Lord of The Rings - New Amazon Series

[johnbron]

When I was a kid, my mother would read the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to me. Over the years I've grown to love all things related to Middle Earth and I'm completely geeking out over the fact that they're finally filming. Also, PETER JACKSON FTW! I have yet to see a film in 3D and have very little interest. That said, it appears that Peter Jackson is taking it on the best way possible.

The production videos that have been posted so far have been amazing.

http://www.thehobbitblog.com/?cat=1

Can we just fast forward a year so I can see the first part in theaters? ;)

[Wretchedest]

Hi set up for this movie enough to make any film techie jealous... 48 Red Epic's.. essentially converted into 24 3-D Cameras, Why do you need 24 5K 3D camera's for? That's so nuts.

[Alexandros]

Although I am still excited about this film, I will always be a bit disappointed that we didn't get to watch Del Toro's vision of The Hobbit. I guess Jackson will give a greater sense of continuity with Lord of the Rings, which is probably a good thing for the box office, but Del Toro is much, MUCH better at creepiness than Jackson. And there is potential for a lot of creepiness in the Hobbit, despite the light-hearted spirit of the book.

[Elke]

Those video blogs are amazing! I love the look of the Dwarves, and the way they've conceived Mirkwood. And I can't wait to see what they'rte going to do with Smaug, but I think the casting there is spot on!

[orestes]

Main theme to the Hobbit. (http://soundcloud.com/amanofscience/the-hobbit-main-theme) Ahhhh Concerning Hobbits!

[Torgo]

Absolutely loved this blog entry. Especially the ending. :) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RiHRkK4ztU&feature=plcp)

Absolutely loved this blog entry. Especially the ending. :)

[dpeters]

Absolutely loved this blog entry. Especially the ending. :) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RiHRkK4ztU&feature=plcp)

Absolutely loved this blog entry. Especially the ending. :)

Dwarven Legolas for the win.

[Findus]

Here's speculation about a possible Hobbit trilogy.
Peter is currently in discussions with the studio to shoot more footage. It seems more likely that it would be for an extended version.

http://io9.com/5926074/peter-jackson-wants-to-shoot-more-hobbit-footage-and-hopes-to-split-the-final-flick-in-two

[orestes]

New production video.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151131427226807

[Alexandros]

New production video.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151131427226807

Hey cool, the mountain giants are in!

Nice video overall, got a good glimpse of lots of stuff and characters!

[Fixer808]

My friend had never read the book. I shamed her for a bit, then lent her my copy.

[marodi]

The Hobbit officially becomes three films (http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=34744)

[Findus]

I'm hoping they go with Riddles in the Dark, as opposed to The Desolation of Smaug, if the domain registrations are legit indicators of title considerations.

http://www.slashfilm.com/hobbit-film-confirmed-domain-registrations-reveal-potential-titles/#more-132369

[orestes]

Oh, boy, I hope Jackson hasn't bitten off more than he can chew.

[kdrcraig]

Oh, boy, I hope Jackson hasn't bitten off more than he can chew.

Yeah I know Jackson said today that they are using the appendices from Lord of the Rings to flesh out more of the stuff that happens during The Hobbit but three movies just seems like too much, the book isn't even that long. I have faith that all 3 will be good and I'll definitely be going to see them, but I liked the idea of two movies a lot better.

[Sutekh]

Hobbit could easily be 2 movies and then the third be a bridge, it'll be fine! Did you hear at the premiere of rotk jackson admitted he'd submitted the film without watching it first? He knows his onions

[Jinsai]

The Hobbit doesn't need to be three movies. Part of what makes the story great is how direct and simple it is. It could have worked as a single film.

[orestes]

Hobbit could easily be 2 movies and then the third be a bridge, it'll be fine! Did you hear at the premiere of rotk jackson admitted he'd submitted the film without watching it first? He knows his onions

There's nothing peculiar about that statement, considering he spent months editing it.

This photo says it all:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17uftph5epp2cjpg/original.jpg

[Mr. Blaileen]

Question that hopefully someone might be able to answer for me:

Is there anywhere I could find more music similar to the song featured in "The Hobbit" trailer is currently playing before "The Dark Knight Rises"?

The song is called "Over The Misty Mountains Cold" and it's all sorts of awesome..and I would have to hear more stuff like this if it's out there.

[Alexandros]

Question that hopefully someone might be able to answer for me:

Is there anywhere I could find more music similar to the song featured in "The Hobbit" trailer is currently playing before "The Dark Knight Rises"?

The song is called "Over The Misty Mountains Cold" and it's all sorts of awesome..and I would have to hear more stuff like this if it's out there.

I'm assuming you're not looking for the obvious answer that is the LOTR soundtrack. The song itself reminds me mostly of the less festive Russian Red Army Choir type songs, I guess? Mostly. I'm pretty sure they're drawing from Slavic-Russian influences for the music of the Dwarves, the other dwarven track in LOTR (the one playing in the beginning of the Two Towers, as Gandalf falls with the Balrog) is also very reminiscent of (the more energetic this time) Russian Red Army Choir songs. That track is called Foundations of Stone by the way, look it up, the choir part starts around the 2:30 mark. The video below is quite close to "Over The Misty Mountains Cold" I think.

Red Army Choir (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WD0WVL-HjE)

[Findus]

^^^^
Or perhaps something like this:

http://youtu.be/M0d4qM7gCH8

[Sutekh]

The Hobbit doesn't need to be three movies. Part of what makes the story great is how direct and simple it is. It could have worked as a single film.

The third one will be a bridge between hob and lotr, so don't worry about it being dragged out too much. How many pages is the hobbit? Haven't read it since the 90s but remember 1 page = roughly 1 minute screenplay. I think seeing as they want to segue this with the lotr trilogy, it will have lots of material to that end that ddn't feature in the hobbit book.

Also orestes I would have to check but I would have thought multiple units would have been assigned to a titanic edit job (which was also against the clock) such as lotr - they definitely shot it that way (jackson was not present for a lot of the shooting, with 2nd 3rd etc units delegated to shoots under strict instructions). If not then I am truly astounded at his abillity

[Jinsai]

The third one will be a bridge between hob and lotr, so don't worry about it being dragged out too much. How many pages is the hobbit? Haven't read it since the 90s but remember 1 page = roughly 1 minute screenplay. I think seeing as they want to segue this with the lotr trilogy, it will have lots of material to that end that ddn't feature in the hobbit book.

My copy is 317 pages, but that's with large print and occasional illustrations.

I understand that he's pulling from the LotR appendices to expand the story and bridge the two. I wouldn't have seen that as necessary, but maybe it'll work. I like Peter Jackson's LotR movies, but I've felt they occasionally dragged and sometimes wallowed in unnecessary melodrama. The Hobbit could have worked if it had been a somewhat less ponderous and serious entry, and took a more direct and simple approach to the story (like the book).

Who knows though. I have faith in Peter Jackson... even if The Lovely Bones was a horrible movie.

[Fixer808]

There's nothing peculiar about that statement, considering he spent months editing it.

This photo says it all:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17uftph5epp2cjpg/original.jpg
http://www.music-atlas.com/images/zz_top.jpg

[orestes]

Also orestes I would have to check but I would have thought multiple units would have been assigned to a titanic edit job (which was also against the clock) such as lotr - they definitely shot it that way (jackson was not present for a lot of the shooting, with 2nd 3rd etc units delegated to shoots under strict instructions). If not then I am truly astounded at his abillity

Nope, it was just Peter Jackson and Jaimie Selkirk. The reason Jackson didn't get to view the film in its entirety before the premiere was due to time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Return_of_the_King#Edit ing).

[Sutekh]

That is honestly... Amazing! No wonder Sir Christopher threatened to resign from the academy if... Etc etc

[Sutekh]

My copy is 317 pages, but that's with large print and occasional illustrations.

I understand that he's pulling from the LotR appendices to expand the story and bridge the two. I wouldn't have seen that as necessary, but maybe it'll work. I like Peter Jackson's LotR movies, but I've felt they occasionally dragged and sometimes wallowed in unnecessary melodrama. The Hobbit could have worked if it had been a somewhat less ponderous and serious entry, and took a more direct and simple approach to the story (like the book).

Who knows though. I have faith in Peter Jackson... even if The Lovely Bones was a horrible movie.

There is a maybe element... Lovely bones was bad (ditto frighteners)... A lot of tolkien nuts I know hate the films like most people hate the star wars prequels. Personally I loved them, I think if they take the same editorial approach (ie less songs), we will all live happily ever after.

No appropriate juncture has arisen, so may I just say - bad taste and braindead were bloody great. The trilogy and those are the reasons the benefit of the doubt I extend to PJ is endless

[Alexandros]

The third one will be a bridge between hob and lotr, so don't worry about it being dragged out too much.

I think this has been debunked by Peter Jackson himself. It seems he's not going to add new material, but rather use much more of the already shot material, plus some few additions maybe, and also change the breaking points of the films. However it happens, the official word at this point is that the tale of the Hobbit (plus all the White Council and Dol Guldur bits) will be dragged on for three movies. There won't be a bridge movie.

At this point, I'm very apprehensive about it. If not a money grab, it seems at least like self-indulgence. Three movies is just too much for the Hobbit, even with all the extra bits. I hope I'm mistaken.

[Sutekh]

I dunno... Everything I know first hand is from when Guillermo was in the chair (I know, massively out of date), but at that point smaug was fully animatronic (jizz) and the studio was pushing for 3 movies with a 3rd acting as a bridge. This info is courtesy of (SWIM) drunk scottish guy in hellboy 2 crew fleece who hangs around metal bars in camden town

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Three movies now?? Seems a bit much for The Hobbit. I would have been fine with just one long movie. Blahhhh.

[eversonpoe]

There is a maybe element... Lovely bones was bad (ditto frighteners)... A lot of tolkien nuts I know hate the films like most people hate the star wars prequels. Personally I loved them, I think if they take the same editorial approach (ie less songs), we will all live happily ever after.

No appropriate juncture has arisen, so may I just say - bad taste and braindead were bloody great. The trilogy and those are the reasons the benefit of the doubt I extend to PJ is endless

maybe it's just because of how old i was when i first saw it, but i love the frighteners. it was one of the first really scary things that also made me laugh.

anyway, my girlfriend (who is a huge tolkien nut) is SO EXCITED that they're actually including some of the songs in this. she said that was one of her main disappointments with the LOTR trilogy, because it's such a fun and interesting part of the books.

[kdrcraig]

anyway, my girlfriend (who is a huge tolkien nut) is SO EXCITED that they're actually including some of the songs in this. she said that was one of her main disappointments with the LOTR trilogy, because it's such a fun and interesting part of the books.

I liked that they left out the songs, I skip them any time I re-read the series now. It makes more sense to have them in this movie, I've always considered the book a lot more lighthearted than LOTR even though some serious shit happens in it. I've been reading a lot of theories on how they could split up the movies and what having 3 movies will allow them to do and I'm feeling a little better about it, but still I think 2 movies would've been perfect.

[Jinsai]

I don't have a problem with The Frighteners. The first Peter Jackson movie I saw was Meet the Feebles, and that holds up in a pretty great and uniquely disturbing way. I still think the best film he's made is Heavenly Creatures.

No matter though, Lovely Bones was unforgivably shitty. I don't know what to make of the decision to split up the Hobbit, but it does sound like an unnecessary money grab. I'd like to be proven wrong of course, but he can be overindulgent. King Kong was a fun, silly movie, but it didn't need to be over 3 hours long.

With LotR, it made sense to split it into three long movies, because the book was split into three long epic books, each of which was more detailed and significantly longer than The Hobbit. If the end result is a 9 hour Hobbit movie... well I don't know, I'd like to believe that could work, as ludicrous as it sounds.

[Elke]

I'm not too keen on the three movies thing, but then they don't each have to be 3 hours. Maybe this time we'll get three two hour movies, which imho might be better than two three hour movies.

[dpeters]

I don't have a problem with The Frighteners. The first Peter Jackson movie I saw was Meet the Feebles, and that holds up in a pretty great and uniquely disturbing way. I still think the best film he's made is Heavenly Creatures.

No matter though, Lovely Bones was unforgivably shitty. I don't know what to make of the decision to split up the Hobbit, but it does sound like an unnecessary money grab. I'd like to be proven wrong of course, but he can be overindulgent. King Kong was a fun, silly movie, but it didn't need to be over 3 hours long.

With LotR, it made sense to split it into three long movies, because the book was split into three long epic books, each of which was more detailed and significantly longer than The Hobbit. If the end result is a 9 hour Hobbit movie... well I don't know, I'd like to believe that could work, as ludicrous as it sounds.

LOTR was only broken into three parts for publication. Structurally, LOTR is six parts long.

[littlemonkey613]

... A lot of tolkien nuts I know hate the films like most people hate the star wars prequels.

WHA? Ok no really any LOTR fan that hates these films needs to get slapped upside the head. How can you not stand back and appreciate what was accomplished with these movies? They should have a Jackson alter. Are they aware of what usually happens with adaptations? Ugh.

[orestes]

First look at Thranduil. (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08/30/61298-thranduil-saruman-the-white-revealed-in-hobbit-film-tie-in-book/)

[marodi]

First look at Thranduil. (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08/30/61298-thranduil-saruman-the-white-revealed-in-hobbit-film-tie-in-book/)

I'm not crazy about the crown but otherwise, I approve.

