain), the battle of the however many armies they put in and then the return home. I understand you don't want Smaug to bite it at the end of the second film, but my worry is that the third will just be a bit crowded. Perhaps not and PJ and Co will prove me wrong and I hope that's true.
Comparing this to the Two Towers, that film, even though it had middle-of-the-story syndrome, still had an arc. Climax, resolution and plot points resolved in a satisfying manner. Desolation of Smaug does not have that, but even though it kinda bugs, it's definitely a nitpick complaint.
And before somebody brings up books, yes, I hate it when books do the same thing. A Dance With Dragons was absolutely maddening because of this and most of the later Wheel of Time novels do the same and are also highly annoying (although that's not the only reason why). So, that's not a complaint I have of just films, but all kinds of media.
-
There are at least two schools of thought here, regarding how to end the first or second movie in a trilogy. Yes, we know that the next installment is coming. But you could have a cliffhanger, or you could end it in such a way that some things are resolved and you get some feeling of conclusion, even though everyone knows that there's more to come. I guess it depends on the story itself and whether there's any place, or any way, to break up the story somewhere around that spot. If there isn't, sure, go for the cliffhanger.
An Unexpected Journey ended with the "semi-conclusion" thing. They'd escaped the goblins, and Azog's party, they reached a ridge and could see The Lonely Mountain in the distance. To be continued. Some people were just figuring that it would be more like that. Yeah, we all know there's more coming, a year from now. A cliffhanger in a TV show is to make sure people tune in next time and keep watching the show. Since it's a given that if you've seen the first two, you're gonna see the third anyway, there's no "need" for one here. It's a legitimate storytelling device, but still kinda mean to do when you know people have to wait a year for the resolution.
Ninja'd, but whatever.
-
My initial reaction was frustration....but it was followed immediately by laughter, applause and stating out loud, "Ya got me, Peter"
I thought it was absolutely BRILLIANT. I was all set for the movie to end with the death of Smaug, the celebration in Laketown....and the growing dark cloud of Thorin's greed in the aftermath. There's your ending, with still something to keep you teased for the next installment.
But in reflection, I absolutely think PJ made the right decision. There's aren't enough "surprises" anymore...and that ending REALLY surprised me.
-
i am fire. i am death.
-
i am fire. i am death.
Fucking most epic (almost)last words of a movie this year.
-
But in reflection, I absolutely think PJ made the right decision. There's aren't enough "surprises" anymore...and that ending REALLY surprised me.
Bingo.
-
Finally saw it last night. Overall, I thought it was good, but there were a few things that bugged me.
i am fire. i am death.
Fucking most epic (almost)last words of a movie this year.
This is the first and, probably my biggest complaint. To me, that line fell completely flat. There was a lot in the Erebor sequence that was really cool. But in the end, it all felt very gratuitous, and more than anything else, really served to undermine Smaug's aura of near-invincibility. The more that sequence dragged on, it went from a tension-filled game of cat-and-mouse with the drawves running for their lives, to just silly. They outwitted the dragon repeatedly, went toe-to-toe with him without so much as a single casualty, and then in the middle of the fight, when the dwarves are completely taking it to him, he decides to just leave and go torch Laketown. Uh...okay. "I am fire. I am death." Yeah, whatever. More like, "I am inept. I am really unlucky." Maybe this entire sequence will be helped out more by what will be added back in in the extended version on DVD. But somehow, I doubt it. This sequence was really a letdown for me.
legolas and tauriel are so awesome in this film
This is my other gripe. They were too awesome. Yeah, I get it. They are uber cool elf assassins. But the CGI rapidfire killing sprees against overwhelming odds whenever these two shared screen time with orcs was just a bit too over the top to be remotely believable. Sometimes, less is more. These two could have been a bit more awesome by being...well...a bit less awesome.
My only other gripe, and this is a very minor point that probably will vanish in the extended DVD cut, is that Mirkwood should have seemed longer and more plodding. LOTR got the pacing correct. It was supposed to be plodding. Jackson and co. did a good job of incorporating that element just enough to really make you feel it, but not so much as to make it not work as a screen play (and, admittedly, that balance still wasn't ideal for a lot of people, as there are plenty that feel that it was too plodding). Mirkwood needed some of that. Losing the trail was too sudden, and there wasn't enough time, IMO, for the audience to really feel the dread from the consequence of losing the trail. But given the overall arc of the story as a screen play, this is relatively minor. And, again, I think it will probably be a lot longer and detailed in the extended version.
The above gripes aside, it was still good. The Smaug and Legolas/Tauriel problems bother me, but didn't keep me from overall enjoying the film (although the Smaug issue feels like a pretty grievous error). And there was a lot that I thought worked really well. For example, Dol Guldur was great. Seeing the Witch King of Angmar's tomb was an unnecessary, but very cool touch. And lots of other things worked well, too. At first, I was bothered by some of the dwarves remaining behind in Laketown. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was a brilliant move. Think about it for a second. Let's assume all the dwarves leave. Do we really care all that much about Laketown? Do we have a reason to? Yeah, Bard is a likeable character. And given that we get to see that he has a family, we are a bit sympathetic. But through really no fault of Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens, there really isn't enough developed there that we care about them very deeply. That's fine for the book. But I don't think it would have worked as well in a movie. Having the dwarves there makes us the audience care just a bit more and tips the scales just enough. And knowing the way J/W/B like to tell a story, they will likely have the dwarven company play a role in the defeat of Smaugh so that it isn't all about Bard, which gives the Dwarves more of a stake and a right to reclaim Erebor as their own. So good move there.
-
While I liked Smaug's line, I agree with everything you said that led up to it. In the book, Smaug had a credible reason to go and torch Laketown. Here, it was never established very well what his reason is. The fact he couldn't beat 13 little people in Erebor, and in a couple of sentences determines that burning Laketown will be revenge enough on them?? I thought that was weak.
But I loved his line.
-
In isolation, it's a brilliant line. It's just that, in context, the setup for it make the line itself fall completely flat, IMO.
-
In isolation, it's a brilliant line. It's just that, in context, the setup for it make the line itself fall completely flat, IMO.
+1
And also +1 to your large post. Still an enjoyable movie, but man they really went off the rails in a couple parts.
-
i saw it for a second time last night. still love this movie.
honestly, i can watch legolas and tauriel kill orcs for 3 hours and be fine. I have no problem that they don't really contribute to the overall plot.
all the book purists need to lighten up. it's just another adaption of the book with liberties taken (it's not like all the copies of the original books magically turn into DVD copies of PJ's trilogy, they are still there forever)
until last year this is what the hobbit was turned into: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWVeZx2IP30
-
The Rankin-Bass version of The Hobbitt was great. I remember watching it on TV when it first came out, and digging the fact that any Tolkien at all was even being done. 1977, baby.
-
Yeah, I still have fond memories of that version.
-
Finally saw it last night. Overall, I thought it was good, but there were a few things that bugged me.
i am fire. i am death.
Fucking most epic (almost)last words of a movie this year.
This is the first and, probably my biggest complaint. To me, that line fell completely flat. There was a lot in the Erebor sequence that was really cool. But in the end, it all felt very gratuitous, and more than anything else, really served to undermine Smaug's aura of near-invincibility. The more that sequence dragged on, it went from a tension-filled game of cat-and-mouse with the drawves running for their lives, to just silly. They outwitted the dragon repeatedly, went toe-to-toe with him without so much as a single casualty, and then in the middle of the fight, when the dwarves are completely taking it to him, he decides to just leave and go torch Laketown. Uh...okay. "I am fire. I am death." Yeah, whatever. More like, "I am inept. I am really unlucky." Maybe this entire sequence will be helped out more by what will be added back in in the extended version on DVD. But somehow, I doubt it. This sequence was really a letdown for me.
legolas and tauriel are so awesome in this film
This is my other gripe. They were too awesome. Yeah, I get it. They are uber cool elf assassins. But the CGI rapidfire killing sprees against overwhelming odds whenever these two shared screen time with orcs was just a bit too over the top to be remotely believable. Sometimes, less is more. These two could have been a bit more awesome by being...well...a bit less awesome.
My only other gripe, and this is a very minor point that probably will vanish in the extended DVD cut, is that Mirkwood should have seemed longer and more plodding. LOTR got the pacing correct. It was supposed to be plodding. Jackson and co. did a good job of incorporating that element just enough to really make you feel it, but not so much as to make it not work as a screen play (and, admittedly, that balance still wasn't ideal for a lot of people, as there are plenty that feel that it was too plodding). Mirkwood needed some of that. Losing the trail was too sudden, and there wasn't enough time, IMO, for the audience to really feel the dread from the consequence of losing the trail. But given the overall arc of the story as a screen play, this is relatively minor. And, again, I think it will probably be a lot longer and detailed in the extended version.
The above gripes aside, it was still good. The Smaug and Legolas/Tauriel problems bother me, but didn't keep me from overall enjoying the film (although the Smaug issue feels like a pretty grievous error). And there was a lot that I thought worked really well. For example, Dol Guldur was great. Seeing the Witch King of Angmar's tomb was an unnecessary, but very cool touch. And lots of other things worked well, too. At first, I was bothered by some of the dwarves remaining behind in Laketown. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was a brilliant move. Think about it for a second. Let's assume all the dwarves leave. Do we really care all that much about Laketown? Do we have a reason to? Yeah, Bard is a likeable character. And given that we get to see that he has a family, we are a bit sympathetic. But through really no fault of Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens, there really isn't enough developed there that we care about them very deeply. That's fine for the book. But I don't think it would have worked as well in a movie. Having the dwarves there makes us the audience care just a bit more and tips the scales just enough. And knowing the way J/W/B like to tell a story, they will likely have the dwarven company play a role in the defeat of Smaugh so that it isn't all about Bard, which gives the Dwarves more of a stake and a right to reclaim Erebor as their own. So good move there.
I definitely get both of these points. In the first case, I don't remember anything like the Smaug scene in the books. Jackson seems to have just invented it to add excitement. Same goes for Legolas/Tauriel. Jackson wanted to add a side story, and an excuse for a bit more excitement and violence. In the book, the barrel escape is exciting itself. But for a movie that's a follow-up to LotR, I guess Jackson felt the need to amp it up.
It doesn't really bother me that Jackson's deviating from the books, but it is unfortunate that, in most cases, he's doing so apparently just to make the movies more violent. Of course there's plenty of violence in the Hobbit already, just not enough to fill-up three movies, each with their own big battle scenes.
I enjoy the movies, and I understand why Jackson went in the direction he did with them. I do wish he'd done a more faithful interpretation, which probably would have taken up one very long or two longish movies, rather than three very long movies. But I enjoy these to, for what they are, and I guess the need to bloat them with new battles and orc slaughter scenes is just natural for the time and medium of Jackson's interpretation.
-
Finally got to watch this last night and I really enjoyed it. I thought the pacing was pretty exceptional, and overall pretty much everything was better than the first one. That said, there were still way too many ridiculous things like those that plagued the first movie. LOTR had a few as well, but the amount of ridiculous scenes is far greater in the Hobbit series. First of all there was Legolas, who tried his best to ruin it by jumping on floating dwarves heads while going down a river, among other stupid things. And the scene with the dwarves spilling shit on Smaug was pretty dumb. At least Radagast was kept to a minimum.
The majority of the film was quite good, though, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm very interested to see how they finish the Dol Guldur plot. In the books, The White Council drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur and he re-appears in Mordor, but how will they do that with that giant ass army in there? Interested to see what they do there.
-
I don't understand the complaints about "silly things". It's a fantasy adventure based on a children's book, the silly things fit perfectly.
I saw the film at the weekend and enjoyed it immensely. Still not quite up there with LOTR, but a great film and a big step up from the first one. In particular I thought Laketown was absolutely beautiful!
-
The majority of the film was quite good, though, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm very interested to see how they finish the Dol Guldur plot. In the books, The White Council drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur and he re-appears in Mordor, but how will they do that with that giant ass army in there? Interested to see what they do there.
I think the army is shown leaving by the end of this movie though to go and do the whole battle of five armies thing. So I think it will pretty much be White Council vs Sauron in the next movie, which will probably be fantastic.
-
The majority of the film was quite good, though, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm very interested to see how they finish the Dol Guldur plot. In the books, The White Council drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur and he re-appears in Mordor, but how will they do that with that giant ass army in there? Interested to see what they do there.
I think the army is shown leaving by the end of this movie though to go and do the whole battle of five armies thing. So I think it will pretty much be White Council vs Sauron in the next movie, which will probably be fantastic.
I gotta think the climax will be the battle of the 5 armies. That'll give us 3 epic showdowns - Smaug vs Laketown, Council vs Sauron, and the 5 armies against each other. The latter ought to be cool, as it gives PJ free reign to create anything he wants since it was never detailed out in the book.
:metardica:
-
Finally got to watch this last night and I really enjoyed it. I thought the pacing was pretty exceptional, and overall pretty much everything was better than the first one. That said, there were still way too many ridiculous things like those that plagued the first movie. LOTR had a few as well, but the amount of ridiculous scenes is far greater in the Hobbit series. First of all there was Legolas, who tried his best to ruin it by jumping on floating dwarves heads while going down a river, among other stupid things. And the scene with the dwarves spilling shit on Smaug was pretty dumb. At least Radagast was kept to a minimum.
The majority of the film was quite good, though, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm very interested to see how they finish the Dol Guldur plot. In the books, The White Council drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur and he re-appears in Mordor, but how will they do that with that giant ass army in there? Interested to see what they do there.
I just can't wait to see Galadriel being a badass for once.
-
I don't understand the complaints about "silly things". It's a fantasy adventure based on a children's book, the silly things fit perfectly.
I have to disagree, Rich, and I disagree strongly. Some fantasy adventure is silly. But some is decidedly not, and some of the best fantasy adventure is great because it takes such fantastic concepts and treats them in a serious manner than allows the audience to immerse itself into a world that is realistic enough that easily allows the audience to suspend belief and treat that fantasy world as if it were real. Tolkien was a master at that with his writings. Jackson & co. are largely masters at doing the same thing in the visual medium, and were VERY effective at doing that with the LOTR trilogy. Where they deviated from the text, it was always from the standpoint of "how can we take the feeling of what Tolkien was trying to portray, and potray it in a way that actually works visually and realistically advances the themes we are trying to develop?" I feel they lost that path a bit with some of the choices in the Hobbit films so far, especially the areas in this latest installment that I highlighted above. Just because it is fastasy adventure does not mean that taking too much license to be silly and fun won't detract from the quality of the final product. Here, I think some of the choices do, unfortunately.
-
I don't understand the complaints about "silly things". It's a fantasy adventure based on a children's book, the silly things fit perfectly.
I have to disagree, Rich, and I disagree strongly. Some fantasy adventure is silly. But some is decidedly not, and some of the best fantasy adventure is great because it takes such fantastic concepts and treats them in a serious manner than allows the audience to immerse itself into a world that is realistic enough that easily allows the audience to suspend belief and treat that fantasy world as if it were real. Tolkien was a master at that with his writings. Jackson & co. are largely masters at doing the same thing in the visual medium, and were VERY effective at doing that with the LOTR trilogy. Where they deviated from the text, it was always from the standpoint of "how can we take the feeling of what Tolkien was trying to portray, and potray it in a way that actually works visually and realistically advances the themes we are trying to develop?" I feel they lost that path a bit with some of the choices in the Hobbit films so far, especially the areas in this latest installment that I highlighted above. Just because it is fastasy adventure does not mean that taking too much license to be silly and fun won't detract from the quality of the final product. Here, I think some of the choices do, unfortunately.
I'm not sure why you've only addressed the "fantasy adventure" part and not the "based on a children's book" part. That was a single point I was making, but the latter part of it is important. The films are no less silly than the book.
-
I don't understand the complaints about "silly things". It's a fantasy adventure based on a children's book, the silly things fit perfectly.
That would make sense if they were doing a straight adaptation of The Hobbit which was definitely less serious and grimdark than the Lord of the Rings, but since they're not, they're doing an epic prequel to the Lord of the Rings, the sillier aspects clash with the epic, serious Lord of the Rings-wannabe stuff.
-
I don't understand the complaints about "silly things". It's a fantasy adventure based on a children's book, the silly things fit perfectly.
I have to disagree, Rich, and I disagree strongly. Some fantasy adventure is silly. But some is decidedly not, and some of the best fantasy adventure is great because it takes such fantastic concepts and treats them in a serious manner than allows the audience to immerse itself into a world that is realistic enough that easily allows the audience to suspend belief and treat that fantasy world as if it were real. Tolkien was a master at that with his writings. Jackson & co. are largely masters at doing the same thing in the visual medium, and were VERY effective at doing that with the LOTR trilogy. Where they deviated from the text, it was always from the standpoint of "how can we take the feeling of what Tolkien was trying to portray, and potray it in a way that actually works visually and realistically advances the themes we are trying to develop?" I feel they lost that path a bit with some of the choices in the Hobbit films so far, especially the areas in this latest installment that I highlighted above. Just because it is fastasy adventure does not mean that taking too much license to be silly and fun won't detract from the quality of the final product. Here, I think some of the choices do, unfortunately.
I'm not sure why you've only addressed the "fantasy adventure" part and not the "based on a children's book" part. That was a single point I was making, but the latter part of it is important. The films are no less silly than the book.
Okay, but "children's book" is a bit misleading in this context. The original book was written as a children's book. But Tolkien even acknowledged that it didn't really work as such, hence (1) the changes in its republication that made it more clear that it was not really a children's book at all, and (2) the appendices to The Return Of The King, which retroactively integrated The Hobbit more closely into the Lord Of The Rings story. Although The Hobbit still remained more lighthearted than the LOTR trilogy, it is very decidedly not silly, and very much as the elements that I cited above. That's why many feel that some of the changes in the screenplay went too far and were perhaps mistakes.
-
I don't understand the complaints about "silly things". It's a fantasy adventure based on a children's book, the silly things fit perfectly.
I have to disagree, Rich, and I disagree strongly. Some fantasy adventure is silly. But some is decidedly not, and some of the best fantasy adventure is great because it takes such fantastic concepts and treats them in a serious manner than allows the audience to immerse itself into a world that is realistic enough that easily allows the audience to suspend belief and treat that fantasy world as if it were real. Tolkien was a master at that with his writings. Jackson & co. are largely masters at doing the same thing in the visual medium, and were VERY effective at doing that with the LOTR trilogy. Where they deviated from the text, it was always from the standpoint of "how can we take the feeling of what Tolkien was trying to portray, and potray it in a way that actually works visually and realistically advances the themes we are trying to develop?" I feel they lost that path a bit with some of the choices in the Hobbit films so far, especially the areas in this latest installment that I highlighted above. Just because it is fastasy adventure does not mean that taking too much license to be silly and fun won't detract from the quality of the final product. Here, I think some of the choices do, unfortunately.
I'm not sure why you've only addressed the "fantasy adventure" part and not the "based on a children's book" part. That was a single point I was making, but the latter part of it is important. The films are no less silly than the book.
Okay, but "children's book" is a bit misleading in this context. The original book was written as a children's book. But Tolkien even acknowledged that it didn't really work as such, hence (1) the changes in its republication that made it more clear that it was not really a children's book at all, and (2) the appendices to The Return Of The King, which retroactively integrated The Hobbit more closely into the Lord Of The Rings story. Although The Hobbit still remained more lighthearted than the LOTR trilogy, it is very decidedly not silly, and very much as the elements that I cited above. That's why many feel that some of the changes in the screenplay went too far and were perhaps mistakes.
