The Hobbit movies

DarthAsthma

^ That's not what I was saying so your summary is wrong and very much missing the point. So let's be clear I'm not saying you can't compare them, because as I said you can compare everything. I'm saying that they are different enough(the books) that comparing the hobbit with lord of the rings based on the story alone to determine which is better isn't a very sensible thing to do. Because they are different. But sure compare them if you want, if that's the type of person you are that's neat. But I'm not, doing that makes as much sense to me as comparing the sweetness between pudding and pineapple to determine which is the better desert…

And the reason why I brought it up in the first place was because the books are so different, the movies should have been different as well, alas from what I hear the hobbit movie tries to do enough stuff to become somewhat of an epic in the same vein the lotr movies were, which differs very much from what the hobbit book was and some seem to think it didn't work in its favour.

Hinscher

@DarthAsthma:

^ That's not what I was saying so your summary is wrong and very much missing the point. So let's be clear I'm not saying you can't compare them, because as I said you can compare everything. I'm saying that they are different enough(the books) that comparing the hobbit with lord of the rings based on the story alone to determine which is better isn't a very sensible thing to do. Because they are different. But sure compare them if you want, if that's the type of person you are that's neat. But I'm not, doing that makes as much sense to me as comparing the sweetness between pudding and pineapple to determine which is the better desert…

And the reason why I brought it up in the first place was because the books are so different, the movies should have been different as well, alas from what I hear the hobbit movie tries to do enough stuff to become somewhat of an epic in the same vein the lotr movies were, which differs very much from what the hobbit book was and some seem to think it didn't work in its favour.

Most reviews and fan dislike I have seen has been about its slow start. How they spent too much time in the Shire. That first hour they are in the shire is probably the best most faithful part of the entire movie, and yet they complain about it.

Then they complain that the Hobbit tries to hard to match LotR epicness.

It feels very hypocritical to me. They complain when its basically 100% hobbit copy, yet then later complain when it deviates from the Hobbit.

DarthAsthma

^The complaints about the pacing seem to be one of the more controversial ones ranging from it's too damn long and jackson needs an editor to screw people, that have forgotten what patience and appreciation of good built up is. (Not my statements)

I don't quite understand what the inconsistency is you wanted to point out? Maybe some elaboration?
To me feeling like the pacing is to slow in the beginning while also feeling like that the epic tones very much reminiscent of lotr don't quite have the intended effect, don't seem mutually exclusive to me, they don't necessarily relate to the degree of faithfullness to the books either.

If anything I have a problem with is people making those weird criticisms that just showcase that they don't know anything about the books. Now I recognize that the film should be able to stand on its own and be judged as such, but to me it just feels like a lot of people not having the complete picture (which in turn may be pretty hypocritical of me since I don't think I can assume a more complete picture of the books than some other people out there).

1000sunny

@CosmicDebris:

Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug and he didn't even talk yet….what are you on about? lol

Edit: reminds me of this

Oh thats my mistake I meant Martin Freeman, I get their names confused quite often….

andre

@DarthAsthma:

^ That's not what I was saying so your summary is wrong and very much missing the point. So let's be clear I'm not saying you can't compare them, because as I said you can compare everything. I'm saying that they are different enough(the books) that comparing the hobbit with lord of the rings based on the story alone to determine which is better isn't a very sensible thing to do. Because they are different. But sure compare them if you want, if that's the type of person you are that's neat. But I'm not, doing that makes as much sense to me as comparing the sweetness between pudding and pineapple to determine which is the better desert…

And the reason why I brought it up in the first place was because the books are so different, the movies should have been different as well, alas from what I hear the hobbit movie tries to do enough stuff to become somewhat of an epic in the same vein the lotr movies were, which differs very much from what the hobbit book was and some seem to think it didn't work in its favour.

