Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Mick_in_Switzerland on December 13, 2012, 07:16:11 AM
-
I was lucky enough to see The Hobbit last night at a pre-premiere in Aarau, Switzerland. I went with my 13 year old son and a friend from work.
All three of us enjoyed the film. We saw the 48 frames per second super high definition 3D version. It is worth looking for a cinema that has this. The visual effect is stunning. You can see every hair in the dwarves beards and every intricate pattern in the clothing. The 3D is the best of any film so far. The 3D works best in the quiet scenes. In the big battle scenes, the 3D effect with many actors is a bit confusing.
The story is the Hobbit from the book plus a lot of extra, which probably comes from the unfinished tales. The story is very good better, more rounded and more grown up than the book. There is some nice humour. The violence is less graphic than LOTR so you can take 12 years olds (or even younger kids).
I will not comment on the story as that would be unfair.
I am sure Tolkien purists will hate Radagast and his sled but it serves a purpose. The funny haircuts of the dwarves make perfect sense as they help you sort out which dwarf is which.
I would recommend this very strongly.
Mick
-
I also went to a HFR3D showing yesterday. Not quite as enthusiastic about it as you but it was decent and unlike some sourpusses have whinged, most scenes did look very good to excellent from the picture quality POV (there was some variance tho). Action scenes were way overblown this time around however and the general tone reminded me of Gremlins in that The Hobbit also had plenty of childish stuff mixed in with things that prolly were too frightening for the wee 'uns. But like I said, decent. Significant other liked it a bit more than I did.
-
I am sure Tolkien purists will hate Radagast and his sled but it serves a purpose.
Which one ?
What does it do that a good horse could not have done ? Except making a comic relief from an Istari of course.
And hate is too mild a word for what I thought when I first saw that... thing (speaking of the sled, not the movie) but after all I'm a Tolkien purist lol
Anyway, I agree with tnjrp, the film is decent.
-
I'm seeing it today at 8PM and can't wait!
It's nice to hear a positive review, I've read so much negative stuff about the way it is filmed that I was beginning to worry!
Thankyou for not spoiling it either :)
-
TH:AUJ isn't doing too badly with the critics in general, at least if Rotten Tomatoes is any indication:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/
I'd rate it a little below 74%, personally.
-
Dear Scurv,
The 48 FPS does make a big difference.
The film is noticably sharper and more detailed than anything that I have seen before.
You can really see the wood grain in Gandalf's staff and the individual hairs in his beard.
You can see the pattern woven into the cloth of Bilbo's waistcoat and the wool strands in Gandalf's knitted gloves.
The 3D effect is also much better than other films. There are times where it really looks real.
I liked it best in the quiet scenes with a few characters talking to each other where you do feel like things are actually in front of you.
In the battles I sometimes found the 3D effect with lots of actors overwhelming and confusing.
(Maybe my 48 years old eyes are too slow to keep up.)
Mick
-
Saw the Hobbit today, very impressed. Agree that the Radagast sledge scenes will probably infuriate Tolkien purists however they weren't as jarring as the Dwarf tossing and the skateboard Legolas scenes in LOTR. Saw the movie in 2D so can't comment on the new fangled photography. What I will say is that I completely forgot that it has been split into two films, cue a year of impatient waiting. ::)
-
3 films friend, 3, not 2....
-
The second installment in the franchise will be The Hobbit: There and Back Again, to be released on December 13, 2013.
The final film is titled The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, released worldwide on July 18, 2014.
Gads! All 3 movies filmed at the same time and we still have to wait 1-1/2 years to see all three??? >:(
-
The second installment in the franchise will be The Hobbit: There and Back Again, to be released on December 13, 2013.
The final film is titled The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, released worldwide on July 18, 2014.
Gads! All 3 movies filmed at the same time and we still have to wait 1-1/2 years to see all three??? >:(
Cynics would say, "Marketing."
Theatre types might say, "Editing."
Gracias,
Glenn
-
The second installment in the franchise will be The Hobbit: There and Back Again, to be released on December 13, 2013.
The final film is titled The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, released worldwide on July 18, 2014
What what, they swapped the titles? IMDb doesn't know about this yet...
Gads! All 3 movies filmed at the same time and we still have to wait 1-1/2 years to see all three??? >:(
Two words: post production.
---
Meanwhile, to those worried about such things...
http://www.geekosystem.com/gollum-fish-physics/
-
Going to see it tomorrow at 2:35 PM central.
-
Just got home from a preview screening, and I loved it! Turn off your brains for a while and you'll enjoy it too.
-
I thought it was utterly fantastic. Some great references to other bits of background, some nice tie in's.
There are some changes, some things that aren't quite 'right', but most of them make sense in terms of on-screen character development and film time.
I won't say where, I won't say what, but it's all very good. I can't wait for GW to bring out some more models...
-
TH:AUJ isn't doing too badly with the critics in general, at least if Rotten Tomatoes is any indication:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/
I'd rate it a little below 74%, personally
Looks to have taken something of plunge over the course of the last 20 or so hours. Now it's about at the level that feels right for me, at 68%.
-
Well I've had tickets for tonight for two weeks. Really looking forward to this but......
Rotten cough from the kids so hopefully I don't spend the performance hacking my lungs up. :?
-
Saw it and I like it a lot. The references to the lost/unfinished works is great! Also the light tone is totally in line with the actual way the book is written.
-
That's what I thought! It was a nice balance between the tone of the original and making it a nice blend into the LOTR films.
-
3 films friend, 3, not 2....
Doh... Oh well I can live with that. As long as they're all the same quality. Talk about milking it though...
-
Waiting for daughter (Springfield, MO,) to finish with school then all 4 of us (the 2 in CA get a pass since they are staying there for Christmas/New Year's) will see it together. o_o
I think I will approach this as I did LOTR. 8) I read The Hobbit around four times, LOTR over 20 times in College/USAF years (quit counting,) and the other works that were available back in the day (Silmarillion, the poetry/short stories paperback book, maybe one other,) so I admit I am a bit of a fan.