It's strange because I feel like most of the changes were to make the film less silly than the book, and more like the story of the story of what happened to Bilbo and the dwarves in the actual LOTR universe as referenced in the appendix. Tolkien never did a full revision of The Hobbit book to make it like that, he only rewrote Riddles In The Dark so that Gollum didn't just give away the ring, and made some small changes to remove some references to things that blatantly didn't belong in Middle Earth. The film makes more changes to make some things less silly and childish (e.g. the troll scene, the removal of the part where the elves are partying in the forest and keep disappearing like something from a fairy tale, the change to how the dwarves act upon reaching the door, the removal of the talking thrush that tells Bard of Smaug's weak scale). I think it's a balancing act between keeping some of the quirkiness and lightheartedness from the Hobbit but doing it in a tone that makes it plausible that this is stuff that was happening before Lord Of The Rings, not a different story from a different, fairy tale world.
-
Okay, that's valid, even if I may not completely agree. I just think that he went too far in a couple of areas, and the Smaug vs. dwarves scenes are the hardest for me to accept.
-
Okay, that's valid, even if I may not completely agree. I just think that he went too far in a couple of areas, and the Smaug vs. dwarves scenes are the hardest for me to accept.
Yes, from looking at the stuff you mentioned I think the "silliness" you're talking about is more to do with the action, where as I was thinking more about some of the things featuring in the world. I enjoy the film and don't have many complaints, but I agree that the action pieces are a bit ridiculous and a lot more cartoonish than the Lord of The Rings, although I do enjoy them for the spectacle. I also think a problem with upping the action content in scenes that weren't as action packed in the book is that, since the characters can't die at those parts, they end up coming through ridiculously perilous situations unscathed, which makes keeping any tension difficult.
-
Okay, that's valid, even if I may not completely agree. I just think that he went too far in a couple of areas, and the Smaug vs. dwarves scenes are the hardest for me to accept.
Yes, from looking at the stuff you mentioned I think the "silliness" you're talking about is more to do with the action, where as I was thinking more about some of the things featuring in the world. I enjoy the film and don't have many complaints, but I agree that the action pieces are a bit ridiculous and a lot more cartoonish than the Lord of The Rings, although I do enjoy them for the spectacle. I also think a problem with upping the action content in scenes that weren't as action packed in the book is that, since the characters can't die at those parts, they end up coming through ridiculously perilous situations unscathed, which makes keeping any tension difficult.
Yeah, this is more what I'm referring to when I talk about silliness. Some of the action scenes are just so far-fetched that it really detracts from my viewing experiences.
-
Fair enough, didn't realise it was really just the action you guys were talking about, as I agree with RoRoRul about the plot changes, which I think are great.
In terms of the action, it's pretty silly yeah, but not really any more so than parts of LOTR. And it's really nicely done which makes it highly entertaining!
-
In terms of the action, it's pretty silly yeah, but not really any more so than parts of LOTR.
Yeah, it really is. The only bits of "silliness" I remember from the entire LOTR saga both involved Legolas (coincidence?):
- "surfing" down the stairs while firing arrows at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers
- killing the olyphant in Return of the King
-
Gimli was the butt of some comic relief, which I thought was pretty silly. The shot where the camera pans down the battlements, and you get to the spot where Gimli supposedly is and you just hear his voice shouting something about not being able to see. (Because he's so short! Get it? Ha ha ha!)
The scenes with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli running. I'm not sure how they could really have done these, honestly, but Aragorn and Legolas were just flying, big long strides, and Gimli with short legs wearing 100 pounds of armor trudging along behind them. He was always 20 paces behind them in each shot, which helps, but they never really address how he could possibly keep up with them, especially since they're running for hours at a stretch. That was silly, though perhaps unavoidable, since they wanted to show these guys running. I woul dhave just avoided the shots.
-
There weren't too many 'Gimli is short! Ha Ha!' jokes in Fellowship but they were pretty egregious in The Two Towers.
-
Yeah there's a lot of quite silly stuff in the Helm's Deep battle, like Legolas tossing Gimli across the gap. And in general, for such a intense and important battle with hundreds of men and elves being slaughtered around them, there's a lot of light banter throughout.
This isn't a criticism at all, The Two Towers is my favourite LOTR film and the Helm's Deep siege is absolutely incredible. I just don't think the silly stuff was any less silly in LOTR. Maybe there was a bit less of it, but it was a more grown up story in the first place, so that makes perfect sense.
-
Just got back from the theater. I see people are discussing what iv expected people to discuss, I.e. the over-the-top river scene.
My biggest qualm with the movie is actually, without an intermission it's just too damn long. It's also a shame that some stuff had to be rushed so that completely new plot elements (the love story, the Defiler stuff) could fit in. For example, in the movie it looked as if the dwarves were imprisoned for less than a day. Whereas IIRC they're stuck there for weeks.
And, totally random comment: The liquid gold looked really really fake. That's not gonna age well.
-
My biggest issue with the movie is that it's not one movie -- it's THREE godawful long movies supposedly based on one average sized book but in order to create this bloated trilogy money grab they've added all kinds of nonsense to the movies that wasn't in the original, classic book.
The first movie annoyed me but I decided to give the second one a chance -- shame on me, because the second one royally pissed me off. I won't bother with the third one.
-
:|
-
I was thinking, once all three movies are out, they should release a "book cut" of the movie. Only with scenes that are in the book.
-
It probably wouldn't hold together, because there have been so many plot changes as well. For example, the Arkenstone. In the book, it was just something Bilbo happened to find that turned out to be a really valuable "plus" to the whole thing. Now it's supposedly why they're there. Editing out all the Legolas and Tauriel? Good luck with that. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
-
My biggest issue with the movie is that it's not one movie -- it's THREE godawful long movies supposedly based on one average sized book but in order to create this bloated trilogy money grab they've added all kinds of nonsense to the movies that wasn't in the original, classic book.
This is the exact opposite of what I feel. Had they only stuck to the Hobbit book I would have most likely just not liked any of these movies at all. All that "nonsense" added is some of my favorite things about the movies because it shows that this whole thing is a little bigger than just some dwarves on an adventure.
-
My biggest issue with the movie is that it's not one movie -- it's THREE godawful long movies supposedly based on one average sized book but in order to create this bloated trilogy money grab they've added all kinds of nonsense to the movies that wasn't in the original, classic book.
This is the exact opposite of what I feel. Had they only stuck to the Hobbit book I would have most likely just not liked any of these movies at all. All that "nonsense" added is some of my favorite things about the movies because it shows that this whole thing is a little bigger than just some dwarves on an adventure.
Have to agree with most of this. Yes, some of the stuff they added was kind of pointless, but a lot of it came straight from the LOTR appendices and really helped give some context to the whole story. I have no problem with the length of either movies, and I have no problem that they made it into three.
-
BTW, I'm actually a big fan of Gandalf's side story. That stuff, and his encounter with Sauron I wouldn't want to miss for the world. It's just some other stuff, especially anything involving Tauriel that bloats the movie. Without that, and by shortening the too-stretchy river scene and too-stretchy Smaug scene, the movie could have stayed around the 2-hour mark.
-
BTW, I'm actually a big fan of Gandalf's side story. That stuff, and his encounter with Sauron I wouldn't want to miss for the world. It's just some other stuff, especially anything involving Tauriel that bloats the movie. Without that, and by shortening the too-stretchy river scene and too-stretchy Smaug scene, the movie could have stayed around the 2-hour mark.
I don't typically agree with you on things, but you fucking nailed it.
-
Another comment, I think using Cumberbatch for Smaug was mostly just name-dropping to draw more crowds. The voice is so laden with effects, it could be just about anybody really.
-
Another comment, I think using Cumberbatch for Smaug was mostly just name-dropping to draw more crowds. The voice is so laden with effects, it could be just about anybody really.
Definitely. I didn't even realize it was him.
-
I don't think it was very heavy on effects, I think that was just him speaking with a deep voice. Sounds very similar to his voice in the BBC Radio adaptation of Neverwhere.
And it's definitely not just name dropping. Cumberbatch's voice is wonderful!
-
I think they also went a bit overboard with the Elvish fighting style. I personally don't like it when this "hero stands with back to an unseen enemy, but somehow magically perceives the enemy and does a ninja move to kill it" stuff happens in fight scenes. I think a more aloof style of fighting would have suited the Elves better.
-
Cumberbatch is a perfect choice if you want a deep and menacing voice, so really good job on casting him here. Can't wait for him to play the actual bad guy of Middle Earth some more in the next movie.
-
(https://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/347/8/0/kili_and_the_arrow_to_the_knee_by_shishi013-d6xuyze.jpg)
I immediately thought that when I saw it :lol
-
I don't think it was very heavy on effects, I think that was just him speaking with a deep voice. Sounds very similar to his voice in the BBC Radio adaptation of Neverwhere.
And it's definitely not just name dropping. Cumberbatch's voice is wonderful!
Agreed - I could tell it was him - even with the processing. Especially if you've watched STID as much as I have :P
-
Yes, you could definitely hear his inflections and pattern of speaking. They quality of his voice is perfect for Smaug.
-
A good friend of mine told me that Benedict Cumberbatch's voice was so hot in the movie she could bake cookies in it
-
She's probably thinking of his fire breath.
-
I loved Benedikhan Cumberlock as Smaug but his voice was very obviously layered with effects. I'm not saying that's not a good or bad thing, but it was pretty apparent.
-
I could also tell it was him, but there are obviously some effects, which is only realistic. A carnivore creature that massive would have a very monstrous voice.
-
So apparently the third movie is now officially called "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies". I don't think it's bad, but I don't completely love it. I think it would have been better if they had dropped the "of" and the first "the". "Battle of Five Armies", would have been more clean in a way, less convoluted.
-
Also - inb4 :
" The Hobbit - The Battle Of The Five Armies ( Part 1 ) "
::)
-
I think the new title is pretty lame. I liked "There and Back Again" more, to be honest. While I did like the second Hobbit, and thought it was better than the first, I'm still not overly excited for the third. The title makes it seem like the big battle will be the huge center point of this movie, and to me, the big action scenes have felt out of place in this trilogy.
-
It seems a bit stupid, but to be honest I think that's only because it's another change - it actually seems like a better idea, thinking about it. The Battle Of The Five Armies is what the final part of The Hobbit is all about, so it is obviously the focus of the third film. The second film's focus was reaching the mountain and meeting Smaug, the first's was setting off on the adventure and overcoming the initial obstacles (also Gollum, just because he isn't great).
An Unexpected Journey and There And Back Again never really stuck with me too much anyway, it seemed inevitable they'd just be referred to as Hobbit 1 and Hobbit 2. I bet more people know "The Desolation Of Smaug" than "An Unexpected Journey", and not just because it was the second film. It's more specific and memorable imo, and The Battle Of The Five Armies is similarly more clear and memorable than The Hobbit: There And Back Again, and will probably make for easier marketing. It also means Desolation is less of an oddball in terms of its title. "An Unexpected Journey" and "There And Back Again" fit with each other for a set of teo films, but if they had known from the beginning they were going to be titling like this they should just called the first one "The Misty Mountains" or something, then used "There And Back Again" for the whole trilogy.
-
The title makes it seem like the big battle will be the huge center point of this movie, and to me, the big action scenes have felt out of place in this trilogy.
??? Um...did you honestly think that would NOT have been the focus?
-
Just wanted to add that as an extras junkie the extended bluray of the first Hobbit movie is 9 hrs of super immersive material. I don't think I got bored for a second while watching all the documentaries. The highlight for me was Martin Freeman's middle finger segment. Also the part where he meets a handicapped extra and getting so emotional when talking about that encounter made me a huge huge Freeman fan.
And I can't wait for the extended version of the Desolation Bluray.
-
The title makes it seem like the big battle will be the huge center point of this movie, and to me, the big action scenes have felt out of place in this trilogy.
??? Um...did you honestly think that would NOT have been the focus?
I haven't actually read the book, so I have no idea as for different plot points and so on. :lol I would assume the big "thing" would be slaying Smaug and reconquering the dwarf city.
-
But slaying Smaug won't take long. And the reconquering of the dwarf city basically is the battle of five armies. The battle itself isn't really dealt with in much detail in the book, but the way the movie trilogy has been developing, there is no way the battle could not be the centerpiece of the last film.
-
I think Zantera's situation brings up an interesting point, though. With Lord of the Rings, it was pretty obvious that destroying the ring, which is tied inextricably to the downfall of Sauron, would be the big deal. Prior to the seven or eight endings, that is.
With The Hobbit, the emphasis has been on the dwarves and their quest to reclaim their ancestral home, which is tied to defeating the dragon. If you haven't read the book, The Battle of Five Armies (I don't like the second "the" either) would seem to come out of nowhere. Actually, even in the book, the battle kinda comes out of nowhere.
-
BTW, I'm actually a big fan of Gandalf's side story. That stuff, and his encounter with Sauron I wouldn't want to miss for the world. It's just some other stuff, especially anything involving Tauriel that bloats the movie. Without that, and by shortening the too-stretchy river scene and too-stretchy Smaug scene, the movie could have stayed around the 2-hour mark.
I know this is an older post, but I completely agree with it.
-
Just wanted to add that as an extras junkie the extended bluray of the first Hobbit movie is 9 hrs of super immersive material. I don't think I got bored for a second while watching all the documentaries. The highlight for me was Martin Freeman's middle finger segment. Also the part where he meets a handicapped extra and getting so emotional when talking about that encounter made me a huge huge Freeman fan.
And I can't wait for the extended version of the Desolation Bluray.
Agreed with this. I wasn't sure if the documentary would stack up to the LOTR extended ones but it really was great. I'm probably looking forward to the extended Desolation Of Smaug documentary as much as I am the third film.
Also on the topic of too many "the"s, if they removed one it should be to make it "The Hobbit: Battle Of The Five Armies" imo.
-
I'd love to watch the extra's. But I believe I said that even before the first film came out, I'll wait for the deluxe boxset after the third film is released. Or the definitive boxset after that. Or the super deluxe definitive Hobbit + LOTR boxset after that. Or the Boxset that actually includes Liv Tyler after that.
-
The problem with "There and Back Again", is that they are already "there". So, the 3rd installment would just be "back again". But the story isn't about the return trip, so that doesn't fit either. The could have done the trilogy like this: "Here and Starting to Go There", "Getting There", and "There, Mostly, with a Little Bit of Back Again".
-
" The Hobbit "
" Mandatory Sequel "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story - Part 2 - basically trying to disguise four films as a trilogy by naming it Part 1 and Part 2 "
-
" The Hobbit "
" Mandatory Sequel "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story - Part 2 - basically trying to disguise four films as a trilogy by naming it Part 1 and Part 2 "
:facepalm:
-
If they were just doing the story from The Hobbit I think that would justified, but with all the stuff they're adding or fleshing out, I think three films is perfectly acceptable.
-
" The Hobbit "
" Mandatory Sequel "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story - Part 2 - basically trying to disguise four films as a trilogy by naming it Part 1 and Part 2 "
:facepalm:
Because no film series has ever done this EVER. ::)
-
They've all been enjoyable so far, so I have no problem
-
They've all been enjoyable so far, so I have no problem
This. Although the is some stuff I would have done differently, I wouldn't have removed any of it.
-
" The Hobbit "
" Mandatory Sequel "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story "
" Extraneous third film for what should have been a one film story - Part 2 - basically trying to disguise four films as a trilogy by naming it Part 1 and Part 2 "
:facepalm:
Because no film series has ever done this EVER. ::)
Doesn't mean it applies to The Hobbit.
Anyway the two to three film split was the overindulgence, there will not be a fourth. The Hobbit book plus the extras from Gandalf's side is enough for three films imo, although a little bit stretched thin. But even if there wasn't really anything added to The Hobbit book I think it would be too much for one film, if you want to do it justice on screen and keep it in line with the rest of Middle Earth. It's a lot shorter in word count than LOTR but moves at breakneck speed compared to it. A 3 hour film would have to have reached the end of Desolation Of Smaug within 2 hours. Not doable imo without cutting out well known scenes from the book (the trolls, the wargs / trees / eagles scene, the spiders), and why do that if you've got the freedom to take long enough to do those scenes justice.
-
If they were just doing the story from The Hobbit I think that would justified, but with all the stuff they're adding or fleshing out, I think three films is perfectly acceptable.
I've only seen the first movie but when it was first announced I couldn't believe they were milking for THAT many movies. I thought two was stretching it.
-
I'd love to watch the extra's. But I believe I said that even before the first film came out, I'll wait for the deluxe boxset after the third film is released. Or the definitive boxset after that. Or the super deluxe definitive Hobbit + LOTR boxset after that. Or the Boxset that actually includes Liv Tyler after that.
I was going to wait as well, as I did for the LOTR extended edition BR set, but I got a great deal on a used set so sprang for it. If I get that kind of deal again for the next 2 movies I'll be content. Waiting for the boxset is definitely the way to go though.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/A9e8spJ.jpg)
-
Cool :tup
-
So how do we think they can milk this franchise any further ? Tolkien Jr says they can't adapt any more of Tolkien Sr's work...
Maybe they'll get some hacks in to write a new fantasy trilogy and get PJ to direct it and stylise it the same
so they can put " FROM THE DIRECTOR OF LORD OF THE RINGS AND THE HOBBIT " on the posters.
** Ah that poster - the drag-and-drop " Man with his back to the camera looking at a thing ".
-
So how do we think they can milk this franchise any further ? Tolkien Jr says they can't adapt any more of Tolkien Sr's work...
Maybe they'll get some hacks in to write a new fantasy trilogy and get PJ to direct it and stylise it the same
so they can put " FROM THE DIRECTOR OF LORD OF THE RINGS AND THE HOBBIT " on the posters.
** Ah that poster - the drag-and-drop " Man with his back to the camera looking at a thing ".
:facepalm:
Trying too hard now ::)
-
They can put "from the director of Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit" on anything PJ decides to do in the future. However overprotective and stubborn Christopher Tolkien is with his father's work it's his right to do so and not allow any more original JRRT material to be used for stuff other than books. But despite all the fun PJ has had with those movies and all the hate he gets from Christopher, PJ has far too much love and respect for JRRT and his work and I'm sure he would never accept some "fan fiction" script just to continue. If you want someone to cannibalize and ruin great material ask J. J. Abrams and his accomplices in crime. :biggrin:
Greetings...
Nef
-
So how do we think they can milk this franchise any further ? Tolkien Jr says they can't adapt any more of Tolkien Sr's work...
Maybe they'll get some hacks in to write a new fantasy trilogy and get PJ to direct it and stylise it the same
so they can put " FROM THE DIRECTOR OF LORD OF THE RINGS AND THE HOBBIT " on the posters.
** Ah that poster - the drag-and-drop " Man with his back to the camera looking at a thing ".
:facepalm:
Trying too hard now ::)
Not as much as you. both my pasts you smashed your face at - where clearly both tongue-in-cheek.
But by all means make it a hat trick !
-
If you want someone to cannibalize and ruin great material ask J. J. Abrams and his accomplices in crime. :biggrin:
Greetings...
Nef
Nah - that's Star Trek Renegades and Star Trek Phase 2. Really shoddy and embarrassing for all involved. Especially Koenig.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4
New trailer!
-
(https://osnatology.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/i-need-a-hug-random-24982385-500-275.jpg)
:hug:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4
New trailer!
Interesting use of Pippin's Song from Return of the King. I'm very curious in seeing how Jackson is going to wrap this trilogy up...or rather as the trailer states, the Middle Earth saga.
-
I love the use of Pippin's song! Instantly made me want to do a LOTR extended editions marathon, which I think I will do now :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4
New trailer!
Interesting use of Pippin's Song from Return of the King. I'm very curious in seeing how Jackson is going to wrap this trilogy up...or rather as the trailer states, the Middle Earth saga.
20 different endings, cameos from LOTR, etc.
-
I saw the first two hobbit movies once each in the cinema.
Remind me why there's a huge battle at the end with 5 armies ?
I don't remember much about them but I know that they were going to reclaim their homeland ? That's it.
