|
On December 18 2012 01:18 HowardRoark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 17:55 Telcontar wrote:On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe). In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old. When I saw the Hobbit, I was certain that Radagast would come riding one of the eagles, since that would actually make sense movie-wise since we were introduced to Radagast and knew he was an animal lover. Having him arrive with the eagles would also have his role on AUJ to not be as pointless as it was now. It would have made very much sense for a non-Tolkien-reader to see the eagles save them and linking it with Radagast. Instead, Gandalf whisper to a moth, and 5 minutes later they are miraculously saved by a couple of eagles without introduction or any hint. Imagine what a non-reader think if this scene? It ought to appear very random that out of nothing comes some huge birds and saves the day. With Radagast involved they would atleast make the connection: Radagast-animal friend-eagles. Any of you guys who did not read the books? Did it seem strange that the company was saved by some kind of huge eagles all of a sudden?
I did not read the books but did not think it seemed out of place at all. Once I saw him whispering to the moth I was thinking, "Oh yeah the eagles will come save him!" and that was about it. Although my sister who saw it with me and who also has not read the book thought that Gandalf had to do everything in the company.
|
On December 17 2012 22:23 wo1fwood wrote:
I think that Peter Jackson forgot that this book was for kids... I enjoyed it overall, but the tone and general penchant of the movie is at odds with each other. At one point its very LotR, serious and foreboding, and another its more lighthearted and jovial. This is the main issue with the movie, as it ends up being very uneven in spots, though I would agree that the Bilbo/Gollum scene really is the highlight of this movie.
Basically, as some have already mentioned, the source materials are somewhat incongruous with one another and Jackson is trying to bridge the gap between them...and you can't do that without these oddities happening as a result.
I think you pretty much summed up how I felt about the film as a whole. I would have been okay if the entire film was 'kiddish' in nature, as it would have just been a fun film (with lots of cheap jokes/moments), and while I would have personally liked more, the hobbit in spirit is really just a fun tale.
The problem I have with the movie are the random 'epic' moments they just seemed to have thrown in...well just because. They just ruined the entire feeling of the story, and made it seem almost like they we're going for 'LOTR lite' which made me more than a little disappointed.
|
On December 18 2012 01:46 GattAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 22:23 wo1fwood wrote:
I think that Peter Jackson forgot that this book was for kids... I enjoyed it overall, but the tone and general penchant of the movie is at odds with each other. At one point its very LotR, serious and foreboding, and another its more lighthearted and jovial. This is the main issue with the movie, as it ends up being very uneven in spots, though I would agree that the Bilbo/Gollum scene really is the highlight of this movie.
Basically, as some have already mentioned, the source materials are somewhat incongruous with one another and Jackson is trying to bridge the gap between them...and you can't do that without these oddities happening as a result. I think you pretty much summed up how I felt about the film as a whole. I would have been okay if the entire film was 'kiddish' in nature, as it would have just been a fun film (with lots of cheap jokes/moments), and while I would have personally liked more, the hobbit in spirit is really just a fun tale. The problem I have with the movie are the random 'epic' moments they just seemed to have thrown in...well just because. They just ruined the entire feeling of the story, and made it seem almost like they we're going for 'LOTR lite' which made me more than a little disappointed.
"Epic" and "children's story" need not be mutually exclusive; in fact, I'd label The Hobbit outright a piece of "epic youth fantasy". Sure, it's a fun tale, but even from the first time I read the book stuff like the battle of five armies and the valor of Beorn tickled my childish epic fancies.
|
I find eraticness of seriusness and jovialness of the movide fitting. book always felt like that to me too.
also that how dwarves are.
|
Just saw the movie tonight, haven't read any of the books and thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. It was everything I expected it to be and it was awesome. Can't wait for the next installment. One and only gripe about the movie, the background music was repetitive as I heard the same mountain song at least 5 times throughout the movie. Wasn't enough to stop any enjoyment though.
|
On December 18 2012 09:34 Zooper31 wrote:
Just saw the movie tonight, haven't read any of the books and thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. It was everything I expected it to be and it was awesome. Can't wait for the next installment. One and only gripe about the movie, the background music was repetitive as I heard the same mountain song at least 5 times throughout the movie. Wasn't enough to stop any enjoyment though.
