The Hobbit

[Flintlock]

I didn't think the film was particularly great. Maybe 7/10. About an hour too long and too similar to the Lord of the Rings films in the way it was directed, which made me feel like I'd seen it before.

 

[Kuroto]

sorry, maybe I wrote wrong my question. I know who is Elros, but I can't see how can he appear in both "the desolation of Smaug" and "There and back again".
he's dead 5500 years ago (more or less), so why does he appear during the Quest of Erebor and the fight with the Necromancer?

I'm quite sure he's going to be part of those scenes that light the history of Middle-Earth. In what way they will be tied to the story remains to be seen.

I went to see the Hobbit for the second time with Flint and Monterosa in 2D. I have to say that I probably enjoyed watching it even more than the first time I saw it. I still think seeing it in HFR made me feel like I was a part of the story, but otherwise I didn't miss it that much.

Looking forward to see it again, which I'm sure I will. 8)

 

[Cthulhu]

I just watched it, woo

Overall general summarized non-tl;dr review: good.

Longer: Overall, good movie, do recommend.

First rant: the recurring characters - mainly Gandalf and Saruman - look a bit odd at first; Gandalf's first appearance makes him look... just weird, but then, what he looks and 'feels' like in the LotR movies has been seriously imprinted upon my brain and things. During that period though, the actor's aged ten years, and I believe they've sorta tried to make him look younger. Later on in the movie he looks more like I remember Gandalf though <3.

They kinda went overboard with Saruman though; they tried to make him look younger; less white beard, remove the wrinkles of the actor that also gained ten years, but... the bags under his eyes apparently couldn't be removed, . I wouldn't have minded if they made him look exactly like he did in the LotR movies.

A lot of parts were... well, I can't think of the right word, so I'll just abuse the word 'campy'. Other bits were 'trying too hard', I think, and didn't feel natural, and other bits did their very best to emulate the LotR movies almost exactly (probably the most striking would be

Spoiler

Gandalf giving a ring to the eagles

, all the way down to the music). Speaking of music, they mainly used melodies from the LotR movies in appropriate areas, with the 'misty mountains' song added to a lot of scenes. It's kinda like FF games, really, with music matching the type of scenes frequently.

A criticism I've heard / read about a few times is that they've overly stretched the movie out, turning it into tl;dr - this was my main worry about the movie, but when I watched it myself it wasn't that bad actually; never in the movie I thought it was taking too long or they were adding filler. The subplot about

Spoiler

the Necromancer[/url] doesn't distract from the main plot too much, and looks like it'll be interesting - if only because it's a part of the LotR universe I didn't know about before.

Also, Gollum and Serkis' performance is perfect, my precious. That scene is probably the best in the movie. Also points for the

Spoiler

Goblin king

, he was funnay . Also trolls.

I can't think of anything else at the moment. Well, other than that I still don't like 3D (I think it was 'regular' 3D, not 48 FPS 3D) and would've preferred plain old 2D - pretty sure that either 3D technology just doesn't work, or I need glasses. Also, the small cinema room was hot and the beer is way overpriced. Should bring more concealed beer of my own next time.

 

[Tennyo]

Just saw this. It started out kind of slow but overall was enjoyable.

But OMG Martin Freeman as Bilbo is perfection. <3

 

[Captain Jack Harkness]

; Gandalf's first appearance makes him look... just weird, but then, what he looks and 'feels' like in the LotR movies has been seriously imprinted upon my brain and things. During that period though, the actor's aged ten years, and I believe they've sorta tried to make him look younger. Later on in the movie he looks more like I remember Gandalf though <3.

more or less my first reaction, but you have to add the fact that Gandalf's italian dub is different because the old dubber is dead.

and about Saruman, my brother says that he act like "a nagging old man"


Yop, you should edit your post because you left some open spoiler

 

[Cthulhu]

Yop, you should edit your post because you left some open spoiler

I was drunk, . Also, no u to voice actors. Why change a perfectly good voice? This makes me sadfeisu.

Speaking of Bilbo, old!bilbo also had the make-up thing going on to make the actor look younger, . Funny how making people look older seems to be much better doable than the other way around.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

A lot of parts were... well, I can't think of the right word, so I'll just abuse the word 'campy'. Other bits were 'trying too hard', I think, and didn't feel natural, and other bits did their very best to emulate the LotR movies almost exactly (probably the most striking would be

Spoiler

Gandalf giving a ring to the eagles

, all the way down to the music).

Spoiler

To be fair, though, that part was in the book. If they hadn't gone with the eagle rescue, we longtime fans would have been offended.

Glad to hear you enjoyed it overall, though.

 

[Cthulhu]

It's been forever since I read the book, but yeah, I do recall a handful of recurring things in both the Hobbit and LotR, so, .

 

[Cthulhu]

linkdump: http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-...arillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.UOjLuW81l8E

tl;dr: first and afaik only interview with Christopher Tolkien. From what I gather, the Hobbit and LotR were only a small fraction of what Tolkien came up with; the rest is a rather disorganized bundle of stuff, which Christopher has somewhat managed to publish in books over the years. Christopher is 87 years old though, I don't think he'd be able to keep on going for much longer.