That makes sense, but it's definitely not what I got from any of what you said. Even though I think it's perfectly reasonable to say one movie is more well made than another. (and I don't think I implied I was basing all of this on just the story, it's more on how the story and movie is handled.)

taboo

@Hinscher:

I would argue that the handkerchief part was one of the most important parts of the entire first hour of the film. It helps establish Bilbo's character, lets us know more that he is just a guy who knows nothing of adventure and he is going to have to get by with a lot less than just a handkerchief. He is with all these hardy battle worn and traveled dwarfs and he is completely out of his element.

i thought both those scenes were really dorky tbh

andre

@Hinscher:

Most reviews and fan dislike I have seen has been about its slow start. How they spent too much time in the Shire. That first hour they are in the shire is probably the best most faithful part of the entire movie, and yet they complain about it.

Then they complain that the Hobbit tries to hard to match LotR epicness.

It feels very hypocritical to me. They complain when its basically 100% hobbit copy, yet then later complain when it deviates from the Hobbit.

I didn't think the first part in the shire was that faithful. They changed quite a bit didn't they. The initial scene with Gandalf was pretty faithful but the stuff that they did to make Thorin the character they wanted him to be made everything quite a bit different, and Bilbo not deciding to go until after they left. (which isn't like the novel if I recall correctly.) Along with the parts with old bilbo and frodo and quite a bit of time spent in the back story of the dwarves. (half of which I contend is unneeded) I think that's what was too long for a lot of people.

The closest 100% hobbit copy is the scene with Gollum in the cave as far as I remember. I could be wrong.

taboo

@RobbyBevard:

I liked Radagast, he was fun, and the cute animals dying helped start showing the evil and scope of the necromancer. It absolutely had a point and worked to do what it started doing.

necromancer = disney villain

dorky

Waffles

@taboo:

necromancer = disney villain

dorky

Posting regularly on a forum dedicated to a Japanese manga is also dorky. We are all dorks, whats you're point?

Ubiq

@andre:

Bilbo not deciding to go until after they left. (which isn't like the novel if I recall correctly.)

Bilbo didn't have the slightest intention of going when he woke up in the book; he spent the morning washing dishes and cleaning up after the dwarves from the previous evening and Gandalf just walked into his house and more or less ran him out the door. Bilbo ran down to meet the dwarves and then Gandalf showed up with Bilbo's handkerchief and other personal effects. The film actually made it Bilbo's decision to go along while in the book it was more or less that he was too intimidated by Gandalf to not just go along with it.

Far as the dwarven backstory goes, the entire sequence with Smaug and his raid was explained by the dwarves in the book. Outside of minor changes in dialogue, the only real alterations from the start of the film to them leaving the Shire are:

The wraparound sequence with Bilbo and Frodo added for the benefit of people who saw The Lord of the Rings films and are unfamiliar with The Hobbit.
Shifting Thorin from a pompous, fairly comedic character to a more serious one.
The short conversation between Balin and Thorin about their chances.
Bilbo deciding to go of his own accord.

andre

@Ubiq:

Bilbo didn't have the slightest intention of going when he woke up in the book; he spent the morning washing dishes and cleaning up after the dwarves from the previous evening and Gandalf just walked into his house and more or less ran him out the door. Bilbo ran down to meet the dwarves and then Gandalf showed up with Bilbo's handkerchief and other personal effects. The film actually made it Bilbo's decision to go along while in the book it was more or less that he was too intimidated by Gandalf to not just go along with it.

Far as the dwarven backstory goes, the entire sequence with Smaug and his raid was explained by the dwarves in the book. Outside of minor changes in dialogue, the only real alterations from the start of the film to them leaving the Shire are:

The wraparound sequence with Bilbo and Frodo added for the benefit of people who saw The Lord of the Rings films and are unfamiliar with The Hobbit.

Shifting Thorin from a pompous, fairly comedic character to a more serious one.

The short conversation between Balin and Thorin about their chances.

Bilbo deciding to go of his own accord.

Ok, that makes sense. It's been a while since I've read the book (about 3 and a half years) and that was a part I was fairly hazy on I guess.

I think it also has to be said that not only is Thorin's character shifted in the way you described, but he's very much so set apart. From arriving by himself to being the one guy who really didn't eff with Bilbo. It's just in a different way than in the book more or less, he was still obviously their leader in that.

1PceXperience

My friend said he fell asleep while watching the film, and we believe in upholding good movie theater etiquette.

Pochipochi

Do all versions of this have high framerate? I know specifically there's like some wacky IMAX 3D 48 FPS thing but

I live on a tiny island and our cinema only has, according to fandango, a regular and a 3D version, as I'd expect of low technology hellholes, so I'll just see it 2D all fine and all but

Now I learn I might not get to see that 48 FPS stuff and the 2D version is just 24? I mean that's fine and probably how most people would wanna see it but… Meh

I understand now that that should've been obvious, with his choice in 48 FPS specifically being linked to how 3D kinda uncrisps the image and it was some retaliation of that...

taboo

@Waffles:

Posting regularly on a forum dedicated to a Japanese manga is also dorky. We are all dorks, whats you're point?

idk i just expected the lord of all darkness to not be dorky

what was i thinking!

CosmicDebris

@The:

Do all versions of this have high framerate? I know specifically there's like some wacky IMAX 3D 48 FPS thing but

I live on a tiny island and our cinema only has, according to fandango, a regular and a 3D version, as I'd expect of low technology hellholes, so I'll just see it 2D all fine and all but

Now I learn I might not get to see that 48 FPS stuff and the 2D version is just 24? I mean that's fine and probably how most people would wanna see it but… Meh

I understand now that that should've been obvious, with his choice in 48 FPS specifically being linked to how 3D kinda uncrisps the image and it was some retaliation of that...

As far as I'm aware, only certain theaters are showing 48 FPS with 3D….everything else is 24 FPS with no 3D. It is possible that there are 48 fps showings without 3D but you'd have to check the theaters, most likely no.

Robby

@The:

Do all versions of this have high framerate? I know specifically there's like some wacky IMAX 3D 48 FPS thing but

All the 2-D versions are only 24 fps. If you want the 48 you have to see it in 3-D.

But not all the 3-D version are 48, just some of them. Your listings should mention the difference, with a note of "SFR" and "HFR" (standard and high) or something like that.

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/

WB hedged their bets after the initial bad reactions a year ago.

Pochipochi

Ahh thanks!

I must've been misled by all that complaining early on when people were mad that it was gonna be 48 FPS (which as it turns out is only in a small popultion of viewings anyways)

Robby

Pretty much all the critics saw it at 48 3-D, so most of the reviews talk about it as a result, but yeah, the 48 frames are only in a handful of theaters.

Apparently, even if the critic is not a fan, they see the 3-D versions of movies by default now… because thats an expected part of the review I guess?

Nex 0

@RobbyBevard:

Apparently, even if the critic is not a fan, they see the 3-D versions of movies by default now… because thats an expected part of the review I guess?

Yeah, if you want to attend an early press screening, the majority of the time you have to see it in the "marketed form." (For TDKR, it meant screening it in IMAX, which was quite welcome.)
I had to cut back a lot of the reviews I do for my school paper because of this, as 3D never fails to give me a headache, thus making most viewings a rather unpleasant experience. I made the exception for the Hobbit as it's the Hobbit, but having now seen it again in 24fps and 2D, I found it quite a bit more enjoyable, so much so that I went back and added an addendum to my review and upped my score a bit, which my boss wasn't very happy about. He lectured me about how unprofessional that is.

–-----

Upon a second viewing, this time knowing what I would be getting, and seeing it in my preferred format, my opinion was slightly changed. I still don't think it needed to be 3 parts, and I still don't think we need added material, but it is more enjoyable when you know how long things take to play out. I still think it could have been better, and it's still worse than any of the LotR films, but it is a good film.

That said, I am really looking forward to The Desolation of Smaug next year.

Nia

I just noticed that the version I've seen was 48 3D. Huh, I didn't even notice … but I guess I was too blown away by the fact that I was able to see 3D for a change (my eyes are pretty fucked up).

Robby

@Nia:

I just noticed that the version I've seen was 48 3D. Huh, I didn't even notice … but I guess I was too blown away by the fact that I was able to see 3D for a change (my eyes are pretty fucked up).

Well 48 FPS (or 60 for that matter) are supposed to be a LOT better and more natural for 3D.

It'll be best for nature documentaries and real things… less the stuff thats heavy cgi.

Pochipochi

So I saw it and for the first half or so, I kept thinking "what a delightfully fun and enjoyable experience, I am sufficiently charmed and enjoying this very much! Not a single bit of this is prolonged, a moment without something fun, or interesting, and I find this pacing very nice!"

And then it starts really reaching for its length in a flatly unjustifiable manner for the last half, or third, or so and I stopped running out of mental defenses and just kinda went "oh fuck it okay this is a long movie and it probably shouldn't be". The movie slowed a bit grindingly at Rivendale too. Prior to that, all the "slow" scenes had a lot to enjoy, but I had to get up to the back of the theater and stretch at that point so I kinda got pulled out anyways while I was doing toe touches and watching out of the top of my eyes.

This is very much not an adaptation of the Hobbit so much as it's a collection of that and quite a lot of other materials, this is clear, and it's not being treated as an adaptation the way any other filmmaker might understand the word to mean. As much as I had been loving it as the "light" counterpart to the LotR movies at first, by the end I thought this was definitely a fan's film for fans only.

I'll watch the other movies and probably enjoy them as much as I did this one, but … yeah.

I don't have any adaptation style complaints btw because I'm not a real tolkien fan and last read the book when I was maybe 12? I don't know what major changes if any happened so not sure if that's a big factor...

Robby

The most interesting thing happening I think its people are largely saying one of two things.

1)The opening was boring and dull and it didn't good till the action in the second half.

2)The opening was fantastic and whimsical, and then it got overdone with all the boring nonstop heavy action in the second half.

Its a really interesting split to see happen. (And some feel a little bit of both, but enjoyed it overall and will be okay with the even longer version later. I did.)

Almost everyone agrees the Gollum scene was great… and that the Rivendell bit was kind of a long detour for this film though... even if it is setting up the next movies. (And we know from the trailers stuff was cut and it was even longer, like looking at the broken sword and such.)

Interesting to see the split in audience reaction.

1000sunny

@RobbyBevard:

The most interesting thing happening I think its people are largely saying one of two things.

1)The opening was boring and dull and it didn't good till the action in the second half.

2)The opening was fantastic and whimsical, and then it got overdone with all the boring nonstop heavy action in the second half.

Its a really interesting split to see happen. (And some feel a little bit of both, but enjoyed it overall and will be okay with the even longer version later. I did.)

Almost everyone agrees the Gollum scene was great… and that the Rivendell bit was kind of a long detour for this film though... even if it is setting up the next movies. (And we know from the trailers stuff was cut and it was even longer, like looking at the broken sword and such.)

Interesting to see the split in audience reaction.

I think it speaks to the fact that the movie is trying to be two different things at once. On one hand it wants to be the "little person in a big world", whimsical adventure movie and on the other it wants to attain the heights of an epic journey that was achieved in the LoRs movies. Some people want this to be the first type of movie and others want it to be the second.

Personally I just hope that with the coming sequels they figure out what type of movies they want these to be. Both the first half and the second had its pros and cons but I think the movie would have been better served sticking to one type of story.

andre

I have a question for everyone, regardless of whether they've seen the movie or not: Have you guys seen the Rankin Bass cartoon version, and if you have did you enjoy it.

I loved it when I was younger. I remember watching it at my dads place and how me and my brother and sister thought Gollum was the funniest thing in the world and how much my dad got a kick out of our reactions. I watched it again a few years ago and while I don't love it as much as I did, it has its charm. One thing I do know is that I always feel like its going to end with Smaug and then it doesn't and I can barely keep watching for the battle scenes.

Anyways, I think anyone who has seen the new film will at least enjoy the differences between the two. I recommend watching it.

CosmicDebris

I watched several times as kid….not sure when the last time I saw it was, but I liked it. Rankin-Bass always had such weird character design, though. Like everyone always had baseball sized noses.

andre

The dwarves especially. They were complete Jewish sterotypes, though the Elves were actually uglier than them. (something that I liked, not as an actual representation of how Tolkien portrayed and came to portray elves moreso, but because I hate how much the dwarves have to play second fiddle to the fair folk. And I hate the use of fair) Bilbo was an ugly thing too, but I thought he was rather charming. Smaug though… he was more cat than dragon haha.

Leon

Was it Ralph Bakshi's(Which i remember watching)? or is Ralph Bakshi's version different altogether?

Robby

@andre:

One thing I do know is that I always feel like its going to end with Smaug and then it doesn't and I can barely keep watching for the battle scenes.

The rankin Bass version didn't have battle scenes after Smaug… they had dots on a map for about three seconds.
@Leon:

Was it Ralph Bakshi's(Which i remember watching)? or is Ralph Bakshi's version different altogether?

Bakshi did the first half of LotR, with heavy rotoscoping.

CosmicDebris

Kept singing this in my head while watching the new movie during this part of the movie.

Rankin-Bass took over from where Bakshi left off as well, and created one really horrible version of ROTK.

andre

@RobbyBevard:

The rankin Bass version didn't have battle scenes after Smaug… they had dots on a map for about three seconds.

Bakshi did the first half of LotR, with heavy rotoscoping.

Because Bilbo was asleep. I thought they at least showed the cool Beor stuff though?

Noqanky

From reading comments it feels like I'm the only one who loved this movie beginning to end. I was completely immersed in it and at no point did my attention waver until I saw the "directed by Peter Jackson."

A fantastic experience and I would gladly see it in 48fps 3D again. Also my personal movie of the year, at least until I get to watch Les Mis next week, for which I have high expectations.

Robby

@andre:

Because Bilbo was asleep.

Thats a horrible low budget storytelling copout on their part AND Tolkiens'.

I thought they at least showed the cool Beor stuff though?

Nope. The bear man was not in the rankin bass version. At all.

@Noqanky:

From reading comments it feels like I'm the only one who loved this movie beginning to end. I was completely immersed in it and at no point did my attention waver until I saw the "directed by Peter Jackson."

You're not the only one. I had minor quibbles but otherwise enjoyed the whole thing. If I was dropping off my review now a week later it'd just be "I enjoyed the whole thing."

Hinscher

Went and saw it yesterday in 2D with my whole family this time. First time for all of them. For myself, I enjoyed it more the second watching and also prefer 2d over 3d. There were a couple scenes I enjoyed in 3D like the beginning it felt like you were almost watching an on stage performace at bilbo's house. The 3D was spectacular at that time. But for most part 3D distracts me more than immersisses.

My family's point of view. They all seemed to love it except for maybe my mom. I don't think she had any idea what movie she was going to. She just hopped in the car at last minute to come along cause she thought we could all go out to eat at end and make it a night of it. But she thought there was too much killing, though happy no good guys died. She also was upset that they didn't have a happy ending. She was like "that's it" when it ended like it did, lol. She doesn't watch movies like this at all. She's a pure chick flick, halmark, christmas movies kind of person.

She did enjoy the movie and thought it was good, but as I said she thought too much fighting (any fighting is too much), and also she didn't like it not having a happy ending with them back home. The thing I found the strangest was that she absolutely HATED the Gollum scene. She thought he was way to creepy and couldnt' wait for it to end.