-
For the Dwarves, it was always about reclaiming the mountain, and their kingdom below. The Elves showed up, thinking that this would be a good time to make a play for the piles of gold and stuff, 'cause they never really liked the Dwarves anyway. The humans, who had suffered a lot of loss due to the dragon torching the entire town and a huge amount of the surrounding area, figured they were due something. When the Orcs showed up in huge numbers, the first three armies put their differences aside and allied against them, and things were actually pretty evenly matched for a while, then the Eagles showed up. Five armies, big battle.
-
I saw the first two hobbit movies once each in the cinema.
Remind me why there's a huge battle at the end with 5 armies ?
I don't remember much about them but I know that they were going to reclaim their homeland ? That's it.
They haven't really set it up much yet, so that kinda falls into spoiler territory.
EDIT: Or just read Orbert's post. :lol
-
I love the use of Pippin's song! Instantly made me want to do a LOTR extended editions marathon, which I think I will do now :)
Can I come? :lol
-
Well you've already missed the first half of FOTR, so… hurry up!
-
Well you've already missed the first half of FOTR, so… hurry up!
I can recite the entire first half script from memory. I'll be ok skipping that.
-
I saw the first two hobbit movies once each in the cinema.
Remind me why there's a huge battle at the end with 5 armies ?
I don't remember much about them but I know that they were going to reclaim their homeland ? That's it.
They haven't really set it up much yet, so that kinda falls into spoiler territory.
EDIT: Or just read Orbert's post. :lol
Oh shit. I think I misread the question. I thought he was asking why there's a battle with five armies, from the point of view of someone who's read the book but after sitting through six hours of film, only about an hour of which was actually in the book, had actually managed to forget. It's easy enough to do with The Hobbit movies. Peter Jackson may love the source material, but he's taken adding stuff to the films for no particular reason to previously unimagined heights.
-
:iagree: Not in a terrible way though. I mean, it takes a certain skill to get a 8-hour trilogy out of a 320-ish page novel. That's an hour for every 40 pages. :lol
-
Next up will be his 10-film series for The Silmarillion ::)
-
Next up will be his 10-film series for The Silmarillion ::)
Score by Blind Guardian?
-
Next up will be his 10-film series for The Silmarillion ::)
Score by Blind Guardian?
He's stated before that would have LOVED to reference that and Unfinished Taless in this story...but he doesn't have the rights. That's why Gandolf can't remember the names of two of the wizards. ....because they're only mentioned in a book they can't make any mention of.
It's quite maddening, actually.
-
Next up will be his 10-film series for The Silmarillion ::)
I would... kind of be okay with this. Seeing Ungoliant, Glaurung, Thangorordrim, Fingolfin vs Morgoth, the fall of Gondolin, Turin, and Sauron getting punked by every other douchebag in Beleriand would be worth a few more comic-relief dwarfs and needless CGI-fests.
Yeah, yeah, yeah I know, Chris Tolkien won't sell, but... a man can dream.
-
I would love to see Iluvatar's creation of the world through music, and Melkor/Morgoth's subsequent anger issues toward it.
-
:iagree: Not in a terrible way though. I mean, it takes a certain skill to get a 8-hour trilogy out of a 320-ish page novel. That's an hour for every 40 pages. :lol
Well, most (but not all) of it comes from the LOTR appendices, so that's a lot more genuine Tolkien writing contributing than just in The Hobbit itself.
-
Well, most some (but not all) of it comes from the LOTR appendices, so that's a lot more genuine Tolkien writing contributing than just in The Hobbit itself.
FIFY ;)
-
I just saw a quote attributed to "Sir Peter Jackson." I had no idea he was knighted.
-
In 2010 apparently.
-
https://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/10/07/peter-jackson-announces-plans-for-72-part-movie-series-of-the-silmarillion/
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ttensXG.jpg)
-
:caffeine:
-
:caffeine:
-
:caffeine:
-
:caffeine:
-
:caffeine:
-
:caffeine:
-
:caffeine:
-
Meh. It will probably be good, but the combination of no trailer yet and the movie dropping soon as well as the first two not being LOTR-level of fantastic, I'm only casually excited about this. I didn't see any of the first two Hobbit movies at the cinema, and after seeing them at home many months later, I didn't regret not seeing them at the cinema either.
The first Hobbit was good, the second one was great, and the third one will hopefully be great too, but this poster doesn't really get me more excited or anything.
-
Thorin's really got that Aragorn look down.
-
I dunno. I'll see it, and I'll like it, but I will also likely be disappointed by it. I liked the first one a lot. I liked the second one a lot, but was honestly disppointed by (1) the adventures of Legolas and his g/f in Rivendell, along with the orc pursuit into Rivendell, and (2) the battle with Smaug the Inept-at-catching-dwarves. Jackson & co. made some absolutely brilliant calls in telling the story in the LOTR trilogy. IMO, every single place they deviated from the books absolutely 100% worked. In the Hobbit trilogy, some of his deviations from the book just leave me feeling like the trilogy has jumped the shark. And I do NOT mean the decision to include and eloborate on material from the appendices, the focus on the Battle of Five Armies as the climax (including the backstory), and more of a conscious effort to integrate the Hobbit trilogy into the LOTR movie trilogy. All that is fine. Even Legolas being part of the story is fine with me. It stands to reason that he would have been around for these events despite not being mentioned in the book, so that all works. It is just the over-the-top nature of how events like the two I mentioned above are portrayed. It makes the story just silly rather than a story where I can suspend belief and immerse myself in as I could with the LOTR films.
-
^ I've only seen the first one, but there were definitely moments in it that just felt too silly to me. Notably the dwarves cleaning Bilbo's kitchen, and whatever the hell they did with Radagast.
LOTR had funny stuff, but it never felt silly, in my opinion. And I'm not saying The Hobbit was bad, I definitely enjoyed it, I just think it could have been better.
-
I dunno. I'll see it, and I'll like it, but I will also likely be disappointed by it.
Probably this.
IMO, every single place they deviated from the books absolutely 100% worked.
Can't say I agree with that though
-
I presume you're referring to the absence of your namesake?
-
Actually, I think having The Hobbit be more generally "light-hearted" is going to make the six film story arc flow better. The first three films are a nice, adventurous romp that serves as a set-up for the "serious ***" :xbones
-
I have no problem with lighthearted. But "lighthearted" and "ridiculous" are not the same thing. The fight with Smaug was ridiculous.
-
. The fight with Smaug was ridiculous.
Yeah, that was just a bit over the top.
-
A giant talking dragon is over the top. All of your complaints about a fantasy movie are over the top.
-
I presume you're referring to the absence of your namesake?
Actually not really. I'm ok that they left out ol tommy bomber. For the most part, the changes they made in the first and second movie were acceptable, but the third movie is by far the worst, whereas IMO, the third book is by far the best, so it's mostly the changes in that one that I don't like.
Staying with the thread, I totally agree about the Smaug scene and the Legolas scene. They were completely ridiculous, and the latter only increased my disdain for Legolas.
-
^ I've only seen the first one, but there were definitely moments in it that just felt too silly to me. Notably the dwarves cleaning Bilbo's kitchen, and whatever the hell they did with Radagast.
LOTR had funny stuff, but it never felt silly, in my opinion. And I'm not saying The Hobbit was bad, I definitely enjoyed it, I just think it could have been better.
I agree with all of this and add the obnoxious escape from the goblins to the list. All I could think while I was watching that scene is how much better the escape from Moria was.
-
The goblins scene in the first and the barrel scene in the second are just stupid, and all of the CGI goblins are disappointing, when so many of the orcs in the LOTR trilogy were practical.
-
I agree with most of the critisms:
- CGI orcs were disappointing
- Terrible romance is terrible
- Smaug hide-and-seek scene was weird
- Legolas inclusion wasn't that well made
And it's so disappointing to me because there's so much about these movies that I really enjoy. It just feels like wasted potential. I really think this could have been another LOTR-level of awesomeness.
But I won't be all negative, I enjoyed the first two movies and will likely enjoy this one as well. :tup
-
:iagree:
Though, I found the Smaug battle scene even more laughable than the hide-and-seek. At least the hide/seek was somewhat properly represented from the book.
-
Have to say, most of those things don't bother me in the slightest - the only thing I find a bit disappointing is the CGI monsters, and I agree with hef that the goblins, orcs and uruk hai in LOTR are so much more convincing.
On the whole I really like the Hobbit films so far, but there is a gulf between them and LOTR, and I don't find any of those criticisms bother me. I just think the story lacks the depth that LOTR has. I think Jackson has been doing a great job of expanding it, using the LOTR appendices and generally tying it into that story more, but ultimately I think it's just not as strong a story.
-
With LOTR, everything just felt connected in a perfect way. With Hobbit, you can tell they stretched the material and incorporated stuff from other books that weren't necessarily related. Take the whole Necromancer-plotline for example. While I like those scenes, they really stick out in the movies. You go from a pretty relaxed and fun atmosphere with the dwarves and a hobbit going on this one adventure to fight a dragon, to Gandalf talking about Sauron and "the end of the world". I can understand that they want it to segue into Fellowship of the Ring, but it results in the tone being all over the place.
-
I'm interested in seeing how
PJ takes 3-1/2 hours to cover the final 60 pages of the book finishes the story, but my expectations have been thoroughly lowered by the first two movies.
-
I'm interested in seeing how PJ takes 3-1/2 hours to cover the final 60 pages of the book finishes the story
Of course there are actually more chapters left to cover in the third film than were covered in either the first or second.
Not to mention actually showing the battle that in the book, happens while Bilbo is knocked out and is just summarised after it.
The films are no Lord Of The Rings, they have more flaws which are well documented everywhere (and even exaggerated imo), but if the standard I held all films to was to be as good as Lord Of The Rings, then I wouldn't enjoy many films. The Hobbit films still turned out better than I expected an adaptation of The Hobbit could.
Some excellent news is that Billy Boyd is doing the song for the final credits of the last movie. The song that he came up with and sang in Return Of The King is amazing, one of the best bits of music in a film series absolutely filled with great music.
-
Having only seen the first movie and an hour into the second one (was late so I turned it off) the biggest downer for me was that while there are threats to the main group of characters there is really no sense of danger. Run into a band of orcs? They're going to escape with little to no damage. Get trapped by giant spiders? The deus ex machina elves swoop in and save the day. At least half of that damn group should be dead right now.
-
Just finished the appendices-documentaries on The Desolation of Smaug. Really interesting and cool stuff as always. I found myself smiling much of the time just watching the cast and crew have as much fun as they do.
And I must admit I teared up when they explained the elvish-drawfish lyrics of the Kili/Tauriel theme. I'm usually not that type of guy, but something about that detail just hit me.
-
I saw the trailer for the new movie the other day, and I feel I must lament that Jackson made The Hobbit into a LOTR Part 2. The book had a much lighter feel than LOTR, but the movies have the same "epic gloom" that the LOTR movies have.
-
I saw the trailer for the new movie the other day, and I feel I must lament that Jackson made The Hobbit into a LOTR Part 2. The book had a much lighter feel than LOTR, but the movies have the same "epic gloom" that the LOTR movies have.
Well Tolkien tied The Hobbit into LOTR after the fact, so I actually like that Jackson is using as much side material as possible to bridge the two together. Sometimes the tone clashes throughout the films, but overall, I'm glad we get to explore more of Middle Earth before the Fellowship.
In other news, Billy Boyd co-wrote and performed the End Credits song, and it's such a fitting closer to an epic saga: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ir8rVl2Z4
-
I saw the trailer for the new movie the other day, and I feel I must lament that Jackson made The Hobbit into a LOTR Part 2. The book had a much lighter feel than LOTR, but the movies have the same "epic gloom" that the LOTR movies have.
Well Tolkien tied The Hobbit into LOTR after the fact, so I actually like that Jackson is using as much side material as possible to bridge the two together. Sometimes the tone clashes throughout the films, but overall, I'm glad we get to explore more of Middle Earth before the Fellowship.
I really like that too, and I think it is appropriate. It's just that, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I just feel Jackson took a lot of things a bit too far and made things a bit too over-the-top.
-
Tolkien tied The Hobbit into LOTR after the fact
In a sense, but The Hobbit came first and was a standalone story, written for his son. As such, it was a much lighter story. Technically, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel.
-
Tolkien tied The Hobbit into LOTR after the fact
In a sense, but The Hobbit came first and was a standalone story, written for his son. As such, it was a much lighter story. Technically, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel.
I worded that poorly, that's what I meant. Tolkien made several revisions to The Hobbit while writing LOTR, and desired more changes before others told him to let it be. For instance, the original version of The Hobbit had Gollum offering Bilbo the ring as a prize for winning the game of riddles, which completely goes against his character in LOTR, so it was changed. I see Jackson as doing the same to add more continuity to his films. I don't agree with everything he's done, but I'm still happy with it.
-
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that. That Tolkien had "revised" The Hobbit a bit to improve the continuity with The Lord of the Rings. So it was really a bit of both.
-
Saw this one yesterday, and really liked it. It has some issues, mainly comedy-related, or attempt-at-comedy-related. The Master of Laketown's assistant or whatever is given even more focus than the last movie, and instead of just being a dick in this one, they try waay too hard to make him the comic relief character among the humans. And it's just not funny at all. That among other things.
But then, what I thought would be my biggest problem with it I didn't even remember to think about during the movie. I was afraid that the titular battle of five armies would just be one big emotionless CGI fest. And while there is definetely a lot of CGI, they did a good job of inserting character driven moments and emotional archs. I thought the battle was a success, which I suppose is the most important thing in this movie.
It gets quite emotional by the end too. More so than expected.
I look forward to watching all six movies in a row sometime. Should be a fun, but long, day. Or maybe two.
-
All six extended movies would be 24 hours ;D
-
All six extended movies would be 24 hours ;D
My annual 1 day marathon is going to turn into 2 days.
-
I hope to go see it on Thursday. I plan to watch the first two tomorrow and Tues / Wednesday. /excite
-
All six extended movies would be 24 hours ;D
My annual 1 day marathon is going to turn into 2 days.
I remember my bro getting The Two Towers on DVD and watching it with friends - and thinking it was pure tedium. I guess i'm not into those types of films.
-
I will watch the movie, but really mostly for completion sake, and because I stumbled onto one of the movie sets when I visited NZ a few years back. Didn't particularly like the 2nd movie, too gimmicky for my tastes.
-
Just got back, had some issues storywise, but that's the Tolkien nerd in me, it still had the epic feel and a more than grand finish. I will say though that 3D was a mistake, it's almost too clean and perfect, and lost some appeal for me. I'll wait for others to see it before digging into spoiler talk.
-
I will say though that 3D was a mistake, it's almost too clean and perfect, and lost some appeal for me.
What do you mean? Sounds contradictory with that wording. I dont plan on seeing it in 3D, just curious.
-
It just had an animated look to it, and a lot of the sets seemed almost fake.
-
I've heard that said about the High Frame rate but I saw the first two in HFR 3D and after a while you get used to it.
I was a bit worried that it would look like a soap opera but it didn't really. To me it still looked like a movie but hyper realistic like you were there with them.
I think HFR has potential whilst 3D is just a gimmick that should go away.
I'm interested in what Avatar 2 will look like mainly because Jim Cameron pushes the envelope when it comes to new tech.
You know anything JC is directing will *at least* LOOK spectacular and not phoned in on any level.
-
Yeah, more than a few things look fake in this movie. There's one scene that just made me feel like I was watching a video game cut scene. It was a cool scene, but it didn't look real. Maybe those who've seen it knows which one I'm talking about.
-
Two particular scenes made me think that Jackson was intentionally trolling with us. :lol
1. The Legolas fighting on a collapsing bridge scene (which reminded me of the Legolas rolling on a shield while shooting down his enemies scene).
2. And, off course, the fucking eagles. AGAIN?! THEY WEREN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK THIS TIME! :lol
But yeah, despite that, I really enjoyed the movie. :)
-
2. And, off course, the fucking eagles. AGAIN?! THEY WEREN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK THIS TIME! :lol
They weren't? I haven't read the book, but I knew that the eagles were coming, since I thought that's what happened in the book.
-
Lucky Bugs...It doesn't release in Australia until December 26...(at least it is not 15 years ago where it would have been months) :corn
-
2. And, off course, the fucking eagles. AGAIN?! THEY WEREN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK THIS TIME! :lol
They weren't? I haven't read the book, but I knew that the eagles were coming, since I thought that's what happened in the book.
Ummmm...ya dude. Where did you get the idea they weren't in the book? Who do you think the 5th army was??? Dwarves, men, elfs, orcs, and the eagles.
-
2. And, off course, the fucking eagles. AGAIN?! THEY WEREN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK THIS TIME! :lol
They weren't? I haven't read the book, but I knew that the eagles were coming, since I thought that's what happened in the book.
Ummmm...ya dude. Where did you get the idea they weren't in the book? Who do you think the 5th army was??? Dwarves, men, elfs, orcs, and the eagles.
Oh, is that so? My bad then, I guess I remembered it wrong. But my point still stands, but extends to mr Tolkien himself instead. :lol (No, I never counted. :loser: )
-
But...since it turns out that you were completely mistaken, how can your point still stand?
-
SPOILERS: "The eagles are coming!" at the end of Return of the King (or halfway through it in the book) I think was meant to be a reference to the Hobbit, where (I think) it's the last thing both Bilbo says before he is knocked out and the last thing Pippin says at the end of the chapter for the battle at the black gate. /SPOILERS
Anyway I saw it in 3D HFR (not actually a big fan of 3D, but I think that the HFR makes it better), looking forward to seeing it again in 2D at some point. As you might know from me posting in this thread I'm more than willing to take the films as they are and think there's no reason why they are inherently bad just because they are "3 films out of 300 pages!", but I think there are a few things in this film that could have been done a bit better. I actually found myself wondering if the extended edition might be a big improvement this time (I know, heresy to all the people that think being long is the problem) for a couple of specific issues:
SPOILERS
1. I try not to go out of my way to seek out info or overanalyse trailers for films, but in this case I had seen an advertising image of dwarves cavalry charging down the hill on mountain goats, which I thought was a really cool idea. I don't remember seeing that in the film (you might be able to spot some mounted dwarves in the army), which was a little disappointing but not a big deal. But then when Thorin, Fili, Kili and Dwalin want to travel up the hill, Throin suddenly grabs one of those mountain goats from the battle and the next shot all four of them are riding them. Would have made a lot more sense to make sure we had seen these goats before that, and I'm hoping that will be in the extended...
2. So little was seen of Beorn. The fact that he came in on an eagle in human form and jumped off, changing into bear form, was pretty cool, but I was very disappointed that that was the last you see of him in the battle. I don't mind all the stuff in the battle that isn't strictly mentioned in the text (since not much is really described at all), but the basic story beats of the battle in the book are "Elf / human armies besiege the mountain, dwarf army arrives and they face off for a bit, army of orgs and wargs arrive so dwarves / elves / men team up to fight them with Thorin and the rest leaving the mountain to help, it looks bad but then eagles and Beorn arrive and turn the tide. Beorn even charges in and kills Bolg (who's the leader of the goblin army in the book) and carries off injured Thorin to safety (he was injured fighting "Bolg's guards"). I don't think it was necessary that Beorn kill the leader of the army (or even Bolg, who was more of a second in command here), but I think it should have been made much more to leave the impression that Beorn had a big impact on the battle and helped turn the tide. Plus seeing a giant bear fighting is always good and he was underused. I think I saw somewhere that Beorn's role is shown more in the extended so hopefully that does something to improve that.
-
But...since it turns out that you were completely mistaken, how can your point still stand?
Well, I was somewhat joking. But if we're going to talk about it seriously: wether it was in the book or not, it is still incredibly silly and one of the biggest complaints of the LOTR movies. To have the exact same deus ex machina ending seemed to us at least to be like trolling the audience.
Also, given that they've changed so much in both movie series, would it really be such a huge deal to leave them out at least this time around?
But really, I don't wanna pressure this issue any more, I though the movie, and the entire trilogy was enjoyable and I didn't leave the movie theater disappointed. :)
-
Well, I was somewhat joking. But if we're going to talk about it seriously: wether it was in the book or not, it is still incredibly silly and one of the biggest complaints of the LOTR movies. To have the exact same deus ex machina ending seemed to us at least to be like trolling the audience.
