|
On January 22 2013 15:22 Doomwish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 15:14 Zooper31 wrote:On January 22 2013 13:52 neggro wrote:On January 22 2013 13:46 JeanBob wrote:On January 22 2013 12:47 neggro wrote:
What a bore. I hope they cancel the two sequels. You know you have the right not to go and see them, right? There's a lot of movies I didn't really like in my life, and if they made sequels well... what does that change in my life? Not a single thing, didn't see them, people who enjoyed the movie went to see them, they were happy, I was happy, so I can't see what wrong. I for one enjoyed the movie and is excited about seeing the next one; when it comes out, I'll go see it and I'll be happy, you'll stay home and you'll be happy, I don't see why you're wishing me not to have a good time, that's kinda mean. You're obviously not a film lover. I like watching movies. I love it. I'm in love with it. So much so that I have every right to feel educated pleasure, or revolt from watching films. And it so happens that in my opinion, this "trilogy" is an opportunistic moneygrab (did you know that this new trilogy amounts to 1/3 of 1/3 of the original LoTR in terms source material?) that should be stopped. You need to look in a mirror and re-evaluate your attitude toward others. How can you say someone isn't a film lover if they simply disagree with your opinion on a single movie. And then proclaim your opinion as fact that can't be argued. Step off the high horse and respect others opinions, especially when they were very logical and coherent with their reasoning. That won't work at all. Him looking in the mirror will most likely reaffirm his bitter attitude and anger towards the world.
I mean look at his name for starters.
|
every damn time when they are cornered..... the eagles are coming!!
|
On January 14 2013 00:21 Elroi wrote:
The only things I really enjoyed in the film was the aesthetic side of it (the music, the landscapes etc) and the scene between Bilbo and Gollum. Other than that I found the film rather boring and predictable with way to many unexciting battle scenes (especially the one when they are in the tree tops).
This is pretty much how I felt. I was quite looking forward to seeing this movie and was going in expecting to like it. During numerous scenes in which PJ changed things, I couldn't help but feel "the way this scene played out in the book was perfect, why change it?" When combined with all of the cheesy/childish jokes and things PJ added (Radagast amongst them), I just couldn't really enjoy the movie.
I feel like PJ should have followed the book to the letter as much as possible and target the mature audience that had grown to love his lotr movies. Return of the King came out almost 10 years ago... the people who loved those movies are at the very least in their later teens now and probably a little bit older like me- this should have been the target audience, not 7-10 year olds who may or may not even know what lotr is. For the record, I've also read The Fellowship of the Ring and I quite like PJ's depiction of it, but the Hobbit just fell way, way short for me.
|
On January 22 2013 15:09 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 13:52 neggro wrote:On January 22 2013 13:46 JeanBob wrote:On January 22 2013 12:47 neggro wrote:
What a bore. I hope they cancel the two sequels. You know you have the right not to go and see them, right? There's a lot of movies I didn't really like in my life, and if they made sequels well... what does that change in my life? Not a single thing, didn't see them, people who enjoyed the movie went to see them, they were happy, I was happy, so I can't see what wrong. I for one enjoyed the movie and is excited about seeing the next one; when it comes out, I'll go see it and I'll be happy, you'll stay home and you'll be happy, I don't see why you're wishing me not to have a good time, that's kinda mean. You're obviously not a film lover. I like watching movies. I love it. I'm in love with it. So much so that I have every right to feel educated pleasure, or revolt from watching films. And it so happens that in my opinion, this "trilogy" is an opportunistic moneygrab (did you know that this new trilogy amounts to 1/3 of 1/3 of the original LoTR in terms source material?) that should be stopped. I don't think it is so simple as a cashgrab. Or at least not of the sort I am used to. Obviously 3 movies will make more money than 2 or 1. So I will not deny a mercenary motivation. However, I don't know many 'cash-grabs' that are so devoted to mining appendices and obscure backstories to help better connect the massive disconnect in styles and scope between the two stories/ series. I think it is quite clear from the decision-making and attention to detail, PJ really does love this material. I certainly don't agree with every decision made and the humour/tone is uneven in places. (The goblin mine battle broke me out of the story-telling and just made me shake my head at the physics-defying shenanigans.) And it is certainly an interpretation rather than an adaptation. But I don't think it is accurate to simply dismiss the entire thing as a cash-grab. Yeah, it probably went like this:
- Last time we made a shit load of money from your version of LotRs. However, many fans of the books wanted more detail, as they felt a lot of the history and poetry was left out, as well as characters they held dear. Now, there is this other Tolkien book, the Hobbit. Now, it is 300 pages, so how about we go in the opposite direction and elongate it this time with all kinds of details to please the fans? How about a duology? Go nuts.
