The Hobbit movies
-
-
Saw the film for the first time today.
! The first thing I apparently need to cover is Radagast. I was fine with him. To be frank, I actually enjoyed him. Yes, he's very different from what I imagined, and the sled of bunnies is kinda silly. But… that's just it, he works as silly. I just hope he gets an expanded role in the sequels, because I really enjoyed him in this.
! Every actor is cast wonderfully. All the dwarves are portrayed perfectly, and Martin Freeman... damn. The perfect Bilbo, right there. Every time he opens his mouth it's just, yep, that's Bilbo alright. It was kinda weird seeing Gandalf and Saruman looking older than in LotR, understandable seeing as actor's age.Got nothing more to say really, wonderful movie, eagerly awaiting the next one.
-
@RobbyBevard:
Well, isn't he also a second unit director? He's be credited on the film regardless.
He's credited as Gollum as well. However he isn't for There and Back Again thank goodness.
-
Bilbo is way more likeable than Frodo, gotta say
-
Bilbo is way more likeable than Frodo, gotta say
He really is. Maybe that's just because I despise Elijah Wood and adore Martin Freeman.
-
Frodo is a horrible hobbit, that did nothing more than walk, whine, and, in the movie, give awkward looks to Sam Wise (who is the much better Hobbit, in my opinion).
-
Just FYI, I'm going to see it in HFR 3D tomorrow, but it was really hard to find. One theater we called said the HFR was really not very popular. 3D is, just not the HFR 3D. I wonder if the following movies will not even have the option.
-
Maybe that's just because I despise Elijah Wood and adore Martin Freeman.
That's most definitely what sealed the deal for me.
-
@Nia:
That's most definitely what sealed the deal for me.
Well, okay, I don't despise him. I did get a twitch of nostalgia when I saw in during the beginning of the movie and a huge smile crept upon my face. But compared to Freeman, he's not even a grain of sand in the desert.
-
I'm just sad Tolkien died. Wasn't he going to write 3 more books that take place after The Lord of the Rings? Something to do with a 'rebellion', and a cult who worships Sauron; maybe I'm smoking the wacky tobaccy when it comes to the plot (no idea where I heard it)… lol
-
I don't think Tolkien was going to write three more LotR books; if I recall correctly, he was satisfied just adding to the Silmarillion and Tales.
-
@Cyan:
I don't think Tolkien was going to write three more LotR books; if I recall correctly, he was satisfied just adding to the Silmarillion and Tales.
I kind of hope Jackson picks up the rights for The Children of Hurin after he finishes the Hobbit. And then hopfully take something from the 2nd age as there was so much awesome material there as well. Or something involving Isildor and his story.
-
@The:
I'm just sad Tolkien died. Wasn't he going to write 3 more books that take place after The Lord of the Rings? Something to do with a 'rebellion', and a cult who worships Sauron; maybe I'm smoking the wacky tobaccy when it comes to the plot (no idea where I heard it)… lol
Tolkien was going to write a lot of things. LotR is just a small footnote in the huge history he had plotted out.
@Gia:
I kind of hope Jackson picks up the rights for The Children of Hurin after he finishes the Hobbit. And then hopfully take something from the 2nd age as there was so much awesome material there as well. Or something involving Isildor and his story.
Won't be until after Christopher Tolkien dies. The man hates the movies.
And even then, as popular as these are, jackson can only go so far.Hobbit and LotR have name recognition. Other stuff… wouldn't. And even as much as he enjoys the world, he has to be getting burned out on it all.
-
@RobbyBevard:
he has to be getting burned out on it all.
I think that's mainly because how he chooses to work on the movies. If you've ever watched the documentaries for the LotR films, you'd know it's a miracle he's somehow still alive. He throws himself into it in such a way, that it just demands your respect.
Give him another 10 years and he'll be ready for round 3.
-
@RobbyBevard:
Tolkien was going to write a lot of things. LotR is just a small footnote in the huge history he had plotted out.
I wonder if there's ever been a rundown of all the unfinished stuff or all the planned stuff. I know there wouldn't be a lot of completed work on any of it, but maybe an itemized list of what was to come? Would be interesting to look at.