Yeah, but if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, the mention of it in LotR was just a faint echo and a throwback to the original scene in The Hobbit :biggrin:
-
Saw this last night and my god it was bad. Don't want to get specific until more people have seen it, but there were so many things I couldn't stand about it.
-
Well, given your name I'm going to assume for the most part you couldn't stand how inaccurate it probably was (I haven't seen it) :lol
-
Don't want to get specific until more people have seen it...
??? Why not? The specific reason we have a thread is to discuss it. If people who have not seen it do not want to see discussion, they will (or at least should have the common sense to) stay out of the thread.
-
DUMBLEDORE DIES
-
DUMBLEDORE DIES
:omg: :panicattack:
-
Very well then Bosk, I shall list my grievances.
**SPOILERS**
1. The "Dragon Sickness". This really pissed me off. One of the, if not the biggest themes of the Hobbit was the effect greed has in corrupting people, but in the movie they played it off as like "oh the gold is cursed because of the dragon so like if you want to get some other gold you'll be fine but the dragon touched this gold." It pretty much defeats the whole purpose.
2. The random creatures that kept showing up. The "Earth-Diggers" or whatever show up for like 5 seconds and they don't even attempt to explain what they are or where they came from. And the big-horned sheep just show up out of nowhere with no explanation.
3. Why am I supposed to feel sorry for an elf I don't care about when her dwarf lover (who I also don't care about) dies?
4. Thranduil telling Legolas to find Aragorn was so cringe-worthy.
5. Angmar is nowhere near Erebor.
6. Why does Azog look so cute when he's dying? That was weird.
7. The Elrond+Saruman vs. wraiths felt like it was straight out of a video game, in fact so did most of the movie with the High Frame Rate. If it was a good movie I could have easily looked past it, but since it was a bad movie it just made it worse.
8. I don't even remember that idiot from LakeTown's name. Every scene he was in was awful.
9. Despite a huge battle and thousands of deaths, there was pretty much no blood at all, even when orcs would get beheaded.
10. Radagast is not part of the White Council. Not sure why he was in the series to begin with. Peter Jackson equivalent of Jar Jar.
11. Legolas.
The first two movies had obvious flaws, but were at least enjoyable to watch. This one I was just wishing it would end.
-
I agree to a point with a lot of that ^
-
I do too, but I still think it was pretty good.
-
10. Radagast is not part of the White Council. Not sure why he was in the series to begin with. Peter Jackson equivalent of Jar Jar.
WHAT :|
He was by far my favourite thing about the first film. And Sylvester McCoy is awesome. The equivalent of Jar Jar ? C'mon.
I know The Hobbit trilogy has been likened to the SW prequels but it doesn't follow that it must have a universally hated character you need to nominate.
-
Personally I hated what they did with Radagast in the first film. He was a great character in the books, and they made him a cheap joke.
-
Well i've never read the books and I enjoyed his character.
-
I haven't read it either, but Radagast was still pretty silly in the first movie. Loads better in the other two though.
-
Movie wasn't an absolute train-wreck, but it's clear by this point that this second trilogy is more notable for the things done wrong than those done right.
- Smaug scene at the beginning was great. My friend said it felt short and anti-climactic, like they didn't make enough of the character, to which I replied the book does the same, and that it's more apparent in these movies because they turned it into the cliffhanger ending of the second film, and because of the stretched nature of the three films in general.
- The dragon sickness thing pissed me off too, because it actually veils the fact that Thorin has simply spectacularly fallen to the Achilles Heel of the Dwarven race, greed.
- The Dol Guldur battle was... okay. The weird effect thing that they did to show Sauron, the same that ended Gandalf's battle with him in the second, was rubbish, but the rest could have been worse. Were the Ringwraiths there at all though? Or were they just an excuse for more action?
- The section with Bilbo sneaking out and the armies facing off at the gate was quite good, though a fair bit of the dialogue here was delivered in a really over the top way that got irritating.
- Thorin coming to his senses on a hall with a solid floor of gold was a cool idea, as was his epiphany/nightmare (I'm assuming it was meant to link in to the duel on the ice later in the film), but the way it was pulled off was awful, the CGI being amongst the worst in the trilogy, about as bad as that of the gold dwarf statue it came from. The voices in his head seemed to go on for twice as long as they needed to.
- The worms and bats were unnecessary.
- The battle in general... well, Jackson did a respectable job of making it interesting at such length, though ultimately, he shouldn't have had to. The Legolas stuff got tiring. The Thorin death scene was REALLY well done, the best part of the entire film.
- The moments blatantly tying this trilogy into the LOTR (Saruman's 'I'll deal with Sauron', Thranduil's 'go find Strider', etc) were terrible, other than ending the trilogy with Gandalf's arrival, which I thought was nice. They needed something to distract you from the fact that Bilbo doesn't really have a happy ending. He arrives back in the Shire to become an outcast, no friends that he shared the journey with to relate it to, etc.
Something I've never really thought about til seeing this: when Bilbo leaves, and tells the dwarves to come and visit him, there's a part of you that goes, "hehe, yeah, like that's gonna happen". Yet I recall that the Shirefolk spoke of Bilbo's dwarven visitors, so they must have.
-
One thing everyone should keep in mind. This is not as good as LOTR, but really, do you want it to be? Every time I catch myself comparing it to LOTR, I am forced to remind myself that LOTR is the *climax* of the story. Peter Jackson was in the very uncomfortable decision of making a set of movies that were a lead-in to the TRUE epic. Yes, he probably should have stuck with two movies....but here's my theory on that: I think that when he was finished making the movies that he wanted, he had enough for two and a half films. At that point, you can start making some drastic cuts and lose some of your actual story, or you can pad it with a few more action scenes and go for three. He went with the latter, and I'm not sorry he did. Yes, they feel a bit long, but ironically, the extra action sequences lend itself to the idea that this is the trilogy that is *supposed* to be more light-hearted. And it DOES. You don't want acts 1, 2 and 3 to outshine or even be the equal of the climax of your story.
I guess I'm the only one that didn't find Thandruil's direction to Legolas to be forced at all. Legolas said that he couldn't go back home and he didn't know where he would go or what he would do...so Thandruil's suggestion seemed perfectly natural to me.
As morbid as it sounds, I was a bit surprised that PJ left so many of the company of dwarves alive. I know at least half of them died in the book. Many parts of the movie felt overly rushed, but that was no surprise as I have felt that way about all 6 of the theatrical versions without exception. Heck, even the extended versions of the Hobbit movies that are out feel too short to me. I was hoping he'd extend them a bit more.
-
Re: the dwarves that survived the battle...
I stand corrected. I was remembering the 1977 cartoon where only 6 of the original 13 dwarves survived. I didn't remember that this wasn't in the books, and I'm not sure why the change. The movie was accurate.
-
Yes, he probably should have stuck with two movies....but here's my theory on that: I think that when he was finished making the movies that he wanted, he had enough for two and a half films. At that point, you can start making some drastic cuts and lose some of your actual story, or you can pad it with a few more action scenes and go for three.
Yeah, I am pretty sure that is how it came about as well.
I guess I'm the only one that didn't find Thandruil's direction to Legolas to be forced at all. Legolas said that he couldn't go back home and he didn't know where he would go or what he would do...so Thandruil's suggestion seemed perfectly natural to me.
I thought him suggesting that was fine as well, but the way it was so drawn out and spelled out as though the audience was stupid was a bit forced."A Dunedain ranger in the north..." Oh cool, Aragorn.... "He is the son of Arathorn..." Ok, explains how he knew him I suppose and hammers it home in case anyone can't work it out... "In the wilds they call him Strider..." Did anyone not realise who it meant yet?... "You will have to find out his true name for yourself..." What? Why would he say that? And it's too late to go for a 'veiled reference' anyway after hitting the audience over the head with it.
As morbid as it sounds, I was a bit surprised that PJ left so many of the company of dwarves alive. I know at least half of them died in the book.
The exact same dwarves live and die in the Hobbit in th book and film versions.
Edit: I see you already said this.
And to Fluffy:
bats were unnecessary.
The bats were actually in the book.
-
I went and saw this film yesterday. Imagine a guy that has never read Tolkin, nor has ever seen a single Lord of the rings or Hobbit movie going into this thing. It was Saturday evening and my friends were into it, so I though about the 3D glasses, comfy seats, nachos and that huge coca cola they sell in the lobby and decided to go with it. It was pretty impressive and enjoyable, but what do I know. :lol
-
@RuRoRul
RE: "You'll have to learn his true name for yourself..."
I don't think this was treating the audience as stupid, as long as you're still "in" the movie. Remember that (as is established in LOTR) Strider's true name is a somewhat closely guarded secret. If you think about it, this scene lends far more weight to the later scene in FOTR when Aragorn is a part of the meeting and no-one knows who he is....except Legolas (well...and Gandolf, but you know what I mean).
-
This is not as good as LOTR, but really, do you want it to be?
Well, I would like everything to be good, wouldn't you? ;)
-
To me, the worst aspect of the film was Legolas and his bullshit gravity-defying scenes. Of course, I think that those type of scenes have been the big drawback for all of the Hobbit films as opposed to the LOTR films.
-
To me, the worst aspect of the film was Legolas and his bullshit gravity-defying scenes. Of course, I think that those type of scenes have been the big drawback for all of the Hobbit films as opposed to the LOTR films.
Yeah, my main gripe is the videogame action scenes that don't feel "realistic" at all. Yeah, I know this is a world with orcs, magic and all that fluff but LOTR is still a pretty realistic setting within that scope. People flying around and landing exactly where they need to not only kill their enemies but look totally cool while doing it don't fit the mood at all. Legolas mammoth surfing in the Return of the King already felt somewhat out of place, but at least it was just one scene in 12+ hours of LOTR. This movie is just over the top and Legolas climbing some falling rocks was probably the stupidest scene in all 6 movies.
The Dol Guldur scene was shaping out to be one of my favorite scenes, I thought it matched the LOTR mood perfectly, and then... teleporting/warping ringwraith? WTF. Honestly, compare this to Aragorn fighting them in Fellowship...
Also, I haven't read the Hobbit in a while so I don't remember, but did it include those "racial" mounts ala World of Warcraft? Stags, rams and such.
Overall, despite my ranting I thought it was enjoyable. These movies are nowhere near LOTR, but I will still get the extended editions and do a marathon from time to time. I thought the final scene was pretty cool tying it all together and then flowing into the beautiful song during the credits. It gave me chills.
-
People may complain about Legolas, and I can totally see why, but as for me I was totally glad he was in the movies because otherwise we wouldn't have this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNr-Vf9L2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNr-Vf9L2c)
-
And to Fluffy:
bats were unnecessary.
The bats were actually in the book.
Really? Another minor detail from the books I didn't remember. When the stone giants were fighting in the Misty Mountains in the first movie, I was spewing, then, after reading up on it, found they were at least referenced in the book.
- The section with Bilbo sneaking out and the armies facing off at the gate was quite good, though a fair bit of the dialogue here was delivered in a really over the top way that got irritating.
One example of this was Thorin's slow motion evil-sounding "I will not part with a single coin". I just watched the Hobbit Dwarfed Edition (a fan edit in which they've removed everything that wasn't in the book, and distilled the first two films down to 2 hours) and rewatching the Smaug scene, he uses the exact same line. Which actually makes it very cool that they would have Thorin repeat it, showing how monstrous and greedy he's become... IF the reference wasn't so easily lost by being in two separate films.
-
[quote author=Fluffy Lothario link=topic=17604.msg1903178#msg1903178 date=1419309628I just watched the Hobbit Dwarfed Edition (a fan edit in which they've removed everything that wasn't in the book, and distilled the first two films down to 2 hours)...
[/quote]
Not defending the films necessarily, and I haven't seen the fan edit, so I may be off base. BUT 2 hours doesn't seem accurate to me. I mean, if he is referencing things that are explicitly in the Hobbit maybe. But things that are relatively necessary to translate the book to a screen play that actually works on screen OR things that are in the LOTR appendices are additions that would seem to me to take it to WELL over 2 hours.
-
I am so surprised to hear myself say that I hated this.
-
I just watched the Hobbit Dwarfed Edition (a fan edit in which they've removed everything that wasn't in the book, and distilled the first two films down to 2 hours)...
Not defending the films necessarily, and I haven't seen the fan edit, so I may be off base. BUT 2 hours doesn't seem accurate to me. I mean, if he is referencing things that are explicitly in the Hobbit maybe. But things that are relatively necessary to translate the book to a screen play that actually works on screen OR things that are in the LOTR appendices are additions that would seem to me to take it to WELL over 2 hours.
If it isn't in the book, they don't keep it.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there were bits and pieces that Jackson added that helped the story, and ever since seeing the films, I figured it wouldn't work at all without them, so I was willing to accept the bad additions for the sake of the good ones. But seeing this fan edit with it all taken out... it isn't perfect (the biggest problem being they cut Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire to rid it completely of Azog, but I've seen they're going to add it back in based on fan feedback), but I think it works at least as well as Jackson's version, and probably better. It's cool to be able to watch a version with no Radagast, no attack on Dol Guldur, no Azog (though this will of course become minimal Azog), no Tauriel love story, absolute minimal Legolas, and no Dragon/dwarves Scooby Doo scene.
-
Actually...even after somewhat enjoying the film...in retrospect, I have to say that the whole series felt a bit "phoned in", albiet with a few gems along the way.
-
the elves superhero fighting almost ruined the first two (or maybe it was just the second) hobbit films for me. I'm going to see the new one eventually.
-
I guess I'm the only one that didn't find Thandruil's direction to Legolas to be forced at all. Legolas said that he couldn't go back home and he didn't know where he would go or what he would do...so Thandruil's suggestion seemed perfectly natural to me.
I had mixed feelings about it. The lines themselves and the delivery seemed fine to me. But if I were to diagnose the issue I had to the point of being picky, it just felt like it shouldn't have come from Thranduil. Thranduil was so completely detached from the fate of Middle Earth, from Legolas as a person and as his son, and from...well, pretty much everything. Yeah, he rallied and fought instead of taking the elves and leaving, but I never really bought that there was any sort of real transformation or growth in his character. So whether those lines to Legolas about finding the Dunedain and Aragorn were meant to be for Legolas' benefit, for Middle Earth's benefit, or a combination of both, it just seemed odd for that to come from his character. I think it should have come from Gandalf.
-
Yeah, this movie was incredible. My favorite of the entire Lord of the Rings franchise. Just epic the entire way through. No I haven't read the books, nor will I ever. My only complaint would be some of the CGI as you could tell they spent much more time on other models like the white orc dude. He looked incredible, but then you have the goblins who got shafted in the effects department.
It was just in all around entertaining, epic good time.
-
Yeah, I had much fewer issues with this one than the second.
-
I saw Battle of the Five Armies this weekend. While I would say that the movie is a technological wonder, I thought it was a storytelling dud and is easily the worst of the Hobbit movies.
Some scenes were drawn out to the point of being actually annoying. We get that Thorin was struggling with greed but do we really need five minutes of slow-mo close ups of his face while disembodied voices narrate the struggle in his mind? Speaking of that moment, all the dwarves are decked out in heavy plate armor up until Thorin "comes to his senses" but then suddenly they're all back in their traveling leathers to go out and do battle!? What a weird and distracting moment.
I'm convinced the Legolas and Bolg combat was pure trolling by Jackson. He had to have heard the criticism of Super-Legolas in the previous movies (starting with The Return of the King) and just went, :rollin "Wait 'til they get a load of this!"
Anyway, the previous posts in this thread do a great job of cataloging the problems with the movies (and the source material) so I won't belabor it.
Billy Connolly as Dain was awesome though! :biggrin:
I give it 2 stars out of 5.
-
I'm convinced the Legolas and Bolg combat was pure trolling by Jackson. He had to have heard the criticism of Super-Legolas in the previous movies (starting with The Return of the King) and just went, :rollin "Wait 'til they get a load of this!"
Well, it was all filmed before the first movie was even released. So it was always meant to be there. Doesn't mean it was really good though.
-
It was filmed before the LOTR-Return of the King?! Who'd have guessed?
-
Oh, somehow missed that. Thought you meant the previous Hobbit movie.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/aQHUAcc.jpg)
-
It was filmed before the LOTR-Return of the King?! Who'd have guessed?
I think you should also add shooting an orc between the eyes while helping Gimli not fall to death in the Fellowship. And skateboarding down a staircase on a shield shooting arrows in the Two Towers. Legolas has never not been a ridiculously stupid character.
-
I've been saying since Fellowship that Legolas uses cheat codes. Infinite arrows, invulnerability, speed and strength. The scene in Battle where he ran out of arrows he did on purpose just so he could try out the newest gameshark cheat, "drive trolls."
-
It was filmed before the LOTR-Return of the King?! Who'd have guessed?
I think you should also add shooting an orc between the eyes while helping Gimli not fall to death in the Fellowship. And skateboarding down a staircase on a shield shooting arrows in the Two Towers. Legolas has never not been a ridiculously stupid character.
My opinion is that those are forgivable. His abilities up until the Elephant attack were other worldly but not completely ridiculous and were implied at by Tolkien himself (walking on top of the snow without making a footprint, for example). If it never got beyond the level of snowboarding on a shield I'd have been ecstatic.
[edit] Besides, the elves of Middle Earth have always been described as being vastly outnumbered by the other races; yet everyone, especially Orcs, fear them greatly. They should have abilities that cause fear. Jackson just took it way too far with Legolas.
-
It was filmed before the LOTR-Return of the King?! Who'd have guessed?
I think you should also add shooting an orc between the eyes while helping Gimli not fall to death in the Fellowship. And skateboarding down a staircase on a shield shooting arrows in the Two Towers. Legolas has never not been a ridiculously stupid character.
My opinion is that those are forgivable. His abilities up until the Elephant attack were other worldly but not completely ridiculous and were implied at by Tolkien himself (walking on top of the snow without making a footprint, for example). If it never got beyond the level of snowboarding on a shield I'd have been ecstatic.
[edit] Besides, the elves of Middle Earth have always been described as being vastly outnumbered by the other races; yet everyone, especially Orcs, fear them greatly. They should have abilities that cause fear. Jackson just took it way too far with Legolas.
I think it's not so much that Jackson made Legolas a badass that puts people off, it's how he did it. I mean, in the Fellowship book, Legolas kills one of the Nazgul's winged mounts with one shot from his bow. That's pretty badass and beyond headshotting an orc archer from a distance or maybe even shield surfing. It's just that shield surfing and oliphaunt killing just look over the top and ridiculous.
-
Exactly. And while there were a few instances of just over-the-top bullshit in the LOTR trilogy, the Hobbit trilogy seems rife with it. That, combined with more CGI characters as opposed to all of the practical makeup in the LOTR trilogy, is what sets the Hobbit apart (in a bad way) even over and above any story complaints.
-
Yeah, one of my most major complaints about the Hobbit movies is that the visual tone is so different from the LotR movies, not just the story's tone. Different isn't always bad, but in this case it really was. Especially the colors, they were really gritty and real in the LotR movies, whereas in the Hobbit, everything looks like a painting. Which certainly looks pretty, but not at all like a real place like the first ones did. I don't know anything about how color grading and stuff like that works, but even to me it's painfully noticable.
And then of course there is the obvious overuse of CGI characters, as mention so many times before.
-
LOTR VHS FTW!
-
I was gonna watch it, mostly out of obligation, but frankly, the more I read comments about the movie, the less I am inclined to watch it. It sounds like a movie-sized computer game from anything I heard.
Maybe better to not watch it, to keep the book "untainted".
-
Hey, it wasn't THAT bad (I just saw it)
The only thing that REALLY stood out to me as "Really? That was dumb" :tdwn was the part where Legolas climbs up the falling stones when the tower bridge gets destroyed
The Thorin death scene was excellent. Also Galadriel is a badass.
