"The Hobbit"

[GreenLantern]

Finally got a night this week I can get out to see it, grabbed my tickets and am excited.

Going to re read these chapters tonight to prepare.

[Tinordi]

I rewatched the first Hobbit and it fared worse than how I remember. Too much filler. Like reading the "moon runes" or even going to Rivendale in the first place. Yawn. I also agree with the zany, over the top, action sequences that just remove any semblance of tension such as the Goblin town part. It was just dumb. Reminded me of an elaborate set piece in a Royal Rumble.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

The barrels are in the novel.

Yeah it's not the barrels I had a problem with. It's the scene where the one Dwarf bounces down the cliff taking out Orcs as he goes along. I actually didn't even have a problem with that, I was laughing. I just thought it's kind of weird to try and pull off that stuff for the seemingly to up light-heartedness, and then have a bunch of beheadings not minutes later.

I also thought it was unecessary to keep cutting back to Laketown and the dying Dwarf during the Smaug scenes. They could have told the whole story of what happened in laketown in 1, 5 min cut scene, not 10 5 minute cut scenes.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MattyC

posted in Reccommend thread but I'll put it here too.

I liked the Hobbit. But its really been too long since I read the book for me to remember which parts were in the book and which parts have been added (although I think it's pretty clear anything having to do with Sauron and such wasn't).

Sort of. I haven't seen the second film yet, so I'm not sure just how much of a role he plays in Jackson's movie, but the presence of Sauron is heavily hinted at in the book. There's a bunch of stuff that happens off screen (i.e. not from Bilbo's point of view) where Gandalf leaves the dwarves to investigate "the Necromancer". So it's not like Jackson completely made up any scenes involving Gandalf and Sauron.

http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post...he-necromancer

In the book version of The Hobbit the Necromancer is a periphery character. He’s only mentioned in passing by Gandalf as an explanation not only for where he disappears to every once in a while, but also why the company has to travel through the very dangerous Mirkwood instead of travelling around it. Beyond that, Tolkien believed that the mention of a greater evil beyond his protagonists’ abilities would add depth and realism to the story.
It’s important to understand, though, that The Hobbit was written before Tolkien had even come up with the concept of The Lord of the Rings. He’d already created Sauron (the events of the First Age are the first things Tolkien wrote, though none of it was published until The Silmarillion, after his death), and he knew that the Necromancer was actually Sauron, but he didn’t bother making this connection known in The Hobbit, since he didn’t think it was useful to the reader. And it really wasn’t, until he later wrote and published LOTR.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Itse

Oh god, so Hobbit is a classic now? It's a classic children's book, which essentially means "enduringly popular". Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoyed it when I first read it at about 9 years old, and has some good stuff in it, but having read it at a later age (as expected from a LotR fan), it's hardly a great piece of literature.

Also; as entertainment Thor 2 was much better than any of the Tolkien films (even if the multidimensional end-fight would probably have benefitted from being rethought once more from the start.)

The Hobbit story is classic, yes. The movies are not quite. But what I'm saying is even a super budgeted, over saturated and highly animated take on the Hobbit which in its latest instalment has actually made quite a jump, is superior to what Marvel has pumped out this year, in it's same old same old popcorn flicks that have good entertainment value but don't provide any kind of storytelling that I'd consider nearly as imaginative or great as Tolkein's work. While this Hobbit adaptation is again (but a little less) diluted, Jackson obviously set out to break barriers by putting the most menacing and visually stunning version of Smaug onscreen as he could. And just as he broke barriers with Gollum, he did again here with flying colours. And it worked extremely well in the film's favor I must say.

As for Marvel, well Iron Man 3 was even a slight step DOWN from 2 (which by all accounts was a notable step down from the first). Thor 2 was a complete rehash of Thor 1 with a little more Loki in it cause of popular demand. Their movies never really try to break any boundaries but stick to the same old formula that gets people out, mildly amuses and entertains them for 2 hours with a few good shots of their heroes swinging around kicking ass, but doesn't really try to do more than that. Very formulaic. And honestly I just can't put the source material in the same "fantastical" realm as the works of JRR.

If you've preferred this years comic book on screen adaptations to Tolkein adaptation then that's your opinion, but I'll happily agree to disagree there.

As for Mr. Superior Taste above saying that Godzilla, Hobbit, and the newest HG are poor choices to rave about, what are your oh so much better suggestions then? Please divulge for all of us.

I sure hope it's at least better than Itze's.