Is it just me, or can anyone else listen to that music forever? >.<
(of course, you have every right to find it repetitive, i can see how you would  )
|
On December 18 2012 09:44 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:34 Zooper31 wrote:
Just saw the movie tonight, haven't read any of the books and thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. It was everything I expected it to be and it was awesome. Can't wait for the next installment. One and only gripe about the movie, the background music was repetitive as I heard the same mountain song at least 5 times throughout the movie. Wasn't enough to stop any enjoyment though. Is it just me, or can anyone else listen to that music forever? >.< (of course, you have every right to find it repetitive, i can see how you would )
I was humming along each and every time it started up, smiling the whole time. Just something I noticed lol.
|
I saw this movie a couple days ago and im happy to say it is an excellent addition to the lotr franchise
|
Saw it yesterday in HFR and 3D.
I liked it well enough for the most part. The 48FPS/3D isn't worth it. 3D was fine, but the 48FPS didn't really do much for me other than make everything look kinda weird for the first 10min (till you got used to the framerate). It increased how real things looked, but it didn't really add much to the movie. It kinda made it easier to tell things were sets and made some things look kinda fake. YMMV, but I would stick with just a 2D version.
That aside, I wish they would remove every scene with Radagast in it. What a pointless character, he was by far the dumbest thing in the movie. Not only is he not in the original Hobbit book, but he gets like 5 lines in LotR and - BAM!- all of a sudden is this squirrel brained hippie-dippie nature wizard. Awful character in awful scenes.
Not that everything they added was bad, the scene with Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel was well done I thought. But damn it all if they didn't have to ruin it by bring up Radagast.
Overall, liked it for what it was the first part of a 3 part movie (that probably should have been 2 parts -- the padding is kinda obvious in some areas.). Hopefully parts 2 and 3 keep up the good parts (music as usual is top notch) and ditch the bad.
|
On December 17 2012 03:24 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Not really The Hobbit at all, really. More of "Tangentially related to The Hobbit", or "Borrowed the same basic plot structure of The Hobbit, but changes a bunch of stuff and ruins it". The (incomplete) list of differences! + Show Spoiler +
1. Everyone already knows about Bilbo's adventure by the time The Lord of the Rings takes place.
2.The reason the dwarves dislike the elves has nothing to do with Smaug's appearance, and goes back to the events of The Silmarillion
3. Bilbo agrees to go on the journey the night before, not decides to do so that morning.
4. Radagast makes no appearance in The Hobbit
5. The night before the Troll encounter, it's freezing cold/raining and they can't start a fire, that's what brings them to the Trolls camp, not stolen ponies. They don't lose their ponies until the Mountains.
6. Azog died looooong before the events of The Hobbit.
7. It was Gandalf, not Bilbo, who got the Trolls to keep arguing.
8. They're not attacked by orcs, goblins, or anything like that before Rivendell.
9. The meetings of The White Council are never described in the book.
10. The Witch-King of Angmar never dies. He runs away defeated, but he does not die.
11. Gandalf leaves with them from Rivendell
12. The back of the cave, not the bottom, opens up. This is where the ponies get stolen, and Gandalf disappears (in a flash of firey light).
13. Bilbo does not get lost until the Dwarves are rescued by Gandalf from the Great Goblin.
14. (Not a plot problem, but a filming gripe. Peter Jackson realizes how dark it is in caves, right? There's a reason all Bilbo could see was Gollum's eyes, except by the light of Sting).
15. The back door is guarded by goblins when Bilbo and Gollum get there. Bilbo jumps over Gollum before this point, and Gandalf and co. escape much earlier.
16. This is where Bilbo gets stuck in the crevice. The Goblins, not Gollum, see his shadow in the sunlight (weakness of the ring), and are coming after him when he loses all his buttons.
17. The Dwarves have already set up camp when Bilbo reaches them.
18. The marauding wargs and Goblins arrive separately, and are there as a simple raiding party (not specifically chasing Thorin). As mentioned previously, Azog is already dead.
19. Thorin doesn't charge the marauding Goblins.
20. The tree doesn't fall over.
21. The Goblins use the fire to start setting the tree they're in on fire, not stand back until Thorin runs stupidly at them.
22. Thorin doesn't run stupidly at the Goblins
23. Thus, Bilbo doesn't save his life.
24. Gandalf doesn't summon the Eagles, they just sort of appear.
25. The Eagles take them all back to they're Eyrie before dropping them off at the Carrack.
Yeah, how dare they have lights in the caves?! The whole movie would have been far better if the entire mountain part was pitch black with a few luminescent eyes.
+ Show Spoiler +Is this guy for real? I hope not. :s
|
I went to see the movie this weekend with my GF and I really disliked it.