-
I was gonna watch it, mostly out of obligation, but frankly, the more I read comments about the movie, the less I am inclined to watch it. It sounds like a movie-sized computer game from anything I heard.
Maybe better to not watch it, to keep the book "untainted".
Just go take a piss whenever the female elf or Legolas is on screen and you'll enjoy it.
-
I was gonna watch it, mostly out of obligation, but frankly, the more I read comments about the movie, the less I am inclined to watch it. It sounds like a movie-sized computer game from anything I heard.
Maybe better to not watch it, to keep the book "untainted".
Just go take a piss when Smaug dies and then just leave the cinema after that.
-
Still better than the first two Hobbit films really.
What a difference from one trilogy to another.
-
They're entertaining enough. They didn't need to be three films though as I can barely remember anything from the first two.
-
Still better than the first two Hobbit films really.
What a difference from one trilogy to another.
See also Star Wars. At this point it's only 50% a good franchise.
-
Still better than the first two Hobbit films really.
What a difference from one trilogy to another.
See also Star Wars. At this point it's only 50% a good franchise.
Ok, I will admiit that they can't touch the LOTR series. But I think comparing them to the SW prequels is going a bit far. I mean, just having Martin Freeman as a lead actor over Hayden Christensen is a *VAST* improvement.
-
The Hobbit > SW Prequels and it's not even close.
Peter Jackson actually has talent as a director and can form a story. The Hobbit trilogy has a lot of CGI but it's to enhance the story - not the other way around.
-
The Hobbit > SW Prequels and it's not even close.
Peter Jackson actually has talent as a director and can form a story. The Hobbit trilogy has a lot of CGI but it's to enhance the story - not the other way around.
-
The only thing that REALLY stood out to me as "Really? That was dumb" :tdwn was the part where Legolas climbs up the falling stones when the tower bridge gets destroyed
I also just saw it today, and agree about that part. :facepalm:
Still, I enjoyed the movie as a whole. Definitely more than the first one and almost as much as the second. Unfortunately, though, I can't see myself ever doing a Hobbit/LOTR marathon. They're just too different, stylistically, for me to enjoy them that way. Despite PJ's multiple attempts at tying the two together, I really feel like they're coming from two, quite different, universes. And that's the biggest disappointment of all.
-
Well that's why I personally would split it up over two days. One marathon one day, and one the next. Having a full nights sleep between the two would split it up nicely. (besides....who really wants to watch *anything* for 24 hours straight)
-
I was gonna watch it, mostly out of obligation, but frankly, the more I read comments about the movie, the less I am inclined to watch it. It sounds like a movie-sized computer game from anything I heard.
Maybe better to not watch it, to keep the book "untainted".
I think I'm fortunate that I don't find the book anything very exciting, so I find the movies greatly enhanced by all the additional stuff. They have their flaws definitely, and come nowhere near the LOTR trilogy, but they're a lot of fun.
I would say the quality of the movies as compared with the LOTR movies is closer than the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR books.
-
The Hobbit movies are far from LOTR levels, but even comparing them to the Star Wars prequels is dumb. The Hobbit movies actually has talent, effort and you can see that people put a lot of work into this. Despite feeling more CGI than the LOTR movies, you can still tell that they cared enough to go out and shoot, instead of every shot being in front of a green screen. Despite the book being stretched out way too much, the scripts of the Hobbit movies are still way above Star Wars prequels levels. And mainly, Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker, and that really shows in the movies. George Lucas is not a good filmmaker. He's a great idea-man, and his best contribution to Star Wars was not behind the camera, but rather the world he created.
And while this may be slightly off topic, I think people give the actors of the Star Wars prequels way too much shit, when it's really the script and bad writing that's the problem. You have actors like Natalie Portman, Liam Neeson, Samuel L Jackson and Ewan McGregor, there's some serious talent there. And while he's not on the same level as them, Hayden Christiansen is far from being as bad as people make it out to be. I don't even think Daniel Day Lewis could deliver the "sand is coarse and rough and gets everywhere" quote without sounding like a jackass. Hayden Christiansen is a decent actor who was given some of the worst lines ever, in addition to playing a really dumb character. (The whole way the transformation happens and how it is written is just completely baffling)
But anyhow, while I've seen the Hobbit movies once and don't feel a strong urge to re-watch them, I feel like even comparing them to the Star Wars prequels is like comparing The Beatles to Rebecca Black.
-
I made sure I watched the first two again as a refresher before seeing the third film, and I loved it. I don't compare it to LOTR because that was a 2 book trilogy where this was one book...that could have been two movies.
It did make me wish the author had written a book just on the elves Thranduil (played by Lee Pace) was excellent, he had such presence on screen, the whole cast were great. Well worth seeing.
-
I'm not sure what I'm missing, so I'm here to be educated.
What's everyone's beef with CGI characters? They seem much more believable to me than a rubber mask...or rather, less difficult to suspend my disbelief. I thought some of the makeup work in LOTR was fantastic, but there were other times when some of the orcs were pretty cheesy.
As long as Jackson doesn't have them doing physical feats that completely destroy the laws of physics I actually prefer the CGI characters. So, why am I wrong?
-
I think it's the over reliance on computer effects over an actor in make up.
Sometimes a CGI character can appear to be "on top" of the action instead of in amongst it.
The Hobbit films weren't anywhere near as poor as the SW prequels though.
But it's just that they cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and that could have been spent on more sets and actual make up / actors
rather than doing everything in chromakey or a computer.
Look at Interstellar - that film has many many outer space shots and it's almost all practical effects / sets / real locations **. The spaceships were full size sets in front of a projection screen
showing the actors inside what they're actually supposed to be looking at. There was no green screen at all.
I think it was tastefully done in The Hobbit films. It wasn't really distracting like a Star Wars prequel.
** obviously the actual outer space shots were digital..
-
I think the best is usually a blend of real effects and CGI, something that I love about the original LOTR trilogy. The use of miniatures is really neat. Personally there is the sense of detachment when it comes to CGI that often shines through. Take the Star Wars prequels for example. Pretty much all scenes where filmed in front of a green screen, and as a result, you can tell by the look of the actor's faces, that most of the time, they have no idea how their surroundings look. It's small signals you pick up from the way they act, walk around, look around and so on, but even if you show an actor how it will look, it's very hard to make it feel authentic. No matter how good of an actor you are, it's hard to capture that legit feeling of seeing something spectacular and showing that "awe" with your expressions. It's similar with CGI characters. They may look good, but seeing a real actor interact with a CGI character can sometimes look really jarring, because no matter how realistic you can make a CGI character, there will always be a difference.
Just for me personally, the problem with CGI is not that it isn't up to par quality-wise. You can do a lot of beautiful things with CGI, but that sense of realism is often lost in the process. It doesn't matter if it looks beautiful, if it doesn't feel real.
-
Hmmm, interesting. It's logical what you say and you both make persuasive points yet, I've never felt that way myself. I don't believe I would have come to Zantera's conclusion on my own...as far as the Middle Earth films are concerned, the SW prequels are pretty obvious.
I would much rather revisit the scenes with Azog the Defiler than any scene with Afrid of Laketown. The CGI actor, and those who interact with him, are infinitely more immediate.
-
I didn't find ANY of the practical makeup in LOTR to be unbelievable or cheesy. It was all believable, and it was all THERE, and you could tell it was there.
The CGI "makeup" in the Hobbit films looks like it is CGI. There is nothing believable about it at all, you can tell it is CGI, so it isn't THERE.
-
I think the fact that we have seen Lord Of The Rings, which used a bit more practical effects for orcs and action scenes than The Hobbit (though both were a mix of CGI and practical) doesn't help either. For example to me something like Guardians Of The Galaxy was full of scenes that came across feeling just as obvious CGI overload as parts of the Hobbit, but I barely remember people mentioning or criticising that. I suspect it's partly because we just accept "OK, this is what this world looks like", where as with Middle Earth we remember the orcs and fights that felt more real in the Lord Of The Rings so we react more to some of the one as that feel more fake in the Hobbit.
Incidentally, I mainly mention orcs and action sequences (and maybe locations) as the things that feel faker in the Hobbit compared to Lord Of The Rings, because I think those are the main things that suffer from CGI overload. The Hobbit actually contains some of the best CGI in my opinion - Gollum from the Hobbit feels even more real than in the Lord Of The Rings, making him possibly the greatest CGI character ever, and Smaug was received extremely well too. Those two things were considered by many to be the highlights of the films, and I think it shows that when they put the time and focus into it (and possibly utilise mocap acting) the CGI can be extremely effective. Some of the problems I think come from the Hobbit's production hell and some things being rushed. You can find info on the internet about the many changes along the way in terms of what the orc villains would look like, and Azog as he is now was only done a few months before the first film (and incidentally imo it was in the first film especially that Azog looked most like a video game orc compared to the rest of the film, in film 2 and especially 3 I remember thinking he looked slightly more realistic). And the action sequence with the dwarves and Smaug at the end of film 2 was added after most of the filming was done, after the split from 2 to 3 films called for it. I suspect that many parts of the films had similar journeys to the screen, and that is why we see more fake looking orcs etc. compared to the stronger CGI in the films (highlighted by Gollum and Smaug, but even including things like the trolls and spiders).
-
^I think you bring up a very good point with how an established world comes with expectations from us as viewers. I remember disliking the Matrix sequels partly because of that. The first one had its fair share of CGI and effects, but by the time Reloaded, and especially Revolutions came out, with even more CGI, and scenes like the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith in the rain, it just felt like such a stretch from what we saw in the first movie. It felt kinda fake and computer-y, and not at all like the world I fell in love with in the first movie.
It's similar with Hobbit. I have a friend who keeps telling me to not compare Hobbit to LOTR, and while I see his point and agree that Hobbit should stand on its own merits, it's kinda hard not to compare them. Apart from the obvious parts of same author, same director, same world, some of the actors returning, Peter Jackson has done his best to really connect this to LOTR. Basically every scene where they talk about "grave danger" or mention Sauron is so LOTR-heavy that it's impossible not to compare the Hobbit trilogy to LOTR.
-
Just for clarification: Aren't we mainly talking about HFR (48fps) more than CGI when we're talking about the diffrence between LOTR and The Hobbits? Sure the CGI is improved but HFR is what makes it look clear and real.
-
Actually after BOFA - my brother and I both simultaneously remarked that despite seeing it in 2D and normal frame rate - the sets still looked like cheap sets.
I thought that maybe people were putting all the blame solely on HFR when it was just cheap looking sets to begin with...
-
Honestly, it doesn't matter if we don't compare The Hobbit trilogy to the LotR trilogy (though it's very difficult not to, considering how far Jackson went to try and connect the two trilogies together): The Hobbit films simply aren't that good.
I was initially impressed with the first film when I saw it two years ago, but it didn't hold up very well with repeated viewings. The second and third films weren't particularly great either.
-
Oh maybe so, only seen them in HFR.
-
I think the fact that we have seen Lord Of The Rings, which used a bit more practical effects for orcs and action scenes than The Hobbit (though both were a mix of CGI and practical) doesn't help either. For example to me something like Guardians Of The Galaxy was full of scenes that came across feeling just as obvious CGI overload as parts of the Hobbit, but I barely remember people mentioning or criticising that. I suspect it's partly because we just accept "OK, this is what this world looks like", where as with Middle Earth we remember the orcs and fights that felt more real in the Lord Of The Rings so we react more to some of the one as that feel more fake in the Hobbit.
Yes, exactly.
Incidentally, I mainly mention orcs and action sequences (and maybe locations) as the things that feel faker in the Hobbit compared to Lord Of The Rings, because I think those are the main things that suffer from CGI overload. The Hobbit actually contains some of the best CGI in my opinion - Gollum from the Hobbit feels even more real than in the Lord Of The Rings, making him possibly the greatest CGI character ever, and Smaug was received extremely well too. Those two things were considered by many to be the highlights of the films, and I think it shows that when they put the time and focus into it (and possibly utilise mocap acting) the CGI can be extremely effective. Some of the problems I think come from the Hobbit's production hell and some things being rushed. You can find info on the internet about the many changes along the way in terms of what the orc villains would look like, and Azog as he is now was only done a few months before the first film (and incidentally imo it was in the first film especially that Azog looked most like a video game orc compared to the rest of the film, in film 2 and especially 3 I remember thinking he looked slightly more realistic). And the action sequence with the dwarves and Smaug at the end of film 2 was added after most of the filming was done, after the split from 2 to 3 films called for it. I suspect that many parts of the films had similar journeys to the screen, and that is why we see more fake looking orcs etc. compared to the stronger CGI in the films (highlighted by Gollum and Smaug, but even including things like the trolls and spiders).
Yes, I agree with all of that.
Just for clarification: Aren't we mainly talking about HFR (48fps) more than CGI when we're talking about the diffrence between LOTR and The Hobbits?
No.
-
I didn't find ANY of the practical makeup in LOTR to be unbelievable or cheesy. It was all believable, and it was all THERE, and you could tell it was there.
The CGI "makeup" in the Hobbit films looks like it is CGI. There is nothing believable about it at all, you can tell it is CGI, so it isn't THERE.
I get that's the way it feels to a wide group of people but my comment was that it isn't that way for me. The non expressive, latex masks of LOTR were way more distracting from reality than the CGI characters.
For example Lurtz vs Azog. Aragorn's battle with Lurtz is more convincing physically but as a character, it's just a big guy in a latex mask with prosthetic teeth. Azog's battle with Thorin is less 'weighty' yet as a character I find it much easier to suspend my disbelief based on the fluidity of his movement and the expressiveness of his face.
(https://www.flickchart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Lurtz_Azog-450x219.jpg)
-
*shrugs*
If that's the way it is for you, then that's the way it is. But I would imagine that you are in the minority.
-
Just for clarification: Aren't we mainly talking about HFR (48fps) more than CGI when we're talking about the diffrence between LOTR and The Hobbits?
No.
Ok.
-
*shrugs*
If that's the way it is for you, then that's the way it is. But I would imagine that you are in the minority.
Same here. To me, the plastic mask is way better. The white orc is faaaaaaaaake.
I mean, just look at the two pictures right there. Lurtz has a completely natural shading; he is a clearly physical object. Azog looks like a computer game character.
-
Agreed. I think I mentioned it in my earlier post, but something looking realistic is way more important than looking perfect. Sometimes the imperfections of the physical costume adds to the reality of it. And with things like lightning, you can get close to it, but you can never fully achieve that natural lightning when you're trying to recreate shade on a CGI-character.
-
Yeah, I'll take the rubber mask any day of the week.
-
I mean, just look at the two pictures right there. Lurtz has a completely natural shading; he is a clearly physical object. Azog looks like a computer game character.
Yeah, this. I could have sworn his name was Ugluk, though. Maybe that was in the books?
-
Finally saw it in IMAX 3D and I liked it. It was kind of cheesy at points like the first two had been, but overall a really fun and enjoyable movie. I agree with everyone else about the CGI, but I still thought it was good. I also like how it set up for LotR in the end. I wonder how someone who never seen or read the series would view it watching all six movies from the beginning.
-
Yeah, this. I could have sworn his name was Ugluk, though. Maybe that was in the books?
Ugluk was the leader of the Uruk scouts from Isengard that killed Boromir and captured Merry and Pippin.
Lurtz was a fabricated character created specifically for PJ's LotR trilogy and did not exist in the book. In the movie, he was the initial leader of the Uruk pack before Aragorn killed him. The Uruk pictured there is Lurtz.
For reference, in The Two Towers movie, Ugluk is the one who stops the one orc from trying to eat Merry and Pippin; "They are not for eating."
-
Yeah, this. I could have sworn his name was Ugluk, though. Maybe that was in the books?
Ugluk was the leader of the Uruk scouts from Isengard that killed Boromir and captured Merry and Pippin.
Lurtz was a fabricated character created specifically for PJ's LotR trilogy and did not exist in the book. In the movie, he was the initial leader of the Uruk pack before Aragorn killed him. The Uruk pictured there is Lurtz.
For reference, in The Two Towers movie, Ugluk is the one who stops the one orc from trying to eat Merry and Pippin; "They are not for eating."
Is he the one who also says "looks like meat's back on the menu, boys".
If so, he is awesome.
-
Yeah, that's a great line.
-
Call me pedantic, but I’ve always thought when I hear that line: would Uruks have knowledge of the concept of a menu? Would an Orc? I guess they could, but considering the degree of civilisation I normally associate with an Orc, I find myself wondering. It is enjoyable in the context of the scene though.
And it doesn’t even compare to Gimli’s reference to the nervous system in the Extended Two Towers. That should never have gotten through.
-
The Uruk-Hai were the most advanced orcs of all, physically, mentally, and culturally. Their University of Advanced Sciences and Atomic Research is widely regarded as the epitome of knowledge in all of Middle Earth. Remember that Phlok, son of Phluk, was the first to make the connection between mass, energy, and potential. His theories on nuclear energy were far ahead of their time, so far that most considered him a nutcase. His colleagues certainly did. That, and he "just smelled kinda funny".
Anyway, the concept of a menu would definitely be something with which they were familiar.
-
If you can't just laugh at/enjoy lines like that for what they are, I would say the issue lies somewhere else other than the film.
-
Yeah, I guess that's all I'm saying.
-
A fantasy universe has to be created with consistency. Any detail that jars takes you out of the reality they’re trying to depict, out of the universe, and out of the story. It’s a pretty important aspect of fantasy writing, and writing in general. A line like that showing up in the books would be a horrendous eyesore. But whatever, I’m a crotchety old man.
The Uruk-Hai were the most advanced orcs of all, physically, mentally, and culturally. Their University of Advanced Sciences and Atomic Research is widely regarded as the epitome of knowledge in all of Middle Earth. Remember that Phlok, son of Phluk, was the first to make the connection between mass, energy, and potential. His theories on nuclear energy were far ahead of their time, so far that most considered him a nutcase. His colleagues certainly did. That, and he "just smelled kinda funny".
Anyway, the concept of a menu would definitely be something with which they were familiar.
It’s funny you should use this angle to take the piss, because there’s a novel in Russia, essentially a glorified fanfic, called The Last Ringbearer, which suggests The Red Book (from which the Lord of the Rings is supposedly derived) is an example of the victors rewriting history, that the Orcs were actually a peaceful society, but technologically far more advanced than the other races due to industrialisation. The other races wage war on them out of racism and distrust. The story is told from the perspective of several Orcs fleeing Mordor as it collapses. Fanfic or not, it sounds fascinating.
-
It does sound interesting. I like stuff like that. I found a copy of Grendel when I was junior high, shortly after we'd studied Beowulf. I thought the story being told from the monster's point of view, first person at that, was awesome.
I do see your point about anachronistic lines in period movies, and usually I'd be with you. In this case, I think the expression "on the menu" seemed so perfect that I didn't even think of it as out of place, it's such a common expression. I think that line is actually in the book.
-
That kind of thing would bother me too.
-
There were only minor things in the LotR movies that were changed from the book that irked me, and they didn't upset me too much at that.
With The Hobbit movies, however, PJ threw much of what was written into the blender and created his own narrative engine to fuel three movies that could probably have been made in less. I won't get into all of it here, and I admit I have not read this thread much at all so they may have already been brought up, but it's quite extensive, so much so that the final movie departed so much from Tolkien's narrative that I mentally almost treated it as a new story entirely. I was quite bothered by Desolation when I first saw it and had to watch it many times before it grew on me.
Here is an interesting little tidbit, however, involving the end of The Battle of Five Armies, that you may or may not have picked up on:
At the end of the movie, we hear Thranduil tell his son, Legolas, to go up North, search for a Ranger who goes by the name Strider, who can become a great man, and then drops some serious ambiguous prequeling about his true name. But let's examine the REAL timeline.
Aragorn was 87 at the time of the War of the Ring. He even explains this to Eowyn in the extended Two Towers while the people of Rohan are fleeing to Helm's Deep. This age is accurate, as Aragorn was born in TA 2931 and the War of the Ring culminated in TA 3018-3019. The events in the Hobbit, however, occurred in TA 2941....when Aragorn was TEN. He was still living in Rivendell, not leaving to join the Rangers until he was 20, so he was at least 10 years away from even beginning to be known as Strider when Thranduil made his speech to Legolas.
So how could Thranduil have even known of Aragorn's nickname and known he would become a Ranger to send his son after him if that alone didn't happen for 10 more years?
Just one of the many inconsistencies and changes from Tolkien's actual narrative that rubbed me wrong way in the Hobbit movies. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy the movies, because for what they were, I loved them as entertainment. But as someone who is self-proclaimed and quite proud Tolkien geek, it is kind of an affront to the mythology and legendarium Tolkien created to make such drastic and, in come cases, incorrect changes.
My two cents...
-
Oh, wow. I didn't even pick up on that.
-
Wait, what? How can the Hobbit have taken place before the War of the Ring? That makes no sense. ???
-
Uh...well since the Hobbit was a prelude/prequel, by definition, it would have taken place before.
-
Wait, what? How can the Hobbit have taken place before the War of the Ring? That makes no sense. ???
The ring was in Gollum's possession for over 500 years, after Isildur's company was ambushed in the Tragedy at the Gladden Fields. It fell into the Anduin, which is where Gollum, then Smeagol, found it. Bilbo chancing upon it in the goblin tunnels underneath the Misty Mountains occurred in 2941. 60 years later, Bilbo leaves Hobbiton and gives the ring to Frodo. 17 years pass, during which Gandalf has researched that it is, in fact, the ring cut from Sauron's hand by Isildur. Also during that time, Sauron has regained enough of his strength to rebuild his fortress in Mordor and send the Nine out to search for the Ring while he amasses his armies and starts sending out assaults on Gondor. Meanwhile, Saruman is now consorting and conspiring with Sauron and is attacking the Wold and the Westfold in Rohan. The events in the Lord of the Rings are collectively The War of the Ring, 77 years AFTER the events of the Hobbit.
Yet another problem I have with the Hobbit movies: the ring was NEVER that important to the Hobbit narrative, outside of simply giving Bilbo the ability to disappear. It never held Bilbo under its corruption the way it was protrayed in the movies and Sauron was certainly not as strong as portrayed at that time. It was simply glorified by PH in the Hobbit films as a plot device, with no real consideration to what actually happened.
-
I didn't check on that but I assumed the timelines could at least be possible since I knew Aragorn was 87 (in the books and mentioned in the extended films) and I had the 60 years between The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings in mind.
I'm not normally one to look for in-universe excuses for things like that (since the answer is almost always just "it's a mistake"), but in this case I think it could be explained by the fact that in the Lord Of The Rings films, the 17 year gap doesn't happen. I know it doesn't say any sort of timeline for how long Gandalf is away after leaving Frodo the ring, but in the film there is nothing to suggest any huge length of time has passed either. Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin don't seem much older, it doesn't show Gandalf doing much more than going to Minas Tirith and looking at a couple of books (the halfling's leaf must have really slowed his mind if reading that took him 17 years), and there is no big montage of Gandalf travelling around or the Shire changing to suggest a lengthy passage of time. I always took it that in the films it was only meant to be a couple of years or even a few months, but since they never explicitly said then if you were a hypersensitive Tolkien fan then you could choose to believe 17 years had passed since it doesn't make a difference. But in this case it would actually alter the age of Aragorn at the time of the Hobbit so that he'd be close to 27.
Edit:
Wait, what? How can the Hobbit have taken place before the War of the Ring? That makes no sense. ???
Yet another problem I have with the Hobbit movies: the ring was NEVER that important to the Hobbit narrative, outside of simply giving Bilbo the ability to disappear. It never held Bilbo under its corruption the way it was protrayed in the movies and Sauron was certainly not as strong as portrayed at that time. It was simply glorified by PH in the Hobbit films as a plot device, with no real consideration to what actually happened.
Sauron didn't have to be as powerful or important in the films and I think it'd have been better that way, but the ring kind of had to be shown to at least have the potential for corruption for it to not completely negate what was seen in The Lord Of The Rings. The problem is Tolkien not writing it corrupting Bilbo then retconning it to be the One Ring - it harkens back to him having to change Riddles In The Dark to not make Gollum give away the ring willingly. If you're desperate for an in-universe excuse you could always say that the fact the ring was portrayed as innocent and non-corrupting in The Hobbit (book) was because it was written by Bilbo and he lied about that (as he says in Lord Of The Rings).
-
Ah, I thought the "War of the Ring" referred to the original battle, which is why I was confused. Never mind.
This is all quite nitpicky though. Are any of those dates referred to in the films? If not then I don't think it matters at all. The films are different to the books, no reason the dates can't be played around with.
Same goes for the ring not being imporant in the Hobbit book. In the original it wasn't a big deal whatsoever, but was more so when Tolkien re-wrote it. But given the events of LOTR (including the books) it absolutely makes sense and is frankly better storytelling by including that in the Hobbit films.
-
I didn't check on that but I assumed the timelines could at least be possible since I knew Aragorn was 87 (in the books and mentioned in the extended films) and I had the 60 years between The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings in mind.
I'm not normally one to look for in-universe excuses for things like that (since the answer is almost always just "it's a mistake"), but in this case I think it could be explained by the fact that in the Lord Of The Rings films, the 17 year gap doesn't happen. I know it doesn't say any sort of timeline for how long Gandalf is away after leaving Frodo the ring, but in the film there is nothing to suggest any huge length of time has passed either. Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin don't seem much older, it doesn't show Gandalf doing much more than going to Minas Tirith and looking at a couple of books (the halfling's leaf must have really slowed his mind if reading that took him 17 years), and there is no big montage of Gandalf travelling around or the Shire changing to suggest a lengthy passage of time. I always took it that in the films it was only meant to be a couple of years or even a few months, but since they never explicitly said then if you were a hypersensitive Tolkien fan then you could choose to believe 17 years had passed since it doesn't make a difference. But in this case it would actually alter the age of Aragorn at the time of the Hobbit so that he'd be close to 27.
That was actually one minor gripe I had with the LOTR films. I do not remember specifics, and I could be flat out misremembering, but I seem to remember clues that they had in fact shortened the timeline in general of a LOT of the events, which was completely unnecessary. The passage of time is so important to what happens in the books, IMO, that it almost takes on the role of a character itself.
-
This is why I said I enjoyed the movies as a whole. But as someone who loves and delves deep into the expansive universe Tolkien created, to see the actual mythology tampered with is disappointing. Azog not dying but instead chasing Thorin; the method by which Bilbo finds the ring making it seem more like he stole it than found it; the fact that Sauron is already leading an army to Erebor; the inclusion of Legolas, the creation of Tauriel and a dwarf/elf romance...things like that make it NOT the Hobbit, but instead an adaptation based on the events in the Hobbit. Are they good movies? Absolutely. Did I enjoy them? Yes definitely. But with a base as detailed and almost biblical as what was written, altering the narrative and still calling it by the same name is a bit of an affront, like I said.
People who aren't as familiar with it as I am will of course not notice or care. But from my point of view, there were a huge number of not insignificant changes made that rubbed me the wrong way.
-
Yeah, fair enough. Each to their own! :tup
-
Even though I've always known Legolas isn't in the book, I've been on board with the decision to include him since day one. The dwarves pass through the place where he lives, and he's the son of the king. Makes sense. How they handled him in the movie however is a completely different subject. He could have been handled better, and perhaps not been in it that much.
And while I ended up buying the Tauriel/Kili thing I agree that it wasn't needed and could have been left out.
-
Strictly from a movie perspective and not caring what was in the book or not, I always thought it was odd to include Legolas, the invincible Disney character I was under the impression people really didn't like. But maybe I'm wrong on that one. And I suppose it's not that weird that they wanted another character connection to the LOTR movies. Who else would they have picked? The other members of the fellowship were either too young or not even born.
However, the character of Tauriel and the romance with Kili was unneccessary and uninteresting.
-
Actually, I think that the shortening of the timeline in the movie was *imperative*.
This is a fantasy/action film. I have never heard of an action film that takes place over the course of two decades....and I don't think it would be a wise move to try. In spite of its 12-hour length, I think the original LOTR films actually benefit from the overall pace of the film. It gives the watcher more of that "edge of your seat", "we're running out of time" feel that makes the entire thing MUCH more engaging.
And again, by shortening the timeline, you've also potentially solved the puzzle of Strider's age in the Hobbit series. But on this last point, I admit I'm being a bit of an apologist. There are some great emotional moments in the Hobbit trilogy, but there's also quite a bit of :facepalm: moments as well.
-
I am currently working on an NFL-based short adaptation of the Lord of the Rings story. I won't give too much away, but I will say that Richard Sherman gets thrown into a volcano at the end.
-
:clap:
-
Never heard of the fanfic The Last Ringbearer. Sounds amazing, can't wait to read it now.
-
It’s apparently been quite big in Russia, but no English language publisher will touch it because of the potential of it being crushed by Christopher Tolkien. There is an English translation out there though, pdf link is on the Wikipedia page from memory.
-
Thank you!
-
Finally saw the last movie. Meh, I guess. You could cut the fighting by half, and it would still be borderline too much. The Azog fight just wouldn't stop.
It would be interesting to cut all three movies into one longish one.
-
Yeah, to me the third movie was the worst because it was the most overblown and ridiculous, and the bar was already pretty high.
-
I can't really decide if I like the second or third one the most. And while I agree that the battleing of the last one was a bit much, I still enjoyed the movie. An Unexpected Journey is clearly my least favorite, way too childish for my taste.
-
Smaug was a bit of a bastard of a dragon, wasn´t he? ;)
-
The Ed Sheeran song at the end of Desolation of Smaug is the jam.
-
It's a great song, but it was forced on me by the radio so many times that now I'm just sick of it.
-
I rewatched five armies recently and enjoyed it the same amount I did when watching it in the theater. I have the extended edition of the first Hobbit movie, haven't gotten Smaug yet. Might just get the last two extended editions when five armies finally comes out later this year.
-
Yeah, I've been waiting for the extended 3d blu ray box set since the first movie was announced. (I actually believe I posted that in this thread) I don't see the point of buying the films one by one, when I'd want to buy the box in the end.
But I've been waiting this long already that I think I'll even wait for the box set to get cheap. Just like I did with the LOTR one.
-
Yeah, I've been waiting for the extended 3d blu ray box set since the first movie was announced. (I actually believe I posted that in this thread) I don't see the point of buying the films one by one, when I'd want to buy the box in the end.
But I've been waiting this long already that I think I'll even wait for the box set to get cheap. Just like I did with the LOTR one.
This, I bought all the extended editions of LOTR as hey came out, but for the Hobbit series I have felt like I can be patient and wait till there is a box series with all for a better price and or more features.
-
Watched the first Hobbit film on my flight today. I've seen Unexpected Journey 3 times previously I believe (Desolation and Battle just once), and I have to say, as much as I LOVE LOTR, these movies just don't do much for me. On a 12 hour flight with nothing else to do it hardly managed to capture my attention. I don't think I'm comparing it to LOTR, which is obviously futile, it just has so much filler and history lessons that it is hard to stay focused.
I understand Peter Jackson was king of going for that light-hearted, childish movie, it just comes off as gimmicky most of the time. I don't hold it against him though, I just think there was so much potential with these movies and it's sad as a fan to see it unrealised.
-
Yeah, none of the Hobbit movies has aged well for me. Desolation is definetely the best, but even that has dropped pretty far in my rankings since I first saw it. BotFA has some really good moments, but it also has quite a few moments of absolute cringe.
-
I'm just hoping someone with know-how and lots of time will come up with a fan edit of the three films that manages to stay more focused and removes some of the unnecessary obnoxiousness, mainly in the battle sequences. These films could really use some trimming.
-
Lol, I was hoping to see that the release date for the extended edition of BOFA has been released. There is no such thing as too much Peter Jackson Middle Earth for me.
-
Chalk me up as another one of those who can't get enough of middle earth. I still haven't picked up the extended desolation of smaug, might just grab the entire trilogy extended version and sell my current one.
-
I'm just hoping someone with know-how and lots of time will come up with a fan edit of the three films that manages to stay more focused and removes some of the unnecessary obnoxiousness, mainly in the battle sequences. These films could really use some trimming.
https://definitivehobbitcut.tumblr.com/
-
I don't really wish that the movies had been trimmed down. I like the idea behind almost every scene, but I just wish those scenes had been written better.
https://definitivehobbitcut.tumblr.com/
Very interesting.
-
I'm just hoping someone with know-how and lots of time will come up with a fan edit of the three films that manages to stay more focused and removes some of the unnecessary obnoxiousness, mainly in the battle sequences. These films could really use some trimming.
https://definitivehobbitcut.tumblr.com/
I am so totally watching that tonight! I just read the book, old copy, in English to really see what Tolkien has written, and the movies seemed even more wrong after that. Can't wait to see a fan's take on the movies.
-
I have it, but haven't had time to watch it.
-
I have it, but haven't had time to watch it.
I'll post here later tonight. The thing I'm most afraid of is the sound. If there are major cuts during scenes, that means the soundtrack is cut in two. Or at least the flow of the music is gone. Well, I'll see.
-
So after watching it I must say that I really like the effort. It feels like a movie. Of course it has a couple of sharp edges (mostly editing wise) and a couple of major continuity issues (the left out Azog, so Thorin dies all of a sudden, for example), but when you keep in mind that this is a job done by a fan, an amateur, this is really good. Once the third extended version is out he'll edit important deleted scenes into the movie, so by november or so it'll be totally finished.
Funny thing is that it stays true to the books a lot more, you can't edit conversations or stuff like that, but a lot is done to make it more true to the story, and not an overlong prequel to LOTR. Anyway, interested to see what other people think of it.
-
I just watched "Battle of the Five Armies" last night on cable. My gripes are fairly minor:
I wish that some of the lines from the book were not altered in the film. Little things like Thorin on his death bed saying, "But sad or merry, I must leave it now," and Bilbo saying, "Thank goodness," after Gandalf reminded him that "he was quite a little fellow in a wide world." The animated movie kept little tidbits like that that I would have liked to have seen carried over.
I thought that Thorin thinking Azog was dead under the ice and then breaking through and dealing Thorin a mortal wound was cheesy, something that would have been at home in a low budget film but was a little out of place in an epic like this.
I agree with everyone's posts about "Super Legolas." I didn't have as much issue with the Tauriel/Kili love story, because it was essentially this trilogy's equivalent of Aragorn/Arwen, which was pulled from the Appendices but was probably added to the films bring in female fans. And the books are mostly sausage parties so I don't mind having women characters to look at.
I didn't like Richard Armitage's "dragon sickness" acting. Also, if the hoard were truly cursed, why weren't the other dwarves acting the same way? Balin wouldn't have been the voice of reason, telling Bilbo that it might be better for Thorin if the Arkenstone wasn't found. And Dwalin and Kili would not have objected to watching Dain's clan die (more gold for them) if they were thus afflicted.
I'm not going to peruse 34 odd pages to see if anyone else made this point, but I thought that some of the dwarves did not look enough dwarf-like, particularly Thorin and his nephews (especially Kili). I figure that Jackson and company wanted to show variation among the dwarvish race, that not all of them had to look like the prototypical Gimli/Bruenor Battlehammer fantasy depiction, but that they could have found a better happy medium.
Over all, I would say that there was more good than bad in the trilogy, although still no match for the LOTR films. The difference in quality between the two trilogies is nowhere near as great as the original Star Wars films and the prequels, however, as only the third one I can actually sit through.
-
So after watching it I must say that I really like the effort. It feels like a movie. Of course it has a couple of sharp edges (mostly editing wise) and a couple of major continuity issues (the left out Azog, so Thorin dies all of a sudden, for example), but when you keep in mind that this is a job done by a fan, an amateur, this is really good. Once the third extended version is out he'll edit important deleted scenes into the movie, so by november or so it'll be totally finished.
Funny thing is that it stays true to the books a lot more, you can't edit conversations or stuff like that, but a lot is done to make it more true to the story, and not an overlong prequel to LOTR. Anyway, interested to see what other people think of it.
I watched it today as well. I watched (and I think posted here) another fan edit of the first two films a while back. This one was edited MUCH more smoothly, and worked quite well on its own terms.
The final battle was messy, but because Jackson added that whole other theatre of the battle on the frozen lake, it was always going to be, and I was surprised how well they did, relatively speaking.
The messiest section and most unwarranted edits to me were the spiders talking/singing in Mirkwood - that was in the book - and the capture of the dwarves, up to Bilbo breaking them out.
-
Just finished the edit. Many things worked very well, but some things didn't. And by that I don't mean the unavoidable continuity errors and stuff here and there, but rather story-wise.
It all made for a more focused story, with much of the unnecessary stuff cut out, which was good. I also really liked how there's no over-expositional prologue scene now, which always bothers me in movies. It meant that we didn't see Erebor until the company actually got there, which is great, and makes for a cool reveal. It also meant that the arkenstone was more or less a secret until Bilbo is sent in to look for it, which was also much better. With the prologue in AUJ, we already knew all of that.
I was also very pleased to see that he cut out the entire chased-around-Erebor-by-Smaug sequence and went straight to Smaug flying off to Laketown. That was always my least favorite part of DoS.
What I didn't quite like was how rushed it felt, even at 3 hours. A lot of character moments in between the action were lost, which meant that the relationship between Bilbo and the dwarves was never quite sold, at least not at the same level as the original versions. Some of the bonding moments between Bilbo and Thorin were cut, like the "I have never been so wrong" bit. All that made Bilbo's fondness of the dwarves towards the end a bit sudden.
The other thing is a personal matter for me. I always like "bigger picture" things, which is why I like pretty much all of Gandalf's side stuff in the movies. The White Council scene and Gandalf's visit to Dol Guldur are among my favorite moments from the movies. Pretty much every mention of Sauron is cool. But I get it, this is an edit made to follow the book, and all of that isn't in there. But it comes with the down-side of Gandalf's sudden and numerous completely unexplained disappearances, which just feels weird.
The scene with Bard killing Smaug was also weirdly edited. The way he cut that together made it comical, and I actually laughed at two moments during that scene, when it's meant to be dead serious.
Maybe I'm thinking over this too much, I do realize it's just a fun fan edit. And it was definetely interesting to watch.
-
Sounds about like what I'd expect from a fan edit, a better than average one. Different people will have different takes on the same material, even if the goal is the same (stick to the book, and only the book). I love the books, and think the movies are okay, not great. So this is something I wouldn't take the time to see anyway, but now that I've read a few reviews, I don't have to (ha!). Even without seeing it, I would agree that things like character time between Bilbo and the dwarves are important. If the edit feels rushed at three hours, then it should be three and a half, or four, or whatever is right. I wouldn't want to feel like things were cut just to get it down to three hours simply because he thought three hours was a good "target length". Maybe it turns out that the fat/meat ratio wasn't as high as he thought.
Gandalf did kinda pop in and out in the book. He's the wizard, the only one we know, and he has other, bigger things to deal with in the world. We find out only later what they were and are.
Anyway, it sounds like a good edit, pretty much like the one I've done in my head after seeing the theatrical versions.
-
To be honest I am not that interested in a "pure book, quick edit" of these films. The book is great for a children's story but I think there were definitely changes and improvements to be made to bring the story to film, especially if it's meant to be connected to Jackson's Middle Earth from the Lord Of The Rings trilogy.