[sa_nick]

Lee Pace looks the part but everytime I see him in anything it looks like he's acting. Like you can tell it's just some dude who's aware there's a camera pointing at him and he needs to pretend to be someone else. I did love Pushing Daisies and The Fall though, so I guess his weird screen presence is something i can overlook.

[orestes]

Fucking Radagast.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

[marodi]

Fucking Radagast.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

Must stop squeeing!

[marodi]

Double post because of awesomeness! Here are the alternate endings to the new The Hobbit trailer (because hey, if trailers can have previews, why not alternate endings):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxSpGd5OUsg&feature=player_embedded

Is it wrong that I find Gollum to be sort of adorable in this?

[Conrad Lienert]

I just watched the last bit of that trailer about 10 times. Hilarious!

[Findus]

GOLLUM: Baggins is lost?
BILBO: Yes, yes, and I want to get unlost as soon as possible.
GOLLUM: Oh, we knows! We knows safe paths for hobbitses. Safe paths, in the dark. Shut up!!!
BILBO: I didn't say anything.
GOLLUM: I wasn't talking to you!
BILBO: I really should be heading off, so..... it's been good.
GOLLUM: We could do some watercolors together, Baggins and us.
BILBO: Well, that sounds like great fun. Let's do it in the week then, Gollum.
GOLLUM: What does Baggins mean?
BILBO: Well, you free Thursday at all?
GOLLUM: Why can't we do it now?
BILBO: Well, you know, I'm a busy hobbit, Gollum. You know, I've got things to do. Bilbo Baggins, hobbit-about-village.... heh heh.
GOLLUM: Do you loves me?
BILBO: Oh, dear.
GOLLUM: Do you loves me?
BILBO: Uhhhmm. Gonna have to pretend I didn't hear that, Gollum.
GOLLUM: Do you thinks you could ever loves me?
BILBO: Uh, it doesn't really work like that, Gollum.
GOLLUM: How does it works? Tell us how it workses.
BILBO: Well, you get to know someone, you hang out, you see where that goes, this, that, the other, eventually, you know. I don't know you.
GOLLUM: You knows us, hmmm? What about the boat time?
BILBO: That... wasn't really a time, was it, Gollum? It was more of just a.... you scootin' over here from the darkness.

[orestes]

OMG

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb11ozMFFx1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg

[Findus]

Ridiculous.

http://io9.com/5954327/the-hobbits-second-breakfast-being-served-at-dennys-is-something-that-is-happening

[Alexandros]

Build your own Hobbit Slam®!

[kdrcraig]

This is going to be the shortest Middle Earth movie so far, clocking in at a measly 2 hours and 40 minutes. Ha!

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/24/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-run-time

[orestes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlRbrB_Gnc

Also, presale tickets go on sale Wednesday.

[orestes]

Anybody buy tickets yet?

[Mech]

Listen to the soundtrack

The Hobbit Soundtrack (http://www.decca.com/hosting/hobbit/)

[DVYDRNS]

I'm not giving this franchise one damn dime. this is disgusting and there is no excuse for this. I hope this gets widespread attention and the movie tanks and peter jackson is laughed into oblivion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57551648/hobbit-farm-had-animal-death-traps-that-killed-as-many-as-27-handlers/

[bobbie solo]

just read the article. sorry this angered you so, but this won't affect the movie's profit or Peter Jackson's name at all.

[Findus]

Video #9 featuring post production. Fun stuff.
http://youtu.be/4vqyzHwnEiY

[Fixer808]

I'm not giving this franchise one damn dime. this is disgusting and there is no excuse for this. I hope this gets widespread attention and the movie tanks and peter jackson is laughed into oblivion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57551648/hobbit-farm-had-animal-death-traps-that-killed-as-many-as-27-handlers/
Yeah! Because I'm totally envisioning Jackson hacking animals to death with a machete now! RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION!

Let's learn who is ACTUALLY responsible, then pour our outbursts on them.

[kdrcraig]

Bought my IMAX tickets for the 15th, might speed read the book again before then as well.

[Findus]

Select theaters will be presenting The Hobbit with Dolby's new Atmos sound system.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html

Explanation of Dolby Atmos:
http://youtu.be/1OfiCqIIW-E

Movie releases in Dolby Atmos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

The film has been getting mixed reviews pretty early.

[thevoid99]

I read that the 48 fps was one of the reasons for the lukewarm reaction.

[Alexandros]

I read that the 48 fps was one of the reasons for the lukewarm reaction.

Where I am, it seems I can only pre-buy tickets only for the 24fps version (which I promptly did). However they did say the 48fps version will come at some point, so I guess I'll be seeing this twice. I am really curious about the 48fps.

One of the negative points I've been reading in reviews is that it's maybe too slapstick and silly for its own good. Now, with The Hobbit there was always this possibility, given the spirit of the book, however Jackson's past has me worried, since he has been known to inject unwelcome silliness whenever possible. That's one of the main reasons I was hoping Del Toro would direct this, I think he was the perfect man to counterbalance the silly parts with the right amount of creepiness. But anyway, I'm speculating now. I hope the bad reviews come from overzealous Hobbit purists.

[Fixer808]

Jackson's past has me worried, since he has been known to inject unwelcome silliness whenever possible.
"Nobody tosses a dwarf!", along with a lot of Gimli's dialogue, and Legolas's tendancy to "surf" anything possible during LOTR battle scenes has me agreeing with you.

In Fellowship, Gimli shouting "Not the beard!" made me fucking cringe.

[orestes]

Beards are a source of vanity for dwarves so it wouldn't be out of character for Gimli to say it.

[fillow]

Not the bees

[Zipfinator]

I was fine with pretty much all of the humor in LOTR so if The Hobbit is similar to that I'll be fine. It looks like they may have gone a bit too far though from parts of the trailer like where a fucking troll lands on top of all of the Dwarves after a cheeky line about how they're fine.

[Jinsai]

well, maybe some theaters aren't carrying the 48 fps version because apparently in preview screenings it was giving a large portion of the audience motion sickness and migraine headaches.

But yeah, these early reviews aren't looking too promising.

[Frozen Beach]

well, maybe some theaters aren't carrying the 48 fps version because apparently in preview screenings it was giving a large portion of the audience motion sickness and migraine headaches.

But yeah, these early reviews aren't looking too promising.
Speculation on the internet is suggesting that maybe the FPS rate isn't actually causing the discomfort, but rather artifacts introduced by inferior projectors that theaters are using.

[Jinsai]

Speculation on the internet is suggesting that maybe the FPS rate isn't actually causing the discomfort, but rather artifacts introduced by inferior projectors that theaters are using.

Call me skeptical, but "speculation on the internet" is a dubious thing. The issue regarding the feeling of sickness and headaches that I first noticed was regarding the world premier in New Zealand. I'd assume the world premier wouldn't skimp on projector quality.

[johnbron]

Call me skeptical, but "speculation on the internet" is a dubious thing. The issue regarding the feeling of sickness and headaches that I first noticed was regarding the world premier in New Zealand. I'd assume the world premier wouldn't skimp on projector quality.
Yeah. This is complete bullshit. The only thing I've seen consistently is the fact that the faster frame-rate pretty much sucks balls and I'm not looking forward to it. I'm going to see it first in 24p. Maybe later at 48p, since it's apparently the way to enjoy the film. Meh.

[Jinsai]

Yeah. This is complete bullshit. The only thing I've seen consistently is the fact that the faster frame-rate pretty much sucks balls and I'm not looking forward to it. I'm going to see it first in 24p. Maybe later at 48p, since it's apparently the way to enjoy the film. Meh.

I'm on the same page exactly. I'm going to see it first in glorious non-3D 24 fps. If I like the movie, then I'm going to see it in the new migraine inducing format

[Frozen Beach]

http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/qa.html
Well, considering that it's one of the reasons why Peter Jackson decided to use 48FPS, I think it makes sense.

I think it's either that, or we just aren't aren't used to the FPS yet. I wonder if the change from 18FPS to 24FPS was this jarring for people...

[ltrandazzo]

Got my tickets for the midnight IMAX 3D showing! Unlike the rest of you whiners, I welcome 48FPS because I embrace technology instead of fearing it. VIVA LA FILM REVOLUCION!

[botley]

Call me skeptical, but "speculation on the internet" is a dubious thing.
Ironic that you say this, because REPORTING ABOUT THESE KIND OF EVENTS is a dubious thing on the Internet generally. You're not going to get unbiased information unless there is some fact-check system in place.

The issue regarding the feeling of sickness and headaches that I first noticed was regarding the world premier in New Zealand. I'd assume the world premier wouldn't skimp on projector quality.
Where did you find these feelings being reported? From whom did the reports originate, and who reported on them? Were they at the event and able to verify the eyewitness' story? Did the reporter have an anonymous profile name?

See, I ask because Peter Jackson has responded in the media to these reports saying they are NOT accurate and seemed quite upset at their "dubious" origins.

[Elke]

I decided not to take a chance on my first viewing and went for the ordinary 2D version and FUCK YEAH! I was worried, but it was sooooooooooo much better than I thought it could be! I'm a bit worried about two more films, however, if it means another 5+ hours of Martin Freeman simply BEING the quintessential Hobbit, I'm game.

edit: Oh, also, the slapstick? It's not as silly as I'd personally hoped it would be. Given that it's a children's book, it's a lot darker and creepier than LOTR itself - it has a real fairytale feel to it, and I admire Jackson, Boyens and Walsh for tying that in with the general aesthetic and tone of the trilogy. There were several things I wasn't too pleased with, but that goes for the trilogy as well. But on the whole, it was pretty fucking brilliant.

[Findus]

I was hoping it would also be shown in 2D HFR, but it isn't. I wonder what the first film will be to be shown in 2D HFR.

[johnbron]

I saw it in regular old 2D tonight with my girls. We all absolutely loved it. I really wasn't expecting to enjoy it so much, but it was nearly flawless. Next week I'll be seeing it in HFR 3D with ATMOS sound. Soon after that in HFR IMAX 3D (no Dolby ATMOS).

[Wretchedest]

48p made almost no difference. it certainly didn't take away anything, but probably didn't add much. It had a certain vividness to it, which I attribute mostly to the 4k and the 3D. people worried or whining should chill out.

I think the discrepancy being talked about is coming very largely from Peter Jacksons style and the occasional larger depth of field due to the filming for 3-D. That "Soap Opera"-ness can be found in the original trilogy, too, and its why I've never been a big fan of his style. Motion sickness was likely induced because 3D has never gone well with quickly swinging cameras and steady cam rigs.

That said I think his cinematography was much improved here, since he takes the opportunity to use cool lighting techniques. Things look excellent when the effort is made.

The split also doesn't seem as damaging as I thought. There's definitely a fair amount of fluff, which hurts the pacing, but it doesn't derail the whole thing.

My biggest issue was with the battle scenes, which felt super rushed. The same music plays..... but FASTER! and it doesn't work. We watch the heroes just plow through dozens and dozens of bad guys like its nothing. There's no sense of tension, because it never feels like anybody is in danger with 14 characters each individually knocking 12 dudes off of cliffs at a time. All of the battle scenes play out like this and its kind of boring.

The movie is at its strongest when it places an emphasis on character growth scenes and relationships. When the camera is used steadily and with care, the cinematography is very striking.

All and all, it was an alright movie. But the 48p debate is super pointless. I checked it out just for the experience.

[Fixer808]

I'll go with 2D when I see it, because outside of real life, it's my most favourite D.
I mean... until someone invents a viable holodeck...

[Alexandros]

As a Tolkien fan, I enjoyed seeing scenes and dialogue from the book come to life. Some of them were spot on too, at least in spirit if not in detail. However, the objective film critic within me simply cries out that this movie was simply...ok. The pace is just too slow, which of course is to be expected since they've drawn this out to three movies. I mean, whatever they add from appendices etc., it's just not enough. Anyway, I did enjoy it, but I don't think it's a movie I'll be happily watching repeatedly as, for example, The Fellowship of the Ring is.

One surprising thing for me is that I really loved the scenes with Radagast. I think he was the closest to the spirit of The Hobbit as the movie got. As @Elke (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=767) said before me, by trying to tie it all with the spirit of LOTR, they've really toned down the lighthearted feeling. Quite understandable for the franchise, but I did miss it a bit.

Notable scenes which I loved:

- The attack of Smaug on Erebor. Impressive stuff, and I loved that they only showed parts of the dragon. I hope they continue to handle it as cleverly in the next installments.
- The Unexpected Party.
- The attack on Radagast's place. One of the rare instances where Jackson instills just the right amount of creepy.
- Riddles in the dark!
- Bilbo's hesitation in killing Gollum and his final decision to spare him. The focal point of the entire War of the Ring! Chills...

Oh, and of course, Martin Freeman! Respect! And he'll shine a lot more in the following movies, that is certain!

[Fixer808]

I just started re-reading The Silmarrilion, I'm excited to see how Jackson treats the Sorceror of Dol Gulder!

[Elke]

I'm really interested to see how he's going to tackle the Necromancer, too.

[fillow]

So how come this project turned into a trilogy? And with 170min per film? The goddamned book is like 1/10 of LOTR in volume.

