Search forums

Forums

Export thread

THE HOBBIT

Limit: 500

Mar 21, 2011#1

checkeredhat

http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b231946_hobbit_finally_begins_filming_peter.html#ixzz1HG2viQj7

...principal photography did indeed start today at the Stone Street Studios in Wellington, New Zealand...

Pics or it didn't happen!

... ...with director Peter Jackson himself taking a moment to post pics to his Facebook page from the film's set.

http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b231946_hobbit_finally_begins_filming_peter.html#ixzz1HG2viQj7
Oh, I guess it did happen then

Mar 21, 2011#2

sixpackshaker

Well, he is just standing in front of a Green Screen of a Hobbit Hole. I don't see Bilbo anywhere.

Mar 21, 2011#3

checkeredhat

I'm actually pretty sure that he's on set. I think the background might be a green screen or a matte painting, but in the other photo he posted, he's clearly sitting on set.

Anyway, yeah it doesn't actually prove anything. Could just be to dispel rumours/ remind people that this movie is still being made. But I'm still excited.

Mar 21, 2011#4

sixpackshaker

I know it is being made, but I have to pull people's legs every once in a while.

Mar 22, 2011#5

Philosopher B.

Joy: I am filled with it.

Mar 22, 2011#6

Jay

Fuuuuuuuuc yeah

Mar 22, 2011#7

makare

Yay at the movie
Woah at how creepy he looks now. Yikes.

Mar 22, 2011#8

Baerdog

Who is this thin guy and what did he do with Peter Jackson?

Also, hooray for The Hobbit.

Mar 23, 2011#9

sixpackshaker

I'll have to patiently wait until part 2 to see Smaug.

Mar 26, 2011#10

Mathias

makare said:
Yay at the movie
Woah at how creepy he looks now. Yikes.

I think he's looking pretty good, and much less slob like.

Mar 26, 2011#11

Hailey Knight

It was creepy first seeing him shrunken, but now that I'm used to it, I agree with Mathias.

Mar 26, 2011#12

checkeredhat

I actually think he looks a lot better now than he did on King Kong when her first lost all the weight (Why does nobody remember that?). He was really.... saggy then. Looks like he's bulked up a bit and filled in his frame again a bit now.

May 21, 2011#13

checkeredhat

Stephen Fry joins the cast!
From Peter Jackson's Facebook:

We are thrilled to confirm that Stephen Fry will be playing The Master of Laketown. I've known Stephen for several years, and we're developing a DAMBUSTERS movie together. In addition to his writing skills, he's a terrific actor and will create a very memorable Master for us.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/casting-news-for-the-hobbit/10150257180211558

May 22, 2011#14

Philosopher B.

I am definitely going to have to re-read The Hobbit again, because I cannot for the life of me remember who in the blue blazes the Master of Laketown is. But Stephen Fry rules, so I guess FUCK YEAH?

May 22, 2011#15

sixpackshaker

hint.

Cowardly Bastard that ran instead of leading the defenses against Smaug.

May 22, 2011#16

checkeredhat

I NEVER POSTED THIS VIDEO?!
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments

May 30, 2011#17

figmentPez

The two movies now have names!

The first one is called The Lord of the Rings Begins: The Hobbit: Rise of Gollum and the second is called The Lord of the Rings Begins: The Hobbit: Attack of the Five Armies

The two movies come out Dec 14, 2012 and Dec 13, 2013

They're really going to be The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again.

May 30, 2011#18

Wasabi Poptart

I want to know how they are working Legolas into The Hobbit.

May 30, 2011#19

Espy

I believe the second movie bridges the Hobbit and the LOTR's Wasabi. So he probably won't be in the first Hobbit, just the second.

May 30, 2011#20

Allen who is Quiet

Legolas is one of the sons of the king of Mirkwood.

May 30, 2011#21

Espy

Well there you go.

May 30, 2011#22

Jay

checkeredhat said:
I NEVER POSTED THIS VIDEO?!
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments

Fantastic.

Thank you.

May 30, 2011#23

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
The two movies now have names!

The two movies come out Dec 14, 2012 and Dec 13, 2013

They're really going to be The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again.

Those release dates can't be real. Can they? 2012 will see The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and the first Hobbit film? And here I thought 2011 was a fun film year.

I really hope all that's said is true and that The Hobbit will be one film and the bridging material will be the second, as was the intent while del Toro was going to be directing. I don't want to see The Hobbit divided up.
Added at: 23:10

checkeredhat said:
I NEVER POSTED THIS VIDEO?!
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments

Oh, and thanks for posting this. Cool to see the sets again, and those playing the dwarfs sitting around the table. I grinned when I saw Ian McKellen sitting there.

Jul 23, 2011#24

Hailey Knight

The Dwarfs of the Lonely Mountain:

I should probably see less of this stuff, because I want to have surprises and excitement left for when the movie comes out at the end of 2012.

Jul 23, 2011#25

Espy

SO EXCITED.

Jul 23, 2011#26

Philosopher B.

And you just can't hide it?

Jul 23, 2011#27

Espy

I'm about to lose control and I think... I think I like it.

Jul 23, 2011#28

figmentPez

Oh yeah.

Jul 23, 2011#29

Shegokigo

Espy said:
I'm about to lose control and I think... I think I like it.

Lost control a long time ago. I'm still enjoying it....

Jul 23, 2011#30

Espy

Shegokigo said:
Lost control a long time ago. I'm still enjoying it....

You and the Pointer Sisters

Jul 24, 2011#31

Just Me

Espy said:
You and the Pointer Sisters

Might also include Scissor Sisters, amirite?

And I'm also expecting great things from The Hobbit, in a totally different way then above quotation...

Dec 20, 2011#32

evilmike

Dec 20, 2011#33

checkeredhat

Dec 20, 2011#34

Hailey Knight

Just posted in the trailer thread; totally forgot we had a thread for it on its own.

Looks fantastic

. This is a much less grim story overall than LOTR, even if it's serious to some of the characters, and I've been looking forward to it.

Though now I'm confused over how the movies are being split, since all we're seeing is Misty Mountains, Rivendell, trolls--nothing of Mirkwood or the Lonely Mountain. I thought the second movie was going to be a new story taking place between Hobbit and LOTR. I'm hoping that's the case, because I'd rather we have one single solid Hobbit movie, and that they just didn't put that later stuff in the first trailer.

Dec 20, 2011#35

Officer_Charon

This... is looking MAGNIFICENT

Dec 20, 2011#36

ThatNickGuy

There ain't enough "want" in the world to do this movie justice.

Dec 20, 2011#37

checkeredhat

Quotemander Prime said:
Just posted in the trailer thread; totally forgot we had a thread for it on its own.

Looks fantastic . This is a much less grim story overall than LOTR, even if it's serious to some of the characters, and I've been looking forward to it.

Though now I'm confused over how the movies are being split, since all we're seeing is Misty Mountains, Rivendell, trolls--nothing of Mirkwood or the Lonely Mountain. I thought the second movie was going to be a new story taking place between Hobbit and LOTR. I'm hoping that's the case, because I'd rather we have one single solid Hobbit movie, and that they just didn't put that later stuff in the first trailer.

I was under the impression that they werre actually splitting the Hobbit into two parts. I think there's enough material to make that work, I'm unsure of the pacing though. Where could they split it to give us two satisfying stories, I wonder? My guess would be that the first movie ends when they escape from the Misty Mountains, leaving Mirkwood and the giant spiders, Smaug, and the battle of Five Armies all for the second movie.

Dec 20, 2011#38

Hailey Knight

checkeredhat said:
I was under the impression that they werre actually splitting the Hobbit into two parts. I think there's enough material to make that work, I'm unsure of the pacing though. Where could they split it to give us two satisfying stories, I wonder? My guess would be that the first movie ends when they escape from the Misty Mountains, leaving Mirkwood and the giant spiders, Smaug, and the battle of Five Armies all for the second movie.

There's enough material, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing for a movie to do. Books and movies work differently and I see no reason they couldn't give us a good three-hour Hobbit movie that told the whole story. Honestly, if you chop the Hobbit in half, not a lot seems to really have happened when you get to the end of the Misty Mountains stuff. The Hobbit really picks up narrative traction once Bilbo has the ring and starts impressing the dwarfs--to save all that for the second movie along seems like bad planning.

I really hope they just do the Hobbit in one go and do something else for part two, but looking at IMDB, I think your prediction will be what happens, and I think it's a shame to do that to what's really a simple adventure.

Dec 20, 2011#39

ThatNickGuy

It's possible they might expand from the original book using some of the ancillary material from other works of Tolkein. Personall, I'm on the side of the fence that feels that The Hobbit doesn't need to be split into two movies. Feels like a giant, unneeded money-grab by the studio, personally.

Dec 20, 2011#40

Shegokigo

Personally I see it as the opportunity to flesh out the story further. I'm all for it.

Two Hobbit Movies: Extended Editions + My LotR Extended editions = *melt*

Dec 20, 2011#41

Sparhawk

For the trailer:

Dec 20, 2011#42

Hailey Knight

ThatNickGuy said:
It's possible they might expand from the original book using some of the ancillary material from other works of Tolkein. Personall, I'm on the side of the fence that feels that The Hobbit doesn't need to be split into two movies. Feels like a giant, unneeded money-grab by the studio, personally.

Which then sounds to me like they're going to shove a bunch of grim shit in between set pieces of The Hobbit. *sigh*

And I say all this while being thrilled by the trailer and excited for the movie.

Dec 20, 2011#43

checkeredhat

Normally I agree, but I think the Hobbit is a bit of a weird story, in that I can't see it working in 3 hours, but 4 would be too much for one film, so my hope is it will be two movies of decent length, 2-2.5hrs each. There isn't enough for two 3hour films unless they really pad it. I see it as not enough for two films but too much for one.

Film one- Prologue with Frodo and Bilbo, intro to the adventure, Trolls, Rivendell, Orcs, Gollum.
After the Misty Mountains, they get lost in Mirkwood, fight giant spiders, the Council of wizards gather and dispel Sauron from Mirkwood, The company of dwarves is captured by elves and held prisoner, Bilbo escapes, then they actually get into the mountain a coupld of times before it actually pisses Smaug off enough to attack, then you've got the Battle of Five Armies still after that, followed by Bilbo's trip back, and probably some Epilogue stuff with he and Frodo.
Looking at that trailer though, it looks like they're pulling from some of the unfinished tales as well, like how Gandalf came into the company of the dwarves, and there's a scene there with he and Galadriel that makes me wonder if they'll explain a bit more about the three elf rings.
I'm curious if they'll do the council of wizards. I imagine they'd have to, but I know Christopher Lee was not happy with Sauruman's treatment in the Lord of the Rings movies, and so I doubt they got him back.
Added at: 04:40

Dec 20, 2011#44

Shannow

Tip the glasses, crack the plates!

Dec 20, 2011#45

Gryfter

Woot!

Dec 20, 2011#46

Reverent-one

checkeredhat said:
I'm curious if they'll do the council of wizards. I imagine they'd have to, but I know Christopher Lee was not happy with Sauruman's treatment in the Lord of the Rings movies, and so I doubt they got him back.
Added at: 04:40

He was in one of the on set diary's or whatever they called them in his Saruman getup, so I wouldn't be sure of that.

EDIT: And he's listed on IMDB as Saruman, for what that's worth.

Shannow said:
Tip the glasses, crack the plates!

Blunt the knives and bend the forks!

Dec 20, 2011#47

Hailey Knight

Christopher Lee's also on the IMDB as Saruman.

Dec 20, 2011#48

checkeredhat

Reverent-one said:
He was in one of the on set diary's or whatever they called them in his Saruman getup, so I wouldn't be sure of that.

EDIT: And he's listed on IMDB as Saruman, for what that's worth.

Blunt the knives and bend the forks!

I knew he was on the IMDB but that's not always to be trusted. Evidentally I missed an episode of the production blog, cause I didn't see that one.
Well, then.
YAY!

Dec 20, 2011#49

Shegokigo

Shannow said:
Tip the glasses, crack the plates!

I grinned when I saw that scene in the trailer

Dec 21, 2011#50

Jay

Shivers up my fucken spine man. Shiverssssss my preciousssss....

That singing part? that was epic.

Dec 21, 2011#51

Espy

I'm pretty sure they've said that the second hobbit film will be more of a bridge between the Hobbit and LOTR using other writings of Tolkiens.

Dec 21, 2011#52

sixpackshaker

Espy said:
I'm pretty sure they've said that the second hobbit film will be more of a bridge between the Hobbit and LOTR using other writings of Tolkiens.

That was the Del Torro plan. I think the fandom revolt changed their mind. I think it will be the split the story in half and sprinkle some other material throughout.

Dec 21, 2011#53

Espy

Interesting I never heard anything about the script changing from when Jackson, Walsh and Del Toro wrote it.

Dec 21, 2011#54

Adammon

Finding the makeup horrible. Not sure what is up with that.

Dec 21, 2011#55

Gared

My only concern with the Hobbit movie(s) is that we saw LotR first, which is a much grimmer set of films/books than the Hobbit. In the Hobbit when we meet the elves in Rivendell they're all happy and singing and tra-la-lally down in the valley; but when we meet them in LotR they're all grim and Welcome to Rivendell Mr. Ander - I mean, Frodo Baggins.

How is the public's perception of Elrond and the way the elves were in the first movies going to effect how they were portrayed in the book version of the Hobbit?

Dec 21, 2011#56

ScytheRexx

Gared said:
How is the public's perception of Elrond and the way the elves were in the first movies going to effect how they were portrayed in the book version of the Hobbit?

It seems to me that Peter Jackson, at least based on the trailer, is going to have this played off as a re-telling of the story from Bilbo to Frodo, so it won't be "this is all happening now" but instead "this is how it was back then". This gives them room to play with a narrator, so while the audience is used to the grim elves, Bilbo can have some narrator dialogue about how different it all was back then.

Dec 21, 2011#57

Gared

That's all I needed to hear. Now I can go back to slavishly waiting for the movie to release - though I do think Bilbo should be a bit rounder.

Dec 21, 2011#58

ScytheRexx

Gared said:
That's all I needed to hear. Now I can go back to slavishly waiting for the movie to release - though I do think Bilbo should be a bit rounder.

Be aware, I may be wrong. I am mostly going off the trailer and how it starts off with Bilbo implying that he never told Frodo the whole story, and then cuts to the scenes with Bilbo as a young man. We know Elijah Wood and Ian Holm are both returning to play Frodo and the elder Bilbo respectively, and it's said most of their appearance will be in the beginning of the movie, so I am just trying to put 2 + 2 together.

Dec 21, 2011#59

Steve

Yes please.

Dec 21, 2011#60

Wahad

Guys there needs to be more love for that song. God damn what an amazing song. It's perfect for a dwarvens song, too! I can't stop watching the trailer just because I want to keep listening to that damn song.

Dec 21, 2011#61

Hailey Knight

Wahad said:
Guys there needs to be more love for that song. God damn what an amazing song. It's perfect for a dwarvens song, too! I can't stop watching the trailer just because I want to keep listening to that damn song.

I should have mentioned it. I had it in my head a good part of today. I love the sound of it and it tells you how much this means to the dwarfs.

Dec 21, 2011#62

Shegokigo

I STILL get goosebumps on my 15th watching.

Dec 21, 2011#63

Piotyr

I'd say I am looking forward to this, but that would be the understatement of the year.

What I want is to track down a good illustrated copy of the Hobbit that I can read to my four year old over the next year, so we can both see this. If it gets rated PG, I guess. If not, I'd probably end up seeing it first to see how scary it is.

EDIT: Also, about the song...sing along! It's called Misty Mountains, and it's in the book:

Far over the misty mountains cold

To dungeons deep and caverns old

...

The pines were roaring on the height,

The winds were moaning in the night,

The fire was red, it flaming spread;

The trees like torches blazed with light.

...

Dec 21, 2011#64

checkeredhat

I listened to the audiobook while at work today. The version of that song in the audiobook... just does not compete with the one in this trailer.
Added at: 02:12

Adammon said:
Finding the makeup horrible. Not sure what is up with that.

Two thoughts.
One: Del Toro did a lot of pre-production work and continued to work in an artistic advisor sort of fashion, this makeup does seem to have his kind of look to it, I feel.
Two: They filmed it for 3D, so all the colours are punched up significantly so they'll look normal in theatres. Might not translate as well to a 2D image. But I hope its not that because hell if I'm buying a 3DTV and glasses for this when it comes out on blu-ray.

Dec 26, 2011#65

Mathias

ScytheRexx said:
Be aware, I may be wrong. I am mostly going off the trailer and how it starts off with Bilbo implying that he never told Frodo the whole story, and then cuts to the scenes with Bilbo as a young man. We know Elijah Wood and Ian Holm are both returning to play Frodo and the elder Bilbo respectively, and it's said most of their appearance will be in the beginning of the movie, so I am just trying to put 2 + 2 together.

It would actually make sense to do this. If I recall the retcon to the Hobbit after the release of the Lord of the Rings was that Bilbo never really told the true story.

Dec 26, 2011#66

sixpackshaker

Yes, you are correct Mat. Bilbo lied to the Dwarves, and I think he lied to Gandalf too about the ring.

Dec 26, 2011#67

checkeredhat

Yeah, but Gandalf gets the truth out of him by the end of it. The dwarves, I think, still think Gollum gave him the ring willingly.

Dec 31, 2011#68

North_Ranger

Just watched the trailer. Not going to miss this one for anything, cancer can go f*** itself.

Mar 1, 2012#69

figmentPez

The Hobbit, Production Video #6

Mar 2, 2012#70

Jay

Mar 2, 2012#71

fade

Jay said:
Shivers up my fucken spine man. Shiverssssss my preciousssss....

That singing part? that was epic.

For once we may agree. That was the best part of the book. The trailer does a really good job of capturing how everything goes all dreamy and weird when they start singing.

Mar 3, 2012#72

Frankie Williamson

Peter Jackson's getting chubby again.

But shit that movie looks rad.

Mar 3, 2012#73

AshburnerX

Frankie Williamson said:
Peter Jackson's getting chubby again.

But shit that movie looks rad.

Did you see the kind of catering they give the cast and crew? I'm starting to think this is why he generally gains weight during productions.

Mar 3, 2012#74

bhamv3

I saw they had lots of fruit, so if you wanted you could still keep a healthy diet.

