|
On December 23 2011 10:36 Xiphos wrote:
Just watched the entire LoTR trilogy again and was wondering if you hardcore fans out there can tell me the based on the scale 1 to 10, rate how much action are we going to get from the Hobbit.
It'll be the same as in the LoTR movies: a lot of (potentially boring) events ultimately climaxing in a huge battle.
Then again, I'm the person that found The Fellowship of the Ring to be the best movie of the trilogy by a landslide. The other two were downright boring at moments.
|
ah, so the creature thing is indeed also gollum? i never understood the hobbit, seemed like it was not a prequel at first, cus the over-arcing story seems to be just the same as the other 3 books. If someone can explain that would be cool xD
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol.
Anyways I'm glad the dwarves look unique and distinguished 
|
ah, so the creature thing is indeed also gollum? i never understood the hobbit, seemed like it was not a prequel at first, cus the over-arcing story seems to be just the same as the other 3 books. If someone can explain that would be cool xD
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol.
Anyways I'm glad the dwarves look unique and distinguished
"John, Paul, George, and Ringo, they are not relatives of mine" hahaha xD
Edit:
Wait december 2012? =/ so long... lol
also wow they are so good at copying each other, when they draw the blue and the red picture lol. One of them has to be exactly the same as the other but only slightly shifted right? Or is it more complex than that, so they don't need to be exact?
|
I'm probably looking forward to this movie more than any other movie coming out.
|
Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC.
Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut.
|
On December 23 2011 18:44 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol.
You know that Gandalf isn't human, right?
|
On December 23 2011 18:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol.
trufax, he wouldn't look any older, 'cause he's already older than Middle-Earth.
|
On December 23 2011 18:44 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
ah, so the creature thing is indeed also gollum? i never understood the hobbit, seemed like it was not a prequel at first, cus the over-arcing story seems to be just the same as the other 3 books. If someone can explain that would be cool xD
It is indeed the prequel, set 61 years before the start of LotR. The story isn't really the same at all, the trailer just tends to focus on things that people will recognize from the LotR movies like Gandalf, Gollum (who plays a really minor role in the book, only appearing in one or two chapters), and the Ring.
The plot is basically that Gandalf and 13 dwarves show up at the home of Bilbo Baggins and convince him to join them on an expedition to reclaim their lost treasure from the dragon Smaug.
|
On December 23 2011 18:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC.
Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut.
Wait, they're splitting a book that's barely 300 pages into two parts? Really???? Let's milk it some more, folks!
|
On December 23 2011 18:25 Torte de Lini wrote:
So when is this coming out? Are they going to keep The Hobbit light-hearted like in the book?
It looks like it'll be a mix, similar to the book. While the book had a lot of lighthearted segments, it was also a little dark in certain parts, and as far as I can tell from the preview, it'll be the same mix but the opposite... with more of the darkness and less of the lightheartedness.
Of course, this is all speculation and we won't know until we see the movie  .
|
On December 23 2011 18:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC.
Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut.
They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR.
Another reason is the tone of the Hobbit changes significantly halfway through. It starts off very light-hearted then becomes quite serious. Splitting it into two films will make that less jarring.
|
On December 23 2011 18:25 Silv.user wrote:
icant help to think, the elven queen or whatever isnt same actor as in movie. Kinda gives it a B movie feeling
If you're talking about Galadriel then it is the same actress as in LOTR (Cate Blanchett)
|
On December 23 2011 19:26 Cedstick wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 18:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol.
trufax, he wouldn't look any older, 'cause he's already older than Middle-Earth. And Wizards don't age a lot according to the books. That might be because he's a Maiar :p
They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR. Where did you get this information? I already thought they would be doing stuff like that since the Hobbit is pretty short to fit into two movies, but I haven't seen any official information on that.
|
LF trustworthy person to unfreeze me next december
will be in a fridge in japan
|
On December 23 2011 21:05 Spitfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 18:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC.
Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut. They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR. Another reason is the tone of the Hobbit changes significantly halfway through. It starts off very light-hearted then becomes quite serious. Splitting it into two films will make that less jarring.
Wait, there's going to be two parts? Is it really necessary to draw out a short novel like the Hobbit? There really isn't much meat to the book unless you delve far deeper than a movie of this kind would allow... But if they do show the battle in Dol Guldur I would forgive them, I've always wanted to see what the other rings were capable of. And the sonf the dwarves sang in the trailer gave me the sickest nerd chills, omfg. So stoked for this movie.
|
prequel - a film or book about an earlier stage of a story or a character's life, released because the later part of it has already been successful.
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
"[The Hobbit] was published on 21 September 1937"
-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"[Lord of the Rings was released] over the course of a year from the 21st of July 1954 to October 1955"
-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hobbit as a work is not a prequel. Perhaps one could call this movie a prequel, but The Hobbit itself is not a prequel. Please stop making that mistake, it drives me absolutely bonkers.
|
Oh man the cgi faces of the dwarfs or whatever they are look really bad. Noticed within a split second that they are not real... Same concern in the new The Thing, it looked really bad.... kinda like plastic. For environment or building cgi looks ok but I wish for living things movie makers would use masks or puppets more again they work way better.
|
No disrespect but what's the excitement about I didn't see anything impressive in the trailers is it the books?
|
epic and EPIC!
can't wait for this!!!!!!!
|
On December 23 2011 23:43 Forester wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 21:05 Spitfire wrote:On December 23 2011 18:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC.
Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut. They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR. Another reason is the tone of the Hobbit changes significantly halfway through. It starts off very light-hearted then becomes quite serious. Splitting it into two films will make that less jarring. Wait, there's going to be two parts? Is it really necessary to draw out a short novel like the Hobbit? There really isn't much meat to the book unless you delve far deeper than a movie of this kind would allow... But if they do show the battle in Dol Guldur I would forgive them, I've always wanted to see what the other rings were capable of. And the sonf the dwarves sang in the trailer gave me the sickest nerd chills, omfg. So stoked for this movie.
I think of lots of events in The Hobbit, to do them all faithfully can definitely create 6 hours of film. The Hobbit was much more of an adventure novel compared to LOTR, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