[profane]

So how come this project turned into a trilogy? And with 170min per film? The goddamned book is like 1/10 of LOTR in volume.

Because of money.

[carpenoctem]

I was skeptical about this movie (because the shameless cash grab trilogy thing pissed me off), but it was pretty good. You could definitely see where they were stretching it out though, especially in the beginning. "Now let's have a conversation about our intentions. Now let's have some flashbacks! Also, scenery porn." But I liked the general frivolity and sense of humor. And though the higher framerate thing (is that what it's called?) was weird at first, I really enjoyed it by the end of the movie, it felt perfectly natural. I would not be disappointed if more directors go this route. I think Jim Cameron's doing the Avatar sequels this way too.

[cashpiles (closed)]

First news I've heard about this being a trilogy. Jesus Christ. When they said a two movie deal I thought that was sensible...but a trilogy.....from one book...after they made a trilogy with Lord Of The Rings? retarded.... I'm interested in this 48fps though.. I didn't like the Lord Of the Rings films.... tried to capture the books but didn't.. I'll check it out.. but I'm coming in as a hater.

[Vertigo]

[So how come this project turned into a trilogy? And with 170min per film? The goddamned book is like 1/10 of LOTR in volume.]
Because of money.

Still doesn't explain why this film is so ridiculously long, which from what I've been hearing is the main flaw. You'd think, having to spread one book over three movies, that each of them would be short. I think Jackson needs to find a new editor.

[richardp]

Still doesn't explain why this film is so ridiculously long, which from what I've been hearing is the main flaw. You'd think, having to spread one book over three movies, that each of them would be short. I think Jackson needs to find a new editor.

It feels like the longest LOTR film despite being shorter than all the extended cuts. An Unexpected Journey literally feels like a 3 hour film full of deleted scenes.

[Shadaloo]

I think it's tentatively spread out so that Desolation of Smaug ends with the title dragon being killed. Movie 3 will have has the 5 armies' battle, Bilbo's trip home, and PJ said something to the effect of focusing on Gandalf, etc. driving out Sauron from Dol Guldur for much of that. So the book's events are more or less really spread out over 2 1/2 movies, roughly; a great deal of padding is in place. They could easily have done this in two (not that I'm complaining)

[Elke]

It feels like the longest LOTR film despite being shorter than all the extended cuts. An Unexpected Journey literally feels like a 3 hour film full of deleted scenes.


I really disagree. I was watching it in a very near-empty room, and I actually heard a woman behind me go 'Oh, is it time for the break already?' a second before the credits started to roll. It started up slowly, but then after the first hour I thought it made great speed. Personally.

[GoodSoldier333]

I think Jackson needs to find a new editor.

Haha i think the editor needs to find a new Director. I personally think this whole project might have been better with a different leading man. Jackson hasn't really made anything great since 2005 with King Kong. It's a been a while. Maybe he lost some of his magic? This film was good, but I do question some of the decisions made in it.

On the other hand, i'm sure some would argue that nobody else would have done a better job, right? I mean, who better. For those insane fans that want those pornographic scenery shots, dialogues, etc....this was fucking awesome.

[Wretchedest]

Richardp's comment about it feeling full of deleted scenes rings true. But the comments that jackson has lost his touch dont. This is peter jackson emulating his own lotr style...

[GoodSoldier333]

Richardp's comment about it feeling full of deleted scenes rings true. But the comments that jackson has lost his touch dont. This is peter jackson emulating his own lotr style...

Emulating it over a one-book, one-movie system is one thing. Doing the same thing for the Hobbit is a weird judgement call is all I'm saying man. I question if he would have done this three-film idea years ago when he might not have been able to on a basis of how much directorial power he had. Still, not a bad thing because as i said, to those Tolkien fans watching it...they probably would not want to have had it any other way.

[kdrcraig]

Just got back from seeing this in the IMAX and it was amazing. I don't understand how people have a problem with the 48 fps, I thought it looked amazing. Except for avatar this was the best looking 3D movie I've ever seen. I didn't feel like they stretched out the material at all, there is still a ton of book left for the last two movies especially since they're throwing in stuff from the appendixes. Couldn't be happier with how this turned out.

[Mr. Blaileen]

Just got back from seeing this in 3D. I'm not normally into the 3D stuff, but this was great. While the pace was a bit on the slower side to begin with, I didn't really mind at all. In fact, I loved the Bag End/Shire stuff and all the set up. While I understand the 'seems like deleted scenes' feeling from people, I didn't really mind that either. Peter Jackson can throw in as much stuff from the appendixes as he wants if he makes it all look as pretty as this first movie. This movie was so damn gorgeous that it actually FELT like a shorter film. Seriously one of the most gorgeous movies I have ever seen. Everything was an absolute treat to look at.

Loved the riddle scene with Bilbo/Gollum. Such a classic moment, and I felt they did a pretty damn good job with it.

[Maul]

In my opinion,the best movie of the year.It's so beautiful and with a lot of rhythm.

[Elke]

Watched it again, in 3D this time with the upped frame rate and in a less than state of the art theatre, and didn't experience any headaches or forms of nausea or whatever. Which is remarkeable, because Avatar gave me two days worth of headaches.

Also, how fucking brilliant is Martin Freeman?

[Torgo]

This was... not great. I went into the theater with pretty low expectations and was disappointed to find my thoughts of the film after seeing it worse than I had held out for.

A good chunk of what I think ruined it for me was that I had read the book, and this film felt like a different story than what I knew of. For some book to film conversions, changing things for the good of film storytelling is acceptable - however - setting that aspect aside - it just really wasn't a great film in and of itself. Character development and interactions felt stilted and questionable. Dialogue was... awkward (Jackson has never been great at this, but it was even more so blatant in this film). The pacing of the film was just plain terrible. Some scenes were inserted into the film that could have easily been truncated or left out.

A list of some things that bothered me:
SPOILERS

- The 'Pale Orc' felt like a made up villain only really present to be a "villain." Since they chose to stretch this book out, they needed to come up with some unnecessary antagonist for the first film.
- The terrible climax of the goblin king's death. Holy shit - you're going to end that stand off with a few quick swipes from Gandalf and the line "that'll do it"? Who writes that and thinks that's ok?
- Thorin's unfounded anger at Bilbo - where does this come from? It feels a bit forced and only serves as a superficial sub-plot to help make Bilbo a hero in the end when he "gains" Thorin's trust.
- Thorin's STUPID rush toward the pale orc after the tree they are on falls to dangle over the cliffside. Seriously, what the fuck?
- Bilbo's character development. Jackson felt it necessary to make Bilbo out to be a hero and a lot braver than his character was ever portrayed as in the books. Although I respect that angle, his sudden bout of courage along the journey seems to come out of nowhere. (This is not an attack on Martin Freeman - he did fantastic acting as Bilbo).
- That Sting was given to Bilbo by Gandalf and that he didn't find it himself. Although a small quip, I always liked that he was the one who picked the sword out for himself.
- Radagast. Seriously - this guy shouldn't have even been in this film.
- Radagast's bunny sleigh. Fuck you, Peter Jackson.
- A strange hole in the ground that magically leads to Rivendell.
- Thorin being molded into a dwarven Aragorn. Also, I'm confused on whether dwarves are supposed to be attractive or not since there seems to be a large disparity in looks between some of them.
- Flashbacks. Flashbacks everywhere.
- That Gandalf opens up a rock to defeat the trolls. I missed that moment in the book where Gandalf confuses the trolls by imitating their voices. :(
- The dwarves seem really ungrateful for Gandalf's presence. "Oh - where's Gandalf? - The response is "Ehh, he abandoned us" or "He does what he wants so let him leave," not "holy shit, where the fuck is this wizard that can help us because he has magical fucking powers and has saved us several times already."
- The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is painful
- Galadriel and Gandalf's weird onscreen romantic chemistry or whatever you would call that...
- Saruman's random appearance.
- The "in your face" amount of fan service.

For the most part - I agree with this review of the film (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-the-hobbit-1) and like this article that mentions a lot of the changes between the books and the films. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/14/the-hobbit-19-changes-from-j-r-r-tolkien-s-novel-to-peter-jackson-s-movie.html)

Don't get me wrong - it was nice to be able to visit Middle Earth again and the action/scenery was stunning, but as far as everything else goes, this was the best horribly written film I've ever seen.

[Fixer808]

I'm gonna try and split the difference between John's raving review and yours, but those points you listed make me sad.

[Alexandros]

this review of the film (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-the-hobbit-1)

Actually this review reminded me of something. It is indeed a very curious decision that they didn't portray the finding of the Ring exactly as they did in LOTR. Why create a disparity when it need not exist?

[Elke]

Okay, just for balance, I'm going to really passionately disagree with most of Torgo's points.


Dialogue was... awkward (Jackson has never been great at this, but it was even more so blatant in this film). The pacing of the film was just plain terrible. Some scenes were inserted into the film that could have easily been truncated or left out.

Well, you know, you read the book. Tolkien wasn't very good at dialogue and pacing either. :)

SPOILERS

The 'Pale Orc' felt like a made up villain only really present to be a "villain." Since they chose to stretch this book out, they needed to come up with some unnecessary antagonist for the first film.

I'm a bit on the fence about Azog the Defiler, for now, because I'm not exactly sure how they're going to handle his character in light of the Battle of the Five Armies and what happens there. However, it's a nice nod to the incredibly detailed backstory Tolkien provided for the Dwarves of Erebor, and it makes a whole lot more sense than the insertion of 'Lurtz' in LOTR: FOTR.
It also provides Thorin with a bit of an arc, but I'm going to come back to that.

The terrible climax of the goblin king's death. Holy shit - you're going to end that stand off with a few quick swipes from Gandalf and the line "that'll do it"? Who writes that and thinks that's ok?

I saw it twice now, and twice a room full of people laughed at that moment. Also, I LOVED the Goblin King. I thought he was superbly done, quite repulsive and at the same time intelligent enough to actually be convincing as the king of the goblins. I also like that the goblins were so tonally different from the Orcs accompanying Azog - Azog is obviously a ty-ing with the Battle and LOTR, and a much more familiar sight to the movie fans, but at the same time the whimsy of the goblins (who are basically just Orcs before Tolkien decided to write LOTR) was very true to the book. So I felt that was a very nice compromise.

Thorin's unfounded anger at Bilbo - where does this come from? It feels a bit forced and only serves as a superficial sub-plot to help make Bilbo a hero in the end when he "gains" Thorin's trust.

Thorin's a bit of a shit though, and he's going to become increasingly unlikeable. He also was the one Dwarf who was least in favour of Bilbo tagging along (on account, mostly, of Bilbo not being a Dwarf - yes, aside from being a bit of a shit, Thorin was also a bit of a racist) so it makes perfect sense for Thorin to be quite demonstrably opposed to Bilbo.
Boyens and Walsh used the same method in LOTR:FOTR with Boromir: a lot of what the character about is quiet and left unspoken, but they brought all that to the foreground and made a lot of what is implicit in the books (and some things that Tolkien himself seems to be unaware about in the character) very explicit in the movie. And that did help the movie and the character. I think they tried something similar here...

Thorin's STUPID rush toward the pale orc after the tree they are on falls to dangle over the cliffside. Seriously, what the fuck?

Tolkien describes Thorin explicitely as driven by revenge. He's portrayed as a great leader, but after Mirkwood his private desires and motives take over and he transforms into a lot of a shit. Again, it makes perfect sense within the character. Yes, it's also clearly the emotional catalyst in the final act so storywise it's not difficult to tell why it was there, but it's not out of character at all.

Bilbo's character development. Jackson felt it necessary to make Bilbo out to be a hero and a lot braver than his character was ever portrayed as in the books. Although I respect that angle, his sudden bout of courage along the journey seems to come out of nowhere. (This is not an attack on Martin Freeman - he did fantastic acting as Bilbo).

HOW FUKCING BRILLIANT WAS MARTIN FREEMAN?

I get what you're saying here, but at the same time I thought it made sense in how they'd written out Thorin's arc and his problems with Bilbo. So unless he starts winning the Battle of the Five Armies single handedly, I don't mind much.

Also, Bilbo's pretty brave in the books if you ask me. One of Tolkien's favourite concepts is that of 'simple courage' as opposed to 'heroic courage'. You can contrast Rings' Frodo and Aragorn in that light, but you can do very much the same for Bilbo and Thorin: Bilbo's courage starts with the simple fact that he goes along on the journey.
Bilbo's effort to save Thorin also shows where his courage comes from: he doesn't enjoy fighting, he's not particularly goal-oriented, he doesn't want the treasure... he's just a very good person, and he has a very brave heart. That's the quintessential Tolkien hero for you. So again, I don't think that strays very far from the character or indeed Tolkien's writings.


- That Sting was given to Bilbo by Gandalf and that he didn't find it himself. Although a small quip, I always liked that he was the one who picked the sword out for himself.

This, I completely and utterly agree with.

- Radagast. Seriously - this guy shouldn't have even been in this film.
- Radagast's bunny sleigh. Fuck you, Peter Jackson.

