The Hobbit Page 35

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • ZuluHero 17 Dec 2012 01:38:55 4,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    No no, it's mentioned in the Two Towers. Your nerd powers are just weak, old man. :)
    Heh, you've got that right. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine! :p

    Redeemed? :)
  • neilka 17 Dec 2012 01:44:10 16,467 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The CGI in the book was better, the Phong shading on Gollum's arse cheeks was particularly impressive.

    BAAANG!!!!! EXPLOTION!!!!!

  • Deleted user 17 December 2012 03:06:21
    That phong pho-phong phong phong.
  • JinTypeNoir 17 Dec 2012 05:20:51 4,392 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I thought it was a fantastic adaptation. What I took away from this film is that given the chance to make the Hobbit film and all the expectations from the first trilogy, that Jackson was most comfortable in making the tone like the Lord of the Rings. Like, but not entirely similar. I liked very much how it kept the story's origins as a children's book. There are all sorts of scenes smaller kids will delight in, which I'm not sure is as true of Lord of the Rings. Its got a fond delight of good things and abhorrence of bad things that hobbits do -- and it keeps that through almost everything -- which means this movie gets correct what I always thought was one thing the Lord of the Rings movies always got wrong -- it was very seldom filmed from the perspective of the hobbits. Its also several times more peculiar and funny and whimsical than the other movies.

    I thought all the additions made for a great new look on an old classic. Yes, The Hobbit as opposed to the Lord of the Rings is a book that could successfully turned into one 2 hour movie. But I see no reason it can't be 9 hours if somebody wants it to and has the talent to do it either. All the additions to set into the history and time and everything else that was going on help put into context for people who just know the movies, I'm sure. As well, it surprisingly adds to the stakes without taking away much of the hobbitiness (which should be a word, dammit!)

    Anybody who has read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings knows that there are many beats of the story that are similar, so that didn't bug me in the slightest. I love myths, and when you read lots of myths and encounter the "Wait, haven't I read this before?" feeling, its like a kind of aching nostalgia that should not exist. A nostalgia of a world you've never seen before and are far too young to be a part of. Tolkien was skilled enough I think that it was less a matter of not having any new material in him, then of knowing that stories have rhythms to them and when they resonate with other stories it creates a deep echo in the mind. I think Jackson picks up on this in this movie very well. A very pure admiration of Tolkien runs through it and when critics pop their monocles, "But I say, it doesn't make for good film!" I want to respond to these critics like Gollum and say, "Is it good to eats?"

    The new technology was stunning. Its first time I've ever thought I wouldn't mind seeing other movies in 3D. People say it was like looking through a window, but I disagree. It was a new kind of hyper-real I've never seen before in a movie. Its exciting to see a genuinely brand new image like that. I'd love to see what else comes out of this new technology future movies.

    A note on eagles. Henceforth anyone who nitpicks about inconclusive things as if they were important because they have misguided sense about how smart or knowledgeable they are, will be known by me, as an eagledick. Eagledicks can't see the forest for the trees so they land into places of vapid criticism; in any story, it really doesn't matter there are dozens of logical explanations of "why didn't they?" as long as the principle story is fine the way it is. There's no need to explain the eagles any more they get, they're fine and they've always been fine the way they are.
  • barchetta 17 Dec 2012 06:48:07 1,371 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    localnotail wrote:
    barchetta wrote:
    I felt little was done to distinguish many of the Dwarves, perhaps we'll see more individuality in forthcomIng installments
    HTH
    Heh, nice one. Thanks! Will help for my second viewing.
  • SClaw 17 Dec 2012 08:37:18 826 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Saw this on Saturday at Brum IMAX (24fps). No need to write a big review; if you liked Lord of the Rings you'll be in heavan. If you like films on a technical basis you'll have a good time. If you are neither of the above you'll hate this film.

    This was the most I've been entertained all year. For me it didn't set a foot wrong from start to finish and, in fact, improved on Lord of the Rings by making it's "minor" villians a little bit more in your face and real. Same for the Dwarves; they were a little more like real people than the iconic hero-types of Lord of the Rings.