When all was said and done, have seen the theatrical movies, and buying/annually watching the extended versions, I still rate the LOTR extended movies three ways, which I expect I will do for these films:
As follows:
As the book on film - C I downgraded it a whole letter for the speech to the Elves at Helm's deep - more for twisting Aragorn's character unconscionably than the eye rolling presence of Elves. ::) I am over Galadriel filling in for Glorfindel - No I am not. Accepting does not imply approval. Yes, it worked well enough in the film (has absolutely nothing to do with my weaknesses for brunettes - just ask my wife.) and skipping the cleansing of the Shire - really?
As story translated into another medium, B+ after much discussion with co-workers who have been involved in theater and film I agree crossing media requires some change. I disagree with some of the decisions/changes but I can see why he did what he did.
As stand alone story (as if book didn't exist,) A- because it is a powerfully told story with great writing, excellent acting, well done music, and the characters really get your interest (love or hate them.)
I will wait, see, and evaluate after all three of these movies are out (probably buy extended versions if they exist - and I expect they will.)
Bombadil? Truly expendable.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
and it falls to me to be the pedantic git.
It's Arwen, not Galadriel.
Seeing it tonight and am excited!
-
Saw it today, loved it. The blending of the actual events from Hobbit book and other tales was well handled.
Thought the opening link to the LotR films was well done.
-
Loved it.
They did abuse the book quite a lot, but it makes up for it by being awesome.
And the Song. Ooooh the Song...
-
and it falls to me to be the pedantic git.
It's Arwen, not Galadriel.
Seeing it tonight and am excited!
Right, correction noted. Only excuse I can offer is brain cramp.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Personally, I loved this more than all three of the first movies. Can't wait for the next two!
-
Saw it last night and loved it- roll on the dvd and next part of the trilogy too.Wish I had some of the crockery/furniture from Bagend too...
-
Saw it yesterday in normal 2d. Beautiful, however, it could've used more dynamic tension IMO.
Gotta get me some Dwarf minis in a hurry. Mega awesome Dwarf content in the film as one would expect.
-
Really good movie, cannot wait to see the other movies.
-
Still taking a bit of a beating from the critics, I see. Tomatometer now at 65%.
-
i went to the first screening and seen it in 3D. Was OK imho, nothing more
-
I would say it was 'flawed' but 'fantastic'. While I absolutely loved it, it felt like I was watching the extended edition. It probably would have been a better cinema release if they'd cut about an hour out and kept the focus more strictly on the Dwarves and Bilbo.
Still, that certainly isn't going to stop me from seeing it again!
-
Saw the standard 2D version (can't be fecked with 3D) at the weekend with my 10 and 7 year old kids - they both loved it and
so did I, but now I've got to endure a year of 'is it out yet?' from the youngest. 6 month gap would have been plenty :)
-
I saw it on Sunday and was thoroughly impressed. It met my expectations, and I found the effects to be great. I really enjoyed the visuals in goblin-town... it was just so ramshackle and fun.
-
I finally saw it - had to waitr for the cinema to show it in English as I have a healthy mistrust of all dubbed versions...
I thought it was fun. I particularly liked how they entwined the story around Dol Guldur with the main plot. Totally relieved about the dwarves - in spite of their rather clownish outfit they became real characters and very likable persons.
Negative: maybe a little too pulpy in places. I think the personal vendetta story with that orc was unnecessary and I didn't like his make-up a bit. He looked more like a muppet monster clad in rubber than anything spooky.
My wife remarked that the actors seemed to be a lot better than in LotR. I thought so, too.
-
I dont like 3d either. I am very curious if the 48fps with normal 2d was amazing Kes.
I'd be intrigued too - I hadn't realised that they were showing the 2D version in HFR. I've had a look through
some of the cinemas but I can't find it.
http://film.list.co.uk/article/47260-the-hobbit-at-48-frames-per-second-where-to-see-it/
The kids want to go see 3D films, but when given the choice between spending the extra on sweets
and watching 2D, guess which way they go?
-
I didn't know about such an option either. Pretty sure there isn't one in Finland but that doesn't say much of course.
I'll reserve the 2D experience for the special edition blu ray 8)
-
For me it was Hollywood, over the top for me but I enjoyed it it but I like the feel of the book hands down - just my thoughts 8)
-
Watched it last night in 3D, really enjoyed it, roll on part two.
One thing though, on screen in the dark - its really dark. I don't know if that's just a by product of the 3D glasses or me getting older?
-
3D is darker than 2D. HRF3D is brighter than 3D but I'm not quite sure if it's quite as bright as 2D. Seemed like to me.
-
Saw it yesterday with the missus in 3D 48fps.
I have to say the 48fps made it look cheap, at least at the local cinema. :? Before the movie there was a world of warcraft trailer in 3D, which looked much more 'realistic' and higher production value than the actual movie... o_o
As for the movie as such, I'd rate it 6 out of 10. The Gremlins comparison is quite fitting although Gremlins had a much better pace, imho.
-
I loved it, although I didn't think the 3D added much. Think I'll go see it again in 2D and will probably enjoy it more (and see more!)
Did drag a wee bit in places, and not really taken with the Radagast bits - but by God, what a visual feast, very much continuing the sheer spectacle of Jackson's LOTR trilogy.
God knows how long the extended edition DVD will be though ;)
-
Saw it this week and enjoyed it, not true to the book in places but I can see why they did what they did. Did anyone else think that the dwarf guards armour in the beginning looked similar to the ones in Dragon Age?
-
I haven't seen it....yet. What's the difference with the 3D vs. the regular version? Is either one better than the other?
-
Well the 3D version will give me a headache, and a bit of motion sickness. Some folks have that reaction to the new 3D technology unfortunately. Tin-Tin did not present that issue, but I'm going to stick with the non 3D version to be on the safe side. Oh, and the 3D version is more expensive to watch than the regular version too.
I haven't seen it....yet. What's the difference with the 3D vs. the regular version? Is either one better than the other?
-
We took the family to see the hobbit this week and loved it. I do hate waiting for the next movies though.