Having said that though, I wouldn't want to. I'd devour that junk food like locusts devour crops.

Mar 3, 2012#75

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
The Hobbit, Production Video #6

That was magic.

And compare that to George Lucas sitting in a chair in front of green screen for an entire film.

Mar 3, 2012#76

Jay

Frankie Williamson said:
Peter Jackson's getting chubby again.

But shit that movie looks rad.

Prolly a lot of pressure to make these movies. After all, it's not Big Mama's House 3.... but the Hobbit... a movie that will probably be done once.... ever.

And yeah, shitload of catering available? Easy meals.

Mar 3, 2012#77

checkeredhat

I think PJ looks much better now, actually. Definitely chubby again, but no where near the size he was on LOTR, and honestly after King Kong he just didn't look good, he was.... saggy. Still, he should probably go back on the diet after production and get himself back down to the weight he was when it started.

Mar 4, 2012#78

Bowielee

checkeredhat said:
I listened to the audiobook while at work today. The version of that song in the audiobook... just does not compete with the one in this trailer.
Added at: 02:12

Two thoughts.
One: Del Toro did a lot of pre-production work and continued to work in an artistic advisor sort of fashion, this makeup does seem to have his kind of look to it, I feel.
Two: They filmed it for 3D, so all the colours are punched up significantly so they'll look normal in theatres. Might not translate as well to a 2D image. But I hope its not that because hell if I'm buying a 3DTV and glasses for this when it comes out on blu-ray.

Well, it's a good thing I already have a 3DTV then

Mar 8, 2012#79

SpecialKO

checkeredhat said:
I think PJ looks much better now, actually. Definitely chubby again, but no where near the size he was on LOTR, and honestly after King Kong he just didn't look good, he was.... saggy. Still, he should probably go back on the diet after production and get himself back down to the weight he was when it started.

Apparently, he got that thin during King Kong because he was so intent on doing everything he forgot to eat. If he'd lost the weight via exercise he wouldn't have been as saggy.

Jun 21, 2012#80

checkeredhat

Just a reminder:

Mild spoilers therein.

I love that Gloin's axes are passed down to Gimli. Nice familial touch that also saved them a bit of design work.

Jun 21, 2012#81

bhamv3

checkeredhat said:
I love that Gloin's axes are passed down to Gimli. Nice familial touch that also saved them a bit of design work.

Explains why Gimli chooses to break someone else's axe in Fellowship then. His own axes are... precious.

Jun 23, 2012#82

Bowielee

Is it even possible to spoil something from the Tolkeinverse on these boards?

Jun 23, 2012#83

CynicismKills

Bowielee said:
Is it even possible to spoil something from the Tolkeinverse on these boards?

THE HELL MAN I DIDN'T KNOW SMAUG DIED YOU GUYS ARE ASSES

Jun 24, 2012#84

checkeredhat

Bowielee said:
Is it even possible to spoil something from the Tolkeinverse on these boards?

I didn't really mean the story, but the visuals. Any of the production blogs are inherently spoilery for those who don't want to see too much of th emoview before hand. You're going to see sets, costumes and props (Like the spoiler I tagged. Nothing story related, but a bit of background detail that I thought was exciting) you may not see in the commercials and trailers, plus if you aren't paying too much attention to the production, you may not know about the cameo appearances (End of that production blog) and stuff.

Jun 25, 2012#85

bhamv3

Bowielee said:
Is it even possible to spoil something from the Tolkeinverse on these boards?

You'd be surprised, I think, by the number of people whose first (and only) exposure to the Tolkien universe are the three LotR films. These people might be excited about the Hobbit film, without ever having read any of the books. They wouldn't know anything about the plot of the Hobbit.

I mean, I've read the Hobbit, but I haven't read LotR yet. I've been meaning to. I'll get around to it someday.

EDIT: Now, granted, I don't know if we have many such people on this forum. But still.

Jun 25, 2012#86

Bubble181

bhamv3 said:
You'd be surprised, I think, by the number of people whose first (and only) exposure to the Tolkien universe are the three LotR films. These people might be excited about the Hobbit film, without ever having read any of the books. They wouldn't know anything about the plot of the Hobbit.

I mean, I've read the Hobbit, but I haven't read LotR yet. I've been meaning to. I'll get around to it someday.

EDIT: Now, granted, I don't know if we have many such people on this forum. But still.

I've read the three LOTR books, some of the expanded material, the Silmarrilion,.... but somehow've never gotten around to the Hobbit. I'm still contemplating whether I'll read it before or after the movies

Jun 25, 2012#87

checkeredhat

Bubble181 said:
I've read the three LOTR books, some of the expanded material, the Silmarrilion,.... but somehow've never gotten around to the Hobbit. I'm still contemplating whether I'll read it before or after the movies

Did you read LOTR before or after the movies?

The Hobbit movie is going to be incorporating stuff from Unfinished Tales and Tolkiens notes, that is only alluded to if mentioned at all in the book, so even if you've read the book, unless you've read Unfinished Tales there might be some surprises in store.

I can't count how many times I've read the Hobbit. I'm definitely going to be reading it again come December. It's a quick read, anyway.

Jun 25, 2012#88

Bubble181

Children of Hurin and Unfinished Tales I've read... And I read the original books after the first but before the other two movies. I had them lying around for ages but never got around to them :oops:

Jun 25, 2012#89

fade

Man, I can't believe that Smaug was Bilbo's father. Did not see that one coming.

Jun 25, 2012#90

checkeredhat

Bubble181 said:
Children of Hurin and Unfinished Tales I've read... And I read the original books after the first but before the other two movies. I had them lying around for ages but never got around to them

Well, you really might as well read the Hobbit then. Then things will make sense.

I bought Unfinished Tales just to read about the White Council and how Gandalf met the dwarfs, and.... never got that far, because I for some reason decided to read it cover to cover, and all the stuff that pertained to the Silmarillion and the mythology of Middle Earth just confused me too much.

Jun 25, 2012#91

sixpackshaker

From Sherlock season 2. I got a kick out of Holmes and Watson fist fighting and wrestling each other... I totally nerded out at home and yelled to my dog, "Look Smaug and Bilbo are fighting!"

Jun 25, 2012#92

Covar

Unfinished Tales is much better when you pick and choose the stories to read. Then again I also find the Hobbit to be Tolkien's best work, so take that for what it's worth.

Jun 25, 2012#93

checkeredhat

I forgot that Benedict Cumberbatch was voicing Smaug.

Jun 25, 2012#94

checkeredhat

Covar said:
Unfinished Tales is much better when you pick and choose the stories to read.

I know, this is the only way to read it that makes sense. I have no idea why I thought I could slog through the stories that had nothing to do with anything I'd read. (Never read the Silmarillion. Only read LOTR and the Hobbit)

Covar said:
Then again I also find the Hobbit to be Tolkien's best work, so take that for what it's worth.

I'm not sure if I agree or not. I mean, I ENJOY it more than LOTR, but I do recognize that it's a great deal simpler and that it's a story for children. I flippin' love it anyway.

Jun 25, 2012#95

sixpackshaker

Covar said:
Unfinished Tales is much better when you pick and choose the stories to read. Then again I also find the Hobbit to be Tolkien's best work, so take that for what it's worth.

The Hobbit is by far better from the point of view that the story kept moving along. We did not get as many pedantic expositions about culture, or worse song lyrics for 3 pages with no idea what the music was to sound like...

The Hobbit was adventure and wonder... not a sociology class.

Jun 25, 2012#96

fade

Covar said:
Unfinished Tales is much better when you pick and choose the stories to read. Then again I also find the Hobbit to be Tolkien's best work, so take that for what it's worth.

I'm a huge Silmarillion fan. I don't understand when people say it's a disjointed, boring mess. I wonder if they're reading the same thing I am.

The problem with it is that LotR seems so petty after reading about the problems with Morgoth. Oh, you got some problems with a a rogue angel who doesn't even have the bulk of his power because some short guy has his ring? Well, let me tell you about his boss, a rogue god who was so powerful the gods themselves had to come down and kick his ass. Oh, and they couldn't kill him so he's floating in space right now. Good luck with that when he gets free of those chains.

Jun 25, 2012#97

sixpackshaker

Just to be clear I totally love The Lord of the Rings... But it can be a slog to get through sometimes.

Jun 25, 2012#98

checkeredhat

sixpackshaker said:
Just to be clear I totally love The Lord of the Rings... But it can be a slog to get through sometimes.

I usually skip over the songs.

Jun 25, 2012#99

Covar

pretty much. The Hobbit is a well written story, LOTR would be great if it was suffixed with Campaign Setting, and the Silmarillion is just an exercise in endurance.

To expand from the sound bite. The Hobbit is exactly what it's supposed to be, and does it well. Lord of the Rings is an incredibly dry read (especially when you go back and reread it after the movies are out) that at times focuses more on Middle Earth and it's cultures, history, geography, and mythology than it does on any members of the Fellowship. I'm not saying it's bad (that would be rediculous), I'm just saying LOTR has hits and misses, when it hits, oh boy does it hit. When it misses, well the hits make up for it. The Silmarillion was just...ambitious, which is probably the nicest thing I can say about it. Unfinished Tales shares elements of all three, and is worth picking through. I personally love Gandalf's account of the Hobbit, a great bridge between the two books.

Jun 25, 2012#100

Covar

fade said:
I'm a huge Silmarillion fan. I don't understand when people say it's a disjointed, boring mess. I wonder if they're reading the same thing I am.

The problem with it is that LotR seems so petty after reading about the problems with Morgoth. Oh, you got some problems with a a rogue angel who doesn't even have the bulk of his power because some short guy has his ring? Well, let me tell you about his boss, a rogue god who was so powerful the gods themselves had to come down and kick his ass. Oh, and they couldn't kill him so he's floating in space right now. Good luck with that when he gets free of those chains.

Sounds funny, but I love the story that gets told in the Silmarillion, I just find the actual work to be incredibly disjointed and confusing.

Jun 25, 2012#101

checkeredhat

Covar said:
To expand from the sound bite. The Hobbit is exactly what it's supposed to be, and does it well. Lord of the Rings is an incredibly dry read (especially when you go back and reread it after the movies are out) that at times focuses more on Middle Earth and it's cultures, history, geography, and mythology than it does on any members of the Fellowship.

Honestly, a lot of the changes they made for the movies that one tends to be like "WHY'D THEY CHANGE THAT?! THAT'S BULLSHIT!", after watching all the behind the scenes material and lisitening to the commentaries with Fran, Philipa and Peter, I know it's heresy, but I actually do look at some of those changes and go "Yeah, Tolkien kinda fucked that up."

He was definitely more interested in crafting an entire mythology than one good story. And he crafted a hell of one, I can't possibly argue that. Nobody can. But it was, in many instances, at the sacrifice of telling a solid, compelling story.

(There are still some changes in the movies that even after hearing the filmmakers' side of the story, I disagree completely with. The Scouring of the Shire being number one. Single biggest disappointment in those movies for me.

Jun 25, 2012#102

fade

Bigger than Faramir?

Jun 25, 2012#103

sixpackshaker

Yeah, I really wanted to see Merry and Pipin return home as bad-asses as they were in the Scouring of the Shire. To me it was just another major time constraint. I still remember this bitchy woman sitting in front of me during RotK, audibly sighing after each fake out ending. Could you imagine how folks would have reacted if they tacked another 30 minutes onto the film?

Jun 25, 2012#104

sixpackshaker

fade said:
Bigger than Faramir?

That was just to his father...

Jun 25, 2012#105

Covar

Faramir pissed me off when I saw it in theaters. Watching the extended edition I was much more okay with it, as they actually gave him some pretty good motivation for the complete character change. Crucial scenes that really should have been in the theatrical version.

Jun 25, 2012#106

Covar

sixpackshaker said:
Yeah, I really wanted to see Merry and Pipin return home as bad-asses as they were in the Scouring of the Shire. To me it was just another major time constraint. I still remember this bitchy woman sitting in front of me during RotK, audibly sighing after each fake out ending. Could you imagine how folks would have reacted if they tacked another 30 minutes onto the film?

Yes but they would have been able to get out an additional 5 fake out endings out of it. :fu:

Jun 25, 2012#107

checkeredhat

fade said:
Bigger than Faramir?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I thought Faramir was well handled in the movies. Only thing I have any issue with at all regarding him is that his falling in love with Eowyn seems very forced. Another scene or two where they actually share dialogue would have been nice. But neither are central to the Fellowship, so their stories are allowed to get whittled down a little, I think.

sixpackshaker said:
Yeah, I really wanted to see Merry and Pipin return home as bad-asses as they were in the Scouring of the Shire. To me it was just another major time constraint. I still remember this bitchy woman sitting in front of me during RotK, audibly sighing after each fake out ending. Could you imagine how folks would have reacted if they tacked another 30 minutes onto the film?

Yeah, it makes sense they did it, with all those multiple endings piling up, but some of the stuff covered in those endings is much more epilogue style material that really we could have done without. The transition from scene to scene was really the main issue with that, I think.

But the Scouring of the Shire, that was the Climax of the character arcs for Merry and Pippin, and sort of the falling action for Sam and Frodo. It completed all four of their transformations of character, I feel like that was just too important to leave out.

Jun 25, 2012#108

checkeredhat

Covar said:
Faramir pissed me off when I saw it in theaters. Watching the extended edition I was much more okay with it, as they actually gave him some pretty good motivation for the complete character change. Crucial scenes that really should have been in the theatrical version.

Hmmm...
See I haven't seen the theatrical version since it was out, so I don't really remember any issue with Faramir. The extended edition is the definitive release for me.

Jun 25, 2012#109

fade

checkeredhat said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I thought Faramir was well handled in the movies. Only thing I have any issue with at all regarding him is that his falling in love with Eowyn seems very forced. Another scene or two where they actually share dialogue would have been nice. But neither are central to the Fellowship, so their stories are allowed to get whittled down a little, I think.
.

They completely inverted his character! He was good to Frodo and untempted by the Ring in the book. In the book, I think the whole purpose of that scene is to give Frodo the motivation to go on as he was beginning to drag. To show him there was good in the world and nobility worth saving. When they make him nasty and tempted by the ring, he loses his purpose and becomes redundant with Boromir. I'm surprised that you didn't know what I was getting at, because I think it was the biggest fan gripe with the films.

Jun 25, 2012#110

checkeredhat

fade said:
They completely inverted his character! He was good to Frodo and untempted by the Ring in the book. In the book, I think the whole purpose of that scene is to give Frodo the motivation to go on as he was beginning to drag. To show him there was good in the world and nobility worth saving. When they make him nasty and tempted by the ring, he loses his purpose and becomes redundant with Boromir. I'm surprised that you didn't know what I was getting at, because I think it was the biggest fan gripe with the films.

Yeah, but to build up the ring as this all powerful, evil-tempting force, and to say "hearts of men are easily corrupted", build up that this is why a man could not have been ring-bearer, have even Gandalf and Galadriel tempted by the rin in the first movie, then to meet a man who is just like "Oh. That's cool. No thanks, you can keep it" completely strips the ring of all it's power. To have him tempted but ultimately able to overcome that for the good of his race successfully shows his strength of character while simultaneously further empowering the ring and cementing Frodo as the ringbearer. It's one of those story points where I look at the books, and I think Tolkien made a mistake writing it the way he did.

Jun 25, 2012#111

fade

See, I disliked the way Jackson handled it. I preferred Tolkien's view that there were some people who just didn't have it in them to be corrupted. It just wasn't like the Faramir introduced in the book to be tempted at all. He served as a motivator and example for Frodo, and as a foil for his brother. I didn't ever get the feeling that Gandalf and Galadriel were truly tempted, just more cautious should they be ensnared once they had it. Faramir wasn't the only one not to be tempted in the books. Sam wasn't either--another weak point of the movies in my opinion. The only small hesitation Sam had in the book for not returning the ring was personal concern for Frodo, which didn't seem to be connected to the ring at all. In the first chapter of the first book, Gandalf makes it clear that character counts when dealing with the ring's temptation. Hence Bilbo's resistance vs. Gollum's corruption (hated Bilbo's gollum face in Rivendell, too).

All of things I disliked about the films concern weakening characters, sometimes dramatically. Faramir was weakened for his initial temptation. Frodo was weakened both at Weathertop and at the Ford of Rivendell for not standing up to the wraiths. Sam was weakened in his best scene at Shelob's pass. I understand why Jackson did what he did. He wanted to press the point that Sauron was indominatably evil and the ring was ultimately corrupting, but I think that was already clear. Faramir, Frodo, and Sam are heroes because of their resistance of the ring. I disagree with you completely that this strips the ring of power. It's pretty clear by this point how bad the ring is. It's more about how ideal Faramir is than about the ring at all in my opinion. It's not even about how powerful Faramir is--he isn't. It's more about how much his ideals matter. I think it strips the entire Faramir scene of its point when he's tempted. I would've preferred they leave it out entirely. It was one of my favorite scenes in the book.

Jun 25, 2012#112

Azurephoenix

I actually completely agree with you about Faramir Fade.

Jun 25, 2012#113

Necronic

From what I understood the only character that really had zero temptation from the ring was Tom Bombadil. And that's the exact reason that he couldn't be entrusted with it's safety because "He would probably just loose it since it's meaningless to him" (gandalf said something like this I believe).

Personally I preferred Jacksons take on it. It's not about the ring itself. The ring is simply the McGuffin. What it is is about corruption and purity/good and evil, and how those concepts are not always black and white (hence the complexity of the Golem character), among other things. Pure characters are boring because they lack depth. If Tolkein needed to invent a depthless character to provide motivation for Frodo then that's simply bad writing. And moreover, Faramir can still provide that motivation even while being tempted.

A character that is not actually tested is not noble.

Jun 25, 2012#114

fade

Hmm, I can't say I agree with a foil character being bad writing, or there's a lot of classic bad literature out there. It also doesn't really matter to me if he is boring--he's a set piece with a singular purpose. In the book, Faramir's appearance comes right after a bunch of soul-searching and being down in the dumps about why he's even doing this. Then there's this noble ideal who affirms his need to press on. When Faramir is tempted, that takes the medicinal nature of the scene away.

EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong. Like I said, I see what Jackson was going for and it's not really a bad thing. I just prefer Tolkien's version. The ring being all-corrupting seems to dilute the story to me.

Jul 10, 2012#115

checkeredhat

This is huge, so bare with me.