I LOVED RADAGAST! I loved his whimsy and his cute hedgehogs and bunnies. Radagast, to me, embodies the spirit of The Hobbit and - more importantly - the concept of the Istari perfectly. He's whimsical and a bit silly, but at the same time he does know magic - and not cheap Gandalf magic, which I was also pretty annoyed by, but a Tolkienesque magic of enhanced understanding of the natural world. The fact that we see Saruman, with his mind of metal and wheels scorn Radagast was a delightful addition, because of course Saruman wouldn't understand a fellow Maia so deeply entwined with nature that he has birds living in his hair.
I found Radagast breath taking and brilliant an he more than made up for all the silliness that was cut out of LOTR: FOTR. And I loved that he was portrayed as a real protector and guardian of Middle Earth.
BRILLIANT!

A strange hole in the ground that magically leads to Rivendell.

Well, it didn't magically lead anywhere - Gandalf was obviously guiding the party towards an entrance to Imladris, and it is hidden in a deep crack so it's not that difficult to imagine there'd be secret passages to a largely secret keep, I think.

- Thorin being molded into a dwarven Aragorn. Also, I'm confused on whether dwarves are supposed to be attractive or not since there seems to be a large disparity in looks between some of them.

Yeah, the second comment makes no sense, because Tolkien makes no comment on the relative attractiveness on any species, accept Elves, who are all fair and glowy and stuff. Humans vary in attractiveness, why not Dwarves? As long as there are no beardless female Dwarves popping up anywhere, I'm largely happy with how they were portrayed.

I can see the comment about Thorin being a lot like Aragorn, but Thorin is a lot like Aragorn. That is: Book Thorin and Book Aragorn are quite similar, in that they are both very proud (bordering on arrogant) leaders, but they are also both driven by private and selfish reasons. Their heroism doesn't stem from nobility, but from a very private desire. For Thorin it's the Arkenstone and revenge, for Aragorn it's simply marrying Arwen.
I'm still upset at how Boyens and Walsh fucked over Aragorn and Arwen for the movie trilogy, but I'm pleased with Thorin so far. I don't think Tolkien liked Thorin very much :)



Cut in two because apparently it was too long :)

[Elke]

- Flashbacks. Flashbacks everywhere.

Where? The Hobbit 1 has the same structure as the trilogy, which refers back to the defeat of Sauron in the Prologue (here the taking of Erebor by Smaug), then shows us old Bilbo and Frodo (here also old Bilbo and Frodo) and then introduces Gandalf. The fact that it then flashes back into time is a reference to the Red Book which was also featured prominently in the FOTR EE, so it ties in with the movie AND the books.
Other than that, I don't recall any flashbacks other than to introduce Azog, which makes sense.

- That Gandalf opens up a rock to defeat the trolls. I missed that moment in the book where Gandalf confuses the trolls by imitating their voices.

FUCK magicky Gandalf. The whole spiel in Bag End where he suddenly inflates with a dark cloud also pissed me off.µ

- The dwarves seem really ungrateful for Gandalf's presence. "Oh - where's Gandalf? - The response is "Ehh, he abandoned us" or "He does what he wants so let him leave," not "holy shit, where the fuck is this wizard that can help us because he has magical fucking powers and has saved us several times already."

Yeah, well, that's very, very true to the book - Gandalf is caleld Tharkûn in Dwarvish (yes, I'm that nerdy) which refers to his staff: he's seen by the Dwarves as a wandering wizzard, so they're not too bothered by him wandering off.

- The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is painful

You said you read the book, right? Because The Hobbit is full of little slapsticky moments, most of them revolving around Bombur or some version of Fili, Kili and Oin.

- Galadriel and Gandalf's weird onscreen romantic chemistry or whatever you would call that...

I'm majorly in love with Cate Blanchett, but I wasn't very keen on how she was portrayed here. She can't just disappear, for starters. Also: the slow thing. The slow thing makes sense in Lothlórien, where the influence of Nenya means time actually goes slower, but it shouldn't work outside of Lothlórien OR the influence of Nenya should make everyone slower. Which it didn't, because Elrond seemed quite energetic.

- Saruman's random appearance.

THE WHITE COUNCIL! I'm sorry, but as a bookie, that was fan orgasm time. They promised bits and pieces of The Unfinished Tales, but I never thought they'd bring ol' Sharkey back in to actually film The White Council. And given that the Necromancer still needs to be dealt with, I'm hoping he'll appear again.

- The "in your face" amount of fan service.

Oh pish, now you're just nitpicking. I really loved the appearance of Lindir/Figwit, the little throw-forwards to Rings (like how the Trolls freeze in the exact position we see them in in LOTR: FOTR) and all the bookie references.



Sorry about the length :D

[Elke]

It is indeed a very curious decision that they didn't portray the finding of the Ring exactly as they did in LOTR. Why create a disparity when it need not exist?

No it's not. Tolkien himself explained the tonal differences between The Hobbit and LOTR through their 'authors': The Hobbit is Bilbo's account of his adventures; LOTR is Frodo's account of his adventures. Bilbo's book is meant for Frodo, Frodo's book is meant for Sam. So it makes perfect sense that Frodo's account of the finding of the Ring in LOTR would differ from Bilbo's account.

Heh. Sorry to go all meta.

[Alexandros]

No it's not. Tolkien himself explained the tonal differences between The Hobbit and LOTR through their 'authors': The Hobbit is Bilbo's account of his adventures; LOTR is Frodo's account of his adventures. Bilbo's book is meant for Frodo, Frodo's book is meant for Sam. So it makes perfect sense that Frodo's account of the finding of the Ring in LOTR would differ from Bilbo's account.

Heh. Sorry to go all meta.

Yeeeaah ok...but this will completely fly over the head of most of the audience. For me this was a nice chance for a very tangible tie-in.

[Elke]

Well, to be honest, I hadn't even noticed the first time round :)

[Alexandros]

Oh, one other thing. I don't know, maybe this question is better suited for the Random Tech Questions thread, but it's more movie related so what the heck: I've seen the Hobbit in 24fps 3D and I'm planning to see it again in 48fps 3D. The thing is, I've heard there are two types of 3D: RealD and Dolby Digital. Both are available in different cinemas. The version I saw was RealD. Is there any difference in quality between the two? Can somebody explain in qualitative rather than technical terms? Should I definitely choose one over the other?

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

There's little appreciable difference between the two: maybe slightly better convergence on the Dolby version (less ghosting), slightly better handling of light as a result of silver screens in RealD, slightly better color for Dolby due to the way it corrects both for the color distortion of the glasses and for the differences with each eye, and Dolby has more uncomfortable (and also expensive) glasses.

[botley]

I just saw it in RealD (paid for an IMAX 3D ticket but walked out and exchanged my ticket when it became clear they couldn't get the sound to sync properly with the picture... the image looked really lovely that large, but c'mon, that's elementary stuff and they really have no excuse to not have their shit together). Loved it. Would be interested to watch again at the HFR and even 2D formats just to see how they compare.

Guys — spoiler tags? The book has been out longer than any of us have been alive. Movie's not that different... yes, there are embellishments (RADAGAST FTW) but if you've read it you're not in for any surprises.

[orestes]

Saw it tonight in IMAX 3D and I loved it. I might see it again in just 2D or 48 fps-we'll see. I actually teared up a bit when The Hobbit title scene came up.

Highlights:
-the prologue showing the Kingdom Under the Mountain: really nice to see the Dwarvish Kingdom in all its glory and gives you a glimpse of what Moria once looked like.
-Bag End! I knew Elijah Wood was in the movie, but I didn't realize Ian Holm would reprise his role of Bilbo. Such a delight
-Introduction of the dwarves and Bilbo's contract
-Trolls and Gandalf being a motherfucking badass
-Introduction of Glamdring and Sting
-Dol Guldur
-Motherfucking Figwit, aka Bret McKenzie
-the Stone Giants
-Gollum, Gollum, Gollum!
-Gwaihir!!!!!!
-the teaser for Smaug at the end

I don't have any complaints about watching in 3D. I know some people have complained that it made the sets look "cheap" but I couldn't disagree more. Also, I may be in the minority but I loved Radagast, you hedgehog loving wizard! I'd read some people comparing him to Jar Jar Binks?! Seriously? Maybe Sylvester McCoy was their least favorite Doctor?

The one thing that did bother a little was the sampling of music from LOTR. I know it was intentional and worked for the most part, like the Hobbit theme, but there were a couple of instances where it just felt lazy.

[Fixer808]

Just got to the part in The Silmarillion about the awakening of the Dwarves in early Middle-Earth!
"Themselves they named Khazad, but the Sindar called them the Naugrim, the Stunted People, and Gonnhirrim, Masters of Stone."
:D!!

[Vertigo]

Love the Silmarillion, but it does become rather tricky going when it's following a hundred things with four or five names, all of which are used.

[Fixer808]

Love the Silmarillion, but it does become rather tricky going when it's following a hundred things with four or five names, all of which are used.
Very true...

[kdrcraig]

The Silmarillion is such a tough read, but it's pretty awesome once you can keep everything strait in your head.

Think I'm going to try and get my parents to go see this in the IMAX again when they're down here for some days around New Years. Shit looked so good in 3D HFR and I'd really like to see it again.

[eversonpoe]

-Motherfucking Figwit, aka Bret McKenzie

Also, I may be in the minority but I loved Radagast, you hedgehog loving wizard!

my girlfriend and i could not stop cracking up every time bret was on screen because he looked so pretty (but silly) without a beard and shaggy hair. i don't know...it was just too funny, to me. but it was nice to see him.

i thought radagast was great (other than the bird poo running down the side of his face) and i liked his god damn bunny sled. I WANT A BUNNY SLED.

[marodi]

-Motherfucking Figwit, aka Bret McKenzie


That would be Academy Award winner Bret McKenzie if you please! :p

I haven't seen it yet; why haven't I seen it yet? I can't explain it myself. But I love the fact that my theater is showing it in 2d, in French and in 3D in English only.

[orestes]

my girlfriend and i could not stop cracking up every time bret was on screen because he looked so pretty (but silly) without a beard and shaggy hair. i don't know...it was just too funny, to me. but it was nice to see him.

i thought radagast was great (other than the bird poo running down the side of his face) and i liked his god damn bunny sled. I WANT A BUNNY SLED.

He had a line in ROTK and his father played Elendil.

[eversonpoe]

He had a line in ROTK and his father played Elendil.

that i knew, but he wasn't nearly as pretty. :p

[aggroculture]

http://io9.com/5969220/this-1985-russian-hobbit-movie-may-rend-peter-jacksons-version-unnecessary

[botley]

^WTF.

I just saw it again in HFR IMAX 3D. Way better sound presentation in the theatre this time: deeper bass when called for, subtler nuances in the dialogue track, great musical clarity as well as more immersive surround effects compared to a standard theatre. When my Canadian compatriots get it right, they really get it right! Dolby ATMOS is probably just a more gimmicky way of accomplishing what those super high-end IMAX amplifiers and speakers buy you.

Theatre was really packed, so I wasn't in an ideal place to judge the picture properly, but the HFR took a while for my eyes to get used to following. There was even a little preamble title card in the LOTR font saying 'expect the unexpected' or something like that — it does catch you flat-footed. Yes, that "HDTV in Best Buy with motion effects on at 120hz" feel is a little distracting, and I don't think it was working quite as intended for sudden closeup motion. For sweeping balletic backdrops it is STARTLINGLY beautiful; you are 100% there in Middle Earth/New Zealand. When there is up-close action, you are back to watching a 3D movie — albeit a wonderfully composed one.

Like Torgo, I was not particularly tickled by some of the humour (though certain jokes taken directly from the book they absolutely NAILED) or overt Hollywoodized character arcs, but you can't deny that big crowds of people watching in a theatre eat that shit up and it contributes to the shared experience. This was never going to be an arthouse intellectual treatment. I still disagree with you on these points:


- Thorin's STUPID rush toward the pale orc after the tree they are on falls to dangle over the cliffside. Seriously, what the fuck?
I just pictured him saying "Hello, my name is Thorin Oakenshield. You killed my father. Prepare to die." That's what was going through his head, anyway.


- A strange hole in the ground that magically leads to Rivendell.
Of course. It is an Elvish citadel as well as temple and centre of government, last of its kind in Middle Earth. They are bound to have a tunnel like that as an escape/secret passage. Gandalf knew it was there all along.


- Thorin being molded into a dwarven Aragorn. Also, I'm confused on whether dwarves are supposed to be attractive or not since there seems to be a large disparity in looks between some of them.
Like, uh, people? Thorin is like Aragorn because they are both rightful kings who must reclaim their kingdoms. While the book underplays this angle, it's certainly there.


- The dwarves seem really ungrateful for Gandalf's presence. "Oh - where's Gandalf? - The response is "Ehh, he abandoned us" or "He does what he wants so let him leave," not "holy shit, where the fuck is this wizard that can help us because he has magical fucking powers and has saved us several times already."
I don't think Gandalf's motivations for helping Thorin's party are ever fully explained; he is not mentioned in the Dwarves' contract and so therefore the expectation is he will come and go as he pleases. He clearly wants to fulfill some part of a promise made to Thorin's grandfather, but with the ulterior motive of making the Dwarvish race strong again to aid in the war for the Ring that he must sense is coming. He hears about the Necromancer, sees Bilbo pocket the ring, it's just a matter of time before all that shit blows up. Best to get more good guys lined up with a steady stronghold so they have more to fight with — and fight for — against evil.