    Above and beyond anything else, though, the casting was an absolute treat. Sylvester McCoy was epic (he should be in all films), and Barry Humphries (Dame Edna Everidge) as the goblin king? Genius. Christopher Lee lecturing Ian McKellen was also a great moment. And while I dislike Martin Freeman, I have to admit he really made that role his own.
  • Scurrminator 17 Dec 2012 08:39:17 8,459 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    JinTypeNoir wrote:
    I thought it was a fantastic adaptation. What I took away from this film is that given the chance to make the Hobbit film and all the expectations from the first trilogy, that Jackson was most comfortable in making the tone like the Lord of the Rings. Like, but not entirely similar. I liked very much how it kept the story's origins as a children's book. There are all sorts of scenes smaller kids will delight in, which I'm not sure is as true of Lord of the Rings. Its got a fond delight of good things and abhorrence of bad things that hobbits do -- and it keeps that through almost everything -- which means this movie gets correct what I always thought was one thing the Lord of the Rings movies always got wrong -- it was very seldom filmed from the perspective of the hobbits. Its also several times more peculiar and funny and whimsical than the other movies.

    I thought all the additions made for a great new look on an old classic. Yes, The Hobbit as opposed to the Lord of the Rings is a book that could successfully turned into one 2 hour movie. But I see no reason it can't be 9 hours if somebody wants it to and has the talent to do it either. All the additions to set into the history and time and everything else that was going on help put into context for people who just know the movies, I'm sure. As well, it surprisingly adds to the stakes without taking away much of the hobbitiness (which should be a word, dammit!)

    Anybody who has read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings knows that there are many beats of the story that are similar, so that didn't bug me in the slightest. I love myths, and when you read lots of myths and encounter the "Wait, haven't I read this before?" feeling, its like a kind of aching nostalgia that should not exist. A nostalgia of a world you've never seen before and are far too young to be a part of. Tolkien was skilled enough I think that it was less a matter of not having any new material in him, then of knowing that stories have rhythms to them and when they resonate with other stories it creates a deep echo in the mind. I think Jackson picks up on this in this movie very well. A very pure admiration of Tolkien runs through it and when critics pop their monocles, "But I say, it doesn't make for good film!" I want to respond to these critics like Gollum and say, "Is it good to eats?"

    The new technology was stunning. Its first time I've ever thought I wouldn't mind seeing other movies in 3D. People say it was like looking through a window, but I disagree. It was a new kind of hyper-real I've never seen before in a movie. Its exciting to see a genuinely brand new image like that. I'd love to see what else comes out of this new technology future movies.

    A note on eagles. Henceforth anyone who nitpicks about inconclusive things as if they were important because they have misguided sense about how smart or knowledgeable they are, will be known by me, as an eagledick. Eagledicks can't see the forest for the trees so they land into places of vapid criticism; in any story, it really doesn't matter there are dozens of logical explanations of "why didn't they?" as long as the principle story is fine the way it is. There's no need to explain the eagles any more they get, they're fine and they've always been fine the way they are.
    The eagles are still cunts!

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • JinTypeNoir 17 Dec 2012 09:09:09 4,392 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    The eagles are still cunts!
    He he he. Does anyone remember which of the angel-like beings in the Silmarillion was basically the god of wind and air and created the eagles?
  • RobAnybody 17 Dec 2012 09:22:55 943 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    JinTypeNoir wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    The eagles are still cunts!
    He he he. Does anyone remember which of the angel-like beings in the Silmarillion was basically the god of wind and air and created the eagles?
    http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Eagles
  • LeoliansBro 17 Dec 2012 09:27:23 44,737 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The Eagles are supposed to be like Ents, in that they aren't specifically taking sides. Hence they're happy to rescue Frodo after the fact in LOTR but aren't going to be a delivery package for desgtroying the one ring.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 17 December 2012 09:33:15
    JinTypeNoir wrote:
    I thought it was a fantastic adaptation. What I took away from this film is that given the chance to make the Hobbit film and all the expectations from the first trilogy, that Jackson was most comfortable in making the tone like the Lord of the Rings. Like, but not entirely similar. I liked very much how it kept the story's origins as a children's book. There are all sorts of scenes smaller kids will delight in, which I'm not sure is as true of Lord of the Rings. Its got a fond delight of good things and abhorrence of bad things that hobbits do -- and it keeps that through almost everything -- which means this movie gets correct what I always thought was one thing the Lord of the Rings movies always got wrong -- it was very seldom filmed from the perspective of the hobbits. Its also several times more peculiar and funny and whimsical than the other movies.