@RobbyBevard:
Won't be until after Christopher Tolkien dies. The man hates the movies.
He says, as he's rolling around in the mountains of money I'm sure the estate makes from the movies and their merch.
@RobbyBevard:
And even then, as popular as these are, Jackson can only go so far. Hobbit and LotR have name recognition. Other stuff… wouldn't. And even as much as he enjoys the world, he has to be getting burned out on it all.
Yeah, but, you know if they ever DID do any of that stuff, they'd simply tack on the "Lord of the Rings" to the beginning of it right?
If they somehow ever got the rights to The Children of Hurin, it'd be "The Lord of the Rings: The Children of Hurin". If only to keep the name recognition there to sell it.
The Hobbit is the only exception as it has its own name recognition as part of the series.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
Just got back from seeing it in HFR 3D IMAX, and surprisingly, I liked it better that way. I'm generally anti-3D and was really wary about the 48 fps thing, but I have to say it looked amazing, and not "soap opera" Like at all. A few shots did seem a bit video-gamey, mostly in the first 10 min, but otherwise both my boyfriend and I were really happy about it and will see it in HFR next time right away.
Also, while I enjoyed the movie the first time, I found that I didn't even have any issues the second time around, it was just 100% enjoyable.
-
I've got some free movie tickets from work for Christmas so I'm wondering what to use them on, and seeing the Hobbit again is so far the highest on my list, including checking it out in the HFR.
Might go sometime in the next two days since I have them off.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
Ian McKellan doing Ducktales or the Fresh Prince theme is funnier… but still cool.
-
Gary Busey talks Hobbits. Simply…amazing.
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2013/01/gary_busey_talks_about_hobbits.php
-
This post is deleted!
-
Hobbit has surpassed FotR and Two Towers in terms of earnings.
Why was son of Tolkein unhappy with Peter Jackson's work anyways?
-
Hobbit has surpassed FotR and Two Towers in terms of earnings.
Given 10 years of inflation and 3D prices, not too surprising.
Why was son of Tolkein unhappy with Peter Jackson's work anyways?
Because even though they're pretty much the best movies we could possibly get from the books, the actual tone is fairly different from the books.
Basically, there's action in them and some modern comedy stylings.
-
In terms of actual tickets sold, nobody has yet to beat Gone With the Wind.
-
Still need to see this, though I think it was stupid to make it into a trilogy. Two movies maybe, but three is just an obvious ploy to make even more money off the franchise. I am hoping that someday The Silmarillion gets made into a movie or two. That book would be deserving of the trilogy treatment. There are some epic battles in the Silmarillion that make the Battle of Pelenor Fields look weak.
-
Still need to see this, though I think it was stupid to make it into a trilogy. Two movies maybe, but three is just an obvious ploy to make even more money off the franchise.
That's the studio idea yes, but I believe Peter Jackson really did start filming and ended up with 9 hours of footage and said "Hey, I could make this into 10 hours with another month to film, I still have ideas." and so the studios went "hell yeah, lets make another billion off it!"
The man hadn't planned for King Kong to be 3 hours either.
Commercially, the 3 movies is a cash grab, yes. Artistically? I think Peter legitimately wanted that much time to play with. I mean hell, there's still going to be extended editions with an extra 20-30 minutes per film!
End result? Well… it'll probably ultimately turn out that it would have been a better paced story at 6 hours than 10, but it'll be a fuller overall experience as the epic miniseries its going to be. (And I enjoyed the ride of the first part as presented with few qualms about the pacing, so...)
-
Definitely prefer a longer, drawn out movie (even if it extends out to be three movies) rather than a rushed film that scarcely dwells on important elements in a narrative. I can think of plenty of movies that do that…cough recently seen Silent Hill Revelations cough
-
To me, the worst part about it being three films would have to be the wait for the next two's release.
I just re-read the book during a road trip. Cannot WAIT for some of the upcoming scenes.
-
Definitely prefer a longer, drawn out movie (even if it extends out to be three movies) rather than a rushed film that scarcely dwells on important elements in a narrative. I can think of plenty of movies that do that…cough recently seen Silent Hill Revelations cough
That's true definitely would want all the story rather than parts of the story cut-out or altered.