The 3D/48 fps didn't bother me or any of my family though I would have to agree it didn't seem to add much. I thought the film had a very vibrant, lush visual look. Given all the negative comments about Radagast I had expected worse but I would agree his scenes didn't add much.
-
We took the family to see the hobbit this week and loved it. I do hate waiting for the next movies though.
The 3D/48 fps didn't bother me or any of my family though I would have to agree it didn't seem to add much. I thought the film had a very vibrant, lush visual look. Given all the negative comments about Radagast I had expected worse but I would agree his scenes didn't add much.
I surprisingly liked Radagast. I admit he wasn't even close to how I thought he would be but it was a very interesting interpretation of an Istari. I really liked that he seems so different from Gandalf or Saruman but in that scene in his house you were able to glimpse a fragment of the power he wields - not fire and lightning but something "earthy", strong, steady but not spectacular like fire. I am really looking forward to the other movies and how this particular character is developed.
-
Saw it Christams eve, enjoyed it, the additions to the book were ok though why they need a cartoon baddie like the White Orc I will never know 9marketing I dare say) I thought the Dwarf armour bore a canny resemblance to the Mantic dwarves
-
I loved just about everything except for the action sequences. They were appalling. Someone needs to take that Jackson fella aside and tell him that with CGI, less is more.
Seems a common problem these days. They always overdo the CGI battles with so much overblown nonsense and a million improbable things all happening at once, and this has got much worse since the last Lord of the Rings movie. There was absolutely no tension or drama in that Goblin Town section, as it just felt like you were watching a cartoon or a video game, so much stupid Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner stuff was happening. Somehow PJ managed to make his flagship action sequences actually boring.
Jesus, what I would give for an old-fashioned sword fight.
The Gollum sequence, however, was just perfect. Wonderful.
-
I loved just about everything except for the action sequences. They were appalling. Someone needs to take that Jackson fella aside and tell him that with CGI, less is more. [...] There was absolutely no tension or drama in that Goblin Town section, as it just felt like you were watching a cartoon or a video game, so much stupid Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner stuff was happening. Somehow PJ managed to make his flagship action sequences actually boring
I tend to agree, the action scenes were largely pap. The problem started with King Kong and doesn't seem to have gotten any better.
I rather liked the ending with the "dwarfs in the pines" tho, even if some people seem to have hated the melodrama when Thorin realises who the chief Orc is.
Jesus, what I would give for an old-fashioned sword fight
How old fashioned? Errol Flynn old fashioned? :P
I actually think sword fighting sequences in LoTR were quite good.
-
How old fashioned?
Saruman in his heyday. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uGy3LlNeI
-
Gods, did he ever win? Poor Saruman....
-
Much to my own amazement I very much enjoyed this film!
My expectations were very very low considering what else Jackson has made in the past. But in the end I found myself to be enjoying the show and not feeling that I was in limbo in slowmotion hell.
-
I loved just about everything except for the action sequences. They were appalling. Someone needs to take that Jackson fella aside and tell him that with CGI, less is more.
Seems a common problem these days. They always overdo the CGI battles with so much overblown nonsense and a million improbable things all happening at once, and this has got much worse since the last Lord of the Rings movie. There was absolutely no tension or drama in that Goblin Town section, as it just felt like you were watching a cartoon or a video game, so much stupid Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner stuff was happening. Somehow PJ managed to make his flagship action sequences actually boring.
Jesus, what I would give for an old-fashioned sword fight.
The Gollum sequence, however, was just perfect. Wonderful.
Seconded, every word.
-
I enjoyed the film apart from the goblin town... TOO MUCH... just TOO MUCH everything.
I am astounded that Gollum, a creature who has lived in the dark for decades, didn't have a sense of smell developed enough to smell a hobbit that was three inches away from him... ;)
-
I really liked it, but I think it became a bit too silly in parts, but nothing which ruined my experience.
The worst part for me was the addition of the White Orc, which didn't really feel necessary.
Great fun and adventure over all and I look forward to the last 2 parts.
-
Saw with family, liked most of it. PJ is synonymous with over doing the CGI/action parts (see Legolas in LOTR) - no understanding the gravitas of dwarf characters either. Too much influence of the worst versions of D&D (Worlds of Warcraftianism) showed through too often for me.
Wife and daughters were really excited afterwards. Including the one who thinks 3 days of Extended version LOTR movies over New Years is extreme. So that is a plus.
That aside, as a LOTR/Hobbit fanboy ( we were called "freaks" in the 1960's) I accept the changes PJ made (disagree with about 50% of then being "necessary" when moving from one media to another but it is what it is.)
Radagast the Brown - well, for an Istari (Which I equate to an Archangel) that went over to Middle Earth and got lost int he flora and fauna (Nature Hippie?) and thus abandoned the primary mission I buy the interpretation. Yes Earth power seems likely (I see Gandalf as Fire, Saruman as Air, and possibly the two unnamed Blue Istari as Water.) As for his being unequal to the Necromancer - well it took the whole White Council (Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, and Saruman at the least) to evict him in the book. Assuming he didn't just leave Dol Gulder "early" because he was ready and wanted to cloak his pending return to Mordor.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I enjoyed the film apart from the goblin town... TOO MUCH... just TOO MUCH everything.
I am astounded that Gollum, a creature who has lived in the dark for decades, didn't have a sense of smell developed enough to smell a hobbit that was three inches away from him... ;)
Yes to the first.
As to the second, masked by the overpowering scent of Goblin (they can't smell good,) perhaps?
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I really liked it, but I think it became a bit too silly in parts, but nothing which ruined my experience.
The worst part for me was the addition of the White Orc, which didn't really feel necessary.
Great fun and adventure over all and I look forward to the last 2 parts.
Far beyond beyond not necessary. But it is what it is... Bolg would not be amused by PJ's actions.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I loved just about everything except for the action sequences. They were appalling. Someone needs to take that Jackson fella aside and tell him that with CGI, less is more.
