|
On December 16 2012 15:46 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:53 Sentenal wrote:On December 16 2012 14:43 igotmyown wrote:
In lotr, if the eagles tried fly them into mount doom, the Nazgul would have probably would have swarmed them and taken the Ring. This isn't true. The Eagles are extremely powerful, and able to fight with Dragons. Not to mention there are only 9 Nazgul, and many more Eagles. And the winged beasts the Nazgul road on are nothing like actual Dragons. They could have flown Frodo there. But that wasn't what "God" intended for them to do. "They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew... for they think we were after their sheep.... No! we are glad to cheat the goblins of their sport, and glad to repay the thanks to you,(Gandalf had at one time healed a arrow wound on the lord of the eagles.) but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plain." Yeah, some godlike dragon tier eagles they were, at least in the Hobbit. Stealing sheep and running away from archers. So eagles could take out Nazgul, but they're afraid of the bows of generic pioneers. I think you're underselling Nazgul, who killed the last king of Gondor. And why would dragon tier creatures care about Goblins? Balrogs and Dragons certainly didn't give a shit about them.
A poster before me gave many examples of the dwindling if time, but also keep in mind that the originals eagles were created by the gods in tolkiens universe. Nothing can be created as grand as what illuvator created himself. That was a rule set down in similarian. The offspring of eagles are thus doomed to be weaker than their ancestors who were a creation from the gods themselves. It's the same reason the elves are nowhere near as grand as the original first borns, and why men no longer live for hundreds of years, aragorn being one of the only left who can.
The eagles themselves are still powerful, yet they are merely messengers like their original ancestors, and do not generally trouble themselves with the wars of mortals. They mainly live peaceful lives and try to avoid harm.
|
On December 16 2012 16:17 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:59 Sentenal wrote:On December 16 2012 15:52 igotmyown wrote:
Are you asserting that Nazgul can't even do as much damage as an arrow?
And if you're going by the movie, the Nazgul broke Gandalf the White's staff. No? Look, in the Hobbit, they didn't want to go near the woodsmen, because getting shot by arrows for a cause they didn't care for wasn't something they intended to do. But later on in the same book they come and route and entire army of Goblins and save the day. Because they finally had an intention to do something. Then in RotK they have the intention to come in against the Nazgul. The fact that they didn't want to go get pricked by woodsmen doesn't mean that woodsmen are more powerful than an army of Goblins/Orcs or Nazgul, it just means they didn't care to put themselves in that situation, and they did care to put themselves into others. They didn't route the goblins. The good armies' defense was dependent on funneling the goblins in the valley between their positions, and it wouldn't work if the goblins climbed the mountain and attacked their positions from above. The eagles harassed/pulled the goblins climbing over them off the mountain, and according to the book they were still losing. Beorn turned the tide when he single handedly waded through the armies and crushed the elite goblins. Before Tolkien revisionist history, eagles were really big birds. Just like birds you could shoot them, and they could carry much smaller things. The books never indicate in speech or actions any particularly demigodlike characteristics. I mean you can reinterpret why the eagles said what they said, but in the context of the book(s), they're not dragon tier, they're just a relatively powerful middle earth race.
I still don't agree. Still going off the Silmarillion, when the dragons appeared at the End of the 1st Age, Thorondor showed up, and the Eagles defeated the entire flight of dragons. Thorondor was able to scar the face of Morgoth himself. At the very least, during the 1st Age, Eagles were Dragon Tier.
So the question becomes "Are the Eagles in the 3rd Age just as powerful?" I personally don't see a reason why they wouldn't be. People have cited Elves and Men becoming weaker, which is true. But then you have to realize that Tolkien was heavily influence by Christian ideology, and it is reflected sort of allegorically. Men after the 2nd Age had fallen from grace after reaching their peak, for trying to essentially go against "God" (trying to invade Valinor), and the Elves had always been wayward children who left their protection. Because of their rebellion against "God", they declined. The rise and decline of the Children of Iluvatar is always closely tied with their alignment with "God". The Eagles on the other hand, are essentially agents of God. I don't see why they would decline.
|
8 hours till I go watch it.
|
Saw it tonight. Pretty enjoyable. I can't wait for the next one.
|
On December 16 2012 16:34 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:17 igotmyown wrote:On December 16 2012 15:59 Sentenal wrote:On December 16 2012 15:52 igotmyown wrote:
Are you asserting that Nazgul can't even do as much damage as an arrow?