Both my sisters like the movie greatly, but one of them found it to be too scary. She thought same with LotR movies. Never knew she was such a wussy. Everyone but my mom is excited for the next movie to come out and see it. My ohter sister had read the book and she was only confused about this white orc guy. She didn't remember him. The rest she said nothing about, or didn't question. So to a non avid fan, reader of the books, the added stuff isn't that big of a change that the average reader seems to notice.

Ubiq

@CosmicDebris:

created one really horrible version of ROTK.

Oh, come on. Who doesn't love the Conscientious Objector Orc Glee Club Battalion?

Cyan D. Funk

@Ubiq:

Oh, come on. Who doesn't love the Conscientious Objector Orc Glee Club Battalion?

I've always loved the disco instrumentation here because of how goddamn goofy it is

Ubiq

@Cyan:

I've always loved the disco instrumentation here because of how goddamn goofy it is

It's easily the best thing about that entire film if only because of how strange it is.

Even then, it doesn't compare to the scene where Sam imagines transforming the world with the power of The Ring. Nothing will ever come close to the sight of watching an orc transform into a duck-billed platypus.

Monkey King

So me and Chrissie saw it here in Cyprus, I uh….missed some of the dialogue lol, anything not spoken in english, but otherwise no problem.

I had lots of issues with it, but it was awesome for the most part anyway and I want to see it again already and can't wait for the next two!
This seems to be how most people are feeling. Like, I just can't feel upset in any way at any issue, I enjoyed myself so much.

The first half was REALLY good, except for the dragging part at the start with Frodo that was pointless. I can't believe people have complained about the slow start, I LOVED the slowness. Just enjoying the time with the dwarves and stuff. From the books I barely remember many of the dwarves aside from Thorin and the fat guy Bombur. Here I enjoyed lots of their little personalities, from the book or no. It was great quest story stuff.
I was worried Bilbo would be too "cool" in this version from the trailers, but naw, he was all dainty and clueless as he should be.
I loved the intro with the Lonely Mountain backstory, Tolkein doesn't explain himself so well in the books, so stuff like that is always nice.
Radagast was cool, loved him. Flesh out a tiny character into something that feels organic to the series and fun? How is that a problem? I dunno what people exepected from him exactly. He was like the idea of wizards I had as a kid, kooky old men. Gandalf and Sauruman are the more serious grown up wizards, it was a nice balancing act. Say what you want, but Radaghast's type of wizard is as much of a fantasy archetype as Gandalf's. Nothing felt wrong about him.
I enjoyed most of the Ring set up stuff.

What I didn't enjoy so much was the second half was way too much action and stuff going on at once, the pacing was out of wack, they threw so much at me I got overwhelmed. Good stuff lots of it (Gollum etc), but pointless stuff too like the giant rock monsters, which should have just been like looked at, instead of made into an action sequence.
I feel like Jackson was too afraid of losing the battle loving audience from LOTR, more slow dwarf scenes!
The stuff with Azog was overdone, show him in the flashback and leave it hanging, don't throw him at us every five seconds. He wasn't interesting enough for it.

Oh and we saw it in 3D which was UGHHHH. We had no choice at the theater. Cypriot movies also have breaks! wtf (Chrissie: Shut up! :U It's good for pee breaks!)
I wanna see it all again pronto when I get back without 3D, and with the full American sound system set up (Chrissie: Fuck you. :3).
Oh and with english subtitles for the orcs and elves and stuff since I was sitting sad in the theater with a bunch of greeks reading what I could not ;_;

But overall, really cool and fun. And I'm glad to have such movies to experience again, even if they clearly aren't gonna be LOTR level. Anyone comparing this to the Star Wars prequels is insane.

1000sunny

Saw the movie again to see what all the fuss was about with the higher frame rates. Gotta say I liked the movie much better on second viewing, the beginning wasn't nearly as slow as it was the first time and it made me appreciate the many things the film got right. I still maintain that the film suffers from an identity crisis between being a little guy in a big world adventure film and an all-world encompassing epic movie.