Seems a common problem these days. They always overdo the CGI battles with so much overblown nonsense and a million improbable things all happening at once, and this has got much worse since the last Lord of the Rings movie. There was absolutely no tension or drama in that Goblin Town section, as it just felt like you were watching a cartoon or a video game, so much stupid Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner stuff was happening. Somehow PJ managed to make his flagship action sequences actually boring.
Jesus, what I would give for an old-fashioned sword fight.
The Gollum sequence, however, was just perfect. Wonderful.
Absolutely, couldn't say it better.
:(
-
Grrrrrrrrr went to the cinema on Xmas Eve to the movie, family outing me, my other half, youngest daughter and her fiance.
Projector broke down before the film even started....................epic fail!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only consolation is that we all got 2 courtesy tickets each to use another time.
So all is not lost.
-
Neotacha and I have seen it twice - once in 2D and once in 3D (I don't think either version was HFR). On the whole, I preferred the 2D version - although there were a few points (mostly scenic) where the 3D was stunning (like the eagles flying through a mountain pass).
I agree with Mister Plynkes in regard to content: the escape from goblin town scene was too cartoony, and consequently the weakest action sequence in the film. The sequence with Gollum/Smeagol was worth the price of admission by itself. Brilliant.
Radigast is a bit weak - mostly an effective portrayal of a wizard who spends all of his time with critters, and not people, and who is a bit odd as a result; but at a couple of points his goofiness is pushed too far in my opinion (like when he suddenly forgets the important thing he was going to tell Gandalf, even though it is right on the tip of his tongue). I did like his means of transportation, though. And loved his house, with the tree growing through the middle of it. Reminded me of something Arthur Rackham might have designed if he was doing illustrations for Tolkein's works (and wouldn't that have been an awesome combination?!).
A very well-cast film, straight through. The Howard Shore soundtrack is gorgeous, as with the original LotR films. I also really liked the dwarves' Misty Mountain song, and how it was presented.
I thought the wargs looked much better in this film than the previous films. Liked the trolls, liked the goblin king.
-Michael
-
Being a huge fan of The Office didn't exactly help me either. Especially as Freeman plays a lot like his old character in some scenes.
I was half expecting David Brent to be the next dwarf through the door. lol
-
Thinking about it, the Goblin Town escape was rather like a theme-park ride. I wonder if it was specifically designed with that in mind for future cash-grabbing? :)
Or is it just that Jackson has turned into a George Lucas-type: A bloated director making bloated films, dazzled by his own pretty lights, and who seriously needs someone else in charge to tell him "No! Enough!"
Radagast's absent-mindedness seemed in keeping with how I remember him being described (I think by Saruman) in the books, but my memory may be failing me there. But where was his TARDIS?
-
This is my favourite book, something I fell in love with as a child and have loved ever since since I approached with a great deal more trepidation than LOTR.
Bilbo - Brilliant
Dwarves - good, but not enough characterisation
Gandalf not quite as good as in LOTR - missing something and it may be that Jackson is intending him to seem less purposeful, but it comes out as just lacking....a bit ...
When is Jacksin going to realise we don't need a baddie with a face because the main baddy is at the end and we dont have anyhting to focus on! Come on give us some credit. He did it with Lurtz and he's done it again with the white orc. Completely unnecessary IMHO.
Goblin town - a little over the top - kind of liked the great goblin, but not his size.
Gollum - wonderful - riddles in the dark came to life!
Last comment - the faster frame speed was too much for me. I missed the action in the action sequences. As I wear glasses the 3D effect also didn't seem to really come off, so for film 2 I shall be going back to 2D.
Overall 8/10 - you didn't spoil it Peter, but don't rest on your lembas!
-
Saw it and was a little ho-hum about it all. My personal opininions:
Martin Freeman was excellent
I liked the dwarves
New Zealand looked lovely as always
You can't kill a good story (but you can squeeze it out and lose the pace)
Bunny Rabbits???
Escape from Goblin Town reminded me of The Goonies
CGI a bit over the top, battles too blurry and fast paced
Worth the entrance fee but won't rush to see it again
This is funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qXFQFnUdh5I
-
"Dwarves - good, but not enough characterisation"
I think they tend to blend together in the book as well, with a few exceptions. Mind you, haven't read it in long time and I might be misremembering. I think developing personalities in an ensemble film is important, but very hard to do.
-
"Dwarves - good, but not enough characterisation"
I think they tend to blend together in the book as well, with a few exceptions. Mind you, haven't read it in long time and I might be misremembering. I think developing personalities in an ensemble film is important, but very hard to do.
Characterization of Balin, Kili, Fili, Maybe Gloin (father of Gimli,) and Bombur (weight issues) needs developed somewhat more than others.
Just saying...
Gracias,
Glenn
-
There will be plenty of time in the next two 3-hour films to add character to the group.
I am sure there will be a few wistful looks to the sky followed by a 'memory sequence' or two :) .
-
Saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I am very much looking forward to parts two and three, although its a shame we are going to have to wait another year to see the next part.
I am especially looking forward to seeing Smaug. :)
-
I`ve seen the movie today with my daughter and we both enjoyed it very much ! She said...I can watch this the whole day ( and she is nerd free ) ...
I like the way PJ filmed the book and how he used and mixed other untold story lines into this movie.
Too bad to wait another year...but I΄ve reached an age where time goes by fast ;)
-
Too bad to wait another year...but I΄ve reached an age where time goes by fast ;)
lol you and me both my friend... ::)
Looking on the bright side, the third film is scheduled to come out only 6 months after the second one :)
-
yep...thats what I just found out. July 2014 ! The glass is half full Captain !!
;)
-
Thinking about it, the Goblin Town escape was rather like a theme-park ride. I wonder if it was specifically designed with that in mind for future cash-grabbing? :)
I did not approve though I think Dame Edna did a cracking job as the Great Goblin. There was lots of little nuggets of humour here and there but the GG's dead pan parting words were simply out of character.
Or is it just that Jackson has turned into a George Lucas-type: A bloated director making bloated films, dazzled by his own pretty lights, and who seriously needs someone else in charge to tell him "No! Enough!"
Indeed. One is tempted to buy him a slave to stand behind him whispering in his ear: "Thou art mortal!"