And if you're going by the movie, the Nazgul broke Gandalf the White's staff. No? Look, in the Hobbit, they didn't want to go near the woodsmen, because getting shot by arrows for a cause they didn't care for wasn't something they intended to do. But later on in the same book they come and route and entire army of Goblins and save the day. Because they finally had an intention to do something. Then in RotK they have the intention to come in against the Nazgul. The fact that they didn't want to go get pricked by woodsmen doesn't mean that woodsmen are more powerful than an army of Goblins/Orcs or Nazgul, it just means they didn't care to put themselves in that situation, and they did care to put themselves into others. They didn't route the goblins. The good armies' defense was dependent on funneling the goblins in the valley between their positions, and it wouldn't work if the goblins climbed the mountain and attacked their positions from above. The eagles harassed/pulled the goblins climbing over them off the mountain, and according to the book they were still losing. Beorn turned the tide when he single handedly waded through the armies and crushed the elite goblins. Before Tolkien revisionist history, eagles were really big birds. Just like birds you could shoot them, and they could carry much smaller things. The books never indicate in speech or actions any particularly demigodlike characteristics. I mean you can reinterpret why the eagles said what they said, but in the context of the book(s), they're not dragon tier, they're just a relatively powerful middle earth race. I still don't agree. Still going off the Silmarillion, when the dragons appeared at the End of the 1st Age, Thorondor showed up, and the Eagles defeated the entire flight of dragons. Thorondor was able to scar the face of Morgoth himself. At the very least, during the 1st Age, Eagles were Dragon Tier. So the question becomes "Are the Eagles in the 3rd Age just as powerful?" I personally don't see a reason why they wouldn't be. People have cited Elves and Men becoming weaker, which is true. But then you have to realize that Tolkien was heavily influence by Christian ideology, and it is reflected sort of allegorically. Men after the 2nd Age had fallen from grace after reaching their peak, for trying to essentially go against "God" (trying to invade Valinor), and the Elves had always been wayward children who left their protection. Because of their rebellion against "God", they declined. The rise and decline of the Children of Iluvatar is always closely tied with their alignment with "God". The Eagles on the other hand, are essentially agents of God. I don't see why they would decline.
There was also a dog who defeated Sauron and made him flee. That doesn't mean some random dog you see in Hobbiton could have brought down Mordor.
Edit: well the wiki says Gwaihir is a big shot, so if you go lore he could be super powerful. But nothing like that was indicated in the books themselves.
|
On December 16 2012 15:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Just saw this today, have to say I was very disappointed. VERY slow in some parts, and a couple others didn't even make sense. The worst part though was the frivolous attempts at humor, like mucus in food, and resorting to a character giving some witty quip before he falls over and dies. I watch LOTR films because I want an epic adventure story, and a witty quip before death really kills that mood fast.
Well, this is The Hobbit and not lotr. If you read the book you''ll find it is much more light and filled with humour. It's a children's story released in 1937 afterall.
|
I've seen the movie just yesterday. I must say, i loved it. It really IS an adventure with meeting foes and friends along the way.
My opinion on the ending:+ Show Spoiler +It left me really excited for the next two movies with the untold stories of the Necromancer, the Pale Orc and ofcourse Smaug. I also wonder how Bilbo will manage to keep the 'one ring' hidden from Gandalf for so long.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 16 2012 19:01 Intact wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Just saw this today, have to say I was very disappointed. VERY slow in some parts, and a couple others didn't even make sense. The worst part though was the frivolous attempts at humor, like mucus in food, and resorting to a character giving some witty quip before he falls over and dies. I watch LOTR films because I want an epic adventure story, and a witty quip before death really kills that mood fast. Well, this is The Hobbit and not lotr. If you read the book you''ll find it is much more light and filled with humour. It's a children's story released in 1937 afterall.
People keep saying this, but they don't seem to get that Tolkien doesn't resort to childish and pointless gags for humour in the book. Most of the humour comes from Bilbo and the ridiculous situations he finds himself in during this unexpected journey. It doesn't surprise me that Jackson has given The Hobbit this treatment though. Just look what he did to Gimli in the LOTR trilogy.
