On December 12 2012 22:14 tertos wrote: in regards to goblins vs orcs debate,
My opinion is that goblins are to orcs, what ponies are to horses because
Sting lights up both in Moria and on the shores where Frodo leaves the brotherhood, Treebeard confuses a hobbit for a "little orc"
Basically Tolkien was just writing a childrens book, that was not set in the legendarium that would later become the silmarillion. He used goblins throughout the book as that was already established as a grotesque and evil monster, that children would recognize from other folk lore. Nobody knew what a orc was as the term originates from Tolkiens legendarium, which was released many years later.
Later, when he was writing the lord of the rings he came up with the idea of putting the hobbit and lord of the rings into the legendarium, therefore he used orc through the lord of the rings. But as the hobbit had already been released a few years earlier it was too late to change every goblin to orc. Basically they are synonymous.
On December 12 2012 22:14 tertos wrote: in regards to goblins vs orcs debate,
My opinion is that goblins are to orcs, what ponies are to horses because
Sting lights up both in Moria and on the shores where Frodo leaves the brotherhood, Treebeard confuses a hobbit for a "little orc"
Basically Tolkien was just writing a childrens book, that was not set in the legendarium that would later become the silmarillion. He used goblins throughout the book as that was already established as a grotesque and evil monster, that children would recognize from other folk lore. Nobody knew what a orc was as the term originates from Tolkiens legendarium, which was released many years later.
Later, when he was writing the lord of the rings he came up with the idea of putting the hobbit and lord of the rings into the legendarium, therefore he used orc through the lord of the rings. But as the hobbit had already been released a few years earlier it was too late to change every goblin to orc. Basically they are synonymous.
I just recently read a german translated edition of the hobbit (this one) and there it was already changed to "Orks". I was surprised when i heard about "goblins" in the movie....
Soooo, I watched the movie yesterday at the preview of midnight and it was awesome ! I don't want to spoil anything but I can tell you I had chills and some moments were very funny (much more than expecting, if you compare with the LOTR trilogy).
A really fun experience, I didn't even noticed the time passing by. The beginning is epic, after that it's funny and it goes on to be thrilling. And everywhere good. And the landscapes, holy shit, I would pay full price for these alone. The only bad part is that I have to wait another year for the next film....
On December 13 2012 08:59 goswser wrote: I watched 3d and came back with a headache, then played really badly in SC2 all night. Go watch it in 2d :D
I had no problems at all, but yeah, if you know 3D is not your thing The Hobbit won't change that. Generally I felt that the 3D wasn't too pushy (no idea if that's the right word).
On December 13 2012 08:59 goswser wrote: I watched 3d and came back with a headache, then played really badly in SC2 all night. Go watch it in 2d :D
I want to hear more about this from people who have seen the movie. Basically, there are two main questions that should be answered:
1. What did you think about the movie, by itself? Plot, acting, cinematography, etc.
2. What format did you watch it in, and what did you think about it? - regular 2D - regular 3D (also called RealD 3D, or Dolby 3D) - HFR 3D (high frame rate: 48fps) - digital IMAX 3D (small IMAX screen) - IMAX 76mm 3D (large IMAX screen) - digital IMAX HFR 3D (small IMAX screen with HFR)
Number 2 is especially important because the format you watch this movie in can really make or break the entire experience. Personally, I'm probably going to watch it in both 2D and digital IMAX HFR 3D; 2D because I'm a purist who generally hates 3D, and digital IMAX HFR 3D because I want to see for myself if HFR really is the way of the future.
On December 13 2012 08:59 goswser wrote: I watched 3d and came back with a headache, then played really badly in SC2 all night. Go watch it in 2d :D
I want to hear more about this from people who have seen the movie. Basically, there are two main questions that should be answered:
1. What did you think about the movie, by itself? Plot, acting, cinematography, etc.
2. What format did you watch it in, and what did you think about it? - regular 2D - regular 3D (also called RealD 3D, or Dolby 3D) - HFR 3D (high frame rate: 48fps) - digital IMAX 3D (small IMAX screen) - IMAX 76mm 3D (large IMAX screen) - digital IMAX HFR 3D (small IMAX screen with HFR)
Number 2 is especially important because the format you watch this movie in can really make or break the entire experience. Personally, I'm probably going to watch it in both 2D and digital IMAX HFR 3D; 2D because I'm a purist who generally hates 3D, and digital IMAX HFR 3D because I want to see for myself if HFR really is the way of the future.