As for the higher frame rates…I mean it didn't ruin the experience like it did for some but it certainly didn't enhance it. It made the already semi-unfinished parts of the movie like the opening, Radagast, and the eagles look even worse and it seemed like at times we were just watching GIFs of 15 second scenes were everything looked sped up. Eventually you got used to it but even during the action scenes it didn't add anything to the viewing experience. it was pretty inconsequential all said.

CosmicDebris

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

Will critics later regret panning the Hobbit?

Nex 0

No. No they won't.

Also, the argument that a lot of critics didn't "get it" irks me to no end. The biggest issue is that as a movie, this can't just appeal to fans of Tolkien's lore. If that's what it's trying to do then it's going to fail on a wide level. The book itself works fantastically on its own and it did long before Tolkien had his lore, so the movie should be able to do the same. By adding in all this extra stuff Jackson is diluting The Hobbit into more of a Tolkien lore film, so obviously some people aren't going to "get it."

Luckily, it is fresh overall on RT, and Jackson did a good enough job of incorporating everything that it wouldn't alienate audiences, but it's still there. The Hobbit isn't bad by any means, but it is very audience specific and a lot of critics don't appreciate that. Opinions will go up over time as the rest of the series comes out, and the movie works as part of said series, but they won't ever regret how they evaluated this specific movie on its own merits, and that's really where The Hobbit is different from LotR. While each installment of the latter works on its on, so far The Hobbit doesn't seem like that's going to be the case, and most critics aren't fond of that.

Daz

Saw it. Loved it. Yes, its the extended edition.

^The article Cosmic posted covers a common complaint that befuddles me; for instance with the Council scene, every reviewer, even Spoony goes "This won't appear again, thus it was pointless". What? Do they really believe that we WONT see the battle against the necromancer? That this will be his only mention in the trilogy? Huh?

Ubiq

@CosmicDebris:

Will critics later regret panning the Hobbit?

That would imply a sense of shame that critics in general and film critics in particular don't have.

@Nex:

The biggest issue is that as a movie, this can't just appeal to fans of Tolkien's lore.

The hell it can't.

Gliblord

I can't get enough of the Misty Mountains song, and I couldn't give less of a shit about Tolkien's lore

andre

!

!

Haha, these are hilarious together.

Nex 0

@Ubiq:

The hell it can't.

It can't, which is Jackson finagled through it by throwing in Old Bilbo and Frodo, that's how he is appealing to fans only of LotR, who aren't fimiliar to the lore outside. That's why Orlando Bloom is showing back up. That's why Gollum's involvement is going to be heightened. If he were to be making this movie only for the fans of the lore, then, while this one might be a financial success, the other's are going to hurt. All is good though, as he's not, he's making them to make money. Which is why he's throwing in things of mass appeal.

Still doesn't change that it was a decent movie, and I'm expecting Desolation of Smaug to be great, and easily the best of the bunch.

–--

On a completely different note, I knew Cumberbatch was playing Smaug, but I had no idea he was The Necromancer as well. How did I manage not to hear about that?

CosmicDebris

I was an administrator for a really big Tolkien fan board for a while, starting back before FOTR was released, was a member of several others, went to all kinds of geeky events - there's always been one or two people that are book purists that don't like anything about any of the movies, but in general, the large chunk of Tolkien lore nerds all have enjoyed these movies.

Daz

@Nex:

That's why Gollum's involvement is going to be heightened

Bwuh? Um, what makes you say that?

Nex 0

@The:

Bwuh? Um, what makes you say that?

Recent interview with Serkis talking about the upcoming films, and he's credited in the Desolation of Smaug.

Smiley

I saw recently this movie and i never read the books so i don't know how close to the source product his.
I enjoyed the movie nonetheless.
I also din't know they were doing more two movies so when the movie ended it didn't look like it was about to end.
But one thing i got confuse with

! Who cut the orc arm and who the orc kill was the father or grandpa of Thorin?