I don't mind the fact that the movie is so different to the book (which I really liked btw) but the differences themselves didn't bring anything to the film and actually were quite silly from time to time (like Radagast's appearance was so irrelevant to everything that happened. Gandalf mentions his name and next scene is like 2mins with this unimportant character)
It's my understanding that Peter Jackson tried a more kid-friendly approach, but really I felt like the humor was quite too much, the quest didn't seem "epic" at all to me and frankly, the whole movie felt kind of cheap to me and I can imagine their budget being immense.
I don't recommend it to unless you have small children, but even then, some parts might be scary to small kids (I guess).
4/10 very disappointed.
EDIT : + Show Spoiler +I thought the Goblin King character was really nice (the animation, his design, voice, etc)
Was trying to think about something positive about the movie lol e.e
|
Very good movie about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(I'll let you guess which character represents the Jews)
|
On December 18 2012 10:45 lepape wrote:
Very good movie about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(I'll let you guess which character represents the Jews)
Lol gotta edit out the offensive stuff huh?
Everyone is a critic nowadays with movies it seems.
|
On December 18 2012 10:46 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:45 lepape wrote:
Very good movie about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(I'll let you guess which character represents the Jews) Lol gotta edit out the offensive stuff huh? Everyone is a critic nowadays with movies it seems.
That's because people usually have opinions you know?
|
On December 18 2012 09:58 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:44 Alryk wrote:On December 18 2012 09:34 Zooper31 wrote:
Just saw the movie tonight, haven't read any of the books and thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. It was everything I expected it to be and it was awesome. Can't wait for the next installment. One and only gripe about the movie, the background music was repetitive as I heard the same mountain song at least 5 times throughout the movie. Wasn't enough to stop any enjoyment though. Is it just me, or can anyone else listen to that music forever? >.< (of course, you have every right to find it repetitive, i can see how you would ) I was humming along each and every time it started up, smiling the whole time. Just something I noticed lol.
I was waiting for that song to begin every time they had a long shot of the group traveling. Each time it was still epic. I swear they could put that song into a scene where a guy is eating cereal and it would still be awesome.
I enjoyed the movie very much. Only thing I found awkward was the galadriel scene.
|
On December 18 2012 10:45 lepape wrote:
Very good movie about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(I'll let you guess which character represents the Jews)
Wait, what?
....?
..?
?
|
On December 16 2012 15:11 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Turin is a baller. That is agreed. But when he killed the dragon it wasn't really in a glorious battle. Just stabbed him in the belly when he wasn't expecting it. Kinda meh if you ask me. But throughout the rest of his life he is awesome. Just too bad his fate was as it was 
|
On December 18 2012 10:45 lepape wrote:
Very good movie about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(I'll let you guess which character represents the Jews)
I loled!
Anyways, went to go see the movie, damn it was good. It had just the right amount of length and content to keep me engaged throughout the entire movie, but not wanting more afterwards. Can't wait til parts 2 and 3!
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:00 autoexec 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. Turin is a baller. That is agreed. But when he killed the dragon it wasn't really in a glorious battle. Just stabbed him in the belly when he wasn't expecting it. Kinda meh if you ask me. But throughout the rest of his life he is awesome. Just too bad his fate was as it was
As badass as Turambar was, I don't think he would've destroyed Aragorn like the original guy was suggesting. He was the greatest man of the third age, and whatever strength his bloodline had lost through the passage of time & mixing of blood, it was clearly very strong in him. In fact, I rather think it would be a very close contest. What a sight that would be though. Turin crossing blades with his Anglachel, and Aragorn with Anduril.
|
On December 18 2012 12:48 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 12:00 autoexec wrote: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. Turin is a baller. That is agreed. But when he killed the dragon it wasn't really in a glorious battle. Just stabbed him in the belly when he wasn't expecting it. Kinda meh if you ask me. But throughout the rest of his life he is awesome. Just too bad his fate was as it was As badass as Turambar was, I don't think he would've destroyed Aragorn like the original guy was suggesting. He was the greatest man of the third age, and whatever strength his bloodline had lost through the passage of time & mixing of blood, it was clearly very strong in him. In fact, I rather think it would be a very close contest. What a sight that would be though. Turin crossing blades with his Anglachel, and Aragorn with Anduril.
Hurin and Turin are supposed to be the greatest human warriors that ever lived. I don't think Aragorn would stand much of a chance. I always got the impression that even Boromir was a better fighter than Aragorn, who was more of an allrounder kind of guy, pretty good at everything (healing, ranging, commanding, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