To me, the worst part about it being three films would have to be the wait for the next two's release.
I just re-read the book during a road trip. Cannot WAIT for some of the upcoming scenes.
I agree, that is the crappiest part with trilogies, that and having to pay ridiculous theater prices three separate times. I'm sure it's worth it though for movies of this calibre. (sp?)
-
This post is deleted!
-
I'll spoiler them (for those that don't like to read a book that's been out for years), but here's some scenes i'm looking forward to:
! -Bilbo going rambo in Mirkwood and owning packs of giant spiders to save the dwarves. Also leading to "sting" earning it's name.
-Anything with Beorn.
-Smaug and Bilbo's "chat".
-The moment Thorin and dwarf company join the battle of the five armies fully decked out in Dwarvish armor.
-Thorin and Bilbo reconciling at his death bed.
-All the scenes of how awesomely humble Bilbo is. Especially when he is classy as hell with Thranduil.
-And other many awesome Bilbo moments… since... like halfway through the book he pretty much becomes the backbone of Thorin's group. -
Blame No Maam if you can't wait until December.
-
Alright that's pretty amazing.
-
The Hobbit, part 2: Just add Legolas
-
That dragon puts to shame little pussy dragons Khalissi has
-
Am I the only one who thinks the movie looks like garbage based on that trailer? Like let's trash the story even worse than before and make everything all about action for no reason and add fanservice characters.
-
There's actually a good reason to add Legolas. Honestly, I always wondered where Legolas was while they were dealing with his father. The only answer to that is the fact that Tolkien hadn't created his character yet. And what happens is an important part in understanding why Gimli was incredibly hostile towards Legolas (with or without his presence), other than the typical elf and dwarf rivalry. Most likely he'll only be in the movie for like 20 min anyway. They could totally mess that up, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it.
That dragon puts to shame little pussy dragons Khalissi has
Smaug was a baby dragon once too. ;)
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
-
Thoughts while watching the trailer:
"I predict the forest-king guy will get a legion of fangirls for that crown alone."
"Woooo! Barrel-riiiiideee!"
"Yup, there he is."
"Who's this chick?"
"I wuv you, Radagast."
"Don't mess with, Gandalf."
"Oh no, not the damn spiders . . ."
"Is that Bard? I think it's Bard."
"AWWWWWW YEAH!!! SMAUG!!!!"
". . . . . .What? Not ONE line? I can't hear Benedict Cumberbatch say ONE line?!"There's actually a good reason to add Legolas. Honestly, I always wondered where Legolas was while they were dealing with his father. The only answer to that is the fact that Tolkien hadn't created his character yet. And what happens is an important part in understanding why Gimli was incredibly hostile towards Legolas (with or without his presence), other than the typical elf and dwarf rivalry. Most likely he'll only be in the movie for like 20 min anyway. They could totally mess that up, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it.
Hmmm, I'll ask my friend where he's supposed to be pre-Lord of the Rings later. She has the Tolkein bible in her head.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the movie looks like garbage based on that trailer? Like let's trash the story even worse than before and make everything all about action for no reason and add fanservice characters.
I agree with this fully. While adding Gandalf and co dealing with the necromancer was a nice addition, I feel they're playing around with the book canon a bit too much.
There's actually a good reason to add Legolas. Honestly, I always wondered where Legolas was while they were dealing with his father.
He was one of the random elf mooks in the command of the Elvenking. Why would the company need to deal with the Prince of Elves anyway?
The only answer to that is the fact that Tolkien hadn't created his character yet.
And that too, of course.
And what happens is an important part in understanding why Gimli was incredibly hostile towards Legolas (with or without his presence), other than the typical elf and dwarf rivalry.
This does not make sense. Gimli was hostile toward Legolas because the latter's father had unjustly imprisoned the former's. Gimli isn't on the quest, so there are absolutely no personal stakes involved, regardless of whether Legolas is involved or not.
Most likely he'll only be in the movie for like 20 min anyway. They could totally mess that up, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it.