I think the ideal for these movies were somewhere in the original two movie version. When you hear that the barrel chase sequence was beefed up because it was meant to be the finale of the first of two parters, that the dwarves trying to kill Smaug sequence was added / expanded to make an action finale for the second of the trilogy, and that Azog's role was expanded to fill up the trilogy, then I feel like you can see a good picture of two films in this. One adventuring and travelling, ending with seeing the Lonely Mountain across the lake, and one focused on Lake Town and the Lonely Mountain, with Smaug's appearance and death in the same film, and the climax being the Battle of the Five Armies. Sure, it might be tight, but the extended edition could basically be the length of the full three films and
become the definitive edition for the fans, and it would have avoided some of the bloat for casual viewers in the cinemas and avoided the problem of Smaug's death being the opening of the final film.
-
I'm just hoping someone with know-how and lots of time will come up with a fan edit of the three films that manages to stay more focused and removes some of the unnecessary obnoxiousness, mainly in the battle sequences. These films could really use some trimming.
https://definitivehobbitcut.tumblr.com/
Looks like it's been hacked... have some spare time today so I wanted to check this out but there's only one post spamming some random internet site. Hopefully it will come back up sometime soon.
-
Peter Jackson didn't know what he was doing. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQkygZdZ_Vk)
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
-
It actually does, and for some reason it felt good to read that.
-
I'd love to watch the extra's. But I believe I said that even before the first film came out, I'll wait for the deluxe boxset after the third film is released. Or the definitive boxset after that. Or the super deluxe definitive Hobbit + LOTR boxset after that. Or the Boxset that actually includes Liv Tyler after that.
Well, since I've promised myself a long time ago to buy the deluxe boxset, I've done so. Went with the 3D version. Never really watch 3D at home, but as of last night I'm in love with it.
It's great to watch this in my own environment. The 3D is cool, not too much, just used when it added something. Just watched part one of part one, so I'm in for a treat. Most of the times I liked the extended or added scenes more than the average scene that ended up in the movie.
Ps. My boxset still didn't include Liv Tyler, not even Evangeline Lilly.
-
This past weekend I picked up the extended trilogy of the Hobbit and just got done watching the extended edition of Smaug. I think I prefer the theatrical version just because many of the scenes are just way too long when they don't need to be. I did like the added scenes though. I have to now pour over the extras of smaug and five armies. The article with PJ talking about not knowing what he was doing was from the five armies extras. Can't wait to spend days through this.
-
I watched the behind the scenes discs for Battle of Five Armies. The passion and dedication that went into all of the these films still amazes me. Anyone who makes any comments about decisions being made to make money have NO idea what they're talking about. This is how movies should be made. I get not everyone will the films but these assholes who make their own edits and then put them online is very disrespectful to PJ and company.
-
I watched the behind the scenes discs for Battle of Five Armies. The passion and dedication that went into all of the these films still amazes me. Anyone who makes any comments about decisions being made to make money have NO idea what they're talking about. This is how movies should be made. I get not everyone will the films but these assholes who make their own edits and then put them online is very disrespectful to PJ and company.
It was the studio that pushed for certain things. From what I've read, PJ himself had his hands tied.
-
This is how movies should be made.
If you are talking about LOTR, I agree.
But not in any way with the Hobbit films.
-
Are the hobbit films better if watched together?
-
This is how movies should be made.
If you are talking about LOTR, I agree.
But not in any way with the Hobbit films.
This, exactly. I love The Hobbit movies because they are based on something Tolkien did, but they unnecessarily blew it up into three movies. I would have much preferred the original idea of making the first two movies based on The Hobbit book and the third movie as a bridge between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
The main reason I came to post here was because I bought the Battle of the Five Armies Extended Edition Blu-ray the other day. I haven't watched it yet but I'm really excited to see the additional footage. It's how I'm spending my New Year's Eve. :blob:
-
I liked the additional footage on Five Armies, added another dimension to the story. I have yet to dig into the supplemental stuff on movies 2 & 3.
-
I liked the additional footage on Five Armies, added another dimension to the story. I have yet to dig into the supplemental stuff on movies 2 & 3.
I always love the supplemental footage on the discs. Even in that aspect, I preferred the LOTR stuff.
Maybe this is just something I picked up on, because I tend to notice these things, but did Peter Jackson seem less enthusiastic during any of The Hobbit footage than he did throughout the making of Lord of the Rings. I feel like during interviews, behind the scenes footage, and anything else, he seemed wide-eyed and excited about making LOTR, while I felt like he was not that into The Hobbit. I know he originally didn't want to get involved in it as fully as he did so maybe it was just wearing on him. Anyone else care to weight in on this?
-
I haven't watched yet but there's some chatter in the Five Armies extras about him winging through the entire filming process. It's been commented on and mentioned in this thread as well. I think his heart wasn't as much into these movies as much as LOTR. I think to an extent it shows in many areas esp the movies themselves but I didn't mind these Hobbit movies.
-
Just watched The Battle Of The Five Armies extended film last night... might be because I had slightly lower expectations because Battle Of The Five Armies was the only Middle Earth film I found disappointing, but I really enjoyed it and feel like the Extended Edition is a vast improvement from the theatrical. A lot of what was added was actually action scenes and some extra exposition, but as well as just providing some cool entertaining action those scenes also help the pacing and fix continuity mistakes (why did they cut out the goats from the dwarf army, then have Thorin randomly find one which had never been shown before in the theatrical version?). Plus we get Bilbo talking to Bofur, Thorin's funeral, and in general a little bit more screentime for the dwarves. Even the Alfrid gags didn't seem as bad because of the pacing improvement. Like Return Of The King, the extended edition really is a must for this film (although for Return Of The King it was amazing already, for Battle Of The Five Armies it takes it from OK to very good but flawed).
Just beginning the extra footage now - for the first two Hobbit films this is where the real value in the extended edition was, though for Battle Of The Five Armies the extended film is in fact already worth the money imo.
Peter Jackson definitely did seem less enthusiastic for the Hobbit. I don't think he phoned it in, did it just for the money, or went completely off the rails like George Lucas for the Star Wars prequels or anything like that... and I do agree that despite the flaws in the films, you can see the level of effort, dedication and creativity that went into making the films so I still think they are an example of great movie making. But really, Peter Jackson dreamed of making Lord Of The Rings and had a really strong vision for it... he didn't have a strong vision for the Hobbit that he was dedicated to making, he actually wanted someone else to do it, but then he came back to it because he pretty much had to. Once he did come back I really think he put his best effort into it so I don't mean to say that he wasn't enthusiastic or motivated to make the films and do them as well as possible... but there is definitely a difference between doing the films you always wanted to do, and doing the films that you have to do because the studio has invested in them and no one else can do the job.
-
I haven't watched yet but there's some chatter in the Five Armies extras about him winging through the entire filming process. It's been commented on and mentioned in this thread as well. I think his heart wasn't as much into these movies as much as LOTR. I think to an extent it shows in many areas esp the movies themselves but I didn't mind these Hobbit movies.
Pretty much this. I think his heart was in it, but I think PJ was super stressed becasue most of the shoot was done with no solid plan.
-
Plus, from what I've read, his hand was forced as far as some details *cough Tauriel* went, so I'm sure it was a constant battle between his vision and the vision of dollar signs being made.
-
That's interesting, I always thought Tauriel was a PJ creation.
-
When I get home I'll try and find the interview where I read that the studio pushed for a love story of sorts.
-
I am certainly in the camp of fans who thought that the Hobbit films were too long, with way too much padding inserted unnecessarily.
So I now, of course, own the extended version of each film lol
-
I am certainly in the camp of fans who thought that the Hobbit films were too long, with way too much padding inserted unnecessarily.
So I now, of course, own the extended version of each film lol
Of course, that's what we do. :blob:
-
To be honest, I got them mostly for the Appendices discs. But I also look forward to watching the extended Battle of the Five Armies, since it actually got an R rating.
-
It's not that R-worthy.
https://furiousfanboys.com/2015/12/why-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-was-rated-r/
-
Oh for fuck's sake...
-
Love the Lord of the rings movies... the Hobbit on the other hand are bareley watchable to me.
Have read everyting Tolkien has written an Lotr and Hobbit multiple times.
LOTR worked because of the care that went into making it analogue. Lot's of optical tricks, miniatures etc... with CGI being used as a minimum. It was also made as close to the book as was possible, th feeling was just right.
The Hobbit was a drawn out CGI fest that did not stay with the book. The dwarfs were caricatures, Radagast was portrayed as a silly and disgusting fool. It felt like a computer game for kids more than a movie.
I have the extended LOTR dvds but will never buy the Hobbit ones...
-
It's not that R-worthy.
https://furiousfanboys.com/2015/12/why-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-was-rated-r/
Wow.
But then again I don't know when I watched the extended edition it did seem a little bloodier than the theatrical edition.
-
To be honest, I got them mostly for the Appendices discs. But I also look forward to watching the extended Battle of the Five Armies, since it actually got an R rating.
Well, I got them for both the appendices and the extended film. If I treat it like it's completely based off of The Hobbit then I'm a bit disappointed, but treating it like it's own piece of work then I can enjoy it.
-
It's not that R-worthy.
https://furiousfanboys.com/2015/12/why-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-was-rated-r/
Wow.
But then again I don't know when I watched the extended edition it did seem a little bloodier than the theatrical edition.
I thought the same thing...but I still don't think I saw anything in there that I haven't seen in several PG-13 movies. The chariot wheels beheading the orcs was probably the most violent thing I saw. But was it really any worse than the scene in LOTR when the Uraki beheads that Orc and says "Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!" and entrails go flying all over the place? I think not.
-
Yeah on watching the extended Battle Of The Five Armies I was looking out for what might make it R rated (15 in the UK as opposed to 12A). Of course I believe that officially it is the extra "twist and crunch" when Legolas stabs Bolg in the head that made the difference, but my observations when viewing (without knowing that) were:
- That troll ("Stumpy" as he is referred to in the extras) with amputated legs, no eyes and chains in its eye sockets. I believe it made it into the theatrical version (Legolas sees it and uses it to knock down a tower), but I think there was a lot more of it in the extended, including seeing more of the orcs controlling it using the chains, followed by Bofur doing the same. To me that was the one thing that stood out as most horrific and maybe worthy of a higher rating.
- The fact that the elves and dwarves actually kill each other. In the theatrical version the orcs arrive just as the elves and dwarves are finished trading insults and about to attack each other, but we never see them actually fight. It's one thing for people to be killed by "scary, evil monsters" like the orcs, but for elves and dwarves (both depicted as fundamentally "good" races) to be shown actually attacking and killing each other might be seen as more shocking.
- The extra bloody deaths that were included, such as the decapitations and eviscerations by the chariot. I don't know if any of them alone are so bad that they would affect the rating, but perhaps they just thought that if they were going to risk being stuck with an R rating anyway they may as well just go for it and include some more graphic violence.
Watched the first disc of the extras and in the process of watching the second right now. As I suspected and had heard before, the lacking version of The Battle Of The Five Armies that was released in theatres was greatly due to the time factor making them literally unable to finish the CGI sequences, as well as the rushed nature and studio meddling early on that meant there wasn't as clear a vision for the way the battle would go early on which meant that more of had to be purely CGI. My impression watching the films (and the first two films' extras) was that the parts that were rushed and really suffered by the story shuffling were the role of Azog and the orcs, and the battle of the five armies. Watching the third film's documentaries I think definitely confirms it - Azog was rushed for the first film because they had only relatively recently abandoned the original designs, and the detail of the battle of the five armies wasn't known early on so had to be hashed out basically in the year before the film was released.
I know that a lot of people are hung up on the fact it should have been one film, but honestly I think that a trilogy is fine and most of the flaws are less to do with the number of the films that were made, and more to do with the time pressure and the fact it was changed as it went on. Adversity like that can sometimes lead to something greater than if a director has full control and gets to operate exactly as they want, but I think in this case it would have been better if Peter Jackson had had an extra year or so in preproduction to get everything sorted to be a bit more cohesive as a trilogy. Also, if you are going to hack it down then I think two films is the sweet spot rather than one. I've mentioned before in this thread (several times I believe) that I don't think a great one-film version could have been done while simultaneously getting most of the memorable episodes from the Hobbit book, and making it feel like something that could be in the same universe as The Lord Of The Rings. But you can still see the remnants of a two film version in the finished product - film one would be "the journey", taking you from Hobbiton to within sight of the Lonely Mountain with the expanded barrel chase sequence as the climax of the film, and with film two introducing and entirely focused on Lake Town, Erebor and what happens there. Cut or drastically reduce one of the "orc chase" sequences from an Unexpected Journey and perhaps some of the backstory (even though I love the scenes of the battle at the gates of Moria), Smaug confronts Bilbo and leaves the mountain to attack Lake Town without an extended action sequence with the dwarves, the battle of the five armies is cut down slightly to be a singular climactic battle, and the fat is trimmed here and there to give you, at the very least, a complet "two extended film" version of the Hobbit.
But considering the amount of films these days that get split into two parts (Harry Potter did it and it allowed it a worthy big finale to a huge film series, but many that have followed in its footsteps aren't worthy), I really think that the Hobbit being from pushed from two to three films is actually fine. Yes, the children's book Tolkien wrote may be a mere "300 pages" (though it packs a lot of events into those pages due to its zippy pace), but the events that take place during the Hobbit, as they exist within the context of Middle Earth, are definitely worthy of a trilogy.
-
I do think two films would have been best. As you explained, there's a lot of fat to trim on this trilogy.
And one film would indeed be too little. My favorite stuff is the scenes dealing with Sauron. Gandalf's side quests. Bigger picture stuff. That would've been lost of if it was a single movie adaptation of the Hobbit book.
-
Yeah, one film would have sufficed if they were only adapting the novel. But with adding in the extra stuff from the LOTR Appendices and other stuff, one film wasn't enough.
I think the original two film plan would have worked. But even the three-film system would have been better with some more studious editing.
-
So i'm thinking of re-watching all 6 movies but I can't decide if I should see them in chronological order or start with LoTR and go from there? For some reason it just feels like it would be more enjoyable seeing the old movies first and then the new ones even though it's not the correct order.
What do you think?
-
Personally, just like when I watch Star Wars, I'd go chronological.
-
The only option is to see them in the order they were released
-
The only option is to see them in the order they were released
Just curious, why do you think that?
-
Order of release. Even though they are definitely designed to feel like they go together, the Hobbit movies aren't really designed to fit well watching before Lord Of The Rings.
Think about the beginning of the Hobbit, with Bilbo speaking to Frodo and a little bit of foreshadowing (if you can call it that, for something that was released earlier) for him leaving the Shire. If you haven't seen The Lord Of The Rings, that stuff is not very meaningful at all - it's hinting at stuff that doesn't happen in the Hobbit, but at the start of the Lord Of The Rings, and isn't even anything really to do with the story of the Hobbit other than it involves the ring he finds. If you come from Lord Of The Rings first, that stuff helps link the Hobbit to what has come before (even though it's a prequel). But if you're going through the Hobbit first, it basically doesn't add anything to the Hobbit, and by the time you get to Fellowship Of The Ring, Bilbo's relationship with the ring and his plans to leave don't really benefit from any previous hints as they don't need them (since the film was obviously designed to work as a beginning).
Of course, obviously since we have all seen all of the films it is not like you literally don't know what's coming in Lord Of The Rings, so you could start with the Hobbit fine and get a kick out of LOTR references since you're already familiar with them. But it's stuff like that that means that the films flow better in order of release rather than chronological. The Lord Of The Rings may be a sequel to the Hobbit novel, but the Hobbit trilogy is definitely a prequel to the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. And contrary to what is sometimes assumed, prequels almost always work better after the original, since the original was made to stand alone while the prequel was made to benefit from the original.
-
You have a good point. I think because i've seen all the movies I just thought it would be fun to watch them in chronological order because that's how the story goes and it would be interesting to see the progress and how they flow together. Haven't seen the old movies in ages so would be fun to save them for last also.
-
Found this quote by PJ:
"If you can get us the rights to these books we’d like to make The Hobbit as one film and, if it’s successful, we’d like to do The Lord of the Rings as two movies’. Now, 17 years later, it has become six movies and we did them the wrong way round: we did Lord of the Rings first and The Hobbit was supposed to be two films, so it’s all been very weird. It’s not anything I could control – it’s just circumstance and fate – but the one thing I think I’m very proud of is that when people do see the six films in the series in the right order, then they’ll sort of sense there was some vague design behind it all, as chaotic as it actually was in terms of the order being changed around.”
-
It could go either way, for reasons others have pointed out. You already know the stories, and you know the release order. With that in mind, all the callbacks and "callforwards" will stand out a bit anyway, and you can get a kick out of how well they're done, or maybe laugh at how obviously shoehorned in they are. Legolas dancing his way through The Hobbit? Go find a ranger dude named Strider, because he might, you know, turn out to be someone important? Come on.
-
I would start with The Hobbit just for chronological purposes. Even though it's unnecessarily long, it does have it's good purposes.
-
I'd also say start with the Hobbit movies, but don't bother with the extended editions. However, when you get to the LOTR movies, I'd definitely go with the EE as they add a little bit depth to the story.
You'll notice a darker and more serious tone with LOTR, which mirrors the tone of the books.
I must admit to not liking the Hobbit movies anywhere near as much, for pretty much the reasons already mentioned. Interesting to see even PJ acknowledging some of the issues - I admire his honesty.
You could always forget about the movies altogether and just go read the books.. ;)
-
I'd say definitely go for the extended editions of The Hobbit, especially BOTFA. I think it makes it a much better movie.
-
I'd say definitely go for the extended editions of The Hobbit, especially BOTFA. I think it makes it a much better movie.
Oh? Cool. Can you remember any stand out extra scenes? (Please don't say there's more of Billy Connolly's Dain Ironfoot - I hated that part :lol)
I just didn't have the appetite for double-dipping for extra content with the Hobbit. With LOTR, I had the original theatrical editions on DVD, the EE on DVD, and then the Blu-Ray EEs when they were released. This time, I bought the first Hobbit on BR, but didn't buy any of the second two as they're all now on Netflix.
-
I'd say definitely go for the extended editions of The Hobbit, especially BOTFA. I think it makes it a much better movie.
Oh? Cool. Can you remember any stand out extra scenes? (Please don't say there's more of Billy Connolly's Dain Ironfoot - I hated that part :lol)
Elves vs. Dwarves.
Chariot Chase.
Bilbo and Bofur.
Thorin's Funeral.
Also the White Council vs. Ringwraiths fight (slightly extended / improved I think). The Battle Of The Five Armies extended even just improved the CGI in various non-extended parts of the film, I think. And the improved pacing means that the Alfrid scenes (while still there) don't feel nearly as annoying as they are not packed so close together. Definitely much better than the theatrical version, and it's not even that long for a Middle Earth film.
As far as the films themselves go, there's less need for the extended version of the first two Hobbit films, especially the first - there's very little added. The documentaries are still good though.
-
Ru pretty much nailed it. To sum it up, it's definitely worth it. It's easily my favorite of the trilogy.
-
Thx for the tips guys, I started with The Hobbit yesterday. :tup
-
Watched the extended versions of The Hobbit in the last couple of weeks, and I've moved on to watching the extended LotR. Holy smokes the difference in pace is enormous! I forgot about that, and especially watching the ending of The Battle Of... and going straight into The Fellowship was a smack in the face.
Anyway, I also wanted to say that the CGI in the Lord of the Rings holds up pretty well, even difficult scenes, like Gandalf fighting the Balrog still look pretty good, and they started working on it in '99! Even The Return of the King is already 13 years old.
-
I'll admit it, I never got to finish the Hobbit trilogy. The first one was OK, the second one was better, but by the time the third came out, and most reviews were fairly lukewarm (or thought it was a step down from the second again), I just didn't feel the enthusiasm or excitement to actually see it.
Considering how much I love the LOTR trilogy, I would want to return and finish the Hobbit trilogy one day, and also see all the 3 Hobbits in extended edition format, but for whatever reason I don't feel like doing it. There was really nothing overly appealing with the story, and it felt so drawn out. With LOTR I loved everything that was going on, so the slow pace and 11-12 hour run time of the whole trilogy (extended) is rewarding through the whole viewing, but with The Hobbit I didn't get as invested in the plot as I hoped.