- I am a bigger nutter than that, I can do a trilogy. I'll have tons of ideas I want to implement. Like all those you didn't want me to make last time.
- Awesome. *snickers*. Bye, Peter, remember, more is more, more is great. Just like big is better.
- I know. My wife keeps telling...
- Just remember to cut at least 30 mins in each, so we have something for the DVDs extended versions.
- I am not sure about that. I kind of hated you cut my movies last time. My vision comes only in one version.
- We made a mistake not trusting you how far you would succeed last time, but people love directors cuts.
- I guess you have a point. I could compensate with 3 hours of flick in each, so it will be great value for money for those with little money for the DVDs. I can go on and on to be honest, once I wear Tolkiens favorite underwear on my head.
- As a final note, remember that it should also appeal to those that haven't actually read the book. We need to let the movie appeal to all segments - all ages. People love epicness, and grand scale.
- Eh, okay, I guess you are right. I hope they will not hate it. I want to be true to Tolkien in my book-to-screen-kind-of-way.
- All kinds of publicity is great, and people have short term memory in this day and age. Remember how many that loathed the LotR, but eventually everyone suddenly loved it. We are still making tons off of LotR. Just go nuts. We have faith in you being able to do just that. We will set the marketing in full motion right now.
- Thanks. Bye guys. Yoohoo, New Zealand - here I come.... South Africa was so depressing...
One year later...
The Hobbit #1 film at the Box Office three weekends in a row
Domestic Gross: $242M
Foreign Gross: $464M
Worldwide: $706M
|
Loved the Dwarfs and found the Gollum scene just annoying but they had to show it I just hope that is the last we see of him. from what we saw of the Dragon up close is the reason why nobody likes the 48 frames a second...
|
I shouldnt have watched it in 3D.
Damnit!
|
On January 22 2013 13:52 neggro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 13:46 JeanBob wrote:On January 22 2013 12:47 neggro wrote:
What a bore. I hope they cancel the two sequels. You know you have the right not to go and see them, right? There's a lot of movies I didn't really like in my life, and if they made sequels well... what does that change in my life? Not a single thing, didn't see them, people who enjoyed the movie went to see them, they were happy, I was happy, so I can't see what wrong. I for one enjoyed the movie and is excited about seeing the next one; when it comes out, I'll go see it and I'll be happy, you'll stay home and you'll be happy, I don't see why you're wishing me not to have a good time, that's kinda mean. You're obviously not a film lover. I like watching movies. I love it. I'm in love with it. So much so that I have every right to feel educated pleasure, or revolt from watching films. And it so happens that in my opinion, this "trilogy" is an opportunistic moneygrab (did you know that this new trilogy amounts to 1/3 of 1/3 of the original LoTR in terms source material?) that should be stopped.
It doesn't amount to 1/3 of 1/3 unless you're counting pages. The Hobbit is written for younger audiences and goes into less detail for that reason. If you judge the books by the number of 'events' that happen then The Hobbit is at least one of the LotR books. If you judge it by time passed from start to finish then The Hobbit is pretty much on par.
|
On January 06 2013 07:58 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 07:31 TheMooseHeed wrote:Ian Mckellen looks so old and frail  He is 73 years old, you know.
I'm also quite shocked to learn that Christopher Lee, who plays Saruman, is 90 years old!
The whole trilogy was shot in 266 days... I bet they shot his scenes first.
|
On February 24 2013 14:54 Elurie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 07:58 maartendq wrote:On January 06 2013 07:31 TheMooseHeed wrote:Ian Mckellen looks so old and frail He is 73 years old, you know. I'm also quite shocked to learn that Christopher Lee, who plays Saruman, is 90 years old! The whole trilogy was shot in 266 days... I bet they shot his scenes first.
My first reaction was: yea right + *wikipedia it myself*
...and then..
O_O
|
Canada11586 Posts
Yeah I was really concerned with all those disputes that The Hobbit would get delayed too long as I really wanted them to finish what they started with the same cast. Ian McKellen as well. But I had always wanted a LotR's influence The Hobbit so I was hoping Lee would survive long enough to be Saruman once again.
|
On February 24 2013 15:40 Proof. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 14:54 Elurie wrote:On January 06 2013 07:58 maartendq wrote:On January 06 2013 07:31 TheMooseHeed wrote:Ian Mckellen looks so old and frail He is 73 years old, you know. I'm also quite shocked to learn that Christopher Lee, who plays Saruman, is 90 years old! The whole trilogy was shot in 266 days... I bet they shot his scenes first. My first reaction was: yea right + *wikipedia it myself* ...and then.. O_O
Fun fact:
Did you guys knew that Christopher Lee is the only one from the LotR crew that met J.R.R Tolkien in person? He was a huge fan of the books back than
Plus, He wanted to play Gandalf when they told him about the movie
Edit: I should reread what I write before I post :\, spelling
|
So to get a glimpse of the first footage of the Desolation of Smaugh we will have to buy the DVD. No surprise as Peter Jackson did the same thing in LOTR.
|
On February 25 2013 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So to get a glimpse of the first footage of the Desolation of Smaugh we will have to buy the DVD. No surprise as Peter Jackson did the same thing in LOTR.
Ehh I think this will be on YouTube within an hour of the DVD release lol. Regardless I will have a copy
|
On February 25 2013 08:45 feanor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So to get a glimpse of the first footage of the Desolation of Smaugh we will have to buy the DVD. No surprise as Peter Jackson did the same thing in LOTR. Ehh I think this will be on YouTube within an hour of the DVD release lol. Regardless I will have a copy
An hour? You're underestimating the internet. Deus Ex: HR was on the piratebay before the game actually came out. I wouldn't even be surprised if the DVD version came out on the internet less than 15 minutes after it got released.
|
On February 25 2013 08:57 Martyrc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 08:45 feanor1 wrote:On February 25 2013 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So to get a glimpse of the first footage of the Desolation of Smaugh we will have to buy the DVD. No surprise as Peter Jackson did the same thing in LOTR. Ehh I think this will be on YouTube within an hour of the DVD release lol. Regardless I will have a copy An hour? You're underestimating the internet. Deus Ex: HR was on the piratebay before the game actually came out. I wouldn't even be surprised if the DVD version came out on the internet less than 15 minutes after it got released.
Was an alpha of the game with like 1/3 of the content.
|
So has anyone bought the DVD and was a trailer attached?
|
Canada11586 Posts
I bought it yesterday. First time I have bought a film new since Return of the King- as opposed to bargain bin hunting. Price was actually really good $17 for non-blue ray. Quite often it's up at $30 or more for new DVD.
From the looks of things, I have a 12 digit code to watch the sneak peak live on the 24th, 3pm EDT. After that, I think it gets posted somewhere.
|
IDK
its funny people complain about them splitting it into 3 movies... because more than likely the same people complained when there wasnt enough time/detail in original LotR trilogy haha.
As a cinefile and HUGE fan of extended cuts.. (literally refuse to watch LotR without extended versions) I am quite pleased with it being 3 movies, and 3 long movies at that.
Thought it was good. dont really understand the hate, dont really care to argue against it either. if you dont like it...dont buy it dont go watch it?
|
But how can you adapt a book that is/was 276 pages into 3 movies that will be 11-12 hours total?
|
On March 22 2013 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So has anyone bought the DVD and was a trailer attached?
We pre-ordered it (I think it arrives on Monday). Will let you know when we get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