I doubt he'll be in there for twenty minutes. They're giving him a goddamn girlfriend by the looks of it! That is not a twenty minute character.
-
There's actually a good reason to add Legolas. Honestly, I always wondered where Legolas was while they were dealing with his father. The only answer to that is the fact that Tolkien hadn't created his character yet. And what happens is an important part in understanding why Gimli was incredibly hostile towards Legolas (with or without his presence), other than the typical elf and dwarf rivalry. Most likely he'll only be in the movie for like 20 min anyway. They could totally mess that up, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it.
I am not a lore buff but while this makes sense it also turns the story into something totally different. Even though it's already something totally different. I like action as much as the next guy but they are going too far. They even managed to ruin the barrel ride by making it a trip down rapids apparently.
-
No, Jackson has stated that there is no romance between Legolas and Tauriel.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the movie looks like garbage based on that trailer? Like let's trash the story even worse than before and make everything all about action for no reason and add fanservice characters.
I don't know, here's my take on things. From what I saw of reviews of the first movie (admittedly not exhaustive, but I browsed through a couple), it seemed to me that most, if not all, negative opinion of the movie could be roughly summarized as it not staying true to the spirit of the book. Which, frankly, I kind of agree with; and certainly, judging based entirely on this trailer, the next installment looks to retain that problem, if not compound it.
Where I disagreed with those negative reviews, however, was in feeling that made the first movie bad, and thus I likewise do not feel that this trailer makes the sequel look like garbage. To clarify, I do think that the movies – the first, at least, and likely the others as well -- fail rather horribly as an adaptation of the book, because in that regard, to me at the least, keeping true to the spirit of the original work is the most important aspect. Simply viewing them as movies in their own right, however, I found the first to be quite enjoyable, and see nothing in particular about this trailer that makes me think the same won't be true for the second.
Is it disappointing not to have an amazing, true adaptation of the book? Certainly. Still, I don't allow that to stop me from appreciating the movies for what they are, rather than bemoaning overmuch what they are not; and if I do wish for a more faithful adaptation of the book, I can always watch the old classic animated version.
-
This does not make sense. Gimli was hostile toward Legolas because the latter's father had unjustly imprisoned the former's. Gimli isn't on the quest, so there are absolutely no personal stakes involved, regardless of whether Legolas is involved or not.
I'm reading this over and over and I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
I doubt he'll be in there for twenty minutes. They're giving him a goddamn girlfriend by the looks of it! That is not a twenty minute character.
I read about this being in the movie years ago, the female elf's name is Tauriel. Looking at how they handled in canon, major romances in LOTR, this probably isn't going to get a lot of screen time. Hell, I WANTED them to show the Eowyn/Faramir romance, but they cut it from the theatrical version entirely. I think they originally were going to have some romanctic subplots, but probably removed like the idea of Arwen at Helms Deep :P
-
@Panda:
I don't know, here's my take on things. From what I saw of reviews of the first movie (admittedly not exhaustive, but I browsed through a couple), it seemed to me that most, if not all, negative opinion of the movie could be roughly summarized as it not staying true to the spirit of the book. Which, frankly, I kind of agree with; and certainly, judging based entirely on this trailer, the next installment looks to retain that problem, if not compound it.
Where I disagreed with those negative reviews, however, was in feeling that made the first movie bad, and thus I likewise do not feel that this trailer makes the sequel look like garbage. To clarify, I do think that the movies – the first, at least, and likely the others as well -- fail rather horribly as an adaptation of the book, because in that regard, to me at the least, keeping true to the spirit of the original work is the most important aspect. Simply viewing them as movies in their own right, however, I found the first to be quite enjoyable, and see nothing in particular about this trailer that makes me think the same won't be true for the second.
Is it disappointing not to have an amazing, true adaptation of the book? Certainly. Still, I don't allow that to stop me from appreciating the movies for what they are, rather than bemoaning overmuch what they are not; and if I do wish for a more faithful adaptation of the book, I can always watch the old classic animated version.
Well yes it's two layers of disappointment, because the novel was pretty special and it had a special tone/atmosphere to it, which is a shame to see not reproduced. It doesn't in it of itself make the movie bad, but it automatically makes it worse than it could have been in my eyes.