[Kodiak33]

I agree with some of Torgo's points, but I thought the movie was funny. I didn't take it too seriously, maybe that's why.

[Alexandros]

Just saw it in 48fps after having already seen it in 24fps. HFR is indeed a strange deal and I can see why it is so polarising. For my part, I thought it was mostly AMAZING, the image clarity is unreal and everything just looked more beautiful, be it a cramped room sequence or a sweeping landscape shot. In addition, I found the CGI to be much more seamless and good-looking in 48fps, I could really tell the difference.

Having said that, the HFR version does look like it's a staged play. Now, I thought this would ruin the fantastical setting for me but, curiously enough, it didn't. In some cases it conveyed it even better! (e.g. Erebor opening sequence) I can see how this breaks the immersion for some people, maybe it's a very personal thing with me because I have some very fond memories of theatrical-plays-made-for-TV as a kid and what I saw now may have taken me back to those times. Also, about the faster-than-normal speed, I only noticed it in the beginning at Bag End, in the movements of Ian Holm. It was so jarring that I became extremely worried, but I never really noticed it again, maybe it just takes some getting used to (which can obviously vary from person to person). All in all, a very positive experience for me and I think I will be going directly to the HFR versions in the following movies.

[fillow]

Seen it yesterday. Massive disappointment. I agree with every point in Torgo's post above.

[ItsJustDave]

Taking my daughter (9) to see this tomorrow. It's screening in IMAX 3D, HFR 3D, and 2D. Of the 2 3D options, what's the consensus on the better experience?

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

HFR 3D over IMAX 3D, easily.

[botley]

Actually, I'd probably say that the higher-wattage sound and brightness of IMAX 3D add more to the experience than HFR does. But I haven't seen a non-IMAX HFR screening, yet, so I'm not entirely sure about that.

[thelastdisciple]

I have no real qualms about The Hobbit, so far so good in my opinion...though i think that it felt a bit more "Disney" with all the sing-songy stuff and i think it had a lot more goofiness to it but i thoroughly enjoyed it minus the damn spider silhouettes during Radagast's scene, creepy as hell for this arachnophobe... but at least it wasn't as bad as Shelob in Return of the King as i still shiver from that on occasion.

I really wanted to get in to a 2D showing but they were all sold out of course due to the limited screenings so i was stuck with the 3D and wearing those crappy glasses for nearly 3 hours.....I'm still quite disappointed in what passes for 3D in some of these films though.........it just comes across pretty lazy to me to bill so many of them in that format when it only seems like a couple scenes could benefit from it, and this was even shot for it.. not adapted? ridiculous. Most of the scenes that lent themselves perfectly for it like the stone giants for example didn't turn out at all as far as what i could get from it... unless it's just me or something and I'm completely oblivious to this whole technology.

The most i saw were a few butterflies, some arrows and fire embers actually coming "out of" the screen.

Gollum was just as nuts as ever, Andy Serkis is unbelievable.

Nice to see some old cast members and characters reunited once again.

Bring on Hobbit 2!

[Elke]

Seen it yesterday. Massive disappointment. I agree with every point in Torgo's post above.

Why did I even bother writing that long-ass reply? *sigh*

[fillow]

You liked the film, you defended it. I'm okay with that, and there's indeed some truth in your long-ass reply. Just quickly sharing my thoughts without repeating what others already pointed out.

[kdrcraig]

Took my parents to see this in the IMAX yesterday. I liked it just as much the second time, but I did notice Ian Holm's movements at the beginning looking a little off in HFR this time. My Dad has never read any of these books so it was pretty cool to see/hear his reaction when Gollum showed up since he didn't know that was coming. And when it ended he said "It's over? I was gearing up to see another fight."

[Jinsai]

I thought it was alright. Definitely too long. This did NOT need to be almost 3 hours long, and while I still don't think it needed to be a trilogy (the first movie covers only the first 80 pages of the book!!!), I'll wait until I've seen the full thing to make up my mind about that.

Also...

WTF eagles?! I can understand why they couldn't just fly Frodo and Sam into Mount Doom (ok, the eye of sauron would have spotted them, ok, fine), but in this story there's no reason! The eagles literally drop them off on the top of a cliff, where they can see their destination in the distance!!! Thanks eagles! Also, why did they drop them off on the top of a cliff?! "Here you go guys, we can't be bothered to drop you off on the ground, so have fun climbing down this sheer cliff-face."

[Vertigo]

WTF eagles?! I can understand why they couldn't just fly Frodo and Sam into Mount Doom (ok, the eye of sauron would have spotted them, ok, fine), but in this story there's no reason! The eagles literally drop them off on the top of a cliff, where they can see their destination in the distance!!! Thanks eagles! Also, why did they drop them off on the top of a cliff?! "Here you go guys, we can't be bothered to drop you off on the ground, so have fun climbing down this sheer cliff-face."

Given this is such a frequently cited criticism about Return Of The King (and I agree with you, it's easily explicable in that film for a number of reasons) it's bizarre that they repeated it in a far more nonsensical manner this time around.

Also agreed that The Hobbit is far too long - you'd think they'd try to make each film as short as possible given that they're spreading such comparatively little material over three films. They seem to have a pathological aversion to the editing process. I also thought the action scenes were a horrible, videogamey mess (and I saw it at "regular" framerate) which almost never had any payoff.

As far as I'm concerned, the only particular strong points of the film (aside, obviously, from the sensational production we've come to expect from Jackson's Tolkien films) were Martin Freeman's incredibly likeable portrayal of Bilbo with perfect comic timing (I've never been a fan of Freeman's, but he made a believer out of me this time around - somehow even outshining Ian Holm's portrayal), elements of the encounter with Gollum (in the end you're really made to feel sorry for him without it feeling cloying or contrived), and the rather hair-raising glimpse of the Necromancer.

I can't remember how it was handled in the book, or the appendices or whatever, but I wish Saruman wasn't written as such a heel douchebag at this early stage. There could have been an interesting contrast between who he originally was and what he became.
I did love getting to see Christopher Lee again though, he still hasn't lost a beat.

[Jinsai]

I can't remember how it was handled in the book, or the appendices or whatever, but I wish Saruman wasn't written as such a heel douchebag at this early stage. There could have been an interesting contrast between who he originally was and what he became.
I did love getting to see Christopher Lee again though, he still hasn't lost a beat.

The scene with Sarumon wasn't in the book, but from what I understand that council meeting scenario was a way to sum up some of the LotR backstory. Apparently that whole discussion that took place there was supposed to have happened decades before The Hobbit, and it's implied that Sarumon was already corrupted at that point and already trying to acquire the ring for himself. Who knows though... they're already playing around with the order of events here I guess, so who knows if Sarumon is already a villain at this point.

it gets kind of confusing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html)

[Alexandros]

it gets kind of confusing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html)

Ack! From that article: "because The Lord of the Rings was and is an allegory". Tolkien would have been extremely annoyed with this. He was adamant that his stories are not allegories and frustrated that they were frequently perceived as such. He made an effort to distinguish allegory (which he very much disliked) and applicability, insisting that you could only find the latter in his material.

As for the council scene, it is indeed part of the overarching legend. It is included in "Unfinished Tales" I think (it's either that or a different White Council) and Saruman already exhibits signs of excessive pride and arrogance. There is one more White Council after the events of The Hobbit which I'm dearly hoping they will somehow include, because it contains a delightful burn that Gandalf (who by that time already suspects Saruman's search and desire for the Ring) inflicts upon Saruman.

[Elke]

it gets kind of confusing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html)


Man, that link contains possibly one of the biggest spoilers of all! AND the author seems to forget to mention it. Pish.

[marodi]

Finally saw it. I really enjoyed it even though I think it's a bit too long. I would have a hard time saying where it should be cut though. It felt like this: we're moving forward, we're slowing down; we're picking up speed again, we're slowing down.

The acting is top notch. Everyone is nothing short of amazing. Andy Serkis will never get enough love for his work in this movie. Freeman is fantastic. Even Lee Pace manages to turn Thranduil into a world class asshole without saying a single word!

I saw it in 2D and it looked great; I have no desire to see it in 3D. Am I the only one who thinks 3D is a distraction more than anything else? In general, not just for this movie.

I'm definitely seeing it again. If only to sigh at how freaking adorable Figwit is.

And to stare at those stone giants. Now that was something else!

[Jinsai]

Am I the only one who thinks 3D is a distraction more than anything else?

No, I'm personally sick of 3D movies for the most part. While I was watching Django Unchained I kept thinking how great it was that I wasn't watching a 3D movie. I saw The Hobbit in 24fps 3D, and honestly, I can't recall one moment where the 3D enhanced anything, so it's a poor trade off for the inconvenience.

[Conan The Barbarian]

Yea, and until the public stops seeing movies in 3D, its gonna stay with us.

[Jinsai]

double post, oops and sorry and sorry

[Jinsai]

Yea, and until the public stops seeing movies in 3D, its gonna stay with us.

The problem here is that it seems increasingly rare that there's a 2D option. I will usually opt for the 2D version, but it seems like every movie I'm seeing lately is 3D.

The theaters also prefer 3D because they get to charge more for it. Lately, it seems I have to go out of my way to see a big film in 2D.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Pro tip: it's not typically the theaters that 'prefer 3D', it's the movie studios. What gets booked where is a result of a lopsided give-and-take negotiation between studios and exhibitors, with the studios having the higher stake in the format presented (as they get most of the box office revenues).

[RJK]

Theaters and studios basically split the box office take. One gets 51 percent the other gets 49 percent. So both sides have a huge stake in how much money you spend on your ticket.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Basically. It varies a bit--Disney demanded a higher take with Avengers, for one--but it's normally about 51 or 52% to the studios. However, they're only looking at box office revenues, so if they can realize an increase by pushing harder on 3D they're hot for it. On the theater side, though, getting more people with more money to spend into the concessions line is more important, and 3D's lower attendance and higher box office expense negatively affects that.

[Hij]

I liked it. The pacing was weird; I do feel it could've used some better editing there, but other than that, I was happy with it. I even liked the high frame rate. Made it feel like I was watching some epic BBC miniseries from my childhood shot in video, except without the shitty picture quality of video. Freeman was beyond perfect, but everyone was great really. I liked Radagast fine. I loved motherfuckin Dame Edna as the Great Goblin. I rolled my eyes at the hot dwarves, but you've gotta have SOME sex appeal in there - can't go from all the insane hotness levels you had in LOTR to a bunch of bulbous hairy dudes, old men, and emaciated crazy guys.

I want a bunny sled. And I want a piece of Kili's hot dwarf ass.

[slave2thewage]

I watched it in bed last night (go screener). MEH. I seem to be the only one who disliked the riddle scene, it just seemed to go on forever. And I loved Gollum before.

I need more Cumberbatch and Christopher Lee, as well.

[sa_nick]

I watched it in bed last night (go screener). MEH. I seem to be the only one who disliked the riddle scene, it just seemed to go on forever. And I loved Gollum before.

I need more Cumberbatch and Christopher Lee, as well.

Argh! I'm so tempted to download that screener but I really wanna go watch it at the cinema. I'm battling a herniated disc and have been waiting for a "good day" since release to go to the theatre and watch it. No luck yet .__.

[DVYDRNS]

The screener looks like crap.

[slave2thewage]

I thought the video was fine, but it was annoying having to crawl out of bed every 20 minutes to mess around with the track synch on VLC to fix the audio.

[Lutz]

I really enjoyed it and for my money more so than the three LOTR movies.

I somehow thought that the IMAX screening would be the higher frame rate but it doesn't seen to be? There was camera judder through the entire movie. Also in some brighter moments there was this weird effect like you could see the digital background beneath the image - kind of hard to describe. I really wanted to see how the higher frame rate looked but as I won't be going back for seconds at least I'll have the chance to see it with the sequels!

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

IMAX doesn't do HFR.

[botley]

IMAX doesn't do HFR.
Actually, it does... just not in every theatre.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

I stand corrected.

[Sutekh]

Saw it the British Film Institute Waterloo (imax 3d/biggest screen in Europe! row M if any hardcore nerds are reading), and what can I say... fantastic.

Indeed it is not 100% faithful, but Tolkien isn't something that can really be translated that well into film - unless you have an expertly estimated approach such as that of Jackson and his crew - they seem to know exactly what to excise/abbreviate, and what to embellish...

So as a serious adaptation of The Hobbit? I suppose you could say this was a dissapointment - apart from the production design, performances, photography and performances being excellent!

What I mean to say is, it doesn't capture the feel and scope of Tolkien's work 100% - imo no moving picture ever will, but this is SUCH a well made film... and Sly McCoy as Radagast was a lovely surprise

[Torgo]

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/06/03/FL-The-Hobbit-Desolation-of-Smaug_1224x760.jpg

Who is this....?

This character was revealed in EW as the first view of Evangeline Lilly in the Hobbit.

To my knowledge, there were NO female characters in the Hobbit, let alone a female cosplay Link character. What the fuck is this?

[Sebek]

Quoted from AICN:

Lilly is playing Tauriel, an Elven warrior and head of the Elven Guard, and a totally new character to the mythos. She wasn't a part of The Hobbit, or any of Tolkien's other works, and was created for the story by Jackson and company. Lilly states that her character is of a different order than most of the elves that we have seen so far, likely making her part of the wood-elf clan that the party encounters in Mirkwood.

