Such a good movie - loved every minute. People need to put the Coles Notes down and stop try to tear this film apart - it's a movie based on a book and it was incredibly entertaining - job done.
Saw it today - enjoyed the movie, but felt it was a little bloated - the beginning was as painful in the movie as it was in the book - I just kept saying "please stop with the singing and dancing and DO something"
Rock giants made no sense to me at all.
Enjoyed it otherwise - I haven't read the book in a long time - is there much else that happens in the book before they hit up the Lonely Mountain and Smaug? I am wondering how this can be 3 films.
IIRC, Tolkien wanted to take the rock giants out of 2nd edition of the Hobbit, but he never got around to writing it.
Not entirely sure about it though.
I didn't get it either, but a big part of why I'm suddenly such a huge fan of the Tolkien world is his ability to 'create' it in such detail, but also the fact that there is a lot left to the imagination.
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
That was all in the book too? I thought for sure that was back story, Similarion type stuff. Cause when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit, he had no idea the LotR was coming.
I didn't think Sauruman was in The Hobbit at all. And not even an idea in Tolkien's head at that point.
Forgive me if Im wrong but didn't Gandalf leave the group in the book... when he returned he mentioned meeting with a group of wizards? Maybe Sauruman or possibly "the white wizard" was mentioned here?
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford
Saw it today - enjoyed the movie, but felt it was a little bloated - the beginning was as painful in the movie as it was in the book - I just kept saying "please stop with the singing and dancing and DO something"
Other than the movie, what about the previews? I watched it in IMAX 3d at Chinook... the preview for Star Trek seemed like 30 mins long.. I thought I stumbled into a special screening of the full movie.
Saurman is in the Hobbit. Or at least in the timeframe. The White Council had meetings during the time where the Hobbit was going down, and it had more to do with how to deal with Sauron being alive in Dul Guldur. IIRC, Saurman initially refused to believe it because he wanted to gain the one ring for himself, but after being presented with undeniable evidence, the wizards banded together to drive him out of Dul Guldor and back to Mordor. Of course that probably won't be mentioned, unless they do it in the 2nd movie.
You're right. Most hockey fans are high school english dropouts.
I could replace "hockey forum" with practically any type of special interest type of community aside from one dedicated to arts and lit. I would be willing to bet that most people didn't care enough about highschool English to memorize literary terms much longer than they had to to pass the test.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Saurman is in the Hobbit. Or at least in the timeframe. The White Council had meetings during the time where the Hobbit was going down, and it had more to do with how to deal with Sauron being alive in Dul Guldur. IIRC, Saurman initially refused to believe it because he wanted to gain the one ring for himself, but after being presented with undeniable evidence, the wizards banded together to drive him out of Dul Guldor and back to Mordor. Of course that probably won't be mentioned, unless they do it in the 2nd movie.
I understand that he is in the timeframe, I'm just wondering if he's actually in the book. To make the movies longer Jackson inserted a lot of the backstory and world building that took place when Tolkien flushed out his world in the Similarion and such. But of course that was after the Hobbit, even after Lord of the Rings.
It's the kinda of backwards problem you get when you write a prequel or anything out of order. You have to explain motivations that led up to the originals because the audience knows about them, but it can shade the original writings.
Going back to the Smaug example, I don't think at the time of original publication, and therefor the story, Gandulf worried about Sauron, or him possibly enslaving Smaug. It was just a fantasy story about dwarves and dragons. I don't even know if Sauron was even thought up yet. With LotR bringing in the wider scope of the war between Sauron and the forces of good, and his return, Tolkien was able to flush out history making that (the Smaug example) possible. Hence the need to explain the council, Sauruman, etc. Because we, as an audience, know of those things now even though the characters never did. So in it's remake as a prequel, it needs to be (or at least can be) addressed. But it never actually occurred in The Hobbit, because Tolkien hadn't thought it up yet.
Which is why I'm asking, cause I haven't read the book in a very long time. I'm trying to figure out which parts were actually in the book, and which were added to the move that were not in the book, even though they did end up in Tolkiens mythology later. And from that, maybe even some scenes that were not in the book, and not in the mythology, but were added to the movie to make it longer or more interesting. (IE some battle scenes)
I'm having a little trouble explaining what I'm meaning. When you have to talk about prequels that happened after, and sequels that are originals, and multiple timelines, my syntax and tenses get understandable messed up. Hopefully you understand.
I am 90% certain Sauruman wasn't in The Hobbit, and that even the Ring itself wasn't expected to be the central artifact it ended up becoming.
Forgive me if Im wrong but didn't Gandalf leave the group in the book... when he returned he mentioned meeting with a group of wizards? Maybe Sauruman or possibly "the white wizard" was mentioned here?
Heh, well that's why I'm asking. He did leave, and I think he did talk about consulting wizards, but it was never flushed out the way it was in the movie. Because I'm fairly certain it hadn't been thought up yet.
I think...
I'm probably just going to have to read the book again myself, heh.
To that point, I don't think we ever meet the brown wizard in The Hobbit OR Lord of the Rings. I don't think he is even more than mentioned. The real story behind the wizards gets flushed out in the Similarion for the most part. Which is like a history of MIddle-Earth.
At first, the 3D seemed like I was in a ride at Universal Studios. I kept reaching out and grabbing the ladies hair sitting in front of me, it was so real.
I went and saw it and really enjoyed it. Of course you've got to accept a few things and let a few things go.
I will say this though: the 3D was a distracting gimmick. I'll see it again in good old 2D.
Hmmm, I really liked the 3D. I also noticed the sharp frame rate (or whatever they were talking about). Found it distracting for the first 15 minutes or so then got right into it.
Lol, I assume you are talking about me. Even though I didn't use it in my last post.
I dunno, just seemed like the appropriate word when you are swimming around the recesses of your mind trying to sculpt out a greater mythos and backstory for stories you have already written. You flush it out of your mind, your system, onto the paper.
That or the fact I had beef vindaloo last night...
At first, the 3D seemed like I was in a ride at Universal Studios. I kept reaching out and grabbing the ladies hair sitting in front of me, it was so real.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I could replace "hockey forum" with practically any type of special interest type of community aside from one dedicated to arts and lit. I would be willing to bet that most people didn't care enough about highschool English to memorize literary terms much longer than they had to to pass the test.
I'm always amazed by people that spend the time to bitch about some term they don't understand, which in my estimation takes 10X the time it would to type that term into Google and find out what it means.
PS: Oh no wait, I'm not amazed, because everybody's special now and we should by all means accommodate the lowest common denominator because we wouldn't want to cause any cognitive dissonance that would clue someone into the fact that they are one small, small step above a p-zombie.
PPS: "Oh but jammies, what's a p-zombie? You just used another term I don't know, you pretentious jerk! Why can't you just speak plain English for my ADD-addled mind?"
PPPS: Not that necessarily FlamesAddiction is arguing in favour of ignorance. But he might be, if I cared to take the trouble to find the original post. But hey, I'm lazy too! Ironic, isn't it?
PPPPS: Oh yah, and The Hobbit was thoroughly mediocre. So far each Jackson movie treatment of Tolkien has been a lesser vessel, so by the time this "trilogy" is over, I expect Bilbo to defeat Smaug with water-filled bladders and a slapstick routine.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Last edited by jammies; 01-03-2013 at 12:01 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