HFR 3D here. If a detailed description is wanted I'll try to give one.
The plot is fairly close to the book covering the first six chapters, some slight changes here and there to make some scene more fitting to the medium film. Azog(great pale goblin) is portraited as the main antagonist of Thorin and is hunting the dwarfes. Added as well is Radagast who establishes ties to the Necromancer storyline which leads to appearances of other known LOTR characters. The film is also much more light-hearted than the original trilogy everyone in the theater laughed out loud a few times. Personally I really like the acting maybe even more than the LOTR acting, Bilbo is great and the dwarfes are likeable from the first moment. Gandalf is, well, Gandalf nothing more nothing less. That counts for every already known character. The highlight for me was undoubtedly the environmental shot. The movie just looks gorgeous. Fantastic landscapes, great sets and exeptional tracking shots. The pacing is a bit weird at times probably due to the fact that the whole film is basically an introduction to the Hobbit story. There is no clear path the film walks. You have fighting scenes interspersed a bit randomly, I couln't see clear highlight the movie aims at which makes you hungry for the second part. I am also not quite convinced about the Necromancer story. Even if it's great I feel it could take away from the core story and feels not really connected although they really tried hard to do exactly that. The last shot of the movie makes that almost painfully abvious.
The 3D is not used only to be 3D, it just adds depth to the picture and all in all enhances the experience (if you don't get headaches from 3D). The HFR is noticeable everything seems to move faster at first but after a few short moments I didn't even noticed it. It just adds to the great tracking shots and makes them insanely smooth. The last time the visual aspect of a movie impressed me that much was Avatar.
Overall I would definitvely recommend it especially if you are a fan of the books. If you are just enjoying beautiful scenery etc. this film is also right for you. A bit disappointing would the film to those who look for a dark and overly epic storyline like in LOTR. It is a fun and satisfying experience which won't overwhelm you but entertain you every minute if the 169. And no worries there is plenty of plot left for the next two films.
On December 12 2012 21:52 shepherdxoxo wrote: Oh by the way, was it just me that was a bit annoyed + Show Spoiler +
by the continuous usage of the same track in a different pace/played by different instruments throughout the movie? Especially when it was sometimes the old LOTR main theme's tune I heard over and over again.
On December 13 2012 08:59 goswser wrote: I watched 3d and came back with a headache, then played really badly in SC2 all night. Go watch it in 2d :D
I want to hear more about this from people who have seen the movie. Basically, there are two main questions that should be answered:
1. What did you think about the movie, by itself? Plot, acting, cinematography, etc.
2. What format did you watch it in, and what did you think about it? - regular 2D - regular 3D (also called RealD 3D, or Dolby 3D) - HFR 3D (high frame rate: 48fps) - digital IMAX 3D (small IMAX screen) - IMAX 76mm 3D (large IMAX screen) - digital IMAX HFR 3D (small IMAX screen with HFR)
Number 2 is especially important because the format you watch this movie in can really make or break the entire experience. Personally, I'm probably going to watch it in both 2D and digital IMAX HFR 3D; 2D because I'm a purist who generally hates 3D, and digital IMAX HFR 3D because I want to see for myself if HFR really is the way of the future.
1. mixed feelings about it. The story has many "additional" scenes which have nothing to do with the story of the book. Sadly many of these are very cliché and imho dont fit to the story. E.g. Azog was implemented into thorins story in order to become an major antagonist, but tbh a main antagonist doesnt fit the feeling of the hobbit, which originally is pretty much a fairytale-like roadmovie/adventure in difference to the epos that is lotr. The whole evil crew is between pretty cliché and outright bad. Some of the side plots feel odd/not thought through, like the whole Rhadagast part. On the other hand it has inherited some of the strengths of the lotr-series, including a worse but still awesome soundtrack, great acting, most of the time great backgrounds, great illustration and fascinating world (given, it's tolkiens). And a greater than ever portrayed gollum, who is hilarious, sweet and scary at the same time and definitely the highlight of the movie.
Overall it's a mixture of lotr movies and the hobbit-story. At some parts it's as majestic and dark as lotr, which feels odd and doesnt belong to the hobbit, but is still pretty interesting.
2. I think i saw it in HFR 3D, not sure. However i have to say that it looks extremely realistic most of the time, never have seen anything like that. It is a bit strange at the beginning though.