Not a whole lot has be revealed about the role that she will play in the events of the film, though she has indicated that her character will have a love story (though it would minor), hinting that it could possibly be with Legolas (who we haven't seen yet in the context of THE HOBBIT, but we know is due to show up at some point).

[bobbie solo]

let's hope she is isn't as flaky with Legolas as Kate was on Lost.

[Wretchedest]

Well I'm glad they aren't actively fucking this up or anything crazy like that.

[marodi]

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/marodi511/TheHobbitDesolationofSmaugteaserposterPTWarnerBros _zps9d0576b3.jpg

At first, I thought Bilbo was carrying a teddy bear.

[orestes]

OMG SMAUG!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUlxoZRwUS0&sns=em

[marodi]

OMG THRANDUIL AND BARD!!!

And how the heck did they managed to make Legolas more badass in less than 2 minutes than he was in over 10 hours of movie?

AND SMAUG!!!

[Ruined]

Smaug looked a little off. I think his yellow eyes make him look like something out of a 1970's Disney ride.

[thevoid99]

Dragon Dragon!!!! Dragon Dragon!!!! And it's a huge Dragon!!!

[Zipfinator]

Pretty sure that's a leaked trailer so the CG might not be completely finished in it.

[Ruined]

Dragon Dragon!!!! Dragon Dragon!!!! And it's a huge Dragon!!! Look at the size of that head, "I'm not kidding, it's like an orange on a toothpick." As for the unfinished CGI theory, I hope so; definitely looks bad, especially for WETA Digital.

[marodi]

I'm sure the CGI will be fixed before the movie comes out; remember the trailer of The Avengers where the Hulk just appeared out of nowhere in the team shot? Looking back at it now, I can point out numerous places where the CGI was unfinished.

Also: dwarves in barrels. That looks like so much fun but then The Hobbit is a children's book so of course dwarves in barrels is going to be a lot of fun.

[Lutz]

Orange and teeeeeeeeal.

[johnbron]

Just now realized there was a trailer for the upcoming movie. I can honestly say that I've lost nearly all interest in this. Thank's to Peter Jackson and his obsession with 3D and extending this relatively short story into three lengthy films, pretty much ruining my favorite book as a child. Meh. :(

[ibanez33]

I could take or leave the 3D because at least Jackson knows how to use it somewhat tastefully, but I agree that it shouldn't be chopped into 3 films. The first one was decent, but as for the next 2, I'll just wait for the 3rd to come out on Blu-ray and someone post an abridged (read: not dragged out and boring as fuck) version online.

[orestes]

Extended dvd editions to be released November 5th. (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/08/01/76276-official-hobbit-extended-edition-packaging-images/)

[Fixer808]

I'm still pissed that he was a joke character. Radagast was a Maiar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_%28Middle-earth%29)! Not some kind of tree-hugging, Middle Earth johnbron!

Seriously, though, the "wizards" sent to Middle Earth were the most powerful beings outside of Sauron himself (though even the balrogs rivaled the istari in power).

[marodi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPVWy1tFXuc

SMAUG SPEAKS!!!

That totally deserved to be written in all caps.

[botley]

Just saw the new trailer in front of Gravity and, well... I'm stoked!

[ambergris]

I forgot to tell that I also watched the trailer for this before Gravity, and I could only think about what an overbloated mess Jackson has turned this into.

[johnbron]

Well, I just got out of a screening of the new movie and I really only have positive things to say about it. Nearly everything I disliked about the first film was NOT an issue in this one. The pacing was perfect from beginning to end with none of it feeling slow or dull. The action was over the top at many points but it was a riot and some of it was hilarious. I can't wait to see it again this Saturday with my lady and our kids. Smaug was BRILLIANT! Loved it all and he looked and sounded perfect. HOLY CRAP!

Legolas surfs on Mirkwood spiders, orcs AND hobbits and it's fucking hilarious.

[Alexandros]

Hmmm...ok...well, at least Smaug was very well made I guess. Other than that, I'm not sure what to say about the film. It felt a bit like a haphazard set of scenes, much like the first one. There is no doubt that good work is being done in the creation of environments, creatures, make-up etc., but in the end this isn't enough to make a memorable film. Maybe I'm not the target group any more (I'm 30) but many scenes just seem silly and overcrowded to me. And it really shows that this was not a story to drag for three movies, no matter how much material has been added from appendices or outright invented. Some side stories have been simply slapped on with no real investment and there is a lot, A LOT of repetition of Jackson-isms. After two films I think I can safely say I'm not expecting any surprises and can guess how the third installment will feel and now more than ever I'm certain Hobbit would have been better served as something separate from Jackson's LOTR, and under a different director with a different vision.

Maybe I sound more bitter than I actually am, but it all boils down to this: The Hobbit film tries too much to evoke LOTR when it shouldn't and comes off as a bland replicate. The attempted drama feels forced and hollow and is badly coupled with silliness. It's like they tried to bring Hobbit closer to LOTR, decided somewhere in the middle and, instead of getting the best, they're getting the worst of both. Shit, I do sound bitter. Too bad.

[AgentofChaos]

I loved it for the most part. It lagged a bit in the middle, and yeah there were some repetitive tropes from Jackson/LOTR trilogy, but I overall I found it to be well done and entertaining. Once Smaug shows up it takes it up a notch or two. I feel like that should have happened much sooner on, but once he finally came, the scenes did not dissapoint.

[Jinsai]

I liked it, but I'm officially of the opinion that this did NOT need to be three 3-hour long movies. The action sequences were fantastically choreographed, but they all went on too long, and some were completely unnecessary. Over and over again, I kept thinking that the scene could have ended already.

I don't know how they're going to pad part three, but this could easily have been a two-part film and worked perfectly. As it stands, it's beyond bloated. And

SPOILER

Did we really need that ridiculous pre-battle with Smaug inside Eramor? Even if you liked it, that was ten minutes too long. And really, three hours of people narrowly escaping death by a fraction of a second gets strangely tiresome

[Fixer808]

I haven't seen part 2 yet, but I agree. It was a short book he wrote for his kids, it in no way needs to be 9 hours long.

[orestes]

Just got home from seeing it this afternoon and while I think it was pretty good, it was a bit long in the tooth. The best part was, without a doubt, Smaug but I felt like the film spent way too long getting to that point. But holy shit, seeing Smaug on an IMAX screen was worth it. Beside the dragon, my other favorite part was Gandalf at Dol Guldur. I had an "oh shit" moment when Sauron revealed himself.

Now to wait another year to watch Thorin turn into even a bigger dick than he is already.

[Fixer808]

Yeah, I just got home from it and really enjoyed it! There WAS a lot of "running and jumping over things" that I think could have been left out, but on the whole it was more enjoyable than the first one, which couldn't make up its mind if it was for kids or adults. This was "Empire" to the first one's "A New Hope" (although that's not really fair to ANH...).

Cumberbatch as Smaug was the tits, and the Dol Guldur sequence was intense.

Can't wait for the Battle of Five Armies!

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

I finally had some time to watch An Unexpected Journey, and I loved it. For me, it wasn't as deep as far as character development is concerned.. but the Dwarfs were hilarious, and I was engaged the whole time. Also, the revisits and references from the first Trilogy was also very enjoyable. Cannot wait to see the next film!

[Vertigo]

Dreadful fucking film. I'd ask for my money back, but after Unexpected Journey I guess I should have... expected it.

[kdrcraig]

Just got back and I'm real disappointed in this one. All the shit they changed or added or just made up did nothing for the movie other than padding the run time. Orcs in Laketown? Fuck you. I disliked pretty much everything after Mirkwood, Smaug was good for the most part but what they changed with that part took a lot away from it. Liked Unexpected Journey a lot more. Oh and where they chose to end it was bullshit.

[eversonpoe]

my fiancee and all of my friends who have seen it all agree (as do i) that they should have ended it sooner. they ramped up ALL of this stuff, and then it just...ended... it was really frustrating.

[[parasite]]

oh we see the HFR 3D version, oh fuck me it was awful! it looked completely fake, I was so uninterested in it soon after it started, it felt very unnatural, very disappointed in it over all!

[slave2thewage]

Watching it now. It's a lot better than that mess they released last year.

[thelastdisciple]

Watching it now. It's a lot better than that mess they released last year.
Haha i JUST finished watching it not even a minute ago.

EDIT:My thoughts... i enjoyed it, I'm not a purist nor a devoted Tolkien fan... i just like the movies.

Could have done without the spider scenes though, just like Shelob in Return of the King.... *shudders*, i have some bad arachnophobia so i just closed my eyes, the sound effects were even creepy enough, i should have muted it.. now I've got anxiety and the hairs on my legs are buggin' out.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

I really don't understand the hate for these movies. I find it quite enjoyable to see this world come back to life and from a whole different perspective and seeing different parts of Middle Earth. It is even more fun when you revisit the LOTR trilogy like I did last week and notice the references from The Hobbit story. I enjoyed both films very much, "There and Back Again" should be a treat to watch with the final battle at the end.

[Jinsai]

I really don't understand the hate for these movies. I find it quite enjoyable to see this world come back to life and from a whole different perspective and seeing different parts of Middle Earth. It is even more fun when you revisit the LOTR trilogy like I did last week and notice the references from The Hobbit story. I enjoyed both films very much, "There and Back Again" should be a treat to watch with the final battle at the end.

The problem for me is that it feels about as genuine of a "revisit to Middle Earth" as a video game adaptation would be. The completely unnecessary inclusion of Legolas as some sort of pandering fan service was just lame... as was that ridiculously forced dwarf/elf love story. But really, it's the absurd extended action sequences that really drag it down.

Also, that whole battle with Smaug felt like an old Lucasarts point/click adventure game. Oh, we need to heat the boilers, maybe we can get smaug's attention and get him to breathe fire on them... cool, ok, now, let's body surf down this river of molten gold blaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

The problem for me is that it feels about as genuine of a "revisit to Middle Earth" as a video game adaptation would be. The completely unnecessary inclusion of Legolas as some sort of pandering fan service was just lame... as was that ridiculously forced dwarf/elf love story. But really, it's the absurd extended action sequences that really drag it down.

Also, that whole battle with Smaug felt like an old Lucasarts point/click adventure game. Oh, we need to heat the boilers, maybe we can get smaug's attention and get him to breathe fire on them... cool, ok, now, let's body surf down this river of molten gold blaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

I get what you're saying. These movies are no "LOTR", but I guess the charm that these movies still hold is something I always enjoyed from both series. Yea, the addition of Legolas was a bit gimmicky, but I happen to love the character and he happens to share my favorite scene in the movie with the barrels in slow-motion so I didn't mind it that much.. made me roll my eyes a bit though. That love story with Tauriel and Kili was a huge snore fest, I hate it.

The battle with Smaug was pretty fun to watch, but it was very meandering. I enjoyed this leg of the movie more when Bilbo was just chatting with him trying to get the Arkenstone. I was expecting a bit more after waiting almost the whole film just to see Smaug in action.. but I guess we will get more of that hopefully in the third film. Funny you pointed out the heating of the boilers.. I totally see what you mean.

You are right as far as this feeling like a video game adaptation of the story because after watching the LOTR movies all over again.. the depth, the three different story arcs.. I feel like I am more in a fantasy world since for me those movies really latch onto me and never let go. That majestic feeling seems a bit dull in the hobbit films.. but I can honestly say I enjoyed both films almost equally with the first film having a slight advantage for me.

My favorite ending out of all of these films (LOTR and Hobbit), has to be The Fellowship Of The Ring. The hope, the emotion, and the the way they left the movie off.. it was like opening arms to Middle Earth coming to life.

[M1ke]

I just watched this. It was garbage.

I loved the LOTR movies, and the LOTR books and the Hobbit book. I enjoyed the first part of the Hobbit movie as well.

But this was trash. The Hobbit had LOTR references if you knew to look for them, but if you didn't care about LOTR, you could still enjoy the Hobbit.

This has turned the Hobbit into LOTR hours 1-12 (once the extended editions have been spooged out), where it used to be a great story of its own.

Yuck, this was boring, poorly written, and it completely sucked the fun out of the story.

[Jinsai]

I see we're not even talking about this fucking movie.

Holy fuck.

I just watched this... and I feel sad. WHY WAS THIS NOT A SINGLE MOVIE?! Even then!

Why is Legolas employing Super Mario Bros physics while jumping around on falling blocks?

Why is Legolas in this movie?

Why are the orcs suddenly fucking scared when 8 more dwarves run onto the battlefield, in the middle of them being overwhelmed 500 to 1?

Why do we need this shitty character named Alfred... the most incompetent person (apparently) in the town... the guy everyone knows is corrupt and super fucking stupid... and every time he comes on the screen, a pivotal character gives him an important task? WHY?! Isn't there ANYONE ELSE in this fucking town you can give the task to? He's betrayed you ten times now! Why?!?!?!

Does anyone think the bit where Thorin "beats his gold-sickness demons" was satisfying? What the fuck was that? Oh, what a dick, and suddenly he has a change of heart because there was a bad CG liquid gold floor nightmare or some bullshit?

