^ lmfao

 

 

okay, so me and bubba went to see this. i liked it, will be goign to see the 2nd part ... did they really split it into 3 movies??

 

anyways, i was wanting to see 3 things, Ghulom, the Eagles and Smog, none disappointed for me. this was actually the first movie in Tolkiens universe i've watched all the way through, so the scenery and imaging and such were brilliant. i do agree that New Zeland was a perfect setting for Middle Earth as well.

 

i think the actor that they got for Bilbo did brilliantly; i've not read the story in a while, but for me it was like Bilbo jumped off the page onto the screen. i know that i didn't nearly enjoy the Dwarf Dinner as much in the book as i did watching it. to boot, TBS was running a LotRs movie a-thon on Sat, so i caught the last half of Fellowship and all of the other two movies. i'm now set on giving the series another try and doign my first re-read of the Hobbit.

 

 

that said, i felt like alot of the added scenes were more targetted towards setting up the plot for LotRs and ensure the Hobbit is treated more like a prequel instead of a stand alone fairy tale (as it was written). i feel this sort of cheapens the franchise because it feels like their trying to compete with Star Wars in this area. maybe i'm alone in this, but its certaintly the feeling i get from this.

 

 

that said. the lady elf, the one that everyone difers to and can read minds and communicate telepathically ... did her and Gandalf have a lvoe affiar or soemthing?? cause i got that vibe for sure from all the nuiances and looks and smiles they were giving eachother.

I've noticed that too

I think what they were trying to do was get the audience to think that Galadriel somehow realized Saruman wasn't really who he seemed to be and had evil inside him while Gandalf was like the greatest wizard or something

She talks with everyone in their heads all the time doesn't she?

its more abotut he nuances of the looks and tiny touches they gave eachother player, rather than her talking to him telepathically.

 

the body language between them gave me the impression that they were lovers, or that they had more than a friendship style affection for one another anyways.

I still don't think that Gollum' looks the way he was described in the books, IMO. I always took him to have a more frog-like appearance. (even though he is technically a hobbit, I took the twisting  the wing did to him, quite litterally in this aspect) Hell, one description of him, in the books, even points out that he looks like a wasted frog.

its more abotut he nuances of the looks and tiny touches they gave eachother player, rather than her talking to him telepathically. the body language between them gave me the impression that they were lovers, or that they had more than a friendship style affection for one another anyways.

 

There's no romance there. I kind of got that vibe, too. Maybe they were trying to show that the whole telepathic thing is kind of intimate, in a way. I don't know. I didn't like it too much.

 

 

 

I still don't think that Gollum' looks the way he was described in the books, IMO. I always took him to have a more frog-like appearance. (even though he is technically a hobbit, I took the twisting  the wing did to him, quite litterally in this aspect) Hell, one description of him, in the books, even points out that he looks like a wasted frog.

 

Gollum's skin is also described as being blackened and his feet and hands are webbed, I believe.

 

I'm thinking they may replace Beorn with Radagast.

I'm thinking they may replace Beorn with Radagast.

I hope not

That was really my only gripe with the cartoon from the 70s

speaking of which I was kind of hoping they'd work this into the movie somehow

it was my favorite song from the 70s cartoon

 

On Galadriel; keep in mind that her previous portrayal in these films has her playing with Aragorn's hair as well, the guy dating her granddaughter. She probably just doesn't have much conception of personal space. And given how much of her character apparently involves poking around insides people's heads, it gives added consistency to the notion that she doesn't really cotton to the idea of boundaries.

 

Anyway, she's married.

 

On Gollum; Tolkien himself tended to be inconsistent in his description. He ended up with the lame compromise that Gollum has pale skin, but wears dark clothing and is usually seen in poor lighting.

 

On Beorn; he is confirmed to be in the second (and most likely third) film, played by Mikael Persbrandt.

Still wondering if Steven Coilbert is playing any role in said films.

Quite late to see it, and it was in 2D (I'm not a fan of 3D (to say the least) so this was probably good).

 

Mixed reactions, but mostly positive:

 

On the good side:

The 3 hours didn't feel like 3 hours, which really surprised me - I've been to see 2 hour films and thought they were too long so this was definately a bonus.

I liked the characterisation of the dwarves

I thought the house party scene was excellently done (in particular as something that I don't remember enjoying to read in the book).

Cinematography was wonderful, as was the music - brilliant blend of familiar and new.

Gollum was as ever wonderful!

I liked the fact that the cinematography worked in 2D, some things shot for 3D have 3D moments that look out of place and ridiculous in 2D, The Hobbit didn't really have this.

 

The bad side:

I didn't think the effects were as good as they should have been - the eagles in particular looked fake to me.

A small thing, but important as it was the reintroduction of the hobits - I loved the fact that they included the opening line, in a holw there lived a hobit, not a dark hole... (to paraphrase) it's a great line!!! But it makes no sense for Bilbo to say it to Frodo, Frodo should be well aware that a hobit hole isn't dank and musty (but this is the only thing that really pulled me out of the narrative)

Radagast seemed really misplaced. I'm going to reserve judgement as much as I can, but I can't help but feel that it would have been better to do the Hobbit as a story (it's a wonderful story as is), I've not read about the Necromancer but it seems to be a decent story in it's own right - so give it ot's own story, the studios would take it.

 

It's been a while since I read the books, so I can't really remember what's in what (and I've only read the Hobbit and LotR, couldn't get into the others), so I'm not saying this as a book purist (I think several films have been as good or better than the books - LotR, the Bourne series and Atonement are the more recent examples), but I don't understand why the Hobbit needed to be split into 2 let alone 3 (close to) 3 hour films. As I said, maybe I'll change my mind when the other 2 films come out and equally the 3 hours didn't feel long.

 

In conclusion: Much better than I'd hoped for after I found out it was split into 3.

I didn't think the effects were as good as they should have been - the eagles in particular looked fake to me.

Honestly this is probably because you didn't see it in 3D

 

I highly recommend you rewatch it in 3D some day if possible

 

I'm someone who doesn't like 3D either

It makes me really dizzy and can give me a headache

But this movie was fine and looked amazing

I've heard similar stories from others who have issues with 3D as well

 

Give it a shot I am positive you wont come out with a worse opinion than you already have of the movie

Yeah, the inclusion of Radagast and 1 or 2 other scenes made it seem more like a series of connected shorts (and not so shorts) (ala Pulp Fiction).

double post, sorry

@nolder - we're trying to head over to see it in 3D at the Imax in Liverpool, but it's difficult for us to get a free weekend to go :(

 

On a side topic:

I'll admit that I haven't yet seen a proper 3D film, so far they've all been retrofitted and instead of looking properly 3D they all seem to have looked like stage scenery with a foreground, middle and background instead of actual depth (if that makes sense).

 

But thanks for the advice.

Hobbit wasn't shot in 3d, but put it as done up in 3d in post... So... yea.

So retrofitted?

Post-Proccessing.. or something like that.

Avengers had better 3d IMO.

yeah it wasn't shot in 3D but it WAS shot in 48 frames per second which I think makes the 3D look a lot better than it normally does

You konw.. the only thing I really  like about 3d..

Is how they can make subtitles work really, really well.

 

Its really great, how they can make the text appear so close to you, stand out from the rest of the movie, and not have to squint when they make the subs to small, and, becuase whoever added them in, was to retarded to realize, you can't read white text on white background..

So, there's this:

 

http://youtu.be/idp6wjqG674

 

Is anyone else astonished that they actually showed Smaug?

Yeah.. I was...

As someone who has read the books and then loved the LotR movie... they should have kept this to two movies, each no longer than two hours. I was being very optimistic when they said they would do three, but it's too much. It just doesn't really jive with me. As someone who's read the book five times I'll of course continue to go see this trilogy, but that's the only thing pulling me to the movie.

They could expand the battle into its own movie if they wanted..  And i think it wouldn't hurt too much since we miss most of it anyway..