On December 12 2012 21:52 shepherdxoxo wrote: Oh by the way, was it just me that was a bit annoyed + Show Spoiler +
by the continuous usage of the same track in a different pace/played by different instruments throughout the movie? Especially when it was sometimes the old LOTR main theme's tune I heard over and over again.
The Lotr main theme wasn't played a single time...but yeah the new "main theme" was used a lot. I felt the LOTR movies had more variation.
yeah, agreed. I felt that the music of Lotr was better managed and more versatile and fitting. Hearing "about hobbits" almost every time Bilbo is seen is a bit annoying.
1 movie? Great, maybe make it a 3 hour or even 4 hour one! 2 movies, mm less excited, I know the story so it will be dull watching half and then having to watch the other half. Not to mention the book is only like 200 pages so I don't get how they'll spread that between 2 2 hour movies. 3 movies???? Probably a load of horsecrap to fill, but aside from the fact that I have to wait years for the complete series, I hope EVERY LITTLE ASPECT of the book gets to be told, because I thought the book was better by far than the LOTR trilogy when I read them all back in the day.
Probably watch it next week, good that I don't have to be scared of spoilers
Just watched it, I really liked it. I liked the lotr films a little bit better because the tone was a little more serious. Of course the book is the same way, so the movie did a wonderful job in bringing it over from the book. Just saying that more serious = better in my opinion
Only part I didn't like was in the last 30 minutes. I'll put it in spoilers eventhough the spoiler is tiny tiny minimal, but still + Show Spoiler +
For me the fighting way waaay over the top. The stuff these guys are doing/surviving was a kind of ridiculous. The LotR movies had the same problem at times (Legolas killing the giant elephant for example) but this was almost comical :D It's still a fucking great movie, but the fighting could have been toned down a bit, at least for me.
On December 12 2012 22:14 tertos wrote: in regards to goblins vs orcs debate,
My opinion is that goblins are to orcs, what ponies are to horses because
Sting lights up both in Moria and on the shores where Frodo leaves the brotherhood, Treebeard confuses a hobbit for a "little orc"
Basically Tolkien was just writing a childrens book, that was not set in the legendarium that would later become the silmarillion. He used goblins throughout the book as that was already established as a grotesque and evil monster, that children would recognize from other folk lore. Nobody knew what a orc was as the term originates from Tolkiens legendarium, which was released many years later.
Later, when he was writing the lord of the rings he came up with the idea of putting the hobbit and lord of the rings into the legendarium, therefore he used orc through the lord of the rings. But as the hobbit had already been released a few years earlier it was too late to change every goblin to orc. Basically they are synonymous.
Somewhat. It's a big debate among tolkien fans. Some think most of sauron's regular soldiers are "orcs" (more specifically, uruks who do not fear the sun as much as lower orcs). The uruk-hai that saruman made are even bigger and fear the sun even less than sauron's uruks too, while goblins often are used when referring to very basic orcs/orcs not under control of sauron. Such as even in lotr legolas calls moria orcs "goblins" iirc yet all of the weapons are called "orc weapons."
I think I remember a while back reading that "orc" is simply thought as a race in middle earth, just like men and elves. There might be different races (rohirrium, gondorian, etc or uruk, uruk-hai, goblin, moranoan orc, etc) but they're still all the same species. That would mean goblins are orcs but not all orcs are goblins, thus not synonyms, but there is no definite answer as christopher tolkien never explicitly stated the exact details, even in the books explaining his fathers thinking processes and how he made the lotr series.
On December 13 2012 10:39 Gihi wrote: 1 movie? Great, maybe make it a 3 hour or even 4 hour one! 2 movies, mm less excited, I know the story so it will be dull watching half and then having to watch the other half. Not to mention the book is only like 200 pages so I don't get how they'll spread that between 2 2 hour movies. 3 movies???? Probably a load of horsecrap to fill, but aside from the fact that I have to wait years for the complete series, I hope EVERY LITTLE ASPECT of the book gets to be told, because I thought the book was better by far than the LOTR trilogy when I read them all back in the day.
Probably watch it next week, good that I don't have to be scared of spoilers
It is very difficult to make a good movie trying to cram a long storyline into 3 or 4 hours. Unless you can keep the audience engaged for such a long time - which is really hard - it will suck. That is part of the reason why titanic is often ranked as one of the best movies ever.
Two movies is good enough I think. The cutoff being at right before they enter mirkwood forest. That would be a good midpoint.
EPT