    I thought all the additions made for a great new look on an old classic. Yes, The Hobbit as opposed to the Lord of the Rings is a book that could successfully turned into one 2 hour movie. But I see no reason it can't be 9 hours if somebody wants it to and has the talent to do it either. All the additions to set into the history and time and everything else that was going on help put into context for people who just know the movies, I'm sure. As well, it surprisingly adds to the stakes without taking away much of the hobbitiness (which should be a word, dammit!)

    Anybody who has read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings knows that there are many beats of the story that are similar, so that didn't bug me in the slightest. I love myths, and when you read lots of myths and encounter the "Wait, haven't I read this before?" feeling, its like a kind of aching nostalgia that should not exist. A nostalgia of a world you've never seen before and are far too young to be a part of. Tolkien was skilled enough I think that it was less a matter of not having any new material in him, then of knowing that stories have rhythms to them and when they resonate with other stories it creates a deep echo in the mind. I think Jackson picks up on this in this movie very well. A very pure admiration of Tolkien runs through it and when critics pop their monocles, "But I say, it doesn't make for good film!" I want to respond to these critics like Gollum and say, "Is it good to eats?"

    The new technology was stunning. Its first time I've ever thought I wouldn't mind seeing other movies in 3D. People say it was like looking through a window, but I disagree. It was a new kind of hyper-real I've never seen before in a movie. Its exciting to see a genuinely brand new image like that. I'd love to see what else comes out of this new technology future movies.

    A note on eagles. Henceforth anyone who nitpicks about inconclusive things as if they were important because they have misguided sense about how smart or knowledgeable they are, will be known by me, as an eagledick. Eagledicks can't see the forest for the trees so they land into places of vapid criticism; in any story, it really doesn't matter there are dozens of logical explanations of "why didn't they?" as long as the principle story is fine the way it is. There's no need to explain the eagles any more they get, they're fine and they've always been fine the way they are.
    Did you not find it a bit dull and long winded?
  • localnotail 17 Dec 2012 10:10:17 23,093 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    So what you are saying is: the Eagles are Switzerland?

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • SClaw 17 Dec 2012 10:14:43 826 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    No. The eagles didn't take money from both sides, then furiously deny it afterwards while keeping all said money.
  • Dizzy 17 Dec 2012 10:22:09 2,743 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The eagles are actually good guys.... servants of the Manwe and send to ME, just like Gandalf, to kick some evil butt. That being said, they seem to take their role more as prevention and usually do not get involved in organised attacks against the bad guys.

    I absolutely loved the movie BTW. I like it that he incorporated stuff from LotR and Silmarillion and turned it into an epic ME story. Yes it isn't 100% the Hobbit book and yes, some things are not correct, Azog for example was killed in Moria, but I understand he wanted to give the bad guys a face.

    I hope after the Hobbit..... in a few years, that maybe we will get a "Fall of Gondolin" movie, but I doubt it. I wouldn't mind more ME stuff.

    Edited by Dizzy at 10:25:00 17-12-2012
  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife 17 Dec 2012 13:17:19 7,014 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Saw it last night and loved it. Really don't understand where the complaints of the first half are coming from unless you have ADD. It's a rollicking good adventure movie!

    It's obviously not going to convert those that found LOTR a drag but those that enjoyed those wont be disappointed.

    (I watched it 3D IMAX non-HFR)
  • Deleted user 18 December 2012 15:12:51
    Just watched it. Loved it. Glad I went 48 fps. On certain scenes it is strange but in the grander battles and swooping vistas it almost feels you are in the film. Good use of 3d too.

    My biggest concern was why three films. Well I'm happy to say to 2h 45min flew and didn't feel they stretched it out at all and finished at an excellent point in the book.

    Delighted they re used a lot of the lotr soundtrack and the couple of bits they changed from the book made for a better movie.