Oh, and Rush is my favourite movie of the year to this point, if that helps my case in your mindset.....

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

As for Mr. Superior Taste above saying that Godzilla, Hobbit, and the newest HG are poor choices to rave about, what are your oh so much better suggestions then? Please divulge for all of us.

Well at least he called me Mr.

I was just pointing out that some might think that you too had peculiar taste in movies. For the record, I'm a big fan of The Hobbit movies so far.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I rewatched the first Hobbit and it fared worse than how I remember. Too much filler. Like reading the "moon runes" or even going to Rivendale in the first place. Yawn. I also agree with the zany, over the top, action sequences that just remove any semblance of tension such as the Goblin town part. It was just dumb. Reminded me of an elaborate set piece in a Royal Rumble.

They went to a Rivendell because it's in the book.

[Miniac]

Looking forward to watching the Hobbit but not till after my exams

[Hockey_Ninja]

I want to do naughty things with Evangeline Lilly. That's all I have to add.

[JD]

I really enjoyed it, even to the point of debating with myself whether that was my favourite of the 5 Middle Earth movies to date. In the end, I decided it is not, but it is up there.

As usual, the environments are visually stunning and, satisfyingly, very close to what I always imagined them to look. From Beorn's house (I thought that scene was too short but done really, really well), to the Mirkwood, to Thranduil's kingdom, all done well.

The Lake Town stuff was a bit drawn out, but I believe the purpose for that was so that you felt something as the very last scene in the movie takes place. It worked for me.

The dwarven kingdom was also extremely cool. As they were activating the furnaces and all the other devices, you could suddenly feel the ambition of dwarves and get a glimpse into their nature.

The scenes at Dol Goldur were pretty awesome too. But the whole Gandalf/Sauron confrontation... that's something I've always had a problem with throughout the movies. If Sauron can't take shape and "regain his former strength" without the ring, how the hell is he so powerful he can overcome a wizard and make him captive? Does he really even need the ring? I don't know, that whole connection between Sauron being unstoppable and the ring never really hit home with me. Is it because he poured his cruelty and his malice in there? I mean, what? As it was, he waged war and nearly destroyed the whole world in Return of the King, and never once had the ring or even for sure knew of its whereabouts. Anyway, that part seemed farfetched and overly dramatic to me. From the books, you have the knowledge that Sauron was the necromancer but the notion was that he preferred to keep his true identity hidden while he was gathering his strength. It wasn't until he revealed himself at Barad-dur that it was positively known that he was back, at least I thought. But I suppose they had to crank up the drama because they'll be leading up to the epic battle there in the 3rd movie.

Smaug was great too, although a bit frustrating. He talked a lot and it seemed like he could have just ended it and eaten his foes several times. But I suppose that is line with the book, where the ego of a dragon is explained and that effectively illustrates how it motivated Smaug. The movie tries to show that a couple times but falls flat, mostly. He instead comes across like an ultra-powerful but, unfortunately for himself, inept, villain.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There are some parts (Dwarves rolling down cliffs in barrels) that make you go "Ok, well its a kids movie so that's alright" but then 3 heads go flying in the next scene. Just a little odd I think. Same with Thorin riding on liquid metal on a metal sheild. Ummmmm.
.

I posted my criticism of the ridiculous action scenes, zany physics, and nausea-inducing luck of our heroes of these films already previously but...

Liquid gold has a density of 17.31 g·cm−3. Solid, room temperature iron has a density of 7.874 g·cm−3. I don't know what the density of a Dwarf is but it's probably close to 1 g·cm−3 since he's mainly composed of water. Therefore, an iron shield with a little Dwarf would easily float on liquid gold.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I posted my criticism of the ridiculous action scenes, zany physics, and nausea-inducing luck of our heroes of these films already previously but...

Liquid gold has a density of 17.31 g·cm−3. Solid, room temperature iron has a density of 7.874 g·cm−3. I don't know what the density of a Dwarf is but it's probably close to 1 g·cm−3 since he's mainly composed of water. Therefore, an iron shield with a little Dwarf would easily float on liquid gold.

Fair enough. But yeah, lots of falling off high things into perfect parkour barrel rolls.

[Locke]

Its a kid's story. Of course nothing bad happens to the Dwarves.

Now you're just mad about the content of the story as opposed to whether the movie was any good at conveying it.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its a kid's story. Of course nothing bad happens to the Dwarves.