-
Elves vs. Dwarves.
Chariot Chase.
Bilbo and Bofur.
Thorin's Funeral.
Also the White Council vs. Ringwraiths fight (slightly extended / improved I think). The Battle Of The Five Armies extended even just improved the CGI in various non-extended parts of the film, I think. And the improved pacing means that the Alfrid scenes (while still there) don't feel nearly as annoying as they are not packed so close together. Definitely much better than the theatrical version, and it's not even that long for a Middle Earth film.
As far as the films themselves go, there's less need for the extended version of the first two Hobbit films, especially the first - there's very little added. The documentaries are still good though.
I think Thorin's funeral probably interests me the most in seeing. He didn't get much of a send off in the TE. I got the impression that Bofur was shortchanged - there seemed to be a friendship there with Bilbo, but was never fleshed out.
I think there's probably enough fighting scenes for me - I wouldn't be dying about seeing any more. I did like the duel between Thorin and Azog though - they way Thorin stepped off that floating ice block to let it tip up was very cool.
I'll admit it, I never got to finish the Hobbit trilogy. The first one was OK, the second one was better, but by the time the third came out, and most reviews were fairly lukewarm (or thought it was a step down from the second again), I just didn't feel the enthusiasm or excitement to actually see it.
Considering how much I love the LOTR trilogy, I would want to return and finish the Hobbit trilogy one day, and also see all the 3 Hobbits in extended edition format, but for whatever reason I don't feel like doing it. There was really nothing overly appealing with the story, and it felt so drawn out. With LOTR I loved everything that was going on, so the slow pace and 11-12 hour run time of the whole trilogy (extended) is rewarding through the whole viewing, but with The Hobbit I didn't get as invested in the plot as I hoped.
I can relate to that. I totally loved the LOTR trilogy, but the Hobbit movies just didn't have the same magic for me. It's hard to put my finger on why exactly. I was pretty forgiving about the padding they added to stretch it out to 3 movies, but maybe it didn't need all that overshadowing stuff to link it up to the LOTR movies. Dunno - maybe it should have been left as a fun adventure to go on a quest to kill a dragon and get some gold, without too much knowledge of the bigger picture.. :tup
-
I may have mentioned it early in the thread but I never even got around to finishing the second movie and part of the reason was that there was no real sense of danger, which is what turned me off about the first movie. Once that card was played it just ruined my enjoyment because you knew every one in that stupidly large group of theirs was going to live no matter if they were fighting orcs or wolves or whatever. It's been well over a decade since I read the book and I know it's a kids story but man give me something a slight bit believable.
-
Lately I've watched the scenes at Bilbo's home quite a few times (my daughters want to see the Hobbit because I made up a version of it as a bedtime story, but they're not old enough to see orcs and battles) and there's one scene that irks me and sums up my problem with these movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XbCAX65Aio
In an instant, the movie goes from doing throwing dishes around while singing stupid songs to an overly dramatic moment with the Gandalf close-up and the terrible "he's here", which is basically a copy from similar moments in LOTR that worked well because there was a real threat, not just a known character knocking at the damn door. The movie does not know whether it wants to be a light hearted tale with non-threatening battles or a LOTR 2.0, and it ends up being neither.
The dwarves looking like anything but dwarves is a major problem for me too, though I acknowledge not everyone feels this way.
-
The tone was my main problem with the first two. I think I would have liked it more if they made it closer to the kid's friendly book that it originally was. But the lighthearted adventure kept being interrupted by scenes hinting at Sauron and Gandalf talking about grave danger. If anything I thought it undermined the original Fellowship of the Ring. Because in that one, Gandalf seems genuinely surprised when he discovers the one ring and discovers Sauron being alive, so when they hinted at it in the Hobbit films and Gandalf already sort of knowing what was happening, I thought it ruined it.
-
Absolutely, the seeming uncertainty of what type of movie it was trying to be definitely hampered it for me.
The book starts off really silly, and fun, like a kid's nursery book. But at it progresses, the tone becomes more and more serious, as the danger increases for Bilbo. By inserting all this foreshadowing and dramatic closeups ("He is here", like Xanthul says), I think you lose that sense of building danger.
As for the dwarves, apart from a couple, they were pretty much interchangeable. It feels like some had absolutely no dialogue at all. If all the Saruman, Galadriel, Sauron stuff was taken out, there might have been more of a chance to spend some more time on the different dynamics within the group.
My beef with second movie was that whole scene with the gold statue. It was pretty cool and all, but a total departure from the book, and felt very much like padding, just for the sake of getting another action sequence in there.
BTW - When Galadriel does her "zombie queen" thing, that really takes me out of the movie. I hated it in LOTR and hated it here too. It's just a million miles away from what I thought of her from the books.
-
I think the Hobbit movies are way too silly and childish as they are now. To make them more so might make it a better adaptation of the book, but it already meshes horribly with the tone of LotR as it is, and I think an even more childish story would only make it worse.
-
All these issues with tone are the biggest reason why The Hobbit should have been made first. It was written first and was intended as a stand-alone children's story, light-hearted in nature. A quest to kill the dragon and cop the gold. Then Christopher Tolkien wanted more, and J.R.R. thought "well, I've created this world, where can we go with it?" and then he hit upon the idea that the magic ring Bilbo found was The One Ring, ancient and powerful, and things took off from there.
The Hobbit would have been a fine prologue. I can't believe he actually got backing to make The Lord of the Rings, but if he could do that, then maybe it would've been possible to make The Hobbit first, then go nuts with The Lord of the Rings if The Hobbit did well. Which it would have, if done right.
(This means that we would have had "The Hobbit 2: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" etc., because movies today must have franchise entry numbers.)
-
This means that we would have had "The Hobbit 2: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" etc., because movies today must have franchise entry numbers.
Yeah and they would have succumbed to the trend of making the last movie in two parts:
The Hobbit 2-C-I: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part I
The Hobbit 2-C-II: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part II
-
This means that we would have had "The Hobbit 2: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" etc., because movies today must have franchise entry numbers.
Yeah and they would have succumbed to the trend of making the last movie in two parts:
The Hobbit 2-C-I: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part I
The Hobbit 2-C-II: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part II
^ groan! But you're dead right!
-
Smaug was the single best thing about the entire trilogy.
-
As much as I don't fawn over action scenes much anymore, the battle scene in the extended edition with the chariot is awesome.
-
This means that we would have had "The Hobbit 2: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" etc., because movies today must have franchise entry numbers.
Yeah and they would have succumbed to the trend of making the last movie in two parts:
The Hobbit 2-C-I: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part I
The Hobbit 2-C-II: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part II
^ groan! But you're dead right!
I groan when they make a "trilogy" but the 3rd film is actually 2 films. ::)
-
This means that we would have had "The Hobbit 2: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" etc., because movies today must have franchise entry numbers.
Yeah and they would have succumbed to the trend of making the last movie in two parts:
The Hobbit 2-C-I: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part I
The Hobbit 2-C-II: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part II
^ groan! But you're dead right!
I groan when they make a "trilogy" but the 3rd film is actually 2 films. ::)
A la "Hunger Games - Mockingjay - Are We There Yet??" :lol
-
Blah De Blah I
Blah De Blah II
Blah de Blah III : Part 1
Blah De Blah III : Part 2
Just call it part IV . You're not fooling anyone. You're clearly just making four films from three to get more money...
-
Blah De Blah I
Blah De Blah II
Blah de Blah III : Part 1
Blah De Blah III : Part 2
Just call it part IV . You're not fooling anyone. You're clearly just making four films from three to get more money...
If it was just films, I'd entirely agree, but every example I can think of is book adaptations. And for those it makes sense.
-
Actually, I can't think of any movies that are titled that way. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Part 2 are named that way because they're adaptations of the book, but it's the seventh book and it's not "Harry Potter 7: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows".
Mockingjay Part 1 and Part 2, same thing. They're not "The Hunger Games 3, Part 1" and "The Hunger Games 3, Part 2". Same with the third "Twilight" movie.
Incredibly, Hollywood seems to have figured out that having both a franchise entry number and a part number would confuse people and make the title sound really stupid.
-
This means that we would have had "The Hobbit 2: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" etc., because movies today must have franchise entry numbers.
Yeah and they would have succumbed to the trend of making the last movie in two parts:
The Hobbit 2-C-I: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part I
The Hobbit 2-C-II: The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King Part II
^ groan! But you're dead right!
I groan when they make a "trilogy" but the 3rd film is actually 2 films. ::)
A la "Hunger Games - Mockingjay - Are We There Yet??" :lol
I have not seen the final Hunger Games film yet, but having read the books and seen the first three films, I will say that there was enough in the third book to justify two films. Mockingjay pt. 1 did not feel bloated to me at all, and the ending was at a great break in the story. I feel like there is still plenty of story left to fill a second film without it feeling artificially stretched as well.
But back to the Hobbit films, I think I have already said about all I really care to say about them in and of themselves. But in response to the thought about Jackson doing them first and then LOTR, I am glad it went the way it did. The Hobbit films definitely felt like a missed opportunity to do a better job with the story, but they were still enjoyable. Like many, I take the Hobbit story less seriously than the LOTR story, in large part because Tolkien wrote the stories that way. So I am fine with the Hobbit films being a step down that I can take less seriously. But if Jackson had made the LOTR films afterward, I fear that the same pressures that made the Hobbit films come out the way they did might have ruined the LOTR films. Those were pretty near perfect, IMO. I much prefer what we got to some hypothetical alternate reality where we might have gotten better Hobbit movies, but then would likely have gotten worse LOTR movies.
-
I have not seen the final Hunger Games film yet, but having read the books and seen the first three films, I will say that there was enough in the third book to justify two films. Mockingjay pt. 1 did not feel bloated to me at all, and the ending was at a great break in the story. I feel like there is still plenty of story left to fill a second film without it feeling artificially stretched as well.
I was being deliberately cheeky with my dig at the Hunger Games, but I do agree there was well defined stopping point at the end of part 1. I actually enjoyed part 2 ok as well - there was still plenty going on to fill the second movie.
I much prefer what we got to some hypothetical alternate reality where we might have gotten better Hobbit movies, but then would likely have gotten worse LOTR movies.
Definitely. The Hobbit movies were always going to be burdened with the comparison with LOTR, but I'm ok with a lesser Hobbit trilogy for a better LOTR.
For me it's:
LOTR: love
Hobbit: like
-
I've never had a problem with the whole Final Chapter - Part 1 and 2 thing.
-
I kinda hate it to be honest. I'd compare it to eating a pizza and when you're halfway through it, the waiter takes the pizza and tells you that you'll get it in a year.
Sure, in certain franchises we have to wait another year or two for the next movie anyways, but at least with those the films can somewhat stand on their own. You get some form of closure.
-
I see it more as eating an entire pizza, then getting another one.
-
I see it more as eating an entire pizza, then getting another one.
:lol Yeah, me too.
-
I see it more as eating an entire pizza, then getting another one.
:lol Yeah, me too.
Then you realize that there is only filling enough for one pizza...
So it feels thin, kind of stretched, like butter scraped over too much breax.
-
The only Part 1 and 2 so far that I feel didn't have enough filling for two pizzas are the two final Twilight movies. But they still had more than enough for one (not saying that filling is any good, just that there was enough of it). I think the final two Hunger Games worked really well as two movies, as did the two final Harry Potters.
-
So it feels thin, kind of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
:lol I was waiting for somebody to use that line..
-
So i've plowed through The Hobbit movies and yesterday I finished The Fellowship.
I will say I enjoyed the prequels alot more second time around which was a nice surprise. I have nothing against high frame rate or new tech in general but I didn't feel it at all when I saw it at the cinema so watching it in 24fps was alot more enjoyable.
Going from The Hobbits to LOTR was interesting, definitely a diffrent pace and I forgot how young the cast looks, especially Elijah Wood and Dominic Monaghan. There's just something magical about the LOTR movies and maybe it's a big chunk of nostaligia I don't know but I do think that PJ was so deeply emotionally involved into those movies in a way he never were with the prequels and I think that shows in the movies.
-
Going from The Hobbits to LOTR was interesting, definitely a diffrent pace and I forgot how young the cast looks, especially Elijah Wood and Dominic Monaghan. There's just something magical about the LOTR movies and maybe it's a big chunk of nostaligia I don't know but I do think that PJ was so deeply emotionally involved into those movies in a way he never were with the prequels and I think that shows in the movies.
I've said that numerous times. You could just see it in his face. Watch behind the scenes footage for both films. Look at the excitement on his face while making LOTR as opposed to what we see on the sets of The Hobbit. There was lots of stress and drama surrounding the making of the film and the events that led up to it. We know he didn't want to direct the film but after Guillermo Del Toro walked away, he didn't have much of a choice.
-
Yeah, doing Lord of the Rings was fulfilling a life-long dream. The Hobbit was just work. Maybe a bit more than that, but mostly.
-
I think that despite all that I still think he probably did the best he could with The Hobbit. It's an impossible task I think to re-create that magic they had during the set for LOTR and most likely it was the reason he didn't wanna direct it in the first place.
-
I think that despite all that I still think he probably did the best he could with The Hobbit. It's an impossible task I think to re-create that magic they had during the set for LOTR and most likely it was the reason he didn't wanna direct it in the first place.
I agree, and I find it hard to be too critical of PJ. The Hobbit was always going to be compared to LOTR, with nowhere near the same amount of source material, so it was an uphill battle from the start. I'm not sure how much studio interference there was to go for 3 movies instead of 2, but it couldn't have helped.
I liked the movies, but they didn't have the same magic, as you said.
It would be interesting to have seen Del Toro's take on the movie.
-
I agree that they were never going to have the magic that the LOTR movies did, but I think it's fair to criticize PJ's decision to greatly expand the material for the movie, overuse CGI, etc. I think if he had made a single movie, or maybe two, stuck with the material in the Hobbit book, and used more conventional effects and real people in orc costumes, they would have been better movies.
-
Didn't Peter Jackson basically have to rush them because Guillermo left and PJ had limited time to make it his own ?
-
Didn't Peter Jackson basically have to rush them because Guillermo left and PJ had limited time to make it his own ?
In most instances everything was rushed but there were a couple of things from the film that they had to do from scratch because it never would have worked right. I don't recall which exact scene it was but it was mentioned in one of the behind the scenes documentaries. It's actually on YouTube. I spent a whole night, because I couldn't sleep, watching every documentary I could find on YouTube about The Hobbit.
-
This may have been the YouTube video you were talking about:
https://youtu.be/SQkygZdZ_Vk
Surprisingly frank and honest admissions from PJ and the crew about how they were constrained for time.
-
I'm not sure how much studio interference there was to go for 3 movies instead of 2, but it couldn't have helped.
If memory serves, that was Jackson's idea, not the studio's. The plan was 2, and I don't think it changed to 3 until the first film was already out, or almost out.
-
This may have been the YouTube video you were talking about:
https://youtu.be/SQkygZdZ_Vk
Surprisingly frank and honest admissions from PJ and the crew about how they were constrained for time.
Thx for the link. That was interesting to watch and as you say surprisingly honest. It's sad to see but atleast it's good to know one of the reasons for the movies turning up the way they did.
-
I'm not sure how much studio interference there was to go for 3 movies instead of 2, but it couldn't have helped.
If memory serves, that was Jackson's idea, not the studio's. The plan was 2, and I don't think it changed to 3 until the first film was already out, or almost out.
I do remember one of PJ's update videos where he made the announcement about the 3rd film. Will see if I can dig it up..
-
Not a video, but from here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558/
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.
It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."
Cheers,
Peter J
-
Yep. That was from July 2012, and the first film came out in December 2012.
-
Yep. That was from July 2012, and the first film came out in December 2012.
Holy. Shit.
-
Since getting the extended edition of the hobbit, I've been meaning to catch up on the appendices. Went through the first six hours of Smaug's additional material still have another 4 hours to go. I don't think I was bored for a second through the entire thing. The people who make these documentaries did a fantastic job in showcasing almost every nuance and details without making it procedural. I'm an extras nut when it comes to boxsets and I think hands down the LOTR and Hobbit extras are the best there is, I don't think anything has come close.
-
I agree. Was never bored watching any of it.
-
There is a huge disappointment among the fans of the Tolkien movies in regards to this new Ultimate Collector's Edition. It was originally supposed to have all of these new deleted scenes. From what I read, it was supposed to include the rest of the deleted scenes and outtakes. There was even supposedly a scene where Tom Bombadil is referenced and/or has a cameo. It just seems like Warner Brother's squeezing money out of people offering nothing but fancy packaging and a deceiving title.
-
There is a huge disappointment among the fans of the Tolkien movies in regards to this new Ultimate Collector's Edition. It was originally supposed to have all of these new deleted scenes. From what I read, it was supposed to include the rest of the deleted scenes and outtakes. There was even supposedly a scene where Tom Bombadil is referenced and/or has a cameo. It just seems like Warner Brother's squeezing money out of people offering nothing but fancy packaging and a deceiving title.
Peter Jackson said he has nothing to do with this new set. There are also lots of other thiings he has waiting to go into a complete set, such as the infamous gag reel, that aren't included in the new set.
-
Oh, I know he had nothing to do with this. There's also the additional movie score music that fans are hoping gets released but is also not looking good.
-
Also the price is ridiculous to say the least. Currently $600 at amazon with about a month to go before release.
-
The price is beyond ridiculous. It's supposed to appeal to the die-hard fans, I'm assuming, because no average viewer is going to spend that much on the set. However, the die-hard fans want something new, not the same movies wrapped up in different packaging. I would love to buy this as the HUGE Tolkien fan, and completist, that I am, but I don't see the draw here except having everything in one set. I actually plan on writing to Warner Home Video. They didn't want to spend the money to add all of the new stuff.
-
Over the weekend, I decided to re-watch the Hobbit trilogy. I have not seen any of the films since they originally came out in theaters. I picked up the Extended Editions and watched 90 minutes of each film at a time, as I knew that watching all three hours at once might be a little much.
Well... Even 90 minutes at a time turned out to be a little much. :lol Those films have some awesome stuff in them, but in my opinion, there's an equal amount of padding. For example, I felt as though the second film could have completely skipped over the skin changer stuff without losing a beat.
Overall, still fun movies though.
-
I did something similar like a month ago, but I only finished the first two. I might see the third one again at some point but I don't really care, they're not really that good and it all feels like it's so fake.
-
They have their faults but Martin Freeman gave a much more enjoyable leading Man/Hobbit performance than Elijah Wood did.
-
Probably already popped up before, but on the web you can find two recut, fanmade versions of the Hobbit, one lasts 4 hours and another one three. I always wanted to watch them but haven't find the time so far.
-
They have their faults but Martin Freeman gave a much more enjoyable leading Man/Hobbit performance than Elijah Wood did.
Well yeah, Frodo's entire journey is pretty bleak compared to Bilbo's, which is more fun. But Frodo's stuff is a far superior story in my opinion.
-
They have their faults but Martin Freeman gave a much more enjoyable leading Man/Hobbit performance than Elijah Wood did.
Well yeah, Frodo's entire journey is pretty bleak compared to Bilbo's, which is more fun. But Frodo's stuff is a far superior story in my opinion.
True. It's just that Wood's performance seemed way to earnest for me, which made him a tad one dimensional and actually quite boring - he's not that bad in the book. Also his performance in a way reminded me of Tobey McGuire in Spiderman in that he always looks like he is about to burst into tears. Freeman in my opinion captured Bilbo and the personal growth the journey takes him on much, much better.
-
I really, really liked the second Hobbit movie!
Other two are also pretty good. Acting is solid across the board, especially Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage.
-
I agree that the second one is the best. It has my two favorite scenes from the trilogy: Bilbo's first meeting with Smaug, and Gandalf's confrontation with Sauron.
Although, my favorite thing to come out of the Hobbit movies is probably the "An Incomprehensible Journey" YouTube-poop.