    Go watch it in 48fps.
  • Deleted user 18 December 2012 15:12:52
    Just watched it. Loved it. Glad I went 48 fps. On certain scenes it is strange but in the grander battles and swooping vistas it almost feels you are in the film. Good use of 3d too.

    My biggest concern was why three films. Well I'm happy to say to 2h 45min flew and didn't feel they stretched it out at all and finished at an excellent point in the book.

    Delighted they re used a lot of the lotr soundtrack and the couple of bits they changed from the book made for a better movie.

    Go watch it in 48fps.
  • askew 18 Dec 2012 15:25:15 12,573 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    That post is in 3D.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Dec 2012 15:25:50 44,737 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    ...if you're lying in despair with your head on your desk, it was.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • askew 18 Dec 2012 15:28:24 12,573 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Isn't that what all of us are in at this time of year?

    No?

    :(
  • Jmek 18 Dec 2012 16:16:42 1,355 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Just got back from seeing this, loved every minute. It may in fact nick the crown of movie of the year from Dredd.
  • Deleted user 18 December 2012 16:27:22
    Did you also see in 48 fps?
  • Monsieur_Blade 18 Dec 2012 23:30:43 357 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Just got back from watching this and really enjoyed it. Felt the first 45 mins were dragged out 15 minutes too long though. Don't get me wrong, i like a slow build up of a story but after 45 mins they still hadn't left bilbo's house!!

    After the slow start though i absolutely loved it and thought the last 2 hours were great.

    The only thing i can complain about is the 48 fps and the 3d. I didn't like it at all and it almost ruined a great film for me. It feels like some parts of the film are in fast forward and some of the action scenes looked terrible!! It really makes the cgi stand out and look really fake in parts. I much preferred tlotr and the use of real actors over cgi.

    I'm also done with 3d. The hobbit is the 3rd 3d film I've watched and I'm not impressed at all. Its just a gimmick for me and often makes the edges of the picture blurry.

    Anyway, i enjoyed the film but just wish i'd seen it in normal 2d.

    Film = 7/10
    Hfr 3d = 2/10
  • Bremenacht 19 Dec 2012 20:47:34 19,393 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Only decent 3D bit was the last 2 seconds before the credits.
  • Lotos8ter 19 Dec 2012 21:06:00 2,364 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Just got back from seeing it and thought it was really good and very enjoyable. No idea what version I saw, it was just 2D which seemed fine to me. I could have done with Local's Flowchart during it mind.

    Fiat Lux

  • mrpon 19 Dec 2012 21:10:34 29,427 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Given recent posts, "locals flowchart" takes on a rather disconcerting connotation.

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • pac666 19 Dec 2012 21:19:22 203 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Gorgeous film. Really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the rest of the journey.
  • Bremenacht 19 Dec 2012 22:57:03 19,393 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    mrpon wrote:
    Given recent posts, "locals flowchart" takes on a rather disconcerting connotation.
    Ooer. Pints or CCs on the X axis, d'ya think?
  • Fourwisemen 20 Dec 2012 23:07:53 182 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Watched The Hobbit in IMAX in 3d at 48fps today and can say it's the most disjointed watching experience I've ever seen.

    This is no review of the film, which for the record I enjoyed, but more a case for either going for the 'full experience' or not.

    The good. Some scenes looked truly beautiful. Smooth, detailed, full of character and what you would expect.

    The bad. Some scenes, very basic ones at that, felt like watching a Benny Hill episode. I seriously questioned whether the guy behind the projector (like there is one......) was considering it funny to hit fast forward every now and then.

    It was the inconsistency that killed it, one minute a majestic experience and the next jarring.

    If the whole movie looked as good as its best bits, then the 48fps technology has legs, but right now, no chance.

    Edited by Fourwisemen at 23:08:33 20-12-2012 Spelling mistakes, bloody Manchester Markets Wheat Beer...

    Edited by Fourwisemen at 23:11:30 20-12-2012
  • Armoured_Bear 21 Dec 2012 00:28:45 11,698 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    So, anyone seen it in 2d or 3d?
    What's the verdict?

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply