Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
I'm going tomorrow!

I might actually go see it again next week

shrike wrote:if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No.

Except that's what happens seemingly in the books. His death is incredibly vague in the books, but what it does tell us is that they find him with many Orc arrows in him and a pile of dead Orcs around him. All that's seemingly different in the movie is that Lurtz kills him, but then again nothing in the book says it wasn't a Captain that shot him several times, because we don't actually see it happen.

shrike wrote:but the fighting is still relatively brutal (not really so far, only a few scraps here and there

Disemboweling and decapitating; are you saying that isn't brutal?

 Testify wrote:
I was pretty optimistic until I saw a clip of the dwarves in goblin town. The action just looked absolutely awful, like something about of an action film aged at 12 year olds.

That was actually my favourite action sequence in the movie. Seeing a clip isn't enough. It was incredibly fluid, and well put together, and it really fulfilled what it supposed to do for the story; show the moment when the dwarves truly measure up their courage and show us what they are capable of. And yet it remained effective and showed them as skilled warriors while not turning them into epic heroes the likes of Aragorn.

shrike wrote:PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.

To add to this, the book didn't make him mysterious at all, in fact all it showed was Tolkein had no idea what he was doing with Gandalf at those points. Essentially Gandalf kept disappearing because they needed to face some challenges without him, and in the end when it got to the LoTR Tolkein chinned up and filled in the blanks with the appendices. But at the time of the Hobbit no, Gandalf wasn't mysterious and it wasn't to keep us guessing what he was doing, because Tolkein himself hadn't a clue.

kamakazepanda wrote:Also, despite being filmed in Eastern Europe, Middle Earth still looked just right.

I really hope this is a joke and you don't seriously think New Zealand is part of Europe.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

shrike wrote:if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No.

Except that's what happens seemingly in the books. His death is incredibly vague in the books, but what it does tell us is that they find him with many Orc arrows in him and a pile of dead Orcs around him. All that's seemingly different in the movie is that Lurtz kills him, but then again nothing in the book says it wasn't a Captain that shot him several times, because we don't actually see it happen.

well, I think it's safe to say it happened relatively like what happened in the film- he took on loads of them, got shot, killed a handful more, got shot again, maybe killed another one or two, then got shot again and died (maybe a few more arrows in him, just to make sure).

shrike wrote:but the fighting is still relatively brutal (not really so far, only a few scraps here and there

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Disemboweling and decapitating; are you saying that isn't brutal?

well, it isn't on such a large scale as LotR is what I meant

 Testify wrote:
I was pretty optimistic until I saw a clip of the dwarves in goblin town. The action just looked absolutely awful, like something about of an action film aged at 12 year olds.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
That was actually my favourite action sequence in the movie. Seeing a clip isn't enough. It was incredibly fluid, and well put together, and it really fulfilled what it supposed to do for the story; show the moment when the dwarves truly measure up their courage and show us what they are capable of. And yet it remained effective and showed them as skilled warriors while not turning them into epic heroes the likes of Aragorn.

agree completely, I loved how fluid they switched tactics and moved around each other without having to say a word.

shrike wrote:PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
To add to this, the book didn't make him mysterious at all, in fact all it showed was Tolkein had no idea what he was doing with Gandalf at those points. Essentially Gandalf kept disappearing because they needed to face some challenges without him, and in the end when it got to the LoTR Tolkein chinned up and filled in the blanks with the appendices. But at the time of the Hobbit no, Gandalf wasn't mysterious and it wasn't to keep us guessing what he was doing, because Tolkein himself hadn't a clue.

True.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It is possible to do various flips and the like into a saddle but yes putting the full weight of an adult in armor on the neck of a horse is fairly silly, as is swinging to the right and up as opposed to the left and back.

I always thought that, along with all of Legolas's other feats of nigh superhuman strength, speed and balance were almost the point. "No, he's not human, he's not remotely close" I do see where the sue accusations could come in though.

You say putting the full weight of an adult around the horses neck however Legolas is an elf and ,in Tolkeins world, elves are very light and dainty. You can clearly see this in Fellowship when they are on the Caradhras mountain and everyone is wading through the snow and Legolas is walking on top barely leaving a footprint.

I just came back from the movie in imax 3D. The new frame rate really crippled my ability to enjoy the movie. Some of the graphics looked like a step back from Lord of the Rings.

On the other hand, some of the scenes looked fantastic and looked better for being in 3D. I was also more entertained by the characters in this movie, with Bilbo being a much more likeable character than Frodo IMO.

Just got back home from seeing the movie and I must say it was most enjoyable and I cant wait to see the next one.

My wife and I just got back and we really loved the movie. It had just the right amount of stuff added into the original story without feeling "off" and makes me very eager to see what they do with the White Council and the Necromancer in the next movie.

Without saying anything that's a spoiler, I especially liked the added scene describing how the Dwarves try to take Moria and Thorin becomes a hero (and gains his surname), and the scene in the mountains was a surprisingly intense artistic direction from the book, without giving too much away.

Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films. The whole albino orc subplot (struggling to find an identifiable villain and flesh out the movies action) and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.

I just got back from watching the movie and while I don't believe it measures up to LOTR, it is still a supremely enjoyable movie. The world is not as dark as LOTR. It is a different time and while I don't believe this trilogy will surpass the LOTR trilogy, I don't believe it is meant to. I hope that they continue to delve into the backstory of the dwarves and Elves.

I would like them to include snippets of the earlier lore of Middle Earth. Seeing the... contemporaries of Gandalf the Grey was great. Throw in some stuff from the Silmarilion since that was the one book I found to dense and disjointed to really get into.

 Harriticus wrote:
Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films. The whole albino orc subplot (struggling to find an identifiable villain and flesh out the movies action) and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.

I quite liked the scene with the dish washing song and I thought the albino Orc plot device to show how Oakenshield comes to be the hardened leader that he is was a good bit of creative license. Loved the end though with Smog finally giving us some eye.

Haven't seen it yet, though that's mainly because me and my parents thought it was coming out in cinemas boxing day, not before

But, with my Mum not really into LotR, and my sister not really being into that sort of fantasy... I don't think I'll be able to go...


Good to hear that it's as good as the trailers make it seem, though!

Just got back from it in Imax 3D, glad I skipped out on the HFR. Looked gorgeous, the costumes and characters were great and everything was nicely fleshed out. The nods to the books like the Dwarves singing "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" and the "Down to Goblin Town" song were very organic and well done.

I didn't see the length complaint, could have done with a bit more, though it was a good stopping point. Smaug seems to be a bit of a tease eh?

Very excited for the next film!

Mr Nobody wrote:I just came back from the movie in imax 3D. The new frame rate really crippled my ability to enjoy the movie. Some of the graphics looked like a step back from Lord of the Rings.

On the other hand, some of the scenes looked fantastic and looked better for being in 3D. I was also more entertained by the characters in this movie, with Bilbo being a much more likeable character than Frodo IMO.

I didn't think it was bad, but then again, I've never been great at noticing which things are in more detail...
and I agree, Bilbo is far, far more likeable- more british, I guess. Frodo generally spent his time moping around with the worst orgasm face in existence- I know it's because of the ring's influence, but it could have been done better IMO.

 Harriticus wrote:
Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films. The whole albino orc subplot (struggling to find an identifiable villain and flesh out the movies action) and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.

How are they going to struggle? Have you read the appendices on the White Council? There is a lot of that to go into the movies, with more than enough to fill them. This film paced well and managed to not take out anything from the book, and finished pretty much at the perfect spot to conclude it. The next has to cover Beorn, Mirkwood, Dol Guldur, and the coming to Erebor. The last then has to cover to finish at Erebor, Dale, the matter of the gold, and the Battle of Five Armies. I'm not seeing how that's not enough material.

The Dwarves doing the dishes; it's the last scene in the book where the truly fun comradery of the dwarfs is on the surface as from there on in it is all about the mission. It is important in that sense; consider it the 'last night on earth' scene if you will. Sure the very next scene is the Misty Mountains song.

How is it you can say they struggled to flesh out the action? The action scenes were applenty (some say too many) and fluid. They flowed together well and weren't forced. Besides, it's not exactly something you can struggle with as a film maker; if you need action you add action.

As for Azog, yes they didn't have an identifiable villain for the first movie straight from the book, but that isn't a fault with the movie at all, that's an issue in the book.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Throw in some stuff from the Silmarilion since that was the one book I found to dense and disjointed to really get into.

They don't have the rights to the Silmarillion.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Smaug seems to be a bit of a tease eh?

Yes, I loved how they didn't really show him properly so when you do finally see him it has much more impact.

Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films......and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.

Wow, I think that's one of the first times I've heard someone complain about a movie using too much of the book it was based on!

A lot of the criticisms I hear are:

-It's not as mature as LOTR.

-It's too silly.

Both explained because The Hobbit is, first and foremost, a book meant for children.

The issue people are having is they're seeing this as a direct prequel to LOTR, which initially it wasn't intended as such. It's supposed to be happy (initially) and silly.

Am I the only one who goes into films while leaving my expectations at the door?

I have to wait until Christmas Eve to see it...

these next 9 days just waiting are going to be torture.

Lord of the Rings is about war, and the scramble to get ahead of the Great Enemy. The Hobbit is an adventure, in a time that was more "innocent" where only vague shadows of that war were beginning to surface. As such, the feel of the two sets of material and how they are handled on the screen feels perfectly appropriate, and so far I think The Hobbit stands up stringly to LOTR.

The parts added to the Hobbit about Dol Guldur bring just the right amount of foreshadowing from the source material, even if they weren't found between the actual covers of the Hobbit.

It's worth noting that The Hobbit was written for children at a time when children's literature was a hell of a lot more mature than adult literature today.

MrScience wrote:A lot of the criticisms I hear are:

-It's not as mature as LOTR.

-It's too silly.

Both explained because The Hobbit is, first and foremost, a book meant for children.

The issue people are having is they're seeing this as a direct prequel to LOTR, which initially it wasn't intended as such. It's supposed to be happy (initially) and silly.

Am I the only one who goes into films while leaving my expectations at the door?

exactly, it's not a prequel to LotR, it's it's own book, just set in the same universe, with some interlinking characters.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Lord of the Rings is about war, and the scramble to get ahead of the Great Enemy. The Hobbit is an adventure, in a time that was more "innocent" where only vague shadows of that war were beginning to surface. As such, the feel of the two sets of material and how they are handled on the screen feels perfectly appropriate, and so far I think The Hobbit stands up stringly to LOTR.

The parts added to the Hobbit about Dol Guldur bring just the right amount of foreshadowing from the source material, even if they weren't found between the actual covers of the Hobbit.

I couldn't put it better, well said.

 Testify wrote:
It's worth noting that The Hobbit was written for children at a time when children's literature was a hell of a lot more mature than adult literature today.

Lol, this is actually a pretty accurate statement.

I liked the Hobbit book as a child, tried to re-read it as an adult and made it through two chapters. I really disliked Tolkien's way of telling stories, as I felt it was poorly written for adults. That said, like the LOTR movies, I felt this movie was far better than the book. The Dwarves being captured was ridiculous in the book-they were ill-prepared and often shown to be foolish and pathetic. However, in the movie, they were captured due to their nobility in refusing to see Bilbo ripped limb from limb. I wasn't too big on Bilbo deciding to leave, as it felt kind of like he just decided "okay, why not?" Overall though, it was great fun.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I liked the Hobbit book as a child, tried to re-read it as an adult and made it through two chapters. I really disliked Tolkien's way of telling stories, as I felt it was poorly written for adults. That said, like the LOTR movies, I felt this movie was far better than the book. The Dwarves being captured was ridiculous in the book-they were ill-prepared and often shown to be foolish and pathetic. However, in the movie, they were captured due to their nobility in refusing to see Bilbo ripped limb from limb. I wasn't too big on Bilbo deciding to leave, as it felt kind of like he just decided "okay, why not?" Overall though, it was great fun.

pretty much my thoughts too (minus the disliking the book). I said before release I hoped (and expected) PJ would have the dwarves fight the trolls rather than go one-by-one.
but I agree, I'd rather see him mutter to himself or tell gandalf how he sometimes wanted to be at home rather than actually try to leave.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films......and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.

Wow, I think that's one of the first times I've heard someone complain about a movie using too much of the book it was based on!

It can be an issue, yes. A cinematic experience is not the same as a literary one and translating it page from page doesn't automatically make it a good narrative on screen. The movie could have been an hour shorter without any effect on what it was trying to do, imo.

 Harriticus wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films......and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.

Wow, I think that's one of the first times I've heard someone complain about a movie using too much of the book it was based on!

It can be an issue, yes. A cinematic experience is not the same as a literary one and translating it page from page doesn't automatically make it a good narrative on screen. The movie could have been an hour shorter without any effect on what it was trying to do, imo.

I can't really see that- maybe 30 minutes.
there weren't really any large chunks of film which could be cut out completely, though some were a bit drawn out (not stretched ridiculously, though).
3 films might be a stretch with the hobbit, but with the white council stuff mixed in, it really shouldn't be that bad.

Going to see it in a few hours!

Loved it, and as a kiwi, loved it even more. Very well done, well put together. And agree with what godlessm has to say. The escape from goblin town was so well down.

Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.



Besides that I thought The Hobbit was Brilliant.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.

Spoiler:

The dwarves were treated better than what I thought in that, they were actually heroic and not foolish, which is what I was expecting...good thing I was wrong. Radagast was great, Saruman was dissapointing. The opening back story of Smaug vs the Dwarves was awesome, wish they showed more Dragon though, I know it was a tease.

Only had a few complaints:
1) Goblin King voice, what's the deal... were they summoning Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln?
2) Didn't like Bilbo attacking the orcs at the end, just not part of the character IMO.
3) Not enough Bilbo..was hoping for more comic relief from Bilbo.

Besides that I thought The Hobbit was Brilliant.

 generalgrog wrote:
Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.

Spoiler:

The dwarves were treated better than what I thought in that, they were actually heroic and not foolish, which is what I was expecting...good thing I was wrong. Radagast was great, Saruman was dissapointing. The opening back story of Smaug vs the Dwarves was awesome, wish they showed more Dragon though, I know it was a tease.

Only had a few complaints:
1) Goblin King voice, what's the deal... were they summoning Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln?
2) Didn't like Bilbo attacking the orcs at the end, just not part of the character IMO.
3) Not enough Bilbo..was hoping for more comic relief from Bilbo.

Besides that I thought The Hobbit was Brilliant.

GG