Fuck this fucking movie.

Also, WHY did we need to over dramatize the opening bit where whatshisname kills Smaug with the arrow? Dude, using your kid as a prop for your bow? Is this for real? WHAAAAAA?

Also, this is the fundamental flaw of breaking this into three fucking movies. You start with Smaug devastating your town, destroying everything, and he's killed in this (super lame) finale that.. starts your story? This is a shitty way to start a movie. Unless you watched the previous movie RIGHT BEFORE watching this one, it's almost like turning on Return of the Jedi and starting with the epic "I am your father!" lightsaber battle where Luke loses his hand...

And nobody cares, because what the fuck is going on here? Somebody, PLEASE, recut this movie into a succinct and reasonable 2 hour movie. This did NOT need to be 9 hours long.

[Edo]

Somebody, PLEASE, recut this movie into a succinct and reasonable 2 hour movie. This did NOT need to be 9 hours long.

I expect some fan edits will show up trying to do exactly that; re-edit these bloated movies. Might even yield some interesting results.

Meanwhile... not even going to watch the third Hobbit movie, after suffering through the first two. I love the LOTR trilogy very much, and I'm still trying to understand HOW the same team who made LOTR, also made this.

[Mr. Blaileen]

I saw it. I even enjoyed watching it, despite it being a bloated, weirdly-edited mess. A lot of the battle scenes were really neat to watch.

That said, it obviously has some major warts. As stated above, the editing is just sort of weird. The entire movie feels like the end of a movie, if that makes sense. It sort of goes soft climax (Smaug) into a little buildup (Thorin being a dick and a tiny bit of pre-war) and then an hour and a half long second climax.

I didn't mind Legolas being in the movie, but that Alfred character was garbage.

I also agree that Thorin's change of heart was less inspiring and more "Thank god he finally pulled his head out of his ass."

At the end of the day, though, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Tolkien and orcs/dwarves/elves/men battling it out on screen. So despite the fact that this bloated-ass trilogy should have been a two-parter, there are parts of it I enjoyed.

But now I want to watch Lord of the Rings.

[Maul]

I have mixed feelings regarding this movie. It lacked storytelling imho, and the battle should have been shorter just to make the ending look less abrupt. The action scenes were amazing though and when it ended, I liked the overall result.

Still, I feel some takes were just too short. Really awaiting for the extended edition.

[Jinsai]

Still, I feel some takes were just too short. Really awaiting for the extended edition.

Too short?

I don't know... everything felt stretched out and overlong to me. What parts in particular do you think should have been extended?

I still can't get over that drawn out God of War quick-time-event battle with Thorin and the orc with the sword-arm.

[Digital Twilight]

Sums it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFAGVVt0HvA

[kdrcraig]

I liked this a little better than the second one but still pretty much hated it. Bloated is the perfect term to describe these movies. Even The White Council ended up being a let down and after the second movie that was pretty much all I was looking forward to in this one. Every single scene seemed so drawn out and boring. I really don't understand how they did such an amazing job with LOTR but managed to fuck this series up so badly.

[Maul]

Screen Junkies is right now my favorite Youtube Channel because of their honest trailers and their amazing discussion stuff. You guys should suscribe now if you haven't yet.

When I watched An Unexpected Journey, I managed to wrap my head around the fact that both the studios making the movies as well as the director aren't in the same mindset that when they did the ''original'' trilogy. That trilogy, while not perfect by ANY means, had a lot of charm. This new trilogy is overstretched and it shows a lot of plot and pacing problems because of it. Since AUJ, my approach when watching this movies is ''Let's watch fun Middle Earth stuff''. So far, it worked. There are a lot of flaws and some elements are imho forced as hell. But I left all hype at the door everytime and left the theater room happy. I'm trying to stop overthinking movies so I can start enjoying them for what they are, entertainment. I'm not leaving the objectivity behind though, I have a lot of gripes with the movie, both as a book and movie fan. But the first Hobbit movie moved me but some of it's moments, the second one was a really fun ride and this one is an epic but messy conclussion that will sure benefit from the extended cut. For me, the extended editions of each movie are forming a hell of a prologue for what already is an amazing saga.

I still think it's really difficult for any director to satisfy both fans and studio at the same time, and Peter Jackson made a good job of making entertaining movies that for the most part, respect Tolkien's material and message.

Oh: And the beginning of movie is way too fast. Some takes should have been longer. Some character hears a revelation and we start to see a reaction forming in his face and Bam! we cut to another part of the story. Jeez.

[Alexandros]

Well, I will say that I prefered this one over the Desolation of Smaug (I'm not sure about the Unexpected Journey because I don't really remember, which goes to show the impact these movies have had on me). But yes, the whole trilogy was a bloated mess and overall too video-gamey for my taste. I would also be interested to see what a fan edit can do, although I fear some parts are unsalvageable no matter what editing is done. In the end, I agree with what the Red Letter Media guys said. Whatever was happening, I felt nothing. The action pieces are mostly fun and well-choreographed, except when they reel too much towards theme park territory. When the credits rolled, no twinge of nostalgia. It takes a special kind of effort to create this sort of reaction to people (like me) who hold Tolkien's books so close to their heart.

[mrselfdestruct94]

Saw it yesterday. This movie accumulates everything wrong with the past two entries and runs with it. Specifically, it's bloated and a complete waste of potential. I remember when Return of the King came out, how everyday waiting for the midnight release for well over a month felt like torture. I couldn't wait to see the end. I couldn't wait to witness the finale to a fantastic trilogy that I still watch and love to this day.

Opening day for Battle of the Five Armies passed me by and I didn't even notice, and I'm sad to admit that I just didn't care. Everything looks like a damn video game, the story is stretched so thin it's clear Peter Jackson was really grasping at straws throughout this one, Legolas and Tauriel should not fucking exist here at all, Thorin and Fili and Kili's deaths (which should have been emotionally fucking devastating) just kind of...happened. Which isn't a jab at the actors' performances so much as another mark against the direction and writing. Three movies, nine hours, and the few dwarves that were developed that we were supposed to care about all the way to their deaths did nothing for me. I felt nothing. That sums up this entire trilogy. I felt nothing, and I'm sad to say that Peter Jackson and his team turned what should have been another cinematic accomplishment (and I do consider The Lord of the Rings trilogy to be one of the greatest achievements in cinema) into a chaotic mess that left fans frustrated and disappointed.

This is not 'Star Wars prequel' bad. But it's another example of what happens when a team of very creative, very talented people are given everything they want with absolutely no constraints. Who are given exponential amounts of money and resources to try and repeat past success to the point where something as simple as a Hobbit going on an adventure with dwarves is turned into and forced to be Lord of the Rings, Part 2. It doesn't work, and someone should have said something, done something to try and correct this mess. I used to think Peter Jackson could do no wrong. And I hate drawing this comparison, but it was probably the same mentality with Star Wars fans who believed for a very long time that George Lucas could do no wrong. Then The Phantom Menace happened. Well, The Hobbit happened. And I have a feeling a lot of fans will be pretending like it never did happen from here on out.

[Vertigo]

"Not Star Wars prequel bad"? I'd say they're infinitesimally worse. These films aren't merely disappointing (and personally I really liked the latter two SW prequels), they're terrible pieces of work. They fail on almost every level. I still can't believe it's the same people who created LOTR (aside from the visual design workers). Though come to think of it, I did feel that the LOTR films started developing more obvious problems with each successive instalment, so I guess The Hobbit was making up for the lost decade of potential worseness-progression. Then compounded it by a factor of ten.

[Charmingly Miserable]

I saw it opening weekend. I left feeling underwhelmed. However, Lee Pace!!!!!! Hot mother fucking damn!

[Digital Twilight]

"Not Star Wars prequel bad"? I'd say they're infinitesimally worse. These films aren't merely disappointing (and personally I really liked the latter two SW prequels), they're terrible pieces of work. They fail on almost every level. I still can't believe it's the same people who created LOTR (aside from the visual design workers). Though come to think of it, I did feel that the LOTR films started developing more obvious problems with each successive instalment, so I guess The Hobbit was making up for the lost decade of potential worseness-progression. Then compounded it by a factor of ten.

Let's not get carried away here. The Star Wars prequels did fail at every level of film making and story telling, plot, script, dialogue etc, but the Hobbit films don't reach that level of incompetence. They are very overbloated and there was too much trust placed into Jackson that he would do as good a job as he did with LotR. I think that's understandable. He's always been a director who gets a little carried away with things and I think he'll regret the Hobbit films in future years.

[Jinsai]

Let's not get carried away here. The Star Wars prequels did fail at every level of film making and story telling, plot, script, dialogue etc, but the Hobbit films don't reach that level of incompetence.

They blow that level of incompetence out of the water. Did you see this "final chapter" movie? The Alfrid character? He was a running (horribly unfunny) joke. The most conniving, untrustworthy character.... given the most important jobs for three hours. Worst comedy relief ever.

The movie was utter bullshit. At least that last Star Wars prequel had a moment or two where there was a fun lightsaber fight. Even the battle sequences in this were dreary dumbfuckery.

[WorzelG]

I saw the first film on tv and wasn't really impressed, except for liking Bilbo, is Smaug worth watching it for at least?

[dlb]

is Smaug worth watching it for at least?

go on youtube, the whole scene is there or at least spread out in bits at 1080p. and then wait for a decent upload of his death in a couple of weeks (right now there are only grainy camera shots of it).

[WorzelG]

go on youtube, the whole scene is there or at least spread out in bits at 1080p. and then wait for a decent upload of his death in a couple of weeks (right now there are only grainy camera shots of it).
What, there's just two dragon scenes in the whole thing? I know it was that way in the book,but if you're going to ridiculously extend the book into three films, the dragon bits could be embellished

[dlb]

it's a bit more than that, you bascially have Bilbo and Smaug, the battle of the forges with the dwarves and a final face off that leads to Smaug flying to Lake Town for revenge. I don't have the DVD here so please someone correct me, but I guess it's just 20 minutes of Smaug in the whole movie.

[Jinsai]

They DID embellish the battle with Smaug. It was awful. Spoiler alert: it ends (finally) with them casting a gigantic molten gold dwarf statue that they sorta melt onto the dragon, which ultimately has no effect, and the dragon flies away to attack Laketown before the credits roll.

I hate these movies so much.

[Edo]

"Unofficial ‘Tolkien Edit’ Cuts ‘The Hobbit’ Down to Four Hours" (http://www.slashfilm.com/hobbit-fan-edit/)

First one of many! ;)

[dlb]

I'm a bit surprised no one has gone into critics mode because recently I watched some footage of the Hobbit games (mainly Smaug) so far and some cinematography of the cut scenes (especially his death) is pretty much copid with the movies.

I have read the book ages ago, so is that due to the games and Jackson really sticking to how the scenes are described in the book?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNFGK7GPi4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7e3kFdiajI

Or I'm looking too much into it... could be.

[Jinsai]

A new fan edit has trimmed the films down into one three hour movie (http://kotaku.com/now-theres-a-three-hour-cut-of-the-hobbit-trilogy-1681224543?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow)

[Fixer808]

Good, because as a trilogy they're a monstrous time-burglar.

[ltrandazzo]

4-year bump. Insane.

So, Amazon reportedly has LOTR writers locked up in a room with a fingerprint scanner to prevent leaks for their show. (https://gizmodo.com/amazon-reportedly-has-lord-of-the-rings-writers-in-a-lo-1832744087)

I guess we're keeping those Tom Bombadil details a secret, huh.

[Space Suicide]

4-year bump. Insane.

So, Amazon reportedly has LOTR writers locked up in a room with a fingerprint scanner to prevent leaks for their show. (https://gizmodo.com/amazon-reportedly-has-lord-of-the-rings-writers-in-a-lo-1832744087)

I guess we're keeping those Tom Bombadil details a secret, huh.

People are fucking weird.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Not sure where to put this, could have sworn there was another LOTR thread.

The home that Tolkien resided in and wrote the story of Middle Earth within the years 1930 - 1947 is up for sale. They want to turn the home into a centre for Tolkien. You can go to Projectnorthmoor.com (https://www.projectnorthmoor.org/) to donate.

[Mr. Blaileen]

I know this thread is about the upcoming series, but I had to drop in and comment on the newly released 4K editions of LotR. Go seek them out, they’re fucking awesome. My lady gifted me them for the holidays.

Peter Jackson oversaw the restoration process, and they used the actual film negatives instead of digital copies, so the films look better than ever. The gross green tint of the blu-ray versions is GONE (https://twitter.com/calavera145/status/1075862956481617922?s=21) and the colors look AMAZING.

Everything pops; it really felt like a fresh experience even though I've seen the movies countless amounts of times. The greens of the Shire, the autumn colors of Rivendell, the glint of armor, the shadows of Moria...even the costumes- I was noticing way more details than I did in previous versions. I’ve only made it through the Fellowship so far, but I can’t wait to see how good the other two look tomorrow. The sound has also been tweaked and enhanced.

I watch the trilogy annually, but this is a perfect reason to seek them out again if you’re looking for an excuse.