|
On December 16 2012 15:32 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:11 Steveling wrote:On December 16 2012 15:05 Sentenal wrote:On December 16 2012 15:05 Steveling wrote:On December 16 2012 14:53 Sentenal wrote:On December 16 2012 14:43 igotmyown wrote:
In lotr, if the eagles tried fly them into mount doom, the Nazgul would have probably would have swarmed them and taken the Ring. This isn't true. The Eagles are extremely powerful, and able to fight with Dragons. Not to mention there are only 9 Nazgul, and many more Eagles. And the winged beasts the Nazgul road on are nothing like actual Dragons. They could have flown Frodo there. But that wasn't what "God" intended for them to do. No, you are forgetting one thing. Like everything else, their species has grown weaker by now. Pit some lotr/hobbit heroes against their silmarillion counterparts and they will get their asses handed to them. Aragorn vs Turin, Elrod vs Fingolfin, Gwaihir vs Thorondor? Not even a contest. The old eagles were comparable to dragons yes, but the modern ones, meh. Not sure how you are forming that conclusion. By reading tolkien's books?xD A feeling that "everything was greater, more majestic, more whatever" is everywhere in his books. Plus many characters has said so, in many many cases. And wtf, did you just talked down Turin? That guy killed alone, the greatest dragon ever, Aragorn had trouble with some code b(sc2 reference) wraiths. No, I wasn't talking down Turin, although Ancalagon was more powerful than Glaurung, who didn't have wings. I've read the Simarillion as well. I'm asking how you came to the conclusion that the Eagles are alot weaker in the 3rd Age than they were in the 1st Age. In LotR, we get a single Balrog, and its made out to be an almost unstoppable monster. Smaug, a single dragon, was capable of laying waste to entire cities, and Gandalf believed he was too dangerous to be left alive. In the 1st Age, we had Morgoth running around with entire legions of Balrogs and entire flights of Dragons. Of course things were grander then, I'm not disputing that. But was that single Balrog we saw in LotR "weaker" than those in the 1st Age? He might have been no Gothmog, but that didn't make him a slouch. Smaug may have been no Ancalagon or Glaurung, but that doesn't make Smaug weak compared to an average 1st Age Dragon. There is no reason to assume the "good" foil to Dragons (the Eagles) would have deteriorated in power, especially when they are divine in nature.
Both the Balrog and Smaug are from the first age. They both are very likely to be among the creatures who escaped from the last battle. The eagles, however, are descendants of the eagles of the first age, so it's not the same.
|
|
|
I watched it yesterday on my birthday. Truthfully I was kind of dissapointed.
The story in the movie only barely resembles the one in the book -.-
|
Ima go watch it in exactly 1 hour, oh boy oh boy oh boy!11
|
On December 16 2012 21:36 thezanursic wrote:
I watched it yesterday on my birthday. Truthfully I was kind of dissapointed.
The story in the movie only barely resembles the one in the book -.-
Interesting.. what was so different?
|
I watched it yesterday and I am going to see it again today. The look is unbelievably beautiful. Go watch it in HFR! It is amazing. If you ask me, it could even be a higher framerate. 3D just doesn't look good in low framerate. The column yard in Rivendell is just beautiful. This 3D is da real shit, yo.
EDIT: and omg, the feathers of the eagles. Holy realness of realdom.
|
Awesome visuals, but not a great movie. The dwarves seemed too much of an ensemble - in fact the only ones I can remember are Thorin, the old one and the guy with the goofy hat who was on guard when Bilbo was leaving.
The pace after the group assembled was too much "flight/fight/rescue" and the whole "we are in battle but nobody dies because a wizard saves us at the last second every time" was too predictable and reminiscent of the original "Gandalf appears on the hill with the sun shining" moment from LOTR.
Another issue I had is how they seemingly "sitcommed" the first half of the movie. The trolls arguing around the campfire was cringeworthy.
|
I liked the movie, it sated my appetite. However, in my opinion Hobbit was always inferior to the trilogy story-wise (if not downright boring at some chapters), so therefore it would be absurd to expect this movie to transcend the epicness of the trilogy.
Watching it @ IMAX3D movie theatre is a must.
|
On December 17 2012 01:45 yakitate304 wrote:
Awesome visuals, but not a great movie. The dwarves seemed too much of an ensemble - in fact the only ones I can remember are Thorin, the old one and the guy with the goofy hat who was on guard when Bilbo was leaving.
The pace after the group assembled was too much "flight/fight/rescue" and the whole "we are in battle but nobody dies because a wizard saves us at the last second every time" was too predictable and reminiscent of the original "Gandalf appears on the hill with the sun shining" moment from LOTR.
Another issue I had is how they seemingly "sitcommed" the first half of the movie. The trolls arguing around the campfire was cringeworthy.
Well, that's because most of the book is actually like that. To be honest even after the books several times I still have trouble remembering all names of the dwarfes. And yeah, they can't actually do shit without Gandalf or later Bilbo helping them.
And the trolls would be even more cringeworthy if they stayed true to the book.
It is after all a childrens book.