 

[Tetsujin]

I think I had linked to that a while ago when the subject of possibly adapting other stuff came up.
Christopher Tolkien's stance is very much "no u".

 

[Cthulhu]

And yet he doesn't seem like a bad guy, just very protective of his dad's stuff, disorganized and random as it may be, .

 

[Obsidian Fire]

I read the book over Christmas vacation. Some of my thoughts about it and the movie.

Spoiler

It became apparent to me just how obvious it is that Tolkien made The Hobbit up as he went. In the Hobbit, Tolkien says he doesn't know how Gollem got the Ring, or how he got into the mountains. Also, Sting and the other swords are from Gondoloin (sp?) ... only from what later stuff was written (Silmarilion), I find that very far-fetched.

The dwarves get more character development in the movie then in the book. TBH, in the book, all the dwarves are general background characters for Biblo's character development. We get a few throw-away details about them, but that's it. I really didn't get a feel for who they were as characters until they get to the Lone Mountain. And then the book ends. That said, I didn't fell like the dwarves were out of character in the movie either.

Mirkwood. I have a feeling this is why the movie makes such a big deal about food as it's kinda hard to show what "running out of food" looks like when most eating in meals is done off-screen. Also, I'm really interested in how the elves of Mirkwood are going to portrayed, especially as they live in caves and the elven king mentioned through all of this is Legolas's father. The Mirkwood elves kinda get a bad rap in The Hobbit.

Gandalf's absence (while he and the White Council fought Saroun) was as annoying as I remember it being, especially as Tolkien tells us what he's thinking while he's away, while at the same time saying that what Gandalf's doing isn't important for the story. I'm really happy we'll be seeing what went on.

The only really jarring change I saw was that in the book, Gandalf got the map and key from Thorin's dad in the dungeons of the Necromancer. I'm wondering how they'll explain that as in the movie Gandalf doesn't know about the Necromancer until Radagast told him.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Spoiler

The only really jarring change I saw was that in the book, Gandalf got the map and key from Thorin's dad in the dungeons of the Necromancer. I'm wondering how they'll explain that as in the movie Gandalf doesn't know about the Necromancer until Radagast told him.

Spoiler

I'm curious as to how they'll explain this as well, though I think they gave us a Gandalf with less knowledge for these films to 1) keep the segments focused on him more interesting, 2) emphasize the sense of foreboding and dread (e.g. Sauron's return to power happens in a few decades as opposed to over the course of a millenium), and 3) make the White Council look less like blundering fools with their hands in their pockets (Gandalf finally confirmed his suspicions about the Necromancer being Sauron a full 90 years before the Wise made a move against him to drive him from Dol Guldur).

 

[Obsidian Fire]

No kidding, the White Council could have moved a lot faster in the books. Although when said council is made up of individuals that have been alive for more then 10 millennia, 90 years probably doesn't seem that long.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Spoiler: Well you can see...

Gandalf IN Dol Guldur as well as him encountering totally crazy Thrain II in the trailers. Since he's got Glamdring at this point, this clearly takes place when they're in Mirkwood, and it isn't a flashback so far as I can determine. I'm assuming that they're going to have explained that Thrain II had given Gandalf the Key/Map for safe keeping beforehand, as a way to thematically build up the threat of the Necromancer. They could POSSIBLY hint at later things here as well, since Sauron does take back the last of the Dwarves' Rings of Power from Thrain II while he's a prisoner in Dol Guldur.

I think that building the idea that the Necromancer is actually in close proximity to the Elves, and showing how tainted Mirkwood has become under his influence is key into establishing the Power of the Necromancer in a film format, and doing this while the Dwarves are here gives reason for Gandalf to have come there, too. Essentially, it looks like a little bit of timeline re-jiggering to build the events in a more effective thematic format. I'm also hoping that we get a little bit of mythology built up for Shelob (aside from Radagast's mention of the spawn of Ungoliant) when they encounter the spiders.

X

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Also, via tumblr: Gloin's Locket & Dwarven ladies.



X

 

[Cthulhu]

I approve of women with moar epic beards than most beard-wearing dudes,

 

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Legolas:"who is this ugly creatur?"
Gimli is not amused

 

[Ghost X]

I'm going to see this movie tomorrow. Rain, hail, or shine. That is unless I die, or something.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I'm going to see this movie tomorrow. Rain, hail, or shine. That is unless I die, or something.

In which case it would be rain, hell or shine, amirite?

 

[Ghost X]

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Today's fun Hobbit fact is brought to you by tumblr: What were Thorin & Dwalin whispering about in Rivendell?



X

 

[Cthulhu]

Some scenes in a lot of movies were just pure chance / not even 'live', . Viggo famously broke his toe during this scene, making it only a better scene, .

 

[Ghost X]

Okay, so I saw the film in 3D. It has a completely different look and feel than the original trilogy. Hard for me to describe. Very high resolution or something. So crisp. Maybe it has something to do with the frame rate. This was the only bad thing, but it didn't distract me.

Movie easily gets 4/5 stars from me.

Spoiler

Favourite part would have to be the scenes involving Gollum. I had to restrain myself from laughing aloud.

 

[Cthulhu]

If it looked very crisp - almost as if you were in the movie studio, it looked like a play, you could see the sets and makeup and shit - it was most likely the high-FPS version.