Now you're just mad about the content of the story as opposed to whether the movie was any good at conveying it.

Book spoiler:

Spoiler!

Well, except for the bit where Thorin, Fili, and Kili die at the end.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I posted my criticism of the ridiculous action scenes, zany physics, and nausea-inducing luck of our heroes of these films already previously but...



Liquid gold has a density of 17.31 g·cm−3. Solid, room temperature iron has a density of 7.874 g·cm−3. I don't know what the density of a Dwarf is but it's probably close to 1 g·cm−3 since he's mainly composed of water. Therefore, an iron shield with a little Dwarf would easily float on liquid gold.

I'm so sorry someone hurt you. PM me if you ever want to talk about it. I'm here for you buddy.

[GreenLantern]

Saw it last night, it was awwwessssooommmeeee.

I understand how people think the action was over the top, but I am watching a fantasy film and do not expect anything to seem even remotely realistic at any point. There is a fricken dragon in the movie and people are worried about shields floating? lol. How do we know that specific shield didn't have magic properties? +10 to heat resistance? Made to withstand dragons breath? etc.. etc..

Wrap your head around the world you are immersing yourself in when you sit down to watch a Tolkien movie, let all that stuff go, and you will find it much, much more enjoyable.

They have pretty much thrown the book out the window, following a somewhat similar path but changing almost every detail, and again I am ok with that. It is BASED on the books, it is not the books reincarnate as a movie. This is Jackson's interpretation of a piece of literature written by Tolkien. Nothing more, nothing less.

Accept these facts my sons and you will enjoy the movies 10 fold.

Also Legolas is bad ass.

[ranchlandsselling]

Hmmmm....

Watched the first one last night. I wasn't dissapointed by it, but it didn't have the magic feel that the prior LOTR's movies had.

I did think back though and I'm not sure TFOTR was all that great either and my nostalgia is in how awesome 2 and 3 were and how it brought the series together. So maybe my so/so liking of it isn't a bad thing.

That said, I had no problem wandering off to the fridge and not pausing the movie... Also like some other posts mentioned, the dwarves seemed kind of useless. They almost got killed countless times, could barely take care of themselves and Gandolph seemed to come in and save them at the last minute every time.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

Saw it last night, it was awwwessssooommmeeee.

I understand how people think the action was over the top, but I am watching a fantasy film and do not expect anything to seem even remotely realistic at any point. There is a fricken dragon in the movie and people are worried about shields floating? lol. How do we know that specific shield didn't have magic properties? +10 to heat resistance? Made to withstand dragons breath? etc.. etc..

Wrap your head around the world you are immersing yourself in when you sit down to watch a Tolkien movie, let all that stuff go, and you will find it much, much more enjoyable.

They have pretty much thrown the book out the window, following a somewhat similar path but changing almost every detail, and again I am ok with that. It is BASED on the books, it is not the books reincarnate as a movie. This is Jackson's interpretation of a piece of literature written by Tolkien. Nothing more, nothing less.

Accept these facts my sons and you will enjoy the movies 10 fold.

Also Legolas is bad ass.

Exactly how I felt. You got the gist of where they were going with the movies in relation to the book from the first one. So to expect a complete 180 in the second movie is a bit absurd. I just sat back hoping to enjoy myself instead of going in with a mental notepad, ready to pick the whole thing apart, and I enjoyed it a ton the first time. I didn't so much the second viewing, but only cause the people I went with were being over critical about everything and it sort of ruined the simple "magic" of it for me, as they were getting me to look at all the little details.

The problem is too much comparing going on between this and LOTR. Of course PJ doesn't do himself any favours by throwing in the whole storyline which ties into the previous series and giving it a darker feel, but in all it's still a totally different story, and a more imaginative one.

If people can go into the Fast and Furious movies and despite the insane level of wackiness and suspense of believability required not to scorn the whole thing, and come out having had a good time, then you'd think it really should be a walk in the park with these movies.

[Jake]

Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies also differed from the books in many ways. I'm not too concerned with him changing a few minor things in the Hobbit... I actually like that he is highlighting the necromancer more in order to connect the movie more strongly to the Lord of the Rings. I'm a big fan of the Hobbit movies so far and think the last one will be remembered as "on par" with the Return of the King/Two Towers.

[Flambé]

Sorry if this has been asked already, but is there really only one theatre in Calgary showing The Desolation of Smaug in high frame rate? The Spectrum on 32nd?
Thanks?