Radagast's absent-mindedness seemed in keeping with how I remember him being described (I think by Saruman) in the books, but my memory may be failing me there. But where was his TARDIS?
But to turn him into a dope fiend? Rather unkind, I think.
-
Saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I am very much looking forward to parts two and three, although its a shame we are going to have to wait another year to see the next part.
I am especially looking forward to seeing Smaug. :)
Smaug will either be awesome or overblown. I am praying for the former.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I loved just about everything except for the action sequences. They were appalling. Someone needs to take that Jackson fella aside and tell him that with CGI, less is more.
Seems a common problem these days. They always overdo the CGI battles with so much overblown nonsense and a million improbable things all happening at once, and this has got much worse since the last Lord of the Rings movie. There was absolutely no tension or drama in that Goblin Town section, as it just felt like you were watching a cartoon or a video game, so much stupid Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner stuff was happening. Somehow PJ managed to make his flagship action sequences actually boring.
Jesus, what I would give for an old-fashioned sword fight.
Hear, hear...
The Gollum sequence, however, was just perfect. Wonderful.
It was. Perfect book to screen adaptation. I think the troll scene was good to.
-
Radagast the Brown - well, for an Istari (Which I equate to an Archangel) that went over to Middle Earth and got lost int he flora and fauna (Nature Hippie?) and thus abandoned the primary mission I buy the interpretation. Yes Earth power seems likely (I see Gandalf as Fire, Saruman as Air, and possibly the two unnamed Blue Istari as Water.) As for his being unequal to the Necromancer - well it took the whole White Council (Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, and Saruman at the least) to evict him in the book. Assuming he didn't just leave Dol Gulder "early" because he was ready and wanted to cloak his pending return to Mordor.
[self proclaimed Tolkien scholar pain in the arse]
Hrmm-hrmm... *sucks on pipe* Well, ACTUALLY... The Blue Wizards were called Alatar and Pallando. Alatar was a maia of Orome (a deity akin to Pan, Artemis or Oberon). Pallando was either a maia of Mandos (a deity like Osiris, Charon, Hades a valkyria if you like) or like Alatar of Orome.
[/self proclaimed Tolkien scholar pain in the arse]
-
[self proclaimed Tolkien scholar pain in the arse]
Hrmm-hrmm... *sucks on pipe* Well, ACTUALLY... The Blue Wizards were called Alatar and Pallando. Alatar was a maia of Orome (a deity akin to Pan, Artemis or Oberon). Pallando was either a maia of Mandos (a deity like Osiris, Charon, Hades a valkyria if you like) or like Alatar of Orome.
[/self proclaimed Tolkien scholar pain in the arse]
I accept your self-proclaimed status. :) ;)
Please tell me the source of the names. 8) I couldn't think of where that might be found. :(
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Saruman in his heyday. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uGy3LlNeI
Superb!
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Please tell me the source of the names. 8) I couldn't think of where that might be found.
Why, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wizards). It makes you a scholar of everything. lol
I can proudly declare knowing that they're from Unfinished Tales. Pretty impressive, huh?
-
Are WorkerBee and Conquistador the same person? Seems highly unlikely that two completely different people would sign all their posts "Gracias, Glenn."
How queer.
-
The Book of Lost Tales I believe. Collection of JRR scripts edited by his son Christopher.
-
Looks like fairly vague and speculative scraping to me...
http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FAQ/What__are__the__names__of__the__BlueWizards
-
Being a huge fan of The Office didn't exactly help me either. Especially as Freeman plays a lot like his old character in some scenes.
Really, how's that? Should be interesting
It's amazing how far he's come sice then, he is good in everything I've seen him in so hoping it will be true for The Hobbit...
-
"Dwarves - good, but not enough characterisation"
I think they tend to blend together in the book as well, with a few exceptions. Mind you, haven't read it in long time and I might be misremembering. I think developing personalities in an ensemble film is important, but very hard to do.
I agree, plus with 13 it is hard to characterise them quickly enough in a film...
-
Are WorkerBee and Conquistador the same person? Seems highly unlikely that two completely different people would sign all their posts "Gracias, Glenn."
Perhaps, like Jackson's Gollum, it's a split personality... ;)
Either that, or Workerbee is a Conquistador tribute act :)
-
Are WorkerBee and Conquistador the same person? Seems highly unlikely that two completely different people would sign all their posts "Gracias, Glenn."
How queer.
Ah, an explanation is requested. Or at least a request for clarification is implied.
Please excuse the digression.
My agency has declared Yahoo and all the other normal ways I can link to LAM as a security or counter-intelligence risk. To access LAF I created a persona at work (WorkerBee) and - bingo - I can access LAF while "other stuff" is er, um... "processing."
Where there is a will there is a way.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Looks like fairly vague and speculative scraping to me...
http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FAQ/What__are__the__names__of__the__BlueWizards
Well, their names and background are apocryphal, to be sure, but there are huge amounts of scripts by JRRT detailing Middle Earth beside the books he published himself. So I am not sure what you mean by speculative. *I* certainly did not make those names up but if you prefer the cannon as defined by what books were published by JRRT, then no more is known than that they were called the Blue Wizards and travelled off the known map(as mentioned in the appendix). The posthumously published Silmarillion was not the version JRRT had put together but a version his son Christopher wrote. There was even the embryo to a sequel to tLotR. Letters written to various fans, friends and family also expand a bit on that universe.
Wikipedia has this to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wizards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wizards)
I made this diorama about ten years ago, based on a Mithril Miniature release of Alatar:
(http://www.tsome.com/ScenesFromME/Alatar/alatar_title.JPG)
-
I agree, plus with 13 it is hard to characterise them quickly enough in a film...
An additional burden with the media change, fer sure.
Though I had trouble the first time I read The Hobbit through to keep some of the less developed dwarf characters from blurring.
Gracias,
Glenn
(The original one) lol
Not that it matters... ::)
-
Had a look at the film last week,it was okay in part; as an JRRT 'fan' I found the fiddling around with story annoying (such as Dol Guldur* only being recently inhabited,when in fact Gandalf managed to get the key for the secret door from Thrain who was in Dol Guldur ! ). And the idea that Mirkwood had only just gone bad was just silly,buggers up all those maps and changes the whole context of the story amongst other things. And the script..."If you need me,I will come..." Need I say more. Oh yes I do lol Why was Azog in it? It could of at least been Bolg,and Elves,vegetarians... ! Rant over.
However the Troll and the Gollum scenes were very good,so maybe I'll see the next film,maybe? Most people seem to have thought it pretty good,so I guess that makes me in the minority and an bit of a tragic :D
* It was in fact taken over in 1050,Thorin's company passed through Mirkwood in 2941, a period of 1891 years between events >:(
-
An additional burden with the media change, fer sure.
Though I had trouble the first time I read The Hobbit through to keep some of the less developed dwarf characters from blurring.
Gracias,
Glenn
(The original one) lol
Not that it matters... ::)
Quite, but I thought that was part of Mr T's plan esp considering the similarity in the names - the idea of the Dwarven unit working together selflessly with one leader... an effcient team.
-
Did anyone else notice that they have made Dori a bit dainty, almost camp, in this version of the film? I wonder if they intended for him to be a lady dwarf.
-
Not very impressed with the whole affair, to be honest. I've calmed down somewhat now, but I vented my spleen in a rather hysterical fashion on my blog here (http://drumsdeep.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-hobbit-film-rant.html). If you read it you'll appreciate that I'm not especially interested in seeing the sequels.
-
Did anyone else notice that they have made Dori a bit dainty, almost camp, in this version of the film? I wonder if they intended for him to be a lady dwarf
Can't say, I was sorta expecting they'd do a gender swap on one them tho. I was also hoping they'd hire Cecily Fay to play the role, tho she wouldn't have been such a pussy I'm sure :P
Many of the dwarves are more than a little campy. It still works with Bofur (OK so he mostly just has an atrocious accent and a silly hat for camp value) because James Nesbitt gets a chance to also make him an actual character but the likes of Dori and Bombur seem to be there only to act silly and get into pratfalls.
-
Let's face it: in the novel you can't really distinguish between any of the dwarves: they are all portrait as simpletons, clueless and clumsy. In fact, if Tolkien didn't mention once in a while that there are 13 of them we would just plain forget about them. Or does any of you remember without checking which color Bifur's hat was? There is no character development in any of them and Bombur is in there for comic relief (of course it had to be him falling into the enchanted stream and dwarves grumbling about carrying the fattest of them through the woods). So what did you expect? How can you differentiate between 13 dwarves that are virtually interchangable as characters in a movie? I think they have done a rather great job to help the viewer distinguish between the dwarves.
Yes, they have a tendency to have too little facial hair - but then again Thorin is introduced as a still fairly young dwarf prince - and he and Fili are the eye candy for the ladies. So less beard. Absolutely understandable from a movie makers point of view.
As to the beard style of the other dwarves: in a society where beards are so important there is probably going to be a variety of beard styles in fashion. Just think about hair style of our society. I don't like all of those beards and some are too short for my taste but it's a legitimate way of reading dwarves.
I agree that PJ has a way of going over the top with dramatic pictures. It's still entertaining to me. And remember, this is not the book. It's the film: a completely different medium and an interpretation by somebody who hasn't written the book. A book which; I have to admit even though I am a complete Tolkien nerd, I found not that great as a teenager and still find rather tedious today. I hated the childish atmosphere of the story and the movie has to balance between this childishness and trying to tie the book into the more grim LotR background to make it fit to those moves without completely losing the Hobbit's lighter tone.
All in all it was an enjoyable movie and even though I didn't like all the changes in the story and found some of the design questionable it is still a great adventure movie with plenty of action.
-
I agree totally, Doomhippie. Well, not quite totally, I don't find the book tedious at all. I though the movie had its flaws, but was still a very enjoyable retelling of the tale in a different medium.
-
I just saw the movie this weekend, and I reread the book in the fall. I am not a Tolkien nut although I have read the quadrilogy a few times. When I see a film adapted from a book I always give the movie room to breathe.
I really loved certain aspects of this film, even some of the additions like the white council, and others not so much (Radagast).
My major issue was that Jackson seemed to miss out on some of the aspects of pacing and style. The fight sequences were cartoony and unrealistic. Some of the characterizations were a miss as well. I didn't like the characterization of the dwarves. A little comedy is welcome, but stupidity is just boring. The Hobbit should be a much quieter film, it's not Return of the King, and that's okay.
This is going to sound crazy but it felt to me like the movie had less heart.
Last but not least why three films? The story could easily be finished in two. How many slurpee cups do we need?
Just my opinion.
-
Today is the day I see it.
Getting prepared now.
One funnel
One length of hose
One recepticle for the catching of urine
One hip flask of vodka
One taser (for helping the 7' tall guy with an afro who always seems to sit infront of me decide to sit somewhere else.)
Ok now I am ready for a 3 hour movie with no intermission.
3D or 2D?
Gracias,
Glenn'
-
Let's face it: in the novel you can't really distinguish between any of the dwarves: they are all portrait as simpletons, clueless and clumsy. In fact, if Tolkien didn't mention once in a while that there are 13 of them we would just plain forget about them
I agree completely. I suppose Tolkien was making some sort of a private joke when he doubled the traditional 7 dwarves into 14 (well one of which was a Hobbit because they apparently couldn't find one more dwarf) and then didn't know how to run with it. The sad thing is that...
How can you differentiate between 13 dwarves that are virtually interchangable as characters in a movie? I think they have done a rather great job to help the viewer distinguish between the dwarves
... the Hobbit movie team couldn't really pull it off in a way that has any real point either -- something like half of them are still excess package. Maybe they'll get something to do in the rest of the trilogy tho but I wouldn't bet on that, given how much time PJ seems to want to devote to overblown action scenes.
-
I don't really see why all the dwarfs need 'personalities' (or, rather, stupid hairdos). In fact trying to do so does and will compromise the 'flow' of the films. Bring a few to the fore and leave the rest as dressing.
'Do you think they have chips?'
Jesus...
I am now going to shut my trap viz. 'The Hobbit: At World's End'.
-
I don't really see why all the dwarfs need 'personalities' (or, rather, stupid hairdos). In fact trying to do so does and will compromise the 'flow' of the films. Bring a few to the fore and leave the rest as dressin
Sure they could've had a bunch of redshirt dwarf troopers to bulk up the adventurer party. But I don't think that's how they are intended to be in the source material and in the case of good old professor T, you always get hard flak when messing with the source material.
-
Let's face it: in the novel you can't really distinguish between any of the dwarves: they are all portrait as simpletons, clueless and clumsy. <snip>
What book did you read?
Clumsy? I would like to know where they are represented as clumsy. Bilbo complains about dwarvish racket but the JRRT points out that normal people would not have noticed their passing. It's noisier than a hobbit but most everyone is in the book.
Clueless? Gandalf likes to make everyone look a bit foolish (personality flaw) by surprising them with information only he has acquired.
Simpletons? All of them? Please.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
What book did you read?
Clumsy? I would like to know where they are represented as clumsy. Bilbo complains about dwarvish racket but the JRRT points out that normal people would not have noticed their passing. It's noisier than a hobbit but most everyone is in the book.
Clueless? Gandalf likes to make everyone look a bit foolish (personality flaw) by surprising them with information only he has acquired.
Simpletons? All of them? Please.
Well, I might be bit harsh but let me see: a bunch of tough dwarves setting out on a perilious journey through the wild to reclaim their old treasure guarded by a dragon. Only... they forgot their weapons. Thorin has to use a branch from the fire to fight the trolls... Where were their axes?
The troll scene: hm, one dwarf goes to investigate, doesn't return, another single dwarf goes off, doesen't return etc. Even village idiots would have the sense to come in force. In Mirkwood they are tumbling about in the darkness without any strategy to make sure they are all there, there's no trying to hold hands, no signalling except to shout names and run off in whatever direction and getting caught by spiders.
There is no single moment when the dwarves are willing or able to come to a decision on how to proceed with the adventure. I call that clueless. There is absolutely no character development in any of them.
Clumsy as in all dwarves fall on Bilbos doormat (sorry, you can't just push open somebody's door), Bombur falling into the river, they are more a troop of handicapped people in the wood ( I know, spider poison, but of course it had to happen to all the dwarves thus underlining the clumsy aspect). Dwarvish racket in the dragon's lair. Okay, we know that hobbit's are especially good at sneaking but this drastic choice of words (racket) leaves us with a very good idea as to the amount of noise they make (after all, Tolkien doesn't write "occasional sounds of footsteps, muffled breathing etc." but speaks of racket). Even if that is only compared to Bilbo it is the word he uses.
So all in all the dwarves are one continous catastrophe: unprepared, unable to learn and hopelessly lost without either Gnadalf or Bilbo taking care of them. I thought they were presented in a lot more positive way in the movie.
As to the tedious book... well, I exaggerated. It's a sweet little book but honestly not one that really made me want to get into fantasy. Okay, I have to admit I've read the LotR before I read the Hobbit and it's really tough standing up next to that one. And honestly I had my problems taking the book serious with those silly dwarves in it.
I'm not trying to sing a hymn to PJ's movie but I personally find he gives the dwarves even in their rediulous design a lot more dignity than the book does. But that's of course just my opinion.
-
You do know it's a story primarily for children? Hence the tone and the antics.
-
I saw it yesterday in 3D 48fps. Didn't need to be in 3D but the 48fps was interesting.
I'm a Tolkien purist so I was very nervous. I actually somewhat enjoyed the film.
There were scenes that were fairly accurate and others (Radagast) that were entirely made up but for the purpose of advancing the story somewhat did an ok job. I guess once I have seen this trilogy then I can comment overall on the actual story but currentlythe first third was ok.
I will say that the pursuit through Goblin Town was eeriely similar to the pursuit through Moria, albiet longer.
I was initially appalled by the character design of the dwarves but it has perhaps grown on me and in the chaos of the movie (Goblin Town, running from Wargs etc) the individualized dwarves are easy to pick out. Although beardless dwarves still irk me.
I think this movie will grow on me and the glaring errors/made up scenes will fade as they (mostly) did with the LOTR trilogy.
-
You do know it's a story primarily for children? Hence the tone and the antics.
Certainly. But the movie is not so there is bound to be a huge discrepancy between book and movie. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the movie was rather entertaining for me and turned out to be better than I feared.
-
still did not see it. It's the 2.5 hour length thats the killer.
I usually have to watch a film in 2 parts these days because i fall asleep all the time due to this shithouse medication I am on. Finding a part of the day I will manage to stay awake for 2.5 hours that collides with the screen times is impossible. Add to that the zero toilet trip manifesto and not being able to smoke anything in the cinema all adds to the suckage.
Being a non smoker myself, one of the things I loved the most about going to the movies with my wife, was that we could actually see a complete movie without having to stop all the time to have smoke breaks.
Now she quit smoking, so no problems about that anymore.
:D
-
The better half and I saw it week and a half ago. We saw it on the IMAX 3D HFR 48 FPS the big deal version. I was not impressed with it. And the 48FPS didn't bother me, it was the 3D part that we didn't like. It is our first 3D and most likely our last. And this form the GF badgering me on the way to the movie when i said i didn't want to deal with the 3d versions of movies and not being a good thing. Her telling me i have to try new things. She didn't have much to say after the movie though since she hated the same things i did. The action scene were blurry and the glasses or the screen or something just couldn't keep up. I know i missed a lot of good scenes because of it.
As for the movie itself, good and bad. I went in knowing ahead of time that the haters and lovers will affect my thoughts on the movie. I went in ahead of time with this mentality but i still liked the movie. I might even love it once i can watch it with non blurred action scenes. :-)
Grimm
-
While, I'm no Tolkien scholar I think the number of Dwarves might come from Beowulf? When he goes off to fight the Dragon, I think he has 12 or 13 companions? Considering that Tolkien drew heavily on the poem for the Hobbit, I think it is at least a possibility.
-
I think the magic number of 12 companions may well be one of those 'archetypes-of-all-mythology-ever-written-the-world-over'...
See Jesus and 12 disciples, etc...
-
Yay managed to see it tonight in glorious 2D - this time the projector didn't break down!! Thoroughly enjoyed it and eagerly await the next instalment. Didn't care that it didn't follow the book, it's Jackson, it's Middle Earth, Orcs, Goblins, Gandalf, Sword & Sorcery.......nuff said.
-
While, I'm no Tolkien scholar I think the number of Dwarves might come from Beowulf? When he goes off to fight the Dragon, I think he has 12 or 13 companions? Considering that Tolkien drew heavily on the poem for the Hobbit, I think it is at least a possibility.
The names of the dwarves are a direct copy from the old icelandic edda. But I think in that work the names were those of humans.
-
Just saw it, and must say wasn't that thrilled. A good film but after the very positive reviews here I was a little let down, perhaps I expected too much.
It was nicely made, but so clearly strung out to make three films. The Gollum scence was great, perhaps because it was one of the few parts which stuck to the source material. I thinked the Great Goblin but thought him wasted a little. And the CGI on the Pale Orc didn't seem quite right.
Radagast was prehaps the most dissapointing aspect 5I've never been big on Mr McCoy either).
I think the biggest problem is that is lacks strong leads little Aragorn and Boromir from the LOTR, and that of course it is childrens bedtime story rather than an "epic" but at least there weren't any wizards livibg under the stairs). And of course most of the dwarves look funny and some of the comic value seemed a little lost from book to screen, or changed perhaps.
I will be happy watch the next two which I am sure will be better (though in many ways Fellowship was the best of the LOTR). It does seem strange how he cut the first books to pieces and then add a look of unneeded stuff here, I guess that's the industry. Perhaps he can remake the first films into 6?
I had to leave earlier (problem of a late start and a train to catch) so I'd be happy if someone could PM me what happens (though I can pretty much guess).
I hope the best is yet to come.
-
The action scene were blurry and the glasses or the screen or something just couldn't keep up. I know i missed a lot of good scenes because of it.
Grimm
Same here, and even more annoying is I have the wear the goggles for nothing because 3D doesn't work for me....
-
Didn't care that it didn't follow the book, it's Jackson, it's Middle Earth, Orcs, Goblins, Gandalf, Sword & Sorcery.......nuff said.
That's true and it reminded me how much I want to live in the shire....
-
Finally, after the Fellowship I rushed to re-read my JJRT collection (yet) again and this film hasn't had the same impact...
-
Finally, after the Fellowship I rushed to re-read my JJRT collection (yet) again and this film hasn't had the same impact...
That is perfectly okay. Lucky me, though, as my wife for the first time in her life should a little interest in fantasy after watching the Hobbit. She even asked me, if she could have alook at the book (though of course she will never admit to that publicly so... shhhh... I didn't tell ya.
-
Ah Ha, it's a slippery slope she's gonna be a... gamer!
I have placed the book by my bed so perhaps I'll kick off soon
-
I didn't care for the Radagast parts on bit. They were too goofy, and the addition of a certain viscous substance on his head.... Well that was the icing on the shite cake. I do like Sylvester McCoy, and I think that made the portrayal of Radagast even more disappointing to me.
Radagast was prehaps the most dissapointing aspect 5I've never been big on Mr McCoy either).
-
I didn't care for the Radagast parts on bit. They were too goofy, and the addition of a certain viscous substance on his head.... Well that was the icing on the shite cake. I do like Sylvester McCoy, and I think that made the portrayal of Radagast even more disappointing to me.
I see your point. At first I was really put off by the way Radagast was presented. I'm still not really happy about it but find this interpretation both daring and in an odd way charming. I've always depicted him as being more like Gandalf or Saruman: a lot more awe inspiring. He actually comes close to how I thpught Tom Bombadil would be like. However I like the way his real power is only hinted at and he hiding that behind this absurd posture.
-
I found this picture of Radagast on a google search and this is much more like I would have wanted him to look like... I guess that he might have been portraid this way at first and they changed him later in the process.
(http://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/archive/9/93/20121028110432!Radagast_and_Gandalf.jpg)
-
I watched the movie just under a week ago and frankly cannot remember much about it. I think the only standout for me was the Goblin town bit. I don't think I will sit through another two movies.
-
I found this picture of Radagast on a google search and this is much more like I would have wanted him to look like... I guess that he might have been portraid this way at first and they changed him later in the process.
(http://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/archive/9/93/20121028110432!Radagast_and_Gandalf.jpg)
Okay, yes, I admit that's a lot more how I pictured him. Not in every detail but overall very close.
-
Parh
-
Perhaps that was part of Del Toro's pre-production work?
-
I'll have to admit that I'm not a fan of LotR stuff in general, but of all the books I think the Hobbit is the best one. Film-wise, I thought this one was way too long and drawn out to be all that enjoyable, even though it looked very nice. To be fair, that was pretty much my opinion before I had even stepped into the theatre, but the gf wanted to see it. However, after we walked out of the theatre, it was an opinion she agreed with.
There's simply no need for this story to be a trilogy...other than the fact that the studio can make three-times the amount of money on ticket sales. I won't be bothering with any follow-up films.
-
I see no chance to do it as a one film thing - unless you leave out at least half of the dwarves and any r&r scenes like Elrond's house, Beorn, Lake-Town. And that would end up being as crappy as the 1977 adaptation (sorry, I know lots of you love it but they left out so many things I hardly realized it was the Hobbit).
So two movie minimum if you want to have any character play in it. Okay, two movies would be enough - unless you want to tie the Hobbit together with the LotR movies (which becomes rather obvious in the very beginning of the Hobbit). For that storyline you will need another movie.
I don't see any of the Middle-Earth movies as individual movies. They aren't stand alone movies. I personally love that but then again I can see what bugs people who "just want to see a movie on a Saturday night" (and I mean that in a very positive way).