[ziltoid]

I know this thread is about the upcoming series, but I had to drop in and comment on the newly released 4K editions of LotR. Go seek them out, they’re fucking awesome. My lady gifted me them for the holidays. Peter Jackson himself oversaw the restoration process, and they used the actual film negatives instead of digital copies, so the green-tint of the blu-ray versions is gone. The colors look AMAZING. Everything pops. The greens of the shire, the autumn colors of Rivendell, the glint of armor, even the costumes- I was noticing way more details than I did in previous versions. I’ve only made it through the Fellowship so far, but I can’t wait to see how good the other two look tomorrow.

I watch the trilogy annually, but this is a perfect reason to seek them out again if you’re looking for an excuse.


The new sets don't have any of the special features, just the Theatrical and Extended cuts.

They also announced that sometime in the Summer of next year they will release one set containing both The Hobbit trilogy and The Lord of the Rings trilogy on 4k and Blu Ray with both Extended and Theatrical cuts with the old and new bonus features. I'm holding out for that set. Even though I couldn't give a shit about The Hobbit trilogy.

And they will release the Blu Rays in another box set to celebrate the 20th anniversary in the Fall of 2021.

[Mr. Blaileen]

The new sets don't have any of the special features, just the Theatrical and Extended cuts.

They also announced that sometime in the Summer of next year they will release one set containing both The Hobbit trilogy and The Lord of the Rings trilogy on 4k and Blu Ray with both Extended and Theatrical cuts with the old and new bonus features. I'm holding out for that set. Even though I couldn't give a shit about The Hobbit trilogy.

And they will release the Blu Rays in another box set to celebrate the 20th anniversary in the Fall of 2021.

Yup, I knew that was the case. I'm still holding onto my mega blu-ray sets with all the extra discs of special features, so I gave my lady the green light to get these for me when she asked if I was interested. I'm skeptical that the 'new' bonus features included with next summer's releases will be anything too crazy- they would have been included in previous editions if so, IMO. I'll happily shell out some cash if I'm wrong, though.

For now, I just wanted the remastered films. They're expensive, but they're so worth it. They look and sound amazing.

I was fortunate enough to get the steelbook version, and they look fantastic.

https://pisces.bbystatic.com/image2/BestBuy_US/images/products/6420/6420422_sa.jpg;maxHeight=640;maxWidth=550

[r_z]

These are only in 4k tho, right? As I havent upgradet yet, but resent spending money on a green tint Version...

[eversonpoe]

The new sets don't have any of the special features, just the Theatrical and Extended cuts.

They also announced that sometime in the Summer of next year they will release one set containing both The Hobbit trilogy and The Lord of the Rings trilogy on 4k and Blu Ray with both Extended and Theatrical cuts with the old and new bonus features. I'm holding out for that set. Even though I couldn't give a shit about The Hobbit trilogy.

And they will release the Blu Rays in another box set to celebrate the 20th anniversary in the Fall of 2021.

honestly, the 9 hours of bonus features for each of the three hobbit movies (so almost 30 hours total) are AMAZING and so fun to watch, even if the films themselves suck.


These are only in 4k tho, right? As I havent upgradet yet, but resent spending money on a green tint Version...

huh?

[r_z]

I'm sorry, is a 4k BR compatible with a normal BR player? Or is this remaster coming out in regular BR as well? I know there was a recent BR release of the extended versions, but they put the "green tint" version of The Fellowship in there. So that's why I'm hesitent to buy those...

[ziltoid]

I'm sorry, is a 4k BR compatible with a normal BR player? Or is this remaster coming out in regular BR as well? I know there was a recent BR release of the extended versions, but they put the "green tint" version of The Fellowship in there. So that's why I'm hesitent to buy those...

So far there are reports that the remaster has removed the green tint from the old Blu-Rays and it's a complete remaster and color correction. Click here for more information. (https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-4K-Blu-ray/278517/#Review)

Unfortunately, 4K Blu-rays will not work in a standard Blu-ray player. You would need to buy a 4k Blu-ray reader. As well as buying HDMI compliant 4k cable and a 4k TV to take advantage of 4K movies. HDR, HDR 10+ and Dolby Vision are other visual 4K standards that also will be hardware dependent.
Gotta make sure the TV supports those formats as well as a receiver that has ARC pass through on one of the HDMI ports for the corresponding surround sound to work.

It sounds more complicated than it is. Eventually if you want to upgrade your components just make sure its Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision compliant.
If you can't take advantage of the standard don't worry it will down convert to the other standards automatically.

In the fall of 2021 they will release standard Blu-rays of the remaster to coincide with the 20th anniversary of Fellowship of the Rings. Not much more info on this so far but, I'm sure the closer we get to that time, they will release more information.

[Jinsai]

I know this thread is about the upcoming series, but I had to drop in and comment on the newly released 4K editions of LotR. Go seek them out, they’re fucking awesome. My lady gifted me them for the holidays.


Actually just got this as an Xmas present for my brother. It's cute that it comes with a ring on a necklace.


honestly, the 9 hours of bonus features for each of the three hobbit movies (so almost 30 hours total) are AMAZING and so fun to watch, even if the films themselves suck.

Oh I will need far more than a casual assurance that this is worth 9 hours of my time than that... Those movies SUCKED. It was like watching someone else play God of War quick-time events.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

I don't hate the Hobbit movies nearly as much as the majority does. They have their moments that make you feel like you're still in Middle Earth with charming and touching scenes. Not nearly as enjoyable or good as the LOTR Trilogy, but I find myself watching whenever they're on.

Ima wait out for the next release as well. I keep forgetting my PS5 is a 4k player :D.

[neorev]

I actually enjoyed the first two Hobbit movies more than the LOTR trilogy. The final Hobbit movie was a little bleh though. I felt more lost in the world with The Hobbit movies. There’s a bit of special effects/green screen stuff in the LOTR movies that bug me a bit. I saw that they did fix the LOTR extended versions coloring issues. I've watched the extended versions more than the theatrical and something always felt off with the look. I would like to see these new 4K versions. Be nice to rent the new 4K versions digitally.

[Alexandros]

I actually enjoyed the first two Hobbit movies more than the LOTR trilogy.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85fVvNzD30AGBCF2/giphy.gif

[neorev]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85fVvNzD30AGBCF2/giphy.gif

I think the problem with the LOTR movies is if you haven't read the books, the characters feel a bit flat and one dimensional. Aragorn is supposed to be this great fighter and leader, and I just don't feel it. The movie tries hard to TELL he is some amazing leader, but it doesn’t show it. Elijah Wood is pretty dull. Him and Sam are boring. I find Martin Freeman more enjoyable. I liked his and Gandalf's relationship. I felt Thorin had more depth to him as a leader struggling with his role. The Mirkwood scene in Desolation was pretty cool too. I felt more enveloped in the world with the Hobbit movies.

[Alexandros]

I think the problem with the LOTR movies is if you haven't read the books, the characters feel a bit flat and one dimensional. Aragorn is supposed to be this great fighter and leader, and I just don't feel it. The movie tries hard to TELL he is some amazing leader, but it doesn’t show it. Elijah Wood is pretty dull. Him and Sam are boring. I find Martin Freeman more enjoyable. I liked his and Gandalf's relationship. I felt Thorin had more depth to him as a leader struggling with his role. The Mirkwood scene in Desolation was pretty cool too. I felt more enveloped in the world with the Hobbit movies.

I was just poking a little fun. But seriously, I agree that LOTR characters are somewhat one-dimensional, even in the books they're not that deep (barring a few exceptions maybe), it's mostly the lore and story surrounding them doing the work. But I simply can't find anything in the Hobbit movies that would make them better movies than the LOTR trilogy. Sure, some precious few scenes are on the mark, and Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo was as good as anyone could hope, but all of this is buried under tons and tons of needless, badly thought out and dismally executed ideas and filler. The LOTR films, regardless how you like them, felt like a labour of love for everyone involved. The Hobbit films felt like a chore.

[Jinsai]

the only thing that screws up the Lord of the Rings movies for me is Orlando Bloom. He is a terrrrrrrrrrrrible actor. Every time he speaks, the movie just got worse.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Aragorn is supposed to be this great fighter and leader, and I just don't feel it.

I respect your opinion, as wild as it is :D.

But yea, the books portray him as a cheat code pretty much, but all the dude does is whip ass and lead throughout the entire series. I think what we got was enough, but I don't see Aragorn/Strider as one dimensional at all. I do agree Thorin felt a bit more deep in that regard, but they are also two completely different characters personality wise.

I do agree, Orlando Bloom is pretty bad, but I thought he portrayed Legolas just fine.

[eversonpoe]

the only thing that screws up the Lord of the Rings movies for me is Orlando Bloom. He is a terrrrrrrrrrrrible actor. Every time he speaks, the movie just got worse.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwO3oa5PD4

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

https://youtu.be/TzZXXH4ABu0

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

September 2, 2022 is the working release date for this painstakingly awaited series.

https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1422257187045486596?s=19

[Toadflax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwO3oa5PD4

https://twitter.com/BrianBitner/status/1349801227098365952

[october_midnight]

https://twitter.com/CultureCrave/status/1483818087912665089

[allegate]

I hope there's a real trailer soon because just repeating what was said in the movie over a oddly-poor CGI rendering isn't selling me on the series at all.

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pvponlinenew/img/comic/2022/01/pvp20220110.jpg

[otnavuskire]

I hope there's a real trailer soon because just repeating what was said in the movie over a oddly-poor CGI rendering isn't selling me on the series at all.



Funny you should say that, because it wasn't CGI. It was filmed with a high speed camera, which can definitely cause an unnatural appearance to liquids, as we never see them move that way with the naked eye.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ

https://www.ign.com/articles/lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-title-creation

[allegate]

wow, ok I'm suitably impressed now. thanks!

[elevenism]

wow, ok I'm suitably impressed now. thanks!

I'm excited. I'm sure it will be reasonable. Hell, my wife's NAME is Lorien, and that was definitely part of the original attraction- Lady of Lorien and such.

(i just wish it was The Dark Tower, is all. We already got a glorious LoTR adaptation, grumble grumble.)

[marodi]

I'm excited. I'm sure it will be reasonable. Hell, my wife's NAME is Lorien, and that was definitely part of the original attraction- Lady of Lorien and such.

(i just wish it was The Dark Tower, is all. We already got a glorious LoTR adaptation, grumble grumble.)

But this is not a remake of the Peter Jackson trilogy. I was confused by the title too at first, until I read about the synopsis. This series take place in the Second Age and will deal with the forging of the Rings of Power and of the One Ring. I guess we'll see the "birth" of the Ringwraiths and of the Witch-King, and maybe, maybe we'll finally see Glorfindel as he was the one who prophesied that the Witch-King would not be killed by a man. Then again, there is a lot that happens in the Second Age that I would love to see.

Peter Jackson's LoTR is set in the Third Age.

[elevenism]

But this is not a remake of the Peter Jackson trilogy. I was confused by the title too at first, until I read about the synopsis. This series take place in the Second Age and will deal with the forging of the Rings of Power and of the One Ring. I guess we'll see the "birth" of the Ringwraiths and of the Witch-King, and maybe, maybe we'll finally see Glorfindel as he was the one who prophesied that the Witch-King would not be killed by a man. Then again, there is a lot that happens in the Second Age that I would love to see.

Peter Jackson's LoTR is set in the Third Age.

AWESOME!
My mother focused on symbols from Tolkien to help induce a trance like state when giving birth to me.
My wife's name was the result of her mother perusing the Silmarillion.

We both read the Hobbit when we were 3 or 4 years old.

We're really excited for ANYTHING Tolkien.

(except for the part where it isn't The Dark Tower; we'd both be ten times more excited for The Dark Tower, grumble grumble.) :p

[wampa]

i am cautiously optimistic. very cautious.

[muad'nin]

i am cautiously optimistic. very cautious.

Likewise. Cautiously. My excitement for this series has been diluted by Amazon’s handling of The Wheel of Time; I dearly hope we get from the studio something that holds a little more reverence for the source material this time around.

[DVYDRNS]

will they make it 24 fps. or is it gonna be that nasty 60 fps again...

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

We got characters hands y'all...

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1489272030654615561?t=tjsfC5un9FYyhUoeZeLDAg&s=19

[allegate]

there isn't a "rolls-eye" or "make wank motion with hand" button. :(

;)

[wampa]

man, i don't know. i just don't know

[bobbie solo]

I'm here for this! Don't let us down!

[allegate]

Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/amazon-the-rings-of-power-series-first-look?utm_brand=vf&utm_source=twitter&mbid=social_twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&fbclid=IwAR0XzUXVcZZACTMg7majyHyccySlpo57opaH70TVe k2DLOxch7jKG3W5Lqs) has a lot of pictures up in the story.
We got characters hands y'all...

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1489272030654615561?t=tjsfC5un9FYyhUoeZeLDAg&s=19
The bodies attached to the hands


https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/62019b370d588f3835866768/master/w_1600,c_limit/lord-of-the-rings-003.jpg


https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/62019b3859963d2b4b169bbd/master/w_1600,c_limit/lord-of-the-rings-004.jpg


https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/62019b3741f168f94e9f9d88/master/w_1600,c_limit/lord-of-the-rings-002.jpg

[elevenism]

I doubt this will be fucked up.

I'm personally STILL just bummed that it isn't Dark Tower.

[wampa]

maybe it's just me, and i'm probably being a debbie downer, but this just looks cheap to me....