Jul 10, 2012#116

Bowielee

Why are there no orcs on that poster?

Jul 10, 2012#117

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
Why are there no orcs on that poster?

You mean Goblins? :trolol:

Jul 10, 2012#118

Bowielee

AshburnerX said:
You mean Goblins?

yes, goblins... time for bed, i think.

Sting is glowing , so they should be around

Jul 10, 2012#119

North_Ranger

Eep...

Jul 10, 2012#120

@Li3n

Necronic said:
From what I understood the only character that really had zero temptation from the ring was Tom Bombadil. And that's the exact reason that he couldn't be entrusted with it's safety because "He would probably just loose it since it's meaningless to him" (gandalf said something like this I believe).

Personally I preferred Jacksons take on it. It's not about the ring itself. The ring is simply the McGuffin. What it is is about corruption and purity/good and evil, and how those concepts are not always black and white (hence the complexity of the Gollum character), among other things. Pure characters are boring because they lack depth. If Tolkein needed to invent a depthless character to provide motivation for Frodo then that's simply bad writing. And moreover, Faramir can still provide that motivation even while being tempted.

Dude, Faramir was the least favoured son doing the right thing way better then his daddy's favourite brother... i'll take that over ""daddy will love me if i give him the ring" any day when it comes to depth.

AshburnerX said:
Bowielee said:

Why are there no orcs on that poster?

Click to expand...

You mean Goblins?

SYNONYM FIGHT!!!!

Jul 23, 2012#121

checkeredhat

Another production blog:
!

Tells us a bit more about what we're going to see in the first movie.

The Pencil stub bit with John Howe is all too familiar. In 2nd , 3rd, and 4th year we kept bottles in the studio for people to drop their pencil stubs in. Amassed huge collections by the end of the year.

Jul 24, 2012#122

Wahad

Wow, Freeman and McKellen look absolutely fabulous in those suits.

Edit: First look at Radagast! Sweet!

Jul 24, 2012#123

checkeredhat

Hell yes Radagast.

Jul 24, 2012#124

ThatNickGuy

@Li3n said:
SYNONYM FIGHT!!!!

That's not a synonym, since orcs and goblins are two entirely different creatures. It's not like the words battle and combat meaning the same.

Jul 25, 2012#125

Frank

ThatNickGuy said:
That's not a synonym, since orcs and goblins are two entirely different creatures. It's not like the words battle and combat meaning the same.

In Lord of the Rings I'm almost certain that orcs and goblins refer to the same thing, corrupted elves. Uruk-hai are the different thing.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND this is lame.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/hobbit-third-movie-warner-bros-353719

Peter Jackson really does want to make the Hobbit into a trilogy.

Jul 25, 2012#126

sixpackshaker

He's trying to get his hands on the other Tolkien books to fill in the gap between the two sets of movies.

Jul 25, 2012#127

AshburnerX

What would be the cut off then? Leaving the Goblin Caves and Leaving Mirkwood? I know they already filmed the barrel scene.

Jul 25, 2012#128

sixpackshaker

They have already filmed the battle of the five armies.

Jul 25, 2012#129

@Li3n

Frank said:
In Lord of the Rings I'm almost certain that orcs and goblins refer to the same thing, corrupted elves. Uruk-hai are the different thing.

Uruk-hai are pretty much just a new, better breed of orcs (bred with men i believe the main theory was).

As for the orcs origin, that was never actually settled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#The_origin_of_Orcs

Jul 25, 2012#130

checkeredhat

Tolkien was never 100% clear on what, if any, distinction, there was between goblins and orcs, but it's become pretty much accepted that Misty Mountain goblins are smaller than their Mordor counterparts. Uruk Hai is pretty well established as being a crossbreed of men and orc, which is why they are able to travel during the day, and in the books, its hinted at that a few of them may have even been able to pass as men, in Bree (The description of them in the book is not really what they wound up looking like in the movies.)

Jul 26, 2012#131

@Li3n

checkeredhat said:
Uruk Hai is pretty well established as being a crossbreed of men and orc,

Looks like that's just Saruman's uruks that are definitely bred with men: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_Hai#Literature

Jul 26, 2012#132

Covar

I saw the trailer in the theater in front of Brave, gave the same feeling I had when first seeing the Fellowship trailer. I'm really looking forward to this movie.

Jul 26, 2012#133

checkeredhat

@Li3n said:
Looks like that's just Saruman's uruks that are definitely bred with men: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_Hai#Literature

Haven't clicked the link yet, but if I recall correctly, Saruman fielded "Uruk Hai", Sauron had "Uruks".

Jul 26, 2012#134

@Li3n

checkeredhat said:
Haven't clicked the link yet, but if I recall correctly, Saruman fielded "Uruk Hai", Sauron had "Uruks".

Nah, Uruk Hai is the full name, Uruks is a shortening...

And according to the link orc-men might be different from Uruk-Hai...

Then again Tolkien liked his myths, and myth don't use very precise definitions of monsters... the same might have different names of two might have the same name but be very different...

Jul 26, 2012#135

sixpackshaker

Where were the Halflings from?

Jul 26, 2012#136

checkeredhat

@Li3n said:
Nah, Uruk Hai is the full name, Uruks is a shortening...

And according to the link orc-men might be different from Uruk-Hai...

Then again Tolkien liked his myths, and myth don't use very precise definitions of monsters... the same might have different names of two might have the same name but be very different...

Yeah, Reading the wiki article I see that I was mistaken.[DOUBLEPOST=1343328534][/DOUBLEPOST]

sixpackshaker said:
Where were the Halflings from?

"Halfling" was just what men east of Bree referred to the Hobbits as, since to them they were creatures of myth.

It is confusing though since there were actually different breeds of hobbits. The type of hobbit Smeagol was was more closely related to Merry than to Frodo, I think.

Jul 26, 2012#137

sixpackshaker

Man, you guys don't go for the obvious these days.

Jul 26, 2012#138

checkeredhat

Lord of the Rings is what is known on the internet as "Serious Business" (Or, more commonly, by people who shun the English language and praise cats in its stead, as "SRS BIZNES")

Jul 26, 2012#139

Soliloquy

@Li3n said:
Nah, Uruk Hai is the full name, Uruks is a shortening...

And according to the link orc-men might be different from Uruk-Hai...

Then again Tolkien liked his myths, and myth don't use very precise definitions of monsters... the same might have different names of two might have the same name but be very different...

Fun fact: in Norse mythology, there's even less distinction between mythical creatures. For instance, terms for dwarfs and elves were used pretty much interchangeably.

Jul 26, 2012#140

North_Ranger

Soliloquy said:
Fun fact: in Norse mythology, there's even less distinction between mythical creatures. For instance, terms for dwarfs and elves were used pretty much interchangeably.

It gets worse in Finnish. There is, for instance, no word that could even closely translate the word "hobgoblin", as in a bigger breed of goblin.

Even the word "goblin" is a bitch to translate. In Finnish mythology, the usual translation, hiisi, is more of an evil forest spirit than a mook.

Jul 26, 2012#141

@Li3n

Soliloquy said:
Fun fact: in Norse mythology, there's even less distinction between mythical creatures. For instance, terms for dwarfs and elves were used pretty much interchangeably.

Wasn't that just for the dark elves though? While the light elves where more like minor deities...

I always thought that that's because elves where mostly any non-gods that weren't monsters...[DOUBLEPOST=1343333206][/DOUBLEPOST]

North_Ranger said:
It gets worse in Finnish. There is, for instance, no word that could even closely translate the word "hobgoblin", as in a bigger breed of goblin.

Heh, I was reading the wiki about Tolkien Orcs and he stopped using hobgoblin because originally hob- meant it was smaller..

Aug 6, 2012#142

evilmike

New Trailer

Aug 6, 2012#143

Just Me

Wow, what did they change? I noticed about 1 second new footage max.
Still great to watch, but I was probably hyped too much when I read NEW trailer.

Aug 6, 2012#144

Hailey Knight

...That was the exact same trailer.

Aug 7, 2012#145

Just Me

That was my thought exactly and I watched them synchronised side by side just to be sure. The difference is at 1:57 to 1:59.
It's just a few frames between when Bilbo smiles satisfied holding his suspenders and when he is taken up and drawn away at them.

Aug 7, 2012#146

evilmike

Sorry about the mostly-not-new Trailer. I've been a little off my game lately.

Aug 7, 2012#147

Just Me

No problem, made me curios and hyped up on a tired day. And it made me watch that trailer several times more.

Sep 1, 2012#148

checkeredhat

Now that there's going to be a third, the names changed. And the third movie has an official release date.
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/the-hobbit-third-film/8949

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - December 14, 2012
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - December 13, 2013
The Hobbit: There and Back Again - July 18, 2014

July? The hell?

Sep 1, 2012#149

Cajungal

That's good though, right? We won't have to wait a whole year.

Sep 1, 2012#150

Hailey Knight

Not sure having three is a good idea.

So what is the third movie going to be, entirely devoted to the Battle of the Five Armies?

Sep 2, 2012#151

Wahad

Quotemander Prime said:
Not sure having three is a good idea.

So what is the third movie going to be, entirely devoted to the Battle of the Five Armies?

I heard some rumors about it being Appendices material. Battle of the Five Armies would be the second movie as it always had been.

Sep 2, 2012#152

checkeredhat

Wahad said:
I heard some rumors about it being Appendices material. Battle of the Five Armies would be the second movie as it always had been.

That's what I keep hearing too. I don't really know what there is that you can make a movie out of inbetween the Hobbit the Fellowship though... Bilbo adopts Frodo and gets older. The Dwarves try to retake Moria.... There must be more with the White Council.

*edit: Or maybe they'll remove the White Council's battle with ~~Sauron~~ the Necromancer from where it takes place, while Bilbo and the Dwarves are in Mirkwood, and instead have it take place after the battle of Five Armies.

Sep 2, 2012#153

AshburnerX

There's also the walk back, Bilbo needing to prove that yes, he's still alive and wants his stuff back, and when he meets/adopts Frodo. So that, plus the appendices stuff, is PROBABLY worth a whole movie.

Sep 2, 2012#154

Hailey Knight

If they devote the third movie to the Necromancer stuff, I'll be okay with that. It won't explain why Gandalf vanishes here and there during the journey to the Lonely Mountain, but at least it wouldn't be breaking up Bilbo's adventure.

So I'm hoping you guys are right.

Sep 2, 2012#155

Sparhawk

I've also hear, in addition to the appendices, that stuff from Unfinished Tales is/has been used.

Sep 17, 2012#156

checkeredhat

Radagast:

Sep 17, 2012#157

grub

Sep 17, 2012#158

sixpackshaker

checkeredhat said:
Radagast:

Did someone call a Doctor?

Sorry, The Doctor?

Sep 19, 2012#159

Just Me

And here's a new trailer:

Sep 19, 2012#160

Jay

Sep 19, 2012#161

Just Me

Quote from my gf: "They had me when Galadriel called Gandalf 'Mithrandir'!"

Sep 19, 2012#162

HCGLNS

Well that could have been worse.

Sep 19, 2012#163

Hailey Knight

Never even considered they'd keep in the giants of the Misty Mountains.

:sohappy:

Sep 20, 2012#164

checkeredhat

The trailer has alternate endings (New scenes) at their website:
http://www.thehobbit.com/index.html

Sep 20, 2012#165

sixpackshaker

Quotemander Prime said:
Never even considered they'd keep in the giants of the Misty Mountains.

Heck, with at least a 6 hour run time, they will likely add a lot of content.

Sep 25, 2012#166

evilmike

Andy Serkis reads The Hobbit as Gollum on stage

Sep 25, 2012#167

Yoshimickster

I can't wait for the Bilbo vs. Gollum scene, that was my favorite since I was a kid.

Sep 28, 2012#168

evilmike

New poster (via firstshowing.net)

Sep 28, 2012#169

North_Ranger

evilmike said:
New poster (via firstshowing.net)

Hee hee hee... I can't help it but come up with nicknames for all of these guys. Starting from top left:
Mr Moustache, The Hearth-Throb, The Russian, BRIAN BLESSED!!
The Klingon, Cousin Special, Ol' Timer
Hairdresser, Serious Black, Mr Clean
Big Nose, Fatso, Terl.

Sep 28, 2012#170

checkeredhat

North_Ranger said:
Hee hee hee... I can't help it but come up with nicknames for all of these guys. Starting from top left:
Big Nose, The Hearth-Throb, Big Nose, Big Nose
Big Nose, Dopey, Big Nose
Big Nose, Serious Black, Big Nose
Big Nose, Little Nose, Big Nose.

... I found it odd you singled out one as being "Big Nose".

Sep 28, 2012#171

North_Ranger

checkeredhat said:
... I found it odd you singled out one as being "Big Nose".

Laziness.

Sep 29, 2012#172

Bowielee

I really don't like the fact that a few of them have distinctly human faces.

Sep 29, 2012#173

Yoshimickster

The poster makes them look like a bunch of drunken burglars....which they were. GOOD SHOW!

Sep 30, 2012#174

Just Me

I'm still not used to the look of the two youngsters and slowly getting accustomed to Thorin Oakenshield.

But the poster totally reminded me of this setup the moment I saw it:

Sep 30, 2012#175

North_Ranger

Bowielee said:
I really don't like the fact that a few of them have distinctly human faces.

I think Heart-Throb was kept pretty human-looking to lure in the younger female audience. The so-called "Legolas Factor", if you will.

Sep 30, 2012#176

HowDroll

North_Ranger said:
I think Heart-Throb was kept pretty human-looking to lure in the younger female audience. The so-called "Legolas Factor", if you will.

Yeah, I was just thinking the other day...

Between Kili/Fili (whichever one that is) and Thorin Oakenshield... and, of course, Tyrion Lannister...

I think I'm developing a dwarf fetish.

Good thing I'm really short.

But, for the record, I didn't have to be "lured" in -- I would have been there on opening night regardless

Sep 30, 2012#177

Cheesy1

HowDroll said:
I think I'm developing a dwarf fetish.

Well, hellooooooooooo there! :unibrow:

Oct 22, 2012#178

drifter

I thought this was kind of neat: the amount of pencils John Howe went through while working on the Hobbit.

Oct 22, 2012#179

Yoshimickster

drifter said:
I thought this was kind of neat: the amount of pencils John Howe went through while working on the Hobbit.

*SNIFF* Its so beautiful!

Oct 22, 2012#180

Bowielee

I just realized this comes out the day after my birthday.

Oct 22, 2012#181

WasabiPoptart

drifter said:
I thought this was kind of neat: the amount of pencils John Howe went through while working on the Hobbit.

I'm as far from an artist as you can get. Could someone tell me why anyone would want to have a pencil with such a long point on it like the one at the top of the page?

Oct 22, 2012#182

drifter

He might use the long edge for wider lines/fills/what-have-you.

Although, might be he just likes it that way.

Oct 22, 2012#183

strawman

WasabiPoptart said:
I'm as far from an artist as you can get. Could someone tell me why anyone would want to have a pencil with such a long point on it like the one at the top of the page?

Longer period of time between sharpening, which, by the looks of it, he does with a knife rather than a mechanical sharpener.

He's a writing hippie.

Oct 22, 2012#184

sixpackshaker

I always put short, really sharp leads on my hand sharpened pencils...

Oct 22, 2012#185

checkeredhat

WasabiPoptart said:
I'm as far from an artist as you can get. Could someone tell me why anyone would want to have a pencil with such a long point on it like the one at the top of the page?

Two reasons:
Holding it on its side for quick shading
Also he has an assortment of different leads there, at least from 2B to 4B. 4B is pretty soft, and will require sharpening much sooner than a 2B, which could just be annoying. It's also possible he's got something even softer in there, like a 6B or even an 8B, which is practically just black pudding on the end of a stick.
But my money is on the first thing.

Oct 22, 2012#186

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
Longer period of time between sharpening, which, by the looks of it, he does with a knife rather than a mechanical sharpener.

He's a writing hippie.

Deal with it?

Oct 22, 2012#187

Yoshimickster

Sharpening that way really depends on what pencil your usin' for me. Six B? Don't even THINK ABOUT IT! Dat shniz gon' break.

Oct 23, 2012#188

evilmike

Well, at least we know the movie can't fail -- it's got a Denny's tie in! (via Blastr)

Oct 23, 2012#189

WasabiPoptart

evilmike said:
Well, at least we know the movie can't fail -- it's got a Denny's tie in! (via Blastr)

Second breakfast!

Oct 23, 2012#190

strawman

Elevensies!

Oct 23, 2012#191

sixpackshaker

I don't think the Brown Wizard ate puppies.

Oct 23, 2012#192

North_Ranger

Luncheon!

Oct 23, 2012#193

strawman

So, as most people probably know, hobbits have odd eating habits, eating six normal sized meals a day. Here's a list of the meals they eat:
1. Breakfast
2. Second Breakfast
3. Elevensies
4. Lunch
5. Afternoon Tea
7. Supper

Oct 23, 2012#194

figmentPez

Oct 23, 2012#195

Cheesy1

"Shire Sausage" sounds like a bad porno based on Middle Earth.

Oct 23, 2012#196

Sparhawk

Cheesy1 said:
"Shire Sausage" sounds like a bad porno based on Middle Earth.

Starring, Rose, Samwise, Merry and Pippin.

Oct 23, 2012#197

WasabiPoptart

Actually, if the slash fan fic community had its way the stars of "Shire Sausage" would be Sam, Frodo, Legolas, Aragorn, and Figwit.

Oct 25, 2012#198

figmentPez

They should make a Denny's commercial with this song:

Oct 25, 2012#199

checkeredhat

I can't believe I watched all 3:11 of that.

Oct 26, 2012#200

WasabiPoptart

Ha! I watched that whole movie when I was a kid and it was on tv.

I don't know why I'm bragging. That just means I'm old.

Oct 26, 2012#201

checkeredhat

Oh I watched the movie plenty of times when I was a kid. We had to rent it from Blockbuster pretty much every time we went.

But that video just replayed the same song over and over again, so I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing.

Oct 31, 2012#202

Wahad

What the hell, New Zealand.

Oct 31, 2012#203

sixpackshaker

and I sat through that whole thing.

Oct 31, 2012#204

Bowielee

WasabiPoptart said:
Ha! I watched that whole movie when I was a kid and it was on tv.

I don't know why I'm bragging. That just means I'm old.

The original animated Hobbit was awesome. As was return of the King. It's just a shame that they gave Fellowship/The Two Towers to Ralph Bakshi.

Oct 31, 2012#205

North_Ranger

I must disagree,
dear Bowielee -
if not for naught, then nostalgee.

Bakshi's crap,
I give you that,
But for one little lad
'twas no mishap
that this film here
did make appear
a whole new world
of tales untold.

This lad, you see,
'twas naught but me,
now an old devotee
of fiction and fantasy.

To mock the film is gas,
some people it makes barf.
But for me it had and has
A special place in my heart.

Yeah... definitely loopy from medication. Carry on, folks.

Oct 31, 2012#206

Bowielee

What bugs me is that I love a lot of other works by Bakshi. American Pop is one of my favorite animated movies.

Nov 1, 2012#207

IronBrig4

I can't believe I enjoyed watching an airline safety video.

Nov 1, 2012#208

Frank

Bowielee said:
The original animated Hobbit was awesome. As was return of the King. It's just a shame that they gave Fellowship/The Two Towers to Ralph Bakshi.

I've never seen the animated Return of the King.

The Hobbit was one of my favorite animated films as a kid (as the book was my favorite book as well).

Nov 1, 2012#209

DarkAudit

Nov 2, 2012#210

Hailey Knight

No.

Nov 8, 2012#211

Covar

List of Theaters that will be showing the Hobbit in 48fps

Nov 8, 2012#212

figmentPez

Covar said:
List of Theaters that will be showing the Hobbit in 48fps

Sweet, thanks!

And there is a theater right near me that will have 48fps showings. I will definitely be checking that out.

Nov 8, 2012#213

Azurephoenix

I'm assuming that the Hobbit is being natively shot in 48fps?

Nov 8, 2012#214

Covar

yes, and native 3d.

Nov 8, 2012#215

Azurephoenix

See, as long as it's filmed natively in 48fps it will likely look great (because the motion blur and all the directors shutter speed choices aren't obliterated like with those stupid TV's that interpolate footage up to 120fps)

I'll have to see if there's one up here playing it like that.

Nov 8, 2012#216

Frank

Covar said:
List of Theaters that will be showing the Hobbit in 48fps

DAMN IT.

It's in all the good theaters here.

Nov 8, 2012#217

Yoshimickster

Aw man, I don't think I'm anywhere close to a theater with 48fps.

Nov 8, 2012#218

Espy

Nice. 3 theaters right by me. I've never seen "good" 48fps stuff so I'm interested in seeing what Jackson did here.

Nov 8, 2012#219

Ravenpoe

Awesome, my theater of choice is on there!

Nov 8, 2012#220

Yoshimickster

No wait, I forgot I live close to Philly! YES!

Nov 8, 2012#221

Sparhawk

Covar said:
List of Theaters that will be showing the Hobbit in 48fps

Dang... 95 miles to the closest theater... oh well.

Nov 8, 2012#222

Hailey Knight

Woo, my theater's on there!

Nov 9, 2012#223

checkeredhat

Scotiabank Theatre Toronto
Got my opening night 48fps 3D UltraAVX ticket tonight.
Can't wait for this movie...

Nov 9, 2012#224

Far

The theatre I'm an assisstant manager at is on the list. Free great movies are a decent perk. Super pumped for this though I will more than likely have to wait a bit to see it, though it would be possible to run a screening after hours...

Nov 9, 2012#225

CynicismKills

Just about a month away from release, and the Temecula theater is on the list. Nice.

Nov 9, 2012#226

Jay

Laval: Cinéma Colossus Laval

Fuck yeah asti.

Nov 9, 2012#227

Gusto

My Empire's got it.

Nov 9, 2012#228

Jay

Sadly, can't watch it opening night due to Work XMas Party... however, I got tickets for the next night. To compensate, I don't plan to talk to no one for 24 hours and avoid the interwebs.

Nov 9, 2012#229

Far

Gusto said:
My Empire's got it.

Nov 9, 2012#230

checkeredhat

Far said:
View attachment 8897

????

Nov 9, 2012#231

Far

I know who they are. I work for Cineplex.

Nov 10, 2012#232

Terrik

Jay said:
Sadly, can't watch it opening night due to Work XMas Party... however, I got tickets for the next night. To compensate, I don't plan to talk to no one for 24 hours and avoid the interwebs.

There's talk the Hobbit and Skyfall are getting released at the same time in February in China. I might just have to give up the internet.

Nov 14, 2012#233

evilmike

Want to preview the soundtrack? You can listen to it in its entirety at Empire Online.

Nov 14, 2012#234

Yoshimickster

evilmike said:
Want to preview the soundtrack? You can listen to it in its entirety at Empire Online.

After hearing only 7 seconds I felt enchanted beyond disbelief. HOBBIT BITCHES!

Nov 15, 2012#235

Hailey Knight

I get chills whenever I heard them sing.

Nov 24, 2012#236

checkeredhat

New Production blog released yesterday:

Dec 6, 2012#237

Frank

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

The Hobbit isn't being nearly as well received as the LOTR movies. The top offenders being the 48 fps being too revealing and making everything look a lot more fake than it should as well as how unforgivably slow paced it is.

Dec 6, 2012#238

AshburnerX

It's only slow paced because it was split into three movies. If they had kept it about Bilbo and just his journey, you could have done it in 1.5 movies.

Dec 6, 2012#239

Frank

The three movie split sounded like fucking madness to me in the first place. The running time of the three movies is going to be longer than it takes to read through the Hobbit book.

Dec 6, 2012#240

Gared

Love all of the review blurbs on the page that seem to think that these are Jackson's characters, and Jackson's story, and Jackson's ideas, and Jackson's world... bitches, this is motherfuckin' Tolkien. Jackson's just a director. Generally a good one, but still just a director - though I suppose he did help write the screenplay.

Dec 6, 2012#241

Covar

"This movie lacks majesty..."

"Not as grand as LOTR..."

No fucking shit.

Dec 6, 2012#242

Gared

Covar said:
"This movie lacks majesty..."

"Not as grand as LOTR..."

No fucking shit.

What? You can't expect movie critics to read books, you know. How are they supposed to know that this isn't supposed to be as much of an epic adventure story, if they don't even know that it's a prequel. Well, most of them don't seem to know that.

Dec 6, 2012#243

sixpackshaker

Covar said:
"This movie lacks majesty..."

"Not as grand as LOTR..."

No fucking shit.

That reminds me of a college music critique I read once. "New Order's Republic does not hold up well compared to their last album Substance."

Substance was a decade's worth of released singles... i.e. Greatest Hits.

Dec 6, 2012#244

ThatNickGuy

When the movie was first announced, I was excited. When Peter Jackson came on board, I was even more excited. When they said it was being split into two parts, I was...underwhelmed. Why? It's not a long, epic journey compared to the LotR trilogy. Why did it need two movies? Oh, they're more adding stuff from Tolkien's addendums and notes. That's kind of cool...I guess?

But then they made it a trilogy. Honestly, even though The Hobbit is one of my favourite books, I'm not really interested in the movie(s) anymore. These reviews aren't helping,

Dec 6, 2012#245

Frank

It's the criticisms of how the movie looks in 48 fps that bug me the most. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.

I'm sure the people that have that God awful motion interpolation turned on on their tvs will like it. That shit makes my stomach turn to watch (not physically, I just hate it).

Dec 6, 2012#246

HowDroll

If you guys want a good laugh: http://blogs.indiewire.com/carynjames/hobbitreview

Most of the negative reviews I've seen so far either complain that a) 48FPS looks like shit or b) It's too detailed.

Dec 6, 2012#247

Frank

That review is supposed to be negative, but it hits on things I'm stoked for. I've said it earlier in the thread, but I liked the Hobbit a lot more than Lord of the Rings.

Dec 6, 2012#248

Wahad

I probably won't be seeing this in 48 fps.

That doesn't take away me being SUPER AMAZING EXCITED for this fucking movie because come on. It's the Hobbit.

Dec 6, 2012#249

Sparhawk

Yeah, won't be seeing it in 48fps either, since the closest is still over 100 miles away. I'll just be happy to see the movie, and won't be reading any reviews before I see it either.

Dec 6, 2012#250

CynicismKills

All those Harry Potter comparisons making it out to be superior were making me angry for reasons I can't seem to explain. Regardless, I'm seeing this movie and deciding for myself.

Dec 6, 2012#251

Jay

HowDroll said:
REVIEWERS COMPLAIN ABOUT

b) It's too detailed.

Dec 6, 2012#252

Adam

Frank said:
It's the criticisms of how the movie looks in 48 fps that bug me the most. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.

I'm sure the people that have that God awful motion interpolation turned on on their tvs will like it. That shit makes my stomach turn to watch (not physically, I just hate it).

Oh thank god, I thought I was the only one. Motion interpolation is a great way to turn every film or TV show you watch on your TV into a cheap daytime soap opera.

Dec 6, 2012#253

HowDroll

Adam said:
Oh thank god, I thought I was the only one. Motion interpolation is a great way to turn every film or TV show you watch on your TV into a cheap daytime soap opera.

I agree. This bugs the shit out of me too -- given the choice, I'd still see this movie in 24FPS. I'm OK with movies looking more cinematic and less like stage plays.

Dec 6, 2012#254

SpecialKO

I will be seeing it in 24fps, but if I like it and hear it's worth it, I'll probably go see it in 48 as well. For science.

Dec 6, 2012#255

WasabiPoptart

To me it sounds like this reviewer has never read The Hobbit.

Dec 7, 2012#256

Sparhawk

WasabiPoptart said:
To me it sounds like this reviewer has never read The Hobbit.

Read? Why do you need to read a book when the movies are always better! (possible thought of any movie reviewer ever)

Dec 7, 2012#257

Jay

WasabiPoptart said:
....this reviewer....

Dec 7, 2012#258

Azurephoenix

Adam said:
Oh thank god, I thought I was the only one. Motion interpolation is a great way to turn every film or TV show you watch on your TV into a cheap daytime soap opera.

I'M NOT ALONE!!!!

Motion interpolation is shit... plain and simple.

Dec 7, 2012#259

SpecialKO

Can someone explain the motion interpolation thing to me?

Is that what 60/120fps TV would actually look like (thus damning me to despise the future of TV), or is the hatred I feel for it due to the after-effect of fill-in to make something recorded in 24fps display in 60/120?

Dec 7, 2012#260

Frank

SpecialKO said:
Can someone explain the motion interpolation thing to me?

Is that what 60/120fps TV would actually look like (thus damning me to despise the future of TV), or is the hatred I feel for it due to the after-effect of fill-in to make something recorded in 24fps display in 60/120?

Yeah, that's it.

Dec 7, 2012#261

Azurephoenix

Motion interpolation is taking 24fps or 29.97 fps footage and interpolating it to display as 120 or 240 fps depending on the television.

It essentially removes motion blur and makes things look unnaturally smooth moving (it looks extra stupid on films where the director has been using a particular camera setting to evoke mood and the motion interpolation obliterates it). It also creates bizzare looking visual artifacts as when you are making up that much data (5 times the orginal) you are bound to get glitches seeing as how the movies already contain small amounts of compression artifacting.

It's gimmicky horseshit.

Dec 7, 2012#262

SpecialKO

Frank said:
Yeah, that's it.

Wait, which one? Sorry, I might be slow this morning.

Dec 7, 2012#263

blotsfan

As someone who has never read the Hobbit, I was under the impression that it was some big adventure. You know, because they say "adventure" in the trailer approximately 50 times.

Dec 7, 2012#264

Frank

SpecialKO said:
Wait, which one? Sorry, I might be slow this morning.

Sorry, the second one.

Dec 7, 2012#265

sixpackshaker

It is an adventure, but it is not about saving the world from a price of darkness out to obliterate men, dwarves and elves.

Dec 7, 2012#266

SpecialKO

NVM, I got it. So something filmed in 48 fps will look awesome as usual in 48, the bizarre effects come from upscaling the image.

Dec 7, 2012#267

Frank

That's just it, a lot of people are saying it makes it look like you're watching BBC soap opera or a stage play rather than a film.

Dec 7, 2012#268

SpecialKO

Hmmm, interesting. I know what you mean, but I wonder what it looks like in the context of the Hobbit, where they certainly weren't short of budget for effects, costumes, and cinematography.

Dec 7, 2012#269

North_Ranger

Frank said:
That's just it, a lot of people are saying it makes it look like you're watching BBC soap opera or a stage play rather than a film.

...

I'm confused. Are those supposed to be bad things?

Dec 7, 2012#270

SpecialKO

He means it looks cheap. The side-effect of the upscale makes it look like you're watching a guy in a costume instead of Lord Badassterson the Mighty.

Dec 7, 2012#271

Jay

Azurephoenix said:
Motion interpolation is taking 24fps or 29.97 fps footage and interpolating it to display as 120 or 240 fps depending on the television.

It essentially removes motion blur and makes things look unnaturally smooth moving (it looks extra stupid on films where the director has been using a particular camera setting to evoke mood and the motion interpolation obliterates it). It also creates bizzare looking visual artifacts as when you are making up that much data (5 times the orginal) you are bound to get glitches seeing as how the movies already contain small amounts of compression artifacting.

It's gimmicky horseshit.

Dec 7, 2012#272

sixpackshaker

Colbert Report was awesome this week, Hobbit Week. Colbert just blows me away with his knowledge of Middle Earth. When he went to visit the film set last year he took a Tolkien Test and had the highest grade.

Dec 7, 2012#273

North_Ranger

SpecialKO said:
He means it looks cheap. The side-effect of the upscale makes it look like you're watching a guy in a costume instead of Lord Badassterson the Mighty.

It's still better than watching guys in obvious latex armor waving obvious latex swords... I'm looking at you, Xena!

Besides... it can't be that bad. Can it?

Dec 7, 2012#274

SpecialKO

That he beat Phillipa Boyen is kind of amazing.[DOUBLEPOST=1354897142][/DOUBLEPOST]If you think Xena looks bad normally, watching Xena with interpolation on is a new kind of awful. It's so bad looking, it takes you right out of the camp and into Felicia Day's Dragon Age Youtube movie territory.

Dec 7, 2012#275

HowDroll

North_Ranger said:
It's still better than watching guys in obvious latex armor waving obvious latex swords... I'm looking at you, Xena!

Besides... it can't be that bad. Can it?

Yeah. It can.

My parents have a TV with a motion interpolation setting that they always leave turned on, and it makes everything look awful. Strangely enough, seeing things in a framerate that more closely mirrors real life is a constant reminder that you're watching a movie. I find it much harder to get lost in the cinematics if I'm constantly thinking how weird it looks.

Maybe it's just something that you have to get used to, but I hate it. I might watch it in 48FPS if I love the movie and feel like seeing it a second time in theaters, but otherwise I would go out of my way to avoid it (along with that D-Box shit with the moving chairs. I'm throwing a pre-party for the Hobbit with a bunch of my friends and plan to be pretty drunk for the movie, and that gimmicky bullshit seems like the fast way to throw up all over.)

Dec 7, 2012#276

Espy

The review I read said that the 48fps is both a blessing and a curse. That at times it looks super fake but that at other times everything looks, just amazing real. I'm guessing this movie is about figuring out how to do something new with technology, which, hey, you gotta do sometimes. I'm ok with this.

Dec 8, 2012#277

strawman

I'm interested in seeing it both ways.

Typically the movie look is complex, involving dozens of factors including film, filters, lenses, etc.

One of the bigger ones is that most films are filmed at 24 frames per second, about the slowest you can go that people won't notice flickering.

This means you can expose the film up to one twenty fourth of a second, so anything that moves during the exposure of a single frame is blurred by the motion. A director might choose to have a short exposure time, which reduces blur, but brings everything seemingly into better focus. This looks hyper real to people.

They might also choose to use he full exposure time available, giving the greatest natural motion blur possible, and making the film appear, to some, silky smooth in a way.

Tv has typically been 30 frames per second, so a movie which has a higher frame rate and less motion blur might remind one of tv.

Further, most sports today are shot at 60 frames per second, giving little motion blur, but a very strong feeling of "being there" as though in person at the event.

Some post processing is used to extend the exposure artificially for blur which would only be possible if shooting at lower than a 24fps rate.

So by moving to 48 frames per second, Jackson is getting less blur, and people will feel that it's less like a movie, and more like tv. What they should be feeling is that it's more like life. However people go to movies to escape life, and enjoy a different world, so it may backfire.

I'm curious if he's post processing to convert to 24fps to get back the typical movie blur or not.

But I'm one of those that enjoys the newer 3D movies when actually shot in 3D, I enjoy HD video, and I expect that while it will be different than a silky smooth movie, I suspect there's some value in this.

But we will see. It could simply be yet another thing to try and keep people in theaters, rather than at home.

Dec 9, 2012#278

Espy

stienman said:
But we will see. It could simply be yet another thing to try and keep people in theaters, rather than at home.

No, I really don't think so. I think this is Jackson trying to do something better. This guy has spent most of his career being innovative and pushing the limits of filmmaking and the tools used.

That doesn't mean it will work and become the norm but it might.

Dec 9, 2012#279

Hailey Knight

Espy said:
No, I really don't think so. I think this is Jackson trying to do something better. This guy has spent most of his career being innovative and pushing the limits of filmmaking and the tools used.

That doesn't mean it will work and become the norm but it might.

Like 3D!

Dec 9, 2012#280

Espy

To be fair to 3D, when done well it's amazing. Honestly Avatar at a true Imax was... just incredible. I've never felt so immersed in a movie. From what I hear 48fps is supposed to improve upon that.

Dec 9, 2012#281

Jay

Change is bad... mkaaaay?

Dec 9, 2012#282

Azurephoenix

Jay said:
Change is bad... mkaaaay?

If it looks like shit... it is bad (I will reserve judgement till I see it).

Dec 9, 2012#283

checkeredhat

I mostly love this for the straightforward headline:

Peter Jackson swears The Hobbit’s 48fps technology won’t make you sick

http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...hobbit-s-48fps-technology-won-t-make-you-sick

Dec 10, 2012#284

fade

WasabiPoptart said:
To me it sounds like this reviewer has never read The Hobbit.

If you go to Rotten Tomatoes, it's painfully clear that most of them haven't. If you bring this up, you're ironically told that the movie is to be judged on its own merits. Why is that ironic? Because most of the reviews compare the movie in some way to LotR.

Dec 10, 2012#285

blotsfan

Makes sense. It's part of a film series. You can't talk about the star wars prequels without bringing up the original trilogy.

Dec 10, 2012#286

Dei

Random query: Does anyone know where this movie ends? I want to know how fast I need to speed read the book to my son before we go see it.

Dec 10, 2012#287

sixpackshaker

Dei said:
Random query: Does anyone know where this movie ends? I want to know how fast I need to speed read the book to my son before we go see it.

Not really sure, but I would at least get past the goblin mountain, and the game of riddles.

Heck, you should be able to finish the book in a week.

Dec 10, 2012#288

Dei

Well we're currently finishing off Harry Potter, he refuses to do a new book until then. He could read it on his own, but he likes to skip around and read random parts unless we sit him down and read with him. Linear is boring to him.

Dec 10, 2012#289

Piotyr

The Hobbit got rated PG-13.

...probably not going to be appropriate for my five year old then.

Dec 10, 2012#290

Ravenpoe

Piotyr said:
The Hobbit got rated PG-13.

...probably not going to be appropriate for my five year old then.

Depends on the five year old, and how comfortable you are exposing him to that. I was watching horror movies at six, but only because my aunt let me watch nightmare on elm street (against my mom's wishes) and my mom had me watch the making of so I wouldn't be afraid of it.

Dec 10, 2012#291

Dei

Piotyr said:
The Hobbit got rated PG-13.

...probably not going to be appropriate for my five year old then.

I recommend using a website like commonsensemedia.org or the like, that will generally break down what's in a movie and give their own rating. The rating system is terrible now. That said, I probably won't take my almost 7 year old daughter to see it because she scares easily at live action movies (vs. animated where she's pretty indifferent), but I will most likely bring my 10 year old son, after we read the book first, so he knows what to expect. (He is not good at handling scary scenes in movies if he can't read about them first, such as Harry Potter.)

Dec 10, 2012#292

Espy

Man, I saw some very young kids at the LOTR flicks, they were TERRIFIED by the black riders. I don't really think it's cool to expose little kids to stuff thats going to freak them out.

Dec 10, 2012#293

WasabiPoptart

We've been planning to take our son to see it since he read the book. He's only 7, but I think with both my husband and I with him he should be ok. He's watched all the Star Wars movies except Revenge of the Sith, so my feeling is that he should be able to handle The Hobbit since those movies didn't bother him.

Dec 10, 2012#294

Hailey Knight

Espy said:
Man, I saw some very young kids at the LOTR flicks, they were TERRIFIED by the black riders. I don't really think it's cool to expose little kids to stuff thats going to freak them out.

Nope. It's AWESOME! :awesome:

Didn't notice any kids getting freaked by the Nazgul, but Gollum's attack at the beginning of the second movie had kids in shrieking panic.

Anyway, a parent's gotta judge for themselves, because the rating system is crap. If you already know your kid can't handle scary stuff, don't take them. There's going to be a cave-riddled mountain full of sharp-toothed, gibbering monsters jumping out of the dark, plus Gollum trying to kill the main character, and possibly stuff with the Necromancer that wasn't even in the book (overtly).

Dec 11, 2012#295

bhamv3

I recall sobbing in terror while watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a kid.

Dec 11, 2012#296

Krisken

bhamv3 said:
I recall sobbing in terror while watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a kid.

I think I did that as an adult watching that.

Dec 11, 2012#297

North_Ranger

Krisken said:
I think I did that as an adult watching that.

I haven't seen the original, but Johnny Depp's Michael Jackson impersonation in the remake was creepy as hell.

Dec 11, 2012#298

Bellygrub

Dei said:
Random query: Does anyone know where this movie ends? I want to know how fast I need to speed read the book to my son before we go see it.

I believe I read it ends with the Eagles rescueing the group from the Wargs.

Dec 11, 2012#299

sixpackshaker

My 6 year old niece freaks the hell out on Gollum, just on the ads for The Hobbit.

"Nope, I don't like that Goblin guy!"

Dec 11, 2012#300

Covar

Ravenpoe said:
Depends on the five year old, and how comfortable you are existing him to that. I was watching horror movies at six, but only because my aunt let me watch nightmare on elm street (against my mom's wishes) and my mom had me watch the making of so I wouldn't be afraid of it.

That's a really good idea.

Dec 11, 2012#301

Ravenpoe

Covar said:
That's a really good idea.

It worked. From that point on I loved scary movies. My little kid self was able to understand that they're just people in costume, and that the blood was really just "ketchup", and then it just became halloween on screen.

Dec 12, 2012#302

CynicismKills

Guys.

Guys.

Guys.

Two days.

Dec 12, 2012#303

Krisken

CynicismKills said:
Guys.

Guys.

Guys.

Two days.

Excited are you?

Dec 12, 2012#304

strawman

32 hours.
:aaah:

Dec 12, 2012#305

CynicismKills

Krisken said:
Excited are you?

...maybe a little.

Dec 12, 2012#306

Espy

Babysitter HIRED.
Tickets to VIP section BOUGHT.

Dec 12, 2012#307

sixpackshaker

I hope you don't pay the sitter by the baby/hour.

Dec 12, 2012#308

North_Ranger

Goddammit, friend... Tell me how many people are gonna go to the show so I can fucking reserve the tickets already! They're going fast!

Gah... This is why I hate going to the movies with more than two people...

Dec 12, 2012#309

strawman

Cut your losses.

"Hey, I got enough tickets for myself and you. If your friend gets back to you before they sell out, I'll get another one, no problem, but I'm not going to buy one for them until they commit to paying me back."

Dec 12, 2012#310

North_Ranger

It's just me trying to control the situation as much as possible... Because of my medication and the kidney drain, I need to make sure I get a place next to the aisle so I don't have to worry about some asshole next to me accidentally tripping on the drain or something else.

The problem just is that the people who suggested we go see the Hobbit together - an engaged couple who also attend my Pathfinder games - only later told me there would be more people than just the three of us hitting the show. And just as the number of cats you have exponentially increases your level of crazy, the number of people trying to figure out when to go to the movies exponentially increases the amount of time it takes everyone to figure out a good time to go.

Dec 12, 2012#311

BananaHands

Ya'll ready to do the ol' Hobbit Vomit?

Dec 12, 2012#312

Silent Bob

North_Ranger said:
It's just me trying to control the situation as much as possible... Because of my medication and the kidney drain, I need to make sure I get a place next to the aisle so I don't have to worry about some asshole next to me accidentally tripping on the drain or something else.

The problem just is that the people who suggested we go see the Hobbit together - an engaged couple who also attend my Pathfinder games - only later told me there would be more people than just the three of us hitting the show. And just as the number of cats you have exponentially increases your level of crazy, the number of people trying to figure out when to go to the movies exponentially increases the amount of time it takes everyone to figure out a good time to go.

Do what I do, and just say "fuck it" and go alone.

I love going to the movies by myself.

Dec 12, 2012#313

TommiR

Just got back from the show, after a few drinks with the group to discuss it.

Didn't like it. I love Tolkien's work, didn't like this movie. The entire episode with Dol Guldur and the White Council, what the hell was that about? The grave of the Witch King of Angmar? And am I to believe that vaguely human-like form screaming at Radagast was actually Sauron/The Necromancer?

Dec 12, 2012#314

Hailey Knight

Wife, me, Sunday morning.

Dec 12, 2012#315

T

The_Khan

DAMNIT WHEN IS IT COMMING OUT IN CHINA!

Dec 12, 2012#316

bhamv3

The_Khan said:
DAMNIT WHEN IS IT COMMING OUT IN CHINA!

Approximately a few hours after someone uploads the first cam version onto the Internet. Might vary depending on how long it takes to burn the bootleg DVDs.

Dec 12, 2012#317

CynicismKills

Silent Bob said:
Do what I do, and just say "fuck it" and go alone.

I love going to the movies by myself.

I finally did this with Wreck-It Ralph (both times I saw it). It's nice to put 100% attention at the movie without people whispering to me/asking about the plot/etc.

Dec 12, 2012#318

blotsfan

I tend to go to movies alone too. I've always felt that movies were anti-social. If I'm gonna hang out with friends, I'll hang out with friends. I dont wanna stare at a screen for 2 hours. I can do that by myself.

Dec 12, 2012#319

checkeredhat

North_Ranger said:
Goddammit, friend... Tell me how many people are gonna go to the show so I can fucking reserve the tickets already! They're going fast!

Gah... This is why I hate going to the movies with more than two people...

I created a facebook event in like October, saying "WE ARE GOING TO THE DECEMBER 14TH SHOWTHING of the 48FPS version. TICKETS GO ON SALE NOV 7TH AND WE ARE BUYING THEM THEN." Had like 14 people respond, and it was clear most of them had not read the date or time. November 4th, I find the list of potential venues, put the question out via mass text message and on facebook. No responses. So November 6th, I post that we're going to the Scotiabank, 7:15pm. November 7th, and send out two mass text messages. November 8th, I buy 8 tickets, tell everyone else "December 14th, Scotiabank Theatre. Get your tickets.".
One friend, who had already confirmed he was coming back in October mind you, only last week asked me when we were getting our tickets and for what showing.
Do not wait.

Dec 12, 2012#320

bhamv3

I almost always go to movies by myself too. The only times I don't are when I go with a lady friend.

And by lady friend I mean my sister.

Dec 13, 2012#321

T

The_Khan

bhamv3 said:
I almost always go to movies by myself too. The only times I don't are when I go with a lady friend.

And by lady friend I mean my sister.

Like a Martin sister or a Rowling sister?

Dec 13, 2012#322

Sparhawk

The_Khan said:
Like a Martin sister or a Rowling sister?

I would be willing to be on Rowling sister, because of the frowny face.

Dec 13, 2012#323

Far

Dec 13, 2012#324

Far

I should clarify. It was great.

HFR isn't going to be for everyone, but damn is it crisp. So many moments I felt like I was there, running with them. And Gollum! Brief but so evocative.

Dec 13, 2012#325

North_Ranger

Okay... Eight people, Thursday next week, 2D.

Sometimes this weekend... Me, 3D

Dec 13, 2012#326

checkeredhat

Far said:
I should clarify. It was great.

HFR isn't going to be for everyone, but damn is it crisp. So many moments I felt like I was there, running with them. And Gollum! Brief but so evocative.

The reviews I've been reading mostly lead to the general consensus: Tolkien fans will love the shit out of it, everyone with only the LOTR movies under their belt will probably think it's a little long, but over all it's very good.

And I can't wait. I will be seeing it in 20 hours.

Dec 13, 2012#327

bhamv3

I can't wait for the inevitable comments that it was a ripoff of Lord of the Rings, and even recycled some actors and sets.

It does make me nervous, though, that some of those comments might be serious.

Dec 14, 2012#328

Far

checkeredhat said:
The reviews I've been reading mostly lead to the general consensus: Tolkien fans will love the shit out of it, everyone with only the LOTR movies under their belt will probably think it's a little long, but over all it's very good.

And I can't wait. I will be seeing it in 20 hours.

Fun fact: I kinda hate the lotr films...

There goes my geek card. That said I really really enjoyed the hobbit.

Dec 14, 2012#329

T

The_Khan

Far said:
Fun fact: I kinda hate the lotr films...

There goes my geek card. That said I really really enjoyed the hobbit.

why?

Dec 14, 2012#330

Far

Why do I hate the lotr films or why did I like the hobbit? For the first point, I honestly don't know. I can recognize that they are good films but I find them almost tedius. I enjoy that setting. I feel like I should like them but for some reason they don't click for me.

As for why I liked the hobbit, without giving away too much. I felt bilbo was a better character than frodo. This film was serious but lighter at times making for a more enjoyable overall viewing. Gandolf actually seems like a competent wizard in this. I thought the overall story was more interesting as well.

For a movie that was padded, I felt like more happened.

Dec 14, 2012#331

TommiR

checkeredhat said:
The reviews I've been reading mostly lead to the general consensus: Tolkien fans will love the shit out of it

Remains to be seen, but I personally doubt that will be the clear consensus amongst Tolkien fans in a week's time. To my taste, the film takes far too many liberties even on plot points where it doesn't have to, and goes for too many cheap laughs.

Far said:
Fun fact: I kinda hate the lotr films...

The LotR films were not perfect, but leagues better than this in my opinion.

Dec 14, 2012#332

Far

And that's fine. Different strokes.

Dec 14, 2012#333

TommiR

Agreed. There is no accounting for taste.

Dec 14, 2012#334

Far

And herein lies the most civil conversation on the internet ever.

Dec 14, 2012#335

bhamv3

Both of you have small penises.

Penii?

Dec 14, 2012#336

drifter

Penes.

Minotaur penes.

Dec 14, 2012#337

Terrik

drifter said:
Penes.

Minotaur penes.

Why not? Aren't you even a little....curious?

Dec 14, 2012#338

T

The_Khan

drifter said:
Penes.

Minotaur penes.

that dog looks like fry.

Dec 14, 2012#339

North_Ranger

The_Khan said:
that dog looks like fry.

Maybe a little. He needs a moustache or a butler's outfit, though.

Dec 14, 2012#340

sixpackshaker

The_Khan said:
that dog looks like fry.

Nope, he looks baked.

Dec 14, 2012#341

Telephius

sixpackshaker said:
Nope, he looks baked.

How long did it take you to cook that one up :rolleyes:

Dec 14, 2012#342

Sparhawk

Telephius said:
How long did it take you to cook that one up

I'm sure he's had it percolating for a while.

Dec 14, 2012#343

figmentPez

Far said:
HFR isn't going to be for everyone, but damn is it crisp. So many moments I felt like I was there, running with them. And Gollum! Brief but so evocative.

This is by far and away the best 3D I've seen, and I have a feeling that's in no small part to the 48fps. It really looks visibly different than other films, at times it feels more like some sort of astoundingly elaborate stage play than like a movie. It looks so real at points I wanted to look for the fake, and very rarely do the special effects reveal that, so my brain was constantly confused as to how it could look the way it did. When I could ignore that part of my brain and just watch, it was amazing.

Dec 14, 2012#344

drifter

Terrik said:
Why not? Aren't you even a little....curious?

Actually, I had planned to post some turgid minotaur wang, but I couldn't find a picture that was sufficiently amusing/horrifying, so I went the other way.

Dec 14, 2012#345

Far

I'm ashamed to admit it but I actually ducked from a few arrows getting shot suddenly at screen.

Dec 14, 2012#346

figmentPez

I flinched at flaming pinecones.

Dec 14, 2012#347

Cajungal

LOVE! I know what someone was talking about with the cheap laughs. Still great!

Dec 14, 2012#348

figmentPez

Is it just me or is Kili the dwarf characterized the way he is because the movie needed a pretty-boy archer?

Dec 14, 2012#349

Bowielee

Far said:
As for why I liked the hobbit, without giving away too much. I felt bilbo was a better character than frodo.

That's not entirely surprising seeing as Frodo, much as I loved the LOTR trilogy, is a pretty meh character. I like Sam far more than Frodo.

Dec 15, 2012#350

Far

I think hate was the wrong word to use. Indifference is much more appropriate.

Dec 15, 2012#351

checkeredhat

It's 2am so I'll use point form cause I need to get to bed

Overall, loved it. Was smiling the whole time, left with a giant smile. But analytically, there is a mixed bag of contradictions involved.
Some of the liberties taken were mind boggling and made me kind of mad
Some of the liberties taken were AWESOME and made me giddy. DWARVES FIGHTING THINGS. YES.
Takes a while to get used to the 48fps. Beginning of the movie made me uncomfortable because of the uncanny valleyness of it, and the lighting used didn't help.
48fps worked INSANELY well in some parts (1/6), was completely unnoticeable in others (about 2/3), and looked like shit in some (the other 1/6)
Picture is freaking CRYSTAL CLEAR, but that doesn't always work for the best
Martin Freeman as Bilbo warrants mention for how awesome he was
Same with Radagast the Brown. Hope we see more of him in part two.
I LOVED the dwarves escape from the Misty Mountains, was disappointed in Bilbo's (They changed a lot from the book, and I can't figure out why, storywise, they did so).

Dec 15, 2012#352

IronBrig4

I saw it today, during my last full day in Qatar. It had Arabic subtitles but the IMAX 3D experience was awesome. And I'm seeing it again, Stateside, with a date on Monday. *SQUEE*

Dec 15, 2012#353

figmentPez

One of my favorite cosplayers made the very good point that The Hobbit is being told by Bilbo, as a story for the children of Hobbiton, and thus has a very different style than The Lord of the Rings, which is told by Frodo to a different audience. See her review here:

Which seems to be something even hardcore geeks seem to be completely missing out on. Take Jill Pantozzi, for instance, she's a really brilliant geek girl who writes for several geek outlets and whom I highly respect, but she tweeted this about The Hobbit:

"So...The Hobbit...was not great. :/
"And I don't recommend the 48 fps. Makes the movie feel cheap
"And instead of an extended edition dvd release, I hope they cut it down instead.
"There were bits that were very good but overall it just had terrible pacing and a story that goes nowhere."

Not unreasonable arguments up to that point. Many people agree with her about 48 fps, though I strongly disagree, and it is a long and sometimes rambling film, however she then says this:

"I almost feel like The Hobbit should have been covered within The Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are just 2 different animals."
"Basically, know going in it will be nothing like LOTR."

YES, it's supposed to be nothing like LOTR! If you've read the books you know that the Hobbit is very different, stylistically, from LOTR. The Hobbit is more light-hearted, a grand adventure centering on Bilbo that left him changed but still very much a light-hearted Hobbit, though a little more Took than Baggins by the end. LOTR was a much more serious tale, a story that follows multiple parties, including some sections that center on non-Hobbits pretty heavily. Frodo returns not just changed, but gravely injured and weary of this world. The two novels are not the same type of stories, and it's ridiculous to expect the movies to be the same.

Dec 15, 2012#354

checkeredhat

figmentPez said:
One of my favorite cosplayers made the very good point that The Hobbit is being told by Bilbo, as a story for the children of Hobbiton, and thus has a very different style than The Lord of the Rings, which is told by Frodo to a different audience. See her review here:

Which seems to be something even hardcore geeks seem to be completely missing out on. Take Jill Pantozzi, for instance, she's a really brilliant geek girl who writes for several geek outlets and whom I highly respect, but she tweeted this about The Hobbit:

"So...The Hobbit...was not great. :/
"And I don't recommend the 48 fps. Makes the movie feel cheap
"And instead of an extended edition dvd release, I hope they cut it down instead.
"There were bits that were very good but overall it just had terrible pacing and a story that goes nowhere."

Not unreasonable arguments up to that point. Many people agree with her about 48 fps, though I strongly disagree, and it is a long and sometimes rambling film, however she then says this:

"I almost feel like The Hobbit should have been covered within The Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are just 2 different animals."
"Basically, know going in it will be nothing like LOTR."

YES, it's supposed to be nothing like LOTR! If you've read the books you know that the Hobbit is very different, stylistically, from LOTR. The Hobbit is more light-hearted, a grand adventure centering on Bilbo that left him changed but still very much a light-hearted Hobbit, though a little more Took than Baggins by the end. LOTR was a much more serious tale, a story that follows multiple parties, including some sections that center on non-Hobbits pretty heavily. Frodo returns not just changed, but gravely injured and weary of this world. The two novels are not the same type of stories, and it's ridiculous to expect the movies to be the same.

That was one of my biggest gripes with most of the negative reviews I saw. "It's nothing like LOTR! It's like it's for children!" Yeah. It is. That's good. And I also had that thought regarding Bilbo telling the story. Actually, I use that to kind of justify some of the changes between the movie and the book.
In my mind, the book is what happened. The movie is what Bilbo tells Frodo happened. That's why in the movie,

it's Bilbo who stalls the trolls, not Gandalf. And Bilbo doesn't need to be pushed out the door by Gandalf, he makes up his mind on his own. And why he has the courage to tackle Azog's lieutenant to save Thorin, and can climb trees on his own. He makes himself appear that much more an adventurer in his own telling, and embelishes the story for Frodo, because as Gandalf tells Bilbo during the unexpected party:

"All good stories deserve a little embellishment."

Dec 15, 2012#355

Espy

48fps/3D was awesome. I am now a believer. People who think otherwise are fools and will be tossed into a pit of suffering.

Dec 15, 2012#356

figmentPez

It strikes me that the same people who think higher frame rates look cheap are possibly in the same mentality that think that plastic is cheap. Yes, some plastic is cheap, bendy or brittle, but there's also some really advanced plastic that's strong, light and better suited to a situation than wood or metal. Plastic isn't all bakelite anymore.

I'll admit that even I have a prejudice against certain types of plastic. I still assume that clear plastics are brittle, because that was the case when I was growing up. The lesson I learned, and am having to overcome, is "don't buy anything transparent because it'll crack easier than the opaque version." That kind of gets thrown out of the window when the salt grinder I just bought is made out of transparent plastic. Sure it'll only last marginally longer than the supply of salt inside, but it's not going to crack at the first sign of stress like the transparent plastics of my youth.

That's the thing with this new high framerate tech. Yeah, it does have some visual similarity with old "shot on shitteo", in that the motion of fabrics and other objects appear similar, but the amount of detail visible is something that low resolution interlaced video never had. Just because it has some aspects that appear similar doesn't make it cheap and it's your own prejudice if you chose to think that it looks "worse" because you can't see the benefit of more detail. Just as it would be my own prejudice if I assumed that some modern plastic container from Oxo is going to break as easily as the transparent plastic in toys did when I was a kid.

Dec 15, 2012#357

Bowielee

checkeredhat said:
That was one of my biggest gripes with most of the negative reviews I saw. "It's nothing like LOTR! It's like it's for children!" Yeah. It is. That's good. And I also had that thought regarding Bilbo telling the story. Actually, I use that to kind of justify some of the changes between the movie and the book.
In my mind, the book is what happened. The movie is what Bilbo tells Frodo happened. That's why in the movie,

it's Bilbo who stalls the trolls, not Gandalf. And Bilbo doesn't need to be pushed out the door by Gandalf, he makes up his mind on his own. And why he has the courage to tackle Azog's lieutenant to save Thorin, and can climb trees on his own. He makes himself appear that much more an adventurer in his own telling, and embelishes the story for Frodo, because as Gandalf tells Bilbo during the unexpected party:

"All good stories deserve a little embellishment."

The argument that it's more a kids movie really shows an ignorance of the source material. It was always a more lighthearted book and obviously geared towards a younger audience.

That being said, however, I can't really blame people who are totally ignorant of Tolkein's other works who are going simply off the LOTR movies. The tonal shift could be really jarring.

Dec 15, 2012#358

HowDroll

I loved it, but I might need to go see it again in 48FPS when I'm sober.

Dec 15, 2012#359

Jay

Watched it, it was everything I hoped for and more. It's been YEARS since I enjoyed a movie this much.

Some people seem to dislike the movie and that's their problem. 128 1/4 bit encryption, true 3d max pro was fantastic and I highly recommend it to people without issues like blindness or trolololoitis.

The first 20 minutes just BLEW MY MIND.

Oh and the singing? And that theme every time it came on? WOW.. SHIVERS UP MY SPINE!!!!

When the fuck is the next movie coming?

OH and also...

Fantastic movie.

Dec 16, 2012#360

Hailey Knight

Books: I prefer The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. That it's a children's story helps get away from Tolken's problems of going on too long. I'm a firm believer in brevity being the soul of wit.

Which comes to the movie--you do not make a movie for kids nearly 3 hours long and you don't rate it PG-13. I'm not surprised that people thought it was going to have the same gravity as the LOTR trilogy for just those reasons. That said, I love The Hobbit and I'm likely going to love the movie. I'm sure it will have pacing issues, but whatever.

Kind of surprised there's even an option for non-48 FPS; not sure how they could downgrade without messing something up. My theater is doing 48 FPS and their listings only mention high frame rate for one of the six screens showing the movie. I'd go for that, except it's in 3D and I'm not wasting my money. So we'll see it on the normal screen and I'm guessing I'll be able to tell whether it's 48 FPS or standard.

Dec 16, 2012#361

Sparhawk

5:10 today, wife and myself, Hobbit, matinee pricing. We've got three more years of celebrating near our anniversary with Tolkien.

Dec 16, 2012#362

checkeredhat

Sparhawk said:
5:10 today, wife and myself, Hobbit, matinee pricing. We've got three more years of celebrating near our anniversary with Tolkien.

Actually, the third movie won't be a December release, it's July 2014.

Dec 16, 2012#363

Far

Quotemander Prime said:
Books: I prefer The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. That it's a children's story helps get away from Tolken's problems of going on too long. I'm a firm believer in brevity being the soul of wit.

Which comes to the movie--you do not make a movie for kids nearly 3 hours long and you don't rate it PG-13. I'm not surprised that people thought it was going to have the same gravity as the LOTR trilogy for just those reasons. That said, I love The Hobbit and I'm likely going to love the movie. I'm sure it will have pacing issues, but whatever.

Kind of surprised there's even an option for non-48 FPS; not sure how they could downgrade without messing something up. My theater is doing 48 FPS and their listings only mention high frame rate for one of the six screens showing the movie. I'd go for that, except it's in 3D and I'm not wasting my money. So we'll see it on the normal screen and I'm guessing I'll be able to tell whether it's 48 FPS or standard.

The HFR can only be done in 3D at our theatre, and only run through our highest quality projector, which needed a firmware upgrade, as well as some other things, in order to be able to handle it. Our info package regarding it doesn't go into how the 24 fps version was made.

I felt the HFR and the 3D was justified. This is coming from someone who generally doesn't like 3D at all, especially hokey stuff. While there was a fair share of that here, objects being framed so they pop out at you, it was never done in such a way as to draw attention to it, if that makes sense. Those things happening were never the focus of the scene, just done to enhance the atmosphere. Other times it was used either to convey a cramped cave or vast open fields, a much better use of the tech, I think . I haven't seen much of the standard 3D or 2D version to say wihich is better, but I'll pop in tonight while I'm there and see if I can't see if it impacts it, either positively or negetively, too much, though I think I'd have to sit through the whole thing again in 2D/sans HFR to get an accurate opinion either way. Since I already have plans to see the HFR version again tomorrow, that's going to have to wait.

I always feel like I should mention that I don't pay to see movies, so don't have as hard of a time justifying between 3D and 2D, and I don't seem to suffer any ill effects from it like some people do, but your milage may vary.

Dec 16, 2012#364

Espy

I'm going to smack the next person I meet who say, "Aw man, I heard it looked like soap opera and makes you sick"

Dec 16, 2012#365

Telephius

While I haven't really watched a soap opera in ahwile, what I recall is lighting and they way they frame a scene is more impactful on what makes a soap operea look like a sopa opera. Wearing my homemade Rorschach mask that had a black screen mesh fabric which cause anything that was a light source to have a bloom effect made me feel like I was in a soap opera, but not The Hobbit.

Dec 16, 2012#366

Espy

It's just a terrible thing to try to compare it to. If anything it looks like the difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. Much brighter, cleaner and crisper image. It makes the 3D way better as well. I'm not saying the 3D is needed really but... eh, it looks good here for sure.

Dec 16, 2012#367

CynicismKills

Hopefully going to see this Monday. Waiting is killing me.

Dec 16, 2012#368

North_Ranger

Had to postpone my going to the movies. Chemo pains are a bitch.

Picking up the group's tickets tomorrow, will go solo once I'm no longer in need of painkillers. Nothing serious, just a pain in the ass. Figuratively speaking.

Dec 16, 2012#369

ThatNickGuy

I kind of hope they release a special edition whereupon they keep elements from only the book. Honestly, I hate the fact that they're splitting into three movies. Three 3-hour long movies for three very thick books? Understandable. Three 3-hour long movies for a very short book in comparison? No.

I'm not going to bother seeing this.

Dec 16, 2012#370

Jay

ThatNickGuy said:
Three 3-hour long movies for a very short book in comparison? No.

Dec 16, 2012#371

ThatNickGuy

*shrug* I'll deal with it by not seeing it. It just feels like Hollywood bleeding fans dry by doing this, not to mention the fan service in bringing back characters not even mentioned in the book.

Dec 16, 2012#372

Jay

Dec 16, 2012#373

Far

I'm not too familliar with the source, and while it is called The Hobbit, doesn't it include other works?

This felt like the quickest 3 hr movie I've ever seen, and I started watching at 2:15 am so I was ready for a slog knowing it wouldn't be done until 5. Also, this one didn't feel very padded, save for maybe one scene,but again, I don't know what they added over the original source.

Dec 16, 2012#374

Jay

They added Dwarves.

Dec 16, 2012#375

Espy

I keep seeing people on FB post about how it "wasn't exactly like the book" or "they changed stuff" or "they added stuff" BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
Books. Do. Not. Translate. Directly. To. Other. Mediums.

Stop wanting them to. This is a different medium. Judge the film on THE FILM. Not what you wanted the movie to be. It's someone else's vision and they are translating it to another medium. It doesn't mean it will work. It doesn't even mean you have to like it. But don't automatically dislike it because it's not what you wanted it to be.

Dec 16, 2012#376

ThatNickGuy

I would judge the film on the film...if it wasn't THREE FLIPPING MOVIES. I was hesitant enough to see it when I heard they were making it two movies.

Dec 16, 2012#377

Reverent-one

Espy said:
I keep seeing people on FB post about how it "wasn't exactly like the book" or "they changed stuff" or "they added stuff" BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
Books. Do. Not. Translate. Directly. To. Other. Mediums.

This. Take for example (Spoiler for later events in the Hobbit for those of you that haven't read it):

Smaug's attack on Lake-town.

It takes about 2 pages in the book, while the encounter with the trolls takes up 8. But do you really think that they can do that scene justice in a visual medium like a movie with such a limited about of time?

Further spoilers:

Another example would be the Battle of 5 armies, which takes up about 6 pages and happens mostly off-screen. Major characters die here, I can't imagine them fading out like the book does when Bilbo falls unconscious and just hearing about the Battle once it's over.

Then there's how the army of Orcs and Wargs just show up at the Battle with basically no setup. In the first movie, they have added a subplot including orcs that is almost certainly going to end up with them arriving at the Battle. Are they wrong for setting up this plot-thread ahead of time instead of just throwing it in at the climax? Could you really call the latter an example of good cinema?

Dec 16, 2012#378

Espy

ThatNickGuy said:
I would judge the film on the film...if it wasn't THREE FLIPPING MOVIES. I was hesitant enough to see it when I heard they were making it two movies.

Chances are if you are this upset about it you won't enjoy it no matter how great a movie it is so it's probably the right call.

Dec 16, 2012#379

Krisken

Loved it. Better than the LOTR movies, by far.

If you didn't see it, you really have no leg to stand on in criticizing it and don't be surprised no one is going to take your complaints seriously. I saw it at a normal theater with no 3d and thought it was great. Only rarely was I taken out of the movie, and that was mostly because of assholes in the audience (one phone twit, another chatterbox answering the riddles, etc).

I won't give anything away for those who have yet to see it. I went in with an open mind and came out very pleased.

Dec 16, 2012#380

Jay

Espy said:
Chances are if you are this upset about it you won't enjoy it no matter how great a movie it is so it's probably the right call.

Dec 16, 2012#381

Silent Bob

Espy said:
48fps/3D was awesome. I am now a believer. People who think otherwise are fools and will be tossed into a pit of suffering.

I saw it in 48fps 3d and I too thought it was amazing. The film was great. I have no idea what people are talking about in terms of length and being drawn out. It ended and I was still totally craving more.

Dec 16, 2012#382

Jay

Silent Bob said:
I saw it in 48fps 3d and I too thought it was amazing. The film was great. I have no idea what people are talking about in terms of length and being drawn out. It ended and I was still totally craving more.

Dude, I can't wait till Hobbit 2 comes out. then Bobbit 3.

Dec 16, 2012#383

Silent Bob

Far said:
I'm not too familliar with the source, and while it is called The Hobbit, doesn't it include other works?

This felt like the quickest 3 hr movie I've ever seen, and I started watching at 2:15 am so I was ready for a slog knowing it wouldn't be done until 5. Also, this one didn't feel very padded, save for maybe one scene,but again, I don't know what they added over the original source.

Same here. I didn't feel any padded moments at all. Anyone refusing to see this movie is really doing themselves a disservice.[DOUBLEPOST=1355709769][/DOUBLEPOST]

ThatNickGuy said:
I would judge the film on the film...if it wasn't THREE FLIPPING MOVIES. I was hesitant enough to see it when I heard they were making it two movies.

It is not drawn out. I'm telling you the pace is perfect for a Tolkien fan or anyone who enjoyed Peter Jackson's first three movies.

The opening Shire scenes are breathtakingly gorgeous, the story already adds to the richness of the original trilogy by leading some parts in to the events of the Fellowship. The scenes in Erebor elaborating on the Dwarven city in its glory are short of amazing.

Overall this movie really adds to the Tolkien universe.

Dec 16, 2012#384

Krisken

Well said. At no point did I feel the movie had unnecessary bits included to make it longer.

Dec 16, 2012#385

Silent Bob

Krisken said:
Well said. At no point did I feel the movie had unnecessary bits included to make it longer.

Honestly, people are saying that the Bag-End scene is drawn out? To me that's one of the scene's that probably is word for word from the book. You just can't please some people.

Dec 16, 2012#386

Krisken

Silent Bob said:
You just can't please some people.

That's just what Jesus said, sir!

Dec 16, 2012#387

Jay

People complain for the sake of complaining, especially when they cannot be bothered to try things out for themselves in a "let's see for myself" approach. Like children who won't eat steamed veggies because it's not "cool" to others. Let's be honest, it's child-like and quite frankly unbecoming to hear this type of talk. It doesn't really bother me but it does annoy me that uneducated opinions get more attention then they should.

Let us move on from that.

Favorite moment of the movie? (spoilers!)

Honestly, the first 20+ minutes blew my mind. That singing? And that theme? Frodo walks into the scene and I'm watching parts of Fellowship of the Ring? Holy shit. My wife leaned over and went, this is awesome, WTF is going on. I whispered to her. MEMENTO, BRAH

Dec 16, 2012#388

Silent Bob

Oh and I love the expanded role of Azog in the movie. It gives the orcs more of a purpose to viciously hunt Thorin and Co. as opposed to just being a rabble like in the book. Like I said, Peter Jackson did an excellent job of mixing the lighter tone of the novel to the serious tone and grander scale of The Lord of the Rings.

I think the portrayal of Gollum best represents the overall tone of the film. It's the same Gollum from Lord of the Rings, but he has a more sinister feel to him like in the Hobbit. The way Frodo and Sam tame him him in the originals, I thought it would be hard to make Gollum a threatening creature (like he is in the book). Jackson pulled it off.[DOUBLEPOST=1355711066][/DOUBLEPOST]

Jay said:
People complain for the sake of complaining, especially when they cannot be bothered to try things out for themselves in a "let's see for myself" approach. Like children who won't eat steamed veggies because it's not "cool" to others. Let's be honest, it's child-like and quite frankly unbecoming to hear this type of talk. It doesn't really bother me but it does annoy me that uneducated opinions get more attention then they should.

Let us move on from that.

Favorite moment of the movie? (spoilers!)

Honestly, the first 20+ minutes blew my mind. That singing? And that theme? Holy shit.

The singing parts are amazing, and VERY VERY Tolkien.

Dec 16, 2012#389

Cheesy1

I don't know why, but I had to take a screenshot because it made me laugh!

Dec 16, 2012#390

Jay

Can someone elaborate why Azog wanted to kill that bloodline with such a vengeance? Was it just racial? Or did they do something to him?

Holy shit, white background Cheesy1... damn.

Dec 16, 2012#391

Krisken

My favorite was the Goblin King. I absolutely loved the goblin city.

Dec 16, 2012#392

Silent Bob

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

Critics are sometimes really worthless for a good film. Just like some for a good restaurant on Yelp.[DOUBLEPOST=1355711592][/DOUBLEPOST]

Jay said:
Can someone elaborate why Azog wanted to kill that bloodline with such a vengeance? Was it just racial? Or did they do something to him?

Holy shit, white background Cheesy1... damn.

I think because he beheaded Thror (thus starting something he wanted to finish), and because Thorin cut off his arm.

Dec 16, 2012#393

Hailey Knight

Like it, love it, meh to it, hate it, one way or another--the movie is padded. You can't honestly say it isn't after you see a scene where Frodo is getting Bilbo's mail the day before the party and says he's going off to surprise Gandalf, tying the damn Fellowship's beginning so tightly to this that they were a hair away from showing Frodo sitting outside the tree. He had the damn book in his hand.

That said, I think that was the only bad scene in the movie. The movie has a number of unnecessary scenes, but they're good scenes, and once you get past the several set-up scenes for the boss orc and the Necromancer, it flows better. At worst I'd have to say the movie is over-indulgent, but if you're on-board for getting back into Middle-Earth, you're not going to really have a problem... until the sudden ending which you can't be surprised by.

And now the long list of things I liked (SPOILERS):

- The telling of the fall of the dwarf kingdom.
- I think it's funny how people consider Smaug might have left the Lonely Mountain just because he hadn't been seen in 60 years. Thorin saw him in the hall. The gold coins were swirling in the air. Smaug was rolling in gold. Scrooge McDuck didn't take a bath in coins that lovingly. The dragon wasn't going to just leave that hoard.
- Martin Freeman = fantastic as Bilbo. As said, kind of a better protagonist than Frodo, and you can feel it as he's trying to keep his house in order.
- I actually thought the dialogue was a bit better written than in Lord of the Rings. Whereas many parts of that were waxing poetic, I appreciated that a lot of the good lines in this were about comradery, helping, and the characters' personalities. I especially liked Gandalf pointing out how Bilbo cared too much about pointless elements of his life and was oblivious to having a real experience.
- The antagonists TALK. They actually communicate and banter and bicker and show they have minds and personalities even though they're bad guys. Yeah, I know Saruman talked in the LOTR movies, but this was different. The trolls talked, the goblins--loved the Goblin King (same voice as Bruce from Finding Nemo), the orcs. It was good stuff.
- Rhadagast's rabbits. Those were cool little hoppers. I hope there's more Rhadagast in the other movies. I'm curious how they're going to pace the Necromancer stuff in the sequels.
- I was nervous about Saruman's presence because I thought there would be hints of future evil or whatever stupidity like that, but no, he was good, just felt like he had no time for anything Gandalf had to say. Didn't care for how they tried to tie Smaug as a possible weapon of future Sauron.
- At first as they were getting to the Misty Mountains and it was all snow caps, I was like "that's not right! That's just the mountain from the Fellowship!" Then it cut to the storm and the fog-filled valley and I was grinning, because that was exactly how I saw the mountains when I read the book.
- Everything in the Misty Mountains was great. The giants, Bilbo's words with Bofer, the goblin horde, the Goblin King. Everything between Bilbo and Gollum was perfect, and the narrative did not leave the scene until the riddle game was over. Also loved how they demonstrated Bilbo sparing him. And then the escape--good gods, the escape. Although I was annoyed that Gandalf was saving them for the third time, the escape was amazing. I loved seeing the dwarves use everything they could get their hands on to push forward, ladders, poles, etc. And then the collapsing areas, the swinging platforms. That was a treat. That deserved big screen viewing.

So overall, could've been shorter, could've been tighter, but I didn't mind the indulgence one bit. It was fun and worth the watch. Also, saw it on a regular screen, not 3D, it's just as good the usual way.

Dec 16, 2012#394

Jay

Silent Bob said:
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

Critics are sometimes really worthless for a good film. Just like some for a good restaurant on Yelp.

Once again I boldly state, this is why concepts like Metacritic are useless as fuck. Complete bandwagon effect.

Dec 16, 2012#395

Silent Bob

How could I forget Radagast! Perfect adaptation of how I've always thought of him! A crazy old coot!

Dec 16, 2012#396

Covar

Movie amazing! HFR gorgeous. Movie felt long at times but not padded. Probably because they left the long parts of the book intact and expanded on what was glossed over in the book, but really need time in a movie.

Dec 16, 2012#397

Sparhawk

I just got home from seeing the movie. I am pleased. I liked how different things were brought into the story, and enjoyed the overall feel of the movie. I don't mind the additions from the LOTR appendices, and feel that they are going to be important to viewers that haven't READ the book/s in the next two films.

Yes, it is possible that it could be a little tighter time-wise, but look at many of the great films of the past, lots of establishing shots and even freaking intermissions. Tolkien wrote this after LOTR was well in progress, and LOTR started as a study in language.

I willingly await the next chapter in the trilogy. I guess that I should add that I saw the 2D version, as I really don't like 3D at all.

Dec 16, 2012#398

Reverent-one

Quotemander Prime said:
Like it, love it, meh to it, hate it, one way or another--the movie is padded. You can't honestly say it isn't after you see a scene where Frodo is getting Bilbo's mail the day before the party and says he's going off to surprise Gandalf, tying the damn Fellowship's beginning so tightly to this that they were a hair away from showing Frodo sitting outside the tree. He had the damn book in his hand.

That is the one scene that seemed entirely pointless, I agree. I have a hard time seeing how it will be relevant at any point over the course of the movies.

Dec 16, 2012#399

Hailey Knight

Sparhawk said:
I liked how different things were brought into the story, and enjoyed the overall feel of the movie. I don't mind the additions from the LOTR appendices, and feel that they are going to be important to viewers that haven't READ the book/s in the next two films.

I did like that the additions and changes meant that even someone like me who's read the book didn't know what would happen next.

Dec 16, 2012#400

Sparhawk

Reverent-one said:
That is the one scene that seemed entirely pointless, I agree. I have a hard time seeing how it will be relevant at any point over the course of the movies.

Frodo is reading of Bilbo's adventures before he left on his own adventure, ties Fellowship into the end of Hobbit. My guess is that there will be a corresponding scene at the end of the last movie. Could even have a scene that ties it all together in each of the movies. This is just guessing, I haven't read about what was going into each movie outside of the broad outline of first movie ends here, second here, third covers the rest.[DOUBLEPOST=1355713957][/DOUBLEPOST]

Quotemander Prime said:
I did like that the additions and changes meant that even someone like me who's read the book didn't know what would happen next.

I think we're on the same page then. I don't expect an adaptation of a book to follow exactly, but do expect it to be closer than the piece of garbage that carried the name Eragon.

Dec 16, 2012#401

Hailey Knight

Sparhawk said:
Frodo is reading of Bilbo's adventures before he left on his own adventure, ties Fellowship into the end of Hobbit. My guess is that there will be a corresponding scene at the end of the last movie. Could even have a scene that ties it all together in each of the movies. This is just guessing, I haven't read about what was going into each movie outside of the broad outline of first movie ends here, second here, third covers the rest.

Bilbo's book was still on his desk and was much larger than the one Frodo went to read. And the timeline of Bilbo beginning the book, telling the fall of the dwarf kingdom, and then Frodo popping in made it seem like he was just starting to write it the day before his birthday.

It was a clumsy way to go in my opinion. But I'm not going to damn the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes over a 3-minute scene.

Dec 16, 2012#402

bhamv3

I'm going to reread the Hobbit before I go to the movie. Maybe this coming weekend.

Dec 16, 2012#403

Krisken

You should do it the other way, then you won't be disappointed by changes in the movie.

Dec 16, 2012#404

Jay

Or Frodo is a heck of a burglar.

Dec 16, 2012#405

Krisken

I told my wife they should have ended the movie with the Bilbo Baggins song sung by Leonard Nimoy.

Dec 16, 2012#406

bhamv3

Krisken said:
You should do it the other way, then you won't be disappointed by changes in the movie.

Also an option, also an option.

Thing is, while I liked the Hobbit book and the LotR movies (haven't read the LotR books yet, been meaning to), I don't feel like I'm as hardcore a fan as a lot of other people. Without as much emotional investment in the Hobbit, I feel like changes to the movie won't bother me that much. I just want to review the characters and plot and stuff so I know what's going on.

Sort of like how I liked the Jurassic Park movie even though its only connections to the book were pretty much "dinosaurs," "park," and "nature will kick your ass."

Dec 16, 2012#407

checkeredhat

Silent Bob said:
Oh and I love the expanded role of Azog in the movie. It gives the orcs more of a purpose to viciously hunt Thorin and Co.

Only thing I found weird about that, was that in the book, it is Bolg, son of Azog, who tracks the Dwarves (though in the book it's not until after they reclaim the Lonely Mountain). Seemed a pointless change to make. My guess is that they're doing it this way to reveal Bolg's motivation to the audience directly, and tie it back in to the Dwarves failed attempt to retake Moria yet again, by having Thorin killed by Azog, and Azog killed by Dain, and Bolg retreating his host back to Moria.

Dec 16, 2012#408

figmentPez

One part of the movie did seem a little pandering to me, though: the characterization of Kili the dwarf. I'm fine with the dwarves being more fleshed out than in the books, I'm even fine with some of the dwarves having minimal prosthetics and being more human standard handsome, but one of the pretty-boy dwarves is also the archer in the group? C'mon, that's just blatantly playing to the fanbase trying to create someone new for Legolas fans to swoon over.

(Only mostly kidding about this rant. :whistling:

)

Dec 16, 2012#409

CynicismKills

Couldn't wait, saw it today. It's fantastic. I found some of the humor out of place, but all in all I loved it. I didn't want it to end, knowing there's a year before the real meat of the story (Mirkwood and beyond).

Dec 16, 2012#410

Sparhawk

Quotemander Prime said:
Bilbo's book was still on his desk and was much larger than the one Frodo went to read. And the timeline of Bilbo beginning the book, telling the fall of the dwarf kingdom, and then Frodo popping in made it seem like he was just starting to write it the day before his birthday.

It was a clumsy way to go in my opinion. But I'm not going to damn the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes over a 3-minute scene.

I think that Frodo has the version that Bilbo wrote for him, and Bilbo is writing the truer story in The Red Book. I'm not upset or anything, just having some fun with speculation since it's all so fresh on my mind right now.

I love how the riddle game was done on screen, and the addition of the company's pov of their race through the goblin city. That both were played out in full without swapping from one to the other. Bilbo's anguish of sparing Gollum and Gollum's despair were well done also.

Dec 16, 2012#411

Reverent-one

checkeredhat said:
Only thing I found weird about that, was that in the book, it is Bolg, son of Azog, who tracks the Dwarves (though in the book it's not until after they reclaim the Lonely Mountain). Seemed a pointless change to make. My guess is that they're doing it this way to reveal Bolg's motivation to the audience directly, and tie it back in to the Dwarves failed attempt to retake Moria yet again, by having Thorin killed by Azog, and Azog killed by Dain, and Bolg retreating his host back to Moria.

Some combination of it saves having to introduce another character and leaves Thorin's revenge currently unfinished perhaps. And makes Azog a bit more a badass for surviving that.

Dec 16, 2012#412

CynicismKills

Oh also. Goddamn Wilhem Scream. I heard it as a Goblin fell off of some scaffolding and it bugged the shit out of me for a solid minute or two. I wish people would stop using it.

Dec 16, 2012#413

Krisken

Lol, my wife looked at me and rolled her eyes after that.

Dec 16, 2012#414

strawman

I love finding that scream in movies. It's like an audio where's waldo. It can be annoying when it's too obvious.

Dec 16, 2012#415

Ravenpoe

CynicismKills said:
Oh also. Goddamn Wilhem Scream. I heard it as a Goblin fell off of some scaffolding and it bugged the shit out of me for a solid minute or two. I wish people would stop using it.

I think the Wilhelm Scream is used in pretty much all of Jackson's movies. It was in all of the LotR movies, King Kong, and I'm pretty sure it was in The Frighteners. I don't know any of his other movies well enough to remember if I heard it there.

Dec 16, 2012#416

blotsfan

Yeah I really hate having ever learned about the Wilhelm Scream. I never would've noticed but now I hear it all the time.

Dec 17, 2012#417

North_Ranger

Krisken said:
I told my wife they should have ended the movie with the Bilbo Baggins song sung by Leonard Nimoy.

Don't make me slap you

Dec 17, 2012#418

CynicismKills

This gave me goosebumps. I love it.

Dec 17, 2012#419

Wahad

Ravenpoe said:
I think the Wilhelm Scream is used in pretty much all of Jackson's movies. It was in all of the LotR movies, King Kong, and I'm pretty sure it was in The Frighteners. I don't know any of his other movies well enough to remember if I heard it there.

Yeah, it's one of his signatures, as is a cameo in each movie. I love the Wilhelm though, it's just so cheesy and I can't help snickering when I hear it. I guess I could see how it can get annoying for people but not for me!

Dec 17, 2012#420

Frank

It's hardly a Peter Jackson signature, it's pretty well a Hollywood signature at this point.

Dec 17, 2012#421

strawman

Foley artists often try to add it even if the director wouldn't normally allow it. Sometimes they get away with it.

I'm not surprised Peter likes to have it in there. A little easter egg.

I wonder where his children show up in this series. They were in nearly every shot that had children in LoTR - Hobbiton, helms deep, gondor, etc. I did enjoy Peter Jackson getting killed by Legolas' arrow.

Dec 17, 2012#422

North_Ranger

stienman said:
I did enjoy Peter Jackson getting killed by Legolas' arrow.

Hee hee hee, yeah, that was such a cheesy death scene I couldn't stop laughing at it

As for PJ's children... I'm guessing they're old enough now to play young hobbits? That's my only guess, since I haven't read The Hobbit - something I intend to remedy as soon as I can buy me a copy.

Dec 17, 2012#423

checkeredhat

stienman said:
Foley artists often try to add it even if the director wouldn't normally allow it. Sometimes they get away with it.

I'm not surprised Peter likes to have it in there. A little easter egg.

I wonder where his children show up in this series. They were in nearly every shot that had children in LoTR - Hobbiton, helms deep, gondor, etc. I did enjoy Peter Jackson getting killed by Legolas' arrow.

Not Foley. Sound FX guys. Foley has nothing to do with stuff like the Wilhelm Scream. Foley is all recorded live, the Wilhelm Scream is from a SFX library.

Dec 17, 2012#424

Wahad

North_Ranger said:
Hee hee hee, yeah, that was such a cheesy death scene I couldn't stop laughing at it

As for PJ's children... I'm guessing they're old enough now to play young hobbits? That's my only guess, since I haven't read The Hobbit - something I intend to remedy as soon as I can buy me a copy.

PJ's daughter was one of the hobbitkids in Fellowship listening to Bilbo's tale about the trolls during his birthday. See the end of this video for how she looks now.

Dec 17, 2012#425

North_Ranger

Wahad said:
PJ's daughter was one of the hobbitkids in Fellowship listening to Bilbo's tale about the trolls during his birthday. See the end of this video for how she looks now.

Damn. I feel old now.

Dec 17, 2012#426

Covar

stienman said:
did enjoy Peter Jackson getting killed by Legolas' arrow.

Wait what?

Dec 17, 2012#427

sixpackshaker

Covar said:
Wait what?

I think that was just in the expanded DVD.

Dec 17, 2012#428

strawman

Covar said:
Wait what?

In the scene where Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas have emerged from the mountain and convinced the ghost army to fight with them, they see the ships are coming down the river.

Aragorn threatens the ships, they laugh at him, then he asks Legolas to fire a shot across the bow of the ship. Gimli says, "mind your aim" then taps the bow as the shot is fired, causing it to hit one of the people on the ship, who reels about with wide eyes and falls down rather comically.

The man that was shot is Peter Jackson.

As sixpackshaker points out, it might be that this is on the extended edition. Perhaps after hearing my description someone can confirm if that bit is cut out on the theater version.

The scene continues with the "you and what army" and "this army" lines with the ghost army taking over the ships.

Dec 17, 2012#429

Wahad

That was only ever in the extended edition. The regular theatre edition only had Aragorn and co arriving at the battlefield after cutting away when he convinced the ghost army.

Dec 17, 2012#430

strawman

Wahad said:
That was only ever in the extended edition. The regular theatre edition only had Aragorn and co arriving at the battlefield after cutting away when he convinced the ghost army.

Yet another reason the extended edition is really the only edition worth watching.

Dec 17, 2012#431

fade

Jay said:
Watched it, it was everything I hoped for and more. It's been YEARS since I enjoyed a movie this much.

Some people seem to dislike the movie and that's their problem. 128 1/4 bit encryption, true 3d max pro was fantastic and I highly recommend it to people without issues like blindness or trolololoitis.

The first 20 minutes just BLEW MY MIND.

Oh and the singing? And that theme every time it came on? WOW.. SHIVERS UP MY SPINE!!!!

When the fuck is the next movie coming?

OH and also...

View attachment 9327

Fantastic movie.

I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. That is the exact same reaction I had to the dwarves' song.

Dec 17, 2012#432

Dei

I had my giant nitpick about Orcrist and Glamdring not glowing. But I guess they wanted to make Bilbo's sword stand out more so people would instantly recognize it at Frodo's. Then I sat there trying to remember if Glamdring glowed in Fellowship, and now I feel the need to rewatch it.

Dec 17, 2012#433

Ravenpoe

Dei said:
I had my giant nitpick about Orcrist and Glamdring not glowing. But I guess they wanted to make Bilbo's sword stand out more so people would instantly recognize it at Frodo's. Then I sat there trying to remember if Glamdring glowed in Fellowship, and now I feel the need to rewatch it.

It did.
(I think)

Dec 17, 2012#434

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
It did.
(I think)

Nope.

[DOUBLEPOST=1355792183][/DOUBLEPOST]Oooh, this pic's even better.

Dec 17, 2012#435

figmentPez

Dei said:
Then I sat there trying to remember if Glamdring glowed in Fellowship, and now I feel the need to rewatch it.

It did not, and that was one of my bigger nitpicks about that trilogy.

Thanks, Bhamv, for the evidence pics.

Dec 17, 2012#436

CynicismKills

My brother and I were mainly giddy about the Goblin King's "IT'S THE FOOOOEHAMMERR!" because it reminded us of the old Hobbit cartoon and this ridiculous scene with his death:

Dec 17, 2012#437

figmentPez

Sheldon for Dec 17th

Dec 17, 2012#438

Hailey Knight

Objectively, the movie has storytelling and pacing issues all over.

Subjectively, I loved nearly all of it.

Dec 17, 2012#439

Krisken

I can't hold the movie accountable for having the same faults as the books, though.

Dec 17, 2012#440

T

The_Khan

Fuck I really want to see this.... There isn't anything good in theaters over here.

Dec 17, 2012#441

Ravenpoe

I won't see the movie until this weekend, but I started reading the book again. I had forgotten how much I love the book, and how much more fun it is (to me) to read than the LOTR series. The lighter tone really makes Tolkien's writing style shine. Maybe it's nostalgia doing it, but something about it makes me want to read it out loud.

Dec 18, 2012#442

Espy

Quotemander Prime said:
Objectively, the movie has storytelling and pacing issues all over.

Subjectively, I loved nearly all of it.

Jackson has a problem with pacing. He always has. The LOTR films are prime examples of it. I think his writing crew get overwhelmed by the size of the story and struggle to find that smooth flow they need to find.

That being said this movie wasn't as bad structurally as Return of the King. I would rate them (for story and structure) like this:
1) Fellowship
2) Two Towers
3) Hobbit 1
4) Return of the 18 endings

Dec 18, 2012#443

strawman

Every ending's sacred :notes:

every ending's great :notes:

if an ending's wasted :notes:

Peter gets irate! :notes:

Dec 18, 2012#444

sixpackshaker

I giggled at every audible gasp at every restart of the endings from the woman sitting in front of my at RotK... I giggled a lot that night.

Dec 18, 2012#445

Cajungal

sixpackshaker said:
I giggled at every audible gasp at every restart of the endings from the woman sitting in front of my at RotK... I giggled a lot that night.

Same thing happened at my theatre! And I went with a friend who'd read LOTR 3-4 times since she was in eighth grade, so a die hard fan. She was SO PISSED at the people chuckling at all the different endings.

Dec 19, 2012#446

bhamv3

I was one of the people really surprised at the multiple endings, especially how they would fake you out. People say something profound, screen fades to dark with happy music playing... then BOOM more movie.

Dec 19, 2012#447

T

The_Khan

bhamv3 said:
I was one of the people really surprised at the multiple endings, especially how they would fake you out. People say something profound, screen fades to dark with happy music playing... then BOOM more movie.

And yet, the one ending I really wanted to see never made it into the movie

That is, the hobbits going home and kicking sarumans ass... Again.

Dec 19, 2012#448

Terrik

The_Khan said:
Fuck I really want to see this.... There isn't anything good in theaters over here.

Sure there is.

There's uhm...

There's...

I think Return to 1942 came out. I'm sure they'll...cover new ground in that movie....

Hrm.

*seriously considers a run to hong kong *

Dec 19, 2012#449

T

The_Khan

Terrik said:
Sure there is.

There's uhm...

There's...

I think Return to 1942 came out. I'm sure they'll...cover new ground in that movie....

Hrm.

*seriously considers a run to hong kong *

if you do, let me know (probably can't afford it solely for the sake of seeing a movie)

I would also like to see bond.

Dec 19, 2012#450

Frank

Loved the movie, will not be seeing anymore in 48 fps. There were some scenes it enhanced (such as Thorin slowmo walking through fire towards bad orc) but man....Radaghast's scenes did not look good at all and overall I couldn't adjust. Everything looked like it was moving in slight fast forward. No one I was with liked it either much and the murmur among the crowd coming out of it was all about how weird it looked.

Actually, it worked very well in slow motion. I thought it was the scenes with a lot of motion where it really made things weird.[DOUBLEPOST=1355968195][/DOUBLEPOST]

checkeredhat said:
It's 2am so I'll use point form cause I need to get to bed

Overall, loved it. Was smiling the whole time, left with a giant smile. But analytically, there is a mixed bag of contradictions involved.

Some of the liberties taken were mind boggling and made me kind of mad

Some of the liberties taken were AWESOME and made me giddy. DWARVES FIGHTING THINGS. YES.

Takes a while to get used to the 48fps. Beginning of the movie made me uncomfortable because of the uncanny valleyness of it, and the lighting used didn't help.

48fps worked INSANELY well in some parts (1/6), was completely unnoticeable in others (about 2/3), and looked like shit in some (the other 1/6)

Picture is freaking CRYSTAL CLEAR, but that doesn't always work for the best

Martin Freeman as Bilbo warrants mention for how awesome he was

Same with Radagast the Brown. Hope we see more of him in part two.

I LOVED the dwarves escape from the Misty Mountains, was disappointed in Bilbo's (They changed a lot from the book, and I can't figure out why, storywise, they did so).

Truth, the high clarity of the picture coupled with the high frame rate really made some of the CG look not nearly as good as it would without it. The HFR is not kind to CG.

Dec 19, 2012#451

Jay

Delivered as always.

Dec 19, 2012#452

Hailey Knight

Dec 19, 2012#453

Dei

I commented that Gandalf splitting that rock in the troll camp looked like something from a school play in 48fps. Also when they were in the trees, got a glimpse of Ian's stunt double.

Dec 19, 2012#454

Hailey Knight

Greater detail can kill the movie magic.

My wife is maybe going out of town the weekend after Christmas, so it seems like an ideal opportunity to do something I've always wanted to do--watch all three extended editions of LOTR back to back to back.

Or I can take my cousins to The Hobbit... but I could do that any weekend.

Dec 19, 2012#455

Ravenpoe

Quotemander Prime said:
My wife is maybe going out of town the weekend after Christmas, so it seems like an ideal opportunity to do something I've always wanted to do--watch all three extended editions of LOTR back to back to back

... while naked and coated in honey?

I mean, if you'll be home all alone, go all out!

Dec 19, 2012#456

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
... while naked and coated in honey?

I mean, if you'll be home all alone, go all out!

Dec 19, 2012#457

CynicismKills

Quotemander Prime said:
My wife is maybe going out of town the weekend after Christmas, so it seems like an ideal opportunity to do something I've always wanted to do--watch all three extended editions of LOTR back to back to back.

I house-sat for my uncle one week and did this. Bought a big pizza and a 12 pack of beer. It was a glorious night.

Dec 20, 2012#458

T

The_Khan

CynicismKills said:
I house-sat for my uncle one week and did this. Bought a big pizza and a 12 pack of beer. It was a glorious night.

The dreams that come afterwards... whoa

Dec 20, 2012#459

Yoshimickster

I'm not sure if I've gotten a food dream, I'll have to experiment. However if I eat too much Pepperoni at once I vurp a little and never tastes good coming up. Don't know why, it just doesn't.

Dec 20, 2012#460

T

The_Khan

I was talking about 12 hours of LoTR in a row.

nine hours of LoTR and 3 hours of hobbit if you like.

god eventually it'll be 18 hours of lord of the rings. just need an 8 hour simirillion and you can spend a day in middle earth.

Dec 20, 2012#461

Yoshimickster

Well combined with a full belly of pizza and beer, SUPAH CRAZY LOTR DREAMS! Of course I hear alcohol reduces REM sleep so maybe not.

Dec 20, 2012#462

T

The_Khan

12 hours of LoTR and an all vindaloo diet. That'll get you into the world.

Dec 20, 2012#463

Yoshimickster

Aaaaaaaaaah, spice induced hallucinations! Always wondered what is was like to hallucinate.

Dec 20, 2012#464

Ravenpoe

Yoshimickster said:
Aaaaaaaaaah, spice induced hallucinations! Always wondered what is was like to hallucinate.

I'm not convinced that you would be able to tell the difference.

Dec 20, 2012#465

North_Ranger

It took me about an hour to start blinking again after I came out of the theatre today. I was expecting a good movie, but holy shit on a piece of lembas was I blown away!

There's the sense of epic storytelling you expect from a Lord of the Rings movie, yet at the same time the movie managed to bring forth the light-hearted, sometimes even comedic sense of adventure I remember from the fantasy movies of the '80s. The music is pure gold, and I can't stop humming the soft, melancholy tune of the dwarves. The cast was spot on, and despite the difference in tone from the heavy epic of the LotR trilogy, you never thought you were watching "a kids' flick". I can't even start listing the scenes that had made staring at the screen in sheer awe.

Must see 3D soon! Must get soundtrack! Must get the DVD! F*** you, cancer, I'm gonna see all three movies at least twice a piece!

Dec 20, 2012#466

Hailey Knight

Another thing is that despite the tonal difference, The Hobbit actually enriches the LOTR trilogy. We get to see Gandalf as much less serious, Sarumon as a know-it-all instead of a villain, and a land that is full of perils, but isn't on the brink of becoming a hellhole, which makes the sense of loss in LOTR much more profound,

It's nice to have a prequel that strengthens the movies that came before... unlike certain other prequels.

Dec 20, 2012#467

T

The_Khan

Quotemander Prime said:
Another thing is that despite the tonal difference, The Hobbit actually enriches the LOTR trilogy. We get to see Gandalf as much less serious, Sarumon as a know-it-all instead of a villain, and a land that is full of perils, but isn't on the brink of becoming a hellhole, which makes the sense of loss in LOTR much more profound,

It's nice to have a prequel that strengthens the movies that came before... unlike certain other prequels.

yeah.... all the people saying we will get a good Star Wars film now that Lucas isn't involved I say pah! we are more likely than ever before the see light sabers turned into flash lights ala E.T. and have it retconned that all clones are actually robots.

As much as I liked JCofMars it was still a little too clean for my liking.

Dec 20, 2012#468

Frankie

Quotemander Prime said:
Another thing is that despite the tonal difference, The Hobbit actually enriches the LOTR trilogy. We get to see Gandalf as much less serious, Sarumon as a know-it-all instead of a villain, and a land that is full of perils, but isn't on the brink of becoming a hellhole, which makes the sense of loss in LOTR much more profound,

It's nice to have a prequel that strengthens the movies that came before... unlike certain other prequels.

To be fair, it doesn't hurt that it was written before LOTR. A common problem, I think, with prequels is writing around what comes after.

Dec 20, 2012#469

Hailey Knight

Frankie said:
To be fair, it doesn't hurt that it was written before LOTR. A common problem, I think, with prequels is writing around what comes after.

True, but the movies didn't, and I kept cringing in anticipation of some fuck-up (like characters showing hints of what would be going on in LOTR) that never came.

Dec 20, 2012#470

strawman

It was delicious. The high frame rate was noticeable, and it was a good thing.

Dec 21, 2012#471

North_Ranger

There were some scenes in the movie that I must mention specifically, for various reasons of awesomeness:

The dwarves singing. Pretty much given, with the group of rowdy dwarves suddenly growing somber and quiet, with a beautiful and melancholy song humming in the dark.

Radagast and his rabbit sled. Okay, the Brown Wizard is clearly nuttier than a bag of chipmunks, but the way he reacts to Gandalf telling he cannot possibly hope to outrun the Gundabad wargs. Seriously, they managed to make a pothead hedge wizard and a bunch of rabbits frickin' badass!

Bofur (the dwarf with the hat) and Bilbo. You could just see how much it hurt Bofur when Bilbo blurted out "You're used to this! You don't belong anywhere!". James Nesbitt, the actor playing him, didn't have to say a word. You could just see in his eyes that Bilbo's words had hurt Bofur more than anything else. And yet he still said he wished the hobbit all the best. I actually feel bad for making fun of him and his hat...

Gandalf. Just... bloody... Gandalf. In that infamous Cracked video he was accused of being the most useless wizard ever, but in this movie he just keeps on piling awesome upon awesome. Hey Thorin, remember that guy you disliked but ended up saving your life? Gandalf hired him. Hey dwarves, remember who saved your sorry asses at least three times? Yup, Gandalf again. Oh, and who was it that pretty much one-shot the living crap out of the goblin king? Gandalf the Grey, bitches. No wonder Galadriel's so damn smitten with him. The man's a walking miracle.

Also, found this in YouTube and have since been playing it nonstop:

Dec 21, 2012#472

Sparhawk

North_Ranger said:
Also, found this in YouTube and have since been playing it nonstop:

Crap, blocked in the USA.

Dec 21, 2012#473

North_Ranger

Sparhawk said:
Crap, blocked in the USA.

Just look for "Misty Mountains Cold" and Neil Finn on YouTube, and you should find it.

Here, does this work?

Dec 21, 2012#474

Ravenpoe

Nope

Dec 21, 2012#475

checkeredhat

Ha! Finally Americans on YouTube know what it is to be a Canadian on Youtube!

Dec 21, 2012#476

Krisken

checkeredhat said:
Ha! Finally Americans on YouTube know what it is to be a Canadian on Youtube!

They're suddenly being polite?

Dec 21, 2012#477

Ravenpoe

Krisken said:
They're suddenly being polite?

...
Sorry

Dec 21, 2012#478

Jay

Sparhawk said:
Crap, blocked in the USA.

Finally.

Dec 21, 2012#479

Hailey Knight

I think it's funny how people keep criticizing the scene of Gandalf meeting Galadriel and Saruman.

Not realizing, if you have a problem with it, it's a perfect bathroom break point

Dec 22, 2012#480

bhamv3

Just got back from it.

Short review: I agree with everything everyone has ever said about this movie. Yes, everything. Which makes me borderline schizophrenic, I know.

Slightly longer review:

Yes, the faster framerate took some getting used to. Yes, it made some scenes look fake. Yes, in particular the CG, such as the eagles. Yes, it also made lots of stuff look really cool.

Yes, the singing was awesome, particularly since it established the dwarves' leitmotif very effectively, which made the rest of the times it appeared much more recognizable, and thus it was easy to feel the "FUCK YEAH DWARVES" feeling when the music showed up. The musical callbacks to the LotR movies were awesome too, such as the Shire theme, the Rivendell theme, the eagles theme, the One Ring theme, etc. Although I noticed they seemed to have used the Nazgul theme when Thorin advanced towards Azog, which was weird. Still awesome though. Also, when the elves came to rescue everyone from the warg attack, I mistook the music for the Rohan theme. I was all like "FUCK YEAH ROHIRRIM oh wait..."

Yes, the movie dragged a bit. For example, did we really need to have Bilbo fall off the cliff? And then Thorin falling down after him? Did that add anything to the movie? We already know they're in peril, the ten minutes prior already established that, what with the fighting giants and all. I actually feel like they could've cut a lot of Radagast's stuff, and maybe a few chunks of the goblins.

Yes, this movie was lighter in tone than the LotR movies. I actually thought parts of it would work as a kids' film. Well, apart from all the decapitations.

Yes, there was a Wilheim Scream. I actually thought there were two, but the first one I wasn't 100% sure about. The second one, from a goblin, was definitely it though.

Dec 22, 2012#481

Hailey Knight

I'm also in that "agree with everyone" camp. Most of the criticisms I've heard are spot-on--I just don't care because I love this shit.

Dec 22, 2012#482

strawman

I have to admit that the orc vocal tones were pretty well established by the time they put the wilhelm in for the orc, and it was definitely out of place. Orcs don't scream like that.

Which, of course, means they must have accidentally killed someone who had disguised themselves and infiltrated the orcs.

Probably set back the Tolkien Bureau of Investigation's case against the Orc's tax evasion by decades.

Dec 22, 2012#483

Covar

psst, it was a Goblin. I think I'm in on the joke of the Wilhelm scream now, I love hearing it in a movie.

Dec 22, 2012#484

Jay

It was a goblin.

Dec 22, 2012#485

Covar

I also want to praise Jackson for making orcs and goblins different.

Dec 22, 2012#486

figmentPez

I wonder how many people were against color in movies at first. Was there a great outcry over color making things look fake, and ruining the dream-like qualities of a movie?

Dec 22, 2012#487

strawman

Ooooh, I was getting confused. Of course sting glows for both orcs and goblins, but this morning I was thinking that it only glowed for orcs.

Obviously need to reread the book.

Dec 22, 2012#488

bhamv3

I was under the impression that Orcs and Goblins were the same species, though with variations.

Dec 22, 2012#489

Sparhawk

Goblins existed way back, Orcs were created by twisting Elves in Morgoth I believe.

Dec 22, 2012#490

figmentPez

bhamv3 said:
I was under the impression that Orcs and Goblins were the same species, though with variations.

That was my impression as well.

Dec 22, 2012#491

Frank

They are, Sting glowed for those inside and outside the mountain.

Dec 22, 2012#492

checkeredhat

Tolkien I don't think ever made it 100% clear what if any difference there were to goblins and orcs, though its clear they are related enough that Glamdring, Sting and Orcrist all glow when either are around.
From the introduction to the revised edition of the Hobbit (After LOTR was released):

This is a story of long ago. At that time the languages and letters were quite different from ours today. English is used to represent these languages. But two points may be noted. (1) In English the only correct plural of dwarf is dwarfs, and the adjective is dwarfish. In this story dwarves and dwarvish are used, but only when speaking of the ancient peopl to whom Thorin Oakenshield and his companions belonged. (2) Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, appled to sea animals of dolphin-kind.

Dec 23, 2012#493

Hailey Knight

I'm relieved that the Misty Mountain goblins share no relation to killer whales.

Dec 23, 2012#494

Just Me

Saw it just an hour ago. 3D, normal framerate, original version. It's bought, I'll take two of that and please can I watch that intro for Erebor again?!

The storm giants where overdone (my thought went 'wtf, Transformers'), but I can live with it. Much worse was Aragorn going MIA in Two Towers...
Azog... Apart from being dead in the lore for some time now, the first moment I saw him (pale, flatfaced etc.) I had kind of a Voldemort feeling there.
All in all the movie kept me in, I didn't notice the time go by (not interruption in the show and I'm glad for that!)
The loremonkey in me was a bit miffed about Radagast's rabbits taking him over the Misty Mountains in such short time, but then we don't know when he found about Dol Guldur and how much time has passed; so I'm ok with that too.
Can we please have the intertwined chase & flight scene with rabbit sled, goblins and dwarves to the Benny Hill them!

I had a good time and was much more pleased with the movie compared to the first time I left The Fellowship (I have calmed down over several stuff in LotR-trilogy by now and can enjoy it properly!)
Bring on part 2!

Dec 23, 2012#495

strawman

Just Me said:
Can we please have the intertwined chase & flight scene with rabbit sled, goblins and dwarves to the Benny Hill theme!

I cannot brofist this hard enough.

Dec 23, 2012#496

Ravenpoe

I saw it, normal frame rate unfortunately, as my theater didn't have a matinee showing with HFR.

It was awesome, and my only complaint was that it ended. I'm ready for part 2 like, right now.

Dec 23, 2012#497

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
I saw it, normal frame rate fortunately

Fixed.

Dec 23, 2012#498

bhamv3

I don't know if the higher framerate is truly the future, but I do know that the movie probably wouldn't have suffered if it'd been filmed at the old framerate.

I still think 3D is just a gimmick though.

Dec 23, 2012#499

Bowielee

I think the problem with the 48fps is that it hits the uncanny valley.

Dec 23, 2012#500

Krisken

Forums