But as a stand-alone movie the first Hobbit was still rather poor, and the perpetuation of this (or compounding, as you say) seems evident. For example, the beginning where Bilbo decides to come along after all is dismal. Almost nonsensical. There is so much action to the point of boredom on occasion. The pacing suffers hugely due to this, and it's way too long because it stretches the material thin and fills gaps with more action. And I still can't stop shuddering at the thought of Radagast riding around on his squirrel-drawn sled.
-
Oh was it rabbits? I guess my memory blocking has functioned to a small degree. Also, showing the spiders encroaching upon his hut was the most blatant and insulting foreshadowing ever.
-
Well yes it's two layers of disappointment, because the novel was pretty special and it had a special tone/atmosphere to it, which is a shame to see not reproduced. It doesn't in it of itself make the movie bad, but it automatically makes it worse than it could have been in my eyes.
But as a stand-alone movie the first Hobbit was still rather poor, and the perpetuation of this (or compounding, as you say) seems evident. For example, the beginning where Bilbo decides to come along after all is dismal. Almost nonsensical. There is so much action to the point of boredom on occasion. The pacing suffers hugely due to this, and it's way too long because it stretches the material thin and fills gaps with more action. And I still can't stop shuddering at the thought of Radagast riding around on his squirrel-drawn sled.
Well, there I can agree with you, more, at least, if not entirely. The movies certainly aren't as good as they 'could' be, which is unfortunate; and while I personally found the first entertaining enough, as I already said, I can appreciate finding it lacking. Everyone has their own tastes, and all that.
Also, the rabbit-sled scene was completely ridiculous. The funny thing about it, to me, is that I could actually imagine it working well as a thing in the original; it has that sort of somewhat lighthearted, fantastical feeling to it. Yet in the movie, they just played the scene totally straight, as if it was the most dramatic thing in the world. Honestly, my biggest gripe with the scene was probably, rather than the basic premise of 'rabbit-sled', the fact that he was supposed to lead the orcs off, and instead ran them around in ridiculous loops, so that they ended up finding the party anyway, so that the plot would continue as necessary. It just… didn't really make any sense.
-
I'm reading this over and over and I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Just saying that Gimli's animosity towards Legolas in LOTR can be justified by the perceived ill-treatment of Gloin by Tharanduil. Adding Legolas himself to the incident does not significantly impact this grudge that Gimli would hold regardless.
I read about this being in the movie years ago, the female elf's name is Tauriel. Looking at how they handled in canon, major romances in LOTR, this probably isn't going to get a lot of screen time. Hell, I WANTED them to show the Eowyn/Faramir romance, but they cut it from the theatrical version entirely. I think they originally were going to have some romanctic subplots, but probably removed like the idea of Arwen at Helms Deep :P
It is quite ironic that they focused so much on non-canon romance (Aragorn/Arwen) and ignored the one romance that is there in the books.
I didn't know about Tauriel and I'm not liking her so far, especially when I read Jackson say that there is a romantic component in her storyline. But again, my opinion might change after watching the movie. -
Just saying that Gimli's animosity towards Legolas in LOTR can be justified by the perceived ill-treatment of Gloin by Tharanduil. Adding Legolas himself to the incident does not significantly impact this grudge that Gimli would hold regardless.
Oh, I agree with that. But, it could help connect the general audience to it, especially those who aren't book readers. They emphasize the Gimli/Legolas issues a lot more in the book.
It is quite ironic that they focused so much on non-canon romance (Aragorn/Arwen) and ignored the one romance that is there in the books.
Their romance is canon. There just are so few actual romantic scenes in the book. They talk a few times, they get married at the end, in the appendix there is the tale of their young romance and how they met.
I didn't know about Tauriel and I'm not liking her so far, especially when I read Jackson say that there is a romantic component in her storyline. But again, my opinion might change after watching the movie.
After doing some searching, there's a ton of rumors her, but it's definitely not a romance with Legolas. There are some hints that there could be a light-hearted Galadriel/Gimli type of infatuation with Kili, but it sounds more humorous than serious.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
 