On December 17 2012 01:50 Genealogy wrote:
I liked the movie, it sated my appetite. However, in my opinion Hobbit was always inferior to the trilogy story-wise (if not downright boring at some chapters), so therefore it would be absurd to expect this movie to transcend the epicness of the trilogy.
Of course it is inferior in both scale and story. The Hobbits wants to to tell a rather generic story of an unlikely hero who sets out to fight a dragon with no other purpose than to prove himself and earn a little bit of gold. LOTR on the other deals with the conclusion of a conflict within the world several thousands of years old. Basically a whole mythology climaxes in that trilogy.
That is the main problem of the Hobbit, it may be a really good movie but it will inevitably be compared to the trilogy and in that regard it only can disappoint.
|
On December 17 2012 01:52 CrazyBirdman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 01:45 yakitate304 wrote:
Awesome visuals, but not a great movie. The dwarves seemed too much of an ensemble - in fact the only ones I can remember are Thorin, the old one and the guy with the goofy hat who was on guard when Bilbo was leaving.
The pace after the group assembled was too much "flight/fight/rescue" and the whole "we are in battle but nobody dies because a wizard saves us at the last second every time" was too predictable and reminiscent of the original "Gandalf appears on the hill with the sun shining" moment from LOTR.
Another issue I had is how they seemingly "sitcommed" the first half of the movie. The trolls arguing around the campfire was cringeworthy.
Well, that's because most of the book is actually like that. To be honest even after the books several times I still have trouble remembering all names of the dwarfes. And yeah, they can't actually do shit without Gandalf or later Bilbo helping them. And the trolls would be even more cringeworthy if they stayed true to the book. It is after all a childrens book.
It being a children's book doesn't mean they have to make it childish/silly, especially if they're rewriting scenes/lines from the original anyway.
|
On December 17 2012 01:55 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 01:52 CrazyBirdman wrote:On December 17 2012 01:45 yakitate304 wrote:
Awesome visuals, but not a great movie. The dwarves seemed too much of an ensemble - in fact the only ones I can remember are Thorin, the old one and the guy with the goofy hat who was on guard when Bilbo was leaving.
The pace after the group assembled was too much "flight/fight/rescue" and the whole "we are in battle but nobody dies because a wizard saves us at the last second every time" was too predictable and reminiscent of the original "Gandalf appears on the hill with the sun shining" moment from LOTR.
Another issue I had is how they seemingly "sitcommed" the first half of the movie. The trolls arguing around the campfire was cringeworthy.
Well, that's because most of the book is actually like that. To be honest even after the books several times I still have trouble remembering all names of the dwarfes. And yeah, they can't actually do shit without Gandalf or later Bilbo helping them. And the trolls would be even more cringeworthy if they stayed true to the book. It is after all a childrens book. It being a children's book doesn't mean they have to make it childish/silly, especially if they're rewriting scenes/lines from the original anyway.
Yes it does mean doing that, because as a Tolkien fan, that's what I expect it to be, that's what I want to see, that's what makes my heart beat everytime I read the book and I want the same feeling when I watch the movie. Rewriting parts is about trying to get someone who didn't read the book to undersatnd the decisions or emotions of certain characters, not about making the story feel so different.
|
On December 17 2012 01:55 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 01:52 CrazyBirdman wrote:On December 17 2012 01:45 yakitate304 wrote:
Awesome visuals, but not a great movie. The dwarves seemed too much of an ensemble - in fact the only ones I can remember are Thorin, the old one and the guy with the goofy hat who was on guard when Bilbo was leaving.
The pace after the group assembled was too much "flight/fight/rescue" and the whole "we are in battle but nobody dies because a wizard saves us at the last second every time" was too predictable and reminiscent of the original "Gandalf appears on the hill with the sun shining" moment from LOTR.
Another issue I had is how they seemingly "sitcommed" the first half of the movie. The trolls arguing around the campfire was cringeworthy.
Well, that's because most of the book is actually like that. To be honest even after the books several times I still have trouble remembering all names of the dwarfes. And yeah, they can't actually do shit without Gandalf or later Bilbo helping them. And the trolls would be even more cringeworthy if they stayed true to the book. It is after all a childrens book. It being a children's book doesn't mean they have to make it childish/silly, especially if they're rewriting scenes/lines from the original anyway.
Well you have to balance it, if you get too dark and grim the fans of the book will just murder you...
I'd say most of the time there is a good balance but of course some scene are a bit strange. The troll scene most definitivly and Radagast sometimes as well. Apart from that it was OK I think.
And changing the beginning would have be stupid that